I have long been fascinated by the criminal justice system in the Netherlands and was really happy to see so many representatives from their three probation organisations at a recent conference I attended. It was obvious that those I spoke to had been tracking the progress of TR and were well informed. They told me they had learned a lot from our experience and would not wish to see a similar development that they described in apocalyptic terms.
The Dutch have much to talk about positively. Whilst we were bureaucratising our probation service and embarking on a huge cognitive behavioural experiment (without a corresponding investment in evaluation and research) whilst simultaneously pursuing a retributive and punitive criminal justice policy including a huge increase in the use of prison the Dutch were thinking about what society needs to do to tackle offending i.e. More investment in and commitment to reoffending and the use of custody in most cases as a last resort. They looked in disbelief as England and Wales ignored what had been proven to work on their doorstep and in fact told them their approach was better. Despite what was said to generations of probation trainees the approach taken in England and Wales was not an approach that meta analysis of old research had proven was likely to succeed in reducing reoffending or the number of people being sent to prison but rather a modified version of a system that had failed and been largely abandoned by every jurisdiction in which it had been tried except England and Wales until TR came along and we were transported back to the Dark Ages - be cautious about what you are told by government officials bearing gifts.
By contrast in the Netherlands they were focusing on rehabilitation and decarceration and the creation of a system that would ultimately lead to the closure of prisons and reductions in reoffending. I have always thought the Dutch model was far more likely to succeed.
Interestingly their concerns are not about deciding centrally controlled diktats from faceless NOMS/NPS bean counters or the tail spin trajectories of failing privatisation experiments but rather the large numbers of staff now being made redundant from prison closures because so many prisons are now empty. One Dutch official joked to me that the UK should cease building prisons as they could lease at least 30 ready built well designed prisons for a knock down rate in the Netherlands that could easily be fully staffed by highly trained bilingual Dutch prison staff. He pointed out that foreign multinationals already run prisons badly in the UK the difference would be to use a well run prison system that has a track record of helping to rehabilitate and reduce repeat offending. Of course it would also need a highly motivated and well resourced probation service to complete the job but unfortunately that no longer exists in England and Wales because the present government has decided that they want to keep building more prisons, understaffing them, and stuffing them full of people to bursting point having decimated the formerly well regarded probation service and deprofessionalising rehabilitation.
The government continue to see locking people up as an expensive but as far as they are concerned a good use of taxpayers money as it consistently wins votes as a popular move for dealing with those who offend (especially with those who naively think prison as the ultimate expression of retribution and punishment actually works) and the policy also conveniently lines the pockets of their corporate friends and supporters making the Conservative Party even more wealthy.
What is clear from the Dutch model is that the criminal justice system in England and Wales needs a great deal of transforming and more enlightened leadership that acts independently of party politics and political ideology and corporate interests and is instead based instead on what the research indicates is the approach most likely to succeed and therefore offers the best value to the whole of society. If for instance the probation service is to succeed again it needs to be reformed as one integrated service with well trained and motivated staff that is responsive to local needs. The rest of the criminal justice system needs to be taken in almost the opposite direction than it is going with better integration and a total rejection of privatisation with very strictly governed use of outsourcing in exceptional cases where expertise or technical services cannot be provided in-house.
As I have said before there is much that we can learn from jurisdictions that are a little bit closer to home who aim to rehabilitate and reintegrate their citizens and address the underlying causes of those who have offended rather than just locking them up, doing little to rehabilitate them, and chucking them out again without much support with few options. We need our criminal justice system to function for the good of society not simply for the political interests of whichever government happens to be in power.
David A Raho
--oo00oo--
Background to the above piece can be found here:-
In 2013, 19 prisons in the Netherlands closed because the country didn't have enough criminals to fill them. Now, five more are slated to close their doors by the end of the summer, according to internal documents obtained by The Telegraaf. While these closures will result in the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs, only 700 of which will transition into other unknown roles within Dutch law enforcement, the trend of closing prisons follows a steady drop in crime since 2004.
The problem of empty jail cells has even gotten to the point where, last September, the country imported 240 prisoners from Norway just to keep the facilities full. Still, according to The Telegraaf's report, Justice Minister Ard van der Steur announced to parliament that the cost of maintaining sparsely-filled prisons was cost-prohibitive for the small country.
A number of factors underlie the Netherlands' ability to keep its crime rate so low, namely, relaxed drug laws, a focus on rehabilitation over punishment, and an electronic ankle monitoring system that allows people to re-enter the workforce. A study published in 2008 found the ankle monitoring system reduced the recidivism rate by up to half compared to traditional incarceration. Instead of wasting away in a jail cell, eating up federal dollars, convicted criminals are given the opportunity to contribute to society.
These measures all add up to an unbelievably low incarceration rate: Although the Netherlands has a population of 17 million, only 11,600 people are locked up. That's a rate of 69 incarcerations per 100,000 people. The US, meanwhile, has a rate of 716 per 100,000 — the highest in the world. It's marked largely by its lack of attention to social services and rehabilitation programs once prisoners finish their sentences. Without a safety net to give them any other options, many fall back into their old habits.
Seeing as how the Netherlands is literally importing prisoners to keep jails full, larger countries like the US could learn a thing or two from the Dutch model.
Why are the Dutch surprised at our TR disaster?, everyone knows the UK has been learning off the US 'Charles Murray' model for the past 25 years. Tbh I'm not encouraged by Raho's or Napo's input into the use of EM. We don't have a Dutch CJS model in the UK and never will under this government, so their input is feeding the Tory agenda to replace what's left the probation service with EM and raise a nice bit of revenue for private probation companies. Haven't they learnt anything, the little pig can't dine with the wolf unless it is the dinner or become like the wolf. The Ministry of Justice allows no middle ground, and if in doubt visit your local private probation office and see the disaster in action.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen private probation companies keenly attend events about the future of electronic monitoring. Funny that!!
DeleteThanks Jim for posting my morning musings. You will gather I am a fan of the Dutch model. I've attended a number of electronic monitoring events over several years as either as a presenter or independent researcher. I would not agree that it is the case that private probation companies are particularly keen to attend events about the future of electronic monitoring or feel entirely welcome when they do. The participant lists would confirm this. They are of course involved in the supervision of cases that involve electronic monitoring so it would be surprising if they were not there. I certainly want them there when I am presenting because many of my comments as a presenter are aimed in their direction as they are players in our system even if many of us may wish things were different and campaigned against TR. I would like to encourage them to now be more involved in a constructive way particularly if it is the plan to expand electronic monitoring (as many of us feel is inevitable) rather than leave this to a company that is not involved in delivering probation services and not interested in delivering them or working with probation. I think we can learn much from the Dutch model that invests in an end to end process of support and rehabilitation and does not see EM as a punishment - neither do those who are tagged. They are for instance introducing voluntary alcohol monitoring tags for those who want to reduce their alcohol use. I think we get much wrong and not only is our criminal justice system being deprofessionalised and dismantled but also the welfare state that though under attack from a government with a very clear neoliberal agenda continues to try to support rehabilitation as it has done so for many years. So its getting harder for us to adopt the Dutch system as this would malso mean reversing the current governments devastating welfare reforms. Recent EU research indicated that in England and Wales involving probation in EM projects was not seen by private sector EM service providers as something they would regard as added value at present - this is something I would like to see change. I know this view is not a popular one but it is a view that I believe is supported by the available research. Not sure about the pig wolf analogy as at the last conference I went to the MoJ representative appeared to be visibly avoiding me as he knew I was keen to talk to him about the EM strategy if this exists. Funny that ;-)
DeleteWhat planet you on? Expand electronic tagging to be delivered by MTCNOVO, Working Links and Sodexo, that's the last thing we need. The fact is this government is not willing to learn from any other model unless it involves privatising services and reaping the profits for its associated shareholders.
DeleteThat's not what he said. EM will be expanded irrespective of probations involvement but if they are there is more money in EM than in probation. He is clearly firmly on the planet talking sense.
DeleteSo let's be part of it because they're going to do it anyway. Right, good logic there.
DeleteEM is a sham and privateer CRC's would love to get their hands on it so they can get some of the corrupt profits that Serco and G4S made.
16:38 There is no flaw in Raho's logic and having worked with him he is one of the most principled probation officers I know who could have climbed the ladder a long time ago but prefers to be down in the engine room shovelling coal. If we don't get involved in some of these things then there will be no us to either get involved or not. CRCs would not love to get involved in EM most of them regard anything the MoJ are involved in as toxic and not to be touched with a barge pole.
DeleteBy the way if you searched the internet then its obvious that Raho has been one of the few people who has pursued the Serious Fraud Office relentlessly asking them about information concerning their investigation into the allegations about tagging. Without him and some other brave souls digging around and investigating matters then the press probably wouldn't have had a story for you to refer to. So cut the guy some slack and enough of the flippant one liners.
It's not just about EM and reducing imprisonment. The entire CJS needs to be revamped and there needs to be more investment and access to jobs, housing, etc. The Dutch and related countries even see it as an asset to employ a changed ex-offender when we're not even on the starting line yet until legislation allows the sealing of criminal records and the removing the discriminatory practices associated with the CRB, DBS and criminal record checks. Reinstating and improving the probation service is part of where these better countries are at, and if the UK is to do the same this has to involve returning it to its social work roots. I sat in a lecture by David Farrell to a NOMS conference recently who said this too, not that they listened. So yes EM could work but alongside prisons and probation rather than instead of.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! A few of us are bravely holding the fort at our crc office but the battlements are starting to crumble now and won't be long before we are forced to surrender. Sadly there will be few spoils to be had because we have already been asset stripped and have lost many brave warriors and maybe a few deserters who fail to turn up and fight because they are too demoralised!
DeleteI fully agree. I would like to see probation running EM with contractors delivering it the way that we specify. The rate of imprisonment in the UK is unsustainable and the underfunding of rehabilitation whether NPS or CRC is nothing short of scandalous. I also believe in standardisation and an end to the commodification of probation services and an artificially contrived probation market but until government policy changes that's the reality of what we have to deal with. The most successful recent pilots in this country in my view have all benefited from probation involvement.
DeleteSo participate in the government commodification of prisons and probation because we're currently to weak to change it. No I totally disagree with that and it is this short sighted approach that has contributed to the current state of TR affairs. Those like yourself carving a little niche out of helping along the probation privatisation agenda are as bad as those who implemented TR. There will be little improvement if we move to a system of hundreds of thousands of tagged offenders but with little change to the current state, investment or development of prisons and probation.
DeleteI don't think you could ever accuse Mr Raho of carving out a niche. If so he has chosen the riskiest means possible of doing so. Easy to say no way and ignore the changed landscape. Involvement in EM could save jobs.
DeleteAs soon as EM expands there will be no more probation officers apart from those sitting in call centres.
DeleteBottom line. Forget about EM, the Dutch and everything else. The focus should be on providing support and services to help and guide people to change. To achieve this does not need to involve punishments of prisons or house arrest via electronic tagging. Punishments do not work.
ReplyDeleteEM is not going away but we can try to use it costructive ly like the Dutch do. Of course we want traditional probation but we won't get it back by acting like ostriches
DeleteRubbish, as we learnt with TR the worse thing to do is to engage with these ideas to get rid of probation. EM, tagging etc is about profit for the government and those holding the contracts. We won't have a Dutch style model until we focus on all the areas of desistance and improving the CJS. Just focusing using on EM and hoping the rest falls into place is very short sighted. Mr Raho is not helping us at all.
Delete16:46 There is no profit for the government in EM unless it results in reduced costs due to effectiveness in reducing reoffending. The money is currently paid to private contractors some of the previous contractors are still being investigated (I am the only one still pursuing this through FOI requests etc) all corporations give any surplus (profit) they make to their shareholders (its the rules). However in other jurisdictions the money goes to the probation service who then pay essential contractors to provide the equipment etc. and crucially employ probation staff to do the assessments and supervision of those subject to curfews, conditions and so forth. These services are not talking about cutting staff but are considering increasing them. They are actually able to do more work that is purely aimed at rehabilitation as a result of precise targeting and proportional use. The way EM is used by the private sector in England and Wales is currently problematic non-targeted and lumbering in my view because it ignores the probation service as irrelevant. Our criminal justice system is indeed urgently in need of reform and reorganisation as it has been severely damaged by TR and even some of the new owners and providers are privately in agreement about that.
DeleteHowever there appears to be little public concern or political will to do something about making the changes we might want. I am not proposing that if EM is to be embraced by probation then it should ever be used to replace probation staff and I oppose any development that does that. However our best chance to oppose TR has passed by and many of those who now feel rightly angered at what has occurred need to focus on how best to remain employed and do the job we were trained to do.
Even if some companies fail it is highly unlikely that this or any future electable government will bring the probation service back into the public sector unless there is a firm commitment specifying this in no uncertain terms in their election manifesto. There would be considerable legal and contractual obstacles to this that would need a government with a considerable majority with a strong commitment to undoing a lot of the legislative changes of successive previous governments. So one strategy you might use is to try to provide a way through the contractual mess that has been created that gives the probation service a somewhat changed range of responsibilities. In a market (even one you might fundamentally oppose and abhor) you have to follow the money and investment and if possible tap into this to achieve the aims of the organisation you work for. The government is spending money on EM and reducing the probation budgets year on year.
All I am proposing is we try to find ways to move forward (going back is not a viable option short of revolution) and encourage others to make a bid for the contracts that might be available to try to rebuild something resembling a modern probation service that uses available technology appropriately. We may not like the situation we find ourselves in but it is what it is until it changes again. I cant see any real alternative that would not lead to us finding ourselves with a lot of time on our hands to contemplate how nothing we did ever helped. So if you think I am not helping then please propose a viable alternative.
Rubbish. We know Tory ministers will profit one way or another, either during this job or the next.
Delete22:16 Play them at their own game is all or resort to rubbishing everything you can't understand.
DeleteIncreasing use of tagging is not the answer to reducing reoffending. There are alternatives and if we ignore this then we are being played.
DeleteThe MoJ want to increase tagging. It is not the answer to reducing reoffending but other countries have used it in a different way as part of the solution. The MoJ is well aware of the alternatives but we should not let them dominate the narrative.
DeleteIt may have a place for certain crimes and certain situations but the courts are slapping on EM without doing any checks on the addresses. Nps not doing checks either in all cases and oral reports will make matters worse. The result is, for example, a young man with mental health problems and previous dv being given tag when he lives with partner ( previous victim of his dv) and child. Also people being tagged to hostel addresses where they put others at risk. It us wrong to incarcerate offenders in their homes when it can put others in the home at risk. Not against but please can we have proper checks and not be causing more problems than we are solving?
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about RFID tagging in relation to curfew that can also be used in a limited way for geofencing. This does indeed need proper assessment and for these assessments to be properly resourced as they are elsewhere. The probable expansion of tagging by the MoJ involves so called next generation GPS location tagging. If the probation service are not involved then I would argue that this may not achieve what the government expects it to achieve. Other types of tagging ie those used to monitor alcohol might be used creatively in other ways (other than purely monitoring abstinence) including in domestic abuse cases where a certain level of drinking might for instance be tolerated but excessive drinking (linked with previous episodes of violent or aggressive behaviour)result for example in an automatic call to the police. The way EM is being used in England and Wales - that is actually the largest use in Europe - would benefit from the involvement of the probation service and of course this would need to be funded. We do indeed need legislation to stop curfews being made inappropriately without proper checks being made regarding suitability. Probation staff could perform these checks.
DeleteGPs tags are too expensive and do not work. The main problem at the moment is actually the poor battery life of the best current models which makes it unenforceable.
DeleteWe do not need an increase in tagging and there are much better alternatives to the use of prison. Using tagging is a punishment and we know punishments do not work. Looking at the Dutch model it is not the actual imprisoning people in their homes that stops reoffending.
We have people currently tagged in the uk and we know it's not the tag alone that stops reoffending. It's not tagging that needs to be increased but everything else, ie access to jobs, housing, addiction services and the support from those such as the probation service.
Beware of the wolves in sheeps clothing telling us 'tagging works'.
21:07 You are right that GPS tags are expensive and they do indeed have severe battery problems that make you walk in circles dragging your foot behind you - no argument there. I've been trying to work on a new battery design that would have allowed tags to be made a third of the size but Dyson has patented a vital component that the Taiwanese are now no longer able to supply. The MoJ has also failed miserably to come up with something that works after getting into dispute with successive equipment manufacturers who either pulled out or conceded that they couldn't produce what was required. One company exports their GPS devices all over the globe and the other was a company that usually supplies the defence industry. However other systems are used elsewhere and they are enforceable but these companies do not seem to have caught the MoJs eye. Korea only uses GPS and seem to be quite content to carry on doing so with no apparent enforcement difficulties. I am not arguing for an increase in tagging however what I am arguing for is to tap into the resources the government clearly intends to spend on it in future. I do not personally believe in using tagging as a punishment and have never argued that it is although I know some who have done in order to make their proposals more politically palatable though in practice they are keen that rehabilitation should play a part. I agree there are better alternatives to tagging and that there is good evidence that tagging alone does not reduce re offending. However all the things you mention assist those who are for instance released from prison early on tag or who would otherwise be sent to prison. I'm not sure where anyone would get the impression that I want to increase tagging unless it was making inroads into those who would otherwise be languishing in prison any more than I would want to decrease any other community disposal that was appropriate to achieving rehabilitation. I want to decrease people being sent to prison and serving long sentences in prison when they could be supervised and successfully rehabilitated by probation staff in the community. Tagging might assist in the process of rehabilitation as it does elsewhere when used a bit differently than we do here with the involvement of staff dedicated to rehabilitation rather than punishment and control. The recent EU research indicates we use it very badly in England and Wales and are blinkered when it comes to looking at where it is used to assist in rehabilitation. Why wouldn't I want to say something about this? Isn't that what we are about or are we now simply data input clerks soon to be call centre operatives? I am not a wolf in sheeps clothing I just think it is important to find out about these things. Second thoughts I wish I was more of a wolf running around the sheep at the MoJ encouraging them to take probation and rehabilitation a bit more seriously. So I would certainly not be telling you 'tagging works' in England and Wales but it might be useful in certain circumstances when used appropriately and proportionately ie not as some kind of universal techno solution.
DeleteAnyway time to get some kip.
So you're working on your own tag battery. Sounds like a nice little earner.
DeleteYou're right you shouldn't be telling us 'tagging works', because it doesn't.
23:27 I believe you are a victim of Mr Raho's idea of a joke the clue being in the leg pulling reference. Don't worry it's late and we are all a bit slow to catch on. I agree with everything else he said.
DeleteI wouldn't have noticed as blends with the rest of the fanciful claims here about EM.
DeleteGood schools, employment, support with drug and alcohol problems, mental health services, good town planning, leisure facilities, good housing, an inclusive society. Solutions to crime. The rest is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear
DeleteI think you need to move to Denmark because all those things have been hollowed out or destroyed by the present government and we are the ones people mistakenly think are responsible for the bullshit.
DeleteScotland maybe ?
DeleteDavid.. checks could be made by probation but they are not because the system is in chaos and the courts are under pressure to sentence fast. Crc are not involved in sentencing since the split. Nps being cut and the old days of 2 psr interviews are long gone.it is scandalous that dv cases are being sentenced without a full written assessment and time to make proper checks.
ReplyDeleteThis is why they will use the IOM model and probably the police will assess for tag/EM suitability at arrest stage. This will cut out the need for probation input and there are already places where the police have looked into partnering with tagging companies. Some respond to this by saying "well more reason for probation to get involved now". The reality is that probation will not be involved as we see with how tagging in London currently works. If this government was to allow probation involvement it wouldn't be currently destroying it. Obviously this may not apply to CRC owners who would happily buy into EM, not to make it work but to make profit.
DeleteNo one who is currently making a bid for assessment would propose doing so without being paid to do it. The police have initiated a number of successful tagging schemes but the best ones involve probation doing the assessments and they are well aware of this. The Courts are struggling as you say and it is unfair to expect court probation staff to take on extra tasks without their existing workload and the demands placed on them being taken into account. In the alcohol pilot in London 90% of the cases were supervised in the CRC. The cases were flagged by the police as potentially suitable at the arrest stage, NPS court probation staff carried out a failure brief assessment. The CRC owners can't compete with the curfew contractors but they can use other forms of EM such as GPS and alcohol monitoring with permission. My recent FOI requests revealed that only two of the new owners had biometric reporting EM in their operating models. In its present form probation cannot reasonably take on other tasks therefore it needs to find other funding streams to help fund its core tasks and retain jobs.
DeleteStop kidding yourself. CRC owners Sodexo Links would love a slice of electronic tagging profits. What a great bit of innovation to add to the model, and no expensive probation officers provided. They don't even need to coerce the magistrates association to send the business their way as the MoJ will see to that, probably based on a bit of fag packet research by the Probation Institute and Policy Exchange. They won't even need to worry about those bloody prolific offenders as the police will happily take over 'offender nanagement' if the bid to own Mappa Cat 1's fails.
DeleteAND if you are corrupt and greedy enough you can even keep claiming when the offenders are dead. Which judging by the current suicide figures is increasingly likely. Also you can tag the homeless offenders and check that they are in the same doorway every night. Very handy!
ReplyDeleteYou lot depress me. Tagging is the way forward. You cant steal if your tagged to an address
ReplyDeleteHave you ever worked with anyone on a tag?
DeleteYou can't tag 24\7, so plenty of time to steal
Delete