The Problem with Probation

Earlier this year, the British government sentenced an unsuccessful criminal justice system to death. In May 2019, Westminster announced the government’s plan to renationalise privately owned community rehabilitation companies (CRC) in England and Wales. By December 2020, the National Probation Service (NPS) will oversee all offender management. Commentators applauded the government’s decision, welcoming the end of a disastrous era for the probation sector after it saw semi-privatisation under the Secretary of Justice in 2014. Yet key problems remain unaddressed. Still, the government refuses to acknowledge the offender’s role in the probation process.

Lady Justice. © justice.gov.uk

 Probation in England and Wales is a failing project. Current offenders continue to commit crimes. A report printed this week showed that, between March 2017 and 2018, people under probation supervision committed one sixth of homicides in England and Wales. The statistics for the year before were more startling: the total numbers almost amounted to a fifth.

Considering this issue, many are keen to blame the former justice secretary, Chris Grayling. His introduction of a payment by results (PBR) scheme had unwanted consequences. It encouraged private probationary services to favour offenders who performed well, whilst side-lining others who failed to meet governmental targets. Private contractors worked selectively in a process known as ‘creaming off’ (i.e. working selectively with service users who were most likely to help the company meet targets) to secure government payments.

The government’s approach to probation reflects its attitude to crime more broadly: a narrow-minded focus on results which is light on addressing problems at ground level. Clearly, this focus is not working. Peter Raynor, a scholar, argued that the problem lies with the absence of the offender’s ‘negotiated consent’ within today’s probationary framework. Before 1997, probation was a negotiated agreement between probationers, probation officers and the sentencing Court. Now, the Court imposes probation on offenders whether they like it or not.

The probationary process works best when officers acknowledge the views and choices of the people they supervise. However, as signalled by the 1997 Act, which abolished the Court’s acknowledgement of any so-called ‘whims’ from the offender, both sides of the government fail to see the importance of the offender’s role.  

The issue also depends on social-political attitudes in England and Wales. For example, prisoners cannot vote in British elections. England and Wales are one of the few countries in Europe to restrict prisoner polling rights. As a result, offenders feel further exclusion from British society, leading to an increased likelihood in re-offences.  

In Summer 2019, Robert Buckland, the current justice secretary, reassured the Justice Select Committee that over 400 new probation officers will be in the workforce by January 2020. But this process is meaningless if the same dismissive attitudes continue to inform future probationary practices. To encourage progress, the government’s paternal attitude towards probation requires reform. Otherwise, the figures released this week could potentially represent an upward trend.