Abstract
This thematic inspection aimed to consider how well probation hostels’ contribute to their aims of managing risk of harm, rehabilitation and resettlement since Transforming Rehabilitation. Inspections were completed within 10 hostels across all National Probation Service (NPS) divisions in England between January and March 2017; these included PIPEs (Psychologically Informed and Planned Environments), independent and female hostels. Interviews were completed with a number of staff, alongside observations and case reviews.
The report concludes that, overall, probation hostels are performing well, particularly in protecting the public and managing risk. There was room for improvement with regards to resettlement and rehabilitation; female hostels, independently managed hostels and PIPEs were consistently rated higher than NPS hostels in their rehabilitative efforts and work towards independent living. Identified good practice should inform the whole estate to improve the effectiveness of placements at all approved premises. The recommendations are summarized below:
Recommendations for the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) include: A probation hostel policy statement should be developed.
It was noted that no current hostel policy existed, and the most recent guidance was included in probation instruction 32/2014, issued in June 2014. A revised policy should focus on high risk of serious harm offenders (including medium risk females), who have complex needs and are in the process of transition from custody to the community; capacity issues, type and distribution should also be included.
Recommendations for the MoJ and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) include: Reduce the number of out of area hostel placements, where appropriate. Collect data regarding the use of hostel places, service quality and outcomes to help improve effectiveness. Help support effective working with residents using video-conferencing, personality disorder pathway programmes and facilities contracts that encourage and promote independent living.
The inspection found a shortfall in capacity of around 25 per cent; innovative suggestions to expand capacity were made. Limited capacity and too much focus on occupancy rather than effectiveness of placements also led to many out of area placements; this could be detrimental to rehabilitation as offenders did not have access to local links and may not invest in services where they will not resettle. This was also resource intensive for risk management; offenders managed under MAPPA frameworks and placed out of area resulted in cross-service police liaison. Difficulties of ‘caretaking’ cases were also highlighted. Due to the small number of female hostels, many women were also placed out of area. It was recommended that data should be collected to help track the extent that offenders are placed in appropriate hostels and of the effectiveness of placements to improve future provision.
There was too much rigidity in some areas over the 12 week guideline for periods of residence, whilst others took a more flexible approach; it was recognized that for some offenders who had spent many years in custody, 12 weeks was not sufficient to adjust to living in the community. Although there were a number of positive findings from PIPE hostels, it was felt that there was a lack of suitable interventions to address personality disorder issues. Staff also believed that the timeframe for hostel residence was not long enough to effectively support this client group.
Many NPS contracts for catering, maintenance and cleaning did not allow offenders the opportunity to develop practical and life skills, whereas independently ran hostels had more freedom, meaning that residents had more opportunities to develop independent living skills to prepare them for moving into the community. Differences also existed between hostels in the extent that they encouraged residents to engage in purposeful activities; women’s hostels, PIPEs and independent hostels were found to offer better activities and services than elsewhere.
Recommendations for NPS include: Ensure that all hostels offer purposeful activities to meet offender needs and help secure engagement Further guidance should be issued to HMPPS staff to help prepare prisoners for their release from custody and manage their transition into the AP. Strengthening relationships and liaison between hostels and local strategic partners. To review out of hours cover arrangements. To review recording practices within hostels and ensure these are more consistent across areas. The use of specialist responsible officers to support hostel work.
The report highlighted that further work was needed to help prepare offenders for their release to hostels and the use of video link was encouraged, although it was recognized that there was limited access to such facilities. The use of ROTL to hostels was suggested to help prepare offenders for their future placement, yet this was felt to be underused. Personality disorder work completed in custody should better inform pre-release work and be incorporated into supervision plans and MAPPA actions. Joint working with other professionals prior to the hostel placement was also shown to promote successful hostel placements, as were induction procedures. Whilst it was recommended that further guidance should be issued to assist staff in preparing prisoners for hostel placements, it was acknowledged that high workloads often prevented staff from completing preparatory work effectively.
Thematic Inspection of Probation Hostels’ (Approved Premises) Contribution to Public Protection, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, by HMI Probation (July 2017) is available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspections/ap/