Ending the outsourcing of probation is the right decision

The government has announced that it will stop outsourcing probation services in June next year. Since 2015, 21 community rehabilitation companies run by the private sector have overseen the management and rehabilitation of medium- and low-risk offenders in England and Wales, with the government-run National Probation Service (NPS) dealing with high-risk offenders.

Last year, the Ministry of Justice announced that from 2021 the NPS would take over management responsibilities from community rehabilitation companies. However, private and voluntary sector suppliers would still provide support services, such as help with substance misuse. Today’s announcement now means that the majority of rehabilitation services will also be brought in-house. It is the right decision, and long overdue – but past failures will still be repeated without a careful approach and constant ministerial oversight. 

There was a good case for insourcing probation services even before the coronavirus crisis

When announcing the decision, Robert Buckland, the justice secretary, cited the impact of coronavirus on probation services. However, there were plenty of reasons for insourcing probation long before the crisis began.

Outsourcing probation has not been a success. The reforms were rushed through by Chris Grayling, the then justice secretary, ahead of the 2015 election against the advice of experts, including the Institute for Government, who warned about the difficulty of designing contracts and the absence of an existing market of suppliers with expertise in running such services. Due to these predictable problems, service quality has been poor and the programme has not returned the intended savings. As we concluded last year, the outsourcing of probation had “failed on every measure, harming ex-offenders trying to rebuild their lives”.

The government's initial decision to bring only some services back into its control from 2021 seemed to be based more on political expediency than workable policy, and a reluctance to accept that probation was not a good candidate for outsourcing. But this position has shifted with a change of prime minister, the long overdue removal of Grayling from the cabinet, and the outbreak of coronavirus.

Instead, the government has recognised the benefits of greater control and flexibility that comes with running services in-house. As a new Institute for Government report, to be published next week, will show, these are just some of the benefits that may come from insourcing. While there is still an important role for private and voluntary sector providers, the ‘make vs buy’ decision about whether to outsource or not should be based on skills and capacity – rather than outdated assumptions about which sector can manage services most effectively or the ease of continuing to run a service in the same way.

Insourcing probation will be difficult, and the government should pilot the transition

As we warned when the government first announced plans to bring management of offenders in-house, the transition will be difficult. The 21 community rehabilitation companies oversee hundreds of thousands of cases and employ thousands of staff, operating out of hundreds of sites. They are run by six companies and scores of sub-contractors, with different processes, terms and conditions, and working cultures. The NPS is expected to take on responsibility for all of this, across the country, on a single day.

The newly updated Outsourcing Playbook – government guidance on outsourcing and insourcing – states that it is good practice to consider a pilot when there is a “significant transformation of service delivery (including insourcing)”. As the guidance sets out, this can identify potential problems that might be encountered and ensure adaptations are made before the full-scale roll-out.

Given the potential for major disruption, the government would be wise to pilot its probation changes in one or two areas first. At the very least, it should stagger the transfer of staff and cases from the community rehabilitation companies to the NPS. Grayling’s insistence on rushing the initial move to outsourcing contributed to the programme’s failure – the government should avoid repeating the mistake in reverse.