Recommendation 19

HMPPS audited 28 of its highest-value CRS contracts between June and September 2022, which identified ineffective early performance against service standards and contractual requirements. HMPPS rated the quality of the Probation Service’s referrals to CRS providers as ‘amber/red’ or ‘red’ in 25 contracts (89%), with problems including a lack of clarity on the reasons for referrals, missing information on individuals’ risks, and gaps in information on individuals’ personal circumstances.43 In its written submission to us, St Mungo’s told us that chasing up poor quality referrals created additional unplanned workloads for providers and left them with “unrealistically short timeframes” to support prison leavers.44 HMPPS also rated the sufficiency of CRS providers’ delivery to address 36 C&AG’s Report, para 1.3 37 Q15 38 C&AG’s Report, para 1.4 39 Qq 49–55 40 IPL0006 41 C&AG’s Report, para 13, 1.27 42 IPL0002 43 C&AG’s Report, para 1.28 44 IPL0002 Resettlement support for prison leavers 13 offenders’ needs as ‘amber/red’ or ‘red’ in 19 contracts (68%) and the quality of CRS providers’ communication with probation staff as ‘amber/red’ or ‘red’ in 13 contracts (46%). However, HMPPS found a more positive picture across the CRS contracts for women’s services, where services took account of women’s specific needs and were supported by clear records of activity and progress.45 45 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.28–1.29 14 Resettlement support for prison leavers 2 A challenging future for resettlement services Getting the best outcomes