From this objective it is then stated that the strategic imperative is to sustain high performance in the successful areas and lift performance in others in order to meet national standards in 90% of cases (Wallis, 2001, p.29)
The comprehensive assessment and management of risk and dangerousness through accredited programmes is one approach to reducing re-offending. One example is ‘Think First’ which focuses on the idea that how an offender thinks affects what they think and subsequently how they act. This is mainly looking at problem solving and essentially is equipping the individual with basic skills. Accredited programs display law enforcement, starting the community reintegration process. In an recent article (About ‘What works’, 2001) enforcement is most successful when certain criteria are met. These include effectiveness - a programme has been shown to work well, targeted – will tackle the contributing factors of crime, matched – consideration of individual difference so that it works well with that offender and finally positive - promote the learning and development of skills for effective rehabilitation. As stated in a recent article, (Serving Local Communities – Reducing Crime, 2001, p.3) this strategy aims to ensure that all probation practice is proactive but also places strict enforcement for effective engagement with offenders, showing both offenders and the public that probation is not a soft option and hopefully break through some negativity towards probation practice.
The first stepping-stone therefore looks at how one approaches the idea that people have to help themselves in order to change. It can be argued that enforcement is effective because getting your foot through the door is the greatest challenge. Probation in this case will enforce an order that will provide opportunities to the offender to then develop as an individual. The question is can we deliver programmes effectively by saying that these are necessary and expect offenders to comply? The idea of enforcement can be represented in the behaviour of probation officers and this subsequently leads to the effective training and understanding of various issues in the service such as appropriate solutions, accredited programme completions, sickness, absence and investment in staff as well as equality and diversity. The NPS is placing a great amount of effort to expand and train new recruits and focus on high performance of its staff in enforcing the programmes available and also maintaining national standards as they progress.
No matter which stance is taken on the aims of the probation service it is always important to remember that it is still working to meet targets and relies heavily on budgets and funding. In practice, enforcement is being supported, with recent news that there has been a £70 million increase in funding to support modernisation and is a result of its ongoing success (Benn, 2002). This goes on to imply the need for effective practice and aims to move away from custodial sentences by applying greater emphasis on supervision. This has already begun in practice with the recent increase in recruitment of probation officers in England and Wales, investing in qualifications such as the Diploma in Probation Studies (DipPS) and the NVQ level four. Questions that may arise with reference to high staffing levels include the mix of skills, experience and overall control and monitoring of probation staff. The reality at present is that in some regions the common denominator is staffing difficulties. This is not due to lack of resources but emphasises the importance of consistency in supervision and support for both staff and offenders (Cunha et al, 2002, p.3). Barton (2003) stated that the government is under enormous pressure to reduce crime and ensure the system is credible; the public perception being that there hasn’t been any improvement in crime prevention and detection. These views further suggested that although the NPS is targeting more effectively, resources are insufficient and the job is only getting half done. This is the cornerstone of the quality-quantity debate. This brings up a personal question that many people may have considered and that is ‘has crime and re-offending reduced or it simply cleverly masked?’
The greatest concern that has developed around staff behaviour relates to the national standards set within the NPS in England and Wales. All professionals must bear in mind the principles of quality, accountability, consistency and the need to avoid inappropriate discrimination. Therefore it is fair to say that there are set guidelines to follow when writing out reports or deciding on ‘appropriate’ sentences for offenders and these should be adhered to. However a certain level of discretion is an operating reality in the justice system (Pollock, 1993, p.143). The concern is that there is a lack of progress in enforcement as a result in the failure of management to remain consistent in practice and not taking disciplinary action when deemed necessary (Cunha et al, 2002, p.2). McCarthy (2003) pointed out the need to consider a definition of ‘good enforcement’ in order to address inconsistencies between practitioners, managers and policy makers. The report displayed the fact that different approaches to breach existed as an issue and community punishment was more closely enforced. Furthermore it was highlighted that access to enforcement guidelines was inconsistent to employees of the service (p.2). The way in which law enforcement may move forward is to not only to use power of the national standards and maintain justice e.g. the ability for probation officers to refer offenders back to court when non-compliance is an issue, but also to use the funds available to invest in systematic evaluation of staff.
There is another side to the coin and this focuses on what initiatives exist as part of the probation service enforcing compliance but also which impinge on other agencies. The Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) is one initiative in practice that is proving successful in reducing drug related offending. The probation service promotes enforcement through the use of DTTO specialists. One important and successful development is the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA), which became operational in April 2001. As a law enforcement agency the probation service can help with supervision and delivery of interventions with offenders on a community order but once they have completed their order what next? The probation service may have its limitations but the ‘long-term’ effects can be strengthened. The New Choreography (2001/4) emphasises the use of Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPS), to re-evaluate current practice and give the NPS authority to deal with potentially dangerous offenders even after their supervision/licence has ended. With close partnership to external agencies the process of change can be positively reinforced. These may open doors with education and housing for example. Enforcement is also emphasised in collaboration with other agencies in the involvement with ‘Home Detection Curfew’ (HDC) and electronic tagging in the role of post-release supervision. (See “Probation Circular 44/1998”, section 99-100).
Probably the most conscious debate present in all organisations is valuing diversity and equality. Judge Singh (2001) in his recent article highlighted the obligation to ensure non-discriminatory, anti-racist and anti-oppressive practice through training, management, appraisals and ultimately discipline to both staff and offenders. He proposed Ethnic Monitoring as an essential component of racial equality. A diversity strategy (The Heart of the Dance, 2002/6) has peen put into place for the national probation service, which consolidates established policies and new thinking and practice (Wallis, 2002). This strategy proposes six priority objectives for staff, offenders and legislative responsibilities. Enforcement on this issue is already taking place in probation practice, where the Diversity Centrally Led Action Networks (CLANS) are the driving force of the objectives identified. Enforcement is achieved through annual reviews and through intervening bad practice and recommending annual business plans. Area performance is an important measure and enhancing this by, for example, monitoring national standards and race equality targets is indeed part of the National Probation Directorate Business Plan 2003-2004 (Birkett and Prashar 2003/4, p.18).
The Probation Service as a law enforcement agency has rapidly expanded, evidently over the last three years and there is great attention being paid towards the future and the way in which the NPS hopes to move forward and remain a credible agency in society. The phrase ‘the National Probation Service is a law enforcement agency’ does indeed hold a lot of truth which is reflected in the delivery of accredited programmes, the partnerships with other agencies and also the standards set both nationally and locally within the probation areas. However it is important to realise that this is a service that is constantly developing and rapidly changing with the demands of society and alteration in practice will be made accordingly. One may therefore conclude that with the co-operation of offenders and staff, the NPS is an agency working towards successful law enforcement.
