The Probation Service -

Origins of the probation service

Century of probation in England and Wales
Probation existed for longer than this
Originally concerned with the welfare of offenders but over the years has shifted its focus and some consider it to be more concerned with the management of ‘risk’ presented by offenders
Rooted in Christian values
Police Court missionaries — Who would look after them in the community rather than send them to prison

Probation in the early 20th century

1907 probation of offenders act
Aim to restore offenders to full citizenship — ‘save the souls’ of offenders who have lost their way and help to guide them
Big change to segregation, removal from society via imprisonment
Underpinned by universalism and state-led interventionism
Importance of public opinion — strong support because of the social and political climate at the time
‘Interventionist approach’ — state involved in the lives of citizens, including offenders

Probation through the 20th century

Development of ‘treatment model’ (borrowed from medicine — treating a problem)
Crime is caused by a range factors: psychological, sociological, economical — if we can identify the root cause of offending, we can treat them
‘Rehabilitative idea’ (Allen, 1959) or golden age of rehabilitation
Penal welfarism (Garland, 2001) — punitive and subjective to the needs of the offender
Came under scrutiny in the 1960s — some are still offending

Challenges to probation

Things started to go wrong for probation
Martinson (1974) ‘nothing works’
IMPACT study in UK — same kind of headline results
‘Penal treatments, as we significantly describe them, do not have any reformative effect’ (Croft, 1978:4)
Impact: Funding pulled, research withdrawn, increase focus on punitive approaches, less focus on community sentences and more focus on imprisonment

Probation response to challenges

No place for probation
CJA 1991 — ‘just deserts’ policy – moved away from penal welfare and more towards sentencing offenders based on the severity of the offence that has been committed – Just and Fair – more prison…
Increasingly side-lined during mid 1990s … needed to be seen in a new light
Transiotion from:
- “an alternative to punishment to an alternative form of punishment” (Hudson,
  2003, p. 154)
Probation is a punishment too, just like imprisonment

Probation at the ewnd of the 20th century

National standards — introduced 1988 (e.g. certain number of supervision meetings, conducting risk assessments)
Increased accountability, reduced discretion
Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995 —Omitted rule 26 from probation rules 1984 (had to have a social work qualifications)
Social workers are trained and educated to respond to welfare needs of individuals, New practitioners could be trained to enforce punishment

Probation at the satrt of the 21st century — The come back!\

Committed to finding out ‘what works’
Effective Practice Initiative (Robinson and Crow, 2009: 80); Effective Practice Guide (Chapman and Hough, 1998); Crime Reduction Programme (Maguire, 2004); ‘Pathfinder’ projects (Lewis et al, 2007; Rex and Gelsthorpe, 2002)
2001 – National Probation Service for England and Wales. Replacing the 54 independent local probation services and creating a new unified national structure of 42 local probation boards
2003 - Carter Review of Correctional Services – outlined a long-anticipated merger of the prison and probation service - NOMS
Introduced in 2004, NOMS top bring together prisoners and probation
Probation officers to become ‘Offender managers’
“NOMS is responsible for commissioning and delivering adult offender management services, in custody and in the community, in England and Wales. It manages a mixed economy of providers. Decisions on what work is to be done and who it will be done by are based on evidence and driven by best value” (Ministry of Justice, 2010, p.6)

Probation to present day

In the 2010 coalition agreement, Government announced a ‘rehabilitation revolution that will pay independent providers to reduce offending
2013, the MoJ published Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform
- Split probation service in two, with the public sector NPS managing high risk offenders and providing services to the courts, and the new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) managing low and medium risk offenders

September 2013, bids to run 21 CRCs across England and Wales
list of new owners of CRCs was released in December 2014, only one of the CRCs was won by an organisation outside their private sector
2018 plans to cut short contracts and re-model probation, but retain public/private split
2019 MoJ u-turn, CRCs [renamed Probation Delivery Partners] could only deliver Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes
June 2020 government announces end to Transforming Rehabilitation, ending all contracts, returning offender management to NPS and cancelling outsourcing of Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes

Summary

In a little over 100 years of history, probation has undergone an incredible volume of change
This has impacted organisational structure, delivery of services, support for offenders, and staff practice
Its also affected public trust and confidence in the service
Most recent changes indicate a return a national model that works well.

Defining probation

OED defines probation as:
- ‘A process of testing or observing the character or abilities of a person’
From the Latin probare meaning:
- ‘To test, or to prove’
Test of ability to live within the law
Must abide by certain rules — effectively a contract for living
Punishment for breach of this contract
Full release from sentence only basis of proof of law-abiding living

Who are HM Prison and Probation service (HMPPS)?

The probation service is a statutory criminal justice service that supervises offenders released into the community, while protecting the public
The purpose — preventing victims by changing lives
The work of probation is about people: reforming those sentence by the courts; keeping the public safe; and giving our staff — working across probation, prison and headquarters — the tools and support they need to do this.

The aim of probation

Protection of the public
- Monitoring
- Restrictions
Reparation
- Unpaid work
Rehabilitation
- Support
- Programmes

4 Principles which inform their work

Enabling people to be their best — Investing in our people to make sure they have the tools to do their jobs well and reach their full potential
Transforming through partnerships — Working closely with our partners to deliver a more holistic service that elicits positive change and keeps the public safe
An open, learning culture — Consulting with our colleagues and stakeholders, including supervised individuals, to learn from each other and looking externally at good practice to improve services
Modernising our estates our estates and technology — Making our working environment safe and flexible and harnessing data and technology to facilitate more effective working practice

(HMPPS, 2021, p. 8)

Probation work in practice: Risk, Need, Responsivity (RNR)

The risk component evaluate factors contributing to offending behaviour, categorising individuals as high, medium and low risk.

“Big 8” criminogenic needs

Difference between criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs

Criminogenic:

Pro-criminal attitudes
Criminal associates
Substance abuse
Antisocial personality
Problem-solving skills
Hostility — anger

Non-criminogenic:

Self-esteem
anxiety
Feelings of alienation
Psychological discomfort
Group cohesion
Neighbourhood improvement

Examples of criminogenic needs

Criminogenic need: Home circumstances

Indicator: Poor relationships, poor parenting
Response: Parenting skills, warmth and care

Criminogenic need: School/work circumstances

Indicator: Poor performance, low level satisfaction
Response: Enhance skills, nurture relationships

Criminogenic need: Poor leisure time

Indicator: Antisocial leisure activities
Response: Participation in prosocial sports and hobbies

Probation and community sentence

Probation delivers sentences in the community
Someone convicted by the court but not sent to prison

Probation and community orders

Informed by recommendations from Halliday Report
Sentencing too complex — sentencers require options to choose from
CJA 2003 (s 177) introduced 12 requirements (increased to 14 in 2014) and now 13 which must be
- “The most suitable for the offender and… commensurate with the seriousness of the offence” (s. 148)

13 requirements

Up to 300 hours unpaid work
Undertaking a rehabilitation activity requirement
Taking part in a programme to help change offending behaviour
Being forbidden to take part in particular activities
Sticking to a curfew that means being in a particular place at certain times
Meeting an exclusion requirement, which means not being allowed to go to particular places
Being obliged to live at a particular address
Being prohibited from travelling overseas With the offender’s consent, undergoing:
Mental health treatment
Drug rehabilitation
Alcohol treatment
Alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement
Electronic monitoring

Legislation and comunity orders

A number of reforms since 2010

Legal aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – suspended sentences – if breach their requirements – sent to prison
Crime and Courts Act 2013 – all community orders must include a punitive element
Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 – mandatory supervision for anyone sentenced for less that 12 months

What is a pre-sentencing report

An Assessment based on Service User input, background, personal circumstances.
Refers to the Index Offence – Offence Outline
Includes all risk of harm and re-offending concerns – Facts / Evidence
Includes analysis- Offender Manager’s professional assessment
Includes a Risk Assessment – Level of risk based on evidence(Low, Medium, High or Very High)
Includes recommendation for sentencing – A proposal
This report assist, guides and informs sentencing. The Magistrate/Judge will use this report and either support the proposal or offer their own

What is a Risk Management plan?

How to reduce the risk of re-offending and harm
Underpinned by 5 pillars: Supervision, Monitoring & Control, Intervention-Treatment, Victim Safety and Contingency
Must be Robust
Evidence Based
Identify all persons, situations, circumstances that raise concerns around Risk
Include all triggers to offending that require intervention to prevent and reduce risk
Tool called OASys – Offender Assessment System 2
Risk Levels – ROSH
- Serious Harm
- Very high
- High
- Medium
- Low