Time for a change in the narrative for probation and public expectations?
Few would disagree that we are in the midst of a criminal justice system crisis for England and Wales. Years of under-investment have come home to roost, with insufficient recognition of the interdependencies between the police, probation, prison, courts, Crown Prosecution Service and other essential services. Repair work is going to be complicated, but now is the time for a new government to rebuild a comprehensive, connected system fit for the future.
A shift in the rhetoric and public expectations of what can and cannot be achieved through community supervision will be essential. Public media coverage of probation practice is preoccupied with failure. This ranges from a surprise that probation practitioners do not have immediate access to accommodation for anyone being released homeless, to missed opportunities uncovered by serious further offence investigations, which report missed information sharing and swift enforcement opportunities.
It seems timely to ask: Are public expectations of what can be achieved through community supervision realistic and are recommendations being directed to the correct service/agency provider?
‘Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate’
I would argue that, unless there is a much wider shared community commitment to and understanding of inclusion and access to essential public services, then expectations and confidence in probation practice will remain stuck in an unrealistic and low place.
The excessive use of imprisonment may satisfy appetites for retribution, but the reality is that prisoners come from the community and, for the vast majority, return to the community. Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate.
If we want to reduce the likelihood of reoffending then our communities need to be ready to support and improve access to providing accommodation, speedy access to mental health and substance misuse services and a readiness to accept and encourage ex-offenders into the workplace and education.
Frustration at lack of community support
Probation practitioners can signpost and support referrals to these essential services, but do they have confidence that the door will be open?
The probation service is one of the smallest and usually most invisible public services – unless something has gone wrong. The public usually shows little interest in the criminal courts and work of the probation service unless they or a member of their family work there or they have found themselves the wrong side of the law or a victim of crime.
Most who work in the criminal justice system are highly committed and passionate about their work, wanting to do all they can to prevent further harm, improve lives and develop safer communities. I don’t think in my forty plus years working in many different roles for probation I have ever met a colleague who did not think the justice system could be improved and did not remain frustrated at the lack of access to services in the community to support rehabilitation and reintegration.
Success stories for probation nearly always demonstrate examples of strong multi agency partnership work that support integration and celebrate the individuals’ efforts to move forward. The challenge has always been one of negotiating the tightrope between care and control.
I question whether we have shifted the expectations and balance too far in the direction of control, raising the bar for public protection measures so high for so many that we have lost sight of the imperative to support and nurture rehabilitation. All too often the starting point is “what is the risk assessment?” rather than “what is the risk and needs assessment”? Effective probation practice requires attention to both the management of risk of harm and reducing reoffending through well planned and delivered rehabilitation support services. If offenders get their lives back together the risk to the public generally falls.
High vs. low risk: a harmful dichotomy
The introduction of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) at the start of the century had an impressive impact, encouraging probation to separate out those who presented the highest risk of serious harm. The mantra that resources followed risk makes sense; so that the agencies collaboratively take concerted efforts to ‘control and monitor’ those whom we have good confidence could cause further harm and victims.
However, what has followed is a polarisation of political and media reporting of high or low risk of harm. Transforming Rehabilitation, the restructuring of probation services in 2014, crystallised this dichotomy, with oversimplified explanations dividing the caseload between high-risk offenders to the public sector National Probation Service and the ‘low-risk offenders’ to the outsourced Community Rehabilitation Companies. In truth over half of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of harm’. Risk of harm assessment is dynamic and can quickly change, hence the need for regular contact and engagement.
Since the further restructuring in 2021 back to one service, probation has struggled to find the balance between care and control. The direction of travel has been dominated by a mixture of juggling to achieve national consistency, offset rising prison population pressures, struggling to retain or train a sufficient skilled workforce.
We have also seen politicians who have been all too easily swayed by high-profile serious further offence investigations and the promise ‘that it will never happen again’, raising public expectations higher as to what can be managed and assured, when managing supervision of an individual in the community.
Few in the media have paused and asked what can be achieved by one probation practitioner managing a caseload in excess of fifty? How many times a month might the practitioner actually be able to meet with them to develop an influential relationship and remain on top of their needs, risks and changing circumstances? It is not like prison where you know where they are all the time. How much access is there in the community to access immediate accommodation, for instance? If someone is homeless, their preoccupation is with day-to day-survival, it is almost impossible for the probation practitioner to find space to address their ‘thinking behaviour and motivation to change’.
How can we support probation staff and those they supervise?
Probation staff need to be better supported by other services in the community to enable individuals on release from prison to access the immediate needs that bring about some basic stability.
A sizeable chunk of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of serious harm’: people with complex lives that require both significant support for rehabilitation, as well as careful assessment and management of risk indicators such as domestic abuse and/or histories of previous violence. It is here that lies the knot for probation to untangle. What should be expectations and priorities for probation practitioners working with this group?
Good quality probation practice requires attention to both public protection, which involves good information sharing and the use of some controls and restrictions and good interventions and access to services to support rehabilitation. One without the other inevitably falls a long way short of effective practice.
The risk of exposure to criticism for a failure to attend to safeguarding measures now tends to overshadow attention to rehabilitation and resettlement. Low public confidence saps staff morale and motivation. This in turns contributes to turnover, poor recruitment and high vacancies. The imbalance is felt keenly by those being supervised. The supervisor – supervisee relationship becomes one of control rather than engagement and partnership. High caseloads, combined with excessive processes can result in a lack of time to develop effective, meaningful relationships that can support behaviour changes.
Moving forward it would be encouraging to see:
- Greater public understanding of what realistically can be achieved through supervision in the community.
- Support for community ownership, collaboration and inclusion for those being released from prison, including quick access to services that provide stability.
- An improved balance between attending to risk of harm and needs to support rehabilitation.
