The right to an audience at court: Realities,risks and challenges. A qualitative study from the perspective of practitioners working in a Community Rehabilitation Company

Abstract

A fundamental role of the probation service is to provide advice and information to courts assisting in determining the most appropriate sentencing decisions. Historically, all probation officers as part of their mandatory training had experience in a court setting. Under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms, probation services were divided into 21 new privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and a new public National Probation Service (NPS). This resulted in the NPS assuming the right to an audience at court by statute and the withdrawal of a right to an audience at court for CRCs. This qualitative study conducted during the summer of 2017 seeks to gain an insight into the views of CRC practitioners on contemporary court practice, specifically exploring their views on not having a professional role to provide advice and information on their caseload in court. The interviews identified four themes, reflecting both barriers to, and facilitators of, the withdrawal of the right to an audience at court by the CRC. These themes illustrated that the initial developments in the courts post-TR did not give the opportunity for active CRC involvement, resulting in increased scrutiny and criticism of their practice.

Keywords

courts Transforming Rehabilitation practitioners probation

A brief overview of probation and court work

The criminologist Max Grünhut (1952) provided one of the best summaries of the essential elements of probation; these were ‘conditional suspension of punishment, and personal care and supervision by a court welfare officer’ (Grünhut, 1952: 168). However, this may be challenged as being an unrealistic ideal or ‘utopian’ view in the current climate of probation (Raynor, 2018). The historical journey of the probation service has been subject to changes, contemporary conflict and ongoing debates (McNeill et al., 2012). However, the perseverance and strength of the probation service has been its ‘ability to withstand constant change’ and work with ‘some of society’s most neglected individuals’ (McDermott, 2016: 195). Academics have actively engaged with the origins and development of probation in England and Wales (for example Whitehead and Statham, 2006; Mair and Burke, 2012). It could be suggested that the waves of changes in policy and practice have given an insight into how probation has arrived at the present parlous state.

Historically, probation has had an important and enduring history of working in a court setting: ‘it is the principal context in which sentencers come into contact and interact with probation workers, and where many defendants will encounter “probation” for the first time’ (Robinson, 2018: 316–17). Therefore, it may be surprising that there has been little interest in probation’s role at court (Robinson and Svensson, 2013). ‘Despite its importance, probation work in the courts has attracted almost no research attention’ (Robinson, 2018: 317). Only a handful of empirical studies have investigated the work of probation in a court setting, including Carlen (1976), Carlen and Powell (1979), and Robinson (2017, 2018). As Robinson (2018: 317) aptly notes: ‘where there has been an interest in probation court work there has been a tendency to utilise the artefacts of that work’ – for example, Gelsthorpe and Raynor’s (1995) study on the ‘Quality and Effectiveness in Probation Officers’ Reports to Sentencers’. However, during a climate of tremendous change in the field of probation there has been an increase in interest from researchers on probation court work (see Robinson, 2017, 2018; Raynor, 2018). Therefore, this article exploring CRC perceptions of contemporary court practice is timely and at the forefront of debate on TR.

A key study that has been utilised throughout this article is Robinson’s (2018) study entitled ‘Transforming Probation Services in Magistrates’ Courts’. This exploratory study incorporated both observations and interviews to explore contemporary probation working in Magistrates’ courts. One of the key findings was the ‘cultural bubble’ the NPS court team existed in: preserving ‘central values and skills’ of probation whilst entering the wider court culture of ‘formality’ and ‘contemporary speed of sentencing’. Although providing a more optimistic outlook on probation in a court setting, Robinson (2018) acknowledged a number of potential mitigating risks the NPS court team may face, such as ‘isolation’ and ‘dislocation’ from the wider probation field. In contrast, Raynor’s (2018) study, entitled ‘Back to the Future? The Long View of Probation and Sentencing’, paints a less optimistic picture of the current climate, suggesting that TR is ‘at best a failure and at worst a disaster’ (Raynor, 2018: 341). Reviewing the history of probation’s contribution to sentencing and revisiting changing theories, Raynor’s (2018) article suggests that many attempts have been made to improve probation’s contribution to sentencing but have often been supported by ‘little evidence’ and therefore have progressively ‘eroded’ the institutional framework. Raynor (2018) reaches out to policy-makers to restore ‘probation’s traditional contribution to sentencing and the criminal justice system’ (Raynor, 2018: 343). This article therefore builds on the emerging body of literature and aims to fill the gap of current knowledge by presenting a platform for CRC practitioners to voice their perceptions of the changes to contemporary court practice.

A brief overview of Transforming Rehabilitation

Last year around 600,000 crimes were committed by those who had broken the law before. Nearly half of those released from prison went on to re-offend.…Despite increases in spending under the previous Government re-offending rates have barely changed. This can’t go on. (MOJ, 2013: 3)

The above quote from the former Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling describes the snapshot rationale for the implementation of the TR reforms. In May 2013, the Conservative- Liberal Coalition Government published its strategy paper, ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform’ (MOJ, 2013). The biggest change in the probation service was the formation of 21 privately owned CRCs, alongside the publicly governed NPS. In the most simplified explanation, the CRC would be responsible for the ‘low to medium risk’ offenders and the NPS would be responsible for ‘high risk’ offenders. There was a failure to address concerns regarding what constituted ‘high risk’ put forward by practitioners and academics (Hedderman and Murphy, 2015). The TR agenda not only changed probation at a structural level but also dramatically altered many practices with the implementation of three new initiatives: Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA), Rehabilitation Activity Requirements (RAR) and Payment by Results (PbR).

At the heart of the reforms was the extension of supervision to approximately 45,000 additional offenders a year, who are released from short-term prison sentences of less than 12 months. This had a significant impact on the number of offenders the CRC and NPS supervised. A feature of ORA was the implementation of RARs to encourage innovative rehabilitative activities, allowing flexible and efficient sentencing. However, HM Inspectorate in their 2017 report ‘The Implementation and Delivery of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements’ (HMIP, 2017a) expressed concern with the delivery of RARs in meeting the government’s policy aims. PbR was introduced as a financial incentive for CRCs to reach their service level metrics linked to reducing re-offending. The TR reforms aimed to promote flexibility and innovation for the probation sector so that providers were able to deliver services effectively. Similar models of outsourcing and privatisation had previously been pursued by the government, for example in the much-criticised Work Programme of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Therefore, the introduction of PbR was an area of great contention for practitioners in the probation service, evidenced in ‘The Final and Interim Proven Re-offending Statistic for the Community Rehabilitation Companies and National Probation Service’ (MOJ, 2018), which dealt with the results of the one-year proven re-offending measure for adult offenders. The results from this report create a puzzling picture for CRCs; the re-offending rate is down (binary re-offending rate) but the frequency of re-offending is up (frequency re-offending rate). Therefore, the question still remains: can a PbR initiative in a probation setting improve outcomes?

One of the consequences of TR was that the NPS as the remaining public-sector arm of probation assumed responsibility for the provision of probation services (or the right to an audience) in criminal courts, whilst the newly formed CRCs’ private-sector arm of probation was removed from court on a professional basis. In 2015–16 the NPS launched the Effectiveness, Efficiency, Excellence Programme (E3) with the aim of designing an operating model for the newly unified service. This was shortly followed by the publication of the NPS Operating Model in 2016. A summary of the operating model in relation to the current practice in court provided by the NPS court service team is:

Dedicated court services teams will prepare all the PSRs requested in the courts they service and will conduct all the enforcement work of their court. Teams will comprise both Probation Officers (POs) and Probation Services Officers (PSOs).…Court teams will prepare all reports, relying on information from Offender Managers (OMs) when preparing reports on offenders known to the NPS and the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).…This information will be used by the court team to inform their advice to the court. (NPS, 2016: 9)

This change in contemporary court practice is the subject area that we were particularly interested in exploring post-TR. This significant change in practice for CRC practitioners has inevitably been controversial and the likely implications are subject to ongoing debate.

Methodology

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a CRC in England and Wales granted approval and permission for this study to be conducted. This research had not been commissioned by any organisation but was a self-initiated study as we witnessed TR, arguably one of the biggest overhauls of probation, first-hand. Rebecca Woolford was external to the CRC and had no prior professional relationship with the participants until the commencement of the fieldwork. As Woolford was independent to the organisation under investigation, this provided a sense of credibility and ensured the integrity of the findings. Peter Salami was internal to the site under investigation and the fieldwork was completed with colleagues and senior management within the CRC. The timeliness of this study is optimum as the TR reforms rapidly move to the forefront of public, political and academic debates. This article presents findings from interviews conducted with CRC practitioners on contemporary court practice during the summer of 2017, more specifically regarding their perceptions post-TR of the CRCs’ withdrawal of a right to an audience at court. The study used qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore CRC perspectives. The questions ranged from the TR reforms, court practice, roles and responsibilities of both CRC and NPS to daily practice, in order to establish to what extent, if at all, the changes in the right to an audience at court has impacted on CRC practitioners.

The CRC advertised participation in the study through their internal communication outlet and participants interested in taking part contacted the researchers directly. We utilised a purposive sample and interviewed practitioners who firstly met the inclusion criteria and secondly consented to take part in the study. Participants received information sheets and informed consent forms prior to the interviews starting. The participant information sheet explained the purpose of the study, confidentiality and anonymity assurances. The informed consent form required a signature from both the participant and either one of the researchers to certify that participants had the opportunity to discuss and understand their participation in the study.

Interviews took place across the Local Delivery Units (LDUs) in a CRC in England and Wales. Participants comprised 23 practitioners (female=14; male=9), 19 operational (82.6%) and 4 strategic (17.4%), from across the CRC. The interviews were recorded using a dictaphone and lasted for an average of 20 minutes, with a range of 11:55 to 32:19 min. Interviews were kept to a concise timeframe allowing for maximum participation. Interviews were conducted during breaks, before or after work, ensuring that this research did not impede their workload. Audio files were transcribed and then thematically analysed. The researchers agreed that the sample had reached saturation point at 23 interviews. Although existing research gives different suggestions of reaching sample saturation, this study considered saturation as the point at which ‘additional data do not lead to any new emergent themes’ (Given, 2016: 135).

Thematic analysis was chosen as it is useful as ‘a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns within data’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 79). We had some understanding of the transcripts after conducting the interviews; however, these were re-read to ensure greater familiarity with the data. Interesting concepts and experiences of the participants relating to the right to audience post-TR were then coded on the transcripts and formed the basis of the sub-themes. The development of themes and sub-themes was checked to ensure inter-rater reliability, and any discrepancies in coding were reviewed by us until an agreement was reached.

Effective partnership working

One of the first topics explored with participants was effective partnership working post-TR in a court setting. Participants were asked to respond to the following: ‘In a couple of sentences please describe: a) the CRC’s role in court and b) the NPS role in court.’ The practitioners we interviewed had different amounts of experience in a court setting pre and post-TR; however, they all had clear perceptions of the current roles each organisation had in a court setting. In addition, the majority of participants reflected on their awareness that effective partnership working in court has presented them with many new challenges. Participants discussed both the will and need to work collaboratively together to ensure the best outcome for service users at court. However, CRC practitioners echoed throughout the interviews that partnership working at court was difficult:

…we [CRC and NPS] need to be working together. How’s that going to happen? I don’t know. After the split, it was always going to be difficult but there has been no work done to harmonise relationships. (Participant 014)

Participants suggested that the rapid changes as a result of TR created confusion in relation to organisational responsibilities on the frontline. Practitioners commonly suggested that they often did not know or had very limited details on what happened to their cases in court. In this study participants vividly depicted that there was a lack of knowledge between the agencies based in court:

…we [CRC and NPS] are not one organisation anymore. We aren’t singing from the same hymn sheet, we have all got different jobs to do…all these agencies we work with…nobody knows where to go to get the information needed. (Participant 002)

The role of officer at court post-TR has been designated to the NPS. This is due to the requirements as stated in the Offender Management Act 2007, Section 4. The major change in court for many practitioners in the CRC is the reliance on another organisation (the NPS) to represent them in court. Participants in this study demonstrated anxiety and concern over fair representation in court, resulting in many practitioners feeling reluctant about the whole process. There was an acute awareness that the information presented at court by the NPS was not first-hand and therefore may be subject to personal interpretation. Participants in the study were keen to represent their cases as a CRC employee.

…I think we should be representing ourselves in court. As an organisation, we have lost credibility because we are relying on the NPS to do our work for us and represent our cases. (Participant 015)

Participants expressed the view that previous partnerships which historically had worked well for probation have slowly been eroded post-TR. The perception of participants as to why this has happened is that it was due to the partial privatisation of the probation service and the newly formed CRC:

…post-TR there has been much more parting of the waves than I expected. With regards specifically to the court’s relationships we are not in a bad place but I do think our [CRC and NPS] relationships have soured. (Participant 019)

Within the TR agenda partnership working between the CRC and other organisations in the criminal justice system makes sense. From our sample, it could be suggested participants perceived the lack of CRC presence in court resulted in an inconsistent and fragmented service. However, this study recognises there has been steady progress to improve partnership working in court. TR has created more opportunities for wider collaboration, and additional funding and resources can be accessed through partnerships. Therefore, improvements between partnership working of the CRC and NPS are likely to continue over time.

Poor communication

Secondly, participants discussed poor communication as a significant frustration with local NPS staff post-TR in a court setting. Communication between the CRC and NPS is vital to promote rehabilitation, protect the public and manage the orders imposed from court. Participants identified concerns regarding the breakdown of communication between the CRC and NPS in a court setting. Participants frequently became frustrated with communication barriers between the CRC and NPS, especially in regard to sentencing decisions, progress reports and breach reports. Participants felt frequently ‘restricted’ and ‘frustrated’, stemming from poor communication between the two organisations. Often participants considered that their professional opinion was ‘not translated’, ‘limited’, or ‘missing’ in court, and this could potentially lead to inappropriate sentencing and breaches of CRC cases. For example, participants questioned how CRC caseloads were being assessed and sentenced and whether there was any quality assurance built into the process.

In contrast, there was positive evidence to suggest that the communication links between the senior management of the respective organisations was steadily improving. For example, the CRC has been allowed to participate in the National Sentencers Forum. This provides a valuable opportunity to update Magistrates with probation developments and new programmes or activities available locally. Participants also suggested that poor communication was resulting in a ‘fragmented service’ at court. Discussions centred around difficulties in information sharing post-TR. Participants regarded the process as ‘disorganised’ and completed ‘in bits or sections’, creating an ‘inconsistent’ and ‘fragmented’ service. There were deep reflections in a more favourable light by practitioners on the days of the Probation Trust. As separate entities the CRC and NPS have slightly different approaches to their work without much knowledge of each other’s daily practices. CRCs are mainly responsible for delivering Accredited Programmes to reduce re-offending, whereas the NPS mainly contract out services for programmes. Participants regularly discussed poor communication in relation to proposed inappropriate or expired interventions at court for their service users. This was regarded by participants as creating an inconsistent service by giving ‘confusing’ or ‘mixed messages’ to service users. Many examples were given by participants:

…service users are coming through on orders with inappropriate requirements…60 days of rehabilitation activity requirements and an accredited programme, this is absolutely impossible to deliver in a twelve-month period…so we [CRC] have to take it back to court. (Participant 004)

Throughout the interviews with practitioners there was a strong willingness to recognise the CRCs’ responsibility to improve communication and an acknowledgement of the pressures and targets of NPS court colleagues. Participants reflected on their own practice and how it could be improved to help facilitate effective communication with NPS court staff, with Participant 017 aptly noting that ‘we could do more’. Participants expressed ‘a clear and mutual respect for roles’ (Participant 001). Furthermore, participants also recognised that their NPS colleagues are under similar pressures with regard to workload and targets. Therefore, it is considered that the lack of communication, although a significant issue in court practice, does have valid reasons for occurring:

…it can’t be easy for the NPS to be hunting for information that the Magistrate requests. It has to make their life more difficult. They have the added pressure of having to quality assure all of their own work prior to getting it to court…I really feel for the NPS in court. (Participant 019)

Poor communication can lead to stress in the workplace, unmet expectations and relationship breakdown. All of these barriers were highlighted through the interviews with practitioners in the CRC. In addition, promoting effective communication between the two organisations has the potential to address misleading perceptions within the respective services. There has been slow progress made to improve communication between the CRC and NPS to aid practice in a court setting.

Challenges to operational practice

Thirdly, the roles and responsibilities of the CRC have changed historical operational practice for many of the participants in the study. Creating an order is the responsibility of the court, but the NPS have an influencing role providing expertise in the field and can therefore guide sentencers. Advice provided to the court by NPS includes: bail services, bail accommodation/support services, court work, assessments and reports (HMIP, 2017b). Surprisingly, the NPS do not have access to ‘ongoing legal training’ or ‘advice from a qualified legal practitioner’ on a formal basis in courts (Robinson, 2018: 327). CRC staff are responsible for updating the NPS at court on their caseload through reports and providing up-to-date information on available interventions.

Participants reflected on the changes post-TR, in an effort to speed up the court processes and the consequential impact on their practice. The current process in court is for the NPS to allocate CRC caseloads using professional judgement with the assistance of the Case Allocation System (CAS) identifying service users’ Risk of Serious Re-offending (RSR) score. At an operational level in court, participants discussed the reality of time constraints impacting the expectations of the probation service, especially in relation to identifying criminogenic need and assessing risk. As participants reflected:

…NPS are absolutely drowning in work and it is because they are dealing with both their own cases which are complex, but they are having to deal with a huge caseload created by us…this is highly stressful and things are going to be missed. (Participant 009)

Participants discussed their thoughts on insufficient time spent assessing risk pre-sentence, which could lead to inappropriate requirements resulting in the criminogenic needs of service users not being met. Similarly, HMIP (2017b) recognised in their Thematic Inspection that the delivery of increasingly speedy sentences reduces ‘the prospect that assessment undertaken at court will…be adequate for the purposes of managing risk and addressing need’ (HMIP, 2017b: 28). The changes in court practice were regarded by participants as ‘challenging’, ‘inconsistent’ and ‘fragmented’. Furthermore, participants emphasised the time consequences influencing operational practice of the probation service post-TR in comparison to the historical practice of court proceedings:

…the quality of assessments coming from courts are not what they used to be as the majority are done on the day, whereas pre-TR there was a three-week adjournment, for example, in your domestic violence cases to investigate child protect and safeguarding elements. (Participant 004)

Participants also reflected on the fluctuating workload in court practice. Interviews were conducted with a range of practitioners from different frontline roles in the CRC and discussions related to both a significant increase and decrease in workloads. Participants from a strategic position viewed workloads for operational practitioners as ‘a mixed bag’ (Participant 020). In terms of a decrease in workload, some participants, particularly from an interventions background, felt an increase in the use of RARs has resulted in a decrease in the number of Accredited Programmes delivered across the CRC. As one HM Inspectorate noted, the unexpectedly low levels of Accredited Programme proposals were regarded as ‘baffling and extremely regrettable’ (HMIP, 2017b: 23). In addition, ‘relatively small numbers of people have been made subject to drug, alcohol or mental health treatment requirements’ (Carr, 2018: 4). Participants echoed lower throughput to Accredited Programmes as an impact on the CRC. For example, Participant 014 stated that pre-TR he used to write ‘6/7 reports for programmers’ but now he only writes ‘2/3 reports for programmers’. Furthermore, some participants from a community payback background believed there had been a decline in workload from courts. For example, Participant 016 illustrated that his workload in supervising community payback initiatives had been reduced to only once a week.

In contrast, participants particularly from an offender management background discussed the increase in workloads post-TR. Participants clearly experienced some considerable frustrations stemming from the TR reforms in court practice. These frustrations tended to be two-fold: inappropriate sentencing leading to the order being taken back to court and breach recommendations not always being considered. Participants considered that these challenges to operational practice impacted on their workload through ‘repetition’, ‘duplication’ or ‘amendment’ of assessments and/or reports to take back to court. Participant 003 suggested that this impacted on both the CRC and NPS and Participant 001 commented: ‘the same information is being inputted 2/3 times…by different organisations’.

The challenges to operational practice encompass a myriad of issues which we acknowledge this article cannot fully explore. We have highlighted the most significant frustrations from the perspective of CRC practitioners in relation to the impact on CRC operational practice. The results suggest that the changes in the right to an audience at court have affected workloads across different roles in the CRC, arguably bringing about both increases and decreases in CRC workloads dependent on a practitioner’s roles. Consequently, these changes have impacted on the effectiveness and consistency of service delivery in court.

Professional commitment of CRC practitioners

The evolving world of the criminal justice system means that the role of CRCs is under increased scrutiny. Memorable headlines include: ‘Probation reforms: Fresh blow for troubled part-privatisation as another provider slashes jobs’ (Leftly, 2015), ‘Privatisation of probation services branded a failure by two watchdog inspections’ (Merrick, 2016), ‘Private companies could pull out of probation contracts over costs’ (Travis, 2017) or ‘Probation firms’ contracts will be ripped up’ (Ford, 2018). These attention-grabbing headlines have undoubtedly impacted on CRC practitioners. Participants were clearly frustrated by the constant onslaught of criticism and lack of confidence in their daily practice. Despite the current negative climate towards the CRC, participants discussed their professional commitment to enforce the orders of the court, reduce re-offending, protect the public and rehabilitate service users on their caseloads.

Participants stressed their commitment to the values of their work in probation. However, many participants expressed concerns that TR’s commitment to financial considerations by introducing a payment by results (PbR) model often ‘overshadowed’ (Participant 010) the ‘professional integrity of the CRC’ (Participant 019). To briefly summarise, under TR, CRCs will receive a portion of the total payments based on the impact of their activities; in particular, to reduce re-offending. Although PbR was an appealing approach to commission public services, it has been problematic in practice. PbR was an extremely controversial element of TR’s agenda. However, due to the word constraints of this article PbR will only be briefly discussed. Participants used adjectives such as ‘discontent’, ‘disillusioned’, ‘undervalued’ and ‘demoralised’ when exploring the topic of PbR. However, participants were keen to advocate that they were there to provide the best service to their caseload, indicating a strong loyalty to their profession.

…yes, we have PbR but that is not why we are here and that is not why we do our jobs…We are on the ground and seeing service users every single day and it is about giving them the tools to stop offending. (Participant 009)

As has become clear, the majority of participants unsurprisingly conveyed their anxiety over a PbR model approach in a probation setting. A clear message from participants in the study was that although the CRCs utilised a PbR model, this does not affect their professional commitment to the key principles of risk management and service user need.

…It would be a pretty poor indictment of their professional judgement, capability and ethics to put the commercial interests of PbR ahead of the very best outcome for the public and for service users. (Participant 020)

Participants reflected on their own professionalism as being a result of experience while others described integrity as being a fundamental attribute. The importance of professionalism for participants employed by the private sector has arguably magnified the need for more ethical business. External organisations and society need to be able to rely on and trust the professional expertise of CRC practitioners. However, in reality the CRCs are fraught with criticism and scepticism. Participants were left feeling ‘frustrated’, ‘upset’ and ‘undermined’ with the current court practice. As Participant 017 vividly depicts: ‘it is really hard not to take it personally when you hear that our reports are being torn apart at court’.

The moral dilemma of professionalism in a court setting was suggested to be felt the hardest by CRC practitioners. CRCs have been met with increased criticism and scrutiny of their practice. Participants were passionate about upholding their commitment to the service and maintaining their integrity as professionals. The moral conundrum of professional commitment on the right to an audience at court is highlighted below:

…I think that it is a bit hypocritical to say that we trust you to work with offenders and enforce the orders from court. But we do not trust you to give a professional opinion on what that order should be in court. (Participant 009)

Participants reflected on their anxiety about how their professionalism has been questioned during the court process. In general, most employees want to be regarded as professional: the combination of all the qualities that are connected with trained and skilled people. Participants discussed ‘jeopardizing our professionalism’ (Participant 005) as one of the main impacts of the loss of a right to an audience in court from a CRC perspective through the ‘loss of autonomy’ (Participant 001) and the ‘loss of authority’ (Participant 021). This was most felt by participants who had a long employment history with probation. Many participants had historically worked with high-risk offenders pre-TR and perceived the current process to be onerously bureaucratic in nature and undermining the CRCs’ professional judgement. In addition, participants were ‘disheartened’ by the seemingly unintentional consequence of a ‘hierarchal system in favour of the NPS’ (Participant 017). For example, CRC practitioners that are qualified at a PO grade are being challenged by less qualified and/or experienced colleagues in the NPS.

…I have over 20 years’ experience as a senior probation officer and I have worked with low, medium and high-risk offenders throughout my career. Post-TR, I now work for the CRC and my work is being questioned by a probation service officer that has only been in court for two years. (Participant 003)

Professionalism is an intrinsic element of workplace behaviour for the long-term success of a service. Employee interactions and relationships with service users are of vital importance to ensure that the goals and objectives of the CRC are met. The results from this research illustrate that participants felt that their professionalism was being questioned about their core work in a court setting. Ultimately, this has demoralised the CRC workforce, who pride themselves on creating a rehabilitative environment for their caseload. Participants reflected on low morale across the organisation, posing the question as to whether their professional judgement was of any value.

Discussion

The findings from this study discuss the perceptions of CRC practitioners on the fragmented probation system in relation to court practice. As HM Inspectorate recognised in their Thematic Inspection ‘The Work of Probation Services in Courts’ (HMIP, 2017b), the transition to partnership working between the CRC and NPS has not been easy. ‘In the initial stages of the Transforming Rehabilitation change programme, CRCs were not well-integrated into court developments’ (HMIP, 2017b: 7). In addition, the NPS is often regarded in a more favourable light, with the CRC subjected to wider scrutiny and criticism. For example, HM Inspectorate ‘found strong and purposeful arrangements between the NPS, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service and sentencers’ (HMIP, 2017b: 7). In contrast, ‘working arrangements with CRCs were less well developed and some sentencers lacked confidence in CRC sentence delivery’ (HMIP, 2017b: 8). This provides a critical picture of ‘a two-tier and fragmented service’ (HMIP, 2017c: 6).

The findings throughout this study have highlighted the key frustrations and obstacles in the early stages post-TR from the perspectives of CRC practitioners. Similar to the findings presented in Robinson’s (2018) study, the splintering of the probation service from one umbrella organisation has led to ‘teething problems’. A lack of communication and understanding of responsibilities has been a constant hindrance for effective partnership working from the perspective of CRC practitioners in court. This mirrors earlier concerns raised by the NPS: ‘we don’t really know what the CRC do with people’ (Robinson, 2018: 328). The frustrations stemming from the restructuring has negatively impacted upon practitioners from both the CRC and NPS. CRC practitioners discussed their lack of insight into current court practice with frustration and regret while court staff recognise their own limitations of understanding CRC practice.

Both the CRC and NPS are keen to provide a joined-up approach to court practice. Therefore, a key area for improvement for CRCs would be to establish local strategies to improve sentencers’ confidence in CRCs service delivery, especially in relation to the delivery of community orders. This exposure would better inform court staff when making sentencing recommendations for the CRCs’ caseload. In addition, building a quality assurance framework into the work of court teams would be beneficial. This would help alleviate concerns presented by CRC practitioners by providing regular updates on court practice and procedures.

As Robinson (2018) aptly noted, despite the changes brought by the implementation of TR there was a keen outlook to preserve ‘probation’ as a reliable and trustworthy service. Similarly, the findings from this study highlight the professional commitment of the CRC to ‘probation’. Although, post-TR the CRC and NPS were regrettably working in a ‘silo atmosphere’, their aims and focus to promote rehabilitation, protect the public and manage the orders imposed by the court were still regarded as being of paramount importance by practitioners. CRC practitioners are fervent in upholding the professional integrity of ‘probation’, mirroring the position of court staff in Robinson’s (2018) study:

…as members of the National Probation Service, there was a strong tendency to try to preserve an image of ‘probation’ as a unified body which stood for something specific and distinct in the court arena. (Robinson, 2018: 329–30)

Creating the image of a united front to the court is of paramount importance to practitioners across the probation service. Therefore, how will the criminal justice system mitigate the risk of professional isolation for both CRC and NPS practitioners from court? Furthermore, how does the criminal justice system avoid the potential deskilling of CRC practitioners with fading knowledge of contemporary court practice?

Arguably there have been positive steps, albeit small in scale, in a joined-up approach to probation services at court. As this study touched upon, the participation of the CRC at the National Sentencers Forum has begun to build a bridge in communication. As Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, noted: ‘It is heartening to report that probation services in courts have improved noticeably over the last year’ (HMIP, 2017b: 4). Greater partnership working should help facilitate a cross-disciplinary and ‘integrated care’ approach to the management of service users improving outcomes with the aim of ultimately reducing re-offending. Optimistically, it can only be hoped that the CRC and NPS continue to make steady progress towards building, maintaining and sustaining a working partnership to provide a quality service in court. However, with private probation contracts ending in 2020, court practice will undoubtedly be impacted upon. Commendably, it can be argued that the professional commitment of practitioners from both the CRC and NPS have and will continue to allow probation to survive in a climate of constant change.

Limitations of study

Although this study was carefully prepared, we are still aware of its limitations and shortcomings. Firstly, this study is only from the perspective of CRC practitioners and therefore NPS perceptions have not been explored. In future research, we would welcome input from the NPS to gain an understanding from all of probation. Secondly, due to the practicalities of field work the study lacks generalisability as participants were only selected from one CRC. Therefore, we are aware that the study may not reflect the national picture. Finally, the study is based on predominantly qualitative data and is subjective to interpretation. A follow-up research project on quantitative performance metrics would be ideal in supporting our findings. Despite the limitations provided above, this study begins to paint a picture of the impact of TR on frontline staff, specifically the right to an audience at court.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rebecca Woolford

References

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Carlen

(1976) Magistrates’ Justice. London: Martin Robertson.

Carlen

Powell

(1979) ‘Professionals in the magistrates’ courts: The courtroom lore of probation officers and social workers. In: Parker

(ed.) Social Work and the Courts. London: Edward Arnold.

Carr

(2018) Transforming Rehabilitation? Destination unknown. Probation Journal 65(1): 3–6.

Ford

(2018) Probation firms’ contracts will be ripped up. The Times, 14 June 2018.

Given

(2016) 100 Questions (and Answers) About Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Gelsthorpe

Raynor

(1995) Quality and effectiveness in probation officers’ reports to sentencers. British Journal of Criminology 35(2): 188–200.

Grünhut

(1952) Probation in Germany. Howard Journal 8: 168–174.

Hedderman

Murphy

(2015) Bad news for probation? Analysing the newspaper coverage of Transforming Rehabilitation. Probation Journal 62(3): 217–233.

10.

HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Probation) (2017a) The Implementation and Delivery of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements. Manchester: HMIP.

11.

HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Probation (2017b) The Work of Probation Services in Courts. Manchester: HMIP.

12.

HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Probation) (2017c) Annual Report 2017. HM Inspectorate for England and Wales. Manchester: HMIP.

13.

Leftly

(2015) Probation reforms: Fresh blow for troubled part-privatisation as another provider slashes jobs. The Independent, 27 December.

14.

Mair

Burke

(2012) Redemption, Rehabilitation and Risk Management: A History of Probation. London: Routledge.

15.

McDermott

S-A

(2016) Probation without boundaries? ‘Agile working’ in the Community Rehabilitation Company ‘transformed’ landscape. Probation Journal 63(2): 193–201.

16.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

Maruna

(2012) Re-examining evidence-based practice in community corrections: Beyond ‘a confined view’ of What Works. Justice Research and Policy 14(1): 35–60.

17.

Merrick

(2016) Privatisation of probation services branded a failure by two watchdog inspections. The Independent, 4 October.

18.

MOJ (Ministry of Justice) (2013) Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform. London: Ministry of Justice.

19.

MOJ (Ministry of Justice) (2018) The Final and Interim Proven Re-offending Statistic for the Community Rehabilitation Companies and National Probation Service. London: Ministry of Justice.

20.

NPS (National Probation Service) (2016) NPS Operating Model. London: NPS.

21.

Raynor

(2018) Back to the future? The long view of probation and sentencing. Probation Journal 65(3): 335–357.

22.

Robinson

(2017) Stand-down and deliver: Pre-sentence reports, quality and the new culture of speed. Probation Journal 64(4): 337–353.

23.

Robinson

(2018) Transforming probation services in Magistrates’ courts. Probation Journal 65(3): 316–334.

24.

Robinson

Svensson

(2013) Practising offender supervision. In: McNeill

Beyens

(eds) Offender Supervision in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

25.

Travis

(2017) Private companies could pull out of probation contracts over costs. The Guardian, 21 March.

26.

Whitehead

Statham

(2006) The History of Probation: Politics, Power and Cultural Change 1876–2005. Crayford, Kent: Shaw and Sons.