A Matter of Principle

The battle for the future shape of probation is now well under way with more and more commentators making the case for a return to a stand-alone Probation Service free of the stultifying ethos of the Prison Service. The latest edition of the Probation Institute Journal sets out a number of principles that should be embraced:-  

Renationalising Probation?

Helen Schofield, Acting CEO of the Probation Institute, updates readers on recent discussions about the future of Probation.

A group of organisations have been working together in recent months to seek common ground on the future of Probation. Whilst not always in agreement we have found some strong initial principles and recognition of the more challenging issues. The importance of this work cannot be underestimated. No matter what the timescale for change it will be crucial that the organisations in the criminal justice system who care very much about the role and future of probation can speak with one voice on central concerns. 

We have published the Initial Principles and these are set out below. Since then discussions have enabled us to identify a set of further issues which will need considerable thought in informing the future. If there is a move to re-unite probation either completely or as in the proposed model for Wales (as anticipated in the Initial Principles) the model must look forward and address carefully many issues including the following: 

1. What is the core role? What is it that we want Probation to do going forward? 

2. The fusion of the Probation and Prison Services through NOMS and HMPPS needs review. This is clearly experienced as an uneven relationship and time needs to be taken to look at the benefits and disbenefits together with alternative models which locate probation more firmly in communities. 

3. The opportunities and risks entailed in GPS-enabled Electronic Monitoring, as a sentence of the court, must be grasped and addressed by Probation including the wider potential for supporting and enabling rehabilitation and protecting victims. 

4. Commissioning of voluntary sector work to enhance supervision in the community must be better resourced, more transparent and consistent, and taken forward through joint commissioning structures. 

5. Police and Crime Commissioners are very supportive and enabling in some areas, particularly with CRCs; their energy and potential role should be explored more fully and engaged more consistently. 

6. The active engagement of Health Trusts and Local Authorities in accepting responsibility for the mental and physical health, and housing of individuals who have committed offences in the community must be robustly re-enforced and re-imagined, and therefore requires review across government departments. 

7. There are a number of critical areas which will need careful attention in any reunification model including the current size of the workforce, roles and responsibilities of different grades, office accommodation and above all the dynamics of re-uniting a fractured workforce. 

8. There is important innovative practice in some CRCs which must be protected and either alternatively resourced or effectively integrated. 

The organisations working in collaboration are planning a Round Table Discussion with wider participation to look at these issues in detail. 

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 re-establishment 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 services 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