Abstract
The Howard League for Penal Reform published a report on Deaths on Probation: An Analysis of Data Regarding People Dying Under the Probation Service. The charity’s focus was to raise awareness to criminal justice agencies that there is an onus of responsibility upon them to ‘preserve and enhance life’ (p. 5). The report was compiled following the publication of the number of adult deaths either on probation supervision or those released from custody. The methodology used in the study was data relating to the number of deaths from 2005 onwards. The data was a contrast between the information released by the National Offender Management Service and data gathered by the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The key findings show there were 2,275 male deaths and 275 female deaths under probation supervision were accounted for annually. Over 25% of these deaths were due to natural causes, 13 per cent suicide, 8 per cent alcohol related, 5 per cent unlawful killing, 8 per cent accidental and 15 per cent unknown. The evidence found that men and women under probation supervision are equally likely to die from natural causes but that men have an increased risk of suicide, drug related deaths, be unlawfully killed or suffer from accidental death. Women were at greater risk from death through alcohol related difficulties.
The data was analysed according to age of death. Those between the age of 18−25 accounted for 14 per cent of deaths, which is an under representation when considering that this age group represent 35 per cent of offenders on probation supervision (p. 8). The highest age range for mortality was between 25–49, accounting for 64 per cent of deaths, which is an over representation when considering this age range represents 59 per cent of offenders subject to probation supervision (p. 8). The report noted that women aged between ‘36–49 years old accounted for 45% of all deaths of women under supervision’ (p. 8). Although it is worth acknowledging that the proportions of general mortality comparative to probation populations are not straight forward.
The research highlighted that there was no clear evidence to show how probation staff are able to support the families of those who die during probation supervision and whether this is even something that is considered within their remit when balanced with other competing work demands and restrictions. The report indicates that the probation staff records relating to the death of an offender under their supervision is seen ‘primarily as a tool for self-protection’ (p. 8), as opposed to assisting others in understanding the death and improving practice within the agency, which strongly indicated the need for greater support for staff. In addition to this the report showed increasing concerns relating to the policies in place to manage vulnerable people in contact with this agency. It concludes by raising questions relating to accountability and who is responsible for trying to prevent these deaths.
Three key recommendations are made. First, and most importantly, the need for an ethics of care focusing upon the needs of offender as an individual is needed. Second, to reflect upon and investigate each case to understand what could be improved upon in the future in order to prevent further deaths under probation supervision. Third, to provide greater support for probation staff in order for them to be able to provide more care for vulnerable offenders within the restrictions and boundaries of their current duties.
Deaths on Probation: An Analysis of Data Regarding People Dying Under the Probation Service, is a report for the Howard League for Penal Reform by Loraine Gelsthorpe, Nicola Padfield and Jake Phillips, Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge (2012) and can be accessed online at http://www.howardleague.org/deathsonprobation/