Following up on my previous article, here is the second part of my blog originally published as a Clinks Guest Blog, in which I look at the changing relationship between the voluntary sector and probation service provision, and how Unlock is responding. 

There’s one common factor amongst everyone who works with people on probation – their clients have a criminal record.

At Unlock, a key focus is the importance of people with convictions receiving accurate, reliable advice on understanding and dealing with the effects of their criminal record. That means that we provide information, advice and support directly, through things like our self-help information site and our peer-run helpline. However, these are charitably-funded forms of support, for the benefit of individuals directly.

A possible unfortunate consequence of the recent reforms is that voluntary sector organisations have to compete against one another. Some may say this is a good thing – personally, I struggle to match ‘competition’ with the traditional concept of ‘charity’. That’s why we’re taking a different approach.

I recognise that Unlock cannot do everything. Instead, we listen, we respond to gaps, and we develop alternatives. With the changing probation landscape, that has given us a real opportunity to achieve our aim – that people with convictions receive accurate, reliable advice on understanding and dealing with the effects of their criminal record. Of course, many people are no longer on probation, but for those that are, the need is arguably even greater.

So what have we done? Instead of seeking to be commissioned by NOMS or sub-contracted by ‘prime providers’, our role in this context is one of ‘supporting others’.

That’s why, in the last 18 months alone, we’ve provided more of our one-day criminal record disclosure training course, ‘Advising with Conviction’, than ever before. We’ve trained over 400 practitioners, with over 40% being probation-related staff. Some of these have been core ‘ETE’ probation officers – others have been staff of voluntary sector agencies working with probation, such as Michael.

And the feedback has been tremendous. For example, one attendee wrote afterwards that the course was “one of the most useful I’ve done in my 25 year career. Everyone who helps and gives advice to people with criminal records should do this – it should be mandatory”.

But the feedback we’ve had has also made us think. Often, we’re told that this is a very complex subject, and that a day simply isn’t long enough. That’s why we’ve recently responded by developing and announcing dates for a new 2-day course. This has been designed specifically for probation providers, staff in CRC’s, and specialists helping people with convictions to get into employment.

The conversations we’ve had with probation service providers are promising. But it’s clear that it’s taking time for the new providers to get their operating practices in place.

Ultimately, it’s important for me that Unlock remains true to its vision. That means that, in this context, making sure that people with convictions receive accurate, reliable advice on understanding and dealing with the effects of their criminal record.  That’s why we will always try to provide free information and advice to people with convictions.

However, how that works with ‘providers of services’ funded by Government (whether that is probation providers, work programme providers, careers advisors or others) will vary. Our focus isn’t to “sell training” (we don’t profit out of it, as any income simply supports our charitable work) and it’s important to me that Unlock’s work isn’t seen as operating in any kind of ‘competitive’ environment.

Nonetheless, it’s important that probation providers recognise their role in this. As I mentioned in my first blog, we’ve seen an increasing reliance by ‘practitioners’ on our ‘client-facing’ services – and that’s not sustainable for a small, independent charity like Unlock.

It’s right that providers and commissioners properly resource their work, and if they need help to do it, they need to respond accordingly. That’s where there’s a change in the nature of the relationship. For Unlock, it’s an important relationship for us to maintain, as we know that people with convictions often fall down because of the poor advice they’ve received at an earlier stage. We look forward to working with those providers who understand and respect our role, in the same way that we do theirs.

In this article, originally published as a Clinks Guest Blog, I share my thoughts on the challenges that are emerging from the changing relationship between the voluntary sector and probation service provision. This is the first of two blogs – the second will look at how I see the voluntary sector responding.

What’s the role of charities and voluntary agencies in delivering ‘rehabilitation’ or probation services? That’s not an easy question to answer nowadays, particularly after all of the changes that have come about through Transforming Rehabilitation.

The short answer depends, to some extent, on what type of charity you’re thinking of. Clearly, the bigger service-orientated charities, such as St Giles Trust, Nacro and Catch 22, are playing a big role in contracting and partnering on a regional level to deliver probation and rehabilitation services. Yet what about the medium-sized and smaller charities – what role do they have? Many do fantastic work, on a local/regional level. Yet, in the public announcements about ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ providers, it was really just the bigger charities that featured. I get the sense that the smaller ones are gradually being included in sub-contracts, but it remains to be seen how much of a role they play. To varying degrees, I’d categorise this group as the ‘contracted’ voluntary sector.

But what about those charities that don’t compete to deliver government-funded services? Or, to put it another way, the ‘non-contracted’ voluntary sector. It doesn’t feel like there are too many around nowadays – there tends to be less focus from government, as they’re not delivering the states responsibilities for them, but there are more than most people would think, and that’s the category that Unlock is in. For us, we’re always trying to get the balance right between providing practical charitably-funded support to people with convictions, while also identifying issues and working at a policy level to try and resolve the problems people face due to their criminal record. We believe that this ‘twin-track’ approach, which has our ‘independent’ status at its heart, is critical in making sure we stay true to the issues that people with criminal records face.

So what does that mean for smaller charities that are not in contractual arrangements with probation providers?

I can only really relate to my experience at Unlock. Firstly, it’s worth bearing in mind that the majority of people we help are no longer in prison or on probation – they’re simply living their life, and have a criminal record. This makes sense when you consider there’s over 10 million people in the UK with a criminal record, and only around 250,000 people on probation.

Yet over recent years, we’ve seen a huge increase in the number of ‘referrals’ we receive from probation agencies in particular. I say ‘referrals’ as we’ve never actually promoted or agreed to take ‘formal referrals’ as might happen with other organisations – it’s not in the nature of our work. We’ve also seen huge increases in direct contact from probation agencies and employment advisors.

At Unlock, we’re principally funded by charitable trusts, foundations and donations. That makes our mandate fairly clear, as we’ve usually set out the work we want to do – either working at a practical level providing support, or working at a policy level to secure long-term changes – and then worked hard to secure the funding to do it.

So how does that work interact or overlap with probation service providers? I think that’s where the nature of the relationship has changed. Rather than recognising the ‘added-value’ that charities can provide, the embedding of charities as ‘core’ providers of services is having a knock-on effect for those that aren’t ‘providers’ in the same way. In other words, there’s an increasing expectation that charities “are funded to do this”, when they might not be. Certainly, the idea of probation services ‘referring’ clients to voluntary sector agencies, when there’s no formal arrangement in place, raises a number of questions. How can charities like Unlock work with probation providers given the current direction of travel? How can probation providers work with charities like Unlock?

I start from a position, organisationally, of mutual respect. It’s important to understand the role of probation services, and understand what is expected of them. Likewise, it’s important to understand the work of the voluntary sector, to be clear about what they’re able to offer, and to whom.

In my next blog, I’ll discuss how we’re trying to overcome some of these questions, so that as an organisation we can remain true to our values and principles, but that we’re able to work in a way which enables us to support providers of probation services, so that ultimately, people with convictions benefit.