To receive an update from Lucy Satchell-Day, Assistant Chief Officer, Barking and Dagenham. London Probation Trust, on the transforming rehabilitation consultation.
Minutes:
Lucy Satchell-Day (LSD) briefed the Committee on the government’s proposals to transform the Rehabilitation Services. The Coalition government had committed themselves to introducing a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that would pay independent providers to reduce reoffending. In December 2010 they had produced the Green paper ‘Breaking the Cycle’ in which they stated their intention to extend the principles of payment by results to all providers of services for offenders by 2015 and improve the rehabilitation of offenders. This was followed by a further consultation ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services’ which proposed changes to the way probation services were commissioned and delivered. The latest document ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ was a response to that earlier consultation.
Why do the Government believe change is necessary?
· 57.6% of prisoners sentenced to under 12 months re-offend;
· 35.9% of prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more (excluding imprisonment for Public Protection and life sentences) reoffend; and
· 34.1% of those starting a court order reoffend.
The evidence suggested that even those who do not reoffend in the first year will often go on to commit further offences. For adult offenders released from custody in 2000, 45.8% reoffended in the first year, and this rose to 66.1% within three years and 72.5% within five years. LSD reminded the Committee that the Probation Service were not involved with those offenders who were sentenced to under 12 months once pre-trial assessments were undertaken.
The consultation paper was looking to promote greater flexibility in delivery. The government wishes to incentivise providers to innovate and to make best use of approaches and services that have demonstrated they can work to reduce reoffending. Providers will be freed to do what works to rehabilitate offenders, and incentivised to deliver real results with part of the contract payment dependent on reducing reoffending.
Nearly 58% of offenders sentenced to less than a year in custody reoffend within a year of release, yet the system currently provided few opportunities to make them address their reoffending. The rehabilitation services will be extended to make those who go in for short sentences but reoffend time and again part of the approach. There will be a statutory basis to require them to engage.
There is a need for more efficient services. The proposal is to introduce a widespread programme of competition, and invite providers from the private and voluntary sectors to bid to deliver the majority of the current probation services. Contracts would be awarded to those providers who can demonstrate that they could deliver efficient, high-quality services and improve value for money. The Probation Service will not be able to bid for these contracts. It was estimated that 70% of the current Probation Trust workload would be put out to contract i.e. services for low to medium risk offenders. The Probation Trust would continue to write risk assessments for courts and be responsible for managing high risk offenders.
A positive side to the proposal was that offenders who were sentenced to less than 12 months would be supervised on release. This should have appositive impact on communities. The downside is that this represents a large cohort of offenders who will need to be supervised for the first time whilst the overall costs of the system need to be cut.
The paper does not provide sufficient detail on how the payment by results would work and who would be responsible for managing the contracts.
The paper recognises the need for one provider to have overall responsibility for getting to grips with an offender’s life management skills, co-ordinating a package of support to deliver better results. This includes the need to tackle the problem of substance abuse, housing, training and employment.
The Committee noted the report.