The future of probation

Prison Reform Trust’s company secretary Geoff Dobson has written an article on the future of probation, originally published in the Guardian’s Society section on Wednesday 23 May 2012.

Below is his article in full, and you can read the Guardian article here

What does a modern effective Probation Service look like? The closing date for two important Ministry of Justice consultations will be reached on 22 June. Proposals to reform community sentences have received publicity to date, not least because of eye catching suggestions to extend the use of electronic monitoring to track offenders and to introduce sobriety bracelets. Within that report is an important section on restorative justice, opening up the possibility for far greater use of this approach, both pre and post sentence. 

The second consultation Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services has to date received little public attention, despite its potential ramifications. Greater scrutiny of this paper is essential. If adopted, Government proposals would result in arguably the most significant changes to the Probation Service since the 1925 Criminal Justice Act established probation committees and the appointment of probation officers became a requirement of the courts. 

Many associated with the Probation Service may be forgiven an initial sigh of relief. Rumours had been rife that a review of the Service, carried out behind closed doors and with no access to professional bodies, would simply open all tasks to competition. The proposed new model is resonant of other recent Government reforms with commissioning at its heart and a purchaser / provider split. The plan is for Probation Trusts to take on a stronger role as commissioners of competed probation services. Interestingly, the paper also consults on the possibility of this role shifting to Police and Crime Commissioners or local authorities at a later stage. The model would potentially allow for devolution of electronic monitoring and even custodial budgets once arrangements for commissioning were robust and secure. The number of Trusts may reduce from 35 with the need to develop competence in commissioning.

Certain functions are reserved for the public sector. The paper recognises that advice to the courts, including assisting with the identification of the most appropriate sentences for offenders and prosecuting their breaches, has to remain free of any potential conflict of interest.  The public sector will also retain responsibility in the case of all offenders for initial assessments of risk. Finally, the proposal would keep in the public sector responsibility for monitoring, and presumably supervising with all that this has traditionally involved, offenders who pose the highest risk  including the most serious and violent offenders. This reflects the value of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), with Probation the lynchpin and the close collaboration between Probation, the police and a range of other agencies in working with prolific and serious offenders. The consultation proposes ‘opening to the market’ the management of lower risk offenders.

The proposed model has a superficial coherence. However, it arguably fails to stand up to several vital tests. First, it sees risk as a static concept, failing to recognise that circumstances can change abruptly and the risk posed by an individual can increase markedly overnight. Thus someone who is deemed to be of low or medium risk could suddenly become high risk, but staff in the contracted organisation may not be equipped to recognise that and, even if they did, would then presumably need to arrange a hurried transfer back into the public sector. This could be a bureaucratic nightmare with public safety under threat. The Probation Chiefs Association has recommended that the public sector retain the offender management role for all those who are subject to court orders and post-custody licences. This eminently sensible suggestion would overcome the problem and would provide the infrastructure for a seamless service. It would also provide the continuity of supervision that many regard as essential to offender engagement, aiding maturity and desistance from crime.

Second, it fails to understand the complexities of accountability in the criminal justice system. Those with responsibility for supervising a court order are not only answerable to their paymasters, but also to the courts for the manner in which they fulfil their duties. If a judge or magistrate has concerns about the supervision of a contracted out court order, with one or more organisations involved, who do they ask to appear before them? Again, if the public sector retains the offender management role, having carried out the initial and any subsequent assessments, responsibility is clear.

Third, these proposals would involve a massive personnel upheaval for a key part of a criminal justice system that is already under considerable strain. Under these proposals work with the bulk of the quarter of a million offenders supervised by the Probation Service would be out-sourced. Presumably this could require thousands of staff to be subject to transfer by TUPE to private and voluntary sector bodies and others, given the purchaser / provider split, to transfer to new organisations which could include staff mutuals and social enterprises. The resources required to deliver such a change are undoubtedly considerable. 

So what is the case for this huge overhaul? The paper cites reoffending rates as the reason for wholesale reform.  It tells us that half of all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody and that the figure rises to three quarters for those sentenced to youth custody. It states that reoffending by offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison is estimated to cost the economy up to £10 billion annually, noting that these prisoners are not eligible for statutory supervision. Crucially however, it does not use its own research to highlight the far superior performance of those sentenced to community sentences when compared to people released from short prison sentences. Community sentences for 18-24 year olds outperform prison sentences by 12.8 percentage points in reducing reoffending. Even when offenders of all ages are closely matched in terms of criminal history, offence type and other significant characteristics, the performance gap remains a robust 8 per cent. A lesson to be drawn from this substantive research could be to promote through evidence and investment the further development of Probation’s work, much of it in partnership with other organisations, in delivering court orders.

The most pronounced changes to the work of the Probation Service that have been proposed since 1925 require thorough examination and debate.