Rehabilitation: What does ‘good’ look like anyway?

Abstract

This article explores the need for a clearer vision of what 'good' looks like in the rehabilitation of offenders, whether in prison or in the community. Such a vision is needed to underpin not only innovative, and evidence-based service development but also outcomes led commissioning, and (in the context of England and Wales) the procurement of packages of rehabilitation services most likely to support the desistance process. The need for this is greater than ever, due to the current UK Government's Transforming Rehabilitation reforms 1 that are set to dramatically alter criminal justice policy in England and Wales.

Transforming Rehabilitation and its impact on a locally-based rehabilitation programme for Black and Minority Ethnic and Muslim offenders

“…‘PbR payments will be allocated on the basis of performance against the binary measure and the frequency measure, with a percentage of the total funding available linked to each’ (MoJ, 2013c: 8). This means that providers will ‘only be paid for frequency reductions as long as the binary reoffending rate at least stays constant and does not increase’ [over 12 months] (Frazer et al, 2014: 97). Frazer et al argue that this requirement for adherence to the binary measure is in danger of encouraging the new providers to concentrate on ensuring a reduction in reoffending across this ‘relatively short period of time’, instead of ‘supporting the more complex and uneven [and longer term] processes of secondary desistance’ (Frazer et al, 2014: 98).…”

“…This means that providers will ‘only be paid for frequency reductions as long as the binary reoffending rate at least stays constant and does not increase’ [over 12 months] (Frazer et al, 2014: 97). Frazer et al argue that this requirement for adherence to the binary measure is in danger of encouraging the new providers to concentrate on ensuring a reduction in reoffending across this ‘relatively short period of time’, instead of ‘supporting the more complex and uneven [and longer term] processes of secondary desistance’ (Frazer et al, 2014: 98). This raises the question of whether the PbR system based on a ‘pass/fail’ performance metric is the most effective approach to supporting ex-offenders in the processes of rehabilitation and desistance from re-offending.…”

“…Viewed together, the different stages of this model of rehabilitation bear a similarity to the ‘ethical entitlement’ of probation service support discussed by Burke (2012: 5), who says that, ‘supporting and helping individuals towards achieving a better life and treating them with humanity is an ethical entitlement and not one contingent upon reducing reoffending at … the lowest possible cost’. Frazer et al (2014: 94) express their concerns about the danger that the government’s TR agenda might be implemented ‘at the expense of good services for the offender population as a whole’ and, certainly, the outcomes of ReachingOut so far supports this view. If the new CRCs are forced to follow the contingency of ‘best for least’ this will very likely serve to reduce ex-offenders’ ‘ethical entitlement’ of support in achieving a ‘better life’, to that of short-term rehabilitation programmes that are designed solely to meet the basic targets for reducing re-offending under the new TR arrangements (which are discussed in more detail later on).…”

“…and there is little acknowledgement of their diversity’. Frazer et al (2014: 93) argue this further, within the context of the cost cutting and cutbacks that preceded and continued after the awarding of CRC contracts to the new corporate owners: ‘if quality services are not safeguarded within the commissioning process . .…”

“…These collaborations were exhorted by Chris Grayling, the former Minister of Justice, who emphasised that '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' (MoJ 2013, p.14). Frazer et al (2014) argue that:…”