129.Over the course of our inquiry, we were told about a range of best practices in the delivery of probation services across England and Wales. In this chapter, we consider how they could be scaled up. We look at the experience of the youth justice system, at lessons learnt from areas where probation services are delivered by local agencies working together, and at the relationship between the Probation Service and its commissioned partners.
130.In our search for best practices in the delivery of non-custodial sentences, it was suggested that “Youth Justice Services seem to be doing much better” than the adult Probation Service.243 The Minister for Prisons and Probation, Damian Hinds MP, agreed that “there definitely are lessons to be learned” from Youth Justice Services.244 Witnesses identified key differences between Youth Justice Services and the adult Probation Service that would explain that discrepancy.
131.In the first instance, we heard about the importance of “manageable caseloads”.245 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that a youth offending officer may be supervising “10 to 12 cases” at a time, whereas Justin Russell said that “the typical caseload for a Youth Offending Service case manager might be between six and 10 children”.246 By comparison, the National Audit Office told us that, in the adult service: “many probation staff were managing more than 70 cases, against a suggested case load of 30 to 60” (see section starting at paragraph 199 on “staffing issues”).247 Justin Russell, told us that the size of the caseload “has to make a difference to how much attention you can pay someone” and argued that “bringing caseloads down … has to be at the heart of how you improve performance” in the adult Probation Service.248
132.Besides caseloads, Justin Russell told us that the Youth Offending Services have “very stable staff groups, very low vacancy rates”, and “staff remaining in post for long periods of time”, including senior members of staff being in post since YOSs were first set up in 2001.249 By contrast, we were told that “the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has been disastrous for the retention of staff and experienced staff”, because “the impact of experienced staff leaving at the point of TR and unification means that the workforce is skewed towards less experienced staff” (see Box 4 and section starting at paragraph 199 on “staffing issues”).250
133.Best practice was also identified in “properly embedded multi-agency working” and “the range of local services that youth offending services have a connection to”.251 Kim Thornden-Edwards explained that “youth offending services are very networked into services for young people” (see section starting at paragraph 150 on “facilitating local delivery”), whereas “adult services are usually with different providers” and can only be accessed when exhibiting higher levels of needs.252
134.We also heard that Youth Offending Services were able to communicate effectively with those they supervised. Justin Russell explained that speech and language therapists working in Youth Offending Services “are finding huge levels of communication need that have to be met” (one example of how this need is met is through “easy-read guides to sentence plans”). He pointed out that it is “the same population that will then migrate into the adult population with no equivalent provision there”. He wondered “about the extent to which people on probation properly understand the requirements that are put on them”.253
135.We heard about the transition from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. Currently, “Youth Offending Services stop supervision at 18, and there is effectively a cliff edge where children go from quite a personalised service, with speech and language, into the adult provision world”. He caveated that, in specific circumstances, “Youth Offending Teams can actually hold on to people beyond their 18th birthday if they feel that it is in their interest, at least to allow them to complete their sentence”—which may smooth the cliff edge in certain individual cases.254
136.However, maturation continues past the age of 18. Justin Russell explained that “there is evidence that the full maturation process does not happen until you are 25”.255 Carrie Peters, as a practitioner, confirmed that “because of brain development and maturity, we need to approach young adults in a different way”.256 Academics told us that young people “warrant special consideration” and that “most young offenders will cease committing crimes through maturation”.257 T2A argued that young people “are in a strong position to benefit from rehabilitative sentences and restorative measures” due to the “brain development” people undergo at that age.258
137.We heard further evidence about the specific vulnerabilities of young adults. Rebecca Robson told us that young adults tend to “struggle much more with relationships”, perhaps “because much of their life is spent online as opposed to in person”. She added that “accommodation also tends to be more difficult for young people, particularly if they are single and do not have family”.259 Niki Scordi explained that many young people on probation “have been in care, under community orders and in the prison system, which means that they need practical support” as they are learning to live an independent life.260 Carrie Peters told us that “we might need to work harder to engage people who are resistant and to think about different ways to get people on board, perhaps using the arts, or sports” because “sitting one to one in a room with someone is not that attractive to a lot of young people”.261
138.Damian Hinds MP acknowledged that “there is a watershed moment that happens on your 18th birthday”, when someone transitions from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service.262 He questioned:
“That is not how human beings are, is it? It is now pretty broadly recognised in the academic community—probably you cannot be quite this precise, but this is the general picture—young people’s brains are not fully developed until they are 25.”263
139.Because the maturation process continues past the age of 18, Justin Russell told us that “one of the obvious things you could do would be to shift the younger age range in probation into the Youth Offending Services themselves”.264 He said that “it might be better to do it incrementally, moving up to 19, 20 and 21”, as he explained:
“The peak age for offending is 18 and it is exactly at that point that you hand them over to a once-a-month probation interview with no speech and language, no CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] and no ETE [Education, Training, and Employment] worker. It is an obvious idea. Why not allow Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) to work with children and young adults?”265
140.We heard reservations about this proposal. Phil Bowen told us that, while he was “attracted to the proposal”, he was also “concerned that youth justice services would need to differentiate how they supervise and treat 14 year-olds compared to 21 year-olds”. He argued that “there would be different characters, and you would not want to mix those populations in particular ways” and that “it would require a sophisticated approach”.266 Kim Thornden-Edwards said that “you would need to think about the safeguarding issues of seeing both children and adults in the same service, potentially in the same building”.267 Damian Hinds MP agreed that “there is something unique about dealing with children”.268 Andrew Neilson stated that his “worry about the proposal is that it could dilute what Youth Offending Services are successfully providing to under-18s”. He argued that “if it were done simply by adding all these extra people in and seeing what happened, it would need to be properly resourced”. Instead, the Howard League for Penal Reform considered the idea of “a separate, but very similar service for 18 to 25 year olds, rather than expanding the Youth Offending Service in that way”.269
141.Whether or not the threshold is moved, Chris Jennings told us that “the cliff edge at 18, when you have one level of intensive support and then suddenly you do not, is the thing we have to worry about”. He told us that “we must make the cliff edge not a cliff edge and make the transition as smooth as we can”.270
142.We heard about a range of innovative practices that have been, are being, or could be piloted initially for the benefit of young adults on probation. Academics argued that if lessons were learnt from the Scottish presumption against short sentences (PASS), the Northern Ireland Enhanced Combination Order, or the Integrated Community Service Order in Ireland, changes might be targeted at young people or women “rather than the entire population in the first instance”.271
143.Looking at historical precedents, the Probation Institute wrote that “specialist teams used to manage the transition” for young adults “with reduced caseloads and focussed training”, and they told us that they “should be reinstated”.272 T2A also told us about “specialised probation orders tailored to the specific needs of young adults designed to optimise compliance and completion of sentence” as “tested in Greater Manchester in the 2000s with the creation of Intensive Community Orders which were demonstrated to be beneficial to young adults”.273
144.Currently, another approach is being piloted. The Ministry of Justice told us about the introduction of Young Adult Hubs in Cardiff, Manchester and Newham. They described these hubs as “psychologically informed spaces that aid engagement and reinforce young adults’ strengths while increasing their self-regulation ability”.274 The Young Adult Hub pilot in the London Borough of Newham includes the “co-location of a multi-disciplinary team”, which consists of “health and probation staff and commissioned services” and seeks to provide “wrap-around support” that is “tailored” to the specific needs of young adults.275 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that this “dedicated group of people who manage that cohort of younger people on probation … have had special training in trauma-informed approaches, in neurodiversity and in maturity”, and that the approach “is already showing some promising outcomes, certainly in attendance and compliance”.276
145.Looking forward, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) told us about a range of potential innovative practices, including:
146.There is a ‘cliff edge’ in the response to offending when a young person transitions from Youth Justice Services to the adult Probation Service. Moving the age at which an offender undergoes this transition is unlikely, in itself, to bear positive results.
147.However, lessons can be learnt from Youth Offending Services about the management of the probation population in general, and of young adults in particular. YOSs do not only work with smaller caseloads and with more experienced staff, but are also embedded in local communities and more effective at communicating with offenders.
148.The Probation Service should learn best practices from Youth Offending Services, especially about how to communicate with offenders to ensure they understand the sentences that are imposed on them. It should also encourage the local delivery of rehabilitative services and multiagency cooperation.
149.Age-appropriate solutions should be found to smooth the transition of those moving from Youth Offending Services to the adult Probation Service. These solutions should be made available to all young adults on probation.
150.Much of the evidence we received related to how the Probation Service cooperates with local agencies, such as local teams of the Probation Service and of the Prison Service, the Police, the NHS, local authorities, and their contracted partners. NAPO told us that “while there are some formal approaches to mandate cooperation between agencies … too often this is lacking”, citing “the excessive workload and staff shortages faced by so many public sector bodies” as an explanation. They added that there was “a huge variance between levels of cooperation” between local agencies.278
151.We heard that the Probation Service “needs the local empowerment and local multiagency links that can make a difference for the people they are supervising”.279 Justin Russell told us that “regional directors would welcome more devolution, and more power to innovate and do things a bit differently” and added that some of those in charge of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) that existed under the Transformation Rehabilitation scheme “rather miss the days of CRC, when they had more control over the services they could buy, the way they did recruitment or the way that they organised their workforce”. He recommended that “regional directors or local probation should have the flexibility” to commission specialist support and “have it in their offices, rather than necessarily do it through an externally commissioned contractual arrangement”.280
152.We heard about best practices in Northern Ireland. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland (PBNI) told us that Enhanced Combination Orders involve “a multiagency, multidisciplinary, collaborative approach, with PBNI leading on the Order, and support provided by a range of organisations including Barnardo’s, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI), Northern Ireland Alternatives and Victim Support”. They added that: “Within PBNI, ECOs involve Probation Officers (POs), Probation Service Officers (PSOs), Community Service Officers (CSOs) and PBNI Psychologists providing greater flexibility and choice.”281 As a result, “the associated wrap around services are now well embedded and excellent working relationships have developed between stakeholders”.282
153.Witnesses identified best practices in the management of Youth Offending Services (YOSs, see section starting at paragraph 130 on “borrowing best practices from youth justice”) to make the case for the local delivery of adult probation services. Phil Bowen, who agreed that “we need to ground the Probation Service’s organisational locus in its communities”, told us that “we need to professionalise and localise the Probation Service, fundamentally taking a leaf out of the Youth Justice Services’ book”.283 Justin Russell, too, mentioned the operating model of Youth Offending Services, explaining that “YOSs feel locally empowered and locally governed”.284 He told us that “they are an integral part of children’s services now in local authority areas” and that “they are also tied into a very strong multiagency governance process”. He explained further:
“A typical Youth Offending Service has an embedded Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) worker, an embedded speech and language therapist and an embedded educational psychologist. They are specialists who really know their stuff. They are in the office and can interact on a daily basis with case managers. There is no real equivalent in probation.”285
154.Co-commissioning and co-location were also recognised as best practice. Dr Abramovaite said: “to have all the services sitting together as a multidisciplinary team trying to assess and help individuals in the best possible way is definitely very much needed.”286 The best example came from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
155.The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (see Box 6) told us about co-commissioning, where the same services are “supported by a range of local commissioners which may include health, local authority, adult learning and skills etc, as well as criminal justice” to work with people on probation, as well as with other cohorts. They explained that they “identified the risk of clear duplication with already commissioned local authority statutory substance misuse services” and therefore “sought to ensure that people on probation get appropriate access to existing locally commissioned services rather than commissioning a separate service and therefore create duplication”. They told us about “the importance of building on existing services in our communities that already work with people facing multiple unmet needs and have the skills to engage with such people” because these services “are connected to wider support networks, both in the voluntary and statutory sectors and can help individuals access the wider support they need where they need it”.287
156.They told us that co-commissioning benefits users as well as providers. They explained that “the benefit of this approach is the person accessing these services can stay engaged with them as long as their need dictates rather [than] just while they are subject to probation”.288 They went on to explain that co-commissioning “helps to build a ‘one stop shop’ where services can be located together to meet the varying needs of the client and bring financial resilience to voluntary sector organisations that are often struggling to ‘make ends meet’”. The GMCA added that “this approach also means that services are not commissioned to be in competition with one another i.e. a support service for people on probation compared to another service that is to support people with similar needs, but not in the justice system”.289
157.Furthermore, we heard that local delivery could also help achieve the punitive and reparative aims of sentencing. The Criminal Justice Alliance told us that “in Scotland there is legislative responsibility to consult specific people and organisations on the types of unpaid work activity that should be carried out in their area”. They recommended that “Probation should also develop more hyper-local partnerships by engaging with victims of crime and community groups to identify local needs”. They added that “greater involvement of the voluntary and community sector in unpaid work placements would also be beneficial”, pointing out that “many voluntary and community sector organisations employ staff with lived experience of the criminal justice system in roles where engagement and rapport building is important”.290 The APPC also told us that “what has been seen to work well are the examples of visible community reparation, especially when the identification of suitable projects arise from the input of community safety partnerships or other locally based public opinion”.291
158.Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS has “a stated commitment to looking to devolve more autonomy and authority to the regions”.292 In practice, the APCC told us that “engagement with the Probation Service and PCCs is moving in a positive direction”. They explained that “there is commitment from HMPPS to ensure strong local relations exist and where possible co-commissioning of services is undertaken”. In that context, “HMPPS and the APCC have supported the delivery of guidance to local areas to enhance how data is shared across agencies to understand what works and to influence how local community payback schemes respond to community needs”.293
159.In terms of best practice in information sharing, the APPC pointed to the example of “sharing discussions” which arise from “Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)”. These are “statutory arrangements bringing together the police, probation and prison services to assess and manage the risk posed by certain sexual and violent offenders”. At least one of the APPC’s members found that such discussions had been “a helpful way locally to obtain the necessary information and build a better risk picture of individuals involved in domestic abuse cases to then assess their suitability for community sentences”.294
160.We also heard about Integrated Offender Management (IOM), which the Government defines as “a cross-agency response to the crime and reoffending threats faced by local communities”.295 Pavan Dhaliwal told us that IOM provides a “good example” of “where the different agencies are working together in a really intense way, particularly when you are working with a cohort of people where the drivers around poverty, trauma and discrimination are playing out through substance misuse and mental health issues”.296 Justin Russell welcomed “a revival of investment in integrated offender management” involving “joint police and probation teams working together, sharing an office, hopefully with drugs workers and employment workers, doing joint home visits and really getting on top of the people who are the most prolific offenders in a local area”.297
Box 6: Devolution of justice powers to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
|
1.The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) enjoys “extra powers over Criminal Justice and Health and Social Care”, which include powers over the commissioning of rehabilitative services for people on probation, thanks to devolution arrangements unique among English local authorities. The GMCA had adopted its own approach, known as the “Greater Manchester Integrated Rehabilitative Services” (GMIRS). 2.The devolution arrangement involves some oversight by HMPPS. The GMCA told us that “HMPPS require rehabilitative and resettlement services to ensure sentence delivery options are available which meet the needs of service users and court-ordered sentencing requirements, using standard national specifications to be in place”, explaining that “these core needs are based on HMPPS data and therefore reflect common needs, which exist at a national level”. 3.We heard that the GMCA and Greater Manchester Probation Service were cooperating to develop “a ‘total system’ of integrated rehabilitative services for People on Probation” and that they “share a joint ambition to: Increase the alignment of services to avoid fragmented delivery; improve support through sequencing of needs for People on Probation and recognise the voluntary and community assets that already exist within Greater Manchester communities” (emphasis in the original). 4.The GMCA told us about some of the benefits of this approach, such as:
|
Source: Written evidence from Greater Manchester Combined Authority (JCS0044). See also written evidence from Justin Russell (JCS0034).
161.While we heard about best practices in the local delivery of probation services, we were also told that communication may be difficult among the various local agencies involved in the delivery of community sentences. Justin Russell, for instance, told us that “there has been a lot of investment in identifying people with a mental health problem when they first come into the system”. He told us that “liaison diversion mental health workers”, who work in “almost every police custody suite”, identify “over 100,000” cases a year. Yet, he explained, “the issue then is whether that information is passed on to the CPS, the courts and the Probation Service” as HMIP “found that often it is not”.298 They identified causes of these communication issues: as is the case for communication between the Probation Service and its commissioned partners (see section starting at paragraph 173 on “the operation of current contracts”), “quite often, people did not realise that they could share the information and felt that there were data protection restrictions, which was unfortunate, or they forgot to share it or did not have the systems that would enable them to do it”.299
162.The APCC pushed for more communication among local agencies. They told us about Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and “the example of an offender who needs to be tested twice a week”: “Probation and Police should be notified of every test; if there are constant positive tests, this allows probation to breach the offender and get them back to Court.”300
163.The Probation Service is aware of these challenges. Chris Jennings told us that “there are still definitely areas where sharing information across the system is complicated”. For instance, he told us that “getting information on child safeguarding is not straightforward” because “each local authority does it differently and has its own system”, such that “there is no one place you can go to draw off a system a nice piece of data that will enable us to move forward”. The exception is in Wales, where the Probation Service can now get better information: “if there is what we call a reportable incident and the police attend an incident, we get notified about that in the Probation Service.”301 Damian Hinds MP also pointed in the direction of “criminal justice boards”, which he described as “ways of making sure that people locally, Police and Crime Commissioners, Probation, Police and the courts are able to communicate”.302
164.Community sentences are more effective when the Probation Service is a fully engaged member of local partnerships, be it through the co-location of services or through cooperation forums, allowing information to circulate. This benefits offenders and there is also a public interest, for instance in making unpaid work placements more punitive and reparative.
165.We encourage the Probation Service to empower regional directors further, ensuring that a greater proportion of rehabilitative services are commissioned locally. They should be granted further autonomy to develop partnerships with local organisations and public agencies. Co-commissioning should be encouraged.
166.Chris Jennings told us that the Probation Service commissions “hundreds of third sector partners across England and Wales to come in and do particular work on specialist areas” because the Probation Service does “not always have the in-house skill set”.303 Justin Russell said that there were two ways that the Probation Service can commission services from the voluntary sector.304
167.The first of these is through contracts for “Commissioned Rehabilitative Services” (CRSs) which are centralised at national level and cover six different pathways (Women’s Services; Personal Wellbeing Services; Finance, Benefits, and Debt; Dependency and Recovery; Education, Training, and Employment Services; and Accommodation Services).305 Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that HMPPS have over 200 suppliers from the private or voluntary and community sector which are qualified to bid for contracts, and a total of 133 contracts with suppliers to deliver services locally.306 Many of these contracts are due to expire in March 2024 but can be extended by HMPPS by up to one year. They are worth £348 million with extensions, or £242 million without extensions.307
168.The second way of commissioning services is through the “Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund” (ROIF), which is funding made available by HMPPS to regional probation directors to commission services locally.308 Justin Russell described this as a “devolved funding stream, where individual regional directors have an innovation fund which they give out as grants to smaller organisations that are not currently providing any of the other services”. He told us that this “has been a positive thing, but it is a small amount of money”.309
169.Kim Thornden-Edwards told us that the national contracts came in “at pace” in 2021, when the end of the Community Rehabilitation Companies led to the unification of the Probation Service (see Box 4), with 110 contracts being live at the time of unification.310 She added that HMPPS “will be looking to learn the lessons” from that first-generation commissioning process.311
170.Niki Scordi told us that the commissioning process in 2021 was a considerable improvement on the previous process five years earlier. She talked about “massive improvements”, and specifically welcomed the commissioning of “a holistic service” for women, allowing organisations like hers to become a one-stop-shop where all the rehabilitative needs of female offenders can be addressed (see section on “mainstreaming wraparound support” starting at paragraph 92). She also welcomed the fact that the regions at the level of which services are commissioned “are smaller so that local services can engage” and the fact that contracts last for five years.312 Together Women also told us that they have been impressed by the role of Probation teams, highlighting “extensive efforts to engage with women’s specialists”.313
171.We heard, however, that “there is a mismatch between referrals and what is being commissioned”.314 Justin Russell told us that HMPPS “underestimated the potential demand for things like women’s services and accommodation” whereas “there have not been enough referrals for well-being services”. Carrie Peters, whose company is commissioned to deliver all types of services except women’s services (Personal Wellbeing Services; Finance, Benefits, and Debt; Dependency and Recovery; Education, Training and Employment Services; and Accommodation Services), told us that “accommodation is in the greatest demand”, whereas “there is capacity in some of the other services”.315 On the other hand, Niki Scordi told us that, for her women’s centre, “referrals are often much higher than we were expecting—25% to 75% more”. She explained that they “sometimes have waiting lists for just engaging with a dedicated key worker”.316 She added that there is not “sufficient funding for accommodation or mental health”.317
172.We also heard that “the feedback from the voluntary sector involved in those contracts is that the contracts have felt quite constraining and they have gone to the big national organisations” whereas “smaller providers have felt squeezed out” and that “they were not able to compete”.318 Niki Scordi told us that the commissioning processes excluded smaller organisations unless they were able to partner with a larger one. She said that her charity—a larger one in terms of women’s services—”struggled” with the commissioning process and yet “had to step in and partner with local organisations” to help them bid.319 Rebecca Robson explained that, as someone running “a small charity without separate IT teams, HR teams and contract management teams”, applying to be awarded a contract “was a very lengthy and complicated process”. She mentioned “a lot of legal language and very technical language”, though acknowledged that she received support from “Ministry of Justice staff and Probation staff, who have been lovely, understanding and patient”.320 She added that she also received support from a larger organisation and “if it was not for them we probably would not have secured the contract”, mentioning various “policies” that bidders were expected to have in place, as well as “IT security” standards.321 Damian Hinds MP conceded that “procurement rules, legal risk, and due diligence” can sometimes “restrict the number of bidders”.322
173.Besides the commissioning process, we also sought evidence on the operation of existing contracts. Witnesses told us about communication issues between the Probation Service and its partners, focusing specifically on referral mechanisms, updates on needs and risk assessments, and the sharing of IT databases.
174.Communication issues arise at referral stage. Damian Hinds MP told us that “Probation practitioners are required to share information with CRS [Commissioned Rehabilitative Services] providers to enable them to engage with people on their caseloads appropriately and be responsive to individual risks and needs”.323 Justin Russell commented that “the actual referral mechanism is not giving the providers of services enough information about the people being referred”, explaining that they are “not being told the potential risk levels of people or of their other needs”.324 He explained that in theory, “a very comprehensive assessment is done when someone first starts their community order and that then informs their sentence plan”.325 Niki Scordi told us that in practice “we definitely find that risk assessments are not always available”.326 Even when they are available, Niki Scordi told us that “the quality of the initial assessment” by the Probation Service “might be limited”.327
175.Communication issues persist after initial referrals. Carrie Peters told us that “risk and need are dynamic”, meaning that the risk presented by an offender, as well as their rehabilitative needs, may evolve while they are on probation. She explained that her organisation is often unable to pick up on such changes as they occur.328 Niki Scordi confirmed that “as we build that trusting relationship, the woman can share much more about her needs”.329 However, “it is very rare that we can add dynamically” to initial needs and risk assessments, Niki Scordi told us as she explained that “the most challenging thing is that the system and the way it has been designed does not allow for that flexibility”.330 Rebecca Robson also told us that “it is getting live information about risk that presents us with a challenge”331
176.Rudimentary facts are often missing. Niki Scordi told us that “basic information like accurate contact details” is often missing in initial referrals.332 Carrie Peters added that “practical changes like someone having moved address or having a different officer” are not always communicated past initial referrals.333
177.Lack of clarity around data protection regulation, some of which came into effect after the IT systems were designed, was put forward as a potential cause of communication problems. Rebecca Robson told us about “probation practitioners who worry about sharing too much” with delivery partners, under a misapprehension about data protection. She argued that “there is more work to be done on that to really understand what can and should be shared” with commissioned services.334 Carrie Peters acknowledged that “there are things that have to be taken out of the risk information, like the names of victims and particular information about them” but agreed that “it can go too far and too much is taken out”. She told us that “some of it probably comes down to trusting us as partners to hold sensitive information, to deal with it and to treat it with the respect it needs, and to let it inform the work we need to do”.335
178.Previously, “voluntary sector providers had direct access to probation case management systems”: the case management tool nDelius and the risk assessment tool OASys (see Box 8).336 They were able to receive and share updates on people on probation, but lost access to these systems when the Probation Service unified in 2021.337
179.Damian Hinds MP confirmed that “Commissioned Rehabilitative Service (CRS) providers do not have access to nDelius …, OASys …, NOMIS (the Prison Service’s case management system) or an equivalent system in place in privately contracted prisons”. He explained that “these systems contain sensitive information relating to people in prison and under probation supervision that is not required by CRS providers to deliver their services”.338
180.The Probation Service now uses a platform called “Refer and Monitor” (R&M) to communicate with its partners. Damian Hinds MP explained that “R&M facilitates a speedy and effective referral process, with easy access to information about the services offered by CRS providers and allows information sharing between probation practitioners and providers to ensure progress is managed robustly”.339 Kim Thornden-Edwards, who admitted that “sometimes we did not have the availability to transfer information in a safe way to some of our delivery partners”, told us that “we have unblocked most of the problems now” since the Probation Service has “made real changes in those systems”.340 Damian Hinds MP confirmed that “several enhancements have been made to the R&M digital tool since CRS services commenced in 2021”.341 Carrie Peters agreed that “what is put on to Refer and Monitor has certainly improved in the last two years” while noting that “there are still gaps”.342 Because a single offender, especially among male offenders, will likely be interacting with a range of commissioned services, Carrie Peters told us that organisations delivering them would also like to get updates from each other, which the platform doesn’t allow: “We are all on Refer and Monitor but we cannot see anything anybody else has put on there.”343
181.Carrie Peters told us that her company carries out their own “in-depth assessment” and that if they realise that persons on probation “need to be on different pathways or they have a higher level of complexity” of needs, then they have to go back to their probation officer, “sometimes for an amendment and sometimes to cancel the referral or for a re-referral, which takes an awful lot of time”.344
182.Voluntary sector organisations “repeatedly” told HM Inspector of Probation that they would like direct access to probation case management systems.345 “Access to the authority systems OASys and nDelius would put us in a better position for keeping abreast of all those changes as we go along”, we heard from Carrie Peters.346 Rebecca Robson agreed that, for those days when her organisation is not hosting a probation officer, she would like “access to live information about risk that we had before when we had access to the other systems”.347 Carrie Peters argued that this would also be in the interest of the Probation Service, because partners “could also record directly on to those systems, which would … save probation practitioners time”.348
183.Rebecca Robson told us that probation staff are based in her organisation “one or two days a week”, and thanks to this “information sharing works really well, including about the ongoing risk”.349 She explained that “in Cumbria, it is generally working well, and we are getting quality referrals” because her charity has “developed relationships between Probation staff and our staff”.350
184.We asked three of the Probation Service’s delivery partners about how they would like the Ministry of Justice to approach the next national commissioning process.
185.They asked for longer contracts. “Longer contracts certainly help to build relationships and stability, and people understand where they need to go”, Carrie Peters told us.351 Niki Scordi said she would like contracts to last “ten years”.352 Rebecca Robson agreed that she would “not want to go through that process too many times”.353 Chris Jennings, talking about cooperation between UK Government and Welsh Government, sympathised as he regretted that he has “a short-term funding solution for a long-term problem” and was hoping for a “long-term funding arrangement”.354 Damian Hinds MP acknowledged that “in an ideal world, you would probably always want to have rolling contracts, so that the organisation can always have some certainty” but argued that “there is a balance to be struck” because “that is not the way we do public finance in this country” and “it never has been”.355
186.Delivery partners asked for flexibility to be built into the contracts, allowing them to adapt their services to the circumstances of the people referred to them. Carrie Peters, who argued that current contracts “can stifle innovation and stop you from going the extra mile”, told us that “flexibility needs to be built in and you need to be able to adapt to a changing environment as you go”.356 Niki Scordi said the challenge with long-term contracts is that they are often fixed and there is an unwillingness to flex them sufficiently until they are renewed”.357
187.They also argued for more funding for women’s services. Niki Scordi argued that women’s services have been “underfunded up and down the country for over a decade”.358 She welcomed the fact that women’s services are now commissioned in a holistic way but found that, “as a result … those services are underfunded, because obviously if you are funding one service for all needs, you are likely to under record that as opposed to funding separate needs”.359 She said that “women’s highest level of need is in mental health, and there is a real shortage and no specific funding for that”, adding that counselling was funded separately from those services commissioned by the Ministry of Justice for people on probation.360 She added that women who see the benefit of the services they receive “will often want to engage for longer than the service is funded for”, and that her organisation offers services to girls aged 15 to 18 that are “not funded in most areas up and down the country”.361 Going beyond women’s services, Dr Matthew Cracknell, Senior Lecturer, Middlesex University, wrote that, instead of trying to make custodial sentences increasingly tough, “significant funding needs to be given to probation services and related community services including those concerned with housing, mental health and substance use, in order to make community orders more attractive and viable to sentencers.”362
188.The National Audit Office told us that “the Ministry let contracts worth £46 million for services ‘tailored to female offenders’” through its 2021 commissioning process (see sections on “the 2021 commissioning process” starting at paragraph 169 and on “mainstreaming wraparound support” starting at paragraph 92) but that, otherwise, “the Ministry of Justice had only spent £9.5 million on grants for women’s community services over four years (2018–19 to 2021–22) and that the short-term nature of grants made it difficult to sustain services”. The NAO pointed out that “in January 2023 MoJ announced that it had launched multi-year grant competitions to invest up to £24 million in community support services for women as part of its new female offender strategy delivery plan”, which “would equate to around £8 million a year, an increase of over three times compared to the previous four-year period (around £2.4 million a year), without adjusting for inflation in the comparison.”363
189.Two of the delivery partners also sought a different funding approach, “based on outcomes rather than the number of needs, sessions and RAR days”.364 They explained that, currently, when someone is referred to an organisation to complete RAR days, “the probation practitioner sets what those rehabilitation days are”. If, after having met the offender, the organisation believes that their needs would require a different intervention, they have two options: either the organisation complies and the offender “does not engage very positively, and we do not see the benefits”, or they “have to go back and amend the system”.365 To ensure that they have “that positive approach right from the beginning”, Niki Scordi asked for “payment by results”, mentioning a “grant-based” approach.366 Carrie Peters agreed that her organisation Ingeus “would like to be a genuine partner … and to be flexible and adapt as we go, and for the contract to be the agreement as to how we are going to work together; not to restrict, not to stifle, but to allow us to learn together and to get better at changing people’s lives”.367 Damian Hinds MP pointed out that “payment by results” is “part of what the Transforming Rehabilitation programme was to do” and told us: “I want to make sure that we retain some of that ethos, bearing in mind that it is really hard to do a full payment-by-results model.”368
190.Witnesses also spoke about the role of regional directors of the Probation Service in the next commissioning wave. “Regional probation directors would like to see far more of that budget being devolved to them so that they can make their own choices about what they purchase”, Justin Russell told us. He cited the example of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which co-commissions services with the regional probation director, aside from national HMPPS commissioning. “We are seeing a more nuanced and flexible range of services there as we inspect”, Justin Russell explained.369 Kim Thornden-Edwards responded that the services commissioned by HMPPS “are built to address needs that we know are pretty standardised across our probation services”, within which there can be “some flex” to adapt to local needs. She also referred to the “regional innovation fund” available to regional directors as the way for them to commission services locally. Where services might be commissioned centrally, HMPPS was “certainly alive to the potential learning from some of the bespoke and smaller niche commissions locally and what that may tell us that we should think about nationally”.370
191.We asked them whether there would be value in literacy and numeracy services being commissioned to support people serving community sentences. Carrie Peters remembered the discontinued Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS), whereby “funding went to probation services and colleges delivered literacy, numeracy and ESOL classes in probation settings in the same way as the education provision is delivered in prison”. She was “a big supporter” of that approach, because colleges “often do not want people who have committed certain types of offences, or sometimes any offences, to attend, so bringing their services on to probation premises works well”.371 Niki Scordi and Rebecca Robson, representing two women’s centres, felt that “numeracy and literacy tend to be at the very bottom” of the needs of the people they are supporting.372 Their organisations prioritise more urgent needs, for instance around mental health and trauma.
192.Commissioned rehabilitative services are a key component of community sentences. The delivery partners of the Probation Service provide valuable services. The most recent commissioning wave, while imperfect, is considered by all parties as a step in the right direction.
193.Partnerships with a range of local organisations, outside formal commissioning processes for rehabilitative services, are also key to securing meaningful unpaid work placements that foster public support for community sentences.
194.The Probation Service, however, is not making the most out of these partnerships. Referrals do not always contain sufficient information, risk assessments are not always produced and shared in a timely manner, and commissioned partners find it difficult to feed back information to the Probation Service.
195.The Ministry of Justice should seize the upcoming wave of commissioning as an opportunity to apply lessons from the past two years. More funding should be allocated, especially to women’s centres and for housing. Contracts should be longer to protect the Probation Service’s partners, but subject to termination clauses to protect the taxpayer. More flexibility should be built in, perhaps through regular reviews, to allow partners to innovate.
196.The Ministry of Justice should ensure that smaller organisations are enabled to bid for contracts. Smaller organisations should be offered administrative support. They should be permitted to apply jointly, or in partnership with larger organisations. Requirements should be adapted to the size of the contract.
197.The Probation Service should improve communications with its partners. This could include guidance on what can, or cannot, be shared under data protection legislation. It should consider granting them direct access to its databases, as used to be the case prior to unification.
249 Ibid.
250 Written evidence from Dr Jake Phillips, Nichola Cadet, Andrew Fowler and Laura Riley, Sheffield Hallam University (JCS0025)
255 Ibid.
257 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton (JCS0028)
263 Ibid.
265 Ibid.
271 Written evidence from Dr Jay Gormley, Dr Louise Kennefick and Professor Melissa Hamilton (JCS0028). For more information on the Scottish presumption against short sentences, see written evidence from Dr Hannah Graham (JCS0006).
281 Written evidence from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (JCS0043). Over half of Probation Staff in Northern Ireland are Probation Officers, while other grades are described as operational support staff. See PBNI, ‘Careers’: https://www.pbni.org.uk/careers [accessed 9 December 2023]. For an explanation of the roles of Probation Officer and Probation Services Officer in England and Wales, see para 200.
288 Ibid.
289 Ibid.
294 Ibid.
295 Home Office, ‘Integrated offender management (IOM)’ (26 March 2013): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/integrated-offender-management-iom [accessed 11 October 2023]
299 Ibid.
305 Ibid.
311 Ibid., the Ministry of Justice commissioned a review of the commissioning process, resulting in the publication of the Oldfield report. Richard Oldfield, Oldfield Partners, Review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service (September 2021): https://www.clinks.org/sites/default/files/2021–08/Review%20of%20the%20Dynamic%20Framework%20of%20the%20National%20Probation%20Service%20-%20Richard%20Oldfield.pdf [accessed 26 September 2023]
323 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default
337 Ibid.
338 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default
339 Ibid.
341 Letter from Rt. Hon. Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice, to Baroness Hamwee, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee (17 October 2023): https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/41868/documents/207632/default