A major government initiative to strat Transforming Rehabilitation by involving charities in rehabilitating offenders has failed to do so, says a new report which analyses the first three years of the policy.
‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ was launched in February 2015 with the intention of opening up rehabilitation services to expert charities up and down the country.
Now, a survey of those charities has found that most have been excluded from involvement despite the government’s intention, and of those which have been funded, half think the funding level is unsustainable and one third are subsidising their services through other charitable funds.
Nearly two in three organisations thought the reforms had been negative or very negative for offenders.
The report has been produced by Clinks, which represents charities that work with people in the criminal justice system in partnership with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Third Sector Research Centre.
Anne Fox, Chief Executive Officer of Clinks, said:
“In February 2015 the Ministry of Justice heralded a new age for probation services, assuming that the 700 charities or social enterprises named in bids to run new probation services would be able to dramatically reduce reoffending rates. Three years on it’s clear these organisations have not been able to play their part. The handful of larger charities that were able to negotiate a deal with new probation services are concerned that services are under-funded and as a result the quality they are able to deliver is not as they would wish.
Up and down the country, charities, large and small, are using their charitable funds to cover the costs they need to support a stretched probation system. This approach can’t continue. Our recommendations are designed to make a difference and assist in understanding what the next generation of probation services could look like.”
Karl Wilding, policy director at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which represents charities, said:
“There are persistent structural problems with the design of Transforming Rehabilitation that mean the very organisations the probation system relies on are shut out and left in economically unsustainable positions, with an ultimately concerning outlook for those that rely on these services. This survey echoes the recent findings of the HM Inspectorate of Probation, that expert charities are increasingly excluded from the Transforming Rehabilitation programme. Today’s report makes practical, measured recommendations and we urge the government and charities to come together urgently to address them.”
Key findings and recommendations
1. Voluntary organisations have not been involved
“We invested huge amounts of time engaging with TR over two years but, in spite of being told we would be contracted, eventually were not.” - Survey respondent
Only 35% of the 132 organisations we heard from had any funding from CRCs, and only two organisations got funding from the NPS.
Voluntary organisations with an annual income of over £10 million were the only group more likely to be funded by a CRC than not.
Smaller organisations are providing vital support to offenders with no funding from probation services.
Recommendation 1 / Provide transparency of supply chain partners
Recommendation 2 / HMPPS should conduct an annual audit of the supply chain
Recommendation 3 / Involve the voluntary sector
2. Services for offenders are unsustainable
“The objectives of TR in terms of increasing supervision after custody and support for resettlement were laudable, but we have yet to meet anyone who believed they would be achieved at the same time as cutting costs.” - Survey respondent
50% of CRC funded voluntary sector services are reported to be unsustainable
1 in 3 think their funding agreement is at risk of failure before the end of the contract or within the next 6 months.
One third of all CRC funded services are using charitable funds to subsidise their services – primarily to improve their quality.
44% of services that are not funded by probation services consider their services for offenders to be unsustainable.
0% of CRC-funded services have reported a decrease in their funding during 2016-17.
37% of voluntary organisations that are not funded by probation have reported a decrease in their funding during 2016-17.
Recommendation 4 / The MoJ probation review must set out an acceptable level of service
3. The probation system is propped up by the voluntary sector
“Some CRCs are great and others are very poor. We provide over 2000+ placements for CRCs with no financial return.” - Survey respondent
65% of all the voluntary sector services we heard from are not funded by probation.
Up to 70% of all voluntary sector services we heard from think they should be funded by probation.
Many voluntary organisations felt they were being ‘used’ by the system to meet targets; organisations not in receipt of any probation funding got referrals from the NPS (58%). CRCs (64%), and prisons (71%).
Recommendation 5 / Develop local provider networks
Poor policy is restricting The National Probation Service from working with voluntary organisations
“… Nobody seems to know whether NPS can commission services directly with us. I have no idea what the budgets are for purchasing interventions.”
Transforming Rehabilitation introduced a mechanism called the ‘rate card’ to enable the NPS to buy services from the CRC. But all this bureaucratic system has done is to tie the hands of the NPS, actively discouraging them from working with voluntary organisations.
As a result the NPS don’t have the specialist services that are required to help rehabilitate people who pose a high risk of harm to the community.
Recommendation 6 / The rate card system has been shown not to work and should be abandoned
4. Voluntary organisations believe Transforming Rehabilitation” has a negative impact on their service and service users
“We are being asked to deliver more hours with a skeleton staffing. We are now covering four counties with two staff working four days per week, trying cover seven community locations and four prisons. This is simply not possible.” - Survey respondent
Only 15% of voluntary organisations thought Transforming rehabilitation had a positive impact on service users, compared with 60% who thought the reforms had a negative or very negative impact.
Even though 65% of voluntary organisations believe that the services being commissioned by CRCs are of a high quality, only 26% felt that the level of funding provided by CRCs allowed them to deliver a high quality service.
Recommendation 7 / The Ministry of Justice should openly consult on the purpose and structure of probation
Recommendation 8 / Assess quality through new research grants
Recommendation 9 / Collect and publish feedback from service users
5. A volume based and target driven culture is eroding good will
“…we have lost the quality resettlement work that was previously being carried out. The approach is not individual focus but process focused. It is admin heavy which prevents face-to-face contact.” - Survey respondent
Voluntary organisations blame the erosion of their relationship on unhelpful targets that are focused on the volume of work they can do, rather than the difference they make to people’s lives.
Less than half (41%) of voluntary organisations believe their values and ethos align with those of the CRCs they are funded by.
The voluntary organisations that have the closest relationships with CRCs – those funded by them – have become increasingly pessimistic and negative
Recommendation 10 / Develop new targets and outcome measures
6. Confusion about Transforming Rehabilitation could be leading to disinvestment
“It has become very hard to secure funding... Funders believe that the TR model is providing the relevant support, however at the grassroots level this is not happening for the most chaotic individuals.” - Survey respondent
Transforming rehabilitation has negatively affected the level of funding for voluntary sector-led rehabilitation and prison resettlement services.
Many said that funders, primarily charitable trusts and foundations or local authorities, are withdrawing funding from the sector in the belief that probation services should be investing or funding the services they previously supported.
Recommendation 11 / Clearly set out what probation services do
For more information on Transforming Rehabilitation please visit www.clinks.org