Agenda item

A representative of the Probation Service will be attending the meeting to give an overview of their work.

The Chair welcomed Mr Tom Moreton, a manager for the Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Community Rehabilitation Company (BeNCH CRC).  Mr Moreton made a presentation to the Task Group.

During the presentation he covered the following areas:

• The changes which had taken place in the structure of the probation service, which had been split into the National Probation Service (NPS) and a number of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).
• The roles of the different organisations in managing high-risk offenders (who were the responsibility of the NPS, and low to medium risk offenders, who were the responsibility of the CRCs.
• Details of the programmes run by the BeNCH CRC.
• The timeline of the changes to the service.
• How the risk levels for different offenders were determined.  The risk factors taken into account included age, substance misuse and offending history.
• The changes brought in by the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 which included the extension of rehabilitation provision to offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months.

Councillor Mills asked about the youth offending team.  Mr Moreton explained that this was still in existence but was a separate entity.

Mr Moreton explained that BeNCH CRC was now owned by Sodexo who would be running the service.  However this was a very recent development.  In the long-term, there would be an element of performance related payment. Councillor Bolton asked about Sodexo’s background.  Mr Moreton explained that they were a French outsourcing company and they ran Peterborough prison.

The Chair asked how the terms of reference were different for the NPS and the CRCs.  Mr Moreton advised that the scope for each organisation was different as they worked with different types of offenders.  He explained that the tendering process had been considered by the National Offender Management Service and the contract had been won by Sodexo.

The Chair and asked for more details about the supervision of offenders by the service.  Mr Moreton explained that conditions were set for the offender, such as not being permitted to leave the country. Failure to comply with these conditions during the licence period, were more strict than during the period of post-sentence supervision.

The Chair noted that the increased supervision of offenders who had served short sentences would place heavy demands on the service.  She asked about the impact on staffing.  Mr Moreton responded that that there had not be an increase in resources but the changes were just coming in.  It was anticipated that there could be approximately 600 additional cases to manage in the County each year as a result of the changes.  He noted that there was scope for the more parties to be involved in rehabilitation programmes.

In response to a question from the Chair about training, Mr Moreton explained that qualifying as a Probation Officer took some time.  The training function lay with the NPS.  He highlighted the different skills involved with the rehabilitation work and the risk management work undertaken by the NPS to supervise high-risk cases.

Following a question from Councillor Mills about mental health, Mr Moreton outlined the mental-health pathways in probation.

The Chair asked about the relationship with the Housing service, Mr Moreton explained that the CRC had a contract with St Mungo’s and housing advisers were based in their offices.  Although there were some offenders who came from London to Watford, he was not aware that this was due to housing issues

Councillor Bolton asked how antisocial behaviour by offenders was managed.  Mr Moreton replied that the Police responded in the first instance and reported to Probation.  Probation would take a view about whether any breach of the licence had occurred.  Probation had a duty to ensure public safety.

Mr Moreton explained what kinds of programmes were typically included in rehabilitation activity requirements.  He confirmed that if an offender was in employment this would be taken into consideration at sentencing.

The Chair asked how councillors could support the probation service.  Mr Moreton suggested that he could circulate the Interventions newsletter to councillors.  The service was always looking for new projects which offenders could be involved in.  He suggested that it was also important to show an interest in people as many offenders suffered from low self-esteem.

Following a question from Councillor Mehta, he outlined a project at the Hare Krishna temple where vegetables were grown and food prepared for the homeless. Other projects were less development-based but it was difficult to find good opportunities. The service tried to give offenders a mix of projects.

ACTION – Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer to circulate the newsletter

The Task group discussed the roles of punishment and development in probation work.

Councillor Martins asked how offenders’ needs were assessed.  Mr Moreton responded that offender managers were skilled in talking to offenders, discussing their background and offending history and identifying their needs.  They asked the offenders what their areas of risk were.

Councillor Williams asked for more details about the basic skills training.  Mr Moreton explained that many offenders had literacy and numeracy needs.  Training had been provided in-house in the past, however this was no longer available and offenders were signposted to other organisations.

The Task Group thanked Mr Moreton for his time and input.

RESOLVED –

that the update and actions be noted.