Why police and crime commissioners should not be the local vehicle for probation reform
We are in discussion with the Ministry of Justice and various interested organisations about the future of probation. We have developed a blueprint for how we could solve the problems created by Chris Grayling’s disastrous reforms but there are some structural issues that are proving contentious.
Some people are suggesting that police and crime commissioners should be the local agency overseeing probation. I disagree. This is why.
Firstly there is a matter of principle. It would be wrong for an authority that is charged with overseeing policing with its investigative role also to oversee the infliction of a sentence. This creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly if there is any element of private profit-making bodies involved. That way lies America – not normally something to be emulated when it comes to criminal justice. It was not many years ago that the Crown Prosecution Service was established to split the investigative and prosecution roles as they were seen to be in conflict. Justice demands balances and separation.
Secondly, the PCCs have to seek election, and re-election. It would be too tempting to exploit the management of offenders for personal political gain. Whilst I like to think the mainstream parties would, normally, be responsible in their rhetoric (not always the case) about managing offenders, there have been a lot of independents and mavericks standing for election for PCC and they easily create a brouhaha about how they would use public humiliation or excessive punishments.
It is not good enough to say that it is the courts that decide on the punishment, as they simply direct people to agencies running community sentences. Indeed, magistrates have repeatedly said that they do not know enough about how community sentences are delivered. So it would be easy for a PCC or a candidate to go rogue and stir up a feeding frenzy calling for excessive punishments.
Thirdly, there is no need to involve elected officials in the delivering of court-ordered sentences. This does not need to be part of the electoral structure. Probation should be a professional service, as it always used to be when it was the most successful public service for over a century. I want professionals who are skilled and qualified to drive buses and pilot airplanes and conduct surgical operations, and I want professional probation officers to oversee people in the community who have committed offences. It is a skilled job and we want it done properly so that people can desist from crime and communities can be safer.
Fourthly, the story of victims services is not a good precedent. The devolution of victims services to PCCs saw a nationally understood and well-functioning organisation, Victim Support, undermined and its budget handed piecemeal to PCCs to do as they wish. Now there is no single authoritative voice for victims and local services are beholden to short-term funding and to the whim of the local PCCs. Victims services are fragmented and quiescent.
The Howard League’s vision for the future of probation is for a strong and independent public voice for probation, which oversees a couple of hundred thousand people every year. Local delivery of services should be supported by a national structure that guides on best practice and training. Local independence is crucial. Of course, local probation should be networked into policing, prisons and courts, as it always was in the past.
There is a good case for PCCs to be part of that network, but probation must be independent locally and its first and most crucial relationship must be with the courts not the police or PCCs. The courts must have confidence that probation and community sentences are not being politically driven or they will not get used.
The government has a consultation out suggesting that a public service is largely reinstated in Wales but that England simply redraws the 21 areas into 10, apparently a vain attempt to make the community rehabilitation companies more profitable as they have been squealing about not making enough money. This will not sort out the problem.
Probation and community sentences can play an important part in helping people to lead crime-free lives. It can save the taxpayer money by reducing the unnecessary use of prison. It can help reduce crime and protect victims. It needs to be given the structure, autonomy and freedom from political interference to do the job.
Frances Crook
“Probation and community sentences can play an important part in helping people to lead crime-free lives. It can save the taxpayer money by reducing the unnecessary use of prison. It can help reduce crime and protect victims. It needs to be given the structure, autonomy and freedom from political interference to do the job.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this 100% and it should be adopted by our probation masters. Probation doesn’t work as a politician’s play thing, and shouldn’t be aligned in any way with prisons or the police.
... but our probation directors won’t say this as then they won’t get on the queens honours list !!!
DeleteI have to agree with Frances Crooks arguments for not putting ptobation services in the hands of PCCs. It would I believe, create a service that was directed by whose back was being scratched at any particular time.
ReplyDeletePCCs are becoming too important in their own little world. Some are now even demanding the same powers as elected Mayors, and all want to make their own personal mark on the office they hold.
Personally I think creating the position of PCC was a government folly, and a folly they will regret over time.
Public services like probation need to be delivered universally with the reigns held by central government, otherwise it will just become even more fragmented then it already is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-45344326
'Getafix
There are two sides to every court case – the prosecution and the defence. PCC’s are most defiantly on the prosecution side of the fence and therefore cannot be impartial - a position where the Probation Service have to be.
ReplyDeleteIn the past 13 years that I have been a Court Duty Officer I have seen a distinct change in how the Probation representation in court is received. When Probation is represented by a team of trusted knowledgeable and professional court officers who give meaningful advice and present detailed informative reports they are invariably listened too. The sentencing advice a recommendations are trusted by the court and defendants are sentenced accordingly.
That has given Probation a substantial amount of influence in the court – far more then before.
But with that influence comes a huge amount of responsibility to be totally impartial and get it right, as we not only have a duty to the court but also a duty to the defendant.
If probation was run by PCC’s the offenders would trust probation even less. IOM, MAPPA, etc, these were all ways of aligning Probation with the police. We cannot expect to gain trust of the offenders if we represent the very same services that arrested and prosecuted them. The very same services that have a bullying culture, that is Institutionally racist, and thst does not allow offenders to work for them (except as snitches and informants), etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat future for probation?
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to have an opinion on how probation is shaped, that is everyone except probation itself.
Why?
... because the directors and senior managers of probation are happy not being allowed to have a say (thus protecting their cushy position, pension and future OBE), while being proactive in ensuring their minions beneath them (aka the probation staff that do all the work) do not have a say.
DeleteThat comment 19:56 is spot on and hit the nail on the head
DeleteWow ain't that the truth.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thirdsector.co.uk/peter-stanford-reacting-nonsensical-funding-decisions/governance/article/1491429
ReplyDeleteThere is a round of "stakeholders" events on the go. The opportunity to define "stakeholders" has been missed. The implied definition misses out our clients, the workers, the courts, the public. So basically a carve up of the owners then
ReplyDeleteThe ‘workers’, haha, you’re on a different planet. Under the Tories ‘stakeholders’ means Interserve, MTCNovo, Sodexo, etc!
DeleteI would be fonder of Howard Leagues master plan (and lord knows they are on it and getting the point across) if they proposed "Probation" with a capital P as a thing and as a profession. Call me a sentimental old Hector, but we need the identity and heart
ReplyDeleteIf probation doesn’t respect probation why should anyone else?!
DeleteChief Probation Officers do not exist any mote? If this is true, I imagine it is, what is a Probation Officer?
ReplyDeleteChief Probation Officers haven’t existed since about 2007 when Probation Areas became Probation Trusts and it’s Chief Officers became known as CEO’s. Since TR they’ve been known as Directors and Assistant Directors of Probation. They do not have to be qualified probation officers either. Probation officers are now routinely known as Offender Managers and Responsible Officers. Offender Managers and Responsible Officers do not have to be qualified probation officers either. This is not surprising since 50% of probation is now no longer called probation, instead Community Rehabilitation Companies. Even our so-called professional association, the Probation Institute, ranks qualified and non-qualified probation workers as the same.
Delete..... oh ... and the police now ‘vet’ all probation workers and decide who can work as a Probation Officer, Offender Manager or Responsible Officers!!
DeleteHmmmm? Confused.com. There are no chiefs, A Probation Officer is a term that is superceded by other nomenclature, the Institute of Probation represents (no, I'm lost here)? To be a Probation Officer requires Police approval, very confusing. Run this by me again, like I am an idiot, Probation, what is it?
Deletehttp://ksscrc.co.uk/news-new-chief-probation-officer-appointed-for-kent-surrey-and-sussex
DeleteHa ha. 00:14 I claim idiot and no knowledge. I like the focus on the profession, it deserves a Cheif Probation Officer and professional cohort. Most professions have a Professional lead and a Business lead. Still protest about profit from Probation though. x
DeleteI for one insist on being called a Probation Officer. It is what I am and what I do. I have no time for those describing themselves as Responsible Officers etc. Stop the silliness and call a nail a nail not a small spikey thing you hit. By the way Ms Crook also questioned whether those POS working in CRCs were POs anymore and technically I believe she is correct.
ReplyDelete“Probation should be a professional service, as it always used to be when it was the most successful public service for over a century.”
Delete... and then along came TR and broke probation in two, and it was no longer a professional or successful service.
The End.