Monthly Archives: October 2022

More than 200,000 are people under the supervision of probation services at any one time. Back in 2019 the Secretary of State for Justice announced a new model for probation services in England and Wales. Since June 2021, all sentence management for low, medium and high-risk offenders has been carried out by a national Probation Service. Where does this model come from, and what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is the Probation Service? The origins of the Probation Service can be traced back to Frederic Rainer, a volunteer with the Church of England Temperance Society (CETS) whom, in the late nineteenth century, wrote to the Society of his concerns about the lack of help for those who came before the courts. He sent a donation of five shillings towards a fund for practical rescue work in the police courts. In response, the CETS appointed two missionaries to work from Southwark Court with the initial aim of reclaiming drunkards. This funding informed the development of the London Police Courts Mission (LPCM) whose missionaries worked with magistrates to develop a system of releasing offenders on the condition that they kept in touch with a missionary and accepted guidance from them. 

While the Probation of First Time Offenders Act, passed in 1886, allowed courts around the country to follow the LPCM model; it was the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 that gave these missionaries the status of ‘officers of the court’ and latterly probation officers. Under the 1907 Act Magistrates Courts were able to appoint probation officers, paid for by Local Authorities. Probation officers were given a duty to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ offenders whom the courts did not believe fitted imprisonment on account of their age, character or antecedents. 

In 1909 the Departmental Committee of the Home Office reviewed the probation system created by the Act. The Committee described how the new system was dependent upon the person and character of the probation officer: ‘It is clear that personality is everything. The probation officer must be a picked man or woman, endowed not only with intelligence and zeal, but in a high degree, with sympathy, tact and firmness…Probation is what the officer makes it’ (paragraph 28). 

A Departmental Committee looking at the conditions of service of probation officers in 1922 highlighted the prominent role some probation officers were playing in the court system in some areas, and how other areas had taken no such steps to appoint probation officers. This led to the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which retained a local basis to probation but also allowed for the formation of larger units of administration known as Combined Probation Areas.

During the First World War juvenile crime increased and the Home Office decided that probation work should move from philanthropic bodies and local magistrates to the state. Indeed, a Departmental Committee report in 1936 indicated how the Probation Service was rapidly developing and called for the Home office to accept greater responsibility for the general administration, supervision and direction of the probation service. A further Departmental Committee [known as the Morison Committee] looked at the recruitment and training, organisation, administration, and the duties of probation officers as well as their pay and conditions of service. On the one hand, the Committee recognised the professional standing of the probation service and the consolidation of probation areas that had taken place. On the other hand, the Committee highlighted the rapid growth in the size of the probation service and the need to ensure minimum standards and training for all entrants. 

In 1938 the Home Office officially assumed control of the Probation Service and sought about reforming probation work. Since then, the Probation Service has undergone numerous reforms. The Criminal Justice and Court Services 2000 Act renamed the probation service as the ‘National Probation Service for England and Wales’ and saw the Home Office provide all of the funding for the Service and the creation of 42 Local Probation Boards.  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defined the purposes of sentencing as being around punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation and protection of the public. The publication of Reducing Crime – Changing Lives led to the establishment of the National Offender Management Service and the introduction of more commissioning and competition in the provision of probation services. 

A new model for probation services? Back in 2010 the Government said it would introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending’. This led to a series of reforms under ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ which invited providers from the private and voluntary and community sectors to bid to deliver rehabilitation services. In 2014, these reforms led the National Probation Service to be divided into two: (1) The National Probation Service – which dealt with the most serious offenders and provided advice to the courts across 7 geographic areas; and (2) twenty-one Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) run by private, voluntary or community sector organisations that were contracted to deliver community sentences for lower risk offenders. CRCs operated under a Payment by Results (PbR) scheme which meant their payments were determined by the reductions in reoffending they achieved. CRCs had to provide ‘Through the Gate’ services, providing offenders with continuous support from custody into the community. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) produced five reports evaluating the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation. Overall, inspectors found CRCs were performing below expectations, with particular concerns raised around joint working between the NPS and CRCs; court work, staff training and morale; probation services for women; poor decision making in relation to community orders, suspended sentence supervision orders and post-sentence supervision; and how some CRCs were monitoring offenders by telephone. In 2018, the Justice Committee’s report into Transforming Rehabilitation concluded that it was “unconvinced that the TR model can ever deliver an effective or viable probation service”.  This was followed by reports from the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee in 2019 which flagged the rushed implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation and how it lacked value for money.    

In July 2018, the Government announced that probation contracts with CRCs would end 14-months early. It also released a consultation document on the future model of probation services. The Government published its response to the consultation in May 2019, which included an announcement that the supervision of all offenders would come back under a national probation service. The response also proposed the creation of an ‘Innovation Partner’ from the private or voluntary sector that would be responsible for the provision of unpaid work and accredited programmes. Provision was also made for voluntary sector organisations to be able to compete to deliver resettlement and rehabilitation interventions.

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) published a Draft Target Operating Model for Probation in March 2020. This confirmed that all responsibility for sentence management would move to the national probation service, which would be divided into 11 regions across England each with its own Regional Probation Director. The Innovation Partner component was removed from the model, with these services instead to be led by the national probation service. 

Known as the unification of probation services, the transition to this new operating model wherein 21 different models and ways of working were transferred into a national probation service has taken place amid COVID-19. HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) carried out a thematic review in May 2021. This confirmed the unification was well underway but flagged the length of time it would take trainee probation officers to complete their training and reach full capacity; and how attracting suppliers for some services and regions was difficult with a risk that some specialist services would not be in place in time. 

In February 2021, the Ministry of Justice published the final version of the Target Operating Model and a set of National Standards to support the transition to a unified model. A Dynamic Framework will be used by the national probation service to commission services for individuals on community orders and those supervised on licence in the community. These services cover areas such as accommodation, education, employment, finance and wellbeing. In May 2021, the Government announced it had made an initial investment of £195 million to 26 organisations across England and Wales to provide support services. The Ministry of Justice also announced the replacement of Through the Gate (TTG) resettlement delivered by CRCs with an Enhanced TTG model (ETTG). The new resettlement model is intended to reduce the number of people who become involved in a prisoner’s journey and sees the introduction of prison based probation teams that specialise in short sentences.   

The unification approach was broadly welcomed by stakeholders – including HMI Probation which found enthusiasm and buy-in to the new delivery model from probation staff at all grades.  

The Probation Service we have today was created on 26 June 2021 and is part of HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS), part of the Ministry of Justice. The Probation Service is a statutory criminal justice service that supervises offenders released into the community, while protecting the public. The Probation Service is responsible for sentence management in England and Wales, along with Accredited Programmes, Unpaid Work, and Structured Interventions. It has an overall priority ‘to protect the public by the effective rehabilitation of offenders, by reducing the causes which contribute to offending and enabling offenders to turn their lives around’. The Probation Service is organised under a regional structure, with 12 regions in England and Wales each overseen by a Regional Probation Director. 

What does this model mean for rural communities? Prior to unificationHMI Probation drew attention to a ‘two-tier and fragmented’ service under Transforming Rehabilitation: ‘Most CRCs are struggling…Delivering probation services is more difficult than first appears, particularly in prisons and rural areas. There have been serious setbacks…[In a rural area] the new CRC aimed to adopt a more decentralised model, to better engage those under supervision, but it quickly proved unaffordable…[with] services were being delivered from cavernous but sparsely-occupied offices’. 

The new Target Operating Model for probation services includes ‘an aspiration that travel time for supervised individuals to attend a contact meeting should not exceed 60 minutes each way. Research has shown that individuals are more likely to attend and comply when their journey time is reasonable and not costly…It is recognised that 60 minutes will be challenging in some rural areas and that achievement of this ambition is unlikely for all’ (page 64).  

HMI Probation collects data on caseloads, workloads and staffing levels in probation services. The 2021-2022 research & analysis bulletin highlighted probation staff abilities to manage caseloads, including when ‘covering large rural areas’ (page 22). 

Reducing Reoffending Plans describe the public facing activities that HMPPS is prioritising to reduce reoffending. For the period 2022-2025, while the South West, West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humber all describe having a mix of urban and rural communities, it is only the  East of England Plan that highlights ‘opportunities to invest further in meeting the specific needs of its probation cohort’, including ‘supporting those in rural locations’ (page14). 

In policy terms, it is clear that rural probation work has received little attention. There is also limited academic literature. One study highlighted the autonomy and responsibility that probation staff enjoy in rural work, how there are more opportunities to get involved in community organisations but also a lack of anonymity with probation staff often find themselves working alone. In Northern Ireland, a study looking at how COVID-19 impacted upon probation practice, highlighted how offenders in rural areas reported difficulties in accessing local services and in some cases the only contact they received on any given day was from probation. Probation officers further reported having the added responsibility of trying to ensure that vulnerable service users had basic necessities during the immediacy of the pandemic. 

Probation services should be accessible to all – regardless of whether someone lives in a rural or an urban area. While the accessibility of services in rural areas has featured heavily in some public policy areas (e.g. health, economy); in the context of probation services, rurality has often been overlooked. The Target Operating Model indicates how parity of accessibility in rural areas is ambitious, while at a regional level rural provision can be deemed unaffordable. The reality is that offenders in rural areas may receive less face-to-face support, and that opportunities to enhance public protection in rural communities can be lost. Accessibility is not just about geography, but also factors such as quality, availability and choice. It is also linked to wider policy arenas such as digital connectivity, public transport, housing, training and skills and health. 

As far back as 1909 the pivotal role of probation officers in supervising offenders and supporting communities was recognised. Today, many probation staff working in rural areas go above and beyond.  How can the unification of services and interventions better meet the needs of offenders in rural places and better protect rural communities?  

Where next? In April 2022 a radio 4 documentary revealed how, since 2014, more than 500 serious further offences have been committed by a person subject to probation supervision. While many of the harrowing examples shared during the programme took place under Transforming Rehabilitation, it has reignited a debate about ensuring the Probation Service has the capacity to protect the public. Indeed,    Napo, the trade union and professional association representing workers in the Probation Service and Family Courts, has been calling for proper investment in the Probation Service; addressing staff shortages, excessive workloads and paying its staff a proper rate for the work they undertake to keep the public safe. This is part of wider calls not only for the probation system to be properly funded, but for unification to remain in place for decades rather than being subjected to reform every few months or years.  

And yet, at his Lord Chancellor swearing-in speech on 29 September 2022, Brandon Lewis MP said “I also want to explore options for reforming the Probation Service, which is vital in steering prison leavers towards better futures. And I am determined to make public protection the overriding factor in parole decisions…I look forward to working with you all as we each play our part in the justice system – to cherish and protect the ideals on which it was built and to carry on building it around the people who are using it every day”.  What does this mean for the unification of probation services and current operating model in rural areas? Watch this space. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services; and a Warm Hubs scheme. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen