TTG Not Working - Official

Here we have yet more official confirmation that Chris Grayling's promised help for the short-term prisoners under TR was just so much hot air. This is the latest joint inspection report published today:-

Foreword

‘Through the Gate’ is a flagship policy of government, intended to bring about a step change in rehabilitation, and so reduce reoffending. New services have been rolled out in prisons to prepare prisoners for release and resettlement and increase their prospects of leading a better life. When the policy was introduced in spring 2015, post-release licence supervision and rehabilitation support was extended to those formerly ineligible (serving short sentences) so as to increase the impact on reoffending overall. 

In our fourth Transforming Rehabilitation report published in January 2016, we signalled our concern that Through the Gate expectations were not being given priority on the ground. Probation providers were focused on the more immediate demands of leading and managing wholesale change to the delivery model for all probation services. Now, more than six months hence we find little change and little delivered, albeit the reasons for that are more complex than those holding back improvement last year. 

Newly formed Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are responsible for Through the Gate provision, but are not sufficiently incentivised under their contract arrangements to give priority to this work. Payment is triggered by task completion rather than anything more meaningful. Additional financial rewards are far off and dependent on reoffending rates that are not altogether within the CRC’s gift. CRC total workloads (and therefore income) are less than anticipated when contracts were signed. As CRCs continue to develop and adjust their operating models accordingly, CRCs are hard-pressed and are generally giving priority to work that is rewarded with more immediate and more substantial payment. These detailed contractual arrangements must change and develop, for the government’s rehabilitation policies to be delivered well. 

Even then, our expectations should be tempered. Reducing reoffending is difficult, success in individual cases is by no means guaranteed even when everything possible is done, and we find that some issues are most testing: mental illness and addiction can be enduring, and accommodation for former offenders increasingly hard to find. 

Nevertheless, the prospects of success are greater if those involved are determined to do the best possible job and if systems are designed to support them fully in their endeavours. Instead we have found CRCs’ efforts pedestrian at best. What is more, they are often hampered and frustrated by ineffective early screening of prisoners. These are done by busy prison staff and are simply not fit for the purpose they should serve. In our view, this system must change materially so that those responsible and accountable for rehabilitation (CRCs) can get off to a good start in each case. 

There were great hopes for Through the Gate, and there is the potential still for the step change that government and others dearly wish to see. We hope that our detailed findings assist government and the National Offender Management Service to develop the contractual arrangements with CRCs, and to review systems, processes and resettlement targets for prisons, CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS). CRCs signalled innovative approaches to Through the Gate work in their bids for contracts, and we would like to see those delivered alongside the well-established and evidenced interventions that we know can make a difference.

Executive Summary 

The strategic vision for Through the Gate services has not been realised Through the Gate services had been in place for almost a year at the time of our fieldwork. Delivering the Through the Gate aspect of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms has been a significant task. To set up and deliver a resettlement service to meet the needs of this cohort of offenders would always be difficult. Despite this, it was reasonable to expect that core services would be in place at the time of our inspection. 

Some of the new services that were proposed in the bids for contracts had promise, but had not been implemented. The provision that we saw was some distance from the original vision of a seamless service from the beginning to end of the sentence. We found little evidence of the anticipated creativity or innovation in the new services being delivered by the CRCs. 

The minimum contractual requirement is to complete and review resettlement plans for all prisoners, and this is the main driver for the activity of the CRCs. We found no evidence that payment by results was in anyway incentivising the work when compared with the direct contractual requirements. This was not altogether surprising given the comparative limited weight of payment by results and the time lag before the reoffending outcome data becomes available. In addition, the achievement of reduced reoffending is not wholly within the control of the CRC, unlike the completion of mandatory processes as part of the ‘fee-for-service’. 

The absence of common resettlement targets for prisons, CRCs and the NPS meant that there could not be a ‘whole system approach’ to the resettlement of offenders. 

The needs of individual prisoners were not properly identified and planned for 

Most prisoners serving short sentences had multiple and complex needs. Basic custody screenings, completed at the start of sentence by HM Prison staff, drew only upon what the prisoner had said and were a wholly inadequate basis for resettlement planning. The National Offender Management Service guidance for completion of these initial screenings did not promote depth or quality. Resettlement plans, completed by CRC staff within five days of the screening, did not robustly address the most urgent resettlement needs. In too many cases, resettlement planning consisted of no more than referrals to other agencies, recorded as completed once an email had been sent. Prisoners had not been involved with setting objectives or given a copy of their plan. The emphasis on completing processes led to adverse behaviours such as the creation and review of a resettlement plan on the same day, and copying initial plans with only minimal update. 

Not enough was being done to help prisoners to get ready for release or to manage risks

Too many prisoners reached their release date without their immediate resettlement needs having been met, or even recognised. Some CRC senior managers reported difficulties recruiting organisations to provide resettlement services in the supply chains. The need to replace organisations in their supply chains had also been disruptive to the resettlement of prisoners. 

Not enough assistance was given to prisoners to resolve debts. Too many prisoners were released without any accommodation. None of the prisoners had been helped into employment by Through the Gate services and we did not see examples of handover to specialist education or training resources in the community. The low number of mentors available did not match the early promise of CRC contract bids, or the numbers of prisoners who might have benefited from this type of support on release. 

Work at the low level of intensity that we found was unlikely to achieve the aim of resettlement and reduced reoffending. We were further concerned that the risks of harm presented to others by prisoners were not always recognised. Where they were known, CRC responsible officers did too little to manage risk of harm, which meant that victims were not always protected, particularly in cases of domestic abuse. 

The level of communication between staff in prisons and the community was poor and there was very little continuity between services in prison and in the community. Prospects after release None of the CRCs we visited were able to provide us with any information on the outcomes they had achieved for prisoners receiving Through the Gate services. Our sample showed concerning rates of reoffending and recall to prison and unsatisfactory initial outcomes for basic needs such as being in settled accommodation. 

The picture was more positive for women with more services available to help them than men. Overall, however, many responsible officers conveyed a lack of hope and an almost fatalistic acceptance of the likelihood of failure. This did not bode well for the released prisoner or the wider community.

Recommendations 

The Ministry of Justice and National Offender Management Service should: 

• consider whether the current arrangement of paying a ‘fee-for-service’ and payment by results is having the desired effect on service provision 
• review the contractual requirements so that they better incentivise CRCs to develop their approach to the successful resettlement of prisoners, for example: 

• ► review the payments for Through the Gate services so that release planning for prisoners is given due weight 
• ► introduce measures based on service quality in addition to simply completing processes 
• ► promote a ‘whole system approach’ to resettlement by the introduction of common resettlement targets for prisons, CRCs and the NPS. 

The National Offender Management Service should: 

• undertake a fundamental review of the basic custody screening so that it provides an assessment of both the needs of the prisoner and any risk of harm that they present to others 
• require CRC resettlement staff in prison to complete the basic custody screening in order to provide continuity between the initial screening and subsequent resettlement plan 
• promote closer working between CRCs, prison staff and NPS responsible officers so that there is continuity of resettlement support, effective public protection and oversight throughout the sentence 
• facilitate effective resettlement and public protection work by developing IT systems that allow information to be exchanged between CRCs, the NPS and prison case management systems. 

HM Prisons should: 

• make sure that all agencies working within the prison use the National Offender Management Information System (NOMIS) to record information about prisoners 
• make sure that population management does not interfere with resettlement planning. 

Community Rehabilitation Companies should: 

• develop and implement effective resettlement services to meet the requirements of accommodation, employment, finance, benefit and debt 
• utilise other available services within resettlement prisons when undertaking prerelease activities, for example mental health support and education and training provided by other commissioned services 
• make available full and detailed information about Through the Gate services to all prisoners and prison staff, and to staff in CRCs and the NPS in the community 
• make sure that prisoners receiving short sentences are assigned to a responsible officer without delay 
• engage meaningfully with the prisoner by involving them in drawing up and reviewing resettlement plans. These should be based upon their individual needs, the actions required to promote resettlement and reduce their likelihood of reoffending and causing harm to others. 

The National Probation Service should: 

• make sure that prisoners receiving short sentences are assigned a responsible officer without delay 
• make sure that all responsible officers have full information about the range of Through the Gate services available in all resettlement prisons within their area.

--oo00oo--

This from the Howard League's press release:-

Public put at risk by probation sell-off

The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the joint report by HM Chief Inspectors of Probation and Prisons on Through the Gate resettlement services for short-term prisoners, published today (Tuesday 4 October).

The report studies the impact of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, under which all prisoners sentenced to 12 months or less are now subject to 12 months’ supervision by probation services on release. The reforms also involved the break-up of the public probation service, with a large part of it handed to 21 privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies who are now responsible for supporting people as they pass ‘Through the Gate’ from prison to the community. 

Inspectors found that services were poor. Too many prisoners reached their release date without their immediate needs having been met or even recognised. Inspectors were concerned by the high rate at which people had gone on to reoffend and been recalled to prison. Of the 86 cases inspected, not one prisoner had been helped into employment. More than one-third of prisoners were released with nowhere to live. Not enough help was given to people in debt. Victims were not protected, as the risk of harm posed by released prisoners was not always recognised. In 61 per cent of cases inspected, the Community Rehabilitation Company had taken insufficient account of public protection issues. This problem was particularly noticeable in domestic abuse cases. 

 Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: 

“Transforming Rehabilitation was supposed to turn lives around, reduce reoffending and make us all safer. It is doing precisely the opposite – failing to help people find homes and employment, failing to prevent people committing further offences, and failing by exposing victims of crime to more danger. When a Secretary of State refuses to listen to expert advice and ploughs ahead with ideas that are divorced from reality, disastrous policies will always follow. This reckless experiment with public safety, which the Howard League consistently warned against, is a catastrophic example, and its impact will be felt for many years.I call on the new Secretary of State to monitor these contracts with exacting care so that they may be rescinded without any additional cost to the taxpayer. The probation service needs to be reconstructed so that it serves the public and victims of crime.”

The failure of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme is becoming increasingly clear.
In August, HM Inspectorate of Probation reported that the quality of probation work in Durham had declined since the Transforming Rehabilitation programme began. A similar report on services in Derbyshire, which reached the same conclusion, was published the following month. Less than two weeks ago, the Public Accounts Committee’s report on Transforming Rehabilitation concluded that the government’s promised “rehabilitation revolution” was far from complete. Only last week, HM Inspectorate of Prisons reported that women’s services had deteriorated and were “under threat” following the implementation of the programme.

--oo00oo--

Transforming Rehabilitation: At What Cost? File on 4 BBC Radio 4 8pm today

The split and part privatisation of the UK probation system in June 2014 saw huge changes to the service, with high risk offenders managed by the new National Probation Service and low to medium risk offenders managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Two years on, probation officers report a system that has been 'ripped apart', with two sides often failing to communicate. There are concerns over rising caseloads, falling staffing levels and the number of murders committed by offenders released from prison on licence.

File on 4 speaks to families who have lost loved ones, and hears how they have had to fight to find out the full extent of the failings of the probation system in their cases. Charities report particular concerns over vulnerable women in the probation system, with many being recalled to prison for breaching probation orders, following short sentences for minor offences. As Transforming Rehabilitation is scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, File on 4 asks if the changes are putting the public at risk?