Probation Trusts: A Local Partnership Development

Strategy

2nd June 2010 – Launch Event

Chair of the Day: Alan Wooderson

Introduction to the Strategy

Ian FoxProbation Association

Policy Development Manager

The Context

•100+ years of working in partnership

•Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – 12 years later..!

•2001 - National Probation Service

•2004 - creation of NOMS

•2007 - introduction of LSP/LAAs, NIs

•Uneven engagement in local frameworks – pragmatism and incentives?

•Responsible Authority 2010

•Total Place principles and pilots.

•New Government – emerging CJ themes

Strategy Component

•Stakeholder influenced – an open door…

•Flexible framework capable of adaptation

•Overall purpose – performance criteria?

•The 6 Aims + relevant Objectives

•Partnership Strategy Steering Group

•Member driven priorities – What? How? Where? When?

The role of Trust Boards

•Opportunity to fulfil original vision for Local Probation Boards/Trusts....?

•35 different journeys – starting where?

•Providing strong local leadership – direction of travel, visibility to stakeholders,

local accountabilities/scrutiny?

•Strategic relationships at local/regional levels

•“Localism” agenda central to business plan(LDU plans?)

•Identification of efficiencies (Total Place principles)

•Contract negotiations with DOMs

•Role of individual members (LDUs)

•Making a difference to the Front Line!

Probation in Partnership – an operational perspective

Sue HallChair, PCA

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships -

the journey • Crime and Disorder Act (1998)

• Prevention of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour, substance misuse– 3 year audits– Public consultation– Strategy

Community Safety Partnerships – New Duties

• Probation to become the 6th responsible authority together with local authority, police, police authorities, fire and rescue, health.

• CSPs required to formulate and implement a strategy to reduce reoffending by adult and young offenders

• Statutory Duties for Responsible Authorities– Senior representation on CSP strategy group– Prepare and implement annual strategic assessment and 3 year partnership

plan– Information sharing protocol– Involvement in community engagement / public consultation– Review skills and knowledge– Ensure partnership has arrangements for assessing value for money– Engage with local authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee arrangements

• Reducing Reoffending, Cutting Crime, Changing Lives’– comprehensive guidance

What’s really different?

• 2007 – Cross Government priority to reduce reoffending

• Comprehensive Spending Review 2007:– Local Area Agreements – up to 35 priority indicators

– Public Service Agreements - including PSA 23 ‘Make communities safer’

• NI 16 Serious acquisitive crime rate• NI 18 Local adult reoffending• NI 30 PPO reoffending

• Reflected in Community Safety Strategies (e.g. Leeds)– refocusing from offence to offender

– Growth of Integrated Offender Management

Safer Leeds Community Safety Plan

2008 - 11

• Creating safer environments by tackling crime

• Improving lives by reducing the harm caused by substance misuse

• Supporting victims and reducing the risk of victimization

• Reducing and managing offending behaviour

• Improving community confidence and public satisfaction

2005-8

• Tackling burglary – alleygating

• Tackling anti-social behaviour

• Tackling violent crime in city centre

• Reducing Neighbourhood Crime – (crime & grime)

• Neighbourhood policing – PCSOs

• Tackling Drug Misuse – Improving Lives (Drug Interventions Programme)

• Weapons Awareness Programme

Reducing Reoffending – why is it important

‘Over half of all crime is committed by those who have already been through the criminal justice system’

‘Reducing reoffending is fundamental to reducing crime in local communities and benefits everyone

– Every offender who becomes an ex-offender means safer streets and fewer victims;

– Turning people away from crime means less pressure on the resources of the criminal justice system and its delivery partners;

– Offenders who stop offending get the opportunity to repay debt to society and improve their own life chances, as well as those of their children and families

(Reducing Reoffending, Cutting Crime, Changing Lives’)

Reducing Reoffending -

sources of evidence • Effectiveness of sentences – actual versus predicted reconviction rates of different

sentences. Short term prison sentences – reoffending rate of 61% compared to 36% for community sentences (MoJ 2010)

• What Works – evidence based practice. Looks at the effectiveness of different methods of treatment.13% reduction in reoffending in offenders who completed an accredited programme

• Desistance – asks the question ‘when, how and why ex-offenders come to change their behaviour’. Process – maturity / personal capital / social capital

• Local Area Agreements – national indicators 18 (adult reoffending) and 30 (reoffending of prolific and priority offenders)

Reducing Reoffending –

Critical Success Factors • Aim – to achieve underlying change in way offender sees themselves

(secondary desistance)

• More likely to achieve this in the community. Custody should be last resort.

• Offender management– Importance of relationship with offender manager (motivate, sustain)– Effective sentence planning requires good assessment of criminogenic

needs / use of effective interventions, properly sequenced

• Access to pathways out of offending – can only be achieved through partnership

• Provision for short term adult prisoners is critical

Local adult reoffending rates

1 Jan 09 – 31 Dec 09

Yorkshire and HumbersideLocal Adult Reoffending Jan 2008 – Dec 2009

LAAActual rate of re-offending

Predicted rate of reoffending

% difference from baseline

Barnsley 10.11% 12.01% -15.82%

Bradford 9.39% 10.96% -14.33%

Calderdale 9.33% 10.47% -10.90%

City of Kingston upon Hull* 10.39% 10.83% -4.10%

Doncaster 10.76% 12.24% -12.11%

East Riding of Yorkshire 7.79% 8.74% -10.93%

Kirklees 10.58% 10.95% -3.31%

Leeds 10.82% 11.55% -6.36%

North East Lincolnshire 12.22% 12.39% -1.38%

North Lincolnshire 9.36% 9.67% -3.24%

North Yorkshire 11.03% 10.97% 0.59%

Rotherham 10.71% 11.62% -7.88%

Sheffield 9.68% 11.70% -17.23%

Wakefield 10.61% 11.22% -5.46%

York 12.92% 12.66% 2.03%

Effective CSPs

• Local leadership and ownership of Reducing Reoffending

• Critical to empower and support LDU heads– Bradford – strong visionary leadership across key agencies

• Total Place pilot for offender management• Drugs system change pilot (led by Probation)• Intensive Alternative to Custody pilot• Together Women

• Value for Money– New localism agenda - using pooled resources more

effectively to achieve joint aims

What does probation bring to the table?

• Provision of information for strategic assessment

• Soft intelligence

• Expertise in offender management

• Community payback

• Joint commissioning

You have to give to get…being an effective partner• Contribution is not only about resources

– Contribute to problem solving as critical friend

• Only have influence if you are a trusted partner

• Only become a trusted partner if you are at the table and around in the networks– LDU leads must be seen, known, contribute (see KPMG

report)– Middle manager presence in sub-groups

CSP – Opportunity for Probation

• Major opportunity to align probation’s key purpose with those of the CSP. Probation cannot reduce reoffending on its own

• Reducing Reoffending agenda puts probation in position of real influence

• Importance of Trust Boards supporting local agenda backed by PA strategy