An effective criminal justice
system focuses not only on the protection of the public from criminal elements,
supporting affected persons and punishing the offenders but also reforming the
offenders for them to avoid committing any more crimes.. As such, Chris
Grayling, the then Justice Secretary in 2013, felt that there was a need to
involve everyone rather the national government to improve the rehabilitation
programs. Therefore, in 2013, after a series of consultations, Grayling
introduced a raft of changes that were aimed at revolutionising how offenders
are managed in the society. Calder &
Goodman (2013) explain that the new system was capable of identifying and
resolving the chaotic lives of the offenders and the many challenges that they
faced daily. Also, Grayling argued that it was the responsibility of everyone:
the government, the private sector and the community, to ensure released
offenders got integrated into the society appropriately which effectively
reduced their chances of reoffending (Calder & Goodman, 2013). Grayling’s
raft of changes in England’s rehabilitation programs aimed at ensuring that the
private, public and voluntary sectors minise the chances of re-offending and
thus improving the societal protection.
The Justice Ministry noted that
though it was difficult to predict the chances of reoffending, factors such as
unemployment, chaotic childhoods, accommodation problems and criminal history
were directly associated with the rate of reoffending. According to Burke & Collett (2016), the Surveying Prisoner Crime
Reduction report of 2012 estimated that 4% of the prisoners serving sentence
terms of between 1 month and five years had no previous conviction or even a
warning. The report further concluded that the likelihood of future reoffending
was influenced by the seriousness and rate of past offending Ludlow (2014).
Burke and Collett (2016) explain
that in response to the challenge of the increased rate of reoffending, the
Justice Ministry, under the guidance of Grayling submitted a paper focusing on
consultation entitled, ‘Transforming Rehabilitation”. The government responded
to the consultation with the paper, ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: A reform
strategy’ which was published in the month of May, 2013. Notably, the reforms
in the rehabilitation program made significant contributions to the Justice
Ministry, ‘Transforming Justice’ program, especially since 26% of the 2010-14
departmental budgets had been cut. Moreover, Teague (2013) explains that the
transforming rehabilitation program required expertise from the voluntary and
private sector and the emergence of a competing market was expected to enable
the Ministry of Justice to make savings as well as freeing up costs directed
towards the new rehabilitation support for offenders sentenced for a short
period of time.
Ludlow (2014) explains that the
transforming rehabilitation program was expected to allow the private and
voluntary community to offer supervision services, manage offenders and
initiate individualistic interventions to offenders, a job that was previously
the sole responsibility of the Probation Trusts, a publicly funded entity. An
estimated 70% of the work done by the Probation Trust was to be contracted to
the private and voluntary community (Ludlow, 2014). Interestingly, the reforms
proposed that under the new system, stakeholders would be paid if only they
demonstrated that the rate of reoffending among their assigned number of
offenders had reduced.
1. To
expand the provision of the statutory rehabilitation services to 50,000
offenders, which translates to a total of 60% of the total number of inmates,
particularly those sentenced to less than one year in custody? Notably, this
objective required the adoption of the new legislation that changed the sentencing
and releases working framework (Teague, 2013).
2. To
pave way for the rehabilitation and probation sector to be effective and
competitive by encouraging the all sectors and the voluntary communities to bid
at least 70% of the service. Before the transforming rehabilitation program,
the government-operated 35 probation trusts across England and Wales. During
the integration of other agencies, the National Offender Management Service
(NOMS) was mandated to commission the rehabilitation services in all the 21
Contract Package Areas (CPAs) and were expected to supervise the efficiency and
operations of the contracted service providers (Teague, 2013).
3. To
provide incentives to providers by pegging their payments to the results
produced when tackling the life management problems of the offenders and a
substantial reduction of the rate of reoffending. In this regard, contracted
service providers were made free to use any interventions they felt were
appropriate to reduce reoffending (Teague, 2013).
4. To
create a new National Probation Service mandated to deliver the remaining 30%
of rehabilitation and probation service, especially those involving high-risk
offenders and also in the protection of the public. Notably, the public sector
was to retain the responsibility of providing the initial risk assessment
services, breach decisions after the first warning and also played the role of
victim liaison. Furthermore, the Inspectorate of Probation remained independent
(Teague, 2013).
5. To
introduce a new ‘Through the Gate’ resettlement service by reorganising the
prison estate. The objective of this strategy was to hold offenders in an area
designated by the prison service for at least three months before their
release. During this time, the offenders were required to receive continuous
support provided by a single provider from the custody to integration into the
community. The changes abolished the earlier system of individual probation
trusts and ended up transferring over 18,000 staff members to newly established
organisations. Also, around 250,000 offender cases were reallocated, and a new
22 management teams recruited. More 2,000 existing contract package area were
merged, and 70 adult male prisons in England and Wales were noted down as
‘resettlement prisons’ out of the total 130 (Teague, 2013).
The effect of changing and
improving Rehabilitation is based on its effectiveness in reducing offending
using specific approaches and interventions. While the extent and quality of
the program may vary, the number of reduced re-offenders creates a broader
understanding of the particular interventions that are working. Also, it
explains why some interventions are more or less effective than others.
Transforming rehabilitation offers structured rehabilitation methods that are
appropriate in both prison and community is done through social learning theory
and cognitive behavioural principles. Burke and Collett (2016) add that most of
these interventions focus on skills such as problem-solving and management of
emotions or in short, skills that support personal development.
Successful
intervention under transforming rehabilitation
Offending behavioural programs:
This program has reported a positive impact on reoffending, especially in
interventions that focus on cognitive skills and anger management for violent
offenders. However, for sexual and domestic violence offenders, the
intervention has demonstrated mixed evidence (Ludlow, 2014).
Development and enhancement of
family relationships: It is evident that the intervention has dramatically
reduced reoffending amongst young people. As such, approaches that focus on
building family and intimacy relationships can reduce reoffending among adults
(Ludlow, 2014).
Restorative justice; the intervention requires all
the parties involved in a particular offence to resolve after the consequences
collectively. Unfortunately, this intervention has so far sent mixed reactions
to its effectiveness (Ludlow, 2014).
Mentoring; this intervention involves
pairing an offender with a person who has made it in life, probably a role
model. The role of the good person is to influence the life of the offender and
assist them to improve their lives, effectively reducing reoffending. Mainly,
the mentoring starts while the offender is still in prison and continues after
their release (Ludlow, 2014).
Conclusion
England and Wales have consistently
made attempts to improve their criminal justice system from not only during the
conviction process but also after the offenders complete their terms. Chris
Grayling felt that the probation system needed some changes to ensure that
while the citizens remained protected from criminals, the offenders who
completed their terms did not commit crimes again. He felt that the centralised
system needed to be decentralised and the public and private organisations
given their fair share of responsibilities. This idea led to the development of
a consultation paper by the Justice Ministry regarding the need for
transforming rehabilitation program. In response, the government developed a
paper in order to support the concept. Consequently, the private and community
sector was invited to bid for contracts in rehabilitating offenders.
The transforming rehabilitation
program has made some achievements, especially in reducing the rate
reoffending. The involvement of the private and public organisations has
allowed the interventions used by the government to get complimented by the
other sectors. An offender is not only rehabilitated while in prison but also
after their release through the community and private sector. It is with no
doubt that transforming rehabilitation has played a substantive role in reducing
the rate of reoffending.
