Written evidence from the Surrey and Sussex
Probation Trust (PB 38)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The current commissioning model is confused
and probably does not represent value for money. The restrictive
nature of the Trust Contract and the focus on process and input
targets rather than outcomes, inhibits innovation, excludes other
key local stakeholders in the design or commissioning of services
and sometimes makes it hard for us to be as responsive to our
local partners.
1.2 The Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust was
formed on 1 April 2010 following the merger of two successful
probation areas—Surrey and Sussex. it is operating effectively
and meeting the targets set by NOMS. The recent HMIP Report found
that there was no reduction in the quality of delivery despite
the merger demonstrating that Probation Trusts can operate effectively.
1.3 The Trust would welcome a review of the Offender
Management model to establish clarity between the process of administration
and rehabilitation. SSPT is hosting a national pilot (referred
to as the Professional Judgement Project) to allow probation staff
professional freedoms to decide, within the ambit of the sentence
imposed, how an order or licence should be constructed and supervised.
The project has begun to identify benefits in providing probation
staff with the freedom to make decisions about how best to allocate
resources to address offending behaviour eg levels of contact
and interventions. We are firmly of the view that this new approach
should be adopted nationally. It would provide all Trusts with
the scope to focus on meaningful rehabilitation as opposed to
a process driven administration of the sentence.
1.4 It is recognised that existing resources
make delivery of the full range of interventions to meet offender
need to effectively reduce re-offending eg accommodation, health,
family support, unachievable within the current framework. The
Trust believes this situation would be eased if Trusts were provided
with the freedom to commission services based on local offender
need instead of having to meet centrally imposed targets to deliver
specified interventions.
1.5 The Trust has actively pursued collaboration
with the voluntary sector to enhance service provision. It believes
that the private sector has much to offer in respect to support
services and actively engaging with the employment and training
of offenders.
1.6 The recent HMIP Inspection of the Trust concluded
that it had the resources to deliver the service required but
little, if any, spare capacity. To move away from short term custodial
sentences and replace them with community sentences would be difficult
to absorb.
1.7 The Trust would welcome a Restorative Justice
component in any new Sentencing Framework.
1.8 The Trust welcomed the introduction of the
Professional Qualifying Framework. The lack of post qualification
arrangements has led the Trust to introduce local arrangements.
There is no consistent development programme for Chief Executives
and senior managers.
2. THE EVIDENCE
2.1 Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
2.1.1 The current commissioning model is confused
and probably does not represent value for money.
2.1.2 The primary mechanism is the contract between
the Secretary of State and individual Probation Trusts for the
delivery of probation services in their area. This is highly bureaucratic,
process driven and designed to allow Trusts little freedom for
local innovation. The contract is controlled by NOMS HQ but managed
through the Regional Directors of Offender Management whose local
commissioning role is limited.
2.1.3 SSPT has organised service delivery around
our four Local Delivery Units (LDUs) which are coterminous with
the Tier 1 and Unitary Authorities located within the Trust. The
SSPT LDU Directors are operational managers with a primary role
to jointly commission offender services in collaboration with
partners to ensure that offenders can access mainstream services
and other support to make the lifestyle changes that are often
a prerequisite to reducing reoffending. This locality based commissioning
is becoming increasingly effective and it is possible to commission
niche providers who know the area and its problems but would be
unable to operate at a Trust or regional level.
2.1.4 That said, the restrictive nature of the
Trust contract and the focus on process and input targets rather
than outcomes, inhibits innovation, excludes other key local stakeholders
in the design or commissioning of services, and sometimes makes
it hard for us to be as responsive to our local partners as we
would wish (see comments regarding Accredited Programmes in the
Response to Question 3 post).
2.1.5 SSPT has fully engaged with the West Sussex
Total Place project and we believe that this approach could provide
a model for future local commissioning and accountability.
2.2 How effective are probation Trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does this operate in practice?
2.2.1 Probation Trusts
2.2.1.1 The Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust
was formed on 1 April 2010 following the merger of two successful
probation areas—Surrey and Sussex—it is operating
effectively and meeting the targets set by NOMS.
2.2.1.2 Operationally, the Trust is keen to press
ahead with plans to reduce costs, devolve more responsibility
to local managers to enable them to cooperate more closely with
local partner agencies and improve outcomes. Regrettably, the
promised freedoms for Probation Trusts have, to date, failed to
materialise and some of our most significant cost drivers including
IT and estates delivered centrally by the MoJ are both expensive,
inflexible and unresponsive to local needs. The requirement to
operate within one year budgets with no capability to hold or
manage reserves significantly inhibits effective medium and long
term planning which in turn has an impact on cost effectiveness.
2.2.1.3 Despite these constraints the Trust has
achieved the initial planned benefits of merger including realising
economies of scale and the Probation Inspectorate recently gave
the following judgement:
"The planning for the merger was substantial
and had led to some disruption. It was gratifying, therefore,
to find that this upheaval had not led to a reduction in the quality
of service delivery". (HMIP 2010)
2.2.1.4 On the basis of that assessment we believe
that the Trust has the potential to be effective but could achieve
so much more if it was provided with greater freedom to innovate
and collaborate with a wide range of partners.
2.2.2 Offender Management
2.2.2.1 The Trust would welcome a review of the
Offender Management model to establish clarity between the process
of administration and rehabilitation.
2.2.2.2 The term offender management is used
variously at times to refer to systems, processes and outcomes
and as such can be an impediment to understanding.
2.2.2.3 At its heart was the concept of an offender
journey, from sentencing, through punishment and rehabilitation
to reintegration into the community, with probation staff actively
involved both in providing assessment and advice to sentencers
and then actively managing each stage of the delivery of the sentence.
2.2.2.4 This is still a valid model but inevitably
and rightly many other agencies and individuals are involved,
and every offender is unique. It is therefore helpful to clarify
the three areas in which the skills and expertise of probation
staff add particular value to the process. The first is assessment
of offenders including the risk they pose to others; the likelihood
of their reoffending; their attitudes to their offending, their
victims and their inclination to change; and the obstacles to
their successful rehabilitation (such as literacy and numeracy
deficits, substance misuse, mental health problems). Assessment
is a continuous process without which progress or regression cannot
be measured and managed. Probation Officers are specifically trained
in this work and by and large it is done well in a challenging
environment.
2.2.2.5 Second is the understanding and motivation
of offenders. Probation Officer training provides the necessary
academic understanding and practical skills to enable them to
work effectively with offenders to challenge their inappropriate
attitudes and lifestyles and motivate them to change. This includes
signposting offenders to other services which is the third main
area of work. It is probation's close cooperation with local services,
including co-commissioning, which provides both the knowledge
and availability of the services which offenders need to access
to become fully functioning citizens and productive members of
society.
2.2.2.6 This is the ideal model. In practice
resources will never be sufficient to do everything with every
offender, nor would it be sensible. NOMS approach to performance
management has been over prescriptive with too great an emphasis
on process and one size fits all through the requirements of the
National Standards prescriptions. This needs to change to a focus
on outcomes—reduction in reoffending and public safety.
SSPT is therefore pleased to be hosting a national pilot (referred
to as the Professional Judgement Project) to allow probation staff
professional freedoms to decide, within the ambit of the sentence
imposed, how an order or licence should be constructed and supervised.
The project has begun to identify benefits in providing probation
staff with the freedom to make decisions about how best to allocate
resources to address offending behaviour eg levels of contact
and interventions.
2.2.2.7 We are firmly of the view that this new approach
should be adopted nationally. It would provide all Trusts with
the scope to focus on meaningful rehabilitation as opposed to
a process driven administration of the sentence.
2.2.2.8 The third area is the management of offenders
who pose serious risk to the public is undertaken through the
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Senior probation
staff and police officers co-chair case review panels which oversee
the preparation and execution of individual offender management
plans. Within Surrey and Sussex these arrangements work well.
2.3 Are magistrates and judges able to fully
utilise the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
2.3.1 SSPT has a good track record in the enforcement
and compliance of sentence requirements as demonstrated by our
recent Offender Management Inspection (Implementation of Interventions
= 80%). On that basis we believe we have the confidence of our
sentencers that when orders are imposed that they will be delivered
as required.
2.3.2 However, it is recognised that existing
resources make delivery of the full range of interventions to
meet offender need to effectively reduce re-offending eg accommodation,
health, family support, unachievable within the current framework.
2.3.3 We believe this situation would be eased
if Trusts were provided with the freedom to commission services
based on local offender need instead of having to meet centrally
imposed targets to deliver specified interventions eg accredited
programmes. These programmes are expensive and need to be carefully
targeted at offenders with specific characteristics. For some
offenders—such as sex offenders—accredited programmes
are the right solution but for many others a less prescriptive
approach would allow greater participation and similar efficacy
at lower cost.
2.3.4 SSPT has been developing Specified Activity
Requirements to address a broader range of offender need. Sentencers
have found this approach helpful. This strategy could be accelerated
if the Trust was allowed the opportunity to release resources
from accredited interventions.
2.4 What role should the private and voluntary
sector play in the delivery of probation services?
2.4.1 The SSPT Board has recently reviewed our
core business and concluded that our staff's key skills are the
assessment and supervision of offenders in the community for the
benefit the courts, public and other service providers.
2.4.2 Whilst we believe that assessment and statutory
supervision are core roles for a public sector probation service
we consider that the private and voluntary sector have much to
offer in the provision of rehabilitation services.
2.4.3 Within SSPT we have actively pursued collaboration
with the voluntary sector to enhance service provision. The best
example of this approach has been the INSPIRE project, this is
a collaboration between SSPT and the women's voluntary sector.
The model combines our skills of assessment and oversight with
the specialist knowledge from the voluntary sector who deliver
rehabilitation services for offenders.
2.4.4 We believe that the private sector has
much to offer in respect of support services eg ICT. However,
the constraints imposed by national contracts has prohibited the
development of local arrangements.
2.4.5 A further area where the private sector
could be more actively engaged is within employment and training
of offenders. SSPT welcomes the proposal of payments by results
and believes this holds the potential to provide the private sector
with the incentive to open up such training and employment opportunities.
2.4.6 There is also scope for partnerships between
the public and private sectors in the delivery of services which
could harness the private sector's logistic skills and communications
infrastructure.
2.5 Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short term custodial sentences?
2.5.1 SSPT has launched a new scheme in July
2010 for prisoners serving less than 12 months custody. The project
has been designed to accommodate a group of offenders who previously
would not have received contact from SSPT. By diverting resources
into this group we believe we can make a direct impact in reducing
re-offending.
2.5.2 Whilst this scheme for short term prisoners
is valuable it only covers a small number of those to whom it
could apply. SSPT as currently funded has limited capacity to
accommodate significant new work. The recent Offender Management
Inspection supports our assessment "the Trust (SSPT) has
the resources to deliver the service required, but there is little,
if any spare capacity". HMIP 2010.
2.5.3 Less use of short prison sentences, if
sustained, would allow prisons to be closed and the funding transferred
to community provision but there would need to be an injection
of additional funding at the start. The relaxation of National
Standards and increased freedom for probation staff to make decisions
about the allocation of their resources (as is being piloted in
the Professional Judgement Project described above) would in our
view be a significant help in ensuring that the available funding
is used to best effect.
2.6 Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice (RJ)
2.6.1 SSPT is already working alongside Surrey
& Sussex police to develop our approach to RJ and exploring
how we might exploit the methods that have been deployed with
youth offenders. We believe that there is scope to increase the
application of this approach and would welcome an RJ component
within any new sentencing framework.
2.7 Does the probation service handle different
groups of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black
and minority ethnic people, and high medium offenders?
2.7.1 SSPT has worked hard to accommodate the
needs of women offenders to divert them from receiving short term
prison sentences. The INSPIRE project (see above) has utilised
the skills of probation staff and the voluntary sector to identify
the complex needs presented by women.
2.7.2 SSPT has hosted a national project to develop
the Mental Health Court in collaboration with our CJS partners
in Sussex. The project provides early intervention at the first
court hearing for all offenders who have been identified with
potential mental health problems. The unique role of probation
staff in courts pre and post sentence has been critical to success
in developing the Mental Health Court located at Brighton. This
project has been subject to a full evaluation by the MOJ and has
demonstrated how probation staff can be trained to work in collaboration
mental health nurses to divert this vulnerable group from custody.
2.7.3 SSPT has invested in dedicated public protection
teams. We select our most experienced staff to supervise those
offenders who pose the highest risk of harm to the community.
The staff are provided with additional training to equip them
with the skills to manage this difficult group of offenders. The
Offender Management Inspection made the following assessment about
staff skills "Of the staff we interviewed, 84% judged that
training and skills were sufficient to do there current job"
HMIP 2010. On the basis of that assessment and our commitment
to invest in our staff we believe that probation staff in SSPT
have the skills to manage the medium and high risk offenders.
2.8 Is the provision of training adequate?
2.8.1 Qualifying Training
2.8.1.1 SSPT has welcomed the introduction of
the Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF) introduced in April 2010.
The new framework should provide us with more direct control over
the number of new recruits we require to meet local demand. The
training also has the advantage of enabling staff from a wide
range of roles to progress through the system to become a qualified
probation officer.
2.8.2 Post Qualifying and In-house training
2.8.2.1 There are no formal post qualifying arrangements
for Probation practitioners, however within SSPT we have taken
the opportunity of creating a professional development programme
supported by Quality Development Officers (QDO). Each of our operational
teams have the support of experienced Probation Officers who,
in their QDO role, provide advice, peer review, mentoring and
coaching to colleagues to enhance professional practice whilst
still maintaining a reduced caseload themselves.
2.9 Leadership and Management Development
2.9.1 NOMS has failed to provide a consistent
development programme for Chief Executives and senior managers.
SSPT has instead invested its own resources to ensure that its
Executive Team and senior leaders are equipped with skills to
manage a complex environment.
2.9.2 Looking to the future we believe that senior
probation leaders should be granted the same access to the senior
leadership training that is provided to other senior government
officials eg SCS grades.
September 2010
| 
