Probation Recommends Custody!

Yes really - I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I saw it in a PSR recently. It said "he would benefit from a structured environment". Happily the Magistrates thought differently and gave him Unpaid Work instead. It absolutely made my heart sink when I read such a pejorative report - I remember thinking 'surely there must be something positive to say about this person - there must be some cause for hope rather than a complete counsel of despair and a literal institutional washing our hands of him?' As far as I'm concerned that's not what probation is about - surely reports should normally err on the side of recommending alternatives to custody, not the other way round FFS! Probation is about trying to make matters better, not worse. How on earth have things got to this point?

The issue of custody and the attitude of probation officers to incarceration is long and somewhat convoluted. No doubt it began with the legacy of our religious roots, developing later into the radicalism of the 70's. Before I was appointed I was told that radical elements within NAPO, the probation officers union, were seriously thinking about making it impossible for members to suggest custody at all and they wanted members withdrawn from prisons. As a result, before my interview, I was given some heavy advice that if I wanted the job I had to say I was prepared to acknowledge that custody was inevitable in certain circumstances. This has always seemed understandable to me and I have been happy to proceed on that basis ever since. Certain serious offences require deprivation of liberty both for public protection and punishment purposes. But recommending custody is a completely different scenario in my book, and normally completely alien to my social work background*. It is almost always hugely damaging to the individual concerned; is by no means helpful to rehabilitation and will do nothing to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. I believe the evidence is conclusive in this regard, whatever politicians may say.

I think there is growing evidence that current probation practice is now suggesting custody by default. We are producing officers that seem to view offending and offenders in only two dimensional terms, that of risk of harm and public protection, rather than looking at the full person, in the round as it were. They seem much more willing to 'up tariff' people and to 'second guess' court decisions, rather than make strongly-argued cases for realistic alternatives to custody. Concordance rates have always been a factor, but in the past the aim was to try and get courts to come down tariff. However, in the current punitive environment, I suspect there is now a trend for officers to go up tariff, especially as it is now possible to load Community Orders with a plethora of conditions. This in turn is leading to higher breach rates and therefore ultimately short terms of imprisonment.

My sojourn in court as a CDO confirmed this suspicion, especially as it fell to me to have to prosecute the breaches. Time after time in reviewing the file it was obvious that the original order had been far too onerous and successful completion was most unlikely. In the breach reports, supervising officers appeared to lose heart quickly, often arguing for revocation and sometimes whole-heartedly suggesting custody, no doubt as a way of getting some respite from a difficult case. Of course the Criminal Justice Act 2003 tied courts hands in largely removing discretion in dealing with breaches by making it mandatory to make the order even more onerous if it was allowed to continue. No wonder prison numbers are steadily climbing if this scenario is widespread. Sad to say, but it must be a reflection of recent training and what new officers feel their managers and society generally expect from its new 'law enforcement' probation service. 

* I have broken this self-imposed rule once, in very specific circumstances. (to be described at a later date).