Minutes:
The presentation was done jointly by Louise Hubbard and Lissa Moore.
Louise Hubbard (NPS London- Head of Bexley, Bromley &Greenwich and Extremism & Hate Crime) commenced the presentation with a focus on the National Probation Service.
The Board heard that the new Probation Delivery Model was introduced on the 1st June 2014. The Transformation Programme was aimed to continue protection against serious offenders, whilst at the same time, aiming to reduce the rate of serial reoffending by low and medium risk offenders, and look at mentoring and rehabilitation. It also opened up the Probation Service to competition. Under the new guidelines, high risk and MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) offenders would still be dealt with the National Probation Service (NPS), whilst medium and low risk offenders would be dealt with by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s). As the name suggests, a primary function of the CRC’s would be looking at offender integration and rehabilitation, whilst the NPS would have more of an advisory and protective function.
The Group were informed that it was the NPS who would identify which offenders were suitable to be dealt with by the CRC’s. This would usually take place at the court or at the point of transition from youth to adult services. It was explained to the Group that the NPS remained in the Public Sector under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice, whilst the CRC’s were private companies.
Louise Hubbard explained to the Group that it was the function of the NPS to advise courts concerning sentencing, and that any advice from the NPS would be free of any commercial bias. The NPS would also provide advice to the Parole Board.
Ms Hubbard provided a concise overview of the NPS as follows:
· Providing reports and advice to Courts and Parole Boards
· The management of high risk offenders and MAPPA clients
· Dealing with breaches of orders beyond the first warning
· Managing changes in the risk of harm
· Managing Approved Premises
· Liaison with victims and keeping them informed in accordance with statutory guidelines
· Managing sex offender programmes
Ms Hubbard outlined the main aim of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (ORA). The Act stipulates that anyone who has been sentenced to a custodial term of more than one day would receive at least 12 months of supervision after release, again the emphasis was on rehabilitation. Many of these individuals were being dealt with by the CRC’s.
Ms Hubbard informed the Group that:
· The NPS worked in partnership with CRC’s, the MPS, and Community Safeguarding Boards.
· The NPS was likely to provide officer support to Youth Offending Teams
· The NPS would advise the Youth Management Board
· The NPS would aid in the transition process from CRC to NPS
· Both NPS and CRC’s sit on Safeguarding Boards
· The NPS sit in on DHR (Domestic Homicide Review) cases.
The CRC update was provided by Lissa Moore--Assistant Chief Officer - Croydon and Bromley CRC.
Ms Moore explained that on February 1st 2015, the transfer of ownership of the London Community Rehabilitation Company, to MTCnovo was completed.
MTCnovo was a new venture between the third, public and private sector, established to provide rehabilitation services across London and the Thames Valley from February 2015.
It was further explained that MTCnovo was a joint venture involving:
MTC (Management Training Corporation) – a private company
Novo – a consortium with public, private and third sector shareholders including:
RISE – a probation staff community interest company
A Band of Brothers – a charity
The Manchester College – a public sector education provider
Thames Valley Partnership – a charity
Amey – a private company.
Ms Moore informed the Group that the London CRC was the largest, with 25,000 cases—500 of these in Bromley. She explained that CRC’s had been set up to deal with the reoffending rates of medium and low risk offenders who had been sentenced to under 12 months in custody. They did not manage serious offenders or MAPPA clients.
The emphasis was on integration of offenders and reducing re-offending rates by various means:
· Facilitating Resettlement
· Mentoring
· Integrated Offender Management
· Restorative Justice
· Offender Programmes
Ms Moore informed the Group that the CRC structure was changing in the near future. Instead of dealing with boroughs, the CRC would instead be dealing with demographic cohorts. To facilitate this, a new Operations Centre in Newcastle had been set up, and new IT systems were being introduced that would provide greater efficiencies. Community Payback would feed into all the cohorts. There was an October deadline for moving into the new cohort structure.
Superintendent David Tait asked Ms Moore who the police would talk to under the new CRC structure, and if managers were being dispensed with to save money. Ms Moore responded that managers were still required, and were not being dispensed with to save money; money would be saved through the sale of Estates. There would be a dedicated IOM officer allocated to each borough for the police to speak to.
The Executive Director of Environmental and Community Services asked how LBB could tap in to Community Payback under the current arrangements and Lissa Moore promised to provide the relevant information to the Director. The LBB Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety stated that it was important for the Group to engage with Community Payback.
The LBB Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety enquired what the CRC performance drivers were, and how both services were performing. Lissa Moore answered that the main driver was to reduce reoffending and that local and national data would be available. Ms Hubbard added that the problem was that re-offending data was often not up to date, and that it would be better if real time data was available. Mr Vale felt that it would be good to see data on how individual investment in a person’s rehabilitation benefited the individual, and the resultant social and economic benefits.
It was AGREED that:
(1) Lissa Moore would provide the contact details that LBB required to engage with Community Payback
(2) Following from (1) above, LBB would engage with Community Payback