Evaluation of the Victim Transformation Programme for the Crown Prosecution Service: Year Two
Consulting report
Report authors: Oli Hutt, Head of Analytics | Jess Hull, Senior Strategy & Insight Manager | Sarah Hibbert, Senior Strategy and Insight Manager | Alyssa Knisley, Senior Analyst | Alex Stacey, Senior Quantitative Analyst | Alex Ranson, Senior Quantitative Analyst | Nishat Rahman, Senior Analyst | and Helena Procopis, Analyst
Monday 7th September 2026
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) commissioned Crest Advisory to evaluate the Victim Transformation Programme (VTP). The VTP is a CPS initiative that aims to improve victims’ experiences of the CPS and contribute to a better overall experience of the criminal justice system (CJS). The VTP has three core services which are differentiated by victim need: the Universal and Enhanced Service Pilot; the Enhanced Service for victims of rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) hereafter, the Enhanced Service [RASSO]); and the Victim Centre of Excellence (VCE).
Between April 2024 and February 2026, Crest evaluated the implementation, impact, and value for money of the VTP. This summary report sets out the findings and recommendations from the evaluation in relation to the VTP’s key outcomes: improving victims’ experiences; reducing victim attrition; and improving efficiency within the CPS.
Detailed methods are available in the Technical Report, and full analysis of the programme’s costs and benefits can be found in Annex A. The Technical Report and Annex A can be accessed on Crest Advisory’s website. A glossary of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this report is available on the last page of the report.
The Victim Transformation Programme is showing early signs of positive impact
The evaluation found that the VTP impacts positively on most victims’ experiences of the CPS, could impact victim attrition, and delivers a monetisable benefit through improved victim wellbeing. The evaluation has also found that innovative adaptations to service delivery as part of the programme have supported efficient delivery.
Where the CPS delivers the VTP service well, it positively impacts victims. However, this does not yet happen consistently meaning not all victims are benefitting. |
Most victims who have received a service under the VTP have experienced a high-quality service from the CPS, which is a key outcome of the VTP. This has been enabled through improved letter templates, effective training for CPS staff, and the expansion of the CPS Victim Liaison Officer (VLO) role to provide clear and timely updates to victims. Under the VTP, victims value early and proactive CPS communication about case decisions, updates, and delays. The evaluation found that, by demonstrating care and empathy in communications, the CPS has been able to retain victims' trust and confidence - even when updates have related to unwelcome developments in a case such as a ‘no further action’ decision. Overall, most victims felt that the CPS treated them fairly and with respect, which reduced anxiety and improved wellbeing. For some victims, this experience helped them to continue with the case.
Most victims had experienced empathetic communication from CPS staff, but some felt that wider aspects of VTP service delivery, including arranging meetings, had not been delivered with empathy and could be more trauma-informed. Pre-trial meetings, which are offered to adult victims of rape and serious sexual offences, improved trust and confidence in the CPS for most victims who attended them. However, some victims were disappointed when their expectations around the purpose of the meeting were not met, or they felt CPS staff communicated poorly. There is further work for the CPS to ensure that all victims receive a consistent and high-quality service that is clear, empathetic, and helps them to make informed decisions.
We expect that as the VTP becomes more established and delivery of it becomes more consistent, its ability to reduce victim attrition will become more evident. |
The Theory of Change (please see page 8 of the report) that we developed to support the VTP outlines how improving victim experience could result in more victims remaining engaged with the criminal justice process. Early indications through a statistical modelling approach suggest the Universal Service Pilot, which supports adult victims of crime, is having a positive impact on victim attrition, though the size of this impact is minor. However, there is currently insufficient data to be confident in this finding because the available data covers less than 12 months and cases can only be included once they have been finalised.
A robust assessment of the impact of the Enhanced Service Pilot, which supports adult victims of domestic abuse, and the Enhanced Service (RASSO), is not yet possible as these cases often take many months or even years to finalise, meaning there is a lack of available data. Nonetheless, VTP delivery teams and some external stakeholders think the VTP has the potential to support victims to stay engaged with the criminal justice process.
Until more victims receive the full service, measures of impact are largely qualitative. Based on our findings across the evaluation, we expect more evidence of the VTP’s ability to reduce victim attrition to emerge.
We can say with some confidence that the benefit of the VTP in our assessment is larger than the cost of the VTP, even when accounting for uncertainties in our data. |
The VTP is generating benefits by improving victim wellbeing, reducing victim attrition in the Universal Service Pilot, and generating some organisational efficiencies. After adjusting for optimism bias (an analytical approach that accounts for the risk of being over-optimistic when measuring benefits), the overall estimated benefit of the VTP in 2025/26 is £128.7 million, with improved victim wellbeing bringing the largest benefit, though the vast majority of these benefits are social benefits, not cashable savings for the CPS.
In comparison, the VTP cost the CPS £13.2 million to operate over the same period. This means the benefits being delivered by the VTP are greater than the costs. After testing confidence in our results, we found that for every £1 spent, the VTP is estimated to generate between £7.1 and £12.7 of benefits, though this is mostly social benefit and not a cashable saving for the CPS. Even when accounting for uncertainties, the value of the benefits in this analysis exceeds the cost of the VTP, demonstrating positive value for money.
To have greater impact, the VTP should clarify its purpose, aims, and delivery model to internal CPS teams and external partners
Our evaluation suggests that the success of the VTP is currently limited by two factors. Firstly, the VTP has created new roles, responsibilities, and ways of working for the CPS. Piloting this new service has resulted in a ‘test and learn’ culture and enabled positive adaptations to the delivery model but has also led to inconsistencies in how the service is implemented across CPS teams and areas. While some regional variation in service delivery is encouraged to reflect local needs and demand, it is critical that this variation does not result in a ‘postcode lottery’ for victims in the quality of the communication and support that they receive from the CPS.
Secondly, the VTP’s successful delivery is dependent on all CPS staff, including legal practitioners, and wider partners across policing and victims’ services understanding and championing the purpose and aims of the programme. Currently, there are mixed levels of confidence and clarity about the programme’s aims and delivery among CPS staff and partners, which can result in victims experiencing an inconsistent service, or lacking coordinated support from the professionals around them.
As the programme expands and consolidates its delivery model, the CPS must prioritise clear and consistent communication to its staff and partners on the purpose and benefits of the programme, to ensure that all victims receive a consistent, high-quality service and overall experience of the CJS.
Recommendations
Based on the evaluation findings, we have made the following recommendations for the VTP to support greater efficiencies and improved outcomes.
REC 1 | The VTP should review guidance materials and quality assurance processes for preparing and drafting victim communications, focusing on known areas where clarity can be improved (e.g. clear explanations of legal jargon). |
REC 2 | VLOs should clearly explain the purpose of pre-trial meetings to victims before they attend to help manage expectations about what topics can be discussed, and to help victims prepare for and get the most out of meetings. |
REC 3 | The VTP should encourage delivery teams to generate area-specific reference documents cataloguing local support services to better equip staff to provide victims with area-specific support. |
REC 4 | The VTP should continue to iteratively review and update staff training to deliver a high-quality service that meets victims’ needs. |
REC 5 | The VTP should draw on victims’ feedback in this report to update guidance and training for victim-facing staff (including lawyers) on what good practice looks like in clear and empathetic communication. This will support ongoing work to centre victims’ voices in staff learning materials. |
REC 6 | The VTP should update guidance for staff drafting victim communications, so staff review letters to ensure that sentences are clear, understandable, grammatically correct, and contain accurate information about the victim and the case. |
REC 7 | The VTP leadership should continue to embed and champion the ‘test and learn’ culture across programme delivery to drive improved efficiencies and data quality. |
REC 8 | The VTP should review processes to accommodate a broad range of victims’ accessibility requirements and communicate these clearly to VTP delivery teams. |
REC 9 | The VTP should clearly communicate the purpose and value of the VTP to partners in policing and victims’ services to secure their buy-in, facilitating strong communication and coordination. |
REC 10 | The VTP should review messaging to partners about the purpose of pre-trial meetings and partners’ expected role within meetings. This should be communicated to local forces and services at a strategic level, as well as directly between frontline practitioners when meetings are arranged. |
REC 11 | The VTP should work closely with police leads to ensure that the CPS’ information needs are clearly defined, and to clarify and agree how data is recorded and shared. |
REC 12 | The VTP should seek to understand the reasons why multiple pre-trial meetings are requested, and whether this is related to victims having different questions at different stages, a result of changes in the case or trial waiting times, or because information was not clearly explained in earlier meetings. |
REC 13 | The VTP should coordinate with Witness Care to review what information and updates victims receive on the case following the charge decision and ahead of trial to inform guidance on when CPS updates are most beneficial for victims. |
REC 14 | The VTP should ensure that CPS Areas follow guidance on offering pre-trial meetings by adopting an approach that prioritises victims’ needs and preferences around the timing and location of meetings. The VTP should consider whether additional capacity is required for Areas to deliver these meetings in line with victims’ needs. |
REC 15 | CPS senior management should strengthen how they communicate the importance of VLOs’ role in providing high-quality communication and support to victims in achieving organisational priorities as some staff do not feel valued or recognised. |
REC 16 | The VTP should clarify the respective roles and expectations of VLOs and prosecutors in drafting and quality assuring VCL letters, focused on where each role can add most value. |
