'Bleak and Exasperating'

One wonders at what point the MoJ and government finally admit that TR has been an unmitigated disaster for probation in England and Wales and urgent action is initiated in order to try and save something from the ashes. Today sees publication of yet another scathing report and accompanying press release from Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation:- 

Third sector organisations not playing expected central role in reformed probation services, says Chief Inspector

Probation reforms have failed to deliver the aim of ensuring that voluntary and third sector organisations play a central role in providing specialist support to offenders, according to Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation.

A new report presents a “bleak and exasperating” picture. Where the third sector is involved, the inspection found the quality of work reasonable overall, but the sector is “less involved than ever in probation services”, despite the eagerness of many dedicated people to work with offenders.

Government contractual arrangements for the involvement of third sector organisations in probation have been burdensome, disproportionate and “off-putting for all,” inspectors found. Some small, local organisations which worked with pre-reform probation trusts have lost the work.

Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in 2014 created 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to supervise medium and low-risk offenders, the bulk of more than 260,000 people supervised in the community in England and Wales. The HMI Probation report notes that Ministry of Justice statements at the time of reform “gave the impression that there would be a wide array of organisations involved in the delivery of probation services.”

However, in the thematic inspection – Probation Supply Chains – inspectors noted that CRC operating contracts “do not require CRCs to commission specialist services from the third sector or from others, even in those cases where CRCs expressed in bids their intentions to do that. Instead, they contain varied and somewhat vague statements of intent about CRCs developing their supply chains. CRCs who originally expected to use third-sector organisations have told us that they had hoped to have more comprehensive supply chains in place by now, almost four years on.”

Dame Glenys said: “It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around.”

It was envisaged that probation “supply chains” would deliver services including help with finding accommodation and training and education. Inspectors reached key conclusions:

• The National Probation Service (NPS), responsible for high-risk offenders, “is not buying services from CRCs to anywhere near the extent expected” under Transforming Rehabilitation – for reasons including objecting to the price and doubting the quality.
• All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ. “Their own lack of stability was driving their relationship” with principal and smaller sub-contractors in the third sector and most were looking for further efficiencies and cutbacks. Supply chains delivering services within the community were “generally small scale, and non-existent in some local areas.” A “noticeable proportion” of pre-2014 contracts with third sector organisations had been discontinued.
• The Ministry of Justice’s template contract for CRCs – ‘Industry Standard Partnering Agreements’ (ISPA) – was “burdensome, and disproportionate to the value of most” of the third sector services being contracted.

On a more positive note, while inspectors found few unusual, niche or innovative services, they commended a ‘restorative justice’ initiative in Thames Valley. And two CRCs in areas with devolved political powers (Wales and Greater Manchester) had developed models in which the CRCs and NPS “were both contributing knowledge, expertise and resources to influence strategically the provision of local services.”

Overall, however, Dame Glenys said:

“It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall. Many are providing a more expansive service to individuals than they are paid for. Supply chains are thin, however, and set to get thinner still, as CRCs continue to review and slim down provision. There is no open book policy: we cannot be certain to what extent financial pressures justify a paucity of provision, but it seems very likely that they are largely responsible. As things stand, the future looks bleak for some organisations, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.”

--oo00oo--

Foreword

The voluntary sector has long delivered specialist services to people under probation supervision, but with the government’s 2014 Transforming Rehabilitation initiative came a new expectation: that the third sector would play a key role in probation services. Almost four years on, this expectation has not been realised. It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around. 

Government has allowed Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) immense freedoms. ‘Black box’ contracts allow CRCs to decide what to offer by way of specialist services. CRCs are generally providing an insufficient range of services. As the National Probation Service (NPS) is, in turn, dependent on specialist services offered for purchase from CRCs, there is a knock-on effect: there is even less on offer to the NPS. 

There are reasons for this. CRC finances have not worked out as intended, and many have had to make difficult choices between one expense or another. CRCs are uncertain about future income, and risk hefty financial penalties for failure to meet contractual targets. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) guidance and controls over subcontracting have been contentious and are perceived to be bureaucratic, making it off-putting for all. Moreover, specialist providers often wish to do more for individuals than the CRC is prepared to pay for. 

NPS managers hanker after commissioning freedoms, and feel disenfranchised. Some are finding circuitous ways to access alternative provision or have at times discouraged purchase from CRCs. Professionals making decisions in each case may sniff at prices, or fear poor-quality provision. These behaviours go against the grain of the probation delivery model, and make CRC provision yet more precarious, but they are to be expected. Probation professionals do not naturally see themselves as purchasers, and do not wish to be. It is contrary to the enduring cultural characteristics and values of the probation service.

It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall. Many are providing a more expansive service to individuals than they are paid for. Supply chains are thin, however, and set to get thinner still, as CRCs continue to review and slim down provision. There is no open book policy: we cannot be certain to what extent financial pressures justify a paucity of provision, but it seems very likely that they are largely responsible. 

There has never been one body responsible for the stewardship of these specialist organisations and services, but with Transforming Rehabilitation, the dynamics have changed. As things stand, the future looks bleak for some, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.

Dame Glenys Stacey

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

April 2018

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Ex-offenders face bleak future after reforms fail, report says

Ex-offenders trying to turn their lives around face a bleak future, a probation inspector has warned, as ambitious government plans to boost the role of charities and volunteers in the probation service have failed to materialise. Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, described the low involvement of non-profits, charities and voluntary groups in the rehabilitation and supervision of ex-offenders as “an exasperating situation”.

The probation sector in England and Wales was overhauled in 2014 by the then justice secretary, Chris Grayling, who broke up existing probation trusts and replaced them with a public sector service dealing with high-risk offenders and 21 privately run companies that manage low-to-medium risk offenders.

In a report on “probation supply chains”, or the outsourcing of services to a range of providers, the Inspectorate of Probation said Ministry of Justice (MoJ) press releases around 2013 to 2014 “gave the impression” that there would be a wide array of organisations involved in the delivery of probation services. But the inspectorate found that “almost four years on, this expectation has not been realised”. “It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts,” Stacey said.

Grayling’s hopes that third-sector organisations would wholly run some of the community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) were disappointed when the charities and voluntary groups were unable to bid because of the financial guarantees demanded by the government. However, it was still expected that third-sector organisations would provide specialist support – such as bespoke services for women, drug and alcohol abuse or gang membership – through sub-contracts.

But most CRCs have not sub-contracted services to the third-sector owing to their own “financial instability”, the inspectorate found, and many of the contracts in place before the reforms were not renewed. The CRCs told inspectors that the payment-by-results model pushed by Grayling, by which companies are paid depending on whether or not they hit re-offending targets and also face penalties when contract targets are not met, was at the root of their financial insecurity.

Among the specialist services lacking are those relating to gang membership, financial management, discriminatory attitudes and accommodation, the inspectorate found. And when a specialist service is provided, the feedback from ex-offenders was positive, with the assistance making a difference in the lives of two-thirds of offenders, the report said.

“It is an exasperating situation. Third-sector providers remain eager to work in the sector, and we found the quality of their work reasonable overall,” Stacey said. “As things stand, the future looks bleak for some organisations, and particularly for those individuals who could benefit so much from the services they can provide.”

The reforms were a cornerstone of Grayling’s time heading the MoJ. An employee of a charity that works with ex-offenders, speaking anonymously, told the Guardian: 

“The findings in this report are not surprising. While there was undoubtedly a genuine desire for diverse supply chains at the design phase of Transforming Rehabilitation, innovation has been hamstrung by overly prescriptive contract targets which carry heavy penalties but do little to promote desistance [reducing offending], if anything diverting resources away from it. A healthy supply chain with the specialist expertise to support a wide spectrum of needs will invariably cost more than doing everything ‘in house’, yet the drive for efficiencies that underpins Transforming Rehabilitation drastically limits CRCs’ capacity to commission the range of services that their clients require.”

The prisons and probation minister, Rory Stewart, said: 

“As Dame Glenys highlights in this insightful report, there have been challenges facing CRCs and involving the voluntary sector in the delivery of probation services. We now have a more diverse range of probation providers than ever before, and I want to see the voluntary sector play a key role in this. The expertise and commitment of third sector organisations has a crucial part to play in reforming offenders and ultimately keeping the public safe. I have been absolutely clear that I want probation to work better and there is much more to be done – particularly on getting the basics right – and we are working closely with providers to make sure this happens.”