Nathan Monk

Since 1997, successive governments have undertaken fundamental reforms to the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Many of the policy reforms enacted during this period have had principles of managerialism and marketisation of criminal justice services at their core, which have at times appeared counter-intuitive to parallel objectives which emphasise ‘localism’ and efforts to promote community justice. This article identifies the core concepts of local and community justice and examines their inter-relationship and (ir)reconcilability with competing trends of managerialism and marketisation since the election of the Labour Government in 1997. The prospects for local and community justice since the election of the Coalition government in 2010 are considered. The article concludes by arguing that the justice marketisation trend, of which Transforming Rehabilitation (MoJ, 2013b) is a prime example, is the continuation of a specific operating model, of which advocates of local justice should undoubtedly be skeptical.

The Coalition Government’s new Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda jeopardises the work undertaken with perpetrators of domestic abuse by highly skilled, qualified probation staff. Under new changes outlined by Grayling, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, probation clients who are assessed as posing a medium/low risk of causing harm will be assigned to private sector/voluntary organisations rather than come under the remit of the National Probation Service. This article argues that victims of domestic abuse, primarily women and children, will be placed at an increased risk of harm given this latest TR strategy. The majority of domestic abuse cases will be assessed as posing a medium risk of causing harm and will receive lower levels of intervention by a variety of disparate agencies and organisations. The Ministry of Justice states that the National Probation Service will directly manage offenders who pose a high risk of serious harm to the public, this article will argue that all perpetrators of domestic abuse should be considered as an important exception to this stance, and should remain under the auspices of Probation supervision, irrespective of statistical risk assessment, as has sex offender case management and sex offender treatment programme delivery.

With the anticipated reform of probation and rehabilitation services, it is important that existing practitioner skills, methods and initiatives are maintained and developed. This article is based on the research findings of a pilot study and subsequent introduction of a one-to-one structured supervision programme in Hertfordshire Probation Trust. This was a practitioner led initiative and was found to assist with effective use of the supervision session, whilst highlighting the importance of developing professional skills in working with service-users and vulnerable groups.

The idea that government should move away from paying for services to be delivered to paying in proportion to the level of reduction in reoffending achieved has obvious attractions, particularly in the current economic climate. But will adopting such a ‘Payment by Results’ model actually deliver the benefits claimed by its proponents? This article reviews some of the potential obstacles to success. As Payment by Results is a relatively untested concept in the field of criminal justice, the article draws on the experience of this approach in employment and in health where it has a longer history. The results suggest that the chances of Payment by Results leading to a reduction in reoffending in crime or in costs are slim. Adopting such an approach may also carry insidious, as well as obvious, dangers.