Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved: to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April as an accurate record.

Resolved: to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April as an accurate record.

There were none

Resolved: to note the update from the officers and to give further consideration to any future proposals for the use of community payback.

3.1      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced Becky Canning (Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Lewisham and Southwark Cluster) and Robert Clarke (Chief Officer, Community Rehabilitation Company, Lewisham and Southwark Cluster).

3.2      Becky Canning (Chief Officer, National Probation Service, Lewisham and Southwark Cluster) addressed the Committee. The following key points were noted:

• It had been about two years since the last update about the probation service to the Committee.
• At the time of the last update, the probation service was in the process of implementing the government’s ‘transforming rehabilitation’ programme.
• The programme replaced the Probation Trust with two new organisations; the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). All of the programme’s milestones for delivery had been reached.
• Staff from the previous probation trust had been allocated between two new services.
• Under the new arrangements, the country was divided into areas of operation. London formed one area.
• The NPS’s main functions were to provide advice to the courts and supervise high risk offenders.
• The NPS also decided whether it should manage cases or whether they should be managed by the CRC.
• A range of tools and diagnostic criteria were used to make decisions about which organisation would manage each offender.
• The NPS managed all offenders subject to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). The arrangements were in place to oversee high risk offenders, including those responsible for sexual offences and violent crimes.
• The NPS was also responsible for parole reports and arrangements for the release of prisoners. As well as victim liaison when offenders were due for release.
• The NPS set license conditions (the rules by which a person on probation was required to abide)
• The transforming rehabilitation programme had also introduced offender rehabilitation for all offenders who served a custodial sentence of more than two days. This provision came into force on 1 February 2015.

3.3.     Robert Clarke (Chief Officer) (Lewisham and Southwark Community Rehabilitation Cluster) addressed the Committee. The following key points were noted:

• Staff from the NPS and the CRC had worked closely together for a number of years before the reorganisation.
• He himself had a long history of working in probation. Including, most recently as Assistant Chief Officer in Bromley.
• Public safety was at the heart of the new arrangements.
• As part of the reforms, the Government had created packages of service delivery, which were tendered to community rehabilitation companies.
• CRC’s were partnerships of private, public and third sector organisations.
• In London and the Thames Valley, MTC Novo had been awarded the contract for community rehabilitation.
• MTC was an organisation based in the United States, which ran a number of private prisons and delivered offender management services.
• Novo was collaboration between a number of third sector organisations, including: Rise, A Band of Brothers, The Manchester College, Thames Valley Partnership and Amey.
• London had the largest Community Rehabilitation Company in the country. It had a caseload of 25 thousand cases of medium and low risk offenders.
• The CRC also provided ‘through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Resolved: to share the Committee’s views with the Business Panel.

4.1      James Lee (Head of Cultural and Community Development) introduced the additional information requested by the Committee. The following key points were noted:

• Following the publication of recommendations for the allocation of main grant programme funding, officers had written to all applicants, setting out the recommendations to Mayor and Cabinet.
• 30 organisations had expressed their intent to make an appeal against officer recommendations – five of these appeals were on points of process, or were dealt with by officers directly.
• 25 appeals had been heard by a special meeting of Mayor and Cabinet (contracts).
• Some organisations had been allocated transitional funding.
• Decisions had been taken at Mayor and Cabinet (contracts) on Wednesday 13 May and were subject to call in by the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel on 26 May before they could be implemented.

4.2      James Lee (Head of Cultural and Community Development) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• Any funding to organisations based outside of the borough was accompanied by an undertaking for that organisation to carry out service delivery in the borough.
• Mayor and Cabinet had accepted officers’ recommendation that the Council should work with EqualiTeam Lewisham to use existing grant funding.
• EqualiTeam Lewisham was in possession of their outstanding funding.
• Officers would be carrying out further work with all organisations to plan the delivery of their agreed objectives.
• All organisations would be subject to performance monitoring and action would be taken where organisations failed to deliver on their objectives.
• The information about the wards organisations were based in was taken directly from each organisation’s funding application.
• Organisations that had been funded to provide ward level development work would be required to demonstrate how they were implementing their work.

4.3      The Committee also discussed the decision to approve officers to work with EqualiTeam Lewisham to use its outstanding funding from the current grants programme. The following key points were noted:

• Some Members felt that the grant assessment process had highlighted EqualiTeam Lewisham’s lack of demonstrable outcomes.
• Members questioned the possibility of setting a timescale on which the outstanding funds could be used.
• Members highlighted the perceived lack of fairness that the decision might give in the grants allocation process.
• The Chair indicated that, should the decision to fund EqualiTeam be implemented, then the Committee should seek to assure itself that there were time-bound outcomes being delivered.

4.4      Barrie Neal (Head of Corporate Policy and Governance) advised the Committee that it may want to wait for officers to work with organisations to decide how to implement the decision of the Mayor before deciding on any future course of action.

4.5      The Chair proposed that the Committee ask the Business Panel to review the decision of Mayor and Cabinet.

• The Committee had a range of alternate views about the wording of the referral. One suggestion was for the Committee to recommend that funding be taken back from EqualiTeam Lewisham and allocated annually, based on an agreed set of outcomes.

• Councillor Michael asked that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved: to agree the work programme with the amendments discussed; the Committee also asked the Chair to give consideration to the timetable for the September meeting of the Committee when the scope of the savings proposals for the Lewisham Future Programme were known.

5.1      Timothy Andrew (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the work programme report. The Committee discussed the report and agreed that:

• The voluntary sector accommodation plan would be added to the Committee’s work programme in July 2015.
• The agenda item on provision for Lewisham’s LGBT community would be moved to the Committee’s meeting in September.
• The final VAWG report and recommendations would be agreed and referred to Mayor and Cabinet.
• The Committee would receive a scoping paper on the outline of a review into poverty – based on the publication of the new Indices of Multiple Deprivation.
• The Chair had asked the Business Panel to consider an item about using DNA testing to combat dog fouling.

Resolved: to agree the work programme with the amendments discussed; the Committee also asked the Chair to give consideration to the timetable for the September meeting of the Committee when the scope of the savings proposals for the Lewisham Future Programme were known.

Resolved: to share the Committee’s views under item four with the Business Panel.

Resolved: to share the Committee’s views under item four with the Business Panel.