PROBATION CRITICISM
Posted to the Napo website by napo - Office - on 19-Apr-2007
A BRIEFING FOR MPS FOR THE OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BILL THIRD READING 28th FEBRUARY 2007
PROBATION CRITICISM
A BRIEFING FOR MPS FOR THE OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BILL THIRD READING 28th FEBRUARY 2007
The Probation Service has been criticised on a number of fronts recently and the arguments used to justify the Offender Management Bill. In fact, the criticisms do not stand up.
1. THERE ARE TOO MANY SERIOUS FURTHER OFFENCES
Reality
There always have been around 200 serious further offences every year committed by people on parole and probation. There is always a risk of further offences with the parole system because it is discretionary release. The Probation Service cannot and never will be able to offer 24-hour surveillance, even for the offenders that are most dangerous. Despite that, only 0.4% of those who pose the greatest risk were involved in a serious further offence in 2006. There is however an acute shortage of trained probation officers; London alone is 150 short.
Government Response
The Government set up an expectation that probation was a public protection agency without providing resources for this. For example, to keep under surveillance the critical 1300 MAPPA cases would involve up to 22,000 police officers in any one day; about 1/6th of operational capacity.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
The Bill will undermine arrangements with MAPPA and the police by creating fragmentation in the provision of services. There could well be more serious offences not less.
2. RE-OFFENDING RATES ARE TOO HIGH
Reality
The re-offending rate for adults on community sentences was 53% in 2003, the most recent year for which full figures are available. The comparable figure in 2003 for those who had custodial sentences was 66%. There was a reduction in proven re-offending between 1997 and 2003 of 3.4% against a Home Office Spending Review target, (PSA 10), of 5% between 1997 and 2004; i.e. probably not on course to meet the target but well on the way. (Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 20/06 published November 2006).
Government Response
The Government has resorted to misleading headline figures, and in saying that the reoffending rate is 60%, they have not distinguished between prison and community sentences. Experts have little faith in the figures and even the Home Office acknowledges that comparisons are complicated given the changes to the methods of counting.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
None. The Bill erodes local flexibility and creates multi-agency provision. It will make it more difficult to determine which intervention has what effect on re-offending and the rates seem likely to rise as information sharing diminishes.
3. PEFORMANCE IS POOR
Reality
Probation is performing better than ever. Home Office figures also show that for the year 2005/6 the Probation Service exceeded 7 of the 11 targets set for it, some by a significant margin, and was within 10% of meeting the other 4. A number of these targets were set for the first time in 2005/6. (Source: NPS Performance Report 20.)
In the first six months of 2006/7 the Service was exceeding its targets for the assessment of high risk of harm and PPO(Prolific Offender) cases and its enforcement target. The number of targets has now increased to 15.
Government Response
The Government has failed to promote its own successes and instead pillories staff; for example John Reid’s speech at HMP Wormwood Scrubs on 7 November 2006.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
The Bill will introduce a bureaucratic model, introducing multiple supervisors, which takes away resources from the front-line, and seems bound to result in a deterioration of efficiency and performance.
4. TOO MANY PAROLEES FAIL
Reality
There are insufficient resources in the Probation Service for probation officers to visit people who are the subject of a parole consideration. The Service has recently been criticised by the Parole Board for resorting to phone interviews to undertake these important assessments, a response to financial restrictions applied locally.
Government Reaction
The Government has overseen cut after cut in prison visits.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
The Government claims that the Bill will introduce seamless supervision of offenders. End to end offender management, with probation staff being fully involved in custodial sentence planning and management, can only work if the prison population reduces, if prisoners are held closer to their homes and not constantly moved, and if probation staff are enabled to maintain the required level of contact.
5. PROBATION IS LIBERAL AND TOO WEDDED TO SOCIAL WORK
Reality
Since 1999 the Service has moved much more to public protection and crime prevention. There has been a sharp increase in the number of offenders on intensive programmes. Currently there are over 30,000 offenders on these programmes in the community. Over 40,000 people are now covered by MAPPA arrangements.
Government Response
The Government has promoted an image of ‘wetness’ in order to justify more punitive legislation.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
By abolishing the National Probation Service, which was only created in 2001, without any evaluation the Government has created uncertainty. There will no longer be a voice to promote rehabilitation and public protection in Government.
6. PROBATION IS A SOFT OPTION IN SENTENCING
Reality
There has been a sharp rise in the punitive nature of sentencing. The numbers jailed have risen over the last decade from 49% to 64% in the Crown Court. The number fined has sharply diminished and the number on probation has grown.
Government Response
The Government has introduced hundreds of new offences and over 40 criminal justice Acts since 1997.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
The Bill does not aim to promote any positive image of probation as an alternative to custody.
7. FUNDING
Reality
The Service has over 1000 vacancies. There are insufficient staff to supervise those offenders who according to the Home Office need trained staff. There are acute resource problems at MAPPA, soaring case-loads, insufficient staff to run Domestic Abuse Programmes, and Custody Plus was recently cancelled because of lack of money. Probation Areas did not receive their budgets for 2006/7 until after the financial year had commenced. For 2007/8 Areas were informed of their indicative budgets during late February 2007. They were told to draw up business plans to meet four different performance targets by no later than 31st March 2007. This means there can be no long-term planning. This is no way to run a public sector organisation.
The Government Response
The Government claims it has recruited 4000 extra staff since it came to power. Home Office statistics published in July 2006 show that there were 5,376 main grade probation officers in post and a further 7,010 probation service officers. In 1997 there were 5,734 main grade probation officers and 1,919 probation service officers.
Probation officers hold a graduate level professional qualification; probation service officers may hold some relevant qualifications but they are not trained and qualified to practice the full range of probation work.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
It is estimated that up to half of all managers will be taken out of front-line work to conduct the tendering and reorganisation process. There are no plans to recruit further probation officers or to increase the number of trainee probation officers. The Offender Management Bill threatens the future of the probation officer qualification, which currently costs £60,000 per trainee. Although the Bill enables the Secretary of State to specify the training qualification required, there is no obligation on all future providers to provide the necessary training. This is likely to lead to the training costs falling on the public sector trusts alone.
8. REORGANISATION IS NEEDED BECAUSE PROBATION IS POOR
Reality
The Probation Service was last reorganised in 2001. There has been no evaluation of what effect this has had on crime. No business case has been produced for the current reorganisation, despite the fact that only 10 out of 748 respondents to the consultation were in favour of it.
Government Response
The Government claims that change is needed in order to reduce re-offending but fails to produce any evidence that this will happen.
The effect of the Offender Management Bill
The Bill is silent on how the measures will reduce re-offending, but what it does do is introduce new layers of bureaucracy and fragmentation, which seem certain to worsen re-offending rates.
Harry Fletcher
Assistant General Secretary
February 2007
Images from AGM 2008
Photo credit: Stefano Cagnoni
