Community Justice Files 26
| Author | Dr Nick Flynn |
| Pages | 79-83 |
79
COMMUNITY JUSTICE FILES 26
Edited by Nick Flynn, De Montfort University
The future role of the Probation Service
On 13 October 2011, the Government published its response to the Justice Committee
inquiry into the role of the Probation Service. Accepting the need for probation
professionals to have greater professional discretion, it recognised the complexity of t he
work of the probation service, 'most notably the difficult balance to be struck in making
community sentences truly challenging, while ensuring that offenders are enabled and
motivated to meet that challenge'. It also accepted the need for greater resources to be
focused on front line services, while simultaneously eradicating any back room
inefficiencies. However, the Government was less willing to accommodate two specific
conclusions drawn by the Committee.
First, the recommendation that the Ministry of Justice develop a measure to compare re-
offending outcomes following prison and community sentences was questioned. Rather, a
lack of consensus generally on what evidence base should be drawn upon to ensure a
robust evaluation of the outcomes of prison and community sentences suggests a much
wider discussion should take place.
Second, the recommendation that all sentences, whether to be served in custody or in the
community, should be commissioned at local level, was considered impractical. Given that
the demand for custodial places is prone to surge at different times and in different
places, the National Offender Management Service is better equipped to meet the
challenge.
The Government concludes its summary response by emphasising the need to meet th e
challenges of the future by 'looking at a range of options for service improvements and
different models for delivering offender services within the community'. Specific measures
to bring this about include 'increasing competition, taking forward payment-by-results,
and changes to wider structures and accountability at local level, as well as with the
Government's priority to open up public services to a range of providers, including
mutuals'. Notwithstanding the specific responses to the Justice Committee report outlined
above, such general intentions have provoked concern recently that measures designed to
increase competition between the public, private and voluntary sectors could lead to the
fragmentation of core probation services. For example on 14 November 2011, the
Probation Chiefs' Association stated that:
British Journal of Community Justice
©2011 Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
ISSN 1475-
0279
Vol. 9(3): 79-83
To continue reading
Request your trial