Rehabilitation: What does ‘good’ look like anyway?
| Author | Katie O’ Donoghue,Jessica Mullen,Clare Hayes,Lesley Frazer,Nicola Drinkwater,Ellie Cumbo |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220314540566 |
| Published date | 01 August 2014 |
| Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Probation
2014, Vol. 6(2) 92 –111
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220314540566
ejp.sagepub.com
Rehabilitation: What does
‘good’ look like anyway?
Lesley Frazer
Clinks, UK
Nicola Drinkwater
Clinks, UK
Jessica Mullen
Clinks, UK
Clare Hayes
Clinks, UK
Katie O’ Donoghue
Clinks, UK
Ellie Cumbo
Clinks, UK
Abstract
This article explores the need for a clearer vision of what ‘good’ looks like in the rehabilitation
of offenders, whether in prison or in the community. Such a vision is needed to underpin
not only innovative, and evidence-based service development but also outcomes led
commissioning, and (in the context of England and Wales) the procurement of packages of
rehabilitation services most likely to support the desistance process. The need for this is
greater than ever, due to the current UK Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation reforms1
that are set to dramatically alter criminal justice policy in England and Wales.
Keywords
Rehabilitation, desistance, Transforming Rehabilitation, voluntary sector
Corresponding author:
Ellie Cumbo, Clinks, 59 Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5AQ, UK
Email: Ellie.Cumbo@clinks.org
540566EJP0010.1177/2066220314540566European Journal of ProbationFrazer et al.
2014
Article
Frazer et al. 93
Introduction
Readers of this Journal’s recent special issue on probation privatisation (European Journal
of Probation, Volume 6, Number 1) will already be aware that, through its Transforming
Rehabilitation strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2013a), the UK Government is currently
driving through radical changes to the commissioning, delivery and payment of rehabili-
tation services in prisons and in the community. Their stated aim is to achieve a reduction
in the rate of reoffending (Ministry of Justice, 2013a). The primary mechanism behind
this intention is the outsourcing of services for low and medium risk offenders, for which
probation trusts are currently responsible, largely to the private sector. The actual sub-
stance of the services is treated less prescriptively, with improvement and innovation
expected to happen as an automatic consequence of introducing competition.
Written from the unique perspective of Clinks – the umbrella charity for voluntary
(non-profit) sector organisations working with offenders in England and Wales – this
article does not argue for or against outsourcing in principle. Voluntary sector organisa-
tions have worked with offenders in and outside prisons for over a century; as a neces-
sary consequence of this they have developed successful, and less successful, partnerships
with both the public and private sectors. Instead, this article aims to move the debate on
to the essential ingredients of ‘good’ rehabilitation, whoever the providers may be. It
examines key messages from voluntary sector practitioners and desistance researchers,
and considers what questions they throw up about how offenders will be supported on
their desistance journey in the new rehabilitation landscape. In so doing, we hope to
inform debates about service and practice development across jurisdictions in Europe
and beyond.
It is also worth noting that the voluntary sector currently works with thousands of
offenders in a way that complements the work of the statutory Criminal Justice System
(CJS); this in itself demonstrates that no one sector has a monopoly on effective rehabili-
tation. The article therefore gives examples of good partnership working as a valuable
means of supporting desistance from crime. First, however, we turn to a discussion of the
current challenges for rehabilitation services, and the context in which the Transforming
Rehabilitation reforms are taking place.
The policy context
The planned transfer of responsibility for the supervision and resettlement of low and
medium risk offenders from 35 Probation Trusts to contracted providers running 21
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), combined with new provision for the
supervision of short sentence prisoners and the introduction of Payment by Results
(PbR), is now progressing at speed against a backdrop of significantly reduced budgets
(Clinks, 2014).
In their key debate on the reforms last summer, the House of Lords raised concerns that
the current drive for efficiencies of scale and reductions in cost could become a contrac-
tual ‘race to the bottom’ (Hansard, 2013) if quality services are not safeguarded within the
commissioning process. Deeper understanding of offenders’ needs and of the desistance
process itself would be lost in a ‘one size fits all’ approach to offender supervision
To continue reading
Request your trial