More From the Ministry

2 July 2014

Dear Colleague,

Could you kindly clarify and respond to the following queries related to the TR programme and implications for the future of the Probation Service.

Yours Sincerely,
Mike Guilfoyle

By how much have the reforms reduced re-offending? The Justice Secretary has indicated that no great change from current patterns should be expected, though the current and steadily declining rate of re-offending by those under probation supervision since 2000 has been held up as a failure of the current probation arrangements.

Has the CRC bidding process proved successful in funding the provision of services, across all of England and Wales, to those with sentences of less than 12 months leaving prison? This extension of service is the great prize of the reforms. How effective are those services in reducing re-offending?

How significant is Payment by Results in the new arrangements, or are the contracts really block payments with a bit of a reward added on? The use of PbR was, of course, always the reason given for not allowing Trusts to bid for contracts.

In addition to the declared costs, how much have the reforms really cost across the piece to implement? Staff time in the TR team and NOMS, conferences and meetings, staff time in the Trusts, secondments from Trusts to the Programme, interim appointments, the use of consultants, IT changes, communications, signage.

What are the additional costs of managing and monitoring contracts (in the light of recent contract failures eg on electronic monitoring)? Could the cost of the reforms have been realised and used to fund an equivalent provision of services to the under 12 months’ cohort, without having the disruption and risk to services and performance caused by the TR reforms? Trusts certainly believed so – and some were already delivering the services, in partnership with PCCs and others, before Transforming Rehabilitation was published.

Are the CRCs any more liberated than Trusts could have been and wanted to be? Has the NPS been able to sustain managing the exclusively high risk caseload? Was the management of offenders jeopardised by the changes at any point? What has happened on performance overall? What has been the effect on staff professionalism, morale and motivation in the longer term?

Was it necessary to go through everything that the system has gone through over the past year to achieve what has in fact been achieved? What would a retrospective cost benefit analysis show?

28th August 2014 

Dear Mr Guilfoyle, 

TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION

Thank you for your email of 2 July to which I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department. As the competition process is still underway and other elements of our reforms have not yet been implemented it is not possible to answer many of the queries that you raised at this current time.

In relation to your question about the costs of reforms I can confirm that the total Programme resource expenditure is part of business as usual costs for the Department and sits within the overall budget for the Ministry of Justice. As such there is no additional resource expenditure, other than external support and consultancy costs which have been required where the specialist skills are not available in-house.  Our proposals will be affordable within the context of the MoJ commitment to deliver annual savings of over £2 billion by the end of 2014/15. 

You asked about whether the competition process had been successful and how the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) had performed in relation to delivering services for those sentenced to less than 12 months. In terms of the competition I would like to reassure you that we have a robust and diverse market. The list of bidders who passed the first stage of the competition to win the regional rehabilitation contracts included a mix of private and voluntary sector partnerships – from charities experienced in tackling a range of issues affecting offenders, to small and large businesses and experienced multinationals. All of these bidders have experience in working with offenders or across the wider Criminal Justice System.

Along with the lead providers who have passed the competition’s first-stage, a further 1,000 organisations have expressed an interest in playing a role as part of the wider supply chain – with more than 700 voluntary sector organisations among that number. Mutuals formed by probation staff also have the opportunity to play a major role in the reforms, with a good number of the shortlisted bidders coming from this cadre. Bids were received at the end of June and we have healthy competition in each of the Contract Package Areas.

As I mentioned in my letter to you of 9 July we plan to commence the relevant provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, such as extending provision of supervision to those given short sentences, at the point when ownership of the new CRCs transfers to successful bidders. We will do this in line with the Government’s commitment to roll out these important reforms by 2015.

In relation to the issue of how we pay new providers for services, I can reassure you that the Payment by Results (PbR) framework remains an important part of our reforms. The structure that we will put in place will make sure that providers have strong incentives to reduce reoffending, and will only pay in full for what works. This is a new approach, but not a radical step. We will have all the normal contractual arrangements that you would expect, including a clear set of service outputs which must be delivered and a performance mechanism which will ensure providers deliver these to the required quality. However, PbR will incentivise them to go further and develop innovative ways of reducing reoffending. Under PbR, CRCs will be paid for managing the cases allocated to them, and a proportion of their payment will be at risk and dependent on their performance in reducing reoffending.

We recognise the need to ensure high standards are maintained once the competition stage is complete and the new providers are in place. The Secretary of State will continue to issue national standards for the management of offenders, and the Government will place contractual requirements on CRCs in relation to the management of offenders, to ensure that the risk of harm posed by all offenders is effectively managed. Providers bidding to run CRCs will need to demonstrate in their bids how they would deliver high quality rehabilitative support to offenders, and they will be held to account to deliver these services in their contracts.  Bidders will also need to demonstrate how they will maintain a workforce with appropriate levels of competence and training to deliver these services.  

Additionally, where requirements have been placed on the CRCs under contract in relation to delivery of services, these will be monitored through NOMS contract management; this will include penalties for services not delivered to time or to quality. The payment mechanism design comprises two parts: a Fee for Service element, primarily for mandated activities that deliver the sentence of the court and licence conditions; and as I mentioned above a PbR element for reductions in reoffending. Providers can lose money on both of these if they fail to deliver.

Furthermore, the new system will ensure that professional standards continue to be maintained, with probation staff working in both the National Probation Service (NPS) and CRCs, and opportunities for placements and interchange between them. The NPS and CRCs will both be required to have suitably qualified and competent staff. The NPS will continue to use the Probation Qualification Framework (PQF) and CRCs will be free to do the same should they choose to.

We want our providers to have as much flexibility as possible in their approach to rehabilitating offenders. By putting our trust in front line professionals who work with offenders and giving them discretion to do what works to tackle individual offenders’ specific needs we will achieve the biggest impact on reoffending rates. However, providers will need to ensure that orders of the court are met and that licence conditions are enforced. They will have contractual obligations to work in partnership with the public sector probation service in managing the risk of serious harm. A diverse market of rehabilitation providers will bring innovation in rehabilitative services, and help deliver a real reduction in reoffending rates.

Finally, we recognise that staff morale is a very important issue, and as the employers of probation staff until 1 June, Trusts worked hard to ensure their workforce was effectively engaged and provided them with as much information as necessary during the transition to the new structures. We continue to maintain a robust communication and support strategy for staff across the service.

Yours sincerely,  

David Barnes
Rehabilitation Programme