The MoJ Responds 3

Support for Offenders on Probation 

We recommend that the UK Government should introduce a presumption against short custodial sentences. The Government should carry out an assessment of the potential impacts that such a policy might have, including on the prison population, both the male and female estate, and the allocation of cases to different courts (Paragraph 140). 

We welcome the Committee’s support for sentencing reform and the recommendation to restrict the use of short custodial sentences. There is a strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less, with some exceptions. We are currently exploring options, including looking at the approach taken in Scotland and whether we can go further than this. This involves an assessment of potential impacts. 

If short custodial sentences continue to be used, within 12 months the Government should consider repealing Section 2 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. Before repealing the Section 2 provisions the Ministry should assess what policy or legislative measures should replace those provisions. (Paragraph 145) 

The Government is of the view that Post-Sentence Supervision under Section 2 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act should remain in place. This has led to the supervision of 40,000 additional offenders being released from short custodial sentences, and is a positive change for public safety. However, we are continuing to consider ways of improving post-sentence supervision, in order to clarify expectations for its delivery and ensure a focus on rehabilitation. We will also need to consider how proposals to reduce the use of short custodial sentences would impact on post-release supervision. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should review the purpose of Through the Gate and the support that it provides offenders. 

As part of this review the Ministry should consider introducing a prisoner discharge pack, based on need, and minimum expectations on resettlement services offered and how offenders’ knowledge of accessing Government services through digital portals can be improved. Real consideration should be given to whether it is appropriate to release prisoners with few family ties, from custody on a Friday, when access to Government services can be difficult. (Paragraph 152). 

As part of our future arrangements set out above we are reviewing the purpose and focus of resettlement activity and looking at enhancing the role and pre-release planning time of the community responsible officer as well as providing greater clarity on service delivery in prison and from the community. We recognise that effective probation is dependent on offenders’ access to wider services, such as housing, universal credit and substance misuse treatment. We are working with other government departments on these issues, including through the cross-Whitehall Reducing Reoffending Board to facilitate this.

With regard to release on a Friday, automatic release points for custodial sentences are set in legislation. Where the release date falls on a weekend or Bank Holiday, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 requires the release date to be brought forward to the first preceding working day, i.e. Friday. Delaying when the prisoner is released to the next working day, i.e. Monday, would mean holding the person unlawfully. To amend the release arrangements, we would need to change primary legislation and we have no evidence to suggest that those released on Fridays are more likely to reoffend than those released on any other working day. 

We are currently considering responses to a recent consultation on the policy which highlighted the potential for Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) to be used on a case by case basis to allow offenders with Friday release dates to access services and support before the weekend, where this has been identified as key by their community offender manager. 

We have, however, recognised the need for immediate action to improve Through the Gate services to prisoners. Contract changes agreed with CRCs in 2018 included an enhanced Through the Gate service to increase the current level of service from April 2019, and this includes minimum expectations for resettlement services for prisoners. This is supported by £22m per annum of additional investment (for the remaining lifetime of the existing CRC contracts), and applies to all prisoners being released from resettlement prisons. Almost 500 new staff have now been employed in the 86 resettlement prisons to provide this enhanced service. Provision of the new specification will also be available to those being discharged from non-resettlement prisons through NPS commissioning via the CRC Rate Cards which have been updated to include the enhanced TTG service and improvements have been made to the pay mechanism for this. We recommend that offenders should begin receiving pre-release resettlement activity no later than 12 weeks prior to release. 

When an offender requires pre-release support before the 12-week pre-release point that should be provided and CRCs should be appropriately remunerated. (Paragraph 156) 

We recognise that resettlement needs to be fully integrated into the offender management system, with prisons and probation working together to help offenders transition successfully to life in the community. As we develop our future approach to resettlement, we are looking to extend pre-release support beyond 12 weeks for offenders being released from prison. 

The Ministry of Justice should set out its minimum expectations to providers on the balance between remote and face-to-face supervision, and on the location of meetings between an offender and their Probation Officer (Paragraph 161) 

We accept this recommendation. We recognise the concerns that remote supervision should not be used as the only means by which an offender is supervised, and that the physical environment in which offenders are seen must be conducive to fostering open and honest engagement and maintaining confidentiality. 

We have already taken steps to change existing CRC contracts to introduce a minimum requirement for providers to offer monthly face-to-face contact with the responsible officer for the first 12 months of an offender’s order or licence. This will ensure that offenders are more closely supervised and provide a stronger basis to identify and enforce any breach of sentence. 

In future arrangements, we intend to specify through national standards the minimum frequency and form of offender contact. This will include a requirement for a minimum of monthly face to face contact for all offenders, with those posing a higher risk requiring a greater level of contact. Face to face contact will be required to take place where there is an appropriate level of privacy. Telephone contact will be permitted to support, but not replace, face to face contact. 

The Ministry of Justice should introduce national guidance on best practice relating to changes to an individual’s Probation Officer and case manager (Paragraph 164) 

We agree that to enable positive relationships to develop, wherever possible the same responsible officer should supervise an offender throughout their sentence. Evidence identifies the relationship between the responsible officer and the offender as key to desistence. As set out in the probation consultation response, we believe that bringing together offender management under one organisation will promote continuity of the responsible officer and enable effective monitoring of changes of responsible officer through the collection of management information. 

The National Standards for the Management of Offenders will be revised for future delivery of probation services and will be supported by practice guidance to drive up quality of delivery. This will include the importance of continuity and effective management of case transfer. 

When the Ministry of Justice responds to our Report it should have undertaken a review of output 3 of service element 6 of its guidance on unpaid work orders. It should set out in response to this Report any changes it will implement. (Paragraph 169) 

We are seeking to reduce stand downs on Unpaid Work through a number of measures. This includes changing the performance metric to a completion date of 12 months, to drive prompt delivery of unpaid work hours and holding providers to account through management information regarding rate of stand downs. We intend to specify in future contracts an appropriate number of placements to avoid the need to stand down offenders. 

Where it is necessary to stand down offenders, we have reviewed output 3 service element 6 and will change the specification to credit hours which reflect the individual circumstances of the offender, taking into account travel time and employment impact, with an hour being the minimum credit. 

We recommend that, where possible, unpaid work should contribute to the local community and be linked to education and training (Paragraph 172). 

Unpaid Work provides the opportunity to engage offenders in learning in a practical setting and 20% of the hours can be used to undertake employment related training, which is currently being underutilised. 

We are taking action to improve current delivery of unpaid work and will shortly issue guidance to providers to promote the appropriate use of the 20% education and training allowance which has been incorporated into revised Community Payback Practice Guidance. 

Future contracts will ensure that providers of Unpaid Work source sufficient group and individual placements to allow offenders to complete their requirement within their local community, where appropriate. The contract will require active engagement with local stakeholders and liaison with communities to source local placements. Providers will be required to source placements which can develop personal and practical employment related skills for service users with education, training and employment related needs. 

It is intended that in future contracts all offenders will be assessed for employment, education and training needs and the 20% allowance will be maximised to address these needs. The allowance for education and training activity has been extended to employed services users with an identified employment need and includes preparatory and motivational work. There will be additional flexibility at the start of Intensive Unpaid Work orders, based on need, so that an offender can build up to the minimum of 28 hours per week. 

We recommend that the Government should amend the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, to make it explicit that an individual who is homeless because of having served a custodial sentence should be deemed vulnerable for the purposes of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. We further recommend that the UK Government should work with the Welsh Government to ensure that their homelessness legislation takes due account of the risks of reoffending. (Paragraph 182) 

Homelessness legislation already provides that a person who is vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence has priority need for accommodation, and the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance reflects the legislation as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) 2018. The HRA significantly amended homelessness legislation to strengthen duties to all eligible applicants, irrespective of priority need or intentional homelessness, and in this context we have no plans to amend the priority need categories at this time. 

The guidance issued in 2018 now includes a dedicated chapter focussing on supporting those with a history of offending into suitable accommodation. Contained within that new chapter is: ‘A person who is vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence, been committed for contempt of court or remanded in custody, has a priority need for accommodation’. As part of the planned review of the HRA, the effectiveness of the guidance in supporting those with priority, including those with a history of offending, will be assessed. 

Local authorities now have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or relieve homelessness, including to people with a history of offending. From 1 October 2018, prison and probation services have a duty to refer any user of their service who they consider to be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days to a local authority of the person’s choice. The duty to refer will encourage local housing authorities and other public authorities to build stronger partnerships focussed on early help and intervention and to build more integrated pathways and services. The duty will help ensure that people who face the threat of homelessness are identified earlier and provided with help to prevent them from becoming homeless. 

As part of the implementation of the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to pilot a scheme to support individuals released from three prisons, who are at risk of becoming homeless or sleeping rough. The contracts for these three pilots will be awarded at the end of April and will operate over a three year period. The pilots will test a new partnership approach with prisons, Probation Providers and Local Authorities working together, to plan, secure and sustain accommodation for offenders on their release. 

The Government has committed to review the implementation of the HRA within two years which will provide a forum to consider a range of issues such as these.

Although the Housing (Wales) Act removed the priority status of prison leavers in Wales, it also introduced an Accommodation Pathway for people leaving the custodial estate to respond to concerns that this change might cause. HMPPS was, and continues to be, fully involved in the development of the pathway to ensure it meets the needs of offenders leaving custody and provides for a successful transfer to the community. 

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should work with the Department for Work and Pensions to enable offenders serving custodial sentences to apply for Universal Credit (UC) prior to their release from custody so that they receive UC on the day of release. As an interim measure, and until offenders can receive UC upon release, the Government should set up a transitional credit fund for those offenders who have insufficient funds to provide for the basics, such as travel, a roof over their heads and food, in recognition that £46 is wholly inadequate to cover these. (Paragraph 187). 

We agree that offenders should have prompt access to the benefits to which they are entitled on the day of release. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the process to access Universal Credit, help offenders pre-populate their claim in custody and to ensure that they have the relevant identification documents. Offenders are able to access a DWP Work Coach prior to release who can make an appointment as early as the day of release to complete their claim, and can receive an advance of a full month’s benefit, including the housing element where appropriate, within hours. 

The purpose of the Discharge Grant is not to provide for all the prisoner’s needs after release. It is intended solely to assist them in the first few days after release and before they might reasonably be able to get a job or an appointment at a jobcentre and/or begin to access state benefits. We have recently concluded our review of the current use of the Discharge Grant and Discretionary Accommodation Payment. We are currently analysing our findings. 

In addition, existing policy provides for an amount of up to £50 (in addition to the discharge grant) to be provided directly to an accommodation provider to enable an offender to secure accommodation, at the Governor’s discretion. Every discharged offender, regardless of whether they receive a discharge grant, is also issued with a travel warrant, or payment of fares where a warrant is inappropriate, to their destination. Offenders are also discharged with any prison earnings/private cash. 

The Government should consider how offenders who are being released to an unknown or non-fixed address can be supported in having access to a bank account, so that an absence of such an account does not prohibit the offenders from getting a job, claiming benefits or securing a place to live. (Paragraph 190) 

Action is already underway to improve offenders’ access to bank accounts on release from custody. The Offender Banking Programme enables prisons which release significant numbers of offenders to develop a relationship with a commercial bank. This allows offenders to open a basic bank account in the last six months of their sentence. In 2017, 6,500 accounts were opened under this scheme – a record number. In April this year a new CRC specification has come into force to make clear the expectation that the CRC is responsible for arranging for prisoners to get a Bank Account. 

HMPPS also continues to work with UK Finance to look at other potential forms of identification which can be used by offenders who are released without accounts and we are working with HMT to encourage the challenger banks to join the programme to provide more capacity including in the Youth Estate.

The Long-Term Delivery of Probation Services 

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should initiate a review into the long-term future and sustainability of delivering probation services under the models introduced by the TR reforms, including how performance under the TR system might compare to an alternative system for delivering probation. The Government should publish its review, in full, by 1 February 2019. Given the issues which have arisen due to the speedy implementation of the TR reforms and lack of piloting, any new model must be thoroughly planned and tested. (Paragraph 200) 

We have taken the time to think about what worked well, as well as what didn’t, under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Further, the public consultation on the future of probation generated feedback on every aspect of the current system. We have reflected carefully on this feedback to ensure that future arrangements benefit from the expertise and experience of providers, service users, voluntary organisations, sentencers, probation staff and other partners. 

We want to build on the positive changes introduced by Transforming Rehabilitation, while accepting there have been challenges resulting from the complexities of contractualising offender management and splitting functions between the NPS and CRCs. In our future approach, we intend that the NPS will have responsibility for all offender management services - for low, medium and high-risk offenders. Private and not-for-profit organisations have demonstrated their strength in delivering interventions and driving innovation. We will retain and build on this success by sourcing key services, such as Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes, and other resettlement and rehabilitative interventions from the private and not-for-profit markets. We intend to do this through competitions for suppliers for Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes, and through creation of a dynamic framework for resettlement and rehabilitative interventions. 

We will now run a period of market and stakeholder engagement to finalise our proposals, including on how services will be packaged within competitions, and to set out further detail on the service design for future services. We will then seek to launch the competition processes later in the year for Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes and the dynamic framework. 

We aim to complete the reintegration of offender management under the NPS in Wales before the end of 2019, and in England around spring 2021. We will seek to apply any lessons learnt from transition in Wales, where probation services are already co-terminous, when transitioning services in England.

(Concluded)

The rehabilitation system has suffered hugely as a result of the failed reforms

Commenting on the Government’s full response to its report on Transforming Rehabilitation, Chair of the Justice Committee, Bob Neill MP, said:

“The MoJ has finally responded to the recommendations in our Transforming Rehabilitation report, eleven months after it was published. We welcome the MoJ’s announcement that all offenders will be brought under the supervision of the National Probation Service. But it has been a very long time coming, and the system has suffered hugely as a result of the failed reforms. Indeed, some people have told us that they welcomed the new proposals as ‘probation could hardly get worse’. We will question Robert Buckland, the responsible Minister, next week on what went wrong and details of the proposed new probation system.”

(We will cover what Mr Buckland had to say as soon as the transcript is published. MoJ staff including Jim Barton get a grilling tomorrow.)