Agenda item

Briefing paper

Jo Mead, Chief Executive of The Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company Limited (DLNR CRC) and Sarah Chand, Deputy Director (Midlands) of the National Probation Service (NPS) introduced a report on the changes to the probation service.  They gave a presentation on the impact of the changes locally and how risks are being managed, highlighting the following points:

a)  The work of probation services hasn’t changed but since 1 June 2014 it is now split between two providers, one supporting high risk offenders and one supporting low and medium risk offenders.  The two providers need to work closely together. 

b)  In terms of partnership working, there is agreement between the two organisations on which is the most appropriate to engage with which partnership group.  This provides a single point of contact on probation matters for partners and the probation providers work internally to share relevant information.  Where necessary, for example the Safeguarding Children’s Board, both organisations are involved.  While organisational structures have changed many of the key personnel have stayed the same and this has helped to maintain good relations with partners during the transition period.

c)  The DLNR CRC is investing in its workforce and processes, including through external benchmarking tools, to ensure that it isn’t the partner that holds back Nottingham in progressing innovative solutions.

d)  As the Probation Trust it was a challenge to fulfil all of the expected roles and functions, and the split provides an opportunity to focus on appropriately managing risks of harm and reducing reoffending rates through development of specialisms.

e)  The National Offender Management Service is the major commissioner for service delivery and it contract manages the NPS and CRC.  There is local accountability through the local Criminal Justice Board and local strategic partnerships.

f)  There has been a lot of interest in the contracts to provide probation services for low and medium risk offenders.  While prospective providers will have their own proposals for models of delivery there will be room for local discussion and scope to influence the way services are delivered.  Part of the contract will be ‘payment by results’.  The detail of this is still being discussed.  ‘Payment by results’ can have greater risks for providers and therefore might have implications for contract failure.

g)  Initial risk assessments are carried out by the NPS and there is a risk escalation process to ensure offenders are managed by either the NPS or CRC.  The NPS focuses on those at high risk of serious harm (not reoffending).  The CRC focuses on those with a low or medium risk.  Both organisations will assess harm/ reoffending risk factors.  If the CRC assesses that an individual’s risk level has increased then they can be transferred to the NPS if necessary.  If an individual’s risk level decreases they will remain with the NPS and not transferred to the CRC.

h)  The assessment process also applies to young offenders who will then be allocated to either the NPS or CRC.  Previous arrangements for the transition to adult provision will remain in place.

i)  The performance management arrangements used for the Probation Trust are still intact to be used for new providers, but it is likely that they will have a more commercial emphasis with greater levels of contract management than previously.

j)  The NPS and DLNR CRC have monthly meetings with relevant contract managers and this includes reviewing how the two organisations are working together.  The organisations also have some mutually dependent targets that require co-operation to achieve. 

Following questions from councillors, Jo Mead and Sarah Chand provided the following additional information:

k)  It is intended that the efficiencies created by new ways of working will create the capacity to support those who have been in custody for less than 12 months (who have previously not been supported by probation services).  Overall the budget for probation provision should remain the same but more people will receive intervention and support.

l)  There is a range of different community payback schemes and teams meet together to discuss their projects and share learning.  Community payback is well-regarded and there is currently commitment to retaining it.  This ambition will be communicated to the new provider but it isn’t possible to guarantee future provision at this stage.  Charging for work has been discussed for several years and does happen in other areas of the country.  Community payback schemes are expensive to run and therefore it is understandable that providers would be interested in recovering some/ all of this cost.

m)  It is intended that work to deliver the ‘through the prison gate’ approach will commence quickly after the appointment of the new provider.  The prison service has done a good job of managing the local prison population so that it is in a position to facilitate this.

n)  There are significant structural issues in implementing the ‘through the prison gate’ approach for women.  Most women tend to be held away from home – in Nottingham women tend to be released from Peterborough.  Women also have different issues to men and often require targeted support.

Tim Spinks commented that the presentation had provided some reassurances about risk areas, including in relation to the spilt between dealing with risks of harm and reducing reoffending.  He also highlighted the opportunities for local performance management via the Criminal Justice Board.

RESOLVED to review progress in implementation of the changes to probation services and management of associated risks once the provider for low and medium risk offenders has been appointed and commenced work.