Can Probation Ever Break Free?

As far as I can tell, most informed probation commentators past and present agree that probation should never have been part of HMPPS and it must regain its identity, local roots and ethos as soon as possible. It's not happening though, so what's going on?. 

Publication of the March edition of the Probation Institute Journal appears silent on the matter, but I note some encouraging messages such as this from a piece on Bill McWilliams as an introduction to the memorial lecture in July by Mark Drakeford Public Policy and Probation : Is there a Welsh Way?   

Bill wondered “what works?” well before that phrase became totemic in the Probation Service. His primary concern, though, was with defining and defending the moral heart of probation supervision, and with the knowledge, responsibility and craft of individual officers themselves, which he famously did not want dictated by “policy” or “managerial” requirements. He nowhere explained the personal roots of this preoccupation with effectiveness, but his familiarity with medicine as both a morally authoritative and evidence-based profession, autonomous even when embedded within the state, may well have underpinned his mission to achieve similar status for the Probation Service.

The Probation Service that Bill wished to see never materialised. Conceptions of best and progressive practice changed, dimensions of analysis added that Bill had not considered. Our memorial lecturers have borne witness to that. But the tension between what probation could be at its best and what government tries to force it to be, remains, and many lecturers have engaged directly with the politics of probation in our distinctively dark times, rarely without some hint of optimism. What survives of Bill in the lectures now, whoever the steering group asks to do them, is the same fused spirit of commitment and loyalty to probation ideals on the one hand, and intellectually informed critique on the other. What probation officers need to know to practice well, how they should be trained, supported and organised, what goals are feasible and desirable (and what are not) and where political support for it lies – all these still bear thinking about, perhaps now more than ever. Bill McWilliams was good at thinking. He would have found as much to argue with as to agree with in the things that have been said in his name over the (almost) past quarter century, but I am certain he would wholeheartedly support the enterprise.

--oo00oo--

In a tribute to another much-respected probation insider and CPO David Faulkner, his article Probation in Post-Liberal England from 2018 is republished and includes this:-

An effective and influential probation service is especially important in a situation of this kind. Probation works in those places where people’s lives are most precarious and their future most uncertain, and where the effects of social, economic and criminal justice policy come together. The country needs the service to do much more than punish offenders and coerce them into socially acceptable behaviour. Probation staff should encourage offenders to find opportunities and take advantage of them, to find a direction and purpose in their lives and to have some hope for the future. The service should establish or re-establish a place for itself in the communities which it serves, with a presence, an identity, a sense of belonging and an authority to make itself heard and felt in those communities. 

Staff should concern themselves not only with the offenders assigned to them but also with offenders’ families and the environment in which they have to make their lives; they should show that they are responsive to those who are affected by or concerned about crime or trouble in their communities or neighbourhoods, and that they have something to contribute. They should work closely with the courts, other services (and not only those which are thought of as part of the criminal justice system), local government and civil society. They should be out and about and not spend too much time in offices or looking at computer screens.

Probation should not be thought of as being somehow apart from and nothing to do with ‘ourselves’, or with ordinary people going about their lives. The arrangements for probation’s management and accountability should reflect and facilitate that wider role, and should enable work to be arranged to suit local conditions as well as comply with national standards and objectives. 

The parameters for the service’s reform should therefore include: 

• Separation from the Prison Service; 

• A local structure based on a suitable number of geographical areas; 

• Accountability to probation authorities that are representative of local communities and stakeholders; 

• Strong and independent professional leadership; 

• The private sector’s role, if any, should be confined to specific, limited tasks commissioned by the new probation authorities.

--oo00oo--

In Lord Ramsbotham's thorough Report People are not Things to the Labour Party in 2019, he was also absolutely clear on the direction of travel:-

12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 

From all this I deduce that: 

a. There is no reason why probation should not be returned to public ownership, but that return will require a great deal of preliminary work, which must not be rushed, but the role and purpose of probation must be defined. 

(1) Many respondents believe that the traditional ethos still runs deep, and there are likely to be sufficient numbers of good people to provide an organisational infrastructure. 

b. To judge from the JCS, NAO, PAC and HMCIOP reports, currently probation is in a parlous state, there having been no strategic direction since the introduction of TR, from the MoJ, NOMS or HMPPS. 

c. Probation should be considered in the context of a review of the CJS, and not in isolation, and any review must include all the partners who are essential to the delivery of probation services. 

d. Anyone tasked with reviewing the delivery of probation services must take account of the conclusions and recommendations, mentioned in this report, of the JCS, the NAO, the PAC and HMCIOP. 

e. HMPPS should be abolished, and the Probation Service regarded as separate from, and different to, the Prison Service, under its own Director General. 

f. The provision of probation services should be regarded as a local rather than a national responsibility. 

g. Probation should be organised to conform with existing local government, police and justice boundaries, rather than DWP ones. 

h. If organised regionally smaller commissioning areas should be considered. i. Both the private and the voluntary sectors should be included in local provision, but neither should be involved in the governance of probation.

--oo00oo--

In 2019, seven influential organisations concerned with probation and its future joined forces and published the following:- 

Probation Alliance Initial Position Statement on Principles for a Future Model for Probation

The following have been agreed as initial principles which should inform urgent discussions about a future model for the structure of probation services in England and Wales. 

1. Current Position 

• Management of, and decision making in relation to the current position is creating serious risks to the public, to the confidence of sentencers, to the morale of the profession and to service users. These risks were set out in our original and follow-up letters to the Secretary of State. They have been clearly highlighted by the NAO report. 

• We will continue to press for a pause in the process and the transfer of Community Rehabilitation Companies to the original 21 companies wholly owned by the Secretary of State set up in public ownership in 2014 to facilitate this. 

• We have additional significant concerns about the speedy roll-out of the Offender Management In Custody programme. This is transforming the Probation landscape, creating new “facts on the ground” which may cut off options that could emerge from the current review which affords opportunities for new thinking. 

2. Principles for Future Models 

• The recreation of an independent professional leadership for Probation, for example, the reestablishment of Chief Probation Officer roles. 

• The reunification of Probation 

• A publically owned service with directly employed staff 

• Governance of Probation should ensure both national and active local engagement. 

• Dedicated funding must remain the responsibility of central government and where devolved must be ring-fenced 

• A future model must integrate provision of case management and the delivery of core interventions, like unpaid work and accredited programmes, under public ownership whilst encouraging the provision of rehabilitative service from other providers, particularly the voluntary sector. 

• A future model should ensure that generic services that are fundamental to rehabilitation – health, housing, education, social care - are co-ordinated across central and local government. 

• Evidence of best practice should inform future structures. This should involve looking at jurisdictions beyond England and Wales, including Scotland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the USA. The case for looking more widely is strengthened when the future model of Probation is considered in the light of the Secretary of State’s ambition to abolish the use of short sentences. 

• A future model must ensure that use of technology both as a tool for assisting community supervision and as a recording/case management system must be fully aligned with probation values and best practice and should support rather than supersede or impede face to face engagement. 

• A future model must ensure that Probation practitioners and leaders are appropriately trained. Professional development, qualifications and ethical standards should be overseen by an independent body.

3. Possible Models 

• We agree that we should continue discussion on further aspects of a future model. 

• There is broad agreement that in any future model, publicly owned and run Probation services should be part of a local joint commissioning structures. 

• The role of Police and Crime Commissioners and particularly Metropolitan Mayors should be recognised but there must be the same operational independence for chief probation officers as there is currently for chief constables and a clear separation between Police and those involved in the delivery of sentences. 

• Future models should address the interface with Youth Justice particularly around transition to adulthood. 

Probation Institute 

Napo 

UNISON 

Howard League for Penal Reform 

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 

Centre for Justice Innovation 

BASW Criminal Justice England

--oo00oo--

Although the Probation Alliance seems no more, as far as I'm aware the Napo position remains clear regarding separation from HMPPS. This from a briefing document dated 2nd May 2019:-

4. Total reunification - public. Clearly, this is the major objective of our campaign and one we will continue to fight for. The Wales model (if it were to be the preferred option for Government) would give us a real head start, but we can still hold some hope on the possibility of the Minister accepting that a total rethink is the best option. However, any reunification would still require us to push for the NPS to have local accountability and budgets as well as our claim that Probation should be removed from the civil service and given back its former independence.

--oo00oo--

I'm pretty sure AGM resolutions have endorsed the policy of seeking a split from HMPPS and civil service control, but I don't hear much in the way of campaigning. Have we all given up?