Agenda item

(i)              Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships.

(ii)             Presentations from the Maureen Gavin, National Probation Service (Durham) and Bronwen Elphick, Durham Tees Valley Community Rehabilitation Company.  

The Chairman introduced the Head of the National Probation Service (NPS) – Durham, Maureen Gavin, who was in attendance to speak to Members in relation to Probation Services (for copy see file of minutes).  The Chairman noted that, unfortunately, the Chief Executive of the Durham, Tees Valley Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC), Bronwen Elphick could not be in attendance and would attend a future meeting of the Committee to speak to Members in relation to the CRC.

The Head of the NPS – Durham noted she would remind Members of the changes to Probation Services and explain the progress that had been made since the last time the Committee had been updated in February 2016.  The Committee noted the changes in 2014 where Probation Services had been split into 2 areas, the NPS with 7 regional divisions and 21 CRCs.  It was added that the NPS managed high risk offenders and also assessed risk and advised Courts to enable the effective sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders.  The Head of the NPS – Durham explained that the NPS also worked in partnership with the CRC and other service providers and worked to provide the best possible service to the public, enforcing the sentence of all Court and working together with partners, communities, and with those offenders under the supervision of the NPS to change their lives through reform, rehabilitation and reparation to help build safer communities.

Members noted the current structure in place at the NPS in the North East Division, the current Director, Lynda Morginson and the large area covered from Berwick down to Boston, Lincolnshire.  The NPS Strategic Priorities were explained, in terms of: engagement; service user involvement; quality; purpose; humanity; openness; and togetherness. 

The Head of the NPS – Durham referred to engagement and specifically “Project Beta”, a project that had looked at a gap which had been identified in terms of accommodation for offenders who were coming out of custody.  It was added that it was known that if offenders were settled once out of custody, they would have more of a stake in their community and be less likely to reoffend and that having a place to live was the first step in being able to progress to training or employment.  She noted that offenders were not being asked as regards what their needs upon release would be until 3 months beforehand, which was not providing sufficient lead-in time in terms of liaising with Local Authorities in terms of housing need.  The Head of the NPS – Durham explained that in County Durham, the NPS worked with Durham County Council (DCC), with the Strategic Manager for Housing, Lynn Hall and counterparts at Darlington Borough Council (DBC) and colleagues from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS).  It was noted that through Project Beta, NPS Staff and Housing Officers would work with offenders 6 months before release, liaising with other service providers, such as the Council’s Drug and Alcohol Service, to help make preparations for the offender leaving custody.  It was added the project had been very successful, mentioned within the Justice Select Committee at Parliament as an example of national best practice.

Councillors noted the areas relating to quality, with the Head of the NPS – Durham adding that performance was good, however, this was not the whole story in terms of the work being undertaken.  She explained as regards the ongoing training, both nationally and provide bespoke and of work with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) community, another area recognised as national best practice.  Members noted the use of audits in terms of looking to refining effectiveness and of the Joint Targeted Area Inspection (JTAI) and the good understating that NPS Staff had of this.  The Head of the NPS – Durham explained that an inspection from HMIP in 2016 had not raised any areas of concern and added that she had undertaken a number of “back to the floor” exercises in terms of Probation Officers and within Victim Units to gain a better understanding of the issues faced by staff and services.

The Committee noted service user involvement with surveys, focus groups, a Service User Council, and with a “you said, we did” style of feedback.  It was added that in terms of service user involvement, the North East Strategy had been used to inform the National Strategy.

The Head of the NPS – Durham noted Government consultation “Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence”, which looked at realigning NPS and CRCs once the current CRC contracts end in 2020.  It was noted that proposals were to align the NPS and CRC in 10 regions, with each region to have one senior HMPPS Manager responsible for joining up services and working with stakeholders.

The Chairman thanked the Head of the NPS – Durham and asked Members of the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor K Thompson noted with interest the work of Project Beta and asked if there had been any evidence of a positive impact.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that it was early in the process, as described work was with offenders 6 months prior to leaving custody and with the first cohort now moving back in communities it was looking positive.  She added that there would be a formal evaluation of the project, working with Durham University, so the longer term impact would be assessed.

Mr D Balls noted issues in relation to CRCs being unable to meet timescales across the county and asked if there were any such issues in Durham.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that this would be a question for the Chief Executive of the Durham, Tees Valley CRC who unfortunately had been unable to attend.

Councillor S Iveson noted numbers in terms of the management of low and medium risk offenders and asked if there were figures for those high risk offenders the NPS managed.  The Head of the NPS – Durham explained that it was complex, with the NPS managing some low and medium risk offenders, however, she would look to supply the information to the Overview and Scrutiny Officer to then provide to Members.

Councillor J Nicholson noted work within Food Banks, and noted her experience of 2 ex-offenders who struggled as they had a long period upon leaving custody where they were not able to receive any support.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that while this was not a NPS or CRC issue, it was noted that there had been problems in terms of those leaving custody not being able to access Universal Credit.  She added that within Project Beta it had been looked at to see if there was a way to access earlier, and there was not.  Members were reminded that the PCVC, Ron Hogg and raised this particular issue with Ministers, having been identified as impacting upon the work of the Police and Probation Services.

Councillor J Charlton asked if there was an average probation time and whether offenders were provided consistency with a single Probation Officer during their time under licence, helping to understand an individual’s issues, such as mental health or problems with drugs and alcohol.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that there was no average, it was dependent upon the type of crime and sentence, with some offenders given a “life licence”.  She added that she agreed in terms of retaining the same Probation Officer, with relationships being key to reducing reoffending, and this was the case wherever possible.  Councillor R Crute noted the previous comments relating to Universal Credit and asked that if this, and other issues linked to “austerity” and Government policy had been felt and impacted upon the work of the NPS.  He asked also in terms of lines of accountability, noting that ultimately the NPS was responsible to Ministers, however the CRCs were responsible to shareholders.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that the NPS was not aligned area-wise with Prisons, however, the issues affecting society more generally were mirrored within the cohort dealt with by the NPS.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted the differences between the NPS and CRCs, with the NPS looking to mitigate the issues related with the split between 2 organisations, and also with the NPS being a commissioner, being able to purchase services from CRCs, and the CRCs being providers.  She added that NPS staff were civil servants, reporting to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and that the CRC providers had bid for contracts in 2013 and Members recall the successful allocations in our regions with providers working on a “payment by results” model.

The Chairman noted there were areas of low housing demand within the County and asked how the process of managing where offenders would be housed would ensure there was not high densities of ex-offenders from any particular type of crime, for example sex offenders.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that all sex offenders were managed by the NPS and that the NPS had oversight in terms of those under licence, with systems being in place.  She added that the NPS worked with Risk Management Officers from the Police in terms of the transition once their licence term had been completed. 

The Chairman noted that Co-opted Member, Chief Superintendent A Green, Durham Constabulary had been unable to attend, however, had asked in terms of the Active Risk Management System (ARMS) assessments and performance.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted that all new assessments had been completed within timescales, and while she did not have figures to hand, a small backlog that had existed previously had now been caught up.

Councillor E Mavin asked if any housing had been allocated specifically for offenders leaving custody.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted there was no specific allocation, with NPS working with Housing colleagues within DCC and DBC. 

Mr AJ Cooke asked as regards policies in place relating to the handover of offenders from the NPS to the Police, for example sex offenders, when their licence period had been completed.  The Head of the NPS – Durham noted she did not know specifics relating to Police policy, however, the NPS did work jointly with Police Risk Management Officers in advance of licence periods ending and therefore there was some consistency.  The Chairman noted that it may be possible to ask Chief Superintendent A Green to supply information in this regard.

Councillor J Turnbull asked as regards if the NPS managed tenants of particular housing groups.  The Head of the NPS – Durham reiterated that the NPS only managed those under licence, regardless of housing association or private landlord.

Resolved:   

That the report and presentation relating to the National Probation Service - North East be noted.