Transforming Rehabilitation? Destination unknown
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550518755940 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
Transforming
Rehabilitation?
Destination unknown
The voices of concern regarding the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) on
service provision continue to increase in volume. The annual report of HM Inspec-
torate of Probation (HMIP, 2017a) provides a critical picture of a ‘two-tiered ser-
vice’, and notes that while a small number of Community Rehabilitation Companies
(CRCs) are performing well, most are not, and overall individuals are being
supervised more effectively by the National Probation Service (NPS).
Most CRCs are struggling. Those owners ambitious to remodel services have found
probation difficult to reconfigure or re-engineer. Delivering probation services is more
difficult than first appears, particularly in prisons and rural areas. (HMIP, 2017a: 6)
Serious financial pressures have led to staff reductions in CRCs and increased case-
loads. However, the fault for shortcomings not only rests with service providers. The
Ministry of Justice has yet to connect the IT systems of the CRCs with other justice
systems, rendering their task even more difficult.
TR is also the subject of a parliamentary Justice Select Committee inquiry, laun-
ched in October 2017. The terms of reference of the inquiry focus on two main
questions: 1) How effective are government measures in addressing the challenges
facing the probation service, and 2) What needs to be done in the short term to
improve the system? At the time of writing the Committee has received a number of
written submissions, which are available on the parliamentary website.
1
Amongst
these is a submission from the MoJ outlining its response to the challenges faced.
This has included an adjustment to existing contracts with CRC providers, meaning
that the value of contracts is less sensitive to caseload fluctuations, and increasing
‘the total potential value of contracts by around £277m’ (MoJ, 2017a: 2). Further
detail on the contracts is not in the public domain because of their ‘commercially
sensitive nature’, but a confidential copy has been supplied to the Select Committee
for scrutiny (MoJ, 2017a).
Part of the narrative of the TR debacle is that the reduction in numbers of people
being sentenced by the courts and changed risk profiles has led to less people being
supervised by CRCs then originally envisaged, and therefore the calamitous
financial situation necessitating the cash injection to maintain services.
Probation Journal
2018, Vol. 65(1) 3–6
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550518755940
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
To continue reading
Request your trial