The changing face of probation

The changing face of probation

By: Charles Hanson

Lifer Charles Hanson challenges an assertion in his prison file that he has an unrealistic expectation of the criminal justice system, and considers that flexibility and discretion has given way to the language of compliance and rigidity.

Following an interview with a probation officer several months ago, I studied the report which followed with some interest and filed it for future reference. There it remained until now, as I study it more closely in readiness for the next interview, which is now imminent, to enable me to measure any discrepancy or ambiguity.

With the changing face of probation work, and its move away from social work and social inclusion to one of public protection, enforcement, coercion, the notion of `tough cure' with offending behaviour programmes and the probation service's rigid reliance on implementing punishment, it seems to me to make sense to monitor my own progress as seen through the eyes of probation staff and of course any risks which they perceive to be apparent.

As a regular contributor to Inside Time and elsewhere, I was therefore taken aback to note a reference in the report to my allegedly having ‘concrete and rigid thinking’ followed by a comment that ‘it appears to me from general observation that Mr Hanson is someone who holds an unrealistic expectation of the criminal justice system even in everyday matters'. It appears this has its origins in an article I wrote for Inside Time in June 2005 entitled ‘Inconsistency’, which has duly been inserted into my prison file.

Have I therefore hit a sore point, for I readily acknowledge that I do have expectations of the criminal justice system and far from being unrealistic, they are expectations shared not only by offenders and other contributors to Inside Time like myself but also by politicians and academics. Indeed by those probation officers who still hold dear the traditional practice of probation work.

Certainly I do not expect prisons to be revolving doors of waste management, or for them to exist solely for the purpose of recycling offenders that they should become professional prisoners; neither do I expect the criminal justice system to imprison people on the basis of not what they have done but what they might do.

I have an expectation that the criminal justice system will one day find ways of diverting women low risk offenders, who are the majority of female offenders, and also mothers in prison, away from what has become human warehouses and dustbins with no apparent value in the reduction of their offending behaviour and certainly not in the treatment of mental illness, which is evident in many female and indeed male offenders.

I also have an expectation that prisoners should not become the victims of such a low level of lack of duty of care that they kill themselves; some 750 since 1997.

Perhaps I should have an expectation that prison does not become an interlude in an offender's lifestyle, an interruption in his criminal career, and that the function of all prisons should be resettlement and a reduction in one's offending behaviour.

In this area, prison has a poor record for reducing offending behaviour – 65 per cent of adult prisoners are reconvicted within two years of being released from prison - for young men (18-20) it is 75 per cent. In 1992 the reoffending rate was 50 per cent for all offenders.

There are many expectations which I share with other offenders and it would be difficult to know where to start, however one expectation might be that probation officers should be seen to be supportive of all that which would further the end of a reduction in offending behaviour through rehabilitation, resettlement and reintegration, and less critical of those who demand it and disapprove of current practices.

Perhaps if I am more certain about what to expect and will rely on factual evidence to support my case objectively, some members of the probation service seem less confident and rely on subjective and emotive language, indeed guesswork, speculation, value judgement and, who knows, even resentment at what I have written and where I stand? An opinion, I am told, is merely that - an opinion, but for it to have any merit or currency it is usual to support it with evidence and since when, I ask myself, can prisoners have a valid and acceptable opinion without it being misinterpreted or considered to be in conflict with the aims of those interested in the pursuance in the reduction of offending behaviour, rehabilitation and reintegration? In any event, freedom of expression should be very much part of what we ought to expect in a democratic society and is clearly enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act (Article 10) which states that this right shall include the freedom to hold opinion and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority; and how does the Act define a public authority?

A public authority is any person whose functions are of a public nature, and without doubt the probation service meets that criteria. Is my right to express views therefore being interfered with? I would argue that if I am to be criticised for holding views which a probation officer finds unacceptable, and reference is made to those views in a report in a critical manner which might have the capacity of casting doubt on my suitability for release, then yes, that might amount to interference with freedom of expression.

Of course, facts are discernible and less open to challenge than an opinion on which the probation service relies, which is seemingly so bound up in risk assessments and in particular the OASys box-ticking exercise by a probation officer who will often have had little or no direct experience with the offender and which to date has lacked any evaluation of their predictive powers; even though it is being used daily to justify indefinite incarceration. Indeed, so unscientific and inexact is OASys that risk inflation leading to increased periods of custody is commonplace by the simple tick of a box which might have no relevance to the offender.

With most offenders released from prison on licence, there is also the worrying trend of an increase in the number of offenders being recalled to prison by probation officers for apparent breaches of their licence. Between 2000 and 2005, there was a 250 per cent increase in recalls despite the fact that there had been only a 15 per cent increase in the number of ex-prisoners being released on licence. Recalled prisoners now make up nearly 11 per cent of the population of local prisons.

Between April and June 2005, some 2,100 people were recalled to prison for breaches of their licence, the majority for being out of touch with their probation officer or breaking their residency condition. Less than a quarter were recalled to prison to face further criminal charges. For lifers the figures are just as bleak, with 26 recalls for the years 20002001 and 140 for the years 2005-2006.

They are not impressive figures yet they are wholly consistent with a country that imprisons far more people than any country in Europe, and for longer terms, and is obsessed with imprisoning women and children. It also imprisons far more under 18s than any other European country, which I suspect has less to do with innate criminality and more with a vindictive judicial system.

Certainly, even the shortest of sentences is enough to wreck a marriage, a family, a career and a life, and provide the recipe for further offending which seems to demonstrate that the managerialism and bureaucracy of probation work and administrative recall is wholly unconcerned with re-offending.

The flexibility and discretion once allowed to probation officers in their dealings with ex-offenders on licence has now given way to the language of compliance and the national standards laid down by the National Probation Directorate, which compels probation officers to be more rigid in the non-compliance of conditions of parole licences. Being rigid of course means further custody for the offender, which makes it difficult to make sense of its compatibility with rehabilitation.

Probation's greatest strength in years gone by was the belief that they could make a difference with the help they could give with an offender's employment, family, relationships and the community, and an empowerment of that person which is at odds and incompatible with current practice that has signed up with the rest of the oppressive and failing penal system with mixed and ambiguous values and all steered by public, media and political responses to crime, which the probation service seem only too keen to ride with.

Yes, I do have expectations which might be interpreted as concrete and rigid thinking but I also acknowledge that I too have responsibilities, and if my opinions are at odds with a probation officer's ideology it is there because they have been shaped by the prison experience. Clearly, it would be advantageous if all parole review interviews by probation staff could be recorded to reduce the risk of misinterpretation, ambiguity, misquoting and unsubstantiated claims, and in other cases inventiveness, speculation and guesswork. This would have the capacity of protecting both the interviewer and interviewee and prevent offenders from becoming embroiled in disputes over the content of reports.

Certainly, the police record interviews with suspects when investigating crime and it seems reasonable to argue that if the taped interview is part of the evidence against that suspect, and the outcome is a sentence of imprisonment, that when release is being considered a similar measure ought to be in place to accurately record what was said and by whom in interviews between probation staff and offenders. After all, if it is an acceptable part of evidence gathering in the early stages which might put the suspect away in some cases for many years, it ought to be acceptable for the same to apply when he or she is seeking to be released, and perhaps even more so as probation officers take on a semi-prosecutorial role with public protection, enforcement and compliance being the main vocabulary of their everyday language.

As far back as 2002, the Prison Service recognised that prisoners are all too often on unequal terms with the prosecuting authorities and courts when preparing appeals and legal applications which demand typed and printed documents, and introduced a Prison Service Order permitting the use of personal computers for the purpose of legal work. I believe that it should go one step further and allow for tape recorded interviews between offenders and probation staff, especially so where crucial reports which might mean the difference between custody and freedom, and for the benefit of solicitors, who all too often find themselves challenging the contents of reports.

In the final analysis, I would simply state what De Tocqueville once remarked in that ‘a nation's prisons were the best test of its advance down the road of civilisation’. To that I would also add so is the treatment of and justice for those within them.

Charles Hanson is currently resident in HMP Blantyre House.