The role of the Modern Probation Service.

The role of the Modern Probation Service focuses on five aims and objectives: Enforcement, Rehabilitation, Protection Of The Public, Proper Punishment and Victim Empathy. To describe the role of the “Modern” Probation Service from 2001 onwards, it is important to understand the evolvement of the Probation Service and the changes it has undertaken. Therefore the essay will compare and contrast the Probation Service from its origins, to the National Probation Service as its known today. Finally the essay will conclude by analysing the present concerns facing the National Probation Service and the future beyond 2004.

To mark the work on Christian values, the initial Probation Of Offenders Act 1907 was implemented, (Chui & Nellis, 2003, p.5). It was then that the missionary era of the Probation Service was founded and the emphasis was on religion to assist and befriend people in dealing with their offending behaviour. Brownlee describes this era as ‘Pioneering activities of Philanthropic individuals’ (Brownlee 1998, p.64), indicating a lack of proactive movement in the legal authorities at that time. Garland 1997, (cited in Chui & Nellis 2003, p.5) describes the process to a more social work context, by way of intervening a persons offending behaviour by way of diagnosing, assessing and intervention, rather than considering and acting upon the offenders’ religious beliefs.

This ethos continued until the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was established and an era of significant change was to challenge and change the Probation Service. Ward, Scott, Lacey, (2002, p.28) mention the aim of this act was to recommend custody as a

last resort, but more emphasis towards rehabilitation was to be encouraged. However, Michael Howard (Home Secretary at the time) contradicted this philosophy when he

spoke about “Prison Works”, encouraging the courts to use Prison Sentences instead of non-custodial options available to the offence. (Ward et al. 2002, p.28- p.29) This came about just when previous views about the criminal justice system were becoming less pertinent. For example, Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, (1997, p.1201) state that during the 1970’s and 1980’s the aim was to reduce the prison population. It was not until the Criminal Justice And Court Services Act 2000, came into force establishing a National Probation Directorate (NPD), part of the Home Office that the Modern Probation Service was founded. During April 2001 and in line with changes in the Police Force, The National Probation Service (NPS) was launched. The NPS then began the modernisation of the service and presented its new choreography, outlining the aims and objectives for the next three years.

During the late 1990’s, the Probation Service encountered negative publicity from the media concerning their ability to administer Probation Orders. It is considered that a Probation Order was not seen as an effective punishment for offenders (Ward, et al. 2002 p.301). This was because offenders were going through the motion of their order and for whatever reason failing to fulfil the requirements set out. In such failures of orders, the offender would then be in breach and returned to court or custody for further sentencing. It was therefore fundamental that the Probation Service took action to gain public confidence and that of the courts, in its ability to ensure that breaching was being adhered to when required. During 1999, the Association Of Chief Officers Of Probation (ACOP, cited in Ward et al, 2002, p.301) conducted the first of three audits producing results, which reflected what was feared. The rate was clearly below what was expected and so the emphasis focused on

improving enforcement. This emphasis on enforcement was also evident in the national standards implemented by the Government in 2000, requiring that 90% of cases that require breach action must be completed (NPD, New Choreography, National Probation Service, 2001, p.29).

This is a preview of the whole essay

It has also brought forward breach action to be taken after two unacceptable missed appointments, or three if on licence. This now means that if an offender misses a 2nd appointment (having had one unacceptable failure) the individual will have seven working days to provide acceptable reason of absence, if they failed to provide this the Probation Service will have a three further days to inform the court. Previous to this breach process offenders were being given two unacceptable failures, but the results show that enforcement of orders was not as effective. In comparison the enforcement rate of 2004, bearing in mind the stricter enforcement procedures, show that the Probation Service is capable of managing a high level of offenders through its programmes. According to “Setting The Pace” (www.nationalprobationservice.com, p.6) a three-year plan based upon the targets set out in the New Choreography states that although the present figure has shown a significant improvement since the late 1990’s, it is still at 73% breached within 10 days, falling 17% short of the required standard.

Another policy targeted by the Probation Service is the rehabilitation of offenders who come in contact with the Probation Service. (CPO letter January 1996, quoted in HMIP 1998c,p.16, cited in Ward, Scott & Lacey 2002, p.260) states that during 1996, the “What Works Project” was set up to guide Probation Areas and ensure that

effective supervision of offenders in their community was being met. (Sir Grahame Smith, HMIP annual conference, February 1998, (cited in Ward, et al. p.260) gave backing to a report “Strategies For Effective Offender Supervision” (HMIP 1998b). Smith agreed with the need for a more quality approach to dealing with offenders by way of more options to address their specific behaviour and the need for improved quality throughout the service.

(Ward, et al. 2002, p.261) then state that the “What Works” movement continued its forward thinking momentum in the Home Office and “a joint Accreditation Panel (Home Office 2000e) was established”. Chui & Nellis (2003, p.62) also give knowledge to the fact that the “What Works” principle “underpin the design, delivery and implementation of programmes” offered by the Probation Service. The New Choreography (2001, p.20) states that ten programmes have now been given accreditation, offering programmes suitable to various offences committed, underpinning the emphasis of rehabilitation of the individual. Garland (1997, cited in Chui & Nellis, 2003, p.9) recognises that rehabilitative interventions aim more at the offending behaviour rather than the offender. However, Garland is not stating that its possible to separate the crime from the offender. This ethos is also evident in “Setting The Pace”(2003, p.10). The document explains that:

“Between 58-69% of offenders are identified as having problems that can be challenged and changed by successfully completing an accredited programme”

The document continues to explain the drive towards encouraging offenders to successfully complete the programme to help manage themselves to change.

Since the mid 1990’s inter agency working was seen as an effective way from protecting the public from offenders who were considered dangerous to society. The initiative aimed towards agencies sharing expertise on offending behaviour to assist one another. (Ward, et al. 2002, p.104) explain that by the 1990’s the primary concern was the management of offenders who were considered dangerous or potentially dangerous to society. The authors continue to make a comparison with that of rehabilitation. It is important that the National Probation Service respects an individual and that it does not abuse their human rights for the sake of public protection.

The current role of the Probation Service meets this aim by the set up of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) introduced in April 2001. Setting The Pace, (2003, p.7) explains that the statutory duty placed upon the Probation and the Police Force mean that dangerous offenders in the community can be monitored closely, ensuring that public protection is a priority. MAPPA brings together the Police Force, Probation Service and Social Services who can share information in confidence without violating data protection or human rights issues considered earlier. Any other agencies attending MAPPA must sign an information sharing protocol. Setting The Pace, (2003, p.7) continues to acknowledge that MAPPA is having a noticeable effect on re-offending by high-risk offenders. Paul Goggins (Home Office Minister, cited in Setting The Pace, 2003, p.7) also pays tribute to MAPPA, admitting

it will never eliminate risks posed by dangerous offenders but it does do a huge amount to minimise their offences. Bold Steps, (2004, p.16) also quotes this as an area of continuing rapid development.

Another objective set out by The National probation Service is that of “Proper Punishment”, aiming at punishing an offender for his/her crime. This could indicate the public want a more balanced approach in an offender’s sentence, demanding an individual is properly punished and should not be confused with that of rehabilitation. This is particularly evident when the needs of the victim are considered, discussed later in this essay. Custody is the obvious choice for punishing an offender for an appropriate offence, but issues discussed earlier suggest this method may not be for all offenders. Brownlee, (1998, p.8) states that reducing the use of imprisonment was evident from the mid 1960’s, when Parole was brought in during 1967.

In response to the 1991 act, the Probation Service had the problem of being seen to properly punish an offender with a non-custodial sentence. The Association Of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP, 1988, cited in Brownlee 1998, p.21) aimed to influence community based punishments to the court and to the public emphasising that the sentences are “punishment”. Therefore, the formation of the National Probation Service has balanced these issues with the formation of the Enhanced Community Punishment (ECP) as highlighted in Setting The Pace, (2003, p.12). The document gives evidence that ECP is a powerful concept that combines punishing an offender by the hours they are giving back to the community, but at the same time training them to boost their chances of finding employment.

Other punishments supervised by the Probation Service include a Curfew Order, which can be seen as a punishment in restricting an individual’s freedom during the day or night. Financial punishments can also be seen as restricting what a person can afford to do with his/her time. Brownlee, (1998, p.137) states that during 1995 75% of all individuals being dealt with in court were fined.

It was discussed earlier that Proper Punishment should not be confused with rehabilitation. This can be particularly true from the viewpoint of the victim. Johnstone, 2002, (cited in Chui & Nellis, 2003, p.222) state that the concept of Restorative Justice empowers offenders and victims to come to terms with their feelings about the offence committed and minimise their fear and emotions of powerlessness. However, it can be argued that Restorative Justice may not be appropriate for all victims. Brownlee, (1998, p.95) explains that this could be particularly true for victims of violent crime, suggesting more damage than empowerment to the victim.

The New Choreography, (2001, p.17) defends the concept of Restorative Justice by suggesting that it does work and quotes that it will not be enforced on victims. Bold Steps, (2004, p.18) also quotes that Restorative Justice will continue to be developed and assessed beyond 2004. The document also highlights that the NPS will provide a quality service to victims by contacting them within eight weeks of the offence committed. This approach complements the work undertaken with that of the offender. The PSR interview will always take account of the offenders remorse to their victim and direct work with the offender helps them appreciate the impact their

offence has had. Chui & Nellis, (2003, p.214) confirm this practice by stating an area of importance ‘The need to incorporate a victim perspective when dealing with offenders as a way of reducing crime.

To conclude this essay, the NPS works with a wide range of offenders on various programmes. It also illustrates that there has been an improved enforcement rate of 73% (offenders breached on programmes) still 17% short of the required target. It could be argued that this emphasis towards breaching offenders may conflict with the idea of reducing re-offending and therefore ‘protecting the public’. The role of the Probation Officer requires them not only to conduct Pre-Sentence Reports based on their initial assessment interview, it also demands they manage a ‘caseload’ of offenders. Therefore a clear dilemma could be apparent in the future. To spend even more time breaching offenders to conform with the national enforcement target of 90%, or to believe that certain individuals can change if they are given more time?

It could be with the future implementation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) that this dilemma may be addressed. Bold Steps (2004, p.5) explains that there will be a greater integration of work between the National Probation Service and the Prisons, giving the reader impression to believe that quality management of offenders is being provided no matter if they are in prison or in the community. Given the implementation of the NOMS, it will be critical that any teething problems with differing practices from the Probation and Prison Service are overcome quickly and learned from if the Modern Probation Service fulfils its aims and objectives beyond 2004.

References

Brownlee, I. (1998). Community Punishment, A Critical Introduction. Harlow.

Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

Chui, W., Nellis, M. (Eds), (2003). Chapter 1. Creating The National Probation Service - New Wine, Old Bottles? In. Moving Probation Forward. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd.

Chui, W. Chapter 4. What Works In Reducing Re-Offending Principles and Programmes, in Chui, W., Nellis, M. (Eds), (2003). Moving Probation Forward. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd

Holt, P., Chapter 16. Case Management, Shaping Practice, in.Ward, D., Scott., Lacey., (Eds), (2002). Probation, Working For Justice (2nd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press

Hopley, K., Chapter 18. National Standards, Defining the Service, in.Ward, D., Scott., Lacey., (Eds), (2002). Probation, Working For Justice (2nd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press

Kemshall, H., Chapter 7. Risk, Public Protection and Justice in.Ward, D., Scott., Lacey., (Eds), (2002). Probation, Working For Justice (2nd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press

Lacey, M., Chapter 2. Justice, Humanity and Mercy, in.Ward, D., Scott., Lacey., (Eds), (2002). Probation, Working For Justice (2nd Edition), Oxford, Oxford University Press

Magure, M., Morgan, R., & Reiner, R., (1997). The Oxford Handbook Of Criminology (2nd Edition). Oxford. Oxford University Press

Spalek, B., Victim Work In The Probation Service, Perpetuating Notions Of An Ideal Victim. In, Chui, W., Nellis, M. (Eds), (2003). Moving Probation Forward. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd

The New Choreography. (2001). National Probation Service, National Probation Directorate,

Bold steps. (2004). National Probation Service, National Probation Directorate,

Setting The Pace, 2003. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from http://www.nationalprobationservice.com