Time and effort being expended on a grossly bureaucratic and expensive 'National Security Unit' is not only absurd, it diverts attention from other pressing matters that require urgent attention as the organisation prepares to absorb up to 7,000 transferring staff. But it's an absolutely typical consequence of people at the top in a remote HQ not having a clue about how to run things on the ground.
Written evidence from Howard League for Penal Reform
Written evidence from Howard League for Penal Reform
Executive summary
- Probation services have suffered from being subsumed with prisons, first within the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and more recently within Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS)
- Hand in hand with this merger with prisons, we have seen over a decade of misguided attempts to create a market in probation services
- Market reforms have not succeeded because working to achieve desistance with people who commit crime is not a commodity that can be marketised. These attempts reached their nadir with the disastrous Transforming Rehabilitation reforms
- The Howard League welcomes the government’s decision to end the competition for Probation Delivery partners as a decisive move away from the recent history of botched market reforms
- While the new model of probation marks a step in the right direction, the government is missing a historic opportunity to restore probation’s independence from prisons and by cementing a proper framework for local service delivery
- The central flaw of the new model is delivering probation through a National Probation Service (NPS), based within HMPPS. Both the NPS and its regional areas are too large to deliver effective probation services
- The Dynamic Framework is accordingly an unnecessarily centralised and bureaucratic method of purchasing services from local voluntary sector providers
- While integration between probation and prisons is important, an independent probation service, locally structured but with clear national leadership, is key to ensuring confidence in the delivery of community sentences
- The Howard League proposes an independent Community Justice Agency to create a national strategic and ethical focus for probation, alongside a network of Community Justice Partnerships to deliver probation services at a local level
- Just as prisons are overcrowded, so too probation services are overburdened – with almost a quarter of a million people on probation in any given year
- Structures are important but the government must also be clear on what the purpose and scope of probation should be. There should be a national review of the extent of community orders and of post-custody supervision.
1.1. Founded in 1866, the Howard League is the oldest penal reform charity in the world. We have some 13,000 members, including lawyers, politicians, business leaders, practitioners, prisoners and their families and academics. The Howard League has consultative status with both the United Nations and the Council of Europe. It is an independent charity and receives no grant funding from the UK government.
1.2. The Howard League works for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison. We aim to achieve these objectives through conducting and commissioning research and investigations aimed at revealing underlying problems and discovering new solutions to issues of public concern. The Howard League’s objectives and principles underlie and inform the charity’s work.
1.3. This submission, drawing on the charity’s policy work, argues that the government’s recent decisions on probation reform, whilst welcome, do not go far enough to achieve an effective probation service and produce community sentences that can command confidence from both sentencers and the general public.
2. The existing legacy of probation reform and learning from the past
2.1. Prior to 2013 the probation service was one which performed consistently and strongly, with all probation trusts judged ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in the Ministry of Justice’s annual performance ratings. Understanding what happened between 2013 and 2020 to leave probation in its current parlous state should be key to deciding the future direction of the service. Assessing the existing legacy of probation reform identifies two key lessons which the government should heed going forward.
2.2. Firstly, the dissolution of the probation trusts created by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms saw probation lose its local identity and the last vestiges of the service’s independence. Probation services have suffered from being subsumed into the management of prisons in Whitehall, firstly within the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and more recently within Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS). An independent service built around local communities became a centralised arm of prisons-dominated bureaucracy.
2.3. Secondly – and hand in hand with this merger with prisons – we have seen over a decade of misguided attempts to create a market in probation services.
2.3. Secondly – and hand in hand with this merger with prisons – we have seen over a decade of misguided attempts to create a market in probation services.
2.4. Market reforms have not succeeded because working to achieve desistance with people who commit crime is not a commodity that can be marketised. These attempts reached their nadir with the disastrous Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, which created an artificial split in the probation service and saw government spend a great deal of time and money in attempting to quantify and create mechanisms to enable ‘payment by results’.
2.5. The Howard League has consistently argued against these reforms and welcomed the inevitable decision to abandon payment by results. Yet in response to the government’s Strengthening probation, rebuilding confidence consultation in 2018, the charity warned that persisting with a split in service delivery and a market in probation services would do further damage to confidence in community sentencing and to local accountability.
2.6. Since that consultation the government has made a number of concessions which reflect the Howard League’s concerns. The charity therefore welcomes the government’s most recent decision to end the competition for Probation Delivery Partners as a decisive move away from the recent history of botched market reforms.
2.7. Nevertheless, the government will not see the probation service return to the level of performance seen before 2013 without taking further decisive steps which heed the lessons of recent years.
3. The government risks missing a historic opportunity to transform probation services for the better
3.1. While the new model of probation marks a step in the right direction, the government is missing a historic opportunity to restore probation’s independence from prisons and by cementing a proper framework for local service delivery.
3.2. The Ministry of Justice has crossed a series of Rubicons in the unwinding of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, from the abandoning of payment by results to the reunification of probation within the public sector, culminating in the latest decision to end the market competition for Probation Delivery Partners. One key lesson from the failed reforms enumerated above has been fully accepted and acted upon. It would be unfortunate if the government did not now go further to deal with the remaining key lesson from recent history.
3.3. As it stands, the future of probation services remains within HMPPS, an organisation largely dominated by the priorities and concerns of the prison service. Probation will not regain its much-needed independence. Indeed, probation officers and senior leaders will all be civil servants and bound by Civil Service Rules that dramatically limit what they can say or do publicly. This is not how to create confidence in the effectiveness of the probation service and in the delivery of community sentences.
3.3. As it stands, the future of probation services remains within HMPPS, an organisation largely dominated by the priorities and concerns of the prison service. Probation will not regain its much-needed independence. Indeed, probation officers and senior leaders will all be civil servants and bound by Civil Service Rules that dramatically limit what they can say or do publicly. This is not how to create confidence in the effectiveness of the probation service and in the delivery of community sentences.
3.4. An effective probation service is both independent and structured locally to best serve communities. The central flaw of the new model being proposed is delivering probation through a National Probation Service (NPS), based within HMPPS. Both the NPS and its regional areas are too large to deliver effective probation services. Contrast the 12 NPS regional divisions proposed to run from 2022 with the localised network of 35 independent probation trusts operating prior to 2013-14.
3.5. The Dynamic Framework is accordingly an unnecessarily centralised and bureaucratic method of purchasing services from local voluntary sector providers, who would be better served with mechanisms for local grants and commissioning that reflect the needs of communities and the specialisms small charities can provide within those local contexts.
3.6. While integration between probation and prisons is important, this need not require the two services to be merged within HMPPS. An independent probation service, locally structured but with clear national leadership, is key to ensuring confidence in the delivery of community sentences.
4. A vision for the future of probation: ‘Community Justice’
4.1.The Howard League continues to advocate for an alternative vision for the future of probation, which heeds the lessons of the recent past, and which is termed ‘Community Justice’. At the heart of the Community Justice model is a recognition that the probation service should be independent, with a small body based at the centre to provide a national strategic focus, alongside an ambitious and properly local network of service delivery across England and Wales.
4.2. Probation would be separated from HMPPS and a new Community Justice Agency would be created to provide strategic and ethical leadership, to promote best practice and ensure a level of consistency in local service delivery. Separating probation and prisons provides a clearer distinction between the two services, reinforcing their separate identities and professional expertise.
4.3. The Community Justice Agency would be led by a figurehead with responsibility for providing a national voice on the issues – an important role which would be key to achieving the confidence in community sentencing that is a government priority. The Agency would lead on workforce development and set some clear national targets around service expectations that could be developed to fit local circumstances. It would also be responsible for certain services that can only be provided nationally, such as contact with the victims of prisoners.
4.3. The Community Justice Agency would be led by a figurehead with responsibility for providing a national voice on the issues – an important role which would be key to achieving the confidence in community sentencing that is a government priority. The Agency would lead on workforce development and set some clear national targets around service expectations that could be developed to fit local circumstances. It would also be responsible for certain services that can only be provided nationally, such as contact with the victims of prisoners.
4.4. Alongside the relatively small Community Justice Agency would be a network of Community Justice Partnerships to deliver probation services at a local level. Members of the Community Justice Partnership boards would include representatives from the police (including Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners), local authorities, local voluntary groups and members of the community, sentencers, health boards and regional prison management. This level of local involvement and ownership is again key to building confidence in the delivery of community sentences.
4.5. The Howard League would be happy to explore this vision for the future of probation in more detail through oral evidence to the select committee. In the meantime, there is one final important point which members of the committee should bear in mind during the operation of this welcome inquiry.
4.6. Just as prisons are overcrowded, so too probation services are overburdened – with almost a quarter of a million people on probation in any given year. Confidence in community sentencing and the effectiveness of probation has not simply been damaged by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms but also by this overburdening of probation services to begin with. Probation is under-resourced to deal with the volume of cases staff are expected to supervise.
4.7. As the Howard League has made clear in this submission, structures are of course important when considering the future for probation services. Structural questions are not the only important issues for the select committee to consider, however. The government must also be clear on what the purpose and scope of probation should properly be.
4.8. A first step would be to remove the final legacy of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms by abandoning the 12-month supervision of those serving short prison sentences. This post-custody supervision has not worked and has primarily contributed to pressures on prisons through recalls. Clearing out some of the unnecessary work of the new unified service would allow for a focus on those actually sentenced to a community order or those leaving custody having served longer and more serious sentences.
4.9. The Howard League would also urge the committee to consider the case for a national review of the extent of community orders and of post-custody supervision. Not only must probation services be independent and structured locally, but the use of probation itself should be appropriately targeted and designed so as to best support desistance and reintegration. Just as the Crown Prosecution Service has a statutory duty to prosecute only in the public interest, probation services should be required to supervise only in the public interest. A tighter focus on the use of interventions would mean community orders would be reinforced and properly resourced to improve confidence in the effectiveness of probation services.
7 September 2020
Everyone's submissions to the JSC make Napo's half-page of hastily scrbbled nonsense look even more embarrassing than ever.
ReplyDeletePoor old Sir Bob, who has extended the hand of friendship to & demonstrated extraordinary patience with Napo, must be feeling pretty pissed off that they couldn't be arsed to prepare even a half-decent submission of written evidence, let alone show any commitment to improving their skills when presenting oral evidence to the JSC.
I fear Napo have probably lost one of their most important allies.
It is an indication of the general secretary failure and competence to not use this opportunity strategically. The chair is also displaying clear lack of ability to manage any formal evidential process. Both have to go .
DeleteEveryone is having their say except Probation Chief Officers. At what point do our leaders ‘man up’ and condemn the mess of flawed reunification looming for #probation?
ReplyDeleteWe criticise unions and politicians not doing enough, but what about Probation Chief Officers, Senior Managers and Heads of Service? Why should they get a pass ?? !! These are the ones that are accepting and implementing the changes and manipulating the staff into a false sense of security. Exact what they did during TR.
I think there's some very good points made in today's post, not least by Annon @08:57.
DeleteI recall a conversation some years ago with a very unhappy head teacher of a large comprehensive school, who bemoaned that having qualified as a teacher and having spent a lifetime in the classroom teaching he now found himself in a position within the education system that had nothing to do with teaching at all. Rather, his position now was all about accountancy, logistics and implementing undesired educational policies.
The same must be true for those at the top of the probation tree.
Identity I feel is a major issue for probation, but I feel its not just an issue of what's being imposed from above, but it's an issue to be found throughout the service itself. There is no collective agreement on what the service is for. I think that is partly due to the marketisation of the service, and looking at probation as an 'industry' rather then a public service. Today's probation means different things to far too many people.
I totally agree too that the under 12mth cohort has no place in todays probation service. Making them subject to probation is destructive to the individuals on probation, and destructive to the service itself. It eats resources and time for little or no return, and only serves to facilitate more frequent imprisonment.
This group were never subject to supervision post custody prior to TR for a reason, and it might be healthy for the powers above to revisit those reasons and consider the complexities that are particular to that group before developing policy that entrench them further in the Criminal Justice System.
The rethoric that somehow this group were somehow disadvantaged by not being able to access probation services was political fantasy designed to sell TR and political reality in extending the market for the private sector becoming involved with TR.
I think when you've lost your way, the advisable thing to do is to go back to a point that is familiar and recalculate your position and direction. For probation that means going back to a place where you know it worked and was fully functional before plotting any further routes in the direction of travel.
'Getafix
Dear Getafix; your comments make me think back to when we were the probation and aftercare service; we were required to offer a service to short term discharged prisoners but they were not required to accept our assistance. Of course there were always problems with funding and resources but it strikes me the Through The Gate cohort could have access to our services and we should be mandated and resourced to help; but those ex prisoners who were fortunate enough to return to stable families would not be required to submit to our dubious attentions.
ReplyDeleteAs for inconsistent and contested views of probation role and values; do you recall SLOPS and SNOPS and how much argument was generated simply because we suddenly realised we had all been doing different things?
Sadly the architects of the past 7 years are presiding over current reforms. Similar results are almost inevitable.
ReplyDeleteProbation was the architect of its own demise.
DeleteYes it was Managerialism the period of business qualification by the sell outs and tossers . They did well when paid off by Grayling they know who they are. The next tier are lemmings and do as they are told arses.
DeleteProbation directors and senior managers are NOT “frightened or unable”. They are complicit with the plans and intentions of the MoJ. They implement the changes and in return sit in their Ivory Towers and rise through the higher ranks of HMPPS. They are not our allies or friends.
ReplyDeleteProbation directors cannot be compared to Probation Chief Officers of the past who gave a damn about probation values.
Sad to say but the managers, directors & other collaborators of HMPPS see this carping as unfair demonisation, as envy & an intransigent refusal to 'modernise'.
ReplyDeleteThey have no understanding that they might be misguided or otherwise just plain wrong. They are the 'excellent leaders', the 'usual suspects', the passive-aggressive complicit crew who, if there's ever a problem say " I'm just doing as I'm told" ... but they are quicker yet to exploit every situation to their own personal advantage & they know exactly who to align with, who to protect - & when. They adapt far more efficiently than a chameleon with go-faster stripes.
They have a skill set that is, in my humble opinion, not suited to a probation environment. It may serve them well in a kill-or-be-killed corporate organisation or the lickspittle civil service structure. But probation was (past tense noted) about enabling, understanding, developing, bringing-on, learning, embracing ideas, nurturing; and that was just how staff were treated. It was, at its best, an environment where best practice was rife, where compassion was acceptable & ego could be set aside.
The culture of 'fuck you I'm alright' - a cultural trope that was vigourously challenged by probation staff in the past - is now well-established, is endemic throughout the upper echelons, & is mimicked/aspired to.
Agree its become a nasty environment. You don't get the best out of staff by treating them as disposable and killing any assertiveness taken as a lack of compliance. Senior managers have no idea what the front line is like nor do they care. Just keep piling on the pressure with the attitude if you don't like it leave. It's a joke and affecting people physical and mental health but what do they care with there ridiculous bonuses and power they weild like a rod over us. Listen to how unhappy your staff are ffs
Delete