Wednesday 7 September 2022

Up For The Challenge?

Yesterday, in an ominous presage of things to come, the heavens opened and a new even darker chapter began. Undoubtedly the defenestration of Priti Patel and Dominic Raab is good news, whilst the arrival of Brandon Lewis as Justice Secretary must surely be cause for hope?
 

As we wait to find out, I thought I'd mention that viewing figures for the blog are still high averaging 2,000 a day and the post about the pay offer has been viewed nearly 3,000 times. Along with pay, it's clear there's widespread concern regarding the future of probation both as a distinct enterprise and as to its ethical basis. This is heartening for anyone who 'gets it',  cares for its survival and in particular seeks to revisit our famous mantra of 'advise, assist and befriend'.

In the course of this evolving discussion I'm always intrigued by historical perspectives, one being an editorial in the British Journal of Community Justice by Prof Paul Senior and as probation marked its centenary in 2007. I hadn't seen this before and I think it's worth reflecting on as part of a continuing discourse:-   

1907–2007 – PROBATION: WAKE, CELEBRATION OR RE-BIRTH? 

The history of the probation service often reads like a continuous roller coaster moving with the changing winds of political demands, research findings and/or policy innovation. 

It has rarely stood still and this year, one hundred years on from its inception as an ‘official’ service in the 1907 Probation of Offenders Act its capacity to adapt and survive may be under terminal threat at least in England and Wales. At a time when the concept of probation is impacting positively on penal reform in such diverse areas as Eastern Europe, South America and many other jurisdictions the changes being fashioned by the government's agenda for offender management and in particular its unbending desire for contestability processes to govern service delivery options might sound the death knell for probation as we know it. 

The National Probation Directorate only created in 2001 to run the then new national service - seeking to bring coordination and centralisation to the previous diversity of 50 + individual services - is to go out of existence. The creation of Probation Trusts with new governance arrangements could spell the end of the Probation Boards and the ending of the influence of the Probation Boards Association which, alongside Napo, has been crucial to probation’s survival in recent years. Does this matter to community justice? Has probation lost its direction and maybe its right to oversee community provision for offenders and to support resettlement processes? The answers may be partially located in the past, but also in the space the present uncertainties create and, maybe, there is a future still to grasp. 

Whatever else you level at probation over the past century it has been an organisation whose capacity for innovation and inventiveness, indeed re-inventiveness, has never dimmed. Often attracting practitioners of singular commitment and creativity, if within a maelstrom of philosophical differences, it has never stood still in trying to respond to the seemingly intractable problems people in trouble with the criminal justice system face. In 1978 David Haxby amongst others posed the question of what kind of agency probation might become. Could it hold on to its community orientation, would it become more driven by the needs of the court or would it transform itself into an agency of community control. This ‘care/control’ dilemma was seemingly always regarded as a driving feature of probation practice, though its interpretation and execution continually shifted as new ideas, approaches and values impacted upon its practical application. 

The control and enforcement perspective gathered political weight in the last two decades of the 20th century alongside a growing recognition of the role of victims. Probation practice retreated to the office, developed stylised programmatic responses using cognitive behavioural techniques, governed by risk assessment procedures which sometimes seemed to be followed to justify actions post-hoc rather than as a pragmatic response to need. Outside agencies, mainly, initially, from the voluntary and community sector, were engaged ever more readily to undertake the more community-oriented aspects of traditional practice and probation managers seemed to buckle under any demand to change their practices as government control under a penal populist bandwagon became more and more insistent. Indeed what is remarkable amidst all this is that probation, at least in terms of audit, seemed to reach most of the targets the Home Office has set. Yet this has not dimmed the political mission to make further changes. 

What conclusions can be drawn about this recent history? Has probation failed to be brave and should it have shown a more resistant attitude to the demands of Blairite modernity much as the police have attempted to do? Or is it its comparatively weak structural position which would always make resistance ineffective? Has it lost its influential parliamentary friends which protected it until the 1980s and has it, as a viable organisational structure, simply had its day? These are contested questions which in this year, the centenary of probation, we must explore. We need to draw once more on that spirit of creativity and innovation to continue to find a meaningful role into the next century. This means looking back to learn from some of the successes of our past history whilst shaping a modern probation service which can be a relevant and vibrant part of the criminal justice system. 

A consistent message from research is that the services which both support and rehabilitate and supervise and control offenders are essential and complementary elements to both a public protection, community safety, rehabilitation and restorative agenda. If probation did not exist we would have to re-invent the services. Our next issue will be focussed on a Century of Probation and you can still contribute. Let’s take this opportunity to grasp the place back for probation in a community justice system. Are you up for the challenge?

Professor Paul Senior, Director, Hallam Centre for Community Justice, Sheffield Hallam University

13 comments:

  1. The trajectory is the same but the rate of descent is increasing as we spiral into the pits with the most bitter, spiteful rightwing govt the uk has ever known. Strong White will be in her element.

    A flavour of Brandon's views:

    BBC News, Nov.30 2019: "UK PM Boris Johnson says 'it does not make sense' to allow those convicted of 'serious violent offences' to be granted automatic early release, following Friday's attack on London Bridge by a man convicted of a terrorism offence in 2012"

    Brandon Lewis, Nov.30 2019: "legislation brought in by [Labour] government meant that dangerous terrorists had to automatically be released after half of their jail term. We are going to fix this and ensure that people serve their full term... PM was clear yesterday in his statement, as I was on media this morning & PM outlined further today: we want to change sentencing to ensure that people who commit these sort of crimes face long sentences & PM outlined that this should end, people should serve full tariff..."

    On Dec.6 2019 he added: "Labour changed the law in 2008 which meant terrorists like the London Bridge attacker were released automatically, without Parole Board approval."

    All those years in govt & tories didn't change a thing, just revelled in the blame game while people died.

    He was Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service when truss was Justice Secy so they know each other well.

    Don't expect any sympathy for an independent probation service.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From The Times 1st March 2001:-

      The “Strong White” nickname came after she called off a revamp of her grace-and-favour apartment on the ground of the £100,000 cost. Her staff then allegedly asked Farrow & Ball to help in return for free promotion.

      Delete
  2. "Probation practice retreated to the office, developed stylised programmatic responses using cognitive behavioural techniques"

    Another form of therapy that erases the social context, is meant to cut costs rather than actually help people, and make psychology appear scientific with the obsession on being 'evidence based'. The dwp use it because it helps them help the government legitimise anti-worker policy by dressing unemployment up as a personal problem to do with attitude and low self-esteem, not that they've done big fat deals outsourcing and gutting industry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So NAPO are going to reissue voting instructions because they made a hash of it, as pointed out by members

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably had more votes than members! Haha

      Delete
  4. I think it will go beyond no sympathy 08:40 , a full all out assault has already begun with the ‘offer that isn’t’ , the attack on the professionalism continues apace and when we’re on the floor One Hmpps will ride to our rescue .....only remember sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a train!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I’m not enthused by the photo. Glass half full is that Brandon Lewis a background in economics and law. Therefore informed enough to know the ‘OneHMPPS’ prison takeover of the Probation Service is a retarded plan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looks like you could vote as many times as you like:-

    Unfortunately, it has become clear that the volume of responses to the current Probation (England and Wales) indicative pay ballot for Napo members in England and Wales has revealed some technical issues that need to be urgently rectified.

    A decision has therefore been made to close the indicative ballot and reissue a fresh process to ensure that all Napo members have an opportunity to register their vote. This does not in any way change the confidentiality of your vote which, as was the case before, will not be individually attributable.

    Please look out for fresh instructions which will include your Napo Membership number, which you will need to access the ballot pages in the Members area of the Napo Website. You will need to register on the Napo website using your membership number if you are not already registered.

    Obviously we wish to apologise for the inconvenience that has been caused, but as members will appreciate, we have an obligation to address the technical difficulties that have been encountered so that there can be no question of our members not being able to register their vote.

    It is therefore vitally important that members take part in the ballot and that you take every opportunity that arises to engage with colleagues who are not currently a member of a trade union and ask them to join Napo so that they can have their say on pay.

    Ian Lawrence. Katie Lomas
    General Secretary National Chair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love that bit "it has become clear that the volume of responses" - FFS!

      Delete
    2. It was bleedin' obvious to all & sundry that an open online invitation to vote without any registration requirement or reference to membership (or not) of the union was ...

      Please choose one or more answers from the following:

      a. brilliant
      b. not very bright
      c. illegal
      d. fucking ridiculous
      e. manna to every single critic who take the view that Napo is not fit for purpose
      f. manna from heaven for the govt
      g. cause for the Certification Officer to take a moment's pause, roll her eyes & consider returning to the Human Tissue Authority

      Delete
    3. The words “piss up” and “brewery” come to mind !

      Delete
    4. It is a great comedy post only I am saddened it takes a scandal of incompetence than their more usual deception of members to illustrate their complete unsuitability for such posts.

      Delete
  7. * the new boss, same as the old boss...

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1102029/HMPPS_Org_Chart_-_September_2022.pdf

    * Case allocation guidance has been updated:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1103016/case-allocation-interim-guidance.pdf

    * 08 September 2022 POP mileage rate has increased from 15p per mile to 45p per mile

    * Covid 19 data Aug '22:

    "The key findings in this release are:

    294 prisoners and supervised individuals have died having tested positive within 60 days of death or where there was a clinical assessment COVID-19 was a contributory factor in their death. Of whom 206 were prisoners and 88 were individuals supervised by the probation service. There were 4 deaths in August 2022.

    Of the 294 deaths, 238 were suspected or confirmed to be caused by COVID-19, of whom 156 were prisoners and 82 were supervised individuals. Of the 21 deaths since February 2022, 5 are suspected or confirmed to be due to COVID-19.

    47,023 prisoners or children in custody have tested positive for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, across 130 establishments, almost all of whom were adults.

    There were 591 new confirmed cases in August 2022, this is 2,311 less than in July 2022.

    65 establishments had prisoners or children testing positive in August 2022, a decrease of 33 compared with July 2022."

    ReplyDelete