Crime rates rose significantly in the post war period. The prison population rose rapidly which led to serious overcrowding by the 1950's. The need for alternatives to custodial sentencing therefore became paramount. The Morison Committee (Home Office 1962) was set up partly to reassure the public that the probation service was capable of dealing with offenders effectively (one of its recommendations was that after-care should become an integral part of the work of the probation service). (Maguire M, et al, 1997 pg 1200).
By the 1970's politicians, academics, sentencers and probation practitioners all saw the role of the probation service as a fundamental mechanism for keeping offenders out of prison. This resulted in the modernisation of the probation service. It adopted a rehabilitative ideal but many relevant people did not feel that the ideology of rehabilitation program which failed to gain total confidence from the public and other areas of the criminal justice system. People were extremely sceptical that rehabilitation worked. A Home Office study of Intensive Matched Probation and After Care Treatment or IMPACT for short, actually found very little evidence to support the idea that social work/probation intervention or rehabilitation actually worked. The probation service it seems has fallen in and out of popularity since it began but the penal crisis of the 1970's saw it rising in favour yet again.
The Thatcher government during the early 80's insinuated that the probation service was ineffective and failed to rehabilitate offenders accusing the service of having "soft, social work values which meant that offenders who deserved punishment received help instead". (ib id, p.2002) According to Edwards the Thatcher government saw the problem of crime control as the "responsibility of 'active citizens' and other bodies outside of the Criminal Justice System". He stated, "The appropriation of crime prevention in this way is consistent with and arguably closer to, the Thatcherite concern with limiting welfare state intervention and promoting greater self help". (Web site, Edwards A, p.11) It could be argued that there is indeed a place for a softer, social work approach to dealing with offenders. There is a necessity for the development of forms of treatment and/or rehabilitative programs that in the right instances be used as an alternative to custody by the courts. However, the government shifted away from the ideals of rehabilitating offenders to focusing emphasis on victims and punishing offenders, with the ethos that offending behaviour was the result of choice. Garland 1985:17 stated, "Illegality, like poverty, was an effect of individual choice. Accordingly, punishment took forms appropriate to its object. The proper response to the rational criminal thus constructed was a policy of deterrence and retribution the former to deny the utility of crime, the latter to reconstitute the social contract after its breach.” (May T, 1991 pg 5).
It would be fair comment to make that the probation service seemed to fall in and out of favour with the public and the 'powers that be' yet it appears to remain steadfast in its ideologies and its longevity speaks volumes. Whereas it was once seen as an alternative to punishment it is now seen as an alternative to prison. Now there appears to be a hybrid of the two according to the popular policies of the day. It could be argued that the history of community penalties is for all intents and purposes the history of the probation service thus making the probation service politically bound.
As stated earlier in this project, the probation service still has many aspects of the ideologies that it held during its infancy. It is still the aim of the probation service to advised, assist and befriend for example however, now they are given the added responsibility of investigating the causes of crime and diagnosing, culminating in the ideological ideals of psychology, biology and sociology. The role of the probation service has expanded in many directions and some academic commentators have tried to conceptualise the service by saying that it is about selection, conditional suspension of punishment or imprisonment, personal supervision, guidance and treatment. These huge responsibilities leave the probation service very open to criticism.
Modernisation of The Criminal Justice Act 1991 saw a shift from psychotherapeutic approaches to cognitive behavioural programmes. This shift changed the emphasis of responsibility of the service to responsibility of the individual to focusing on their specific unacceptable behaviour therefore making offenders accept responsibility for their actions. There was also a realisation that it was important to develop a coherent plan of implementation at an early stage. Plans should cover areas such as organisational structures, communication and feed back systems, staffing levels and training, staff support and supervision provisions, procedures to facilitate program integrity and the provision of appropriate accommodation. (Web page, National Probation Service, 03/06/05)
There was a shift from individualised sentencing based upon the concept of 'just desserts' or proportionality, meaning the severity of the sentence should match the seriousness of the offence. The concept of the service diverting from custody was banished and the Probation Order became a direct sentence of the court, becoming a sentence in its own right resulting in a punishment which although not custodial still restricted the offender's liberty. A community rehabilitation order (formerly known as a probation order) is a community sentence which requires the offender to be supervised by the probation service for between six months and three years. A community rehabilitation order can be made for any offence which the court believes is serious enough. The purpose of the order is to rehabilitate the offender, protect the public and prevent the offender committing further offences. Community rehabilitation orders are often made where there is a clear underlying problem leading to crime, such as misuse of drugs or alcohol, difficulties in controlling behaviour or a chaotic lifestyle.
The offender must see his or her probation officer regularly, in line with national standards, and at least weekly for the first 12 weeks. The role of the probation officer is to draw up a supervision plan working with the offender. The purpose of doing this is to aim at making the offender take positive steps to avoid re-offending. The offender must also follow a planned programme, which may involve individual sessions, or group sessions with other offenders. Programmes are designed to address issues such as:
- Anger management
- Domestic violence
- Drink driving
- Driving while disqualified
The probation service may also refer offenders to other agencies for specialist help with housing, employment, drug or alcohol problems or mental health needs. A court may direct an offender to attend a special programme or to seek help for drug, alcohol or mental health problems as a condition of the probation order. Offenders can also be required to live at a probation hostel for part of the order, if the sentencer feels they need a greater degree of supervision. One can clearly see how diverse the role of the probation service and its officers are. Across London for example, there are a number of centres running intensive programmes. Offenders must attend if so ordered and some will have to attend for up to five days a week. These centres provide a wide range of specialist groups which focus on aspects of offending behaviour. Offenders can also be required to attend basic skill training sessions to prepare them for employment or further training.
Community rehabilitation orders are designed to be tough and challenging. It is important to note however that anyone who misses more than one appointment or does not keep to the terms of the order will be taken back to court and can be sent to prison.
Modernisation of the probation service has continued under the new Labour Government. Initiatives such as 'What Works' have been developed to ascertain the effectiveness of the various programs so that there is evidence to show whether or not a program works and an offender can benefit. There are several ways of identifying effective practice in probation: Reduced re-offending and lower reconviction rates, rehabilitation of offenders by changing their attitudes and behaviour and public protection and value for money are all such examples. The London Probation Area provides a wide range of programmes which address different offences and different groups of offenders.
'What Works' is currently funding the development and evaluation of selected programmes offered by prisons and probation services which are designed to reduce re-offending. Programmes selected for this funding are known as Pathfinders. Successful Pathfinders will be replicated around the country as accredited programmes. (Web site, What Works, 06/07/05)
In an interview i asked a probation officer a Mrs Jones what was the main responabilitie and key role of the probation serbvice is she replied:
"It is the role of the probation service to work hand in hand with the courts and one of the main responsibilities of the probation service is to provide courts with pre-sentence reports on offenders. The primary function of a pre-sentence report is to help the courts to decide the most suitable way of dealing with a defendant whose guilt has already been established. The information offered by pre-sentence report must be objective and will be likely to include an assessment of the offence and its circumstances, details of the defendant's attitude to the offence, relevant information about the offender which will include the probation officer's judgement as to whether the offender will be likely to offend again. The report would be likely to include an assessment of the impact of the offence on the victim too. It is also the role of the probation officer writing the report to offer opinions on appropriate sentencing options. More than 3000 pre sentence reports are prepared each year by the National Probation Service in Derbyshire alone for the Crown, Magistrates and the Youth Courts thus showing the immense influence that the probation service has within the Criminal Justice System,It is important therefore that the emphasis is on quality within the content of these reports"(Leane Jones, probation officer 18/08/05).
Risk assessment is an important role of the Probation Service also. Rigorous risk assessment enables the NPS to identify the risk of harm posed by offenders in order to protect the public and cut crimes. This is integral to the ethos of the NPS. The result of this implementation has led to a more systematic practice in identifying the two main risk elements and has contributed significantly to their work with dangerous and prolific offenders.
The modernisation of the NPS continues under New Labour with the appointment of the First Director of New National Probation Service. It will be her role to drive forward the modernisation program for the service. Home Office Minister Paul Boateng said, "I am delighted to announce that Eithne Wallis has been appointed
National Director designate for the new National Probation Service for England and Wales, with effect from 18 September 2000. Eithne brings a strong track record and tremendous commitment to what will be a challenging and important job. I congratulate her and wish her every success."
Eithne Wallis, the National Director designate, replied, "I am very pleased to have been appointed as National Director of the new National Probation Service. I am determined that we will deliver a new Service which builds on the existing professional expertise of probation staff, and that it will rise to the challenges ahead". (Web site, (Home Office Building a Safe, Just and Tolerant Society, 08/07/05)
The top priorities of the new National Probation Service will be the public protection and the prevention of re-offending. A target of 60,000 offenders to successfully complete some of the accredited What Works programs was set with the view that raising the game on enforcement would help achieve the main objectives.
The new Service had a collective aim to establish itself as a world leader in designing and implementing offender assessment and supervision programs and effectively reduce re-offending and improve safety, which was achieved in 2004. By the year 2006 they intend to be recognised as a top performing public service as benchmarked by the European Excellence Model (EEM).
In conclusion it has become clear throughout the course of this essay that the National Probation Service has strived to continually restructure itself to meet the needs of the criminal justice system. It has not always been successful in its attempts and still has its critics. The service as a whole relies upon the loyalty and integrity of its staff who are highly trained and dedicated people. Modernisation of the service has seen the necessity for constant and stringent training and monitoring of the staff and the policies of NPS. The re-structure of the re-structure of the NPS has replaced 54 local committees with 42 local boards. The boundaries now match those of the police and the courts and this allows better partnership working. Management weaknesses are being tackled by use of the European Excellence Model thus allowing the organisation to assess how well it is performing in such areas as leadership, partnership and strategy.
The Better Quality Service process is also being adopted, providing a quide for reviewing objectives. They are keen to give better value for money within the service, uncover, and tackle management weaknesses by utilising the European Excellence Model allowing them to assess how well they are performing in areas such as leadership, partnership and strategy.
This provides a guide for reviewing objectives and relationships in the search for better value for money. The NPS has replaced 54 local committees with 42 local boards. The boundaries now match those of the police and the courts and this allows better partnership working. Management weaknesses are being tackled by use of the European Excellence Model, which allows an organisation to assess how well it is performing in such areas as leadership, partnership and strategy.
The research for this project has given a good insight into the work of the NPS and conclude that although there is always room for improvement the NPS has come along way in a relatively short period. Their knowledge, expertise and fundamental framework within the existing criminal justice system is constantly being revised and they aim to ensure effective delivery of justice.
Bibliography
Brownlee, I, Community Punishment: A Critical Introduction, (Longman, Harlow, 1998)
Bochel D, Probation And After Care: It's Development In England And Wales, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, (1976)
Crown Copyright (2001), A New Choreography: An Integrated Strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (Home Office Communication Directorate, London, 2001)
Crown Copyright (2003), About Us, Visited 1/5/03, URL: http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page18.asp
Derbyshire Probation Service,
www.dpsonline.org.uk/documents/nps_Dannualreport2004.pdf
Dobson, G, Probation - A Service Reinventing Itself,
www.sourceuk.net/articles/a00318.html
Home Office (2000), First director of new National Probation Service appointed, www.nds.coi.gov.uk
Home Office (2001), First ombudsman for offenders on probation, http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.nsf
Home Office (2002), Probation: £70 million increase in funding, http://www.nds.coi.gov.uk
Leane Jones, Probation Officer (1998 - 2004)
Mair, G, Community Penalties and Probation, in Maguire, M, et al, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997)
May T, Probation: Politics, Policy and Practice, Open University Press, Buckingham, (1991)
NAPO, Napo's strategic priorities and goals for 2001-3, www.napo.org.uk/goals.shtml
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Probation Service Challenged to Improve its Image, www.excelsior.pwcglobal.com/knowledge/article.asp?artID=461
Shaw, R, Haines, K, The Criminal Justice System: A Central Role For The Probation Service, (Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1989)
The United Kingdom Parliament, Written Answers to Questions [14 Dec 1999], www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk
Vass A, Alternatives to Prison: Punishment, Custody and the Community, Sage Publications Ltd, London, (1990)
