The five aims of the new NPS are as follows:
- protecting the public;
- reducing offending;
- the proper punishment of offenders in the community;
- ensuring offenders awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public; and
- rehabilitation of the offender.
“These are defensible aims, although it helps, I think, if they are considered as segments of a circle, each of equal weight, rather than as a list with rehabilitation in fifth place”. (Mike Nellis, www.humancity.org**)
Unfortunately the way the new service is set up, it is most likely that the rehabilitation of the offender will get much less priority than say enforcement of the sentence and punishment of the offender.
Along with the five aims, ‘A New Choreography’ sets out nine stretch objectives these in summary are:
-
Assessment and management – of risk and dangerousness
-
Victims – more continued contact
-
Evidence based accredited programmes aimed to reduce re-offending
-
Diverting youths from crime – early intervention o f young offenders through improvement of relationship with Youth Justice Boards and application of evidence led ‘what works’ strategy on young offenders.
-
Enforcement – of sentence
-
Service to courts – providing courts with good information and pre-trial services
- Diversity
-
Strong organisation
-
Performance management – review process
These aims and objectives, when discussed in context, show the increased managerial and punitive nature of the probation service pushed upon it by government. For example aim 5 of the NPS - rehabilitation of the offender, this is now much more geared toward public safety than reform of character being the priority as has been the case traditionally in probation work. Or as Mike Nellis paraphrases; “Rehabilitation, albeit firmly in the context of public protection, has regained some of its former eminence. Desirable as this is, it in no way represents a return to probation’s social work roots, as Garland (1997) recognises: Where rehabilitative interventions are undertaken their character is rather different than before. They are now much more focused upon control issues…” (Nellis, 2002:9).
So the creation of the new National Service represents yet another shift away from its social work ethos toward a more standardised managed service with a tougher public image and emphasis on control. This can be seen further when the budget and allocation of spending is looked at with regard to the nine stretch objectives. 40% of the overall budget was allocated to stretch objective number 5 – Enforcement along with the majority of resources. The Home secretary made enforcement the highest priority of the new service – this clearly shows the key principle of the new service is that of efficiency in punishment of offenders and an overriding goal to achieve a hugely controlled system. However, care must be taken that this overriding principle does not become an enveloping or choking principle destroying what probation is all about. This is a danger when the government is only interested in the enforcement of sentences not effective appropriate enforcement, it has been stated that vigorous enforcement is not always synonymous with effective enforcement. “It is increasingly argued that vigorous enforcement of conditions of probation orders improves probation outcomes and reduces reconviction rates. To date, however, there has been remarkably little evidence for or against this contention.” (Hearnden and Millie, Probation Journal Vol. 51(1):48). Amongst the concern here is that the service is becoming de-humanised and less concerned with the offender and his/her reform, this, however, need not be the case. “First the attempt to deal effectively with an individual’s offending unavoidably involves the process of personal engagement with that individual and his/her problems…Second, effectively influencing an individual and his/her environment in ways that lessen the likelihood of further offending is closely associated with reduction of harm to both the individual offender and the wider community, and reduction of harm is humanitarian. Finally if anything is to be learnt from history then it must be understood that social justice depends not just on promoting individual welfare but also on addressing the community needs, and an informed, confident probation service that manages political concerns can [perhaps] integrate both dimensions” (Vanstone, Probation Jouranal, Vol51(1):42-43).
The aims of the new NPS must be given equal weight and importance. It is
inevitably difficult to integrate the changes, especially with the overriding ethos changing so fundamentally, so therefore care must be taken to allocate equal resources to each change if implementation is to be successful. Although a degree of standardization in this, and indeed all institutions within the criminal justice system, is necessary, I am more inclined to agree with Cavadino and Dignan’s stance within this broader debate. These authors put forward the following; “For ourselves, we have no objection to a greater degree of standardization in order to generalize good practice, but it has clearly been a shock to the system in terms of the traditional independence of the individual probation officer.” (Cavadino and Dignan, 1997:222)
The probation service does need modernizing to keep it relevant to 21st Century criminological debate, so it should be ‘fixed’ with standardized managed practice, but at the same time it must allow a sufficient transition period to allow its staff to keep up, the last thing wanted is to dishearten employees. Disempowered, confused probation staff must lead to an ineffective service and this hampers the achievement of stretch objective 8 – strong organisation. A lot of my internet research revealed a definite theme within the probation service of a confused staff – ‘running to catch up’.
So… “Is there an optimum pace of change, in which there is time to establish and consolidate new ways of working at ground level in the way anticipated by policy makers…no answer has been forthcoming to this…In the view of one probation officer, any attempt at an answer…risks exposing the dubious reason why policy changes so fast in the first place: (Nellis, 2003:261)
“The root of the probation service’s difficulties…is snap-of-the-fingers policymaking that springs more from tabloid editorials than from an understanding of criminal justice. (Quoted in the Guardian, 2 August 2002)
It is difficult to really decide whether or not the ever changing role of probation is actually having a positive effect on society, crime rates and criminal activity as it is the Home Office who will gage its success, and it is they who will inevitably be singing its praises, whether or not it is effective, as a means to achieve other political goals. In other words manipulation of for example re-offending statistics is easily done to cast a positive shine on what the government is doing for the public.
According to the NPS mission statement, ‘A New Choreography 2001-2004’, the Service “is a law enforcement agency delivering community punishments, supervising and working with offenders within the terms set by the Court or Parole Board in ways that help offenders to reduce their re-offending and better protects the public. Failure to comply with the supervision requirements elicits breach action through the Courts and can lead to a prison sentence. Where the offender is on early release from custody on statutory licence, the outcome of probation breach action may be recall to prison.”
“The new National Probation Service (NPS) has brought fresh aims and duties for probation, it has accelerated the development of effective ways of working with offenders and it has created new central and local structures. The new Service has a clear, unambiguous remit to be a public service that protects the public, operates and enforces court orders and prison licences, and rehabilitates offenders to law abiding lives” (A New Choreography, 2001-2004:pg1).
This all sounds like the NPS has revolutionised probation work into a flawless efficient service working in harmony with the prison and court system, and indeed this is the aim of the new Service, my first criticism of this, however, is that there has been almost no time for feedback and results to prove a statement to these ends. Secondly one must also consider the source, that being the Home Office, the controlling organisation of the Service. Such radical changes, as the ones that have been imposed require time and constant review to discover how effective the service is revealing itself to be. Unfortunately I cannot comment any further here as the accredited programmes of re-offending statistics and performance management strategies, both set out as stretch objectives, are still being carried out and some important results should be known by the end of 2004.
Where does the service appear to be going in the future –to answer this I looked at the most recent bulletins on the Home Office website . Here the Service does offer some assessment of performance and the early outlook is positive, certainly the fact that the service is applying a critical review of how well the objectives set out in 2001 have been met, however, these statistics are open to manipulation, and given the extremely high expectations for a ‘world beating’ probation service by 2006 it would be easy for the Home Office to get carried away in its own hype and ambition and neglect the real purpose of the system.
Conclusion
The answer to the question lies between two residing themes that of rehabilitation and control. This has been a prominent discussion point in modern probation discourse. As can be seen from the history offered early in the essay, there has been an ever-increasing force exerted upon probation from central government to become more punitive in nature. Also the service has become offence specific so as to exert more control and employ a ‘what works’ strategy, the worry of these two major changes to the service’s historical background is that it leads to a non offender-orientated and therefore de-humanised system that may not be a s effective in achieving the service’s purpose, however this need not be the case as discussed earlier in the essay a ‘confident probation service’ can achieve its revised goals without losing the humanity that is traditionally linked with the service.
Adequate time must be given to allow staff to represent what policymakers have intended for the National Probation Service, there have been some major changes in the system, not only with its management but also in the principles which guide it. If a ‘world beating’ service is to be achieved by 2006 the staff must be allowed reasonable time for transition.
Allocation of resources and funding to the aims and principles of the NPS I believe must be given equally. It is difficult to integrate so many changes immediately, so care must be taken in such measures if implementation of the new regime is to be successful. With enforcement receiving the highest priority within the new service, it is possible that the system could become jaded and hung up on this, only one important aspect of the service.
In every essay, consideration of sources must be given adequate attention. For example when reading ‘A New Choreography’ and looking on the Home Office website, there is undoubtedly bias reflecting government agenda. To gain an overall picture of the topic and a clearer outlook, one must seek out independent literature on such matters, but more importantly look beyond the surface or face value of all research.
Finally, some degree of standardization and central management is positive for a service in need of an injection of drive and better public image, however I personally believe probation’s major concern, or key principle, should be that of reform and rehabilitation character, however this will only work for certain offenders – They have to want to change, to change.
Bibliography
Textbooks and journals
- Chui, W.H. & Nellis, M. (2003) Moving Probation Forward. Pearson. Harlow, London.
-
Cavadino, M & Dignan, J (2002) The Penal System. 2nd Eds. Sage London,
- Hudson, A (1996) Understanding Justice. Open University Press. Buckingham.
- Muncie, J. McLaughlin, E. & Langan, M. (2001) Criminological Perspectives. Sage. London.
- Wallis, E. (2001-2004) A New Choreography, An Integrated Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales. Strategic Framework 2001-2004. Home Office directive.
- Various Authors. (2004) Probation Journal Vol.51(1). NAPO.
- Jarvis, F.V. (1972) Advise, assist and befriend: a history of the probation and after-care service. National Association of Probation Officers, London.
- Ditton, J & Ford, R. (1994) The Reality of probation: a formal ethnography of process and practice. Avebury, Aldershot.
- Raynor, P. (1988) Probation as an alternative to custody: a case study. Avebury, Aldershot.
- McLaughlin, E & Muncie, J. (2001) Controlling Crime. 2nd Eds. Sage, London.
- Intensive Probation in England and Wales: An evaluation. (1994) HMSO, London.
- Great Britain. Home Office. National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. Published by the Home Office.
Websites
**source reached through the following links on the website above; UK Government; Government Units and Agencies; National Probation Service.
**source reached through the following links on the website above; publications; future papers; Mike Nellis – Toward a Human Probation Service.