Probation and Privatisation
Privatisation was introduced into the probation service on the 1st June 2014 whereby work with medium and low risk offenders went to a number of private and voluntary bodies, work with high risk offenders remained with the State. The National Probation Service (NPS) covered State work whilst the 35 existing Probation Trusts were replaced by 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Staff were allocated to either side of the divide but all remained as probation officers. The effect was that the existing probation service lost control of all but 30,000 of the most high risk cases, with the other 220,000 low to medium risk offenders being farmed out to private firms. Privatisation was justified as the only available way of achieving important policy objectives of extending post release supervision to offenders on short sentences, a group who are the most prolific offenders with high reconviction rates yet who receive no statutory support.
This book describes the process by which the probation service became privatised, assessing its impact on the probation service itself, and on the criminal justice system generally. It considers both the justifications for privatisation, as well as the criticisms of it, and asks to what extent the probation service can survive such changes, and what future it has as a service dedicated to the welfare of offenders. It demonstrates how the privatisation of probation can be seen as a trend away from traditional public service in criminal justice towards an emphasis on efficiency and cost effectiveness.
This book is essential reading for criminology students engaged with criminal justice, social policy, probation, punishment and working with offenders. It will also be key reading for practitioners and policy makers in jurisdictions where there is an interest in extending their own privatisation practice.
Philip Bean is Emeritus Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Loughborough, UK.
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
2019 Philip Bean
The right of Philip Bean to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bean, Philip, 1936- author.
Title: Probation and privatisation / Philip Bean.
Other titles: Probation and privatization
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018020301| ISBN 9780815353973 (hardback) | ISBN 9780815353980 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781351134514 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Probation--Great Britain. | Corrections--Contracting out--Great Britain. | Privatization--Great Britain.
Classification: LCC HV9345.A5 B43 2018 | DDC 364.6/30941--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018020301
ISBN: 978-0-8153-5397-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-8153-5398-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-13451-4 (ebk)
As an ex probation officer, albeit in those far off days of the 1960s and during the so called Golden Age, I have become greatly concerned about the position in which the Probation Service now finds itself. What does it mean for the service to be privatised, and does it have a future, except as a divided service half of which is privatised and the other half as having reduced duties? The more I looked the more complicated the whole matter seemed to be, with accusations and counter accusations being the order of the day. It was soon clear that my memories of the probation service and my attachment to it were firmly rooted in that period when advise, assist and befriend was the mantra under which we lived and breathed. This is now no longer appropriate, although numerous comments in the literature suggests a number of Probation Officers are still attached to that. Even so, few would expect to return to those halcyon days when the Probation Service could do no wrong. Things have moved on since then, and even before privatisation there was a different mood and a different ethos surrounding probation and probation practice. Nonetheless privatisation, when it came, was a shock which required massive adjustments, and produced for many a belief that the service would never recover. My own view is more optimistic; it is that whatever the current position there is now an opportunity to debate and discuss what sort of probation service we might want and how best to bring it about? It is the best opportunity for decades to bring about a new service and shape it accordingly. Simply lamenting the current position will lead us nowhere.
It is customary and entirely appropriate to thank those who have given up their valuable time to discuss with me the various features of the probation service as it now exists. Accordingly, I would like to thank the following, some of whom read drafts of chapters, all of whom were prepared to spend time discussing and tolerating my endless questions. They are John Budd, Lol Burke, Peter Dawson, David Faulkner, Leo Goodman, Martin Graham, Rt. Hon. Chris Grayling, John Harding, Tony Knivett, Ian Lawrence, Rod Morgan, Robin Osmond, John Perry, Lord Ramsbotham, Dame Glenys Stacey, Sir John Weston, and Nigel Whiskin. Others too numerous to mention including friends and family played their part, for which I offer my thanks.
It is with some dismay that no one was prepared to speak with me from the National Probation Service, Community Rehabilitation Companies, and HM Prison and Probation Service. They gave no reason, simply that (where they replied, and some did not) they were not prepared to meet with me. The result, sadly, is a less than adequate account of the situation than it might have been.
Philip Bean
July 2018
In 1958, a distinguished British criminologist described the Probation Service as the most significant contribution made by this country (the UK) to penalogical theory and practice of the 20th Century. He also thought it would most likely endure.1 Yet some 50 years later, stripped of many of its earlier duties, divided between public and private sectors, with morale at an all-time low, and in part merged with a larger more powerful Prison Service, there appears little to support those earlier claims. To many observers the once admired Probation Service is now nothing more than a hollowed out relic of its former past.
The impact on this service and beyond has been extensive, creating change without parallel in modern criminal justice systems. Simply on the basis of the numbers of offenders under its control the loss has been immense. On the 1st June 2014, when it was privatised, the Probation Service lost all but 30,000 of the most high risk cases, with the other 220,000 low to medium risk offenders allocated to private companies. Two of those companies, Interserve and Sodexo took over more than half what was once the remit of the Probation Service.