We believe that there is a strong and urgent case to create a new system with the purpose of rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.
A system can be understood as a collection of interrelated components that work together toward a shared purpose. These components operate according to common values, principles, and rules. Every system is influenced by its broader environment, defined by its boundaries, structures, and functions. Systems also carry distinct powers, responsibilities, and mechanisms of control.
In public service domains, systems often operate within broader frameworks that align multiple systems toward overarching societal goals. Examples include the Criminal Justice System (CJS), the Education System, the Health and Social Care System, and the International Development System.
The Criminal Justice System is composed of several interdependent systems, each with its own function and governance. These include law enforcement, the judiciary, courts administration, offender management, youth justice, and legal aid.
Within offender management (HMPPS), operational sub systems exist—such as prisons, youth custody, security, probation and rehabilitation —each fulfilling specific roles within the broader system.
Despite the integrated design of the Criminal Justice System, there are three key structural challenges currently affecting the effectiveness of offender rehabilitaton:
The prison service holds a central and uniquely influential position within the wider cluster of systems across criminal justice and dominates political, media and public views of the whole system. Its over-riding purpose—ensuring public safety through containment, sentence enforcement, and compliance—often determines the priorities and operations of connected services. Within HMPPS, the prison service is dominant as the above infogram explains – the system has always been led by prison professionals, has pre-eminence over criminal justice resources, and controls the HMPPS governance arrangements. Over time, this influence has shaped other sub systems, particularly the probation service since it took control.
Originally a complete independent system with its own purpose focused on community-based sentencing and rehabilitation, the probation service has become increasingly integrated into the structures and demands of the prison service and it is now a sub system. Its roles have shifted toward supporting prison-led needs, resulting in a greatly diminished emphasis on community alternatives.
Currently, there is no distinct, cohesive rehabilitation system embedded within offender management. Rehabilitation activities exist but tend to function as fragmented efforts under broader custodial mandates. The notable exceptions are education and employment in the prison service, and accredited interventions in the probation service, all of which have national strategies and dedicated resources. However, this lack of structural independence and integration limits the development of long-term, consistent, holistic rehabilitation strategies that are built around individual and community needs.
There is currently no well-established, coherent local framework for offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Where local approaches do exist, they often lack alignment between custodial and community-based services, authority to forge inter agency and sector partnerships, and sustained funding. These weaknesses present challenges for reintegrating and supporting people on and post sentences – challenges that will be intensified as the probation service is required to be the substitute to short prison sentences.
Systems are formed around a shared, mandated purpose that meets government objectives and stipulations. Currently, rehabilitation is a sub system of HMPPS – centrally controlled, commissioned and accountable. Whilst stated as a purpose of the HMPPS offender management system, it is a poor and vulnerable relation to the primary prison service purpose, and it has very limited capabilities for local engagement. Our Framework of Systems Local Change provides a Local Rehabilitation System with core attributes and methods yet retaining flexibilities to meet local needs, circumstances and opportunities.
This framework aims to provide a foundation for understanding systemic dynamics within offender management and rehabilitation, and for progressing local system reform. The developmental work needs to explore how locally integrated structures—grounded in community needs, rehabilitation outcomes, and balanced system governance—can best enhance public safety, reduce reoffending, and support meaningful reintegration.