This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Cambridgeshire Local Criminal Justice Board - Meetings, Papers and Contact Details'.


Transforming Rehabilitation 
A revolution in the way we manage 
offenders 
January 2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consultation Paper CP1/2013 
Consultation start date: 9 January 2013 
Consultation close date: 22 February 2013 


 
Transforming Rehabilitation 
A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Presented to Parliament  
by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice  
by Command of Her Majesty 
 
January 2013 
Cm 8517 
£10.75

© Crown copyright 2013 
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or 
medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, 
visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: 
xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx 
Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to 
obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. 
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at 
xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx 
This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and 
on our website at www.justice.gov.uk 
ISBN: 9780101851725 
 
 
 
 
 
Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited 
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 
ID P002530852 
01/13 
Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. 
 
 

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 34 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Contents 
About the consultation questions in this document 

Purpose of the document 

Ministerial Foreword 

The need to Transform Rehabilitation 

Part A: Strategy for Transforming Rehabilitation 
10 
Section 1: 
Competing services in the community 
13 
Section 2: 
Providers who tackle the causes of offending 
16 
Section 3: 
Extending rehabilitative provision to more offenders 
19 
Section 4: 
The public sector role and public protection 
21 
Section 5: 
Effective partnership working between providers and the 
public sector 

22 
Section 6: 
Efficient structural design 
24 
Section 7: 
Integration with local partnerships 
26 
Section 8: 
Affording the reformed system 
28 
Part B: Extending our Reform Programme 
29 
Part C: System Specification Questions 
31 
 
 


Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
About the consultation questions in this document 
To: 
This consultation is aimed primarily at 
probation professionals, service providers, the 
judiciary, victims, service users and other 
stakeholders. We also invite members of the 
public to respond. 
Questions: 
Consultation questions are asked in Part B and 
Part C of the document. The questions are 
numbered B1–B3 and C1–C19.  
Duration: 
From 9 January 2013 to 22 February 2013 
Enquiries (including 
Transforming Rehabilitation consultation 
requests for the paper in  Ministry of Justice 
an alternative format) to:  8.25, 102 Petty France 
London SW1H 9AJ 
020 3334 2477 
xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx 
How to respond: 
Please send your response by 22 February 
2013 to: 
Transforming Rehabilitation consultation 
Ministry of Justice 
8.25, 102 Petty France 
London SW1H 9AJ 
xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx 
Additional ways to feed 
Responses to this consultation exercise can 
in your views: 
also be submitted online via 
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-
communications/transforming-rehabilitation. 
A series of events involving key stakeholders 
will also take place. 
For further information please use the 
‘Enquiries’ contact details above.  
Response paper: 
A response to this consultation exercise will be 
published at: http://www.justice.gov.uk 


link to page 13 link to page 32 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Purpose of the document 
This paper sets out the Justice Secretary’s proposals for Transforming 
Rehabilitation. 
It describes the Government’s intended approach to driving down the rate of 
reoffending and delivering better value for the taxpayer. We need a criminal 
justice system which punishes offenders properly, protects the public and 
supports victims; this system also needs to reform offenders so that they do 
not go on to commit further crimes. By reducing reoffending we can ensure 
there are fewer victims of crime, that our communities are safer and that less 
money is spent on repeat offenders passing through the system again and 
again. 
Our reform proposals focus on the rehabilitation of adult offenders managed in 
the community, including support and services provided to prisoners in 
preparation for their release. They include those sentenced to community 
orders or suspended sentence orders, and those released from prison. They 
should be seen alongside the important work required in prison to rehabilitate 
offenders, reduce their risk to the public and prepare them to lead constructive 
lives on release. 
In Part A: Strategy for Transforming Rehabilitation, we describe our plans 
for reforming offender management services to deliver better rehabilitation 
outcomes and value for money. 
 In 
‘The Coalition: our programme for government’, the Government 
committed to introducing a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that will pay 
independent providers to reduce reoffending. This document sets out how 
we will fulfil that commitment. 
  In the December 2010 ‘Breaking the Cycle’ Green Paper, we stated our 
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 document sets out how we intend to extend payment by results 
across rehabilitative services in the community. 
  In the March 2012 ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services’ 
consultation, we proposed changes to the way probation services are 
commissioned and delivered. In this document, we respond to that 
consultation and set out how our proposals have developed further. 
In Part B: Extending our Reform Programme, we ask for views on further 
proposals which could support our reforms. We would welcome a wide range 
of views on the proposals in this section of the document. Responses should 
reach us by 22 February 2013 by one of the consultation routes set out at the 
front of this paper, under the section entitled ‘About the consultation questions 
in this document’. We have already consulted on the principles behind many 
of the proposals in this document, but wish to undertake now a shorter, 


link to page 34 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
focused consultation since the revised package of measures contains some 
significant differences from the previous proposals. Many of the underlying 
themes and issues however, are the same, and the consultees are the same 
group. 
In Part C: System Specification Questions, we set out the detailed issues 
we will discuss with current practitioners, sentencers and potential providers 
as we finalise the operational design of this system. We will be running a 
programme of engagement with key stakeholders to gather views. Views on 
these issues can also be sent to the address above. 


Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Ministerial Foreword 
The Coalition Agreement set out an ambitious programme of social change, 
even at a time of financial constraints. The Government has already embarked 
on major reforms to welfare and education to tackle the challenge of endemic 
welfare dependence and educational underperformance, particularly in 
deprived areas. We now need real reform of the criminal justice system to 
tackle the unacceptable cycle of reoffending. 
Reoffending has been far too high for far too long. Despite significant 
increases in spending on probation under the previous government, almost 
half of those released from prison still go on to reoffend within 12 months, 
and there has been little change in reconviction rates over the past decade. 
We simply can’t carry on the same way hoping for a different result. 
We need a tough but intelligent Criminal Justice System that both punishes 
people properly when they break the law – and also supports them to get their 
lives back on track, so they don’t commit crime again in the future. 
Offenders often lead chaotic lives: Broken homes, drug and alcohol misuse, 
generational worklessness, abusive relationships, childhoods spent in care, 
mental illness, and educational failure are all elements so very common in the 
backgrounds of so many of our offenders. And right now, we are failing to turn 
their lives around. In fact, those released from short-term sentences, who 
have the highest reoffending rates get no support on release at all. 
Transforming rehabilitation is my top priority. We will reform the way in which 
offenders are managed in the community in order to achieve a steady year on 
year reduction in reoffending. We will increase our focus on rehabilitation and 
deal with offenders’ broader life management issues. And for the first time in 
recent history we will also extend rehabilitation to prisoners released after 
short sentences. My vision is very simple. When someone leaves prison, 
I want them already to have a mentor in place. I want them to be met at the 
prison gate, to have a place to live sorted out, to have a package of support 
set up, be it training or drug treatment or an employability course. I also want 
them to have someone they can turn to as a wise friend as they turn their lives 
around. 
Given the challenging financial context, we will need to increase efficiency 
and drive down costs to enable us to extend provision to those released from 
short-term sentences. We therefore intend to begin a process of competition 
to open up the market and bring in a more diverse mix of providers, delivering 
increased innovation and improved value for money. To ensure that the 
system is properly focused on reducing reoffending and deploying more 
effective interventions, providers will in future only be paid in full when they 
reduce reconviction rates in their area. 


link to page 9
Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
We will not take any risks in protecting the public and the public sector 
Probation Service will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection and 
will manage directly those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm 
to the public – this group will include cases subject to Multi-Agency Public 
Protection Arrangements. They will also continue to carry out assessments of 
the risk of serious harm posed by each offender, advise the courts and Parole 
Board and handle most1 breach cases. The Probation Service performs a vital 
role in protecting the public and managing risk – I am determined to preserve 
that. 
The great majority of community sentences and rehabilitation work will, 
however, be delivered by the private and voluntary sectors, who have 
particular expertise in this area. I am also keen to ensure that probation 
professionals currently within existing structures have scope to play a full role 
in the new rehabilitation provision. Our reforms will make use of local 
experience, and integrate with existing local structures. We want to introduce 
a system which allows for closer alignment of the variety of services which 
offenders use, through co-commissioning with other government departments, 
Police and Crime Commissioners, and local authorities. 
These reforms will make a significant change to the system, delivering the 
Government’s commitment to real reform. Transforming rehabilitation will help 
to ensure that all of those sentenced to prison or community sentences are 
properly punished while being supported to turn their backs on crime for good 
– meaning lower crime, fewer victims and safer communities. 
 
Chris Grayling 
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice 
 
January 2013 

                                                 
 


link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
The need to Transform Rehabilitation 
The offender management system exists to serve a number of purposes: to 
punish criminals and support them to reform, to protect the public from further 
harm caused by offenders, and to support victims and witnesses of crime. 
Whilst there is much that the system does well, there is no masking the fact 
that it is failing in one of its primary purposes. Too many offenders go through 
the justice system, serve their sentence and simply pick up where they left off. 
The statistics bear this out. For adult offenders convicted or released from 
custody in the year to December 2010, the percentage that reoffended within 
just 12 months was:2 
  57.6% for prisoners sentenced to under 12 months, with 17,560 
re-offenders committing 83,107 further offences; 
  35.9% for prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more (excluding 
Imprisonment for Public Protection and life sentences), with 9,170 
re-offenders committing 28,244 further offences; and 
  34.1% for those starting a court order3 – 49,636 re-offenders committed 
157,796 further offences. 
The evidence4 suggests that even those ex-prisoners who do not reoffend 
within the first year will often go on to commit further offences. For adult 
offenders released from custody in 2000, 45.8% reoffended within a year and 
this had risen to 66.1% within three years and 72.5% within five years. 
The implications of this failure are startling. The National Audit Office has 
estimated the cost of reoffending by recent ex-prisoners as being somewhere 
between £9.5 billion and £13 billion.5 
It is clear that a fresh approach to rehabilitation is needed. We need a 
revolution in how we work to prevent offenders from reoffending. 
We need to go straight to the heart of the issue and encourage the 
development of services designed to support offenders to overcome the 
barriers that prevent them turning their lives around. 
There is a raft of reasons why offenders commit crimes and each individual 
has a different story. However, many share a similar history and elements 
such as homelessness, drug and alcohol dependency, mental illness and 
                                                 
2  Proven re-reoffending statistics quarterly publication, Ministry of Justice. 
3  Court Orders include pre-Criminal Justice Act 2003 community sentences, new 
community orders and suspended sentence orders. 
4  Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis 2012. 
5  Managing offenders on short custodial sentences, National Audit Office, March 2010. 


link to page 11 link to page 11 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
unemployment are all too common. A study in 2005/06 showed that only about 
one third of prisoners reported being in paid employment in the four weeks 
before custody and 13% of prisoners reported never having had a job. 15% 
percent of these prisoners reported being homeless before custody and 25% 
were estimated to be suffering from anxiety and depression.
We need to do more to get prisoners back onto the right track, with only 10% 
in employment at any point during the 13 weeks following their release and 
48% claiming out-of-work benefits in the same period.7 We need a system 
where one provider has overall responsibility for getting to grips with an 
offender’s life management skills, co-ordinating a package of support to 
deliver better results. In addition, some of the most prolific re-offenders receive 
little or no support on release from prison and this needs to change. We need 
to achieve this in a way that is affordable within the context of the Ministry of 
Justice’s commitment to deliver annual savings of over £2 billion by 2014/15 
and looks forward to the next Spending Review. 
Our proposals aim to achieve a number of outcomes which we think will help 
us to address high reoffending rates and increase efficiency and value for 
money: 
1.  Greater flexibility in delivery: It is for the courts to decide on a sentence 
for an individual offender. After sentencing, however, the delivery of 
offender services has historically focused too closely on process rather 
than the impact on offender rehabilitation. We want to incentivise providers 
to innovate and to make best use of approaches and services that have 
demonstrated they can work to reduce reoffending. We will remove 
unnecessary bureaucracy and increase the scope for professionals in our 
proposed new structure to use their discretion to focus on delivering the 
support and services needed to turn an individual away from crime. 
Providers will be freed to do what works to rehabilitate offenders, and 
incentivised to deliver real results with part of their contract payment 
dependent on reducing reoffending. 
2.  Extending the scope of rehabilitation: We need to reach as many 
offenders as possible with our rehabilitative services, and especially those 
most likely to reoffend. Nearly 58% of offenders sentenced to less than a 
year in custody reoffend within a year of release, yet the system currently 
provides few opportunities to make them address their reoffending. We 
want to extend rehabilitation services to make those who go in for short 
                                                 
6  Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey, Ministry of 
Justice, 2012 – figures apply to adults serving between one month and four years. 
7  Offending, employment and benefits – emerging findings from the data linkage 
project, Ministry of Justice, 2011. Employment data is from HMRC’s P45 data. 
P45 employment spells often have estimated start or end dates. In addition, P45 
employment spells do not usually record employment paid at levels below tax 
thresholds, self-employment or cash-in-hand informal economy work. Therefore 
care must be taken in interpreting findings relating to employment outcomes. 
Figures apply to prisoners released in 2008. 


link to page 12 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
sentences but reoffend time and again part of our approach, and to 
provide a statutory basis to require them to engage. 
3.  More efficient services: We need to free up funding to provide 
rehabilitation for those who need it most, and at a time when the Ministry 
of Justice (MoJ) is committed to playing its part in supporting deficit 
reduction. We propose to introduce a widespread programme of 
competition, and invite providers from the private and voluntary sectors to 
bid to deliver the majority of current probation services. We will award 
contracts to those providers who demonstrate that they can deliver 
efficient, high-quality services and improve value for money. The recent 
competition to run Community Payback services in London demonstrated 
this potential, with the final contract due to return estimated savings of 
£25m over the four-year life of the contract, representing a 37% reduction 
in the cost of the service.8 We will also explore how we can drive down 
unit costs further across the system. 
4.  Greater diversity of providers: Probation staff make a fundamental 
contribution to protecting the public, including from the most dangerous 
offenders in the community, and we want to retain the wealth of 
experience that currently resides within the Probation Service. We will put 
in place a system which benefits from the innovation and versatility of 
private and voluntary sector providers, local expertise and the skills and 
experience of probation professionals to support the rehabilitation of 
offenders as envisaged by the Offender Management Act 2007. 
5.  Collaboration with partners: We need to build on and preserve the good 
work already done by agencies who work together to manage offenders in 
the most effective way (e.g. under Multi-Agency Public Protection 
Arrangements (MAPPA) or Integrated Offender Management (IOM)) and 
to encourage strong partnership working at a local level. Our system will 
enable co-commissioning for a range of offender services. 
The proposals that follow in this document describe how we intend to deliver a 
revolution in the way rehabilitation services are delivered. 
                                                 
8  http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/July_2012/13-07-12/17-
Justice-CommunityPayback.pdf 


Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Part A: Strategy for Transforming Rehabilitation 
In the March 2012 ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services’ 
consultation, we proposed changes to the way probation services are 
commissioned and delivered. We have considered the responses generated 
by that consultation in developing the current strategy. We will publish 
separately a summary of the responses received. 
The case for change and the principles and rationale for extending competition 
of probation services and effective offender management remain compelling. 
We also continue to see the public sector probation service as vital to ensuring 
the protection of the public and retaining key public interest decisions for all 
offenders. 
In commissioning offender services, as we acknowledged in the earlier 
consultation, it is important to find the right balance between devolving 
responsibility and the need to make efficiencies from economies of scale. We 
have reviewed the model for local commissioning proposed in that document 
and have concluded that a more effective model is to procure such services 
nationally in a number of geographical lots, to achieve the best price and a 
consistent commissioning approach across the country. It is important, though, 
that commissioning decisions are informed by local intelligence. 
Whilst previous consultation responses have helped inform the current 
strategy and many of the themes are the same, there are some key delivery 
differences to our proposed model from that in the original consultation and we 
are considering the package afresh. If you wish to refer us to your previous 
response we ask that you make that clear as we will not otherwise assume 
that to be the case. 
This section of the document describes our plans for reforming offender 
services in light of the new commissioning model to deliver better rehabilitation 
outcomes and value for money. 
Summary of Proposals 
The core features of our plans for reform are as follows. Each is described in 
further detail in the subsequent sections. 
  Section 1 – Competing services in the community: The majority of 
community-based offender services will be subject to competition. Through 
competition, we will open service delivery to a much more diverse range of 
providers and achieve efficiencies, while retaining an important role for the 
public sector probation service focused on protecting the public and 
delivering other core functions reserved to the public sector, such as 
providing advice to court. 
  Section 2 – Providers who tackle the causes of reoffending: Providers 
will be commissioned to deliver community orders and licence 
10 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
requirements, and will be incentivised to reduce reoffending. They will be 
paid by results according to achieving reductions in reconviction rates. We 
want providers to tackle the causes of reoffending – for example, by 
providing mentors and signposting to services aimed at employment, 
accommodation, training and tackling addiction, to help offenders turn their 
lives around. We will encourage providers to harness local expertise 
through working with local and specialist voluntary and community sector 
(VCS) organisations. 
  Section 3 – Extending rehabilitative provision to more offenders
By delivering services more efficiently we plan to extend rehabilitative 
provision to offenders released from short custodial sentences of less than 
12 months. The vast majority of these offenders currently have no 
statutory licence or rehabilitation provision but have the highest 
reconviction rates. We intend to make sure they receive targeted 
rehabilitative interventions, and extend statutory supervision to ensure they 
engage with these programmes. 
  Section 4 – The public sector role and public protection: The public 
sector probation service will retain responsibility for public protection. 
They will continue to carry out assessments of the risk of serious harm 
posed by each offender and advise the courts and Parole Board. 
Working in partnership with the police and others, the public sector will 
manage directly those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious 
harm to the public – this group will include Multi-Agency Public Protection 
Arrangements (MAPPA) cases where the public sector will continue to 
work with police forces in assessing and managing risk. 
  Section 5 – Effective partnership working between providers and 
public sector: Providers of competed services will work closely with the 
public sector. In particular, we will put arrangements in place so that in 
cases where the risk of serious harm escalates, providers will notify the 
public sector probation service and take appropriate further action to 
safeguard the public. 
  Section 6 – Efficient structural design: We will design the structure of 
this new system to be as efficient as possible. We will commission delivery 
of competed services over geographical areas through a national 
commissioning function to avoid undue complexity and duplication. 
The new contract package areas will be aligned to Police and Crime 
Commissioner (PCC) and local authority boundaries and support 
interaction with other local services, grouping individual police force areas 
where necessary. The public sector probation service will also be 
organised in the most efficient manner for delivery of its new 
responsibilities. 
  Section 7 – Integration with local partnerships: We will design this 
system to make use of local expertise and to integrate into existing local 
structures. We need to align rehabilitative services with the role played by 
PCCs so that our new market model will facilitate co-commissioning with 
them and other commissioners of public services. Potential providers will 
have to evidence how they would sustain local partnerships as part of the 
bidding process. There will also be significant scope for the VCS to deliver 
11 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
front-line rehabilitation services and to form genuine partnerships to enter 
the competition process. 
  Section 8 – Affording the reformed system: We will design a system 
which is affordable under spending constraints, consistent with the 
Government’s priority of tackling the deficit. We aim to achieve efficiencies 
through competing services and driving down the unit costs of service 
provision and use these to fund transition costs and extending 
rehabilitative provision. In the longer term, reductions in reoffending have 
the potential to deliver benefits across the criminal justice system and 
society more broadly. 
12 

link to page 16 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 1: Competing services in the community 
We will compete services delivered under the majority of our current 
spend in the community, with contracted providers responsible for 
rehabilitating offenders and delivering community order and licence 
requirements. 

The majority of rehabilitative and punitive services in the community will be 
opened up to a diverse market of providers. We currently spend around £1 
billion on delivering these services. Through competition and payment by 
results, we will introduce more efficient and effective services, specifically 
targeting a significant reduction in reoffending rates. This will deliver a tough 
but intelligent justice system, aligning proper punishments with an integrated 
programme of support to help offenders reform. 
The vast majority of offenders in the community, including both those on 
community orders9 and those released from custody, will in future be 
managed on a day-to-day basis by contracted providers. The exception will be 
those offenders subject to MAPPA and others judged to pose a high risk of 
serious harm to the public. We estimate that there is the potential for 
competed providers to manage an annual caseload of c.265,000 offenders, 
but that the public sector will provide intensive oversight of other offenders 
who pose a higher risk of serious harm. 
Successful bidders will be responsible for delivering requirements of 
community orders or licence conditions. They will also be incentivised through 
payment by results to tackle offenders’ life management problems and reduce 
reoffending. For offenders leaving prison, providers should work with them 
‘through the prison gate’, engaging them before their release into the 
community and maintaining continuous support. This should be linked with the 
important role that prisons play in the rehabilitation of offenders and in 
reducing their risk of harm, including efforts to increase the number of 
prisoners working while in custody. 
We have already competed some probation services, either at a national level 
(e.g. Electronic Monitoring contracts) or within a Probation Trust (e.g. London 
Community Payback). These services will be available to new providers as per 
the terms and geographic coverage of existing contracts. We will also 
determine how best to integrate these services in the longer term with the new 
market model. 
We will be working to build a strong market for this competition and we will 
continue to work closely with the market to test out key principles and ideas. 
                                                 
9  For this document, ‘offenders on community orders’ are defined as adult (aged 18+) 
offenders sentenced to either a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order. 
13 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Our engagement plan includes consultation with a wide range of providers 
from different sectors. 
The design of a service underpinned by good performance data and robust 
counterfactuals is central to ensuring good value for money contracts for the 
taxpayer which deliver real improvements in services. We need to be sure 
about what good performance looks like and reward this, and we need to have 
robust measures in place to manage poor performance. We will be consulting 
with providers, practitioners and wider stakeholders to build our understanding 
of how best to achieve this across these services. We will also be looking at 
the best lessons from contract and performance management from across 
Government. These will be fed into the design of competition and contractual 
structures. 
There will be a strong emphasis on creating a diverse and sustainable market 
for future provision which continues to bring in and attract new providers, 
fosters innovation and rewards providers who are delivering outcomes, whilst 
disincentivising poor performance. We will be using the consultation period to 
explore further options that can help deliver this. 
It will be crucial that providers work closely with all local partners to ensure 
that the service delivered to achieve the reducing reoffending outcomes are 
aligned with other local services, whoever the commissioner – for example 
PCCs, local authorities or NHS commissioners. We will require providers to 
evidence how they would embed services with local partnerships as part of the 
bidding process, and in particular IOM partnerships 
For all offenders, the public sector probation service will retain its key role in 
providing advice to courts on sentencing options, and will retain overall 
responsibility for ensuring that risk of harm to the public is effectively 
managed. This will include retaining direct offender management responsibility 
for those considered to pose the highest risk of harm. The future role of the 
public sector probation service is discussed in further detail at Section 4. 
14 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Fig. 1  Proposed allocation of functions for different offender groups 
 
 
Market 
Public Sector 
Low / Medium 
  Paid by results to 
  Accountable for public 
Risk Offenders 
rehabilitate offenders 
protection 
Methods likely to include 
‘through the gate’ mentoring,    Initial risk assessment of 
and supporting access to 
offenders 
accommodation / 
employment / training / 
  Advice to court and Parole 
substance misuse treatment, 
Board on sentencing / 
in addition to delivery of 
licence conditions 
sentence / licence 
requirements 
  Advice on return to court 
and recall to custody in 
  Inform public sector probation 
cases of breach of order 
service of available and 
or licence conditions 
suitable interventions to 
inform advice to court on 
 Engage with providers, 
sentencing options / licence 
advising on managing risk 
conditions 
and responding to 
escalating risk of serious 
  Ensure that escalating risk of 
harm 
serious harm is identified and 
managed in conjunction with 
the public sector probation 
service 
  Notify the public sector 
probation service or court of 
breaches of community 
orders, suspended sentence 
requirements and licence 
conditions 
High Risk 
  Deliver community order 
  Accountable for public 
Offenders 
requirements and 
protection 
rehabilitative interventions 
where commissioned to do so   Initial risk assessment and 
advice to court and Parole 
Board as above 
 Direct offender 
management, working 
with MAPPA and other 
partners 
 
15 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 2: Providers who tackle the causes of offending 
We will pay providers to deliver community orders and licence 
requirements, and also incentivise them through payment by results to 
reduce reoffending. 

In addition to delivering the sentence of the court, providers will be free to 
utilise other interventions aimed at reducing reoffending, drawing on existing 
best practice and partnering with expert local organisations. We want to see a 
market model that supports a wide range of lead providers, and partnerships 
which bring in the particular skills of local and specialist organisations. 
One issue on which respondents to the ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective 
Probation Services’
 consultation were almost universally agreed was that the 
effective interventions delivered by small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs) and the VCS must be preserved within the system. We recognise the 
significant expertise and dynamism of many VCS providers and that they have 
a crucial role to play in embedding work with offenders into local initiatives and 
communities. 
We are keen to see partnerships between VCS organisations, or private and 
VCS providers, coming forward to compete for contracts. The emerging social 
investment market has the potential to ensure that VCS bidders have the 
financial resources to put together credible bids and form genuine 
partnerships with the private sector. We will continue to engage with the social 
investment market to ensure that the contracting process is compatible with 
this kind of financing. Smaller VCS organisations will not be excluded either – 
we will take steps to ensure they can form part of sub-contracting 
arrangements which are managed fairly and sustainably. 
While we will need to contract with entities capable of bearing the financial and 
operational risks associated with offender services in the community and the 
introduction of payment by results, it will also be open to those currently in the 
public sector to design prospective mutuals or develop appropriate 
partnerships with other organisations to bid to win contracts for service 
delivery. It is envisaged that only if and when these bids have been successful 
will any employee-led entities or partnerships be formally set up. This is to 
guarantee continuity of service in probation during the transition to new 
arrangements, and also to ensure that those public sector probation 
professionals who do come together to enter the bidding process are not 
disadvantaged if they are ultimately unsuccessful. 
The Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office will work together to support 
leaders and staff in Probation Trusts in exploring the options and feasibility of 
participating in the design of appropriate partnerships and independent entities 
in advance of competitions. The Cabinet Office will design a package of 
support for those who wish to explore this option, including access to the 
Cabinet Office’s £10m Mutuals Support Programme. 
16 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Public sector organisations – for example, the police – may be able to engage 
directly in and be rewarded for the delivery of additional services, provided we 
can mitigate any potential conflict of interest and ensure propriety in the use of 
public money. 
We will require lead providers to commit to supply chain management 
principles aligned with those identified by the Merlin Standard. We will ensure 
that under payment by results arrangements, disproportionate levels of 
financial risk are not passed down to VCS and SME providers, and ensure 
sustainable funding streams and support access to social investment. To 
support the VCS to operate under a payment by results framework in the 
future, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is investing £150k 
of grant funding in 2012/13 to develop a capacity-building action plan for the 
sector. A further grant of £350k will then be available in 2013/14 to execute 
the plan. 
There are a range of factors that lead individuals to crime. In addition to 
delivering the sentence, we want to see providers tackling offenders’ broader 
life management issues – for example by helping them find accommodation, 
employment and access training and other public services, as well as by 
addressing their attitudes, thinking and behaviour, and by connecting them to 
mental health, drug and alcohol treatment programmes. 
We want these reforms to be effective for all offenders. We will ensure that the 
specific needs and priorities relevant to female offenders are recognised and 
addressed within our overall payment by results approach. Probation Trusts 
are required by the NOMS Commissioning Intentions document to 
demonstrate how they will ensure appropriate provision of women’s services. 
They already work with other providers, such as the VCS-led Women’s 
Community Services, to address the rehabilitative needs of female offenders 
serving community orders. For all female offenders other than those who pose 
a high risk of serious harm, the responsibility to deliver rehabilitation services 
will be transferred to the new market providers and will be included in the 
overall payment by results approach. 
We will continue to consider the potential impact of our proposed reforms on 
other offenders with complex needs and protected characteristics. 
We want to see offenders desist completely from committing crime, to reduce 
the number who return to the system. This will cut prison and probation costs, 
reduce court backlogs and allow for savings on legal aid provision. We will 
apply payment by results, only paying providers in full if they achieve a 
sufficient reduction in reoffending. Additional outcome payments may be made 
if the agreed reduction is exceeded – we want providers to focus relentlessly 
on rehabilitating offenders. We will spend taxpayers’ money on what works to 
reduce reoffending and on the most effective services, but we will not reward 
services that fail. 
Responses to the ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services’ 
consultation highlighted the risk that payment by results based on a simple 
17 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
binary desistance measure could encourage providers to concentrate efforts 
on the offenders least likely to reoffend. 
The binary measure aligns most closely with our overall aim of complete 
desistance. However, we are considering ways to adapt this measure to 
ensure that providers have an incentive to continue to engage with offenders 
after they have been reconvicted and sentenced and then subsequently return 
to the providers’ caseload. 
We intend to develop our payment structures to incentivise providers to deliver 
effective services for all offenders, even the most problematic repeat 
offenders. 
18 

link to page 22 Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 3: Extending rehabilitative provision to more 
offenders 

We will use competition and other savings to extend our rehabilitative 
approach to offenders released from short custodial sentences who 
currently receive no statutory licence or rehabilitation provision but have 
high reconviction rates. 

There are currently few rehabilitative services that are provided through the 
criminal justice system to offenders released from custodial sentences of less 
than 12 months, and yet they are amongst the most highly prolific offender 
groups. Of the short sentenced offenders released from prison in 2010 as a 
whole, 57.6% reoffended within a year, with these re-offenders committing an 
average of 4.73 further offences over that period. Offenders sentenced to less 
than 12 months spent an average of 2.2 months in prison10 so there is little 
opportunity to reform offenders from this group in prison. The dedication and 
pooled expertise of IOM arrangements has served to control the impact of the 
worst offenders in local areas. Our proposals will bolster these efforts by 
including short sentenced prisoners released from custody within a provider’s 
caseload, and providing a statutory basis for intervention. 
We will give the courts the necessary powers to impose short custodial 
sentences which will now include supervision on release from custody. We will 
ensure the supervision period for all offenders will be of sufficient duration to 
support meaningful rehabilitative work with offenders, following the essential 
punishment element provided by the custodial part of the sentence. 
In order to support compliance, there must be consequences for offenders 
who will not engage with efforts to rehabilitate them. In these cases, we want 
to strike a balance between enabling rehabilitation to continue and ensuring 
that non-compliance is addressed. We will introduce a scale of available 
measures, to provide a range of options for challenging offenders who fail to 
engage with providers. This will include consideration of the option of custody 
as a last resort. 
There will be cost pressures from extending rehabilitative interventions to 
offenders released from short custodial sentences and in transition to the new 
system. We believe these costs can be balanced by competing services to 
release efficiencies and drive down unit costs across the system. In the longer 
term, a reduction in reoffending rates has the potential to deliver reductions in 
demand on the justice system as a whole. 
                                                 
10  For the period April to June 2012 and including time spent on remand. 
19 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Case Study: Social Impact Bond pilot project 
For a six year pilot, the Ministry of Justice has contracted with Social Finance 
to deliver rehabilitation services to adult male offenders sentenced to less than 
12 months’ imprisonment and discharged from HMP Peterborough. This 
provides a unique opportunity to engage with a group of prisoners whose 
reoffending rate is high and who currently receive no statutory probation when 
released from prison. 
Under the pilot, Social Finance has commissioned St Giles Trust and other 
organisations to work intensively with 3,000 prisoners, both inside 
Peterborough prison and after release, to help them resettle into the 
community. The first full cohort results from the pilot will be available in 2014. 
A report into the implementation of the pilot interviewed key people involved in 
the pilots. They stated that: 
Through-the-gate care meeting offenders, following that through, being there 
to support them, that is the right thing to do.
’ 
Deputy Director, HMP Peterborough 
The benefits are that we actually do make a real difference in reoffending ... 
it will work with a group of offenders which [are] identified as our biggest gap 
and our biggest priority to try and do something about.
’ 
Regional Manager for Commissioning, NOMS East 
 
20 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 4: The public sector role and public protection 
The public sector probation service will retain responsibility for public 
protection. For the highest risk offenders, this will mean direct offender 
management responsibility. For all other offenders, the public sector will 
have responsibility for ensuring contracted providers are effectively 
managing the risk of harm posed to the public. The public sector 
deserves recognition for the professional standards it has demonstrated 
in protecting the public from serious harm, and we intend to maintain 
and build on that expertise. 

For all offenders, the public sector probation service will continue to provide 
advice to court on sentencing options, conduct initial risk assessments, and be 
accountable for ensuring that the risk of harm that offenders pose to the public 
is properly managed. The manner in which it discharges that responsibility will 
differ according to the offender and the risk of harm that they are considered 
to represent. The more specialised nature of this work and the focus on 
serious harm will require a highly skilled, focused and professional public 
probation service. 
When a community order is made or an offender is released from prison on 
licence, an initial risk assessment will be carried out by the public sector 
probation service. This will identify the level of risk the offender poses to the 
safety of the public. Those considered to be at high risk of causing serious 
harm will continue to be managed directly by the public sector probation 
service, as now. Offenders who fall within MAPPA each year will also continue 
to be managed by the public sector MAPPA partners as now. 
All other offenders will be managed by contracted providers, but the public 
sector probation service will continue to have responsibility for ensuring the 
risk of harm to the public posed by these offenders is properly managed. This 
means the contracted provider will be required to have effective arrangements 
in place for managing risk and for informing the public sector of escalating risk 
of serious harm where necessary, as the level of risk posed by offenders is 
dynamic. The probation service will maintain an appropriate level of contact 
with the providers in relation to these cases. The relationship between the 
probation service and contracted providers is discussed further in Section 5. 
21 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 5: Effective partnership working between 
providers and the public sector 

There will be close interaction between providers of competed services 
and the public sector. Probation professionals will have an important 
role to play in both parts of the system. Many current probation 
professionals will have a role to play working in the competed services, 
where they will have an increased focus on the rehabilitation of 
offenders. And some will continue to work in the public sector to 
manage any risk of serious harm posed by offenders, and to respond to 
offenders who breach their licence conditions or community order 
requirements. 

Under our proposals, we expect that probation professionals will work in the 
public, private and voluntary sectors, protecting the public and delivering 
rehabilitation services using their considerable skills and experience in 
working with offenders. We are clear that we will maintain this expertise and a 
strong probation profession. All providers in the new market will be required to 
sustain appropriate skills for these services with effective training and 
accreditation comparable to the high standards in place today. 
We will look at the most appropriate way of ensuring professional standards 
are maintained. We will draw on the responses from the previous consultation 
to develop an appropriate approach to maintaining professional standards and 
assuring the quality of training and accreditation which will apply across the 
public, private and voluntary sectors. Some have suggested a professional 
body or institute to support practitioners in upholding these standards 
and we seek further views on this in the consultation questions at the end of 
the document. 
It will be important that HM Inspectorate of Probation plays a role in 
independently inspecting offender management and the work done by 
providers in all sectors, ensuring that standards are upheld and helping to 
support continuous improvements in practice. 
The public sector probation service will advise the court on sentencing, and 
will need a clear understanding of what rehabilitative services providers can 
offer, and what sentence will best facilitate these. It will work with contracted 
providers to manage the risk of serious harm posed by offenders, for which 
the public sector will remain accountable. It will also be an essential source of 
advice on risk management for contracted providers, who will need to ensure 
their staff are trained to identify and act on triggers which may indicate 
escalating risk of serious harm. 
The public sector and contracted providers will work together to handle cases 
where offenders breach the requirements of their sentence or licence. Clarity 
on the parameters and triggers for referral back to the public sector for risk 
management and also breach and recall decisions will be essential. Providers 
22 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
will report material breaches of community orders, suspended sentence 
requirements and licence conditions to the public sector, who will then advise 
the court or Secretary of State. It is the case now that straightforward breach 
cases involving offenders serving a standalone curfew requirement are dealt 
with directly by the contracted provider. As we develop our new system, we 
will consider the applicability of similar arrangements under our proposals. 
We are absolutely clear that close relationships between the public sector and 
contracted providers will be vital to make the reformed system work 
effectively. Close communication and sharing of information between all those 
involved with an offender will be crucial. We will need ICT systems that enable 
information to be shared easily and will work with all parties to develop the 
best cost-effective approach for implementation. 
23 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 6: Efficient structural design 
We will design the structure of this new service to be as efficient as 
possible. We will commission contracts over geographical areas through 
a national function, to avoid undue complexity and duplication in the 
commissioning process and to align these with other services where 
possible. The public sector will be organised in the way which will best 
enable it to deliver its core functions. 

We believe a national commissioner function, informed by intelligence on local 
needs provided by local delivery agencies will ensure our proposals are 
deliverable, affordable and demonstrate maximum value for money. 
We propose to commission delivery of ‘bundled’ services within geographical 
contract areas. We are minded to introduce a structure of 16 contract package 
areas that takes account of both existing partnerships and the needs of the 
market. Our premise is driven by the need to achieve economies of scale and 
avoid undue complexity and duplication, whilst also ensuring each area is 
large enough for us to be able to measure significant changes in reoffending 
rates and to facilitate payment by results. The areas also need to be large 
enough to support effective ‘through the gate’ provision, given that prisoners 
will often be held at prisons that are outside the immediate area to which they 
will be released. 
We want to introduce a system which allows for closer alignment and 
integration of the variety of services which offenders use through 
co-commissioning. Our proposed configuration aligns with Police and Crime 
Commissioner and local authority boundaries whilst supporting the integration 
of police and offender rehabilitation services now and in the future. In order to 
achieve sufficient scale we will consider, where necessary and where the 
market suggests, to group individual police force areas within one contract 
package area. We will also seek to align commissioning boundaries as far as 
possible with services provided by other Government departments, for 
example the Work Programme. In designing the lots we would look to 
providers to give evidence of the best fit with both local needs and existing 
cross-boundary collaboration arrangements. 
The final contract package areas will be subject to engagement with the 
market, with probation and with partners. We will also consider the arguments 
for alternative configurations, including smaller geographic areas, if the issues 
outlined above can be addressed. 
We expect most contracts to cover geographical areas larger than the current 
Probation Trusts. The public sector will be organised in the most efficient 
manner for delivery of its new responsibilities – this will require fewer Trusts or 
a different structure (such as a single national probation trust or direct 
delivery on behalf of the Secretary of State). We intend to begin the transition 
24 




Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
to the new operating structure in 2013. We invite views on the most effective 
structure for delivering these responsibilities. 
Our intention to commission contracts through a national function is a change 
from the proposals outlined in the ‘Punishment and Reform: Effective 
Probation Services’
 consultation document, which suggested devolving 
commissioning responsibilities to Probation Trusts. We heard arguments for 
and against this approach in the responses received. Some respondents 
expressed concern that national contracts might overlook local variations and 
characteristics, and that they could exclude smaller organisations unable to 
meet the costs of bidding for such contracts. 
However, the point was also made that responsiveness to local needs does 
not necessitate local commissioning, as diversity can be recognised as part of 
commissioning at larger scale, provided the new system embeds local delivery 
and local partnerships in a sustainable way. Having considered responses, we 
have decided that effectively commissioning locally responsive services whilst 
also realising the greatest efficiencies possible can best be achieved through 
a national commissioner function provided that it is informed by local delivery 
systems and public sector probation partners providing intelligence on local 
needs. 
Fig. 2 Representation of the redesigned offender management system 
 
25 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 7: Integration with local partnerships 
We will design this system to make best use of local expertise, and to 
integrate into existing local structures, including statutory ones such as 
those that underpin MAPPA and Youth Offending Teams. Potential 
providers will have to evidence how they would sustain local 
partnerships in contracts. We will ensure that the public sector probation 
service has local leads in place, and the redesigned system will support 
the effective operation of local IOM arrangements. 

To achieve reductions in reoffending, it will be of paramount importance that 
commissioning of rehabilitation services is informed by intelligence on local 
needs. Providers will also need to work closely with all local partners and 
ensure that the service delivered is aligned with other local services. 
We want to build on the local knowledge and links that currently exist within 
Probation Trusts. Through the commissioning function, we will encourage 
providers to draw on local expertise through partnering and sub-contracting, 
particularly with the voluntary and community sector and local delivery 
agencies. We will work to ensure that these contracts are managed fairly and 
sustainably, so that the broadest range of organisations possible can play their 
part in Transforming Rehabilitation. 
In the process of selecting the future providers, the Ministry of Justice will 
include as part of the formal evaluation a requirement that providers evidence 
how they would sustain and develop local networks and partnerships and in 
particular existing IOM arrangements. Providers will have an element of their 
funding at risk, with full payment dependent on their success at reducing 
reoffending. It will be in their interests to nurture local partnerships and to 
make use of services commissioned by other organisations that help to deliver 
these results. 
PCCs bring an opportunity for collective local leadership to galvanise police, 
local authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and courts to work together to 
prevent crime and reduce reoffending. Our rehabilitation services need to be 
responsive to these changes and by designing contract package areas which 
align with the PCCs’ police force boundaries we want to ensure that measures 
to reduce crime and rehabilitate offenders can be integrated effectively to 
achieve the best results. 
PCCs will also play a crucial role locally by holding local partners to account 
via the Community Safety Partnerships and we envisage that the public, 
private and voluntary sectors might form part of these partnerships. PCCs will 
also commission services at a local level with other local agencies (for 
example, local health commissioners). 
We intend that our new market model will facilitate co-commissioning with 
PCCs. It will complement and be accessible for other commissioners of public 
26 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
services, many of which are directly relevant to the objective of reducing 
reoffending, such as substance misuse, mental health, accommodation, family 
relationships, employment and skills. 
Some of the root causes of offending such as broken homes, drug and alcohol 
misuse, generational worklessness, childhoods spent in care, mental illness 
and educational failure impact on other Government departments, not just the 
Ministry of Justice. 
Our proposals for reform will need to complement existing mainstream 
provision, including the employment support offered by the Department for 
Work and Pensions through the Work Programme and mainstream and 
specialist health services. 
Informed intelligence on local needs from existing local delivery agencies, 
including police and probation professionals across all sectors will be vital in 
making this system work effectively. We want to utilise this expertise as we 
transform our approach to rehabilitation. 
The dedication and pooled expertise of IOM partnerships has helped control 
the impact of the worst offenders in local areas. We are committed that, in 
making these changes, we will not disrupt effective local multi-agency working 
arrangements, including MAPPA and IOM arrangements, as well as 
relationships with Youth Offending Teams which are so important for those 
who transition from the youth to the adult system. 
Providers will also be required to hold a core minimum data set for the cohort 
of individuals in their geographic area and this data will increase all 
commissioners’ ability to target provision against need at a local level. We will 
work with partners across Government to identify the core data requirements 
in order to ensure that the minimum data requirements are set out for all 
providers in the future market model. 
To help support the proposed reforms, we will be launching a nationwide 
'Justice Data Lab'. Providers will have access to high-quality reoffending data 
specific to the group of offenders they have been working with. This will allow 
them to focus on what works, better demonstrate the effectiveness of their 
approach and ultimately reduce reoffending in their area. 
We will work with the Information Commissioner, providers and other 
interested groups to ensure that data sharing is done in a way that is secure 
and protects the rights of those whose data is shared (including victims), 
building on the work that is already underway to develop a Code of Practice 
for the sharing of data in relation to electronic monitoring of community order 
requirements. 
27 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Section 8: Affording the reformed system 
We need to ensure that delivery of these proposals is affordable and will 
demonstrate maximum value for money. 

As part of the Government's fiscal commitments, the Ministry of Justice needs 
to make substantial savings. The settlement for the 2010 Spending Review 
period requires savings of over £2 billion by 2014/15. The bulk of those 
savings will be generated through efficiencies. Efficiencies will be roughly 
evenly split between frontline and back-office efficiencies, with remuneration 
freezes, court closures and better fine enforcement making up the remainder 
of the efficiency savings. 
However, we believe that reform can allow us to achieve better outcomes and 
achieve savings in the longer term. 
While there will be pressures from extending enforceable rehabilitative 
interventions to offenders released from short custodial sentences and in 
transition to the new system, we believe these costs can be balanced by 
competing services to release efficiencies and driving down unit costs across 
the system. 
In the longer term, a reduction in reoffending rates has the potential to deliver 
reductions in demand on the justice system as a whole. The department will 
develop the policy and implementation proposals to ensure their affordability 
and consistency with the Government’s plans for deficit reduction. 
28 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Part B: Extending our Reform Programme 
Achieving the most with Government spending on offenders 
The factors that lead an individual into a life of crime are myriad, and differ 
from case to case. For some, it may be a combination of debt, unemployment, 
a lack of skills and homelessness. For others, anti-social attitudes, poor 
thinking skills and irresponsible or impulsive behaviour, mental health issues, 
drug or alcohol dependency may be significant factors. 
It follows, therefore, that there is no single solution that will support the 
rehabilitation of every offender and providers will need to address the 
problems that each offender faces on an individual basis. This will often mean 
facilitating access to a range of public services provided by other Government 
departments and agencies. 
Our approach should help bridge that gap and connect offenders to these 
crucial services locally. However, given the impact on other Government 
departments, we would like to use this consultation to build on existing 
collaboration between departments and explore how to align incentives for the 
new rehabilitation providers to support the delivery of or access to specialist 
and mainstream provision across a range of public services. 
The Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice are already 
piloting an approach where sustainable employment and reducing reoffending 
outcomes have been joined up by combining a Ministry of Justice payment to 
the Work Programme funding. 
A further example could come from formalising ‘through the gate’ services for 
the first time for the under 12 month custodial sentence group. Our proposals 
could offer commissioners of local drug and alcohol recovery services the 
opportunity to join up provision in such a way as to provide a through care 
service for an individual as they recover from their addiction and as they desist 
from crime. This could reduce the overhead for case management of the 
individual, offering savings to the public purse. Similar examples could be 
found across a range of social justice outcomes such as, skills, 
accommodation, family relationships and mental health. 
We are interested in views as to whether improving the alignment and 
co-ordination of cross-Government expenditure on offenders, and 
strengthening incentives for joint working, could lead to improved rehabilitation 
outcomes, and if so, how best to do this. 
Question B1: How can we maximise the results we get from our 
collective Government and public sector resources? 

29 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Question B2: How can we use the reform of offender services in the 
community to enhance the broader range of social justice outcomes for 
individuals? 

Building new flexibility into the delivery of community orders 
Since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there has been a 
single community order for offenders aged 18 or over that can now comprise 
up to 14 requirements depending on the offence and the offender. These 
requirements include: community payback, where offenders do unpaid work, 
curfews which are electronically monitored, activity and programme 
requirements designed to tackle offending behaviour and drug, alcohol and 
mental health treatment requirements. 
Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s 
needs, the more requirements there will be. Most orders will comprise one or 
two requirements but there are packages of several available where required. 
The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by a pre-sentence 
report. 
We have already proposed in the Crime and Courts Bill, currently before 
Parliament, to ensure that every community order contains a punitive 
requirement unless there are exceptional circumstances. It will be important 
that the Court specifies what the punishment is. 
There is evidence to suggest that community orders can serve to have a 
rehabilitative effect on offenders. We intend to build on this to ensure 
community orders achieve even greater levels of rehabilitation. We want to 
ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the sentencing framework to allow 
contracted providers to deliver the sentences imposed by the court in a way 
that is most effective in reducing reoffending. It is for the courts to decide on a 
sentence for an individual offender. However, we want to ensure that 
providers have ability to deliver community order requirements in a way that 
maximises the rehabilitative impact on the offender. 
In this way we are keen to build on the flexibility we have already provided to 
offender managers when considering community orders. Under changes 
introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 
2012, the courts can impose a community order with a requirement that the 
offender attends an accredited programme but the offender manager has 
discretion within this remit from the court to ensure the particular programme 
is the one most appropriate for that offender. We want to explore whether 
there are other areas where providers could be given more discretion to tailor 
particular requirements imposed by the court to particular offenders as their 
risks and needs change over time. 
Question B3: Should any additional flexibility be built into the 
community sentencing framework to strengthen the rehabilitative impact 
of community orders, and the reintegration of offenders into society? 

30 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Part C: System Specification Questions 
This section sets out a series of detailed questions on which we wish to obtain 
the views of current practitioners, sentencers, potential providers and other 
stakeholders as we finalise the operational design of this system. 
Details of how to respond to the consultation can be found at the front of this 
paper, under the section entitled ‘About the consultation questions in this 
document’. The deadline for responding to this consultation is 22 February 
2013. 
Contract specification 
Question C1: We are minded to introduce 16 Contract Package Areas. Do 
you think this is the right number to support effective delivery of rehabilitation 
services? Do you have any views on how the Contract Package Area 
boundaries should be drawn? 
Question C2: What payment by results payment structure would offer the 
right balance between provider incentive and financial risk transfer? 
Question C3: What measurements and pricing structures would incentivise 
providers to work with all offenders including the most prolific? 
Question C4: How should we specify public sector oversight requirements in 
contracts, to avoid bureaucracy but ensure effective public protection 
arrangements? 
Question C5: We want to incentivise through the gate provision, but some 
prisoners will disperse to a different part of the country following release. How 
can we best account for that in contract design? 
Question C6: What mechanisms can be used to incentivise excellent 
performance and robustly manage poor performance to ensure good value for 
money? 
Supply chain management 
Question C7: What steps should we take to ensure that lead providers 
manage and maintain a truly diverse supply chain in a fair, sustainable and 
transparent manner? 
Question C8: What processes should be established to ensure that supply 
chain mismanagement is addressed? 
Question C9: How can we ensure that the voluntary and community sector is 
able to participate in the new system in a fair and meaningful way? 
31 

Transforming Rehabilitation – A revolution in the way we manage offenders 
Legislative changes 
Question C10: How can we best use statutory supervision on release from 
custody to ensure that offenders engage with rehabilitation effectively? 
Question C11: How can we ensure consequences for non-compliance are 
effective, without building in significant additional cost? 
System design 
Question C12: Given our proposals for the commissioning structure and the 
proposed responsibilities of the public sector, what kind of delivery structure 
would be most appropriate for the public sector probation service? 
Question C13: What else can we do to ensure the new system makes best 
use of local expertise and arrangements, and integrates into existing local 
structures and provision? 
Question C14: Police and Crime Commissioners will play an integral role in 
our reforms. How best can we maximise their input/involvement and that of 
other key partners locally? 
Question C15: How can we ensure that professional standards are 
maintained and that the quality of training and accreditation is assured? 
A professional body or institute has been suggested as one way of achieving 
this. What are your views on the benefits of this approach and on the 
practicalities of establishing such arrangements, including how costs might 
be met? 
Question C16: What role can the Inspectorate of Probation best play in 
assuring effective practice and a high standard of service delivery? 
Equality implications 
Question C17: How can we use this new commissioning model, including 
payment by results, to ensure better outcomes for female offenders and others 
with complex needs or protected characteristics? 
Question C18: What are the likely impacts of our proposals on groups with 
protected characteristics? Please let us have any examples, case studies, 
research or other types of evidence to support your views. 
Proposals for Reform 
Question C19: Do you have any further comments on our proposals for 
Transforming Rehabilitation in this document 
 
32 






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: 
 
Online 
www.tsoshop.co.uk 
 
Mail, telephone, fax and email 
TSO 
PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN 
Telephone orders/general enquiries 0870 600 5522 
Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474 
Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 
Email: xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx 
Textphone: 0870 240 3701 
 
The Houses of Parliament Shop 
12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, 
London SW1A 2JX 
Telephone orders/general enquiries: 020 7219 3890 
Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 
Email: xxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx 
Internet: http://www.shop.parliament.uk 
 
TSO@Blackwell and other accredited agents 
 

Document Outline