News From Probation Institute 6

It's been some time since we heard from the Probation Institute, so thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following communication:-

Dear Readers

On Monday 2nd July the Probation Institute hosted the third Probation Practitioner Conference at Resource for London followed by the Community Justice Portal Lecture. Richard Rowley very successfully organised the event with the cross sector Steering Group. Dr Wendy Fitzgibbon gave an inspiring and entertaining presentation using "Photo Voice" research into photography as a means of enhancing communication.

Our three key conference speakers were Jon Collins CEO of the Magistrates Association, Anne Fox CEO of Clinks and Sue Mountstevens PCC for Avon and Somerset. All three speakers shared positive aspirations for Probation but recognised that there are major challenges - in restoring sentencers' confidence, in re-engaging with the voluntary sector on a broader canvas and in becoming part of more integrated community facing locally commissioned services.

Ten break out sessions followed in which - from the perspectives of probation practitioners, voluntary organisations, researchers, sentencing and the Lammy Review from the PCCs office - all of these challenges were exemplified, informed and debated.

The final plenary session enabled practitioners to consider how they individually can contribute to bridging the gaps between NPS, CRCs and the voluntary sector and how they could use the event to support their own professional development moving forward.

This conference was a positive conversation between practitioners from all corners of rehabilitation. A number of important themes stood out;

1. Over emphasis on speed in the criminal justice process is damaging. In advising the courts on risk of reoffending and harm, and in advising on sentencing, a preoccupation with speed prevents report writers from bringing more comprehensive recommendations to the courts based on problem solving. Research findings from Scotland indicate that a fuller PSR is influential in increasing Community Sentences. If there is serious intent to try to reduce under 12 month sentences using well considered community alternatives, it seems unlikely that this could effectively be achieved using same day, verbal and down reports.

2. Confidence in community sentences has taken a (another) battering! Bad news is difficult to turn round and the excellent work of probation staff, commended at the conference by Sue Mountstevens, among others, is not being recognised and valued sufficiently at present. NPS is clearly working hard through the Effective Practice Division to reach out to CRCs, seeking and sharing good practice towards "Whole System Improvement". This is very much to be welcomed but a much greater collaborative effort to promote good news is needed. The Probation Institute together with organisations such as the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Magistrates Association, Revolving Doors and many others are keen to help.

3. The contribution to rehabilitation by the voluntary sector particularly the smaller organisations is getting lost in a sea of bureaucracy and barriers, supply chain coordinators, and rate cards. Anne Fox gave an excellent presentation describing what the voluntary sector can contribute, that it is not in competition with statutory services but lost 30% of its funding since TR and must look elsewhere for funding, potentially skewing it's outputs in the direction of new money.

4. The contribution of those with lived experience of criminal justice is increasingly understood. The next step is to better engage this contribution in co - production and building successful lives. The next Probation Institute Position Paper will be on the continuum of service user engagement, co-production and supporting entrepreneurs with lived experience.

The recent Select Committee Report on TR was one of the backdrops to the conference and the question of the future naturally arose in the plenary session. Asked for our opinion on the future and on any improvements that could be made to renewed contracts. the Probation Institute current position was described as follows,

• We do not believe that Probation Services should be delivered through a divided service.
• The Probation Institute is taking the opportunity to draw together a shopping list of improvements which should be made if there are to be new contracts. Our suggestions may echo some of the HMI standards for inspection but we would be looking for contractual requirements. We will be discussing these at a meeting with Directors and Fellows on 14th August, and our list is likely to include

• Regulation of training and qualifications for all probation practitioners and practice managers
• Establish a Regulatory Body to ensure consistency of training, qualifications and conduct, for equivalent roles in NPS and CRC
• Strengthen recruitment from diverse groups 
• Ensure that objectives and targets effectively address the causes of offending 
• Open up to greater transparency and less bureaucracy the routes to the CRC supply chains
• Strengthen requirements for service user engagement

If there is an opportunity to rethink TR, following the Select Committee report, and through the Labour Party Review, "solutions" must not be rushed this time and brave thinking is needed. Legislation is very much constrained by Brexit at present so that any changes within the next 2 years would probably need to be achievable within existing legislation. The Offender Management Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to deliver probation services almost any way he or she wishes, but the scope of the OMA is unlikely to permit a completely new agency, for example. 

Local, devolved structures and local commissioning developed from CRC groupings seem attractive, particularly when articulated by a positive and thoughtful PCC. Any solutions which bring increased proximity to policing could risk compromising justice. How to avoid being squeezed through competing pressures for local resources? If there were savings from devolved structures, to whom would these accrue? Would it be professionally and politically sound for probation to move completely away from the prison service?

Reintegration through re-nationalisation has been much promoted particularly in the early post TR days. Setting aside the political aspects of this question we think it is an unlikely end state. We would like to hear more about the pros and cons of closer work with the Prison Service. Can this closer work be a real force for good? 

All of the strong and sound arguments in favour of reducing short term prison sentences recognise the dependency on robust community sentences as alternatives. The Secretary of State for Justice made strong statements about reducing the short term prison numbers this week. If steps are not taken to strengthen confidence in and resources for community sentences... here is another perfect storm waiting.