The Probation Service Flashcards
How did the Probation Service develop and what are its main underpinnings?
It formed as a result of the 1907 Probation Order Act, based on the belief that offenders needed help and they could change. It was centred around the ideas of rehabilitation, reformation, redemption and that the causes off offending were due to wider circumstances e.g. economic, social.
This underpinned the probation service in 60s and such values are still evident today in certain parts. The causes of crime were viewed as offenders needing help in terms of drinks and drugs for example. There is, however, limited research regarding whether reoffending was being impacted on as a result of probation.
How was Probation impacted by the New Right Conservatives?
They believed that people chose to commit crime; it is a rational choice. Viewed that the costs of crime need to increase in order to deter offenders. There was thus a rise in prisons use and a shift in politics in what was seen as the cause of the crime. The 80s government wanted to reduce public spending. Prisons were expensive and they wanted to reduce the prison population to save money. Methods were therefore developed to divert individuals from custody. Probation officers were to supervise offenders before they were released back into society. They introduced National Standards (1989) regarding probation, leading to consistency in how offenders are supervised. This created an element of control and aimed to reduce spending.
They also introduced the 1991 Criminal Justice Act which aimed to tackle the rising prison population through tough punishment so probation orders became a type of community sentence. Aimed to help save money by reducing rise of prison population. Right wing critics saw probation service as a soft approach thus leading to probation orders becoming part of a graded tariff of punishment. Probation sits under custody in terms of the degree of severity of punishments so it was, viewed as a rationale for graded sentencing. They aimed to show that punishment in community was doable. It was not an alternative to prison and that it should be taken seriously.
How did the ‘What Works’ Agenda influence probation?
“What Works is based on the principle that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If evidence is not available, decision-makers should use high-quality methods to find out what works” (GOV.UK, 2023).
This aimed to strengthen the vision that the probation service should be taken seriously. Guidelines aimed to reduce reoffending were introduced e.g. CBT, risk assessments. Probation service was going to carry out evidence-based practices which was essential to create the belief that probation is effective and efficient enough to tackle serious offenders. Probation was aimed to be viewed as a law enforcement agency which changed how probation officers were trained.
What was the National Probation Service?
This was developed in 2001 as a result of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000).
The government wanted to increase control over probation and make it tougher so, the National Probation Service developed. It made it more centralised.
National Standards were revised, offering guidance on how to deal with offenders e.g. if offenders fails to attend a session or don’t comply with the rules placed on them, they get a yellow card. If they fails to attend again, they get a red card and harsher sentences are likely to be given. It aimed to make probation be seen as a ‘law enforcement agency’.
It has 3 central aims: reduce re-offending, protect the public, rehabilitate offenders
(NPS, 2001).
How did discourse relating to probation shift?
Rehabilitation was still the main idea but there was less emphasise on offender welfare and more on the reduction of crime and risk management.
The idea developed that we need to be able to cope with the increased number of offenders and we deal with this using limited resources. Offenders have to be seen as risky enough to get these resources, deeming them suitable for support and probation.
The ‘New Penology’ (2000s) developed which focuses more on managing the risks of offending within society. The higher the risk you pose, the more resources that are invested into an offender so high risks offenders get prison and lower risk offenders receive community orders. This enabled the CJS to cope with the large numbers of offenders in the system.
Risk assessment methods include pre-sentencing reports which assess the risks an offender possess, determining their outcome in the CJS. Risks include alcohol, violence and drugs.
[See Roberts [nee Ballantyne], N. (2013) ‘Probation and Risk: The paradox of ‘rehabilitating’ intimately violent men’, in J. Kearney and C. Donovan (Eds.) Constructing Risky Identities in Policy and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 163-180.]
How did privatisation impact probation?
Probation service became part privatised despite the state trying to increase its control over the service. This generated competition.
It occurred because if offenders who served less than a year in prison, were not given probation services and support to help integrate them back into society so they had no support network, leading to high reoffending rates. Taking away their social support networks they developed in prisons, left them alone and increased the likelihood of reoffending.
As a result, the probation service became part privatised to deal with the demand for more probation practitioners and effectively rehabilitate offenders. It fractured the probation service.
Community Rehabilitation Companies (2015) were then introduced which were allowed to supervise low/medium risk offenders. The NPS supervised the high risk ones. CRCs were paid on how many offenders they were helping and were given bonus payments if reoffending rates were kept down.
Why was probation renationalised?
CRCs were clearly not effective and were not meeting the offenders’ needs because many didn’t have access to rehabilitative support. Targets were not met and there was no innovation in terms of how offenders were supervised. There was still as rise in the belief that prison works because it protects the public and, the prison population still remained high.
There was a need to focus more on ensuring that offenders have resources outside of the prison to help them stay on track thus, the probation service became renationalised in 2021 and is now back under full governmental control.
What are Community Rehabilitation Companies? Were they effective?
They were allowed to supervise low/medium risk offenders. The NPS supervised the high risk ones. CRCs were paid on how many offenders they were helping and were given bonus payments if reoffending rates were kept down.
Tidmarsh (2015) - despite CRCs meaning to offer rehabilitation, they are focused on risk management rather than rehab work. Rehab is central to lower reoffending rates but due to probation officers having lots of cases and administrative duties as a result of privatisation, the ability to build up relationships with the offenders was limited and risk factors could not be easily identified.
Roberts (2018) suggested that CRCs were ineffective due to the lack of trained professionals so they couldn’t manage the case loads properly (when probation officer training changed and became professionalised, there was a drop in the number of qualified officers who could write pre-sentencing reports which increased the likelihood of not being able to assess the risks the offenders faced efficiently).
Dominey (2018) - However, as a result of CRCs, community hubs were created which recognised the social needs of offenders. This is where multiple organisations come in at once, presenting themselves to offenders who go around their booths to find the help that they feel they need which raised their own self-awareness of their problems.
There are some concerns about having offenders all in one place together as it can create a criminogenic environment, allowing them to establish criminal connections. Funding also limits rehabilitation.
Privatisation of the system and use of CRCs highlights the focus on drive for profit rather than rehabilitation.
