Nathan Monk

Paul Senior the co-founder of this journal and Co-Editor from the first issue in 2002 until his retirement in 2016 recently passed away.  He made a significant contribution to the journal and more widely to probation practice, training and research. He will be much missed.

In tribute to Paul, we are featuring a special back issue of the journal. It was the last one that Paul edited and the papers form a collection of thought pieces and reflections on probation: practice, principles and ethos.  Based on a two-day retreat in Cumbria which Paul hosted for long-time friends and colleagues, it perhaps reflects Paul at his eclectic best.  We invite you to enjoy these papers and consider them afresh, particularly in the light of the recent proposals for the new shape of probation in England and Wales.

If you would like to comment on the papers, you can get in touch with us at: bjcj@mmu.ac.uk or tweet us @bjcommunityjust.

Read the journal article corresponding to this blog: Public Protection? The Implications of Grayling’s ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ Agenda on the Safety of Women and Children

By Beverley Gilbert, Senior Lecturer in Domestic Violence, University of Worcester

In 2013 I wrote an article published in a special edition of British Journal of Community Justice (BJCJ) suggesting that the proposed Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda would jeopardise the work undertaken with perpetrators of domestic abuse (Gilbert, 2013). I suggested that under new changes proposed by the then Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, domestic abuse cases would be assigned to the private sector Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), and that perpetrators would, as a result receive inadequate levels of intervention by a variety of CRC organisations and by less qualified and/or experienced probation practitioners.  This change in practice would then translate into women and children bearing the brunt of the impact in terms of an increased risk of experiencing harm.

Moving forward to the post-TR era, in 2018 HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) recorded that poor practice was widespread within CRCs supervising perpetrators of domestic abuse (HMIP, 2018). Inspectors reported that CRC staff, did not have the skills, experience or time to supervise these individuals properly.  HMIP evaluated practice in the new CRC organisations and Inspectors recorded that in 55% of cases, perpetrators of domestic abuse were not making enough progress on their community orders. They found that perpetrators were not receiving the necessary levels of support and challenge they required to change their behaviour. This is absolutely essential to enable perpetrators to reduce the risk of harm posed to the victims of their offending behaviour, and potentially to future victims.

The HMIP report cited that in 71% of cases assessed, they found that work to protect victims and children was simply not good enough. HMIP Inspectors found it difficult to see the victim’s voice in plans made to manage risk of harm, and in terms of protecting children, although 75% of cases inspected required child protection considerations, only 37% had sufficient consideration (HMIP 2018:30).

“Overall, work to protect victims and children was poor…… work to safeguard victims, and especially children, was of grave concern.” (HMIP, 2018:32)

As predicted, the number of fully qualified and experienced probation officers were lost from the CRC organisations as the privatised, for-profit model was introduced.  This loss of experience and expertise has a concerning implication to public protection work connected to domestic violence. Frances Crook, CEO of The Howard League for Penal Reform, commented in this respect on domestic abuse cases and profit making CRC companies, where the specialist focus of such work had, ‘fallen by the wayside in the rush to cut costs and turn a profit’ (Dearden, 2018).

Without any satisfaction, I note that the argument I made six years ago is reinforced by the inspectorate’s troubling report regarding CRC supervision of domestic abuse perpetrators and the risk to women and children. There were seemingly unanimous and vociferous predictions made by all connected with work within probation or criminal justice advising disaster prior to the introduction of the TR model.  There was always a likelihood of an increased risk of harm posed to women and children as a result of the Ministry of Justice’s TR agenda.  Given what was widely predicted, and what we now irrefutably know, it is now indefensible that this situation remains. The TR system of managing perpetrators of abuse is not fit for purpose, and as a consequence, creates unacceptable risks to some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

Read the journal article corresponding to this blog: Policy and Practice for Young Adult Women in the Criminal Justice System

In 2016 the Transition to Adult Alliance published its research report on young women in the criminal justice system, Meeting the needs of young adult women in prison, by Rob Allen.

Studies have shown that almost half of girls under 18 in custody have reported having been in local authority care at some point in their childhoods. This is almost certainly the case for young adult women in custody as well. Many have suffered from abuse and trauma, and experience mental health and addiction problems. Many have been the victims of more recent traumas compared with older women, who are likely to have experienced these events longer ago. Young women are also particularly vulnerable to exploitation by other prisoners.

Women offenders are a minority group. They account for 15% of the current probation caseload and 5% of the prison population. Women offenders differ significantly from their male counterparts and often exhibit more complex needs. Many women offenders have a background of abuse; frequently report having been victims of domestic violence.

The T2A research found that young women in prison are more likely to suffer from a toxic mix of fear and boredom than older women. Prisons are failing to address the distinct needs of young women aged 18–24, including education and mental health needs. In the youth estate, teenage girls are viewed as having such specific needs that not one girl under 18 is held in a young offender institution, making the transition to adult women’s prisons when they turn 18 particularly abrupt and risky.

All women over 18 are treated the same and mixed together. This is in contrast to young men, for whom there is separate legislation and there are distinct young adult establishments. In their 2011/2012 annual report, HMIP considered that ‘A failure to identify and address the specific needs of young adult women is becoming a consistent feature of our inspections of women’s prisons’ (Allen, 2016).

Despite some efforts made in individual institutions to meet the needs of this age group, the T2A research found that prison regimes do not sufficiently follow the Prison Service order to provide younger women prisoners with more supervision and activities.  It is the attitudes and behaviour of staff which seem key to ensuring that young adults are appropriately managed within the prison setting. Young women report a poorer experience of prison than older women do, especially in their first nights. On-going neurological and hormonal development of young women in prison is believed to increase the susceptibility to peer pressure, the inability to cope with prison life and the incidence of mental illness. Young adult women are more likely to self-harm, and the most common age of self-inflicted deaths of women in prison during the period 1990 to 2007 was 20 years old. Over a fifth (21%) of self-inflicted deaths of women in custody between 1990 and 2007 were of those aged 18–21 (INQUEST, 2014).

The T2A report highlights a lack of progress in prison education as a particular concern. The NOMS guide A distinct approach reports:

Ofsted have highlighted the level of education, training and employment achievements among young women are often very low. Many young women will have been excluded from school so their last memories of education may not be positive. The ‘building blocks’ of learning may not be there and they may have limited capacity to learn until these skills are developed. (Allen, 2016).

A stronger presumption should be introduced against the use of custody both for remand and sentencing for young adult women, particularly for the majority whose offending (or alleged offending, in the case of remand) is non-violent. This would mean increased provision of appropriate diversion and community sentencing options using services and programmes tailored to the needs of troubled young women, backed up by training and information for police, magistrates and judges. Given the evidence that sexual abuse and domestic violence are common underlying factors for young women’s involvement in offending, priority should be given to ensuring that they have access to appropriate counselling, support and therapeutic programmes, both in custody and in the community.

Read the journal article corresponding to this blog: Emotion, Time, and the Voice of Women Affected by the Criminal Justice Process: Corston and the Female Offender Strategy

Many organisations, including criminal justice sector organisations, have an expectation that change should occur quickly in the lives of the women with whom they work. As a result, organisational (or process) time readily overrides that of service-user time. Time limited criminal justice processes are reducing the opportunity to work within the women service user’s timeframes in order to enable them to make long-term changes in their lives, and to develop their own positive personal capacities. The ever faster ticking clock of efficiency requirements and financial constraints within criminal justice service provision serves to overlook the deep emotional needs of women who become involved in criminal activity.

In 2007 Baroness Corston articulated a vision of creating a ‘distinct, radically different, visibly-led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-centred, integrated approach’ with women in the criminal justice system (Corston, 2006:79). These sentiments are echoed within the Government’s Female Offender Strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018). Yet criminal justice processes, delivery agencies and some third sector voluntary and community organisations working under the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda may reduce opportunities to work to the timeframe of women service users to allow for ‘the complex and layered process, especially within the context of chronic stress and trauma’ (Gomm, 2013). Consequently, a woman’s ability to make long-term changes in her life, and her opportunity to develop positive personal capacities, may be hindered or reduced.

The spectrum of needs of women involved in crime is broad. The impact of domestic abuse on women is high with almost 60% of women within the criminal justice process having experienced domestic abuse (Ministry of Justice, 2018). Drawing from the autobiographical account of a woman experiencing domestic abuse and of being processed through the criminal justice system, we see that there is a dissonance between how quickly a woman might turn her life around after experiencing abuse and that of the timescale of the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation, recovery and resources need to be tailored to the individual needs of each woman, with a personalised intervention and support plan being developed. Many women have little faith in agencies and statutory organisations and a time limited, simplistic ‘one size fits all’ approach to the lives of women can serve to disempower, particularly where women do not have a range of self-selected opportunities and resources. Women can then feel demotivated and as part of a process. Far better for women to have a voice in dealing with their own lives: a concept that is considered vital when desisting from crime (Maruna, 2001).

Understanding this time related need to achieving recovery and rehabilitation is key in relation to motivational and meaningful engagement with the woman. This can be in stark contrast with that of the criminal justice practitioner’s organisation. Time-limited or restricted practice, and non-distinct service provision, can have a significant impact on women’s emotional needs and therefore on their progress, healing and rehabilitation after involvement in crime.