Transforming Rehabilitation Contents

4Providers and working relationships

91.In this Chapter we examine the problems in probation relating to providers and their working relationships with others in the criminal justice system, including the voluntary sector and the courts. We also explore some of the key challenges facing staff in the probation sector.

The voluntary sector

92.As explained earlier in this Report an aim of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) changes was to “open up the market”, including to the voluntary sector.152 In December 2013 when the then Justice Committee discussed the TR reforms (before they were implemented) with the then Secretary of State, Chris Grayling MP, he explained this objective and pointed out that the voluntary sector had “enormous skills” which it could bring to probation.153 He also implied that he expected the voluntary sector to be well-represented at CRC parent company level as bids had been received from “a very good mix of private and voluntary sector [organisations], often in partnership”.154 Mr Grayling assured the then Committee that safeguards would be in place to ensure that providers engaged the voluntary sector:

If the big guy duffs up the little guy, we can duff up the big guy. We will have mechanisms in place to say, “If you make a material change to your structure and supply chain, you have to tell us first.” If it is wholly unreasonable, ultimately, we will have power to withdraw the contract.155

Involvement of the voluntary sector

93.We heard from a number of witnesses, including CRC parent companies, about the benefits of the voluntary sector, especially the smaller and more local voluntary sector organisations.156 For example, Seetec, a CRC parent company, told us in oral evidence that CRCs could provide many of the services that larger voluntary sector organisations provided, but smaller, more niche providers “truly understand a very small cohort [and] get results”.157 Sodexo, another CRC parent company, told us that “incredibly good sets of arrangements in a particular town” were characteristic of smaller, local organisations.158 The charity Shelter suggested in their oral evidence that the system was experiencing a lack of local input: they advocated opportunities “to encourage more organisations locally to get involved to meet local needs”.159

94.Napo told us that regardless of where people stood on the TR reforms, “nobody in probation would have argued against an enhanced role for the third sector”.160 Nacro, a national social justice charity and a partner of the Sodexo CRC, told us that this aim of the Government to open up the market “had not materialised”.161 In April 2018 HM Inspectorate of Probation produced a Report on Probation Supply Chains, which confirmed what we had heard in evidence—the voluntary sector was less involved in probation following the TR reforms:

It seems that the third sector is less involved than ever in probation services, despite its best efforts; yet, many under probation supervision need the sector’s specialist help, to turn their lives around.162

Research findings published in May 2018 from Clinks, a national infrastructure organisation supporting voluntary sector organisations working in the criminal justice system, provided further such evidence of low voluntary sector involvement. Of the 132 organisations who responded to their survey, 35% received funding from CRCs and just two organisations received funding from the NPS (it should be noted that the respondents were not directly representative of the whole voluntary sector working in criminal justice so caution is needed with regard to drawing generalisations from the figures).163

95.In oral evidence, YSS Ltd, a charity, explained that with regard to voluntary sector involvement it felt like they had “taken a step back”.164 Shelter told us that the reason for this reduced involvement was the financial pressures facing CRCs which had resulted in them having to make budget cuts.165 YSS Ltd. told us in oral evidence that their funding from their local CRC had been cut due to the CRC’s financial constraints but the CRC had made very clear that they did not want to make such cuts.166

96.Pact, a charity, told us in oral evidence that Transforming Rehabilitation had “opened up the market to a greater extent for larger organisations that have more capital, a bigger capital base and bigger capability to manage the risk involved”.167 They also explained that they were one of the few small and medium-sized organisations in the market.168 Switchback, a charity, claimed in oral evidence that “most of the smaller voluntary sector organisations work[ed] outside the formal contracting framework” due to the contractual pressures.169 Nacro acknowledged that smaller organisations had been pushed out of the market, but did not agree that larger organisations had gained from this:

There is a misconception that larger charities, such as Nacro, benefited from [complicated contracts], because pre the work we are doing in TR, our volume of work was three times higher than we are doing now in transforming rehabilitation.170

Details of CRC supply chains are not published and some witnesses called for there to be greater transparency.171

97.While witnesses largely acknowledged the valuable role of the voluntary sector, a small number cautioned against using the voluntary sector as a matter of course.172 For example, Andrew Bridges, HM Chief Inspector of Probation between 2004 and 2011, explained:

It is […] illogical and counter-productive for the MoJ or HMPPS to require CRCs to subcontract to voluntary organisations as an end, even when the CRC has calculated that it can provide the relevant service itself more economically and effectively.173

98.The Minister did not agree that the voluntary sector was less involved and in oral evidence told us that the Government had “increased the number of voluntary sector partners compared with what happened under public sector provision”.174 He did acknowledge though that larger voluntary sector organisations tended to be more involved: “It is certainly true that some of the smaller third sector organisations feel less involved. Larger third sector organisations […] are more involved”.175 However, he explained that the voluntary sector might feel less supported now as “they existed in a better funding environment seven or eight years ago”.176 In Justice oral questions on 24 April, the Minister explained that the challenge for the Government was to make “sure that when we work with the third sector we work, not with big national providers, but with small, grassroots local charities”.177

99.In follow-up evidence the Minister told us that one CRC consortium included a voluntary sector organisation, three larger voluntary-sector organisations were partners for CRCs and there were approximately 90 voluntary sector organisations operating as part of CRC supply chains. He was unable to provide an assessment of how this compared to the pre-TR system as “[Probation] Trusts did not routinely collect data on the level or value of voluntary sector involvement in their services”.178

100.In our view the Government has failed to open up the probation market, a key aim of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. We are not convinced by the Minister’s comments that the voluntary sector is more involved in probation than before the TR reforms. The decreased involvement of the voluntary sector, especially that of smaller local organisations, is deeply regrettable and reduces the quality and array of services available to individuals on probation. This has resulted in fewer local and specialist services being offered. We are concerned that currently the details of supply chains of probation providers are not publicly available and therefore it is not possible to fully assess the scale of the voluntary sector’s involvement. We recommend that from 1 February 2019 the Ministry of Justice should publish information on probation supply chains for each CRC area and NPS region on a quarterly basis. This should include information on all sub-contractors (not just those in the voluntary sector) and the monetary value of the sub-contracts.

101.Dame Glenys told us that targets did not exist for CRCs on the proportion of their supply chain which should be provided by the voluntary sector.179 The Inspectorate’s report on probation supply chains explained that at the contract bidding stage CRCs had been required to include details of their supply chains plans, including the involvement of the voluntary sector. However, “CRC intentions (as expressed in their bids) were not then hard wired into CRC contracts”.180 CRC companies also told us that their use of the voluntary sector had not been as high as they had anticipated due to the cumbersome and inflexible contracting arrangements.181 YSS Ltd. proposed that targets should be reintroduced for the minimum proportion of the CRC’s budgets “to be spent on voluntary sector provision”.182 In follow-up evidence the Minister explained that although there had been targets on voluntary sector involvement under the pre-TR probation system these targets were “often not met”.183

102.The evidence is mixed on what effect the introduction of targets for voluntary sector involvement might have on their participation in CRC supply chains. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should consider, in response to this Report, what benefits might be gained from reintroducing targets for each Community Rehabilitation Company on the proportion of its budget which should be spent on voluntary sector provision, and whether involving some of the smaller, more specialised voluntary sector organisations could be incentivised.

Contractual barriers to further involvement of the voluntary sector

103.We heard about issues relating to providers being able to sub-contract to the voluntary sector through the Industry Standards Partnering Agreement (ISPA). On their website Clinks summarised the purpose and requirements of ISPAs:

To protect and strengthen the position of Tier 2 and Tier 3 providers in the current market, the MoJ and NOMS have drawn up a set of market stewardship principles, which can be found in the Principles of Competition document and an Industry Standard Partnership agreement (ISPA). Tier 1 providers will be required to sign an ISPA with Tier 2 organisations in their supply chain, and it is intended to be seen as good practice for working with Tier 3 organisations.184

104.In oral evidence Sodexo and Seetec described ISPAs as having “created some fairly cumbersome arrangements”, which were acting as a barrier to involving voluntary sector organisations. HM Chief Inspector of Probation explained that the ISPA document was 60-pages long.185 We discussed earlier in this Report the benefits particularly of smaller voluntary sector organisations. In oral evidence, CRCs explained that they thought the arrangements were not “appropriate for some very small organisations, where [they] would otherwise be contracting on much more flexible arrangements and much more locally”.186 Andy Keen-Downs, Chief Executive of Pact, a voluntary sector CRC sub-contractor, made similar points and explained that in order to secure their sub-contracts they had “spent tens of thousands of pounds on legal and professional fees just to read the contracts and negotiate them”. He explained that this would not be possible for smaller organisations.187

105.The Minister agreed that contracting processes, not just in the probation context, disadvantaged smaller organisations:

Small local organisations often feel, quite rightly, that they are disadvantaged when they are bidding, […] against big national charities that have much bigger grant proposal writing teams that can offer economies of scale, but often lack the local links and local knowledge on the ground to deliver programmes properly.188

106.The Industry Standards Partnering Agreements (ISPA) are cumbersome for both probation providers and the voluntary sector, especially smaller organisations, and others who might reasonably form part of the probation supply chain. By 1 February 2019, the Ministry of Justice should review the ISPA, with a view to reducing its length and complexity. The Ministry should write to the Committee after that review to set out the changes that it has made.

Working with the courts

107.Section 4 of the Offender Management Act 2007 provides that “the giving of assistance to any court in determining the appropriate sentence to pass, or making any other decision, in respect of a person charged with or convicted of an offence” is reserved to “a probation trust or other public body”.189 In practice this means that only the National Probation Service, and not Community Rehabilitation Companies, can submit pre-sentence reports (see footnote for definition) and provide advice to the courts.190 The NPS has a dedicated team of report writers servicing the courts.191

108.HM Inspectorate of Probation published a thematic report in June 2017 on the work of probation services in courts.192 In its submission to the Committee, the Inspectorate highlighted the key findings from that report, including that:

109.The Magistrates’ Association (MA) expressed concern to our predecessor Committee in 2013 about changes being made which would allow private companies (i.e. CRCs) to advise the courts. They were concerned that this might “lead to game playing by many of the providers”.194 While this was not an issue that was raised in submissions to this inquiry we have borne it in mind when considering the points raised by witnesses.

110.The Howard League for Penal Reform, among others, told us they believed that the lack of direct contact between CRCs and the courts was damaging sentencer confidence, especially with regard to community alternatives to custody, an issue which we return to in the next Chapter.195 The Magistrates’ Association expressed the view that sentencers had “too little information” about services provided by CRCs.196 Sonia Crozier from the National Probation Service stressed in evidence the importance of the NPS working with CRCs “to ensure that there [was] confidence in the options that we are recommending”.197

111.CRC providers were also dissatisfied with their lack of direct access to the courts, and in oral evidence Sodexo called for “direct access between CRCs and the courts in any reiteration of this”.198 The trade unions were concerned about the lack of interface between CRCs and the courts, but welcomed improvements that were brought about by local sentencer forums, which had helped to improve the relationship between CRCs and sentencers.199

112.Other witnesses were more positive about informal arrangements which compensated for CRCs lack of direct access with sentencers. For example, HM Chief Inspector of Probation told us that there were other, more informal ways in which CRCs could positively assist the courts, including by ensuring that “the bench [had] a really clear understanding of what would be delivered should a community sentence be ordered”.200 We heard about some of these more informal ways during our evidence, although it was suggested that practice varied across England and Wales. For example, Suki Binning, Chief Executive of Kent, Surrey & Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company (owned by Seetec), told us in oral evidence that work had been done at a local level to improve sentencer awareness of services provided by CRCs. In her CRC’s area she had “sent out [bespoke] data to all [her] magistrates courts and Crown courts demonstrating how [the CRC were] delivering the sentence of the court”.201 Similarly, Lynda Marginson, Probation Divisional Director North East, NPS, explained that joint CRC and NPS meetings at a local level in North East England had resulted in better information being available to sentencers and the NPS on what CRCs offered.202

113.We appreciate that Section 4 of the Offender Management Act 2007 was not amended following the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms as it was felt to be inappropriate for a private company to be able to make commercial gains as a result of advice given to a court. We do not propose that changes should be made to Section 4 of the Offender Management Act 2007. Nonetheless, we are concerned that barriers remain in some areas and adequate information on services delivered by CRCs is not available to sentencers and NPS staff. Arrangements need to be in place consistently across England and Wales which ensure that sentencers are well informed about services offered by CRCs to compensate for CRCs’ lack of direct access to the courts.


Numbers of staff

114.The National Probation Service identified the need to recruit further staff who “undertake face-to-face work with offenders”. It explained that at 30 June 2017 the NPS employed 8,758 staff and it wished to “increase total staff numbers to 10,714 by 31 March 2018. This include[d] recruiting roughly 1,500 probation officers and probation service officers”.203 Supplementary written evidence from Sonia Crozier, Director, Probation and Executive Director, Probation and Women, explained that between June and December 2017 the NPS had increased its headcount by 220 to 8,978, thus falling below its aim of 10,714 (although it the figures may not be directly comparable).204 The table below sets out further detail on the changes to the number of NPS frontline probation staff between 31 March 2017 and 31 March 2018, as published in HMPPS’s annual workforce statistics:

Table 2: Band 3, 4 and 5 Probation Officer number, 31 March 2017–31 March 2018

Band 3 (Probation Service Officers) 205

Band 4 (Probation Officers) 206

Band 5 (Senior Probation Officers)

Total number of frontline staff

31 March 2017





31 March 2018

2, 357




Change between 2017 and 2018









Source: Data taken from Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Workforce Statistics Bulletin, as at 31 March 2018, 17 March 2018

It is not possible to ascertain how many Probation Officers or other case managers work for each CRC as no requirement exists for them to publish such information.207

115.Napo questioned in its written evidence whether the Ministry of Justice was too focussed on prison officer recruitment at the expense of Probation Officer and other case manager recruitment:

[S]taff shortages are as great as in the prison service. Unfortunately, probation recruitment is not a MoJ priority, as seen by at least 16 MoJ and HMPPS tweets promoting recruitment to the prison service in the last two months to no tweets about joining probation.208

We sought assurances from the Minister about the priority being given to the recruitment of Probation Officers and other case managers, particularly those in the NPS, for which the MoJ would have some influence. He assured us that Probation Officers or other case managers recruitment was a “high priority” and that the Ministry was modelling its recruitment campaign “on its successful campaigns for the recruitment of prison officers”.209

116.We recommend that the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies should be required to provide the Ministry of Justice with workforce data on a quarterly basis. This should include information on the recruitment and retention rates for Probation Officers and other case managers by grade, and total workforce numbers by NPS area and CRC. This data should be published by the Ministry as part of its quarterly statistics.


117.Unison and Napo agreed in oral evidence that morale was at an “all-time low”.210 The South-South West branch of Napo explained that morale was “at a record low” in its area.211 A Probation Officer described morale as “dire”.212 Others agreed that morale had been negatively impacted by the Transforming Rehabilitation changes.213 Despite this negative overall picture on morale, especially within CRCs, Napo’s submission highlighted that there were some pockets of good morale. In its submission Napo provided analysis of performance by each CRC parent company, which drew on the findings of an Inspectorate Report which had found that “staff morale was good, with leaders enjoying the confidence of their staff” at the Seetec-owned CRC.214

118.The results of the 2017 staff survey for the National Probation Service either just meet the Civil Service average or fall noticeably below the Civil Service average. In two out of three categories the NPS results are also below the Ministry of Justice average.215 The numbers below illustrate the number of respondents who provided a positive score for questions relating to these themes.

Table 3: Staff survey results for 2017



Organisational objectives and purpose

Resources and workload

Leadership and managing change






MoJ average




Civil Service average




Source: Created using data from, Transparency data: Civil Service People Survey: 2017 results, 16 November 2017

Since 2014, staff survey results for the NPS have remained broadly stable. Similar data is not readily available for CRCs and therefore it is not possible to compare morale of staff working for the NPS and for CRCs.

119.Probation Officers and other case managers provide an important public duty and it is important that morale within the sector is maintained. We recommend that from 2019 all providers, both CRCs and the NPS, should be required to use the same, or a similar, staff survey each year. Results of those staff surveys should be published for the seven NPS areas and the 21 CRCs.

Training and workload

120.The Centre for Community, Gender and Social Justice at the University of Cambridge linked the issue of morale to high caseload.216 We heard in evidence that Probation Officers across the probation sector had high caseloads/workloads.217 Some had caseloads of over 150 offenders (either in custody or the community).218 HM Inspectorate of Probation’s Annual Report for 2017 suggested that in general a distinction could be drawn between the caseloads of NPS staff compared to CRCs:

we generally find NPS staff busy but not exceptionally pressed, and most tell us they can manage their caseloads […] In some CRCs, staff numbers have been pared down in repeated redundancy exercises, with those remaining carrying exceptional caseloads.219

In oral evidence Sodexo explained that there needed to be a distinction between caseloads and workloads as the amount of work attached to supervising an offender varied over the course of their supervision: “there is not a direct relationship between caseload and workload. In our model, quite a lot of the workload is at the beginning and very intensive, but it is less intensive towards the end of an order”.220

121.We also heard that in some cases Probation Officers and other case managers were dealing with cases for which they were not qualified. The Community & Criminal Justice Division at De Montfort University, which provides a range of undergraduate programmes for aspiring criminal justice practitioners, explained that “some recently recruited, less experienced Probation Service Officers working in CRCs have informed us that they are expected to manage cases involving domestic violence and abuse after receiving only a single day of training on this subject”.221 A Probation Officer explained the impact of such an approach on the workloads of experienced staff: “To compensate, inexperienced staff or staff in other roles have been given case management responsibilities with little or no training. Remaining experienced staff were being allocated unrealistically high caseloads”.222 Suki Binning, Chief Executive of the Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC, explained that Probation Instructions existed which provided “clear guidelines about suitably qualified staff” handling particular cases and they were complied with in her area.223

122.The Ministry accepted that there had been workforce challenges as a result of the Transforming Rehabilitation changes:

The impact of these changes to volume and caseload mix has been substantial. The NPS caseload increased by 10% between September 2014 and June 2017, creating considerable workforce challenges. Conversely, the weighted volume of work delivered by CRCs is around a third lower than anticipated.224

In a Westminster Hall debate in February 2018, the Minister, Rory Stewart OBE MP, stated that he did not think that Probation Officers should have caseloads of more than 50 to 55.225

123.Napo told us that there had also been a “de-professionalisation of the Probation service”.226 Despite a national training programme existing, they questioned its value:

there are concerns about the effectiveness of this training, how accessible it is, and whether cost has overridden quality. The lack of any national oversight also increases the risk of further fracture.227

The Community & Criminal Justice Division at De Montfort University also raised issues relating to the accessibility of training: workload pressures meant that it was harder for probation staff to undertake training, including the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP).228 Working Links, a CRC parent company, called for more funding to be available for Probation Officer training.229

124.When questioned about how the sector was responding, via training, to changes in the profile of offenders, especially an increase in the number of sex offenders, Kilvinder Vigurs, Probation Divisional Director London, NPS, explained that the training remit was “robust” and responded to the changes in cases being investigated by the police and going through the courts.230 Suki Binning also explained that work was underway to align NPS and CRC staff’s professional experience through a national professionalisation board.231

125.Despite the work going on regarding training, the unions called for a Licence to Practice to be introduced. They envisaged that this would include a national standard of practice “so that everyone [was] clear about delivery, standards, safeguards and how we can develop suitable professional training”.232 Similarly, HMI Probation called on the Government to “develop a probation workforce strategy to ensure the probation profession [was] able to meet demands”.233 HM Chief Inspector of Probation, suggested that such a strategy should focus on: “developing the profession as a whole; making sure there [were] enough staff of the right calibre, developing them, and retaining skilled staff”. The Inspectorate also advocated that probation staff “should be supported by a professional body that can manage […] registration and continuous professional development”.234 Unison was doubtful that a coherent probation workforce strategy could be developed while the NPS-CRC split remained.235 We did not question the Minister on these proposals.

126.We are concerned at the caseloads and workloads of probation staff. We are also concerned that there have been some claims that probation staff are handling cases for which they do not have the right training and/or experience. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should publish a probation workforce strategy, which covers both staff working in the NPS and CRCs, in the next 12 months. As a minimum, the strategy should set out the Ministry’s expectations with regard to professional standards, training, and maximum caseloads/workloads for probation staff. This strategy should be developed in consultation with the trade unions and HM Inspectorate of Probation.

Data sharing across the system and IT

127.We also heard concerns that different IT systems within the criminal justice system were unable to share information relating to offenders.236 For example, Napo told us that it was concerned “about the interface between the various systems in the NPS—reporting systems and record systems—and the system being run by the CRCs”.237 Unison also explained that it was a “quite common occurrence that the NPS court staff [could not] access records at the court on the nDelius system238 before entering the court” and the impact of this was that NPS staff did not always have the information needed to advise the courts.239 Shelter explained that sharing information was “quite difficult” as systems did not speak to each other and “different systems [were] being used in prison from probation and out in the community”.240

128.We also heard that the Ministry had moved the “goalposts” on requirements that CRCs’ IT systems had to comply with. Working Links, a CRC parent company, for example, explained that it was:

contractually required to migrate away from the MoJ IT systems and subsequently invested £6.5m into developing our own IT solution. The MoJ then changed approach. Faced with a higher cost to continue than to turn back, we opted to halt our development and continued use of the MoJ existing IT systems. The resources we invested have not been compensated for and would otherwise have been available to invest in our frontline probation services.241

129.In oral evidence Seetec, another CRC parent company, explained that “security constraints” had acted as a barrier to greater integration and practitioners being able to access information on the go. However, their Managing Director, John Baumback, explained in oral evidence that technical solutions existed to safeguard data, such as those currently being used by Children’s Services.242 Sonia Crozier, NPS, explained that there were some joint systems in place within the probation sector. She explained that the NPS were close to implementing ViSOR, the Dangerous Persons Database, used by police and probation.243

130.In response to a Report from the Committee of Public Accounts and in evidence to us the Ministry implied that a solution had been found for some of these problems and was in the process of being implemented: “The Strategic Partner Gateway, which allows providers to link their ICT systems to HMPPS systems, has been in place since September 2016”.244 HMI Probation, in its written submission in November 2017, explained that their understanding was “that CRCs [were] still waiting for the implementation of the much needed strategic IT gateway”. This, coupled with financial pressures, had meant that no CRC had been able to “fully implement the new systems they [had] planned and invested in”.245

131.We are concerned that problems remain regarding data sharing across the criminal justice system. It is disappointing that CRCs have spent large sums of money developing IT systems to meet the Ministry’s contractual requirements, only for the MoJ to move the goalposts. By 1 February 2019, the Ministry of Justice should ensure that security constraints and IT barriers which prevent data from being shared between organisations involved in managing an offender from the point of arrest, in prison and through to support in the community are proportionate. This should include identifying how the number of IT systems could be rationalised and/or linked so that the same data is not repeatedly inputted into different systems.

152 Ministry of Justice, Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform, Cm 8619, May 2013, p6

153 Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee on 4 December 2013, HC (2013–14) 94, Q179

154 Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee on 4 December 2013, HC (2013–14) 94, Q211

155 Oral evidence taken before the Justice Committee on 4 December 2013, HC (2013–14) 94, Q246

156 See for example Q190. Evidence also suggested that smaller organisations tended to be more specialist and local, see for example, Dr Christine Hough (TRH0027), Shelter (TRH0030), Ministry of Justice (TRH0032), Seetec (TRH0036), Centre for Justice Innovation (TRH0057), Clinks (TRH0060), Working Links (TRH0080), Switchback (TRH0084) and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (TRH0109).

161 Q121. See also Dr Christine Hough (TRH0027).

166 Q125. See also PACT Future (TRH0114). The National Probation Service have also reportedly had to withdraw funding from the voluntary sector, see for example, statement by John Samuels QC, False economy? Withdrawal by the National Probation Service of funding for Circles support and accountability

167 Q121. See also: Shelter (Q119), Dr Christine Hough (TRH0027) and Mr Jonathan and Gareth Evans (TRH0040).

169 Q150. See also Agenda (TRH0038) and Langley House Trust (TRH0110).

170 Q121. See also Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (TRH0109) for reduced role of smaller voluntary sector organisations.

171 Ministry of Justice (TRH0118). See also, Agenda (TRH0038).

172 See for example written evidence from Seetec (TRH0036).

173 Mr Andrew Bridges (TRH0005)

177 HC Deb, 24 April 2018, col 715

178 Ministry of Justice (TRH0118)

182 YSS ltd (TRH0056)

183 Ministry of Justice (TRH0118)

184 Tier 1 providers are the main contractors and are contracted by the Ministry of Justice, they can sub-contract another provider (Tier 2) to supply a service and Tier 2 providers can sub-contract another provider (Tier 3) to supply services. Clinks, “Subcontracting under TR”, accessed 25 May 2018

186 Q222. See also Dr Christine Hough (TRH0027). why me? (TRH0096), and Q236

187 Q123. See also, Anawim (TRH0007); Clinks (TRH0060); and Women in Prison (TRH0076).

189 Offender Management Act 2007, section 4

190 Pre-sentence reports are prepared under Section 156 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by the probation service before a custodial or community sentence is ordered. They should include an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offence, and its impact on the victim.

191 National Probation Service (TRH0034)

193 HM Inspectorate of Probation (TRH0052)

194 Written evidence from the Magistrates’ Association to the Justice Committee’s inquiry Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach?, HC (2013–14) 1004

195 See for example, David Chantler (TRH0013) and The Howard League for Penal Reform (TRH0017).

196 Magistrates Association (TRH0023)

203 National Probation Service (TRH0034)

204 National Probation Service (TRH0116)

205 Probation Service Officers have undertaken a vocational qualification.

206 Probation Officers have successfully completed a combined degree course and vocational qualification.

208 Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Probation and Family Court Staff (TRH0059)

210 Qq85–86. See also Inspiring intelligence ltd (TRH0089).

211 NAPO South-South West branch (TRH0014)

212 A Probation Officer 2 (TRH0099)

213 See for example, A former Probation Officer (TRH0004), UNISON (TRH0045), Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Probation and Family Court Staff (TRH0059), Women in Prison (TRH0076), and A Probation Officer 2 (TRH0099).

214 Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Probation and Family Court Staff (TRH0059)

216 Centre for Community, Gender and Social Justice (TRH0024)

217 See for example: UNISON (TRH0045), HM Inspectorate of Probation (TRH0052), A Probation Officer (TRH0069), why me? (TRH0096), and A Probation Officer 2 (TRH0099)

219 HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017 Annual Report, 14 December 2017, p11

221 Community & Criminal Justice, De Montfort University (TRH0055). See also: HM Inspectorate of Probation, Quality & Impact inspection: The effectiveness of probation work in Northamptonshire: An inspection by HM Inspectorate of Probation, April 2017

222 A Probation Officer (TRH0069)

224 Ministry of Justice (TRH0032)

225 HC Deb, 27 February 2018, col 277WH

226 Napo (TRH0105)

227 Napo, the Trade Union and Professional Association for Probation and Family Court Staff (TRH0059)

228 Community & Criminal Justice, De Montfort University (TRH0055)

229 Working Links (TRH0080)

232 Q95. See also Dr Rebecca Marples, Professor Charlie Brooker and Dr Coral Sirdifield (TRH0095).

233 HM Inspectorate of Probation (TRH0052)

234 HM Inspectorate of Probation (TRH0115)

235 UNISON (TRH0102)

236 See for example The Salvation Army (TRH0011).

238 nDelius is the national (England and Wales) public-sector offender case-management system.

241 Working Links (TRH0080)

244 Ministry of Justice (TRH0032) and HM Treasury, Treasury Minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Twentieth to the Thirtieth reports from Session 2017–19, Cm 9618, May 2018, p36

245 HM Inspectorate of Probation (TRH0052)

Published: 22 June 2018