Written evidence from the Association
of Retired Chief Officers and Inspectors of Probation (PB 18)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The last coherent strategy for probation was
defined by the 1991 Criminal justice Act. It would be helpful
and timely if the Justice Select Committee could look afresh and
objectively at the future role and purpose of the probation service.
2. The following definition is offered for consideration:
The purpose of probation is the safe supervision of offenders
in the community within the terms of their licences and orders.
3. It is important that the links between sentencers
and probation are restored so that supervisory discretion could
be shared. A review mechanism could be set up with courts that
would assist in the assessment and management of risk and has
the potential to reduce the need for costly recall.
4. It will take political courage to acknowledge
that much offending is inextricably linked to the social circumstances
of offenders. There is a further challenge in re-establishing
risk and dangerousness as the major criteria for custodial penalties.
5. In a spirit of openness it would be helpful
if rehabilitation could be defined, along with the benchmarks
for achievement.
6. The current NOMS structure is costly, bureaucratic
and has not worked. It would be better if a Probation Unit was
set up within the Ministry of Justice to help devise policy and
to allocate and monitor resources.
7. The role of the Chief Inspector of Probation
should be enhanced to give oversight of both practice, management
and the effectiveness of Trusts.
8. A National Probation Council should be established
with core membership of Ministry of Justice, Probation Association
and Probation Chiefs Association to ensure the spread of good
practice and ongoing development.
9. Probation chief executives should be given
discretion to manage in a way which reflects local circumstances,
and in partnership with sentencers, police services, local authorities,
the voluntary and private sectors.
10. The probation service is the one organisation
that can command the confidence of all the players in the CJ system
and the community and should be pivotal to all aspects of supervising
offenders in the community.
1. PREAMBLE
1.1 The membership of the Association of Retired
Chief Officers and Inspectors in Probation has enormous experience
of probation and criminal justice matters over more than half
a century. The membership continues active debate about probation
issues and the following contribution is distilled from this dynamic.
1.2 The changes to the governance of the probation
service over the last two decades have undermined the structural
cultural influences, developed in the post war period and up to
the 60s and 70s, which have in the past guided probation practice.
The service is now heavily bureaucratised and target driven in
a way which has pushed it towards being an agency of enforcement
and punishment, rather than rehabilitation—its historical
purpose. Since 2003-04 when NOMS was created the probation service
has been centrally driven, lost its identity and become submerged
in prison culture. As a consequence the criminal justice system
has lost what was in the past a truly community based organisation
concentrating its energy and skills on the supervision and rehabilitation
of those who had offended.
1.3 The last coherent government strategy for
probation was defined by the 1991 Criminal Justice Act. Subsequently
this was derailed by a hostility to the traditions of probation
that has been continued by governments over two decades.
1.4 It would be helpful, and timely, if the Justice
Select Committee in its inquiry into the role of the probation
service, could look afresh and objectively at the future role
and purpose of the probation service. An exercise to escape from
the shackles of spin and dogma that have afflicted much of the
public debate about criminal justice over the decades would be
enormously valuable in helping re-define first principles. To
achieve this it will be necessary to rise above the cosmetic appeal
of contemporary thinking, and draw on the best traditions of parliamentary
debate. The outcome is also likely to appeal to fair minded sectors
of society.
2. KEY ISSUES
2.1 Here is the challenge. If we were to create
an organisation now to handle the aspirations of courts in supervising
offenders in the community what would be its primary task—its
purpose?
2.2 The following definition is offered for consideration:
The purpose of the probation service is the safe
supervision of offenders in the community within the terms of
their licences and orders
2.3 This is clear and unequivocal. Safety cannot
be guaranteed but it can be managed, and the conditions of court
orders and post release licences provide a legal framework for
the process. There follows from this a further set of issues to
be debated about discretion to be used during the supervision
process - who should exercise it, can it be shared and what might
be the appropriate mechanisms?
2.4 There are a number of observations that are
offered on these points. Firstly it is important that the link
between probation and sentencers is restored. The core business
of probation is safe supervision and there are dangers of having
this diluted by having a multiplicity of providers.
2.5 It would be helpful to have the parameters
of supervisory discretion agreed at a local level between probation
and the courts. A local review mechanism could be set up with
the courts, which could be used by probation managers as part
of the assessment and management of risk. Informal review hearings
could be established operating on a similar basis to the way in
which the Parole Board handles recalls.
The social context of supervision
2.6 Any review mechanism, just as in sentencing,
is likely to take account of the social circumstances of the offender,
as factors ranging from unemployment to drug taking are all influential
in behaviours.
2.7 Curiously the social circumstances of offending
have become difficult to discuss because of the media clamour
that is heard when there is any discussion about crime. It will
take political courage to acknowledge that much offending is inextricably
linked to the social circumstances of offenders. A more holistic
view of the problem reveals that many of those in prison have
failed in have lived in fracture families, have been in care,
have failed in education and have literacy and numeracy problems,
are unemployed and have drug and alcohol problems.
2.8 What is more it would be expected that any
downturn in economic circumstances would be accompanied by an
increase in offending. Delinquency, anti-social behaviour and
offending become part of an individual's everyday attitudes and
behaviours which are both anti social and personally dysfunctional
but in the context of that individual's value system are simply
part of an everyday coping mechanism.
Defining the aspirations of community penalties
2.9 Against the backcloth of social dysfunction
what might be the measures that have the potential to ensure the
success of the rehabilitation process? Helping individuals improve
their social functioning as citizens and parents need careful
attention. But it is also true that work and gainful employment
are key factors in the rehabilitation process. We would stress
these are particularly important issues in the present economic
climate when the growth in poverty is likely to lead to more acquisitive
crime and inevitably media calls for yet tougher sanctions.
2.10 However in the light of the already exceptionally
high numbers of people in prison, when compared to wider European
figures and, the heavy demand in terms of public expenditure associated
with it, community based sentencing options make sense. Prison
is expensive and is less likely to deter offending than community
supervision. It is the sensible Value For Money option, particularly
if aimed at rehabilitative measures that are designed to challenge
attitudes and behaviours.
2.11 The corollary to this is the further challenge
in re-establishing risk and dangerousness as the major criteria
for custodial penalties and spelling this out to the general public
in a consistent and systematic way. This would establish rehabilitation
as a critical aspiration of criminal justice for those who are
not deemed a danger to society.
Defining rehabilitation?
2.12 The concept of rehabilitation seems to have
gained a new political impetus since the general election. If
we were to accept however that rehabilitation, also a cheaper
and more humane approach, was a legitimate aspiration of our criminal
justice system then it would be helpful if it could be described.
It might then used to define the script for the supervision process
itself, again in order to establish some public credibility through
a transparent understanding of both the process and its aspirations.
2.13 The following is offered for debate:
Rehabilitation would seem to imply the restoration
of an individual to levels of attitudes and behaviours consistent
with public expectations
2.14 It follows that rehabilitation is essentially
about the changing of attitudes and behaviours. The vehicle for
the process is a relationship with a supervisor who can use the
sanctions provided by the terms of orders and licences to ensure
compliance, and a raft of proven counselling techniques and mentoring
which can support individual change.
2.15 The rehabilitation of offenders has been
the traditional aspiration of the probation service. If the coalition
government has concerns to reduce public expenditure; and at the
same time wishes to promote the ethic of rehabilitation then the
probation service would be the logical and appropriate vehicle
for the development of community penalties. The service has also
done much to develop the effective practice agenda and this could
be used to define and target the key processes and programmes
that would provide the greatest chance of success.
2.16 However as we begin to examine these issues
there is the fundamental existentialist question to be answered:
How can we change the attitudes and behaviours
of those who offend?
2.17 In order to achieve this two key themes
emerge. Firstly community supervision is a process of rehabilitation
within the sanctions defined by court orders or prison licences.
Secondly the vehicle for the process is a relationship with a
supervisor who defines the boundaries of behaviour with reference
to the court orders and prison licences.
2.18 If supervision is to be successful there
has to be a connected effort to challenge and change behaviour
and ultimately attitudes in every aspect of the supervision process.
It cannot simply be a reporting system based on sanctions, as
it seems to be in danger of becoming.
2.19 There is also a fundamental question to
be answered about whether or not supervision is to be community
based or simply an office bound process. The supervision process
provides greatest understanding of the attitudes and behaviours
of offenders if it can be used alongside insights into social
functioning provided by home visits. Home visits also yield invaluable
data in the process of risk assessment. Concerns about health
and safety should not be a barrier to this key aspect of the supervision
process.
2.20 It is recognised that the rehabilitation
process will also enhanced by programmes and group based activities;
techniques used by Alcoholics Anonymous and others to supplement
the work of individual mentors. The effective practice agenda
in probation, which is concerned with methods of working will
helpfully inform the way forward here.
2.21 Equally partnership is another important
feature of a holistic approach to supervision. Probation has a
good track record of shared working with other agencies and the
new governance structure should enable this to be promoted with
the appropriate oversight of chief executives and boards.
2.22 A system involving partnership with local
authorities is central to this and the Scottish Community Justice
Authorities provide a workable and possibly the best basis for
delivery. A model in which probation brokers with the courts the
contributions of the voluntary and private sectors would enable
local initiatives to flourish in response to local need. This
would seem to encompass recent evocations of the big society and
would provide coherence for local social dynamics. For example
if in one area there was a strong initiative like a modern apprenticeship
scheme or a community chaplaincy there would be potential for
social synergy.
THE KEY
ISSUES ABOVE
SET OUT
THE CONTEXT
FOR THE
RESPONSE TO
THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
Q1.1 The probation service is now part of a national
offender management structure which is highly bureaucratic and
anti pathetic to the values of probation itself. This structure
is an attempt to conflate the structure of two distinctly different
organisations, prison and probation, which have quite different
purposes.
Q1.2 The national and regional NOMS structures
are quite simply expensive and unnecessary. Many functions, for
example HR, can be handled at a local level. Considerable savings
could be made here through an exercise in decentralisation.
Q1.3 It would be better if a small and discrete
probation unit were to be set up within the Ministry of Justice
to monitor and allocate resources, and help devise policy.
Q1.4 Day to day responsibility should then be
fully delegated to chief executives and Trusts in local areas.
This too would send a powerful message about de-centralisation.
Q1.5 The role of the Chief Inspector of Probation
should be enhanced to give oversight of both practice and the
effectiveness of trusts and local management.
Q1.6 All these measures would reduce bureaucracy
and produce considerable cost savings.
2. How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
offender management and how does it operate in practice?
Q2.1 Over the last 15 years the probation service
has moved from committees to boards to trusts. There has been
a false assumption that structural change would produce greater
effectiveness, which has not proved to be the case.
Q2.2 The removal of judges and magistrates has
been a mistake and as key customers of probation they should be
involved in the governance of the service. Their feedback is essential
in establishing the credibility of the supervision process, and
they also have a part to play in sharing discretion throughout
the supervision process itself.
Q2.3 The return of sentencers to a key role in
probation trusts is an important part of effective governance.
Q2.4 The probation service is best placed to
deliver supervision, offender management, but the area chief executive
with operational responsibilities needs to be empowered with greater
discretion to deliver the aspirations of government in the context
of local social circumstances and the expectations of the courts.
Q2.5 Local leadership is important and it would
be helpful if chief officers were more able to contribute to local
debate more freely, even in campaigning in appropriate circumstances.
Q2.6 National oversight might be provided by
a newly created National Probation Council, with a secretariat
provided by the Ministry of Justice. This would provide a structure
to bring together representatives of The Probation Association,
The Probation Chiefs Association and Ministry of Justice and would
facilitate broadly based strategic decision making. In this model
the Chief Inspector of Probation would provide oversight of both
performance and governance.
Q2.7 It will also be important to look at the
effectiveness of the Trust structure, over time. The move from
Committees to Boards and now Trusts has been rapid and has incurred
significant costs. The new structure should be tested in terms
of its contribution to governance and Value For Money.
3. Are magistrates and Judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
Q3.1 Community supervision of offenders evolved
from a covenant between sentencers the courts, and the offender,
which at the same time placed a set of responsibilities onto the
supervising probation officer. Sentencers remain the determiners
of the parameters of supervision of offenders in the community.
If sentencers do not have confidence in those supervising offenders
and the methods being used then community sentences will not be
used and the prison population will grow. For confidence to be
won sentencers must have a clear idea of the supervision process,
post sentence including an understanding of sanctions and discretion.
It follows that discretion which is shared between the sentencers
and the supervisory agencies, ie probation, helps reinforce the
confidence in the continued use of community penalties. There
is ample evidence to support this and the Chief Inspector of Probation's
report into Drug Treatment and Testing Orders provides insight
into the issues.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
Q4.1 Traditionally probation has shared supervision
with the voluntary sector and this partnership has the potential
to enrich the process.
Q4.2 Probation should broker supervision with
the courts in a way which allows other contributions to the supervisory
process.
Q4.3 The model provided by the Scottish Community
Justice Authorities could usefully be explored as a potential
example of a working model.
Q4.4 It should also be remembered that Local
Authorities and Police Services are key probation partners in
community supervision. New structures should not undermine this
important feature of community safety, which is a key dimension
of community based working with offenders. This is a fundamental
operational difference between probation and prison.
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
Q5.1 Capacity is a reflection of resources and
workload prioritisation. The probation service would applaud such
a move but not if it left it with an impossible agenda. It is
important that probation continues to give proper priority to
the supervision of the most dangerous people on its caseload.
In the eyes of the community these will always be the lifers and
paedophiles out of prison on licence. Public protection has to
be properly resourced. The work done by the Probation Chiefs Association
about capacity and resources provides critical data on this issue.
Q5.2 However some of the changes discussed in
this memorandum do have structural implications that could lead
to cost savings. For example local sentence review processes could
reduce the cost associated with breach for both courts and probation.
Q5.3 Sentencer's confidence in community penalties
from would also grow through these exchanges which could see an
increase in their use.
6. Could Probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
Q6.1 Yes.
Q6.2 There are some good examples of restorative
justice in this country and there is potential for development
here. Community Justice and Justice Reinvestment have proved their
worth on the other side of the Atlantic and could be explored
alongside other thinking here.
7. Does the probation service handle different
groups of offenders appropriately eg women, young adults, black
and minority ethnic people, and high and medium risk offenders?
Q7.1 There is no doubt that to handle all groups
appropriately would be the aspiration of the probation. The answer
to this question however is best provided by a review of the practice
reports produced by the Chief Inspector of Probation. This should
inform the situation accurately.
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
Q8.1 No.
Q8.2 Since the mid 1990s the issue of appropriate
probation training has become increasingly obscured.
Q8.3 Until there is a clear definition of what
is required from probation it is impossible define the service's
training needs. Equally it is impossible to define the academic
content of any qualification process. However this should be the
longer term aspiration.
Q8.4 Should the recruitment situation become
critical, in the short term a direct entry scheme could be set
up using the existing regional training structure, NVQ framework
and local systems to ensure standards.
Q8.5 There should be no shortage of graduates
leaving university who would be attracted to a role in an organisation
which has clarity of purpose and an important job to play in this
country's criminal justice system.
Q8.6 However it is also important that the service
does not lose well qualified and competent staff as a result of
budget cuts.
September 2010
| 
