TR Report : Verdict

There's been quite a few responses to the Justice Affairs Committee report on the TR omnishambles and here are some of them. First, a somewhat muted statement from the Probation Chief's Association. But many of the Chief's have their own position to consider don't they?

The Justice Select Committee highlights significant areas of concern with the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, many of which were touched upon by the PCA and PA in evidence submitted during the inquiry.

In summary, the report concludes:

• There has been a lack of information given by the Ministry of Justice about the risks in implementing the programme, how those risks may be mitigated and contingency plans in the event that a new provider subsequently fails. The report recommends that the Government in its response should provide a full narrative of the programme risks (paragraphs 25-26).
• Questions whether the Government has carried out a proper assessment over the affordability of the reforms, and recommends that the Government “set out the projected impact of the extension of rehabilitation to short sentenced offenders on the prison population and on associated costs” (paragraphs 27-35)
• “The absence of piloting of payment by results for delivering reductions in reoffending by those subject to probation services means that some lack confidence that the Government’s reform programme will work better than the existing system” (paragraphs 16-21)
• The proposed split of functions between the new Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service in case management, service delivery, risk assessment and breach escalations presents “additional risks over and above the current situation” of having one single case manager in a Probation Trust. The Committee concludes that this “will be challenging to remedy through contractual specifications” and that “it is essential  that very good lines of communication and cooperation” are put in place (paragraph 44-46).
• There are risks to existing local partnership arrangements where Probation Trusts are a lead agency, and recommends that “Ministers put in place appropriate safeguards to ensure that new providers in the private sector appreciate the importance of working with existing local partnerships to reduce reoffending” (paragraphs 47-50)
• The report expresses “considerable concern” that under the reform proposals Community Rehabilitation Companies “will not be required to have professionally qualified staff,” and recommend that the new providers “should be bound by a contractual requirement to have a minimum proportion of qualified probation staff related to the volume and risk levels of offenders supervised and to provide continuous training.” The Committee welcome the joint venture of the PCA, PA, UNISON and NAPO to create a Probation Institute to support staff to gain suitable accreditations and qualifications (paragraphs 62-65)

This from the Howard League:-

‘This could be your house burgled’: The dangers of privatising probation

Responding to the Justice Committee’s interim report on the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme, published today, Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

“Today’s report highlights the fact that ministers are rushing proposals through to meet a political timetable, which could put the public in danger. Why is the government in such a hurry to dismantle a probation service that has worked well for more than 100 years?

“With banks, train services and Olympic security, we have already seen the government step in to clear up the mess left by private firms who failed to deliver the goods.

“But the risks with probation privatisation are far higher. This could be your house burgled, your bag stolen, your grandchild assaulted.

“The fact that plans to destroy probation trusts have been delayed for two months should give the government further pause for thought on whether it is worth gambling with public safety in pursuit of an ideological experiment.”

Richard Garside on the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies doesn't mince his words in a piece entitled 'The coming probation disaster'

If the government's plans to privatise probation under the 'Transforming Rehabilitation' programme end up being as messy, expensive, counter-productive and damaging as many critics fear, today's report from the House of Commons Justice Committee sheds some light on why.

Across a range of areas - programme design and definition of outcome, programme costings, transition planning and professional buy-in, to name but a few - the Committee's report raises significant concerns and questions, albeit wrapped up in polite parliamentary language.

He goes through the report in some detail highlighting the many concerns, and concludes with that of delivery:-

Successful implementation

The rights and wrongs of the government's proposed structure and payment model aside, what might mitigate against successful implementation of the government's plans?

One concern relates to the ongoing stability of existing arrangements as the new arrangements come into effect. For example, the Committee highlights 'a risk that the focus of these reforms on reducing reoffending by short-sentenced prisoners will destabilise the progress that has been made with other cohorts of offenders'.

Add to this concerns over the diversity of provision under the new arrangements. The Committee expresses itself as 'extremely concerned if the bidding process for prime providers were to be dominated by the very small number of large businesses which currently hold most of the major outsourcing contracts in the criminal justice system'. Given the risk successful bidders might be expected to shoulder and the size of the final contracts, domination by large businesses seems highly likely.

At the other end of the scale, the Committee notes that of around 1,700 voluntary and community organisations currently working within the prisons and probation field, 'fewer than 400 registered an interest in providing services under the programme; if indicative of the final number this would represent a considerable narrowing of the market.'

In relation to the quality of service delivery, the risk that successful bidders will simply be those that offer the cheapest price is high. The Committee also expressed strong concern about the training and qualifications of staff working in the CRCs:

'Community Rehabilitation Companies will be managing considerable risk on a day to day basis, yet will not be required to have professionally qualified staff. This is a matter of considerable concern to us. We welcome the creation of a centre of excellence for probation, and we would hope that new providers will support their staff to gain suitable accreditation and qualifications through this Probation Institute. We nevertheless believe that they should be bound by a contractual requirement to have a minimum proportion of qualified probation staff related to the volume and risk levels of offenders supervised and to provide continuous training.'

The Committee was also struck by the lack of buy-in from among the existing probation leadership. The Committee claims that it 'heard compelling evidence that neither Chief Executives nor Trust Boards feel confident that they are ready for the first stage of transition or that their concerns are being listened to'. The report also notes:

'The fact that a quarter of posts for the leadership of CRCs are unfilled is perhaps testament to the depth of feeling amongst the probation sector about these reforms, given that there are currently 35 Trust Chiefs.'

The parliamentary arithmetic and the powers to change probation structures already resting with ministers do not favour the opponents of probation privatisation. But it also appears increasingly likely that the government's plans will founder on the rocks of implementation.

The Justice Committee's report highlights where most of these rocks are.

Napo says this about the report:-

Napo has welcomed a report that criticises the government over plans to privatise 70% of the probation service. The Justice Committee yesterday published its report that scrutinises the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, highlighting concerns that Napo has previously raised with the government.

The report says: “Witnesses to the inquiry, including those supportive of the changes, had major concerns about the scale, architecture, detail and consequences of the reforms … much of which has not been tested and the pace at which the government is seeking to implement them.”

On Friday, Justice Minister Chris Grayling announced plans to closure the current probation trusts would be postponed until  June. Napo believes this is an admission that the timetable he has set is unrealistic and unachievable due to a lack of infrastructure.

The issue of risks to performance and to public safety were also raised during the inquiry. Sir Alan Beith MP, Chair of the Committee, concluded: “There is a lack of information both about risks they might encounter during implementation and the steps they will take to mitigate those risks. They also do not appear to have devised a contingency plan if the competition fails to yield a viable new provider for a particular area or a new provider subsequently fails.”

Napo supports the Committee’s conclusion that whilst welcoming the plans to work with those receiving  under 12 months ‘any gains made in reducing re-offending must not come at the expense of the supervision of offenders on other sentences, and must not diminish the value of community sentences’.

Napo general secretary Ian Lawrence said: “These plans are ill thought out, are untried and untested and as yet have not been thoroughly costed. We strongly urge the government to scrap these plans or at the very least  to pilot them before rolling them out nationally so that glitches can be addressed and the impact they have on reducing re-offending can be properly evaluated to evidence that they work’” 

The Financial Times:-

Probation outsourcing plan sparks concern

The UK justice secretary’s plans to outsource up to 70 per cent of probation services have prompted “major concerns” about the tight timescale and lack of testing to determine whether the cost-cutting reforms are possible, MPs have warned. 

Chris Grayling hopes that opening the £800m-a-year sector to private companies will lead to a “rehabilitation revolution”, with bidders paid according to the percentage of their offender cohorts that are kept away from crime. But a report by the House of Commons’ justice committee argues that even those who support the government’s plans are dubious about the scale of the reforms and about Mr Grayling’s goal of awarding the new contracts before the 2015 election. As a result of the tight deadlines for implementing the outsourcing programme, the Ministry of Justice has scrapped a series of pilot schemes designed to test the management of offenders on a payment-by-results basis. 

Sir Alan Beith MP, the committee’s chairman, criticised the lack of detail made available about the risks of handing over management of low and medium-level offenders to the private sector. He added that while the committee would have liked to examine the affordability of the reforms, the information provided by the government was “too limited” to do so. “[Ministers] do not appear to have devised clear contingency plans in the event that the competition fails to yield a viable new provider for a particular area, or that a new provider subsequently fails,” Sir Alan said. 

Responding to the report, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, called on the MoJ to abandon the plans. “David Cameron’s reckless privatisation is causing massive uncertainty, demoralising those working in the probation service and resulting in experienced staff leaving,” Mr Khan said. “Public safety is being put at risk on a daily basis thanks to Chris Grayling’s monumental gamble. 


And finally a piece by regular reader of this blog, Mike Guilfoyle writing on the OurKingdom website:-

Gambling with public safety: privatising probation

In England and Wales the probation service works. The Coalition government is privatising it anyway, at speed. A former probation officer assesses an oversight committee's anxious report on government plans.

My final year as a Probation Officer in London was the most stressful of my twenty year career. It was 2010 and the pressure was on to achieve what was, for many in the higher echelons of probation, the holy grail of institutional maturity: Trust status.

The rewards of Trust status would, it was argued, liberate the probation service from central government interference. Devolved local commissioning would unleash new collaborations with partners in local communities, working to reduce reoffending.

Probation practitioners were encouraged to show Stakhanovite enthusiasm, hitting targets for the processing of statutory supervision 'cases'. At daily staff briefings local managers displayed a Commissar-like discipline to ensure that the deadline for Trust status would be met.

So it was with some wry amusement, that I read the anodyne announcement earlier this week from the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling MP, that there's been a delay. The Ministry of Justice, the progenitor of this top-down target-driven politically motivated privatisation, needs an extra two months. And so, the dismantling of a century-old, high performing national probation service would now start from the beginning of June 2014.

Yesterday the House of Commons Justice Committee published their interim report on the Government's Transforming Rehabilitation programme. Their report (Crime Reduction Policies, a co-ordinated approach? — PDF here), calls into question the viability of some of the government's more grandiose and contested claims on the evidence base of its rationale for its probation service 'reforms'.

There was broad agreement among witnesses to the Justice committee inquiry for extending legislative oversight and post-release 'through the gate' supervision to those short-term prisoners whose resettlement needs have thus far been largely overlooked; given the opportunity they might engage well with many of the community-based organisations who responded to the government's consultation.

The Coalition government claims its Transforming Rehabilitation proposals will reduce reoffending, improve supervision and support for those offenders serving prison sentences of under twelve months (controversially current probation services are precluded from bidding for such work), provide for peer mentoring, resettlement prisons nearer the homes of offenders, greater involvement of the private and voluntary sectors, and the potential for more innovative solutions to the persisting problems of crime in communities.

But ........(The whole article can be found here).