I wouldn't normally be bothered expending time discussing statistics, let alone targets, as life is just too short and we are all familiar with the refrain that there's "lies, damned lies and statistics." However, seeing as Inspector Gadget has raised the issue, I think it's only fair to respond. In a post entitled 'Ruralshire Probation Service in melt down - SHOCK!' he says:-
"More than 43,000 offenders given community sentences have breached them in the past year.
A total of 43,521 criminals had to be tracked down and sentenced again in the year to July 2011.
Around 23,750 offenders failed to comply with simple punishments such as doing unpaid work.
Another 19,741 committed further crimes during their non-custodial sentences."
Well I've been looking at the National Offender Management Service Annual Report - a hefty tome at 115 pages, but on page 42 it states:-
"Orders and licences successfully completed (national KPI)
This is an indicator of offender compliance which measures orders and licences at their point of termination. It shows the proportion of these that have terminated successfully, i.e. which have run their full course without being revoked for breach or a further offence or have been revoked for good progress.
Target: To ensure that at least 72 per cent of orders and licences are successfully completed in 2010/11
Result: 76 per cent of orders and licences were successfully completed"
It goes on to say that the the figure has risen consistently from 2008/9 from 72 per cent. Meanwhile Inspector Gadget goes on to make the following assertion:-
"In Ruralshire, offenders often wait so long for their first appointment after sentencing that their sentence has actually ended before they get to sit in front of a probation officer."
Indeed this statement is repeated twice for emphasis. Administrative oversights and errors occur in every organisation, but all I can say is that I simply don't recognise the validity of such a sweeping assertion and would be very interested to hear of some evidence to support it.
The post concludes by saying:-
"All of this stuff adds to the general feeling of a lack of consequences for the criminal underclass."
I might have some sympathy with this view were it not that prison numbers continue to stand at an all-time historical high.
It must be such hard work carrying that giant chip around on his shoulder...
ReplyDeleteI have always been surprised, considering we deal with the same people, how little day to day contact there is between the probation and police. Obviously we do but there isn't a great deal of understanding of the role of probation in the police at the grass roots level.
ReplyDeleteIn custody I work with probation in two ways. Directly and indirectly. Indirect is when a prisoner lands before me on a recall notification. I have no need to liaise with probation and simply send the person to prison. The direct route is when somebody has come into custody for offences and is on licence. At this stage I contact probation to see if the licence will be revoked.
I cannot account for the figures of either this post or the one it criticises though my head tells me, as you point out, that statistics can be "manipulated."
That said I do find myself scratching my head sometimes as to the policies and procedures of revocation of licences. Many times I have had recalls at the desk for not complying with hostel conditions; being late in or bringing alcohol back etc. They are bemused and somewhat upset at the recall over such trivial matters. Yet I also have had many occasions where someone on licence has been out and committed new criminal offences and probation have refused to revoke the licence.
I don't propose to fully understand how probation operate but from my experience it seems that sometimes the people being recalled are those who are a filling spaces that others desperately need. Whilst those living at home and not a burden on resources are given greater flexibility? Maybe I'm wrong but that's the practical view I see in custody on a regular basis. It therefore seems from a cynical perspective that the workload is managed to cause minimal financial burden to the dept and that probation are being squeezed by govt not to recall in order to keep numbers down in prison. Prison numbers may be high but this is a symptom of the number of offenders getting sentenced. I believe if probation recalled everybody that broke their conditions then operation lockout would have to be reactivated or the government would simply release a big chunk of prisoners extra early like they did a few years ago.
I know that there are many people revoked who need to be. Im not a proponent of locking everyone up and do believe in rehabilitation but there are many from my experience who aren't revoked who should be. Whilst there are no excuses for poor performance (where it occurs) I suspect that like the police, probation are strapped for cash, lacking resources and overwhelmed by the workload.
The Custody Sgt,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your full comment in which you raise quite a few issues.
You are correct in saying that, given we deal with the same people, there is not a great deal of contact between police and probation. This is partly due to our differing role, but it might surprise you to know that there is rather more contact than you are aware of.
I think the best way to describe it is to say that it is measured, limited and dictated by the degree of risk to life and limb. I have always answered specific questions when put to me by officers and the same has been true when I have had need to contact the police, mostly in relation to either child protection or public safety issues. In my experience there has always been regular liason with officers involved in supervising people subject to the Sex Offenders Register. Also historically my Service has always co-operated with major murder investigations if it was felt probation officers might have information or concerns.
On the issue or recall, this is more problematic as it is the Ministry of Justice that has the final say as to whether a warrant is to be issued or not and they do not always follow probation advice. Generally speaking, given that a majority of our clients are high risk nowadays, there is less leeway open to us in being able to avoid application for recall. It's true to say that our ethos (well mine anyway) is to try and avoid this avenue if at all possible and continue to work with people however.
The breaking of hostel rules in my experience need not of itself lead to recall. When the bedspace is withdrawn (as it will almost certainly) it's usual to arrange another with an alternative hostel asap, especially in the case of a high risk offender. This may not be true in all areas however.
In the case of further alleged offences, it depends how serious the allegations are before I would proceed to apply for recall.
I hope this might help clarify a few issues for you, but please feel free to come back at me as they say. The aim is to shed a bit of understanding after all.
Thanks again Custody Sgt - have a safe and happy New Year!
Cheers,
Jim