Policy reference Policy product type LGiU/Steer essential policy briefing Published date 13/11/2009. Overview

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 6 Offenders on Probation: issues of employment, housing and alcohol misuse Policy reference Policy product type LGiU/Steer essential policy briefing Published date 13/11/2009 Author Glyn Gaskarth This covers England and Wales Overview The Department for Work and Pensions Report commissioned the Centre for Housing Policy, York University to write Delivering better housing and employment outcomes for offenders on probation. This explores how data sharing and data protection influence the achievement of the desired policy outcomes expressed in National Indicators 143 and 144; that offenders should be in settled housing and suitable employment at the end of their probation The report recommends that agencies charged with finding offenders employment or housing develop a working relationship with employers and housing providers based on the selective release of data regarding the offenders criminal record and progress in prison. The different means of information sharing are explored in detail as is the need to share them in a manner compatible with data protection legislation. National Guidance is called for to provide clarity in this area. The Ministry of Justice commissioned the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Kings College to write Evidence-based practice? The National Probation Services work with alcohol misusing offenders. It analyses the probation service's approach to identifying and intervening with alcoholic offenders. The report calls for national guidance to clarify the types of treatment to be provided. Briefing in full Report One: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) The DWP Report Delivering Better Housing and Employment Outcomes for Offenders on Probation advocates improvements to the way information about offenders is shared between agencies. It is based on the results of interviews and focus groups conducted by the research team. Ninety five service providers in six probation areas were interviewed. The six areas were London, Birmingham, Warwickshire, Leeds, Manchester and Bristol. In addition, a National Conference was held at York University in May 2009 and thirty seven offenders were also interviewed. Areas not covered by the report The report does not cover the strategic sharing of information across central government departments or the whole criminal justice system. It also does not provide sufficient data on information sharing protocols, for this readers should consult the Information Commissioners Office. It sought to assess the information sharing among Government agencies at a local level against four aims. These were: the delivery of an appropriate service mix to each offender adequate risk management of offenders

2 Page 2 of 6 avoidance of duplication and/or poor coordination of services the recording and assessment of outcomes for each offender and collectively. Issues to consider when sharing information The report advises that when sharing information professionals should consider the following factors: proportionality (benefits of sharing clear and the risks are minimised) that there is the free and informed consent of the offender being dealt with, transparency (the subject is informed what information is being shared and the possible effects) vital interest (an ambiguous term as yet undefined). These protocols apply where there is no statutory duty to share information as in such cases information disclosure, to the appropriate people, in the specified way, is clearly legal and correct and not in need of further guidance. The release of all information should be consistent with the data protection act if it applies to a specific identifiable person. Types of information sharing The report found there was a fundamental difference between information sharing between professionals on a case by case basis which was often held in their heads, which was termed 'working knowledge' and that recorded in agreed data sets. The former was more effective and valued by professionals. It allows them to interpret the information contained in forms relating to offenders. It also enables the development of effective disclosure management processes to build working relationships with employers and housing providers. Why information sharing is important Effective sharing of working knowledge is important because agencies dealing with offenders need to know "the risk an offender might represent and whether an offender has any needs which affect service delivery." Furthermore, employers/educators and housing providers are naturally nervous about dealing with offenders. Offender managers therefore often need to release "carefully controlled minimal summary information on an offender's criminal record and the risk they represented within a trusted working relationship." Without this three problems develop; offender applications for employment can be binned by employers immediately, the risk of the offender can be exagerated (because employers are not skilled in reading the criminal record) and there is no account made of the assessing of offenders progress in prison. The absence of appropriate guidelines to facilitate this sharing of working knowledge is the report believes detrimental. It currently leads to poor outcomes, unacceptable risks, replication of effort or professionals with insufficient information to do their role effectively. However, the report did not believe that if new guidance were produced that it should be too rigid because "asking these agencies to provide feedback and outcome data was seen as undermining the business case for them engaging with offenders." The current situation The researchers found that information sharing between agencies was underdeveloped in many areas. In rural areas this was because there were lower concentrations of offenders and fewer specialist services. However, relations with Job Centre Plus and prisons varied tremendously across all areas. Job Centre Plus worked best with other teams when they had set up a specialist unit dedicated to working with offenders. This is because the recording systems for offending are voluntary and therefore unless an offender alerts the Job Centre to the fact they are an offender the centre will not know. Prisons often interacted

3 Page 3 of 6 poorly with other agencies because information protocols were agreed locally and prisons are often located outside the vicinity which other agencies work in. Offender managers reported that up to twenty seven different information sharing protocols existed between different agencies in one area. It could take up to three years to agree an information sharing protocol. The development of these protocols was often funded by top slicing other budgets and time limited funding sources such as European Social Funding. This makes them vulnerable to cuts and difficult to form, monitor and update. The lack of effective information systems undermined agencies ability to deal with the following three problems: Measuring success and the offenders need to 'learn how to learn' Professionals believe offenders need to develop low level 'soft skills' such as 'learning how to learn' and the develop sufficient emotional literacy to allow an individual to better manage classroom environments. However, this was problematic because the "statistical measurement of outcomes in areas such as acquisition of soft skills is problematic."the difficulty of developing an effective metric to judge the success of information sharing was recognised. Currently the sharing that occurs does not always produce "detailed and consistent data that would enable more detailed outcome monitoring." Housing for offenders While most offenders were not homeless there was a heavy need for the private rented sector to fulfil their housing need. There were clear difficulties in recruiting private landlords because there was a competing demand for private rented housing by groups that landlords viewed as less problematic auch as working professionals. Changes to the payment of the Local Housing Allowance meant that offenders rather than their landlords would be paid the allowance. This made landlords less likely to house offenders because there now was the possibility offenders would not pay or pay late. Landlords also feared adverse publicity and increased risk to other tenants if they accepted offenders. Two models of support were provided based on housing arrangement: An accomodation based support model: an example would be the provision of a hostel place A floating model: which would operate wherever the offender resided. Employment and education for offenders Currently thirty five per cent of offenders are employed at the end of their probation period. The Government wants to increase this. Offenders involvement in education and/or employment allows them to; ensure any skills deficit is dealt with, provide a structured environment to socialise them to work and give the offender greater self confidence. To ensure offenders engaged with the training, the report revealed that some probation services offered inducements including "probation sentence being cut in return for attendance, or in a small number of cases small payments, or free food, being provided to employers in some cases for a trial period to encourage them to employ offenders." This could overcome the currently high rate of trunacy and non completion among offenders engaging in training or education. Recommendations Guidance to decide how to share information between offenders, which would be "formal" and "accessible." Gudiance to set a standard outcome reporting requirement to judge the effectiveness of information sharing. Guidance on how to recruit mainstream landlords, employers and educational institutions

4 Page 4 of 6 to engage with offenders based on best practice. A Review of the existing National Indicators 143 and 144 to include a longitudinal element in outcome monitoring. Report Two: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) The MOJ report Evidence-based practice? The National Probation Service's work with alcohol misusing offenders is based on research undertaken by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, King's College London. This research involved telephone interviews of forty one of the forty two probation areas in England and Wales and analysis of offender assessment system data etc. The research revealed that national work to target alcohol misusing offenders was hampered by inadequate: funding arrangements for the provision of alcohol treatment guidance and protocols to inform the targetting of available interventions appropriate and accessible alcohol treatment provision skills and knowledge around alcohol related issues After surveying six case study areas they found that over forty per cent of alcohol related interventions had not begun four to six months after a period of supervision had commenced. There was a lack of "empirical research available to inform work with alcohol-misusing offenders." Currently only one in four of respondents (to the Kings College research) indicated they were following existing national guidance in providing treatment. Existing provision of treatment was limited as evidenced by the aim of Alcohol concern, which is to ensure treatment for one in seven dependent drinkers i.e. six out of seven would still not be receiving treatment if this aim were reached. This is important because almost twice as many of the offender assessments that Kings College surveyed said alcohol was a factor in reoffending as said drugs were (49 per cent and 25 per cent respectively). The lack of information on alcohol treatment and the scale of the alcohol problem The gap in sufficient information about what works and what constitutes best practice is being partially filled by the National Offender Management Systems (NOMS) provision of 250,000 to provide targetted support in fifteen areas. However, the fact that the majority of English Primary Care Trusts are in deficit and that the probation service is expected to face severe cuts means funding for alcohol interventions is necessarily threatened. Therefore this report aimed to achieve three things: assessment of the existing Probation Service's approach to identifying alcohol misusers compliance with the MoCAM and the arrangements for the commissioning delivery of Alcohol Treatment Requirements. The scale of the problem of alchol misuse is known. In 2004 four per cent of the adult population, 1.1 million people were alcohol dependent. One in eighteen of them on average received treatment but there were wide variations. In north east only one in hundred two of the alcohol dependent received treatment. Models of Care for Alcohol Misusers (MoCAM) was introduced in 2004 to specify the means of support needed. It accompanies the National Audit Offices Safe Sensible Social programme of NOMs has also developed some basic guidance including an Alcohol Information Pack and results from assorted best practice initiatives. The current level of support provided On average the probation areas surveyed provided six of a possible eleven alcohol based

5 Page 5 of 6 interventions. There was limited volatility in the number of programmes provided by each area compared with the national average. The most common programmes provided included: drink impaired drivers schemes integrated domestic abuse programmes brief interventions alcohol treatment requirements offender substance abuse programmes. The least common programmes were: aggression replacement training controlling anger and learning to manage it addressing substance related offending lower intensity alcohol programme community domestic violence programmes programmes for reducing individual substance misuse. While probation areas declared they had provided sufficient training to their staff on alcohol related problems, the probation staff surveyed said they had not received adequate training. Limited resources and capacity meant that access to tier two and three services (the advanced levels of care) were restricted for the majority of offenders. Alcohol Treatment Requirements explained A useful tool to deal with these problems is the Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR). This was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and is available to the courts for offences committed after 4 April The report provides data on the requirements an authority needs to fulfil to seek an ATR, provide the four tiered level of alcohol treatment facilities (to comply with MoCAM) and assess their compliance with MoCAM. Authorities should also be aware that of the twelve indicators the Offender Assessment Systems (OAS) involve, one of which is alcohol based. This was found to be the main way of identifying that an offenders offending was linked with their alcohol problems. While the number of ATRs granted increased by fifty per cent between 2007 and 2008 demand still exceeds supply and supply did not correspond to levels of need. Respondents linked this lack of focus on alcohol related problems with the greater focus given to drugs and the lack of 'ownership' of alcohol related crime at a strategic level. Areas that did not provide ATR's specified a lack of designated funding and an uncertainty over responsibility for applying the ATR. The latter was due to the lack of peer reviewed UK wide research to guide practitioners and record best practice. Recommendations: for central government Improve probation staff training to ensure staff are adequately trained to identify alcohol problems and intervene. Document the existing best practice to improve the evidence base and provide new national guidance on the treatment needed. Expand the remit of local Pooled Treatment Budgets to include alcohol treatment. Comment The Department for Work and Pensions Report on information sharing offers little new

6 Page 6 of 6 information about how to embed best practice or how to comply with existing legislation. Therefore its value is questionable. Data management is essential to maintaining effective oversight and delivering for service users. However, this report provides a summary of the problems more than outlining solutions. What should be of interest to local authorities is the importance of tackling entrenched and deeply problematic issues around housing and employment. As Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships take on statutory responsibility for re-offending, understanding the nature of obstacles will rise up the agenda. The Ministry of Justice Report provides extensive analysis of the situation regarding alcohol treatment in England and Wales. It too offers few solutions to local authorities. However, it provides a good grounding in the types of treatment available and the problems which exist. The information is delivered in a more methodical and engaging manner. Given the tight fiscal environment it does not seek to advocate expensive solutions but instead urges that additional study is conducted to provide an evidence base upon which informed decisions can be made. While this document is entirely focused on probation, the conclusions should be of interest to local authorities and their partners. Given the pressure on resources, it seems inconceivable not to have a joined up approach to the harm caused by alcohol misuse, particilarly where the consequences for local crime and disorder are so evident. Readers looking for an insight to the local authority's role in reducing re-offending would do well to read the recent LGiU report Primary Justice which explores the different types of intervention currently being used and makes the case for greater local authority powers in this area. In addition our recent intelligence briefing on prisoners and employment is also available (links provided). External links Delivering Better Housing and Employment Outcomes for Offenders on Probation DWP Report on information sharing Evidence-based practice? The National Probation Service s work with alcohol-misusing offenders Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Kings College, Report on Offender Alcohol Misuse treatment services Downloads Related briefings Alcohol Related Disorder Policing and Crime Bil Local authorities and employment for prisoners and ex-offenders Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice Related events