Agenda item

(i)              Report of the Assistant Chief Executive.

(ii)             Presentation by Maureen Gavin, Head of Durham NPS.

The Chairman introduced the Head of the Durham National Probation Service (NPS) Maureen Gavin to give a presentation to Members in respect of the progress made since the formation of the new NPS (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of the Durham NPS noted that the North East Division of the NPS was aiming to be the “go to division” within the country, adding that the North East was one of seven divisions of the NPS, operating over a large geographical area from Berwick to Boston in Lincolnshire.

Members were reminded of the role of the NPS in dealing with those offenders that posed the highest risk to the public and also in providing advice to courts and to assess risk and there was an aim to provide an effective and efficient service in this regard.

The Head of the Durham NPS noted that the “E3 Blueprint” was a document that aimed to deliver the best possible services to offenders to achieve better outcomes and to consistently apply best practice principles, proactively learning from the experience of others.  It was added that it was also an aim to provide increased value for money whilst reducing risk, as well as providing equality of opportunity for staff and ensuring professional standards were applied consistently.  Members noted the “E3” referred to Excellence, Effectiveness and Efficiency, and that in terms of excellence, evidence from international models, research, inspections and shared practice was utilised in order to achieve and maintain good quality work.  Members noted that the NPS inherited a positive legacy from the 35 Probation Trusts that preceded the NPS, however, this also meant there were issues in terms of bringing those individual ways of working together.

It was explained that in terms of effectiveness, good practice was identified and shared across the organisation, building on the high performance and excellent work as previously mentioned.  It was noted that there needed to be a consistency of practice, whilst retaining professional judgement.  In addition maintaining a degree of flexibility where standardised practices would be introduced was important, for example when engaging with local partners, in order to achieve better outcomes.  Members noted that the NPS needed to be “consistently innovative” in how they delivered their services.

The Head of the Durham NPS noted Members would be more than aware of the issues facing all public sectors services and the increasing pressure to be able to deliver more with fewer resources.  It was noted that in coming together as a National Service there were efficiencies, and also opportunities to be able to look at what practices have been delivering effectively and then to be able to bring these into effect nationally.  Councillors noted that elements that would not change included: the purpose of the NPS and the core work with offenders and victims in courts, prisons and the community; the commitment to multi-agency work; overall staff number, there would be no compulsory redundancies; the levels of professionalism and development of staff; and the element of local flexibility and partnership work.  The Head of the Durham NPS concluded by noted that the latest data in terms of performance, December 2015, had shown County Durham as being “green” across all metrics.

The Chairman thanked the Head of the Durham NPS and asked Members to welcome the Head of Offender Services for the Durham Tees Valley Community Rehabilitation Company (DTVCRC), Hazel Willoughby who would give an update on the work of the DTVCRC.

The Head of Offender Services noted that the DTVCRC worked together with the NPS, and that while there were now the two separate organisations of the NPS and CRCs, there was still a lot of contact and work ongoing.

Members noted several leaflets highlighting the background to the creation of the new CRC, what the new organisation was about, and the key drivers for the CRC, as well as a leaflet highlighting the “Through the Gate” project.  The Committee were reminded that the DTVCRC was a very local organisation, the ARCC bid being made by a consortium based across the old Trust areas, including County Durham, and that the bid had been successful based upon its delivery model.

Members noted that in the transition to the new model, there had been a need to make savings while retaining frontline staff so accordingly there was a process of reorganisation of estates, ICT and staff working practices.  It was noted that in the past there had been a presence in the main towns within the County, Consett, Durham, Peterlee and so on, however now the estate had been rationalised to a single location based at Wear House at Belmont Business Park.  It was explained that being based at a single location had meant that there needed to be a different way of dealing with offenders, with staff now going out to “practice hubs”, based within communities in locations such as church halls, community centres and Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) offices.  Members noted that three would also be support at these hub locations from relevant partners such as JobCentre Plus (JCP), CAB and from Housing Providers enabling clients to have a single appointment where a number of agencies can be engaged to look at issues to be addressed.

The Head of Offender Services noted that the flexible, agile working arrangements had necessitated an ICT system that had been developed over the last year in order to allow access to all the relevant documents and information in one place, on the go via laptop and tablet equipment. 

Members noted the model that underpinned all of the work being undertaken was that of the “desistance theory” which looked to build on individuals’ strengths in order to help them stay out of trouble themselves.  It was noted that there had been 3 projects undertaken so far, including a “lunch club” hosted by the County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service at their Community Fire Station in Darlington. It was explained that offenders would come together to cook meals, and that they had been supported by the local college in terms of health and safety and food hygiene courses.  Members learned that groups such as a Dementia Careers Group had benefited from attending the lunch club and also it was noted that a number of offenders had been able to secure entry level jobs as a result of their efforts.  It was explained that being able to move into sustainable employment key element of desistance theory, being able to make an offender feel they are contributing as a valuable member of the community.

The Head of Offender Services explained that other projects included that of offenders helping support the Peace Garden in Darlington, which would open in July 2016 and furniture up-cycling with a new roof having been provided to the workshop.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Offender Services and asked Members for their questions for the Head of the Durham NPS and Head of Offender Services and also asked whether there had been any elements of duplication since the move to separate organisations.

The Head of Offender Services noted that the types of offenders that each organisation dealt with were quite different, with the NPS dealing with the higher risk offenders, and that in the cases where some offenders may change in terms of the risk they presented to the public then the organisations worked together to make sure the offender was being dealt with in the most appropriate manner.  The Head of the Durham NPS added that there were the requisite tools in place when assessing risk and also procedures established in order to for the CRC to be able to escalate an individual to the NPS if required.

Councillor J Armstrong noted that there was a lot of positive work being done and that the organisations were engaging to ensure the best outcomes for our communities in County Durham.

The Head of Offender Services added there was work ongoing via the SDP as regards developing a project linked to a “sensory garden” and that it was hoped that there would be scope to link in with the Areas Action Partnerships (AAPs) in order to identify opportunities to work within our local communities.

Chief Superintendent G Hall noted the work of the two organisations, partnership working in the context of financial constraints and funding arrangements and asked whether there was any duplication in terms of ICT, with many linked agencies such as the Police having systems to share information.  The Head of the Durham NPS noted that the initial focus was to get the NPS “up and running” and now the organisation was entering a “stabilisation” stage where there would be moves to have consistency of engagement with partners and funding may change once national models became clearer.  It was noted that in the context of integrated ICT across all partners it was not envisaged this would be possible in the near future.  The Head of Offender Services agreed that ICT was an issue, however, organisations could work together in partnership and that information sharing would be important.  The Head of the Durham NPS added that two NPS staff were based within the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) with Police and there was a bid for funding for equipment to allow those staff to be alongside Officer from the Police and to be able to feed information effectively and efficiently between the organisations.

Councillor T Nearney asked for more information in terms of the ICT issues and also as regards Restorative Justice and how this linked in with the NPS and CRC in terms of any pilot schemes or trials being developed.  The Head of the Durham NPS noted that it was a challenge in coming together from separate organisations to form a single national service, and that in the past as local organisations the Probation Trust were able to make decisions quickly whereas the NPS is a much larger organisation and part of the bigger machine in terms of links to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), with decisions “coming from the centre”.  It was reiterated that if the North East could be seen as the “go to” division of the NPS then there would be scope to influence policy and practices.  The Head of Offender Services noted that as the CRC was a provider and that it was in the interest of the CRC to be “in the know” as regards any pilot schemes.  It was added that there were changes in terms of Prisons, moving towards Governors having more responsibility in terms of budgets and therefore this would be looked at in terms of what it could mean for the CRC.  It was added that in order for any bids to participate in pilot schemes and attract funding would need to be based upon good performance to be credible, and there had been a good past record within our area.

Councillor N Martin noted the difficulties often faced in terms of public sector ICT schemes and asked as regards the overall reduction in staff in moving to the NPS, though it had been noted there would be no redundancies.  The Head of the Durham NPS explained that there was tiered system, with a workload management tool that allocated cases accordingly, to the relevant Probation Support Officer or Probation Officer (qualified).  It was added that there were efficiencies in the move to a single organisation in terms of locations, however, it was emphasised that the NPS was not overstaffed.  Councillor N Martin noted that it had been stated that the NPS was “green across all metrics” and asked for further information to be able to put this into context.  The Head of the Durham NPS noted that the overall aim was to protect the public and that all the metrics feed into this, an example being a measure in terms of risk escalation from the CRCs to the NPS, in terms of how this is picked up and dealt with in a timely manner.  Councillor N Martin asked whether the measures were in terms of offender outcomes or in terms of NPS processes as cited in the example. 

The Head of the Durham NPS noted that it was hoped that NPS process outcomes would themselves have an effect upon offender outcomes in terms of reducing reoffending and public safety.  The Head of Offender Services noted that the MoJ were interested in terms of output measures and the impact of made by the work of partnerships. 

The Portfolio Holder for Safer Communities, Councillor J Allen noted that the point had been made in terms of efficiencies having been made while looking to maintain and improve effectiveness and that information coming as received via the Safe Durham Partnership in terms of the desistance model had proven useful and further information on this may be helpful for the Committee.  The Chairman agreed that further information on the desistance model would be useful for Members of the Committee.

Resolved:

(i)              That the reports and presentations be noted.

(ii)             That further information in respect of the Desistance Model be given to Members of

          the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.