The Voluntary Sector in TR2 (2)

The concluding part of the recently published position paper from the Probation Institute:-

5. What does the Voluntary and Community Sector do in Criminal Justice? 

Many of the VCS organisations working in the criminal justice system in England and Wales today have their roots in 19th century philanthropic and often religious organisations. Their histories were significantly influenced by the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 which facilitated charitable poverty relief. Following the founding of the Welfare State in 1948 an understanding emerged that philanthropy had a continuing major role to play in post war society. By the late 1970s massive changes in populations and lifestyles resulted in new charitable organisations and in many of the traditional charities rethinking their role and purpose to meet more complex and diverse needs. 

An important group of voluntary organisations working in criminal justice have their origins in human rights movements and are predominantly campaigning organisations seeking to improve the political and operational environment of criminal justice. This paper is particularly addressing those voluntary and community organisations whose purpose is the delivery of a rehabilitation service to people caught up in the criminal justice system, but recognises the benefits to the justice system that campaigning organisations are able to make.

The range of activities carried out by voluntary and community organisations delivering services has continued to change and expand, and increasingly has tended to specialise. In its 2019 report on the State of the Sector, Clinks, the charity that supports, promotes and represents the VCS working with people in the Criminal Justice Sector, reports that: 

• The majority of VCS organisations in the justice sector are small; roughly 30% have budgets less than £100,000 per year compared to only 14% in the wider VCS. 

• The majority of referrals to the VCS come from prisons; there is a roughly even split between VCS organisations working in the prisons and those working in the community. 

• Service users’ needs are ever more urgent and complex. 

• There is increased evidence of trauma, self-harm, mental ill health, violence and lack of both financial means and housing. 

• There is substantial work ongoing with families and with victims of abuse. 

• The VCS works with significant numbers of BAME service users. 
• Increasing range of education and employment organisations. 

• Voluntary organisations rely heavily on volunteering to delivery their services. 

• Smaller and voluntary organisations are more reliant on funding from charitable trusts and foundations (meaning that smaller organisations are more likely to be providing a “free” service to the Probation Service by taking referrals but not being directly funded it). 

• The VCS in the justice sector is increasingly financially vulnerable for the reasons documented and has fewer reserves than the wider VCS. 

Research studies have explored the relationship between the VCS and the Probation Service. Common themes that emerge include the importance of positive working relationships between practitioners from different agencies, the need for clear communication, and the benefits of colocation to certain organisations. 

The impact of an increasingly contractual and competitive environment on the funding, values and independence of the criminal justice voluntary sector has also been studied, with concerns raised about the risks to the autonomy and distinctiveness of the sector. The writing about the sector acknowledges its diversity, and discusses whether all work in partnership with probation and prison is inevitably about control as well as help.

The research also provides evidence to support the argument that the VCS is able to work in ways which are effective, different from the statutory sector, and valued and appreciated by service users. 

6. Benefits of effective relationships between Probation and the Voluntary and Community Sector 

The Probation Service has never been a monopoly provider of rehabilitation support. The problems faced by many of Probation’s service users are best addressed within the community where they live and where there is the range of services that will continue to support them. Probation will always need to rely on partnership with others, both statutory agencies and the VCS, to help to reduce re-offending. Voluntary and community organisations add significantly to the resources accessible to service users, particularly in areas not appropriate for statutory provision. In some instances, the VCS is also able to supplement wider welfare services in the community and to offer help more quickly – for example in alcohol or substance misuse cases. The resources also include mentors, counselling, preparation for education, training and employment, family support, funding for individual needs, shelter and advice. Probation staff are well placed to guide service users to appropriate VCS organisations and to broker their services but are not always sufficiently well informed, trained, motivated or managed to do so to best effect. 

7. Funding and recent developments 

The statutory Probation Service expanded in the early 1980s following the introduction of Parole, Community Service and Suspended Sentence Supervision Orders from the mid-1970s. The contribution of the VCS came more clearly in to view. There was never a golden age of funding, but practitioners with many years’ probation experience recall more positive and collaborative relationships with the VCS. Some probation areas were heavily involved in funding and working in partnership. Others had very little formal relationship. Good partnership work often relied on local relationships at management or even practitioner level. Support for the VCS was sometimes through grant funding or assistance in kind (e.g. staff secondments) rather than through service contracts. 

Pressures in Probation funding (unfunded increasing workloads and management systems) began in the mid-1990s and produced concern for the long-term sufficiency of funding. In this context possible threats to Probation were seen to be the use of “unqualified practitioners”, electronic monitoring, privatisation and the transfer of work to the VCS. Between 2008 and 2015 probation funding was reduced broadly in line with wider criminal justice cuts. The increasing focus on commercial business practice in Probation Areas, and subsequently Probation Trusts, moved the relationship with the VCS onto a more contractual basis. For a time in the 1990s and 2000s Probation Areas were given a target to spend a fixed percentage of their budgets on VCS partnerships. This mirrored the direction that the VCS had already been pushed in its relationships with other statutory providers especially Local Authorities and Health Services. However, there was limited commissioning knowledge or expertise within the probation world and little integration with other, much larger, commissioning structures.

In 2015, the Government initiative “Transforming Rehabilitation” brought the long-anticipated part-privatisation of Probation. There was an expectation that some of the MOJ contracts for the CRCs would be won by the VCS. It was fully expected that the CRCs would contract with the VCS and work collaboratively. Indeed, the CRCs were given the “budgets” and contractual powers for all probation contracts with the VCS. The National Probation Service was (and at the time of writing remains) unable to contract directly. This situation now looks set to change in the light of the recent announcement on the future of the Probation Service. In reality the use of funded partnerships by the CRCs was very limited although it is important to state that the picture has varied between CRCs. If the VCS was presented as an incentive to the private providers this failed to materialise. A report from Clinks in 2018 “Under Represented, Under Pressure and Under Resourced” showed that Transforming Rehabilitation had created a situation in which the “voluntary sector’s role in Probation services is unsustainable”.

As a consequence, a new generation of probation practitioners have decreasing experience of working in effective partnerships with the VCS. Changes made under the Offender Management Act 2007 removed the requirement that offenders be supervised by those qualified as Probation Officers thus reducing opportunities for time during training to develop skills and understanding in effective partnership working. 

At the time of writing, it is anticipated that the newly re-integrated National Probation Service will have a budget of £100 million per year dedicated to funding for partnership work with the VCS and wider independent organisations. This funding is to be managed regionally through the Probation Dynamic Framework from 2020 and will seek to contract for the provision of services including education, training and employment, accommodation, mentoring and counselling. There are continuing concerns that these arrangements and a preference for contracts over grants will favour the larger voluntary organisations and that commissioning will not be local enough to engage smaller organisations closer to communities. The impact of Covid-19 on the VCS is not fully understood at the time of writing but emerging evidence from Clinks is showing that organisations financial sustainability has been significantly impacted and this will also need to be taken into account in future funding arrangements. 

It is anticipated that there will be joint work with Police and Crime Commissioners in commissioning. This should build on the existing examples of good practice where justice has been devolved e.g. in Greater Manchester. 

8. Commissioning and Engaging 

Securing funding is an exacting and resource intensive activity for the VCS. Whether for grants or for a contract, the process for engaging the VCS needs to be accessible and achievable. The process for grant funding is a more accessible process. Funding arrangements that last for a short period are particularly demanding and insecure; therefore we recommend a minimum of two years with break clauses. The VCS should be engaged in the full commissioning cycle from service design to delivery. Many of the services provided by the VCS are within the overall remit of wider public services including health, housing, education, wider justice agencies. Multi agency commissioning leading to shared provision can bring greater understanding of local priorities, needs and risks. It can make better use of resources offering a normalising experience for service users. Examples are found in women’s centres, youth justice and health and wellbeing boards.

10. Confidentiality and protocols 

The exchange of information between Probation and the VCS is very important and is the responsibility of both parties. Information is vital to assessing and managing the risks that may be presented by service users and also to understanding their needs. 

Protocols that set out the arrangements for the recording and sharing of information within a partnership should always: 

• Safeguard appropriate confidentiality for service users. 

• Enable risk assessment and risk management processes. 

• Comply with data protection legislation. 

11. Professional Development and Professional Status 

It is recognised that the majority of voluntary sector organisations have skilled and experienced staff and volunteers but are not always able to access formal qualifications and accreditation due to resource constraints. 

The absence of dedicated funding or a specific requirement for training and skill levels for work in the VCS is an ongoing challenge not only for practitioners in these organisations but also for Responsible Officers, who are qualified either through the Professional Qualification in Probation (a Level 6 qualification) or a Level 3 qualification, and who understandably question the disparity in qualifications between sectors. 

The Apprenticeship model encourages sector wide development and design of shared assessment standards where there are skills and knowledge in common. Such a development through the Apprenticeship Institute would offer the VCS access to funding to train practitioners to a consistent, recognised standard. It could also strengthen confidence in the statutory sector to support collaboration and partnership. 

The Probation Institute is open to all practitioners working in rehabilitation and our view, clearly on record, is that recognition and registration of practitioners should extend across all practitioners and managers working with service users subject to formal court orders, in both statutory and voluntary organisations. 

11. Conclusion 

The Probation Institute will continue working with organisations representing the VCS and with the National Probation Service. We hope that the Principles set out in this paper will contribute to a stronger relationship between Probation and the VCS benefitting both service users and the wider public.

(para 9 isn't missing - there appears to be a numbering error)