Ideology is driving probation reform
—There cannot have been many ministers who tried simultaneously to privatise and nationalise a public service. But that is precisely what justice secretary, Chris Grayling, is trying to do with the probation service.
Probation officers are responsible for preparing court reports and supervising two groups of offenders: those given community orders and those released back into the community after a prison sentence of more than 12 months.
Probation services in England and Wales are currently commissioned and provided by 35 probation trusts. With a budget of around £1.5bn they are responsible for 220,000 offenders. The quality of their work is highly regarded with 30 trusts rated as ‘good’ and five judged ‘exceptional’.
Even so, the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation strategy is set to trigger the biggest shake-up in more than a century. A new National Probation Service, run from Whitehall, will be responsible for around 30 per cent of the offenders – those judged most dangerous.
The 70 per cent considered to be low and medium risk will be supervised by private and voluntary organisations and funded through a system of payment by results. Ministers have failed to confirm how much of the fees will depend on reoffending rates, but some insiders suggest it will be as little as 10 per cent.
Probation trusts will not be allowed to bid for the work with low- and medium-risk offenders, adding weight to the charge that these changes are driven by ideology rather than best practice. Grayling, of course, has form: he was the minister who designed the work programme which is also based on payment by results. So far that programme is failing to meet even minimum expectations with three providers already penalised for poor performance.
There is deep concern that the justice secretary is being driven by political ambition rather than the evidence.
There has been very limited testing of his new approach at Peterborough and Doncaster prisons. Grayling has described the early results as ‘very encouraging’, but a range of criminal justice experts say they should be treated with caution. Many members of parliament and peers have been calling for a properly evaluated pilot but ministers remain set on full implementation by early 2015.
Voluntary groups already play a vital role in work with offenders, providing help and support that can turn lives around. But many of them fear that, without the commercial clout to bid for the big contracts, their contribution will be undermined. At the same time, two large private companies, G4S and Serco, are being encouraged to bid – even though they are subject to a criminal investigation for overcharging the Ministry of Justice for services they already provide. G4S has already admitted to claiming more than it should have and offered to pay back £24m.
There is growing concern that the break-up of probation will weaken public safety. Risk is constantly changing and separating offenders into low and medium risk and high risk flies in the face of professional experience.
One positive proposal from government is the extension of supervision to all those given short prison sentences of fewer than 12 months. At present they return to the community without support and it is little wonder that many return to crime and to custody.
This is something that Labour ministers wanted to do, but the annual cost – estimated a decade ago at £194m – made it unaffordable. When current ministers are asked where the money is going to come from they say it will all be covered by the new privatised contracts. This is simply wishful thinking disguised as policy.
These changes are a huge gamble, based on ideology rather than facts, and likely to fragment the very services that are working to keep us safe. If ministers will not pilot their proposals they should scrap them altogether.
———————————————————
Paul Goggins MP is a former minister for prisons and probation
———————————————————