A Few Reminders

Ahead of the second reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill in the House of Commons tomorrow, I thought it would be a good idea to be reminded of a few things, particularly in relation to the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition government. 

A trawl of the internet has netted the following brilliant Comment is Free piece from the Guardian entitled 'Will Nick Clegg cherish the probation service?' dated 23rd June 2010 and penned by probation officer Violet Towers. 

Written long before the dreaded slogan 'Rehabilitation Revolution' had ever been coined, it begins by reminding us that the Service owes its very existence to a Liberal Government and goes on to set the scene for our present difficulties:-

It's fair to say that the probation service in England and Wales has undergone a few changes since the days when the Church of England Temperance Society's "police court missionaries" offered salvation to persistent drunks. Community-spirited volunteers had been offering their services as guardians for people passing through the courts since about 1841. Probation supervision was given formal footing by the reforming Liberal government of 1906, with the Probation of Offenders Act. It was the officers' duty to "advise, assist and befriend", and though those words are now almost profanities, the principle is still observed by plenty of probation officers today.

The early ethos was an outreach, welfare-oriented one, viewing crime as a problem of disadvantaged individuals and communities in need of support. With government interest came change at an ever-increasing pace, challenging the fundamental principles of the organisation. Many in probation still strongly value its traditional "social work" culture, which seems to jar with the "offender management" language of recent years. The implication of the current discourse is that those we work with are first and foremost sets of risk factors to be monitored, rather than people to support through the process of changing their lives. Good probation work balances these approaches on a case-by-case basis, but press coverage is often unsubtle, framing the criminal justice debate in terms of a need to pick a side. Perpetrators or victims? Callous criminals or decent, law-abiding citizens?

When Labour came to power in 1997, after promising to be "tough on the causes of crime", a nuanced approach to criminal justice might have been expected. Instead, the swaggering rhetoric was of being "tough on crime" – and on criminals. The probation service was at best a source of confusion for the administration, which preferred to steer clear of the topic. It remains the case that when probation does get a mention from those in power, it's mostly in terms of community service, while the supervisory aspect is ignored.

Community service – rebranded Unpaid Work, or Community Payback – has also undergone a public image transformation of its own, promoted as a demanding punishment rather than a restorative project. Louise Casey's Cabinet Office report of 2008, Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, suggested that fluorescent bibs to identify "offenders" on community service could enhance public confidence in community sentences. Criminologists Shadd Maruna and Anna King pointed out how portraying such sentences as strongly punitive can end up backfiring: if those subject to community penalties need and deserve harsh, "tough" treatment, even humiliation, surely prison is the best place to dole it out?

Reviewing research on public attitudes, Maruna and King argued that the public are better disposed to rehabilitative efforts than shifts in policy designed to appease their supposedly punitive sensibilities would suggest.

I think part of the trouble with probation and the media (aside from the fact that a person doing absolutely nothing of note to the general public is a resounding success for us), is that terms like "supervision", "licence" and "offender management" are thrown around without comment on what they actually mean, leaving them to each viewer's interpretation.

In the furore following the 2006 Panorama special on probation hostels, it appeared that many interpreted "supervision" as meaning constant surveillance. How can there be meaningful debate about probation practice if there's such a dearth of information about it for a general audience? As Andrew Bridges, then chief inspector of the probation service, said in 2008, we need to talk about "mundane truths" rather than "exciting fallacies". I'd suggest that people might even find some of the truths about probation inspiring rather than mundane.

Concluding the article, Violet goes on to prophetically ask what the future might hold for probation under the then newly-elected coalition government, and reminds us what Nick Clegg said on the occasion of the centenary of that piece of Liberal legislation that created the Service back in 1907:-

Where is probation going under the coalition government, then? Changing Lives – An Oral History of Probation, published by Napo to mark the service's centenary in 2007, contained a few kind words from then Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, one Nick Clegg. He began: "Few public services can be as readily overlooked as the probation service." How true. During the second pre-election TV debate I listened to him and David Cameron discuss the need for increased use of community penalties for 20 minutes without using the word "probation" once.

As home affairs spokesman Clegg concluded by telling Napo "... it is crucial that the unglamorous, painstaking, yet hugely important work of the service is cherished, not undermined, by both government and opposition parties." We shall see.

I'm grateful to a reader for reminding us of this Early Day Motion from last year which attracted much cross-party support, including 14 Conservative and 24 Liberal Democrat MP's:-

EDM 622 tabled 23 October 2012: "That this House welcomes the news that the Probation Service in England and Wales won the British Quality Foundation Gold Medal for Excellence in 2011; notes that no Probation Trust is deemed to be failing or in need of improvement; further notes that each Probation Trust in England and Wales is meeting its target on the production of court reports, victim satisfaction and the successful completion of orders or licences; and acknowledges the achievements of the Probation Service in England and Wales for carrying out its work efficiently and effectively."

128 signatures were put to the EDM, including:

14 Conservative MPs - Tony Baldry; Bob Blackman; Crispin Blunt; Peter Bottomley; Graham Brady; Fiona Bruce; William Cash; Robert Halfon; Gordon Henderson; Patrick Mercer; Penny Mordaunt; Mark Reckless; Gary Streeter; Martin Vickers; 

24 LibDem MPs - Annette Brooke; Paul Burstow; Menzies Campbell; Mike Crockart; Tim Farron; Andrew George; Mike Hancock; Martin Horwood; Simon Hughes; Julian Huppert; John Leech; Stephen Lloyd; Greg Mulholland; John Pugh; Dan Rogerson; Bob Russell; Adrian Saunders; Andrew Stunell; Ian Swales; John Thurso; David Ward; Mark Williams; Roger Williams; Stephen Williams

Understandably there is concern within the grassroots of the Liberal Democrats, as demonstrated here with an article written by a retired probation officer and published on the Liberal Voice website earlier this year:-

Why do governments always assume that they will save money by privatising the public sector?  The Probation Service is now in Chris Grayling’s sights with his plan to hive off low risk offenders to charities and private enterprise leaving the rump Probation Service to concentrate on high risk offenders.

High risk offenders are the sex offenders, domestic violence perpetrators and offenders on indeterminate sentences whose risk prior to release from custody is subject to constant review. As a former probation officer this was my bread and butter work – and incredibly stressful it was too.

I understand that under the Coalition plans the probation service will continue with this work whilst the majority low risk offenders will in future be supervised  by charities and private companies such as SERCO or G4S. Forgive me but wasn’t G4S the company that could not even hire enough people to ensure the public’s safety at the Olympics?

They will be paid by results – i.e. they must demonstrate a fall in re-offending.  Low risk means low risk of harm, but these offenders are often prolific, cause endless public nuisance with their drug and alcohol related offending, shop lifting and vandalism. Remember for every low risk offender there is also a victim.  Low risk offenders are frequently difficult, dysfunctional and occasionally violent.  Working with them takes skill, training and experience. Exactly the kind of experience the existing Probation Service has.

Despite that, I do think there is a place for the private sector, but only working alongside the Probation Service and not replacing it. Specialist charities do enormously useful work with drug and alcohol users, or provide hostels and educational and employment support. But when profit comes into running prisons, or rehabilitation programmes, then in my experience standards fall and safety is jeopardised.

There are lots of more useful ways the government could invest in the criminal justice system, such as in hostels and effective job training programmes, with jobs at the end of them, for offenders leaving custody. Offenders don’t come from Mars, they come from our communities and only by working in those communities will we start to fix the problems. This is where charities can make a real difference and this is where they can support the Probation Service by working in partnership. However, charities’ funding is also being squeezed and as the National Association of Care and Resettlement of Offenders noted recently,

Critically, the way these services are commissioned must take account of the financial constraints facing the voluntary sector.

The government will find that worthwhile mentoring and rehabilitation does not come cheap whoever delivers it.

In the end I doubt the government will save any money. The last Labour government wasted £800 million trying to implement a new computer system which eventually was junked before it was commissioned. That is the annual cost of running the Probation Service. The present government will probably hand vast amounts of money to SERCO with no appreciable reduction in reoffending. But by the time the mistake is realised the Probation Service, with its years of service, experience and highly committed staff will be lost for ever.

Now that really is criminal.

Finally, on the subject of former probation officers, I see that some who have gone on to have notable academic careers had a letter published in the Independent yesterday:-

Probation service under threat

As former probation officers we are writing to express our dismay at the dismemberment of the service proposed in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which will receive its second reading in the Commons on Monday 11 November.

Probation in England and Wales has recently celebrated a centenary of selfless and effective service to the community. To remove up to 250,000 of its cases and auction them off to an untried consortium of commercial interests and voluntary bodies is in our view to take a reckless gamble with public safety and to put at risk the prospects for personal change and reform which lie at the heart of what probation is and does.

Professor Robert Canton, De Montfort University, Leicester

Dr Philip Priestley, Wells

Professor Peter Raynor, Swansea University

Professor Paul Senior, Sheffield Hallam University

Professor David Smith, Lancaster

Professor Maurice Vanstone, Swansea

Professor Anne Worrall, Keele University