Written evidence from G4S Care and Justice
Services (UK) Limited (PB 49)
G4S have worked closely with Probation in England
and Wales for over a decade both within our Prisons and within
the Community. We welcome the opportunity to provide input to
the Justice Select Committee inquiry into Probation Services.
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
G4S Response:
— In
reality there is very little commissioning of probation services
outside Probation Trusts. The latter appear to have a monopoly
on Offender Management and most interventions are still delivered
exclusively "in-house" with limited sub-contracting,
primarily to the Third Sector.
— Some
significant services that are currently commissioned externally
have never been delivered by Probation eg electronic monitoring.
Many professional treatment services and interventions undertaken
exclusively by Probation Trusts could now be effectively contracted
out to the market which should lead to better services, increased
innovation and ultimately better value.
— The
private sector in general and G4S in particular would welcome
the establishment of a true mixed economy within probation services
and would hope that any moves toward this goal will not be a limited
exercise.
— Working
in partnership with the public and voluntary sectors we believe
that we can deliver high quality, innovative and efficient services
to NOMS targeted at reducing re-offending and delivering best
value.
— There
is lack of clarity (and possibly some conflicts) in the current
purchaser/ provider model with regard to probation services. DOMs
"commission" virtually all work (via SLAs) with Probation
Trusts. In turn, Probation Trusts have no incentive to commission
services from external organisations and will generally be in
competition with potential new providers in any future contests
established by NOMS. There is a risk that this will undermine
initiatives to foster greater collaboration and joint working
between agencies and the independent sector.
— In
order to foster innovation and more radical thinking in the provision
of services in this area it is important that NOMS avoids commissioning/
contesting "what is" rather than "what could be".
NOMS/DOMs need to be bold in the way in which they offer work
for tender to encourage new approaches, and to do so in ways which
over time will inform the "what works" knowledge base.
— There
are possibly lessons to be learned from the experience of the
DWP (for example New Deal to Flexible New Deal). NOMS should look
to commission on the basis of outcomes and not just inputs such
as programme starts etc. And then not be too prescriptive on how
they should be achieved. We need a "black box" approach
to allow innovation to work.
— It
has been unclear over recent years as to what is the core task
of Probation in relation to Offender Management and what aspects
of offender supervision and offender intervention are more effectively
delivered by the "independent sector"
— We
also believe that if there is a requirement to achieve a "step-change"
in the culture of the Probation Service it is essential that NOMS
should not limit their approach to just contesting "interventions"
but should at an early stage provide opportunities for the market
to undertake the core task of "offender management".
Our viewpoint is that this is an area of work in which the private
sector/ third sector could bring its management expertise, fresh
thinking and new techniques, and it need not be viewed as a high
risk route.
— In
the past NOMS has articulated that establishing "end-to-end"
offender management is a key goal operating across Prison and
Probation services. As Offender Managers aim to be accountable
for consistent case management across both services, due regard
needs to be given to commissioning services that span both custody
and community sentences in a "joined up" or vertically
integrated way. More radical "end to end" commissioning
could also be considered which involves crossover within several
Government departments. For example, commission across not only
prisons and probation services but also involve Welfare to Work
streams for offenders.
— Some
interventions/ services appear to have evolved and have not necessarily
been developed to meet the needs of offenders or the community.
For example: during 2008-09 several Probation Areas put Unpaid
Work Transport out to tender. To our knowledge most of these were
kept in house leading the private sector to believe it was purely
a "comparative cost exercise". Indeed one metropolitan
Probation Area undertook the exercise on this basis
— The
introduction of a Best Value framework for the Probation Service
has had no noticeable impact on how services are commissioned.
This is unsurprising since the Best Value framework placed significant
influence, on whether or not services were subject to real competition,
with teams within Probation Trusts. This seemed to contrast markedly
with how Best Value principles were introduced into local government
where the Audit Commission was responsible for ensuring effective
outcomes in driving up levels of economy and efficiency.
— It
is questionable whether commissioning services through more than
40 separate probation trusts can deliver the most efficient delivery
model for those services which could realise economies of scale
if commissioned on a national or regional basis. For example,
if Bail Accommodation Support Service or Electronic Monitoring
were commissioned on the basis of more than a handful of areas,
with more than a handful of providers, they would be significantly
more expensive to deliver than at present. The introduction of
standard specifications should be used as a basis to consider
commissioning of services on a region wide or national basis.
2. How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does it operate in practice?
G4S Response:
— Probation
Trusts provide a solid framework via a professional Offender Management
model. They are at the centre of risk management for offenders
within the community and the principles are sound.
— The
Probation Service may be seen as the "authority" or
the enforcer by offenders which could inhibit the service's ability
to engage in rehabilitation initiatives. By commissioning external
specialist partners that are not seen as the establishment, better
outcomes can be achieved.
— We
find that levels of engagement with Offender Managers and Offender
Supervisors vary across England and Wales. Generally it is positive
in our prisons but can be dependent on the distances involved
in undertaking individual offender management interactions.
— We
believe that relationships between Probation Trusts and G4S Care
& Justice Services Limited are generally positive. For example
within the Electronic Monitoring contract there are high levels
of interagency working.
— Communications
between agencies can sometimes be a problem eg feedback on risk
or enforcement action is sometimes limited. Also, access to OMs
can be impacted due to their often heavy workloads and changes
in personnel.
— The
system of annual budget allocation within Probation may currently
reduce the incentive and ability to invest on major change projects.
As a result innovation probably suffers. ITC is possibly the most
obvious area where constraints are evident. The focus on targets
which are input based may also stifle innovation or even, in some
circumstances, lead to dysfunctional behaviours within the Probation
Service. For example, breach action against an offender may be
held back with the objective of increasing completion rates.
— Similarly,
the market as a whole will also be less inclined to engage if
the business risks are seen to be excessive and the scope for
driving real efficiencies do not exist. Contracts spanning a number
of years would provide a more stable environment within which
service providers can make the changes necessary to effect the
required outcomes in an appropriately measured manner.
3. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
G4S Response:
— The
provision of requirements is not always consistent across all
Probation areas. For example, in some areas the full set of Accredited
Programmes is not available to all sentencers. In addition, where
they are available their effectiveness can be undermined by lower
completion rates and the offender's level of risk being lower
than the course requirements.
— Demand
management can be an issue. We pick up feedback that some Probation
Trusts have difficulty in meeting the demand and lead-times for
certain interventions. For example: Domestic Violence programmes
(IDAP). In some cases, Magistrates and Judges are frustrated that
elements of a Community Sentence (eg Community Payback Programmes
and Specified Activities) cannot start for several weeks following
sentence.
— Exclusion
requirements have significant potential in contributing to public
protection. However, we are not aware of any robust means of monitoring
compliance with this requirement being made available to magistrates
and judges. This is likely to explain the very low use of this
requirement.
— It
is worth noting that the Probation Service is not responsible
for the provision or delivery of a number of requirements, eg
Curfew, Exclusion, Attendance centre. However, it is critical
for the probation service to ensure that where these requirements
are used by magistrates and judges, that they are carefully integrated
into the sentence plan by offender managers and form part of a
coherent approach to case management. We believe that where, for
example, a Curfew requirement is used in conjunction with other
requirements, delivered by the probation service, some Probation
Trusts do not sufficiently integrate the Curfew requirement into
the overall sentence plan. More on this issue can be seen in the
Criminal Justice Joint Inspection report into Electronically Monitored
Curfews, published in 2008.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
G4S Response:
— The
private and voluntary sectors are capable of playing a much larger
and involved role in providing probation services.
— It
is our belief that the private sector can provide excellent service
delivery on a much wider scale and at various levels: from individual
interventions such as Community Payback or Approved Premises through
to Offender Management.
— In
fact we see no reason why the private and voluntary sectors should
not be able to run a complete Probation Trust area.
— Specifically
the private and third sectors as part of a mixed economy are able
to bring significant benefits to areas such as: management of
the shorter custodial sentences, unpaid work programmes, delivery
of accredited programmes, drug testing, IOMs, bail support, mentoring,
risk management of high risk offenders, voice recognition, satellite
tracking, management of Approved Premises, compliance and breach
enforcement proceedings
— As
well as delivery models which have private and/ or voluntary organisations
as a prime contractor to NOMS for the provision of offender management
services, we believe there is also scope for delivery models based
on more extensive collaboration between existing Probation Trusts
and the private and third sectors. For example, this could include
where a Probation Trust acts as a sub-contractor to a Private
or Voluntary prime contractor. It could also include joint ventures
between Probation Trusts and private or voluntary organisations.
— G4S,
as a private provider, believes it is necessary to effectively
harness the huge amounts of specialist expertise on offer through
voluntary sector organisations in the Criminal Justice arena.
For example, we have worked closely with Nacro for several years,
including joint working on developing solutions and proposals
to NOMS.
— The
area of Welfare to Work offers a potentially useful comparison
for how the private and voluntary sector could be harnessed to
develop and deliver innovative, outcome focused services. Key
learning points on what has worked in this area should be considered
in developing thinking on what roles might be played by private
and voluntary organisations.
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
G4S Response:
— As
the likely outcome from reducing short custodial sentences will
be an increase in Community Sentences the view must be that the
majority of Probation Trusts will have insufficient capacity to
cope.
— As
referred to in response to an earlier question, Probation already
face challenges in meeting existing demands and lead-times placed
upon them by Courts. Many interventions are not quickly scalable
and as a monopoly supplier of some services (and qualified practitioners)
Probation will be ill-equipped to respond without a combination
of significant productivity improvements and further investment
in additional capacity.
— Assuming
a reasonable pick up in demand for the services currently provided
by Probation Trusts, supply may well lag demand for services in
the absence of a thriving mixed economy/ market forces being in
place.
6. Could probation trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
G4S Response:
— Overall,
anything that recognises and supports the needs of victims must
be viewed as positive. However our view is that any such interventions
should be victim led and be shown to have proven benefits/ outcomes.
— We
are unable to express a full view on whether Probation Trusts
should use RJ more without greater evidence of "what works"
in terms of meeting the goals of Communities and Government.
— Restorative
justice may provide benefits in terms of conflict resolution and
reparation to the community but any victim/offender mediation
it is dependent on the wishes of the victims or their families
and needs.
7. Does the probation service handle different
groups of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black
and minority ethnic people, and high and medium risk offenders?
G4S Response:
— The
Probation Service places a great deal of emphasis on diversity
and inclusion in its work practices and policies
— Our
experience within Prisons and in the Community indicates that
most Probation Areas respond appropriately to the diversity of
offenders
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
G4S Response:
— It
is assumed that your question refers to the training of Probation
staff rather than offenders. If so, we have little evidence on
this topic but recognise that practitioners have to gain specific
professional qualifications.
— However
we are conscious that in certain situations where the Probation
does not deliver the intervention (eg electronic monitoring) the
level of detailed knowledge can sometimes be lacking. As a result,
providers such as G4S proactively engage in local training/ advising
Offender Managers & Pre-Sentence Report Writers so that they
are suitably equipped when dealing with sentencers and offenders.
September 2010
| 
