Written evidence from Christopher Hignett
(PB 31)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
My evidence will concentrate on the Committee's concern
with the Probation Service's capacity to cope with a move away
from short custodial sentences. It will be argued that over the
past 12 years the Probation Service has grown increasingly successful
at delivering a range of interventions that have come to be described
as "Offender Management". The approach is characterised
by highly risk averse practice with regard to the prevention of
reoffending. Since the Probation Service's capacity to predict
future offending remains limited, heavy reliance has to be placed
upon the use of custody and short prison sentences to shore-up
its claim to provide public protection. The Probation Service
by becoming so closely involved with the prison has become part
of the problem it was historically established to tackle—the
excessive use of imprisonment. It is perhaps for this reason that
the Probation Service has figured so little in recent proposals,
such as those calling for Justice Reinvestment, to reduce the
size of the prison population. However, it will be argued that
the evidence exists to suggest the Service has not entirely lost
its interest in assisting the courts to administer justice in
the individual case by offering constructive alternatives to custodial
sentences. To reinvigorate that commitment so that the Service
could play a positive part in a "rehabilitation revolution"
would require a more realistic appreciation of what sentencing
policy is able to achieve as well as an unravelling of current
administrative arrangements. The Service has to establish much
closer relationships with magistrates, judges and the courts as
well as the neighbourhoods they serve. From that stance the probation
service could assist a wide range of individuals and organisations
to help with the process of reintegrating offenders into the community
without the need for so many short prison sentences.
1. It was not a new idea, but with the publication
of its early paper "Joining Forces to Protect the Public"
(Home Office 1998) the New Labour government made clear that if
the probation service was to survive, public protection would
have to be its principal goal. The paper experimented with ideas
for a new name for the Service that would reflect the change of
emphasis and suggested that a close relationship with the prison
and its approach to offending was the way forward. In the subsequent
12 years, despite numerous twists and turns (McNight 2009), government
policy for the probation service adhered closely to those proposals.
Today the Service continues to exist via thirty five probation
trusts, but these have been absorbed into the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS 2006), whose dominant participant is
the Prison Service. In terms of practice, defendants referred
to the Probation Service by the courts, are now the subject of
a set of processes described as "end to end offender management"
(NOMS2006). It was not an easy task to put all aspects of these
processes in place either, but Ministry of Justice statistics
(MoJ 2010a) suggest that all probation trusts are now achieving
the forty targets for which the successful delivery of offender
management calls.
2. But adopting the goal of public protection
led to the processes of offender management being suffused with
a strongly risk averse approach to the possibility of reoffending.
A great deal of effort has been expended seeking to predict the
likelihood of such an eventuality and the harm that might be caused,
so as to allocate resources accordingly. Ministry of Justice publications
suggest that some progress has been made in terms of predictive
capacity (MoJ 2009), but it remains the case that these efforts
are prone to all the pitfalls associated with applying averages
to individuals. As a consequence, to minimise the possibility
of making the "wrong" prediction of reoffending, probation
staff have to be prepared to make greater use of custodial recommendations
in pre-sentence reports and when community based penalties are
breached. Similarly, with those released on licence from custodial
sentences, the first priority lies in the enforcement of licence
conditions via recall to prison, rather than resettlement, to
keep reoffending to a minimum. In these ways the modern probation
service has become heavily dependent upon the prison and custodial
sentences, both short and longer term, to try to fulfil its aim
of providing public protection. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the Justice Committee should question whether the Probation
Service would be capable of coping with a move away from the use
of short custodial sentences.
3. Of course, the Probation Service does not
act alone and it is the Courts, through their sentencing, who
are responsible for sending people to prison. Even so, the Probation
Service's move to a close involvement with the prison stands in
stark contrast to the Service's original aim to offer the Courts,
via the Probation Order, a way of dealing with defendants that
sought to avoid custody and which placed the onus on the defendant
to demonstrate that they could live within the law without need
for further sanction. In the interests of joined up thinking,
a merger between prison and probation effectively closed down
the competition for the defendant's future that had previously
existed between the Services. While not the only factor leading
to increased prison numbers it is hard to avoid the conclusion
that this union has played a significant role.
4. Space does not permit a full account of how
this change of focus has developed since 1998. It is perhaps sufficient
to say that probation staff worked hard to adopt the Offender
Assessment System, (OASys), despite its lack of user friendly
attributes. My colleague, Will Watson, will, I believe, have supplied
the Committee with an account of the short comings of this over
elaborate tool (Watson 2010). A massive increase and transfer
of resources took place to enable cognitive behavioural programmes
to be introduced. A draconian enforcement policy which left officers
with increasingly little discretion as to how to work with their
cases was implemented, while the need to avoid risk was periodically
reinforced by enquiries from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation
into serious further incidents (HMIP 2006). Driven forward by
constant restatement of targets and associated league tables,
a profound change in the ethos of the Service was achieved. From
being the Court's social work service the Probation Service has
become, in effect, the community based arm of the prison service
making liberal use of short and longer term custodial sentences.
5. There is no doubt that the Probation Service
was the recipient of substantial increases in funding during the
period. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (Mills, Silvestri,
and Grimshaw 2010) has recently published a detailed attempt to
breakdown where the money went. As the Committee will have access
to this work there is no point in repeating its findings here.
The Committee will also be aware of the large amount of money
spent, and seemingly wasted, trying to devise a computer system
that could cope with the complex problem of allocating each offender
and then monitoring them through the offender management process.(National
Audit Office 2009).
6. This growth in expenditure and huge expansion
in prison numbers by 20,000 places might have been worthwhile
if it could be shown to have reduced crime or reoffending. Unfortunately
there is little evidence to suggest that the Probation Service's
reorganisation and embracing of offender management has had any
impact under either heading. As has been noted by the present
Minister of Justice (Clarke 2010a, 2010b) crime rates have fallen
across a number of jurisdictions regardless of sentencing policy.
His own contribution, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the
steady growth of the economy and the improved possibility of employment
or training for young people, has arguably had as much to do with
these reductions as any aspect of penal policy. Reconviction rates
are said to have declined, but when actual and predicted rates
are compared they have remained remarkably stable across the years
and between different sentence types. (MoJ 2010c). Figures for
serious further offences have also maintained stability and, as
is noted year after year in the cohort studies, arise, in numerical
terms, much more frequently from those assessed as low or medium
risk.
7. It remains the case that the composition of
the prison population continues to reflect the over representation
of disadvantaged groups within society, women and ethnic minorities
being especially effected. Efforts by black staff to tackle the
over representation of black young people were rapidly stamped
upon with the introduction of accredited programmes. More recently
despite efforts to respond to Baroness Corston's (Corston 2008)
proposals to reduce the number of women going to prison there
has been no lasting change in these figures.
8. Nevertheless, it has been argued by Professor
Ken Pease (Pease 2010) that we get good value for our prison population
and that we should not be seeking to reduce it. Even if reoffending
rates for short term prisoners are high, the incapacitation effect
is worth the money. Pease seeks to attack Andrew Bridges (Bridges
2010) for his recent calculations regarding the marginal cost
for both short term and indeterminate sentences, but never directly
undermines Bridges calculations, except to claim that he uses
too high a figure for the average cost of a prison place per year.
In Bridges defence it could be said that he almost certainly does
choose the right figure, it being a ploy of the prison service
to suggest that this average cost should be calculated without
reference to expenditures, such as those attributable to headquarters
and escort duties. The real strength of Pease's paper lies in
the evidence he produces in favour of situational approaches to
crime reduction, which appear to be much more effective than sentencing
policy.
9. Reviewing the ever increasing prison population,
its costs and implications for liberal democracy, those who questioned
the validity of New Labour's policy, especially when it was proposed
to build Titan prisons, began to argue for a fresh approach.(Howard
League 2009,Centre for Social Justice 2009,Local Government Information
Unit 2009) As the Committee will be aware, having produced its
own enquiry into Justice Reinvestment (HC Justice Committee 2010),
proposals to move the budgets of criminal justice agencies into
local hands, to be spent on more relevant crime reduction measures,
have come increasingly to the fore. Justice Reinvestment sees
some place for community orders and might be thought a natural
focus for probation service work. But, in reality, the probation
service, as currently configured and wedded to its use of custody,
seems to be seen as the part of the problem that needs to be tackled
and receives limited recognition.
10. I wish to point to the evidence and suggest
how the Probation Service, rid of its NOMS connection, could play
a much more significant part in a Rehabilitation Revolution and
assist in the task of reducing short prison sentences.
11. A "Rehabilitation Revolution" requires
as stark a reconceptualisation as that which was attempted in
"Joining Forces to Protect the Public". It should be
acknowledged that the courts and sentencing policy are principally
about administering justice in the individual case. While those
passing sentence will take account of the public interest, this
is not necessarily coterminous with public protection, which is
only one factor that the Court must consider. Similarly, the Court
may hope that the defendant will not reoffend, but the prevention
of reoffending is only another consideration when seeking the
sentence that justice may require in any particular case. Courts
serve the purpose of administrating justice so as to mark out
the boundary of the acceptable behaviour that the law requires.
Prisons and noncustodial penalties are unlikely, therefore, to
be able to make more than a marginal contribution to reductions
in crime and reoffending. These are wider objectives and need
to be pursued through more specific social policies. Freed from
the unrealistic tyranny of trying to provide public protection,
community orders can be used for the more realistic goal of allowing
the defendant the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to
live within the law and make restitution.
12. It will be necessary to unravel NOMS so that
the Probation trusts become genuinely independent and local. Magistrates
and Judges need to become significant members of the boards of
Trusts from which they are currently excluded. Trust staff should
be free to offer advice to courts, which may allow them to make
less use of custody, on the basis of what is appropriate to local
circumstances and those of the defendant. Such advice should involve
many more individuals and organisations than simply the probation
service , drawing on contributions from all those in business,
the churches and voluntary organisations disposed to work positively
to reintegrate the offender into their community. Trusts must
also have the funds to encourage these local groups to want to
take on work with and for local offenders. Probation staff themselves
need to be ready to leave their offices and computers behind and
be available to visit and support those in the community willing
to take on the formidable task of reintegration.
13. The contributions of researchers like Shadd
Maruna (Maruna 2001) and Fergus McNeil (McNeil 2009) now offer
a better understanding of how persistent offenders work their
way out of offending via such means as narrative reconstruction
and the acquisition of social capital at its different levels
of operation. Central to this understanding is the appreciation
that it is the determination of the offender to make changes in
their lives that is crucial and that that determination is rarely
capable of being forced upon the offender by outside agencies,
be they well intentioned or punitive. Principally what is needed
is time for the individual to develop their thinking and perspective
on their lives and ready access to those locally who can provide
a relationship that promotes encouragement, hope and opportunity.
14. This work is what the probation service was
originally formed to undertake and still informs many practitioners'
views. It also touches directly on the role of requirements in
orders and Ken Clarke's reference to the conundrum of making community
orders appear sufficiently demanding and tough (Clarke2010a).
What amounts to being tough differs depending upon the perspective
that is being taken. In the interest of looking tough to the outside
world there is a temptation to add requirements without regard
to how manageable these will be for someone whose offending is
already indicative of their limited capabilities. It is not too
surprising therefore to find that only a comparatively small range
of extra requirements are used. When requirements are employed,
they need to be kept relevant to the task of aiding with the process
of desistance, rather than added to enhance the punitive aspect
of a community order or to meet the target of some programme.
15. Current figures for probation workloads (MoJ2010d)
suggest that probation officers still make proposals for community
penalties and they are accepted. It is noticeable, however, that
it is the suspended sentence that is growing in use at the expense
of the community order and the suspicion must be that this trend
represents another attempt to appear tough. Only determined leadership
from Government and the Courts can break the tendency to suck
lesser offenders into more serious sentences. To this end, the
review of sentencing that is promised for the autumn has a crucial
role to play.
16. Probation staff still regularly attend court,
even if this appears sometimes to be more for the purpose of prosecuting
breach actions than helping courts to resolve problems associated
with offending. Nevertheless, it ought not to be too difficult
to revive that older tradition to assist what may hopefully be
a new generation of Community Justice Courts, with tackling the
problems that give rise to offending.
17. It remains the case that training to work
in the probation service is still in place and the subject of
active debate as to its content and method of delivery (NAPO 2010).
It seems timely to suggest that it will need to include training
in conflict resolution and restorative justice as approaches that
will be at least as relevant as those of assessing risk of reoffending,
if probation officers are to help local people cope with their
local offenders without ready resort to custody. The increasing
prominence being given to work such as Fergus McNeil's(McNeal
and Weaver2010), that clearly derives from social work thinking,
suggests that the possibility of reviving social work in the penal
system in this country may not be as lost a cause as had seemed
once to be the case.
18. Reconstituting a Probation Service built
around its traditional injunctions to advise, assist and befriend
but informed by current thinking on how to promote desistance
would almost certainly contribute to a lessening of the use of
custody and a fairer society, one of whose indicators should be
a falling prison population. As Ann Owers (Owers 2010) made clear
in her valedictory address to the Prison Reform Trust, it has
been the rising numbers of prisoners that has constantly undermined
efforts to create more positive regimes for those who have to
go to prison. If for no other reason, the Probation Service should
be charged with doing all in its power to reduce short custodial
sentences.
CHRISTOPHER HIGNETT,
BA CQSW
Between 1973 and 2006 I worked as a probation officer
and senior probation officer in London, working in and leading
field teams, and a community service team in Tower Hamlets, Hackney
and Islington. I was part of the ILPS Demonstration Unit and I
later spent five years in the ILPS Research Dept. I was Programme
Manager in Islington, Camden and Haringey for the last part of
my career. Since retiring I have undertaken work for Surrey Probation
Service and Hertfordshire University. With my Colleague, Mr William
Watson, I formed the Campaign for the Reinvigoration of the Probation
Service in December 2008.
September 2010
REFERENCES
Maruna, S (2001) Making Good. American Psychological
Association.
McNight, J (2009) Speaking Up for Probation. Howard
Journal 48(4)327-343.
Mills H, Silvestri A, Grimshaw R (2010) Prison and
Probation Expenditure 1999-2009. Centre for Crime and Justice
Studies.
Ministry of Justice (2010a) Probation Quarterly Ratings—Quarter
4 2009-10.
Ministry of Justice (2009) OGRS3:The Revised Offender
Group Reconviction Scale. Research Summary 7/09 March 2009.
Ministry of Justice (2010b) Reoffending of Adults:
Results from the 2008 Cohort England and Wales. Statistics
bulletin March 2010.
Ministry of Justice (2010d) Probation Statistics
Quarterly Brief January-March 2010 England and Wales.
National Audit Office (2009) The National Offender
Management Information System.
Napo (2010) Probation Qualifications Framework. Questions
and Answers.
NOMS (2006) The NOMS Offender Management Model.
Owers, A. (2010) Speech to the
Annual General Meeting of the Prison Reform Trust 13 July 2010.
Pease, K (2010) Prison, Community
Sentencing and Crime. Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil
Society.
Watson, W (2010) Evidence to
the Justice Committee Enquiry into the Role of the Probation Service,
August 2010.
| 
