Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Resources that provided a background to the probation services in County Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington gave a presentation that outlined the plan and key priorities for the probation service for the year and provided an update on performance.  She noted there was an issue with homelessness where there was a challenge to house offenders when they left custody or for those already supervised in the community on a community-based sentence.   The objectives for the Probation Service was to protect the public and reduce reoffending.  This was difficult to manage if offenders were not housed as officers did not know where they resided.  Assessments were carried out on offenders before being released to manage the risks.  Recruitment and retention of staff was also an issue as there was a real need to improve staffing within the service as there had been a lot of experience lost over the years when more experienced staff had moved on. 

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington advised that there were 21 beds in the probation funded Community Accommodation Scheme 3 for housing provision with 17 of these being live.   The housing issue was not just a challenge in Durham but was a national issue. Within the service there was a need to ensure that sentences were delivered effectively.    

Inspector Norris from Durham Constabulary addressed the committee to inform them that there was a co-lead Integrated Offender Management Scheme with the police and probation service to deliver integrated priorities of the criminal justice board to deal with people as there was a high volume of offenders committing neighbourhood crime that included robbery, theft of a person or vehicle and burglary.  The main drivers for offending were mental health issues and issues with alcohol.  The probation service ran a bespoke service to encourage desistance from crime.  A framework was in place to manage offenders with a spreadsheet that showed information to help apprehend offenders to prevent future offenses and future victims.  Offenders were tracked as to who wanted them and establish the average time an offender was wanted to try to get them in custody as soon as possible.  A tactical tool kit was used along with phone calls and door knocking going back to basics to arrest people. It was found that sport, football or gym activities diverted people away from re-offending.  Evidence showed that people committed offenses as they potentially had undiagnosed ADHD.  A screening tool was used that showed if they potentially had ADHD that produced a letter that offenders could then give to their doctor to carry out further testing.  This was not a diagnosis for ADHD.  Through partnership working this could get people on to the right pathway for a service that could help with their needs.  He gave examples of case studies that showed the positive work of the probation service.

Councillor P Atkinson thanked officers for the report. He referred to the report that the service made housing provision for young offenders and asked if there was a list of where accommodation was provided that was available to local councillors for their ward.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington advised that the local authority had contributed to assessment on where CAS3 properties should avoid being located and that Mears held the contract for the northeast to source appropriate accommodation. There were sensitivities on where potential accommodation for offenders were located therefore the information was not available to local councillors for their wards. 

Councillor P Atkinson asked if information about offenders was stored with the local police.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington advised that there was good joint working with the police to manage people under supervision.

Councillor D Sutton Lloyd questioned how offenders were allocated housing when they came out of custody if there were only 21 beds and what was the rational between supply and demand for housing.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington advised that the CAS 3 probation-funded provision was additional to what was offered by the Local Authority or other housing providers which would be expected to provide housing support to those in need.   There was a huge demand for housing compared to supply and acknowledged this was a challenge for all concerned.  She added that the 21 beds were reserved for the most needy so that risk could be managed effectively. She said many years ago, community service projects involved offenders working to make difficult to let properties habitable, and part of the arrangement, in another local authority area, saw those offenders who had worked on the properties given a tenancy; however this had discontinued some time ago as local authorities no longer had the housing stock as before.  She confirmed that she was due to meet with police and the new housing strategic lead for Durham to refresh the Housing Offenders Group.

Councillor L Hovvels thanked officers for the information.  She thought that it was not good practice to rehouse offenders in hotspot areas. The locations should be managed and queried how much work was implemented to scan the area for criminal activity before housing someone in a certain location.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington responded that whilst there was ongoing work with the police to provide environmental scans, it was sometimes Hobson’s choice.  There may be a need to place offenders where properties were available, efforts were made by police and probation and others as appropriate to manage the risk and that location might not be ideal but the alternative may be that an offender was homeless and it was better to know where people were living to manage the risk. Also if a person was housed it was easier for them to engage with the probation service and other services to help reduce their risk of reoffending.

Councillor L Hovvels realised that this was not the answer but the service had to help the individual.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington agreed having offenders living in hot spots was not ideal and was open to any ideas that members had to try to tackle the issue.

Councillor L Hovvels suggested using local intelligence and using the police to identify problem areas.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington replied that probation worked hand in glove with the police especially the neighbourhood policing teams and that we have worked well to establish good police probation management links at a local level  Upon listening to Members at the meeting she envisioned the offenders could help within the Clean and Green teams to help keep areas nice and repair football fields that would benefit the local community.

Councillor L Hovvels stated that work to repair football fields would be at a Director’s level to arrange within the Council.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington mentioned that there was an excellent unpaid work site in Durham, with polytunnels with the produce grown taken to local food banks as part of the unpaid work scheme.

Councillor L Hovvels was aware of some of the schemes as she used to buy the wreaths at Christmas time from the probation service.

Councillor D Nicholls stated that neurodivergence was important.  He was concerned with the screening process as generally there was a four-year waiting list and young people missed out on their entire education as often they were not on the right medication.  Anything to improve the service may not be in this committee’s remit to show an impact on the probation service.

The Head of Probation Services for County Durham and Darlington stated that the service recognised as part of its ongoing commitment to delivering equality of practice and that there were potentially more undiagnosed people within offender cohorts with neurodivergence efforts were being taken to look at the best way to work with people with neurodiversity considerations.

Inspector Norris from Durham Constabulary stressed that the assessment was not a diagnosis merely a suggestion that offenders required additional support.

Councillor C Lines suggested that officers should be careful with the words they used regarding the letter forming a diagnosis for ADHD and how it could set people on the path for further help through their GP as that was not how the system worked.  He mentioned that his wife had been diagnosed with ADHD through the charity ADHD Foundation and their GP would not accept the letter as evidence of her diagnosis. GP’s tended to dismiss charities and the work that they did. 

Inspector Norris from Durham Constabulary reiterated that the letter was not a diagnosis but a forward to help offenders to have a conversation with health professionals and show that offenders may benefit from further assessment.  It was a starting point to offer pathway into the system as four years was too long to wait.  It was early days and needed time to develop.

Resolved:

That the report and presentation be noted.