Biting Off More Than Can Be Chewed

Another day and another article, this time from the Economist having a stab at pointing out how some public services just don't lend themselves to privatisation. It also highlights how widespread is the general ignorance about probation - "Previously, public-sector trusts supervised about 220,000 ex-convicts a year" - ex-convicts? - oh dear..... 

Britain privatised part of its probation service. What happened next?

The experiment has shown the difficulty in contracting out some public services

Joanna Williamson worries that she has become a box-ticker. She is a probation officer. But when chunks of the service were privatised in 2015, her bosses became more concerned with meeting targets that have little to do with helping former offenders. The number of cases she handles has soared and safety standards are slipping. The shift has taken its toll on morale. Many colleagues of Ms Williamson have left. She has an eye on the door.

Ms Williamson (not her real name) is on the front line of government reforms to rehabilitation. They were part of a drive to improve public services through competition, but have become a case study in the difficulties of contracting out. Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, has pointed to many flaws with the new system. Meg Hillier, the chairwoman of the parliamentary public-accounts committee, has said there is a danger that the Ministry of Justice has “bitten off more than it can chew”.

The reforms were ambitious. Previously, public-sector trusts supervised about 220,000 ex-convicts a year. The new system added some 45,000 short-term prisoners, and split offenders into two groups. Those deemed to be a high risk to the public were left under the state-run National Probation Service. The rest went to private contractors known as Community Rehabilitation Companies. These companies are paid for each offender they supervise, with deductions if they miss targets, such as filing resettlement plans on time, and bonuses if they reduce reoffending.

The first tranche of reoffending data, released in October, is mixed. It shows that 13 of the 21 contractors have managed a statistically significant drop in recidivism, compared with 2011 levels. But, based on preliminary data, only three are on course to cut the average number of offences per reoffender, another target.

Comparing their performance with that of the public sector is tricky, because of the different profile of the offenders they deal with. And reoffending rates may not be a good way to measure success, says Julian Le Vay, a former finance director of the prison service. He points out that they started to fall before the reforms, dropping by two percentage points between 2010-11 and 2014-15. The average number of offences per reoffender rose from 3.3 to 3.7 in the same period. It is unlikely that these changes reflect the work of the prison and probation services, says Mr Le Vay.

Other targets create unwelcome incentives. Contracts dictate that providers must complete prisoners’ resettlement plans, but not how thoroughly they must fill them in. In one inspection Dame Glenys found blank plans being filed. That means the contractor is paid in full, but it fails convicts on their release. Similarly, a probation officer who supervises clients sloppily is less likely to notice breaches of the release agreement, such as missing a scheduled meeting. But firms see their pay docked for such breaches, so some may be tempted to turn a blind eye. Gabriel Amahwe of MTCnovo, a probation firm, wishes that the contracts were more flexible. That would allow staff to tailor plans more closely to their local area.

Another problem is estimating the workload and pay for contractors. At first private firms were expected to get around 70% of the offenders. In fact they took only around 40%. As a result, cash-strapped contractors have made cutbacks. Some probation officers now meet clients in libraries and church halls, which lack safety features, such as panic buttons, and private areas to discuss sensitive topics, like child custody. More supervision is done by phone, which makes it harder to gauge offenders’ emotional state. Some contractors are piloting assessment by unmanned electronic kiosks.

Moreover, a family conflict or alcohol problems may push an offender’s risk level from medium to high. That means a disruptive transfer from a private contractor to the state-run service, explains Richard Garside of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, a think-tank. A parliamentary justice committee has set up an inquiry into how to improve rehabilitation. But don’t expect any easy fixes. As Mr Garside puts it, probation delivers “complex services to people with complex problems”.

--oo00oo--

Interestingly, I notice Julian Le Vay recently made this observation on his blog site:- 

Nothing To See Here
Difficult times at the MoJ - everything going badly, less money every year, everyone saying you're not doing enough to put things right. Still, David Lidington and his Perm Sec, David Heaton, have found a solution: just don't tell anyone what you're doing. I was searching the other day for the usual Departmental and Agency Plans and Strategies spelling out what they aim to do, the key dates, key targets, how they money will be used - and they no longer exist. All there is now is a super-bland statement of nothing much 'Single departmental plan: 2015 to 2020'

As for Parliament, that great bulwark of our liberties, they simply haven't noticed. Too busy 'taking back control', I expect...

Julian Le Vay

I was formerly Finance Director of the Prison Service and then Director of the National Offender Management Service responsible for competition. I also worked in the NHS and an IT company. I later worked for two outsourcing companies.