What Do Charities Think of TR?

Regular readers will be aware that our insightful predictions as to TR being nothing more than an all-mighty train crash of epic, omnishamble proportions, have been proved correct in every detail. An award-winning service has been smashed; careers wrecked; most staff royally-shafted in one way or another; services dramatically deteriorated and released prisoners getting '£48 and a leaflet' - why, even the CRCs are crying foul! 

But what of the much-vaunted, bright as buttons, innovating, voluntary sector? Here is a fascinating insight provided in research conducted by NPC, the New Philanthropy Capital:- 

At NPC we are interested in how the public sector and voluntary sector work alongside one another. We have previously published reports on the role of the voluntary sector in health and education. This research into the criminal justice sector is our most recent exploration of the boundaries between the state and the voluntary sector.

BEYOND BARS: MAXIMISING THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR’S CONTRIBUTION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

'I’m not sure if TR is the Titanic or the iceberg, but it is one of the two.’ 

There has been very little transparency around Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), and there is uncertainty about its future.  Some established providers are finding it hard to continue. Both general and specialist sectors—such as women’s services—have found contract design to be at odds with their practice.

Interviewees identified four main challenges posed to the voluntary sector by TR:

1. Independent funders are now cautious 

2. Small, local charities are at risk 

3. Contract management has been confusing 

4. PbR has discouraged helping the hardest to rehabilitate 

1. 2. Affecting the whole sector  3.4. Affecting charities in TR contracts 

The four main challenges posed to the voluntary sector by TR 

1. Independent funders are more cautious Some grant making trusts and foundations have withdrawn funding from criminal justice out of concern about subsidising the state or contributing to private profits. Other funders have ‘redirected their lens’ to other areas like homelessness or employment.

2. Small charities are at risk Grass roots organisations feel they are ‘being exploited’ by some TR providers. With services provided through TR thin on the ground and demand increasing, providers refer to local charities outside of the supply chain, who are not only not being paid for their services, but also risk losing other funding sources by engaging. 

3. Contract management has been confusing: ‘Chaotic doesn’t cover it.’ Many charity providers have pulled out over lack of clarity, which has cost them significant resource. ‘It has been two years and some are only just signing contracts now.’ Others encountered the longstanding problem of being ‘bid candy.’ One charity we spoke to was named in 9 of 11 winning contracts bids but has never been approached to deliver a day’s work. 

4. PbR has discouraged helping the hardest to rehabilitate:TR’s payment by results approach risks disincentivising organisations from working with the hardest to rehabilitate. Though ‘PbR should help innovate…in reality it creates a risk averse culture where charities stick to tried and tested work.’ One result of this is that TR does not adequately address disproportionate outcomes for BME communities.

Charities risk drifting from their mission

Many charities’ missions are about being person-centred, holistic and long-term but it is often a challenge to live up to this: 

• Some charities will ‘bid for anything to stay afloat’, moving away from their stated mission in order to receive funding. 
• Funding is reducing while demand is increasing. As a result, ‘charities are having to raise the criteria to turn people away, which sits uncomfortably with trustee boards.’ 
• Arrangement under TR contracts could mean having to deliver a ‘penal function’ by recording when service users do not show up for probation. This is at odds with the central relationship built on trust that is the focus of so much charitable work. Many charities have decided not to get involved in TR for this reason.

'Traditionally charities have stood apart because they don’t deliver punishment. This is increasingly a real point of contention.’

Mission drift is troubling, and puts charities’ service users at risk. Though the funding environment has made it difficult for some charities to resist, good governance should prevent mission drift.

Fewer charities appear to be campaigning

Though ‘numerous’ charities say they do policy related work, it seems that only a handful of voices dominate the debate. This is ‘helping government to say, “we’re not hearing that from anyone else”’ and allows them to not listen to concerns. It should be remembered that the first principle of the 2010 Compact between government and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is ‘to respect and uphold the independence of CSOs, to deliver their mission, including their right to campaign, regardless of any relationship, financial or otherwise, which might exist.’

So why aren’t as many charities campaigning at what could be a crucial time for reform? 

• The effect of government lobbying laws may have made organisations wary. 
• Some funders are resistant to advocacy work: ‘It is deeply troubling to have heard funders not wanting to see anything with the word “campaigning” in it’. 
• Campaigning has been ‘the first thing cut in many organisations’, where demand for service delivery outweighs potential long term change. 
• Campaigning voices should come from service users, or ‘experts by experience,’ so at least some of the charities campaigning need to have frontline experience.

Charities could collaborate on their campaigning to limit the expense. Frontline charities could share their expert understanding with larger campaigning charities (bearing in mind sensitivities involved.)

‘While we focused on surviving, campaigning has been neglected. Now is an important time for us to move onto the campaigning on which we were set up to do.’

It is unclear how charities can innovate

We should be careful not to fetishise innovation 

There is already a lot of evidence of ‘what works’ in the sector and a demand for innovation by funders can be damaging: ‘It is well known what works in criminal justice, what changes is the political environment. Funders and charities still have an important role in putting forward the case time and time again for what works.’ And innovation may not be encouraged by PbR funding models: ‘If you design the wrong type of PbR model you don’t drive innovation, because innovation means you might go out of business.’ 

…but there is a distinction between innovative programmes, and delivering programmes in an innovative way. Charities could do more of the latter. 

When delivering programmes in prison, charities could be involved more fundamentally in co-designing interventions with prison residents and prison officers. Rather than delivering a programme and leaving, charities could incubate the skills and knowledge needed, shifting ownership into the hands of prison staff and residents. This would be an innovative and more sustainable way of building trust between prison officers and residents.

Devolution could encourage innovation 

Crime is local and its solutions often are too. Devolution offers great opportunities for collaboration between PCCs and charities. Charities should be clear with PCCs and governors about shared priorities and ways of collaborating to deliver better outcomes for those involved in crime and in the communities alike. Rather than waiting for a public consultation, they should proactively approach PCCs with ideas for collaboration while their ideas are in development.

--oo00oo--

Your editor is off on another short sojourn abroad and with internet access unreliable, I'm afraid the blog may have to run on autopilot until Friday. I know you can manage perfectly well without me and in my absence will keep monitoring developments for our mutual benefit and enlightenment. Thanks.