Consultation Is a Sham

The announcement may only have been made on Friday when politics in the UK has traditionally packed up until the party conference season, but having set up a sham 8 week consultation to divert attention, the MoJ is wasting no time encouraging new privateers:- 

Details of events for those interested in providing probation services in the future can be found on Bravo. If you are a potential suppler and wish to register for the supplier information events planned for Thursday 2nd and Friday 3rd August, please use the links below (password for both events is PROBATION2018):

London: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/probation-services-launch-event-london-tickets-48413522148

Manchester: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/probation-services-launch-event-manchester-tickets-48413916327

The Ministry of Justice is undertaking service and contract design activity for the future of probation services in England and would encourage the inputs of interested suppliers via structured market engagement activity over August and September 2018. The launch event will be an opportunity to understand the future vision for probation and gain more insights on the plan for market engagement.

--ooo00oo--

In all honesty, who can feel confident that Napo under newly-elected General Secretary Ian Lawrence will be any more effective than with TR the first time around:-

"All I really wanted to add today is that we are wasting no time in analysing the consultative paper. Our activities will be focussed on preparing to field evidence to the MoJ and the Labour Partys recently announced review into the future of probation and the next steps in our public campaign to press for reunification of the service as well as the key priority of trying to arrive at a pay deal that can be recommended to members. It means a massive amount of work ahead."

Quite understandably anger is mounting and people have long memories:-

I still struggle to understand how just a handful of folk who made up the union's 'Officer Group' were able to decide not to go to ballot, not to fight for collective bargaining, not to pursue JR or any exploratory tribunal regarding the abusive & significantly damaging loss of T&Cs as a result of the abandonment of NNC. It certainly didn't represent my views.

Back in the midst of the cull I was shown Legal Opinion (sought privately) that advised there WAS a 'winnable case' at Tribunal but that an individual stood no chance against a multinational. They couldn't understand why the union wouldn't back its members by challenging the new CRC owners & the SoS who holds the controlling Golden Share in all 21 CRCs; nor why the union agreed to such "kamikaze" terms of staff transfer, e.g. the time-limited "no redundancy" clause.

It doesn't surprise me that many strongly believe Napo failed in its duty to uphold "responsibilities to members and a responsibility to do the best for them."

But hey, what do I care? I now ply my long-standing probation service experience, knowledge & training as a barista in an over-priced coffee shop. It was, is & continues to be, a sick fucking joke which has transferred £Billions from the public purse into the pockets of thieves, liars, cheats & charlatans - gilding the chumocracy.

******

We work with those who live chaotic lifestyles and assess them as risky as a minimum and often dangerous. Yet who are we, we work in chaos. We have no stability and no trust in our employer who sells us down river, doesn't give a shit for our sanity. It's dangerous. Just give me my redundancy. I've had enough. I'm so angry with the f**king lot of em. Aaarrgghhh

******

To Grayling, Romeo, Brennan, Spurr, Poree, Stewart, Gauke & Napo:

I've read this blog tonight & have to write something that I hope you'll read.

Many years ago as an angry, confused young person I was in Court a number of times for a variety of offences. I had a very positive experience with one Probation Officer. About ten years later I was given Home Office approval & funding for a CQSW course, after three years gained my qualification & with a further year's probationary period I was a PO myself. I worked damned hard, I knew my subject, I was comfortable in my own skin for the first time in my life. I realised I never wanted to be anything but a PO.

In 2013 I was shafted. In 2014 I was transferred. In 2015 I was bullied out of my career, had my redundancy entitlement slashed while my complicit Union was hapless, helpless & useless.

At the time of being shafted into a CRC I had a heavy caseload which included five long term cases who were damaged, volatile & unpredictable. I'd worked with them for between three & five years each. It was hard work. They should all have been allocated mental health specialists but there was neither the funding nor the appetite for PD diagnoses. The cases involved considerable commitment, especially given the onerous bureaucracy, crap IT & target-driven managerialism.

The cases were reallocated in 2014, just prior to my transfer. Its now 2018. I'm no longer a PO. Three of those five cases are dead. The other two are serving lengthy prison terms for new offences. That might have happened anyway. I'm not such an egomaniac as to think I was their saviour. But we had developed significant working relationships. I knew their families. We'll never know what might have been & I have to live with the guilt that generates for me, however irrational or unhelpful. 

So, I've really struggled to cope with my anger, guilt & grief at the impact of TR and that has surprised me. This MoJ announcement beggars belief. The determination to repeat the same catastrophic mistakes is staggering. And Napo's response is equally a source of dismay. Groundhog Day.

And now I have no idea what else to say. Its shocking. I just want to scream in anger & frustration but its nearly 2am & that wouldn't be easy to explain to the police.

******
What is palpable within these comments is the anger that many have felt about the changes that have been wrought upon them. It is clear this anger is directed outwards towards many, be it government, unions, management, institutions various or the rapacious outsourcing corporations. Fundamentally people feel badly let down, unsettled and stressed. One of the problems with revolutions such as TR is that people get hurt and in this revolution it is far from obvious where the greater good has been served.

******

My thoughts are with my former CRC colleagues, those that remained at least, and the double injustice that you are now faced with through absolutely no fault of your own. Sold and soon to be sold again with all the uncertainty and stress involved. It does not look like you are coming home anytime soon. Instead of a consultation how about a Probation staff vote, Reunify or Remain?

******

"We are wasting no time in analysing the consultative paper" - Sorry, Mr Lawrence, but you're miles & months behind the game yet again. MoJ & Clinks are already mobilised, venues booked, agenda set, chequebook in hand. Before we know it you'll be signing yet another fait accompli agreement which entombs the next incarnation of pseudo-probation within T&Cs determined by HMPPS. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

--oo00oo--

I notice that former Probation CEO Sally Lewis has attempted to engage Rory Stewart on twitter, but to no avail:-

From past experience of all professional views / advice being ignored in Probation TR consultation, many feel the current consultation will be equally meaningless. Is there any personal assurance you can give to the contrary @RoryStewartUK ?

I'll round off with this from the spend matters website on the disgraceful way government in the UK regularly prides itself in news manipulation:-  

End of Term Provides Cover for Difficult Government Announcements

We’re now firmly into summer holiday time, here in the UK at least, so you may see some small drop in the number of articles we publish between now and the end of August, unless amazing events transpire in the procurement world in the next few weeks. And of course Bank Holiday weekend you will get the usual Reading Festival reviews as a special bonus for all music-loving procurement professionals!

But if you read us this week you may wonder why suddenly there is a rash of public sector procurement related stories, and why most of them aren’t exactly good news. To be fair, in some cases, this is not about “procurement failure” – the MOD is arguably running out of money, and while you might criticise some aspects of procurement in that organisation, you can hardly blame it for the fundamental underlying challenges and issues with defence spending and management.

The reason for the rush of news stories though is much simpler to explain. It is in the main about minimising the impact of bad news. So announcements are slipped out just at the time when a large proportion of the general public is gearing up for or disappearing off on holiday and Parliament goes into recess, so MPs also disappear from Westminster. That means there is no-one around to ask difficult questions in the House about the latest MOD / probation service / nursery milk scheme / (insert controversial issue of your choice) announcement.

To be fair, there is also simply a sense of “clearing the decks”, and probably some personal KPIs and deliverables for staff that relate to completing work before the recess. It’s that end of term feeling – a combination of relief and panic as you try to tick off everything on your “to do” list before you rush off to your relaxing five-hour queue for Eurotunnel or 3 hour delay on the runway at Gatwick due to air traffic controllers striking somewhere in southern Europe.

But government can be quite sneaky (or worse) at times. Do you remember the awful memo from the government adviser who on the very day of the 2001 Twin Towers tragedy wrote that it is “now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury”.

Unfortunately, that is still the way government thinks and works, and that is true of all political parties. For example, as we pointed out here, when there was apparently good news on spend with smaller firms, there was much fanfare. When it is bad news, it is slipped out very quietly onto an obscure corner of Gov.uk.

I don’t often agree 100% with Polly Toynbee in the Guardian, but she was spot on last week here when she highlighted just how many important announcements were slipped out this time;

“All these decisions will mightily affect many people’s lives and livelihoods – and under scrutiny, more details will emerge. This underhanded skulduggery is a reminder of the value of a parliament holding the executive to account. As a way to conduct government, it is a disgrace: take no garbage from any minister promising “transparency” when this take-out-the-trash deviousness has become an end-of-term ritual”.

So we’ll be a little government-heavy here this week as we take a look at some of the recent announcements with a procurement angle. Apologies to anyone who has no interest in public sector commercial matters, but if you are in the UK, remember this is your money that is being spent!

Guest Blog 70

TR and Beyond - A Personal View

Speaking as one who endured endless TR meetings with the MoJ on behalf of Napo, I can only welcome the current Justice Secretary’s decision to put the experiment out of it’s misery. Has he killed it off altogether? That remains to be seen though for the moment the continued involvement of the private sector in Probation seems likely and personally I have grave reservations about that. 

At the time (2012-15) I often wondered whether the unions should have been engaging at all in consultations and negotiations over the plan. Many said it was a crazy idea, doomed to fail as indeed it has. As a trade union, it might have seemed a cleaner decision just to walk away and leave the MoJ to their mess but of course one has responsibilities to members and a responsibility to do the best for them. Could the process have been worse? Who knows - but probably. Back then I also thought to myself that Probation was entering a long dark tunnel, likely to last 10 years. Let’s hope that isn’t a conservative estimate.

What I do know is that the two year lead in time to TR contracts being let was ludicrously short. There was much to be done - TUPE arrangements, pension arrangements and revised conditions of service to name but a few. It was a testament to those involved, both civil servants and union reps, that so much was achieved in such a short space of time. Yes, I think it could have been worse. Now here we go again. Two years for another complete overhaul and so little agreement about the direction of travel. Not unlike Brexit really. My old CPO once told us, his staff, that change was normal and we should embrace it. I think that pearl of wisdom has its limitations.

What we also know is that any changes in 2020 will have to be achieved within the context of existing legislation. Mainly due to Brexit, domestic legislation is unlikely to progress very far, if at all, on any front. Personally I’d like the Government to have the courage to abolish custodial sentences of under 12 months, do something about those still subject to IPP sentences and re-visit the requirements of community sentences. I am no fan of RARs.

Little need be said about Chris Grayling - his record speaks for itself. Universal Credit, Probation and now the railways. At least UC was probably a good idea but poorly implemented. Certainly he should be recognised for his achievements and action taken accordingly.

Wales is interesting isn’t it? As some have already said, if it can be done in Wales, why not in England? It would certainly appear that the legislation allows for a unified service in Wales and therefore why not in England too. Section 3 (2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any person for the making of the probation provision. So it looks like anything is possible. Publicly run companies for example. The East Coast main-line contract springs to mind (another Grayling success). Temporary re-nationalisation? Might buy some time to get a more lasting model worked up. That might even mean permanent re-nationalisation. Who knows?

The other interesting thing of note in Wales is that the civil servant who is the current Executive Director of HMPPS in Wales is the self-same civil servant who headed up the TR project at the MoJ. I had a lot of time for her. She is smart and one could say that she did what she was tasked to do - latterly being rewarded with her current role. But I can’t help thinking that if the person who drove through TR is now herself rejecting the model outright, then that must tell us something.

It’s worth re-visiting the legislation to see what is and what is not possible, together with what should and should not be done.

The voluntary sector have been big losers in the world of TR. Their worst predictions of being put up as bid candy seem to have been realised. One implication of the proposed review is that they should get a better deal in future. Amen to that. Time was when Probation Trusts had to devote a percentage of their budgets (10% at one time?) to sub-contracting to the voluntary sector. Bit of a blunt instrument and often not well-liked because it restricted funds for other purposes. Nevertheless it kept the voluntary sector involvement afloat in the world of Probation. Much more than can be said for the current arrangements.

The idea of a professional register is, in my view, sound. I would say that as a Director of the Probation Institute wouldn’t I? Nevertheless it is my firm belief that this is right. My daughter, a nurse, just can’t believe that you can have a profession with no professional register. In her view it beggars belief and I agree with her. The Institute has developed a professional framework capable of being the basis for such a register and again I think it right that such a register is held and operated by an independent body and not, as now, effectively by the employer (MoJ) via the deeply flawed and largely both unworkable and unobserved PI 31/14 (Authorisation as officer of a provider of probation services). 

Time was when Probation Officers had a ‘licence to practice’ enshrined as it was in the NNC Handbook (Section B2). With another person from the Probation Association I re-wrote this section for the final version of the Handbook that was issued in 2014 as a final record of what used to be in Probation. The Handbook was an invaluable asset developed, carefully crafted, over many years. Where is it now? To the best of my knowledge, the MoJ never took proper ownership of it as TR was implemented which was a very poor decision. Where is it now and is it worth dusting off and revisiting? Well the final version can be found if you know where to look and I believe it still contains much of relevance.

To return though to the concept of a Licence to Practice and professional registration. In 2011, Napo passed a resolution at AGM calling for a licence to practice - this in view of the old version of B2 having become out of date in light of revised training arrangements (PQF) etc. Furthermore, and I quote directly from the resolution (entitled “Being a professional: a licence to practice in Probation’) - “...AGM believes that attention should be given to the establishment of an independent and objective arbiter charged with the validation of licences to practice and the development of a register of licensed practitioners - a role usually bestowed on professional associations”. Really from this came the impetus for the development of the Probation Institute - initially a joint venture between Napo, UNISON and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP).

Along with the NNC Handbook, another disappearing/disappeared document is National Standards. A work in its various iterations that I both liked and disliked as time went by. But quelle surprise, the Review (“Strengthening probation, building confidence” - a phrase borrowed from the PI) asks, at Q2, and through paras 25 to 29 about frequency of contact - offenders/offender managers. Really, is it any surprise to learn that the confidence of courts in community supervision and therefore such sentencing, takes a bit of a knock when they learn that this can be no more than a six weekly phone call?

Which leads me on to what courts are told. I was and am a firm believer in a properly constructed Pre-Sentence Report. There always will be a place for ‘stand-down’ reports (Oral/FDR) but not to the ludicrous extent to which they are now employed. I commend to you the recent briefing paper by the Centre for Justice Innovation on just this subject. If you want to bolster community sentences and reduce the prison population, there is no substitute for a well argued and thorough PSR. 

‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a well-worn phrase that is at the heart of the drive to speed up justice through the courts. Commendable to a point but justice as dispensed should also be fair, understandable and properly informed. I will never believe that anyone gets a good deal - court, defendant, victim or public, when, except in the most straightforward of cases, ‘stand-down’ reports are employed.

So Standard Delivery Reports (the writing of which I fear is fast becoming a dying art) would be one means of reducing the short term prison population in particular. Again I think the Minister is on the money when he seeks in whatever way possible to reduce the short term (up to a year) prison population. And what better way to fund Probation and Aftercare than by reducing the cost of the prison population (and associated costs of high rate re-offending)? Though another source of money (savings to be made) might be by dismantling what has become an unwieldy business empire within the MoJ - the contract bid/management world. There is some recognition, it would seem, of the need to properly fund new arrangements for Probation. It was always a bit barmy to imagine that statutory support/supervision of short-term prisoners on release could be zero-funded as was the case within TR.

A quick word on PBR. Way back when (2011?), I had a meeting with a consultant who had been retained by the MoJ to work up the concept. I rapidly formed the view that neither he nor the MoJ had the first clue about how this would or could operate. It’s okay for double-glazing salesmen but not for Probation. Another largely incomprehensible and very expensive white elephant has been developed. I’ve not changed my view since 2011 and before. What to do with the concept? Dump it.

Coming to a close, and I apologise for rambling - increasing old age and a bit rusty on my report writing skills, I just want to say a few words on two things - the great divide and the centrality of a relationship based on end to end case management and the investment of time.

The design of TR has created a divide between NPS and CRCs. It is a testament to dedicated staff that the effects of this are not worse than they are, but personally I believe there is no substitute for a unified service. That may not be the recommendation of the Probation Institute when it replies to the Review, I do not know. I am but one Director/Fellow. We shall see. In my day as a Probation Officer, we were “officers of the Court’. That relationship has been severely attenuated and I believe that to be a mistake. Probation should work for the community through the Courts. Probation staff should not be guided by the demands of private companies to make a profit nor by the Executive as civil servants.

End to end case management should start pre-court forming a relationship with a defendant in the preparation of a PSR. There has to be understanding and hopefully some ‘buy-in’ on the part of the defendant. That has then to be built upon and capitalised through the nebulous development of a relationship based upon trust and the investment of time (not just the odd phone call). Trust after all is exactly what Probation means.

These words represent my personal opinions. The Probation Institute Directors and Fellows meet on August 14th to consider our response to the Review/Consultation. It would be fair to say that most of us are no longer young, thrusting and dynamic though perhaps with age comes some wisdom. I have great respect for my fellow Fellows and Directors. I believe it to be a good team but we recognise that there is a very real need for current practitioner involvement with the Institute. It’s not about feathering our own nest. With the exception of one part-time administrator the Institute exists on freely given voluntary time. So what is in it by joining and becoming involved with the Institute? It is a statement of intent and an opportunity to help rescue the profession of Probation from the sorry mess that is TR.

Mike McClelland

The Sham Consultation

Here are the bones of the 8 week 'consultation' which the MoJ expects will keep us all quiet and pre-occupied during our summer break and then ignored obviously - just as with TR first time around of course. I don't know how civil servants sleep at night, but there's surely another award on offer, not least for the upbeat strap line:-  

Strengthening probation, building confidence

Justice Secretary Foreword 

The Government has a responsibility to deliver a criminal justice system that protects the public, punishes those who have broken the law in a meaningful, proportionate way, and supports offenders to turn away from crime. 

Well-functioning probation services are integral to this. Not only do they monitor offenders, but they also provide advice to courts so that sentences can better reflect the often complex factors at play in an offender’s circumstances; manage the ever-changing risk profile of offenders in their care; and make sure that those they supervise fulfil the conditions of community sentences, suspended sentences, and licence conditions. 

We know that community sentences are often more effective than prison in reducing reoffending. We want to see them used more often, particularly instead of short custodial sentences which can cause disruption to people’s lives without offering prisoners the dedicated time and support available during longer sentences to address the root causes of their offending. 

To make this shift away from custody towards managing and supporting offenders in the community, we need a probation system that the public is reassured by, that judges and magistrates have confidence in, and that delivers the right balance of proportionate punishment and rehabilitative support to offenders. 

Transforming Rehabilitation opened up the delivery of probation services to a broader range of providers and created the structure that we see today, with one public-sector National Probation Service (NPS) supervising higher-risk offenders, and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) managing medium and lower-risk cases. I believe that there is strength in this mixed market approach, with scope for a range of providers, including in the voluntary sector, to continue to bring fresh, innovative ideas to probation services. 

We have already seen a reduction of two percentage points in the reoffending rates of individuals supervised by CRCs, and some positive examples of good joint-working between the NPS, CRCs, and their local partners. However, as the Justice Select Committee’s recent report makes clear, the first set of CRC contracts have faced a number of challenges. While difficulties were to be expected in such a significant and complex programme of reform, I want to address these issues sooner rather than later. 

This consultation outlines how we plan to stabilise probation services and improve offender supervision and through-the-gate services. It also sets out how we will use the lessons we have learnt so far to put in place more effective services and a robust commercial framework. 

We intend to align NPS and CRC areas in England, facilitating the development of closer local partnerships, and aim to recognise the distinct delivery environment seen in Wales by bringing the NPS and CRC into one combined probation service, while creating space for a range of providers to compete to deliver rehabilitative services. As well as the structural and contractual elements, we want to make improvements to the services offenders receive in a number of areas, and to better recognise the skills, experience, and professionalism of our dedicated workforce. 

I look forward to hearing the views of the many people and organisations with an interest in the delivery of these services, and your input will be used to introduce changes that strengthen our probation system and, in turn, help to break the cycle of reoffending. 

The Rt Hon David Gauke MP 

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Executive summary 

Probation services are at the heart of an effective criminal justice system. They deliver the orders of the court, protect the public from harm and rehabilitate offenders. Whether an offender receives a community sentence or is sent to prison, probation will be central to ensuring that justice is done and that those who have committed crimes return to being law-abiding members of society. Evidence suggests that community sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences, but if they are to fulfil their potential it is vital they are properly delivered and enforced, that offenders are effectively supervised, and that the courts, victims and the public have confidence in the ability of probation to do this. 

In this paper we set out the immediate steps we are taking to stabilise the delivery of probation services in the next two years, as well as our longer-term strategy for improving the quality of supervision, rehabilitation and resettlement beyond 2020 and creating a more integrated system which works effectively with local partners. This longer-term vision seeks to build on the changes introduced by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms so we more fully realise our ambition to reduce reoffending and protect the public. 

Transforming Rehabilitation 

The significant reforms that were made to probation as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme were based on sound principles: 

• the extension of post-release supervision to short-sentenced prisoners who too often are simply recycled through the criminal justice system; 

• opening up the market to a wider range of providers to encourage innovation and more modern ways of working; 

• creating new incentives for providers to focus on achieving reductions in reoffending; and 

• ensuring a stronger focus on managing higher-risk offenders. 

These were, and remain, sensible objectives. In the three years since they took full effect, these reforms have delivered some successes, and throughout this period staff have continued to demonstrate their commitment and professionalism. There are areas of good and promising practice across a range of providers, and we have seen a reduction of two percentage points in the reoffending rates of individuals supervised by CRCs. The NPS has established more consistent ways of working and is generally assessed as performing well in managing higher-risk offenders. 

We know, however, that it has been challenging to fully realise the vision of these reforms. It is clear from our own assessments, and those of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) and the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, that in a number of areas the quality of probation services being delivered is falling short of our expectations. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, and have been compounded by the financial challenges facing CRCs following unforeseen changes in the volume and types of cases coming to court, and changes in the frequency of reoffending which took place prior to CRCs taking responsibility for services. 

Immediate steps to stabilise probation delivery 

We took action last year to adjust CRC contracts to reflect more accurately the costs incurred by providers in delivering services, but we now believe we need to take more decisive steps to tackle some of the challenges with these first-generation contracts and put probation on a more stable footing. Long-term trends in reoffending are substantially affecting providers’ payment-by-results income, threatening to undermine the delivery of core services and prevent probation responding more effectively to the challenge of prolific offending. 

We have therefore agreed with our current providers that we will seek to end CRC contracts earlier than anticipated. We will then explore with stakeholders and the market how we could put in place more effective delivery arrangements and wider system improvements beyond 2020. There is much we can learn from the current CRC contracts, including good practice we can build on as well as things we will want to do differently in future to ensure that the capability of the market to deliver probation services is fully realised. We also intend to make a number of improvements to CRC services now and adjust the baseline year against which we compare performance on frequency of reoffending so this better reflects the performance of providers since contracts began. 

Our strategy for improving probation services beyond 2020 

If the state is to fulfil its fundamental obligation to protect the public, probation services have a critical role to play. Through the proper supervision and rehabilitation of offenders, probation services can prevent future victims of crime and make communities safer. 

In this paper we set out our proposals to promote a clearer focus on probation meeting these core functions and delivering the standard of services we and the courts require. We also describe steps we will take to create a more integrated and collaborative probation system, and set out proposals to improve how probation works with wider partners. Our aim is to improve the operation of the probation system and create the conditions for current structures to deliver improved outcomes, while minimising the disruption that more significant reform could entail. 

Through this consultation we want to engage with potential providers, stakeholders, judges and magistrates, local partners, staff, users of probation services and the public to help shape our proposals to improve the quality of probation work and put the right structures in place to support effective delivery. The feedback we receive, and further work to assess the impacts of reform proposals, will inform the decisions we take later this year on our future strategy. 

Supervising offenders and delivering the sentence of the court 

Effective supervision of offenders and protection of the public is the foundation of an effective probation system. Offenders must be properly assessed and seen regularly by their probation officer. The sentences of the court must be delivered, and when an offender is not complying with requirements there must be swift and firm action taken. 

To improve the supervision and management of offenders we will: 

• improve the assessment of offenders by reviewing processes and ensuring, as far as is practicable, a thorough and good quality assessment is built upon and follows an offender throughout their sentence; 

• introduce minimum standards specifying the form and frequency of contact between offenders and their responsible officer; (We intend to amend current CRC contracts so that all providers offer face-to-face meetings with offenders at least monthly.) 

• improve the delivery of unpaid work to ensure there are sufficient placements available for offenders and that these promote employment-related skills; and 

• explore options to make post-sentence supervision more proportionate to an individual’s sentence and their rehabilitative needs. 

More effective rehabilitation of offenders 

The causes of offending, and the action needed to prevent reoffending, will be different for every offender. Probation providers need to ensure that they identify these needs, deliver the range and quality of services needed to rehabilitate offenders, and work with other services to help offenders receive the support they are entitled to. 

To improve the rehabilitation of offenders we will: 

• enhance the quality of advice to court provided by the NPS so that it more effectively informs sentencing decisions, and promote engagement between courts and CRCs to improve judicial confidence; 

• define the range and quality of services to be delivered as part of a rehabilitation activity requirement, and embed these in future contracts and service levels; 

• increase the use of community sentences that include drug, alcohol or mental health treatment requirements by testing a protocol in five areas across England; 

• invest in tailored provision for female offenders; and 

• improve the data we collect and publish on offenders’ protected characteristics. 

Preparing prisoners for life in the community 

Successful resettlement of offenders as they leave prison is vital to preventing them slipping back into a life of crime. This requires probation to work effectively with prisons to identify and address resettlement needs, and with wider partners who have responsibilities to help prisoners secure accommodation on release, find employment or access to benefits, and continued access to health treatment and social care services. 

To improve the resettlement of individuals leaving prison we will: 

• explore options for a future model of resettlement which puts offender managers in prison and the community at the heart of the process, and consider the resettlement services that may be required to support offenders; (We also plan to invest an additional £22m per annum now to improve current through-the-gate provision) and 

• bring key departments together to tackle the barriers to rehabilitation through a cross government Reducing Reoffending Board. 

A workforce with the right training and skills 

The effectiveness of probation work depends on staff with the professional and vocational commitment to make a difference with offenders. Recent reforms have created disruption and challenges for staff. We want to make sure that we do all we can to develop the skills and capability of the workforce so all staff are equipped to do their jobs.  

To enhance the skills and capability of the probation workforce we will: 

• develop a workforce strategy which ensures providers can recruit and develop the staff they need to deliver quality probation services; and 

• support staff to build careers in probation by defining more clearly the transferable skills and competencies of responsible officers, and introduce a professional register. 

Improving system integration 

We need to ensure that the NPS and CRCs work together more closely as part of a single, integrated system. In doing so we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local services, while creating the conditions for stronger partnership working. 

To improve system integration we will: 

• create 10 probation regions in England and configure service delivery within each area, with a senior HMPPS leader responsible for joining up services and working with stakeholders; 

• invest in HMPPS digital services to simplify data access and exchange and deliver improvements to IT systems; and 

• explore options for the commissioning of rehabilitation and resettlement services which promote engagement and collaboration with local partners, and facilitate greater voluntary sector involvement in the delivery of probation services. 

Working more closely with partners 

Rehabilitation and reintegration must be a collective enterprise, with a range of statutory and voluntary services having a role to play alongside probation in tackling the problems leading to offenders committing crime. By working more effectively with these partners, and by all public services meeting their obligations in respect of offenders, we can improve individual outcomes and protect victims and communities. 

To improve how probation works with partners we will: 

• work with voluntary sector organisations, philanthropic trust funders and social finance organisations to explore how different approaches to commissioning could promote their increased involvement in the delivery of services to offenders; 

• engage with Police and Crime Commissioners to consider how they can play a greater role in shaping rehabilitation and resettlement services and improving local collaboration with statutory agencies; and 

• work with London and Greater Manchester as part of existing devolution deals to co-design future probation services. 

A probation system that works for Wales 

The devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government and existing partnership arrangements in Wales make the delivery of probation services quite different to that in England. The legislative framework provides us with scope to develop alternative delivery arrangements which better reflect the criminal justice context in Wales and the role of HMPPS Wales. We will then consider whether the learning from these new arrangements is applicable to the system in England. 

To develop a probation system that works for Wales we will: 

• integrate the offender management functions of the Wales CRC into NPS Wales so that a single organisation is responsible for managing all offenders, providing opportunities to improve services across prisons and probation; and 

• explore options for the commissioning of rehabilitation services in Wales which reflect the delivery landscape and the skills and capabilities of providers. 

Driving performance improvement 

It is important that probation is focused on the right outcomes, and that providers have meaningful incentives to achieve these. We also need to ensure that there is transparency and accountability of performance, and that the way we oversee services drives improvement. 

To drive performance improvement in the probation system we will: 

• explore options for future contracts that would pay providers to deliver core services while retaining incentives for innovation and performance improvement; 

• explore options for the key performance outcomes and measures that probation providers should be judged against in future contracts and service level agreements; and 

• support HMI Probation to implement its new inspection framework which will see providers inspected and rated annually. 

Next steps 

We want to see offenders successfully rehabilitated so they turn away from crime and make a positive contribution to society. Wherever possible we want this to happen in the community, reducing the need for short custodial sentences which evidence suggests have worse reoffending outcomes. To achieve this we need a probation system which commands the confidence of the courts and the public, supervises offenders effectively and protects the public, and works with others to give offenders the support they need to lead law-abiding lives. 

This consultation sets out our proposals for how we achieve this. We now want to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to seek views on these proposals, listen to the experiences and suggestions of others, and refine our plans for improving probation services.

Questionnaire 

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper. 

Question 1: What steps could we take to improve the continuity of supervision throughout an offender’s sentence? 

Question 2: What frequency of contact between offenders and offender managers is most effective to promote purposeful engagement? How should this vary during a period of supervision, and in which circumstances are alternatives to face-to-face meetings appropriate? Do you have evidence to support your views?

 

Question 3: How can we promote unpaid work schemes which both make reparation to communities and equip offenders with employment-related skills and experience? 

Question 4: What changes should we make to post-sentence supervision arrangements to make them more proportionate and improve rehabilitative outcomes? (You may wish to refer to your answer to question 2.) 

Question 5: What further steps could we take to improve the effectiveness of pre-sentence advice and ensure it contains information on probation providers’ services? 

Question 6: What steps could we take to improve engagement between courts and CRCs? 

Question 7: How else might we strengthen confidence in community sentences? 

Question 8: How can we ensure that the particular needs and vulnerabilities of different cohorts of offenders are better met by probation? Do you have evidence to support your proposals? 

Question 9: How could future resettlement services better meets the needs of offenders serving short custodial sentences? 

Question 10: Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for responsible officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with? 

Question 11: How would you see a national professional register operating across all providers – both public and private sector, and including agency staff – and what information should it capture? 

Question 12: Do you agree that changes to the structure and leadership of probation areas are sufficient to achieve integration across all providers of probation services? 

Question 13: How can probation providers effectively secure access to the range of rehabilitation services they require for offenders, and how can key local partners contribute to achieving this? 

Question 14: How can we better engage voluntary sector providers in the design and delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services for offenders in the community? 

Question 15: How can we support greater engagement between PCCs and probation providers, including increased co-commissioning of services? 

Question 16: How can we ensure that arrangements for commissioning rehabilitation and resettlement services in Wales involve key partners, complement existing arrangements and reflect providers’ skills and capabilities? 

Question 17: What should our key measures of success be for probation providers, and how can we effectively encourage the right focus on those outcomes and on the quality of services? 

Please respond online via the Ministry of Justice consultation hub where possible: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/hm-prisons-and-probation/strengthening-probation-buildingconfidence 

Thank you for participating in this consultation exercise.

Responses to Demise of TR 2

Despite being a hot Friday with many people either on holiday or heading off, there was a veritable storm of media activity yesterday at the prospect of yet more changes to the probation landscape. Gauke describing TR as 'ambitious and innovative' is of course civil service speak for a complete disaster and the closest we will ever get to the government admitting as such. Nevertheless, TR is dead and I guess what is being proposed is constrained, as with everything else, by Brexit and absolutely no parliamentary time being available.        

This blog has received over 10,000 hits in two days, thus confirming its continuing place and relevance as a platform for news and discussion as we approach what will almost inevitably prove to be another sham 'consultation' and reorganisation. It will be stressful and worrying to many and do nothing for morale I fear, but for those of us who refuse to give up on ideals that we know lie at the core of the probation ethos, the fight for its future as a distinct profession and endeavour will continue. Where better to start then than with Rob Allen's take on things:-    

Back to the Future? Where Next for Probation.

What to make of today’s announcement about the future shape of probation services? Is it as Russell Webster pronounced the end of Transforming Rehabilitation? Or is the foreshortening of existing private probation contracts merely a case of reculer pour mieux sauter? All bets are off of course if Labour come to power. They have pledged a unified public-sector service with Lord Ramsbotham currently mulling the best way to organise it. But today, the Government offers the opportunity for anyone to pitch in ideas for the best way forward if they stay at the helm. Although the Consultation invites views on 17 specific questions, it will not require too much creativity for answers to propose more macro level suggestions about how to rescue probation from the mire.

Despite many calls for the public National Probation service to be reunited with the Community Rehabilitation Companies, this seems to be happening only in Wales. In England, 10 new CRC’s will be contracted to replace the current 20. The MoJ say they’ll explore with the market how to establish a more effective commercial framework which better takes account of changes in demand for probation and ensures providers are adequately paid to deliver core services. It’s possible that such exploration will find no workable framework other than reunification. But I doubt it.

For one thing, big beasts G4S and SERCO may be allowed back on the scene. Although still under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging on tagging contracts, both companies seem to be back in the contracting fold, relieved perhaps to have missed out on the embarrassment of TR1 and eager to show how they can learn from its mistakes.

More significantly, privatisation is now hardwired into conservative thinking. The party’s new vice chairman for policy, Chris Skidmore, was among those who has in the past argued that all prisons should be contracted out on a payment by results (PBR) basis. So too was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, who’ll have to sign the new probation arrangements off. Before doing so, she will surely want to reflect not only on private sector underperformance but on how little risk the businesses have taken on. We are told today that long-term trends in re-offending are substantially affecting providers’ payment-by results income, threatening to undermine the delivery of core services. Setting aside the fact that declining clear up rates should make it easier to reduce recorded reoffending, the limited impact on persistent and prolific offenders is one of the many disappointments of the TR scheme. If today may not mark the end of TR, it may be the demise of PBR, in this field at least.

What comes next? The Howard League are pushing a Scottish type arrangement which has a lot going for it - although they’ll need to re think their proposed 21 service delivery areas. Maybe because I used to be on the Youth Justice Board, I’ve always favoured an Adult Offending Team model along the lines of Youth Offending Teams (YOT’s). These local authority based multi-agency teams, developed in Tony Blair’s first term, partly in response to a damning critique from the Audit Commission, have by and large proved an effective model for diverting young people from crime, from prosecution and from custody.

This is surely the sort of approach we now need for adults. There’s scope for discussion about the role Police and Crime Commissioners might play in any new system and whether Adult Offending Teams should form part of a broader devolution of justice responsibilities and budgets to a more local, and locally accountable, level. This is just the kind of discussion we need to have now.

Rob Allen

Response to Demise of TR

Here we have one of the first considered responses to the news that TR is to be given a decent burial and it's from Clinks' who have have been quick off the mark both with a press release and a 'starter for ten' on the consultation:-

Ministry of Justice responds to Clinks’ call for an open consultation on the future of probation 

Clinks welcomes today's consultation announcement on the future of probation. Our research on the voluntary sector's engagement in Transforming Rehabilitation shows that our sector is under represented, under pressure and under resourced and calls for the Ministry of Justice to openly consult on the purpose and structure of probation. 

The government’s proposals recognise Clinks’ findings that charities in probation supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability. Our research highlighted confusion about what should be funded by probation which is causing disinvestment in voluntary sector services from other sources. We therefore welcome the proposal for future probation contracts to be more clearly focused on core offender management functions and delivering the standards the courts require. 

We particularly welcome the Ministry of Justice's intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of the wider services that support rehabilitation and resettlement. These services are often distinct from the role of statutory probation to deliver the sentence of the court, but provide essential support to ensure that individuals can complete that sentence and transform their lives. 

The consultation acknowledges that the current system has presented challenges for the voluntary sector, despite the central role that was outlined in the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The sector will need assurances that the lessons of the current system will be learnt. We hope that this consultation signals the start of a genuine co-design process for future commissioning and partnership arrangements between probation services and the voluntary sector. 

Clinks’ Chief Executive Officer, Anne Fox, said: 

"It is timely for the Ministry of Justice to take the decision to terminate current contracts in 2020 and take steps to stabilise current arrangements. Research from Clinks and others indicates that probation services, and the voluntary sector's role in them, are currently unsustainable and not able to deliver to the quality we would like to see.

"Looking to the future, this is an opportunity to address serious limitations in the current system and ensure that the voluntary sector’s knowledge and skills are properly utilised in support of the high quality probation services needed. We will however need to be confident that the final proposals adequately address the current problems in the system and do not represent tweaking around the edges. We look forward to working with the Ministry of Justice to ensure this is not the case."

--oo00oo--

TREXIT? WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF PROBATION SERVICES?

Today the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced an eight-week public consultation on the future of probation services. An open consultation on the future purpose and structure of probation was one of the key recommendations from Clinks' TrackTR research on the voluntary sector's involvement in Transforming Rehabilitation and we therefore warmly welcome this announcement.

While a public consultation on this subject is positive in and of itself, in this blog I will take a closer look at the MoJ's proposals and examine how different they truly are to the current system. Do they represent ‘TR-exit’ or is this more a case of ‘TR-lite’?

INVOLVEMENT OF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR

Our research shows that the voluntary sector is under represented, under pressure and under resourced in the delivery of probation. It is reassuring to see the government recognise this in their consultation document. They also acknowledge our findings that charities in supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability.

In order to improve the quality of services the Ministry of Justice is proposing that future probation contracts should be more clearly focused on “core offender management functions” and “delivering the standards that the courts require”. The proposals state that future arrangements will be much clearer about the services probation providers are required to deliver, where they may seek to commission, and where they should seek to influence the delivery of other local services. This is welcome and should help to address the confusion about what could and should be funded by probation, which our research found was leading to disinvestment in voluntary sector services from other sources.

They also state an intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of probation services. This is particularly welcome. As the proposals rightly acknowledge, the type of support required to stop an individual offending varies from person to person. In many cases the underlying causes of offending are complex - homelessness, unemployment, mental ill health, substance misuse - and require additional specialist support - support which the voluntary sector has a proud history of providing alongside probation services, long before Transforming Rehabilitation was even a twinkle in Chris Grayling's eye.

There is, though, a potential contradiction and risk in the language used in the proposals. Describing offender management functions as the “core” of probation risks interpretation that this is also the core of rehabilitation and resettlement. In many cases, what is core to supporting a person's desistance is far more complex. The need for services that respond to that complexity must remain central in the development of these proposals, as well as consideration of how probation can secure access to them. It will be vital, as the new contracts are developed, to ensure that these additional but nonetheless essential services are properly enabled to support offender management.

The consultation itself does recognise this and asks how the MoJ can better engage voluntary sector providers in the design and delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services for people in the community. It is welcome that the MoJ is asking this question openly of the voluntary sector and recognises the value of co-designing commissioning and partnership working arrangements. They briefly set out some potential future models for this - such as separate frameworks or dynamic purchasing systems at national and regional levels - but the detail is lacking. Given the experience of many organisations under the current system, as well as recent experiences of the commissioning of families services and the current education contracts commissioning process, significant assurances will be needed by many in the voluntary sector that the lessons of the past will be learnt and applied.

The proposals also involve reducing the number of contract package areas from 21 to 10. It will be essential that consideration is given to the impact this might have on contract size, voluntary sector involvement and the provision of specialist and localised services.

There is also little attention given to those voluntary sector organisations who are in current supply chains and will inevitably be asking what all this means for them and what transition arrangements will be in place for their contracts. Clinks has been advised that organisations in this position should discuss this with the relevant Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). However, we would also be keen to know of the challenges and issues that you are encountering.

OTHER KEY PROPOSALS

In addition to setting out plans for working more closely with partners and involving the voluntary sector, the proposals include a range of significant changes to both how probation services are delivered and how they are contracted.

We will be publishing a full briefing on the proposals in the coming days but for now here’s a summary:

Contracts

Current CRC contracts will be terminated 18 months early. A competition for new contracts will be launched early next year and new CRC contracts will be in place by autumn 2020.

The number of contract package areas will be reduced from 21 to 10, making CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) co-terminus in order to drive better integration. They will be managed by a single Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service leader responsible for joining up services and working with stakeholders.

Future contracts will pay providers to deliver core services while retaining incentives for innovation and performance.

The key performance outcomes and indicators that providers should be judged against will be explored and HM Inspectorate Probation will be supported to implement its new framework.

Partnerships

Options will be explored for the commissioning of rehabilitation services to promote engagement and collaboration with local partners and facilitate greater voluntary sector involvement

Police and Crime Commissioners will be engaged to consider how they can play a greater role in shaping rehabilitation services and improving collaboration with local services.

Delivery

Minimum standards will be introduced which specify the form and frequency of contact between offenders and responsible officers

Post-sentence supervision will be reviewed to ensure it is proportionate to each offender’s sentence and rehabilitative needs

Circumstances for transfer of cases between CRCs and the NPS will be reviewed to take into account the dynamic nature of risk

The quality of advice to the court will be improved so that it better informs sentencing decisions

The range and quality of services delivered as part of rehabilitation activity requirements will be defined and embedded in future contracts and service levels

A protocol will be tested in five areas in England to increase the use of community sentences with drug, alcohol or mental health treatment requirements

Options for how the particular needs and vulnerabilities of different cohorts of offenders, including those with protected characteristics, will be explored

The data collected and published on offenders’ protected characteristics will be improved.

WALES

While criminal justice is not devolved to the Welsh government, prison and probation services are configured slightly differently in Wales and many related policy areas such as health, housing, social welfare and education are devolved. As the consultation highlights, this presents a fundamentally different delivery landscape in Wales and distinct partnership arrangements already exist to join up the delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services.

The Ministry of Justice is therefore proposing an alternative delivery arrangement whereby the functions of the CRC and NPS will be integrated into a single organisation with responsibility for all offenders. Additional services that support rehabilitation and resettlement will then be put out to tenders to enable a range of providers and voluntary sector organisations to compete to deliver them. This will likely extend beyond the kinds of support services described above to core parts of sentence delivery such as unpaid work schemes and accredited programmes.

DEVOLUTION

The proposals recognise that local landscapes are evolving and that probation services could be better aligned to regions with greater devolved responsibilities. They set out plans to test the benefits of co-designing arrangements in London and Greater Manchester where criminal justice devolution agreements are already in place.

TREXIT OR TRLITE?

There is much in these proposals to welcome and that responds to the concerns raised by Clinks’ research and that of the Public Accounts Committee, Justice Committee and HM Inspectorate of Probation. However, it is also clear that the Ministry of Justice is somewhat bound by the parameters of what it can do both politically - to avoid risking accusations of a full U-turn - and economically, given its current cash-strapped position. Reforms after the consultation period must address the fundamental limitations of the current system and not just fiddle with detail and presentation or they will risk not changing anything at all.

Clinks will be submitting a response to the consultation and encourage other voluntary sector organisations to do the same.

TR Fails But to be Bailed Out

So TR has indeed been a total failure and Probation delivery is to be completely re-designed, but understanding exactly how is far from clear with an 8 week consultation process. 

The privateers are to have their contracts terminated early in 2020, but only after being bailed out first with more government cash. Despite all the evidence that involving the private sector has been a disaster, the contract areas are to be enlarged to match the NPS regions, but not in Wales where all probation will be run by NPS. If reintegration is good for Wales, it can obviously be good for England as well. Here are both government announcements:-

JUSTICE SECRETARY OUTLINES FUTURE VISION FOR PROBATION

• Government is strengthening offender supervision in existing CRC contracts and investing an extra £22 million each year to improve through-the-gate support
• CRC and NPS areas to be aligned – improving joint working and strengthening ties with key partners, including the third sector, local authorities and PCCs
• Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts will end two years early in 2020, with plans to work with the market to design new and improved contracts

Justice Secretary David Gauke has set out his vision for the future of probation services in England and Wales today, announcing plans to change and improve the current system and invest £22 million in extra support for offenders leaving prison.

A consultation document published today outlines the Ministry of Justice’s intention to strengthen the supervision of offenders and increase confidence in community sentences. It builds on the recent publication of our female offender and employment and education strategies, to demonstrate the department’s commitment to tackling reoffending by: investing in community provision, strengthening alternatives to short custodial sentences; and boosting rehabilitation and prospects for offenders.

Probation relies heavily on joint working with a range of agencies and today’s consultation outlines plans to create a more integrated and collaborative system, by improving partnerships with PCCs and the third sector. In the future, CRC and NPS areas will be aligned, with ten new probation regions in England, simplifying and strengthening ties with key local partners and creating opportunities to co-commission rehabilitation services with PCCs.

Reforms to probation in 2015, known as ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’, were challenging, ambitious and have led to 40,000 extra offenders a year receiving support and supervision on release – a positive change for public safety. This additional monitoring has been carried out by newly formed, ‘Community Rehabilitation Companies’ (CRCs) who manage low and medium-risk offenders, and the publicly funded National Probation Service (NPS), who manage higher-risk offenders.

While CRCs have reduced the overall number of people reoffending, it is clear that probation providers have faced significant challenges. Unforeseen changes in the types of offenders coming to the courts and the sentences they receive have substantially reduced CRC income and affected the quality of frontline services.

That is why the consultation document sets out urgent action being taken to address existing issues with CRC contracts. This includes ending current CRC contracts early in 2020, improving supervision and through-the-gate support in the meantime, and using the lessons learnt so far to put in place improved services in the future, with more effective commercial arrangements.

Secretary of State, David Gauke said:

"I am determined to have a probation service that protects the public, commands the confidence of the courts and ultimately reduces reoffending. So we are taking decisive action now to improve the delivery of probation services in England and Wales. We want to see less reliance on ineffective short prison terms, and in order to achieve this courts must have confidence that probation services will deliver tough community sentences – sentences that punish, but also help those who commit crime to turn their lives around and stop offending. I am confident that the proposals set out in this consultation will play a major role in helping us to achieve this aim."

To improve services in the next two years, the Ministry of Justice is investing an additional £22 million a year in through-the-gate support for offenders when they leave prison, as part of wider changes to contracts to stabilise CRC delivery until the end of 2020 and allow CRCs to continue to deliver the level of service required.

The Ministry of Justice will also work with London and Greater Manchester to co-design future services in those areas as part of existing devolution arrangements. In addition, the devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government and existing arrangements in Wales make the delivery of probation services fundamentally different to England.

To reflect this, the consultation sets out proposals to bring the supervision of all offenders in Wales into the NPS and explore how wider partners can help to improve rehabilitative support for offenders, by better joining up with health, housing and other local services.

Alongside the structural and contractual changes, a new professional register will be introduced, helping staff to move between roles and develop their careers. The consultation also seeks views on improving the training and development of staff.

The consultation will seek to gather views and expertise from a range of potential providers, including the voluntary sector, as well as other stakeholders, and will inform the future delivery of probation services in England and Wales.

--oo00oo--

New plans for probation in Wales announced by UK Government

Reforms will see supervision of all offenders in Wales managed by NPS Wales

• Supervision of all offenders in Wales will be brought together into the National Probation Service (NPS), to better reflect the needs of communities in Wales.
• Changes will strengthen the supervision of offenders and increase public confidence in community sentences.
• CRC contracts will end two years early in 2020, with plans to work with the market to design new and improved contracts for rehabilitation services

Widespread reforms to the way probation is delivered in Wales have been announced by the UK Government, to strengthen the supervision of offenders and increase confidence in community sentences.

A consultation document published today outlines the Ministry of Justice’s intention to use flexibilities in the existing devolution settlement to bring the supervision of all offenders in Wales into NPS Wales - so a single organisation is responsible for managing all offenders taking a holistic and unified approach to probation.

In the future, CRC and NPS areas will be aligned, with ten new probation regions in England, simplifying and strengthening ties with key local partners and creating opportunities to co-commission rehabilitation services with PCCs.

Reforms to probation in 2015, known as ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’, were challenging, ambitious and have led to 40,000 extra offenders a year receiving support and supervision on release – a positive change for public safety.

This additional monitoring has been carried out by newly formed, ‘Community Rehabilitation Companies’ who manage low and medium-risk offenders, and the publicly funded NPS, who manage higher-risk offenders.

Existing arrangements mean that the make-up and delivery of probation services in Wales is already different to England, with prison and probation services overseen entirely by HMPPS Wales – paving the way for changes to the current system.

Criminal justice in Wales is a reserved matter and the responsibility of the UK Government. However, other agencies such as healthcare, education and social services are devolved, and we will continue to work closely with these key organisations.

To reflect this, today’s consultation sets out proposals to bring the supervision of all offenders in Wales into the NPS and explore how wider partners can help to improve rehabilitative support for offenders, by better joining up with health, housing and the third sector.

The new model will support greater integration with these key services – building on the positive work that is already happening through the All Wales Criminal Justice Board.

Probation partners in Wales have already come together collaboratively to join up the delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services, which provides a unique opportunity to build on these positive partnerships and improve the offering of services across the country.

Justice Secretary David Gauke said:

"I want a probation service in Wales that not only keeps the public safe but one that fundamentally reduces reoffending, by giving offenders the support they need to contribute positively to the community and turn their lives around. This is an exciting opportunity to create a probation service in Wales that brings together vital services and strengthens existing partnerships. We want to see a greater emphasis on community sentences, and less reliance on short custodial sentences, so they are only used as a last resort - but to do this we must have a probation service that commands the confidence of the courts. I am confident the steps we are outlining today will build on the positive progress in Wales and improve rehabilitation – so we can ultimately cut the cost of reoffending."

Secretary of State for Wales Alun Cairns said:

"The plans announced today underline the UK Government’s firm commitment to cutting reoffending with the support of an effective, stable probation service. We want to see offenders in Wales successfully rehabilitated so they turn away from crime and make a positive contribution to society. We now want to engage with a wide range of stakeholders across Wales to seek views on these proposals, listen to the experiences and suggestions of others, and to work with the Welsh Government to refine our plans for improving probation services across the nation."

While CRCs have reduced the overall number of people reoffending, it is clear that private probation providers have faced significant challenges. Unforeseen changes in the types of offenders coming to the courts and the sentences they receive have substantially reduced CRC income and affected the quality of frontline services.

That is why today’s consultation document sets out urgent action that will be taken to address these issues - ending the current CRC contracts early in 2020, improving supervision and through-the-gate support in the meantime, and using lessons learnt so far to put in place improved services with more effective commercial arrangements.

Alongside the structural and contractual changes, a new professional register will be introduced, helping staff to move between roles and develop their careers. The consultation also seeks views on improving the training and development of staff.

The consultation will seek to gather views and expertise from a range of potential providers, including the voluntary sector, as well as other stakeholders, and will inform the future delivery of probation services in England and Wales.

Notes to editors:
There are currently 21 CRCs: one in Wales and 20 in England.
There are seven NPS regions: six in England and one in Wales.
Under the new proposals ten new probation regions will be created in England. Each will contain one CRC and one NPS area and be overseen by one HMPPS leader.
Under current arrangements, the National Probation Service (NPS) manages higher-risk offenders, with the CRCs managing low and medium-risk offenders.
Criminal justice powers are not devolved, however the Welsh Government are responsible for aspects of the probation service such as health, education and social services.
The consultation will last for eight weeks and the findings will be used to inform future delivery of probation.