Abstract
This article argues that probation is well placed to facilitate desistance when delivered in community hubs – community-based offices where probation services are co-located with other community-based provision. However, we highlight that hubs need to include certain key factors to maximise the potential for desistance. Using data collected through a piece of empirical research in six community hubs in England and Wales, we identify what factors make for a ‘good’ community hub as perceived by staff who work in them, those subject to supervision via a hub, and managers with strategic responsibility for commissioning hub services. We consider what it is about those factors which facilitate desistance-focused practice as outlined in McNeill et al.’s (2012) eight principles of desistance-focused practice. The five key factors identified in this study are the location of a hub, the hub’s physical environment, the extent to which services are co-located/produced, the cultural context of the hub, and the need for leaders to be innovative in the way services are commissioned. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for the National Probation Service as it takes over the work of Community Rehabilitation Companies in the coming years.
Introduction
Since the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation in 2014, Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have made concerted efforts to make greater use of community hubs to deliver probation services. Although all hubs vary slightly, they tend to be premises in which more than just probation providers are situated to enable service users to access a greater range of services as part of their order or period on licence. For example, the operating model of the now defunct Working Links CRCs relied on community hubs (Dominey, 2018), and Durham Tees Valley CRC uses hubs to deliver much of its work with service users (Ellis, 2017). Other CRC owners have made greater use of hubs, especially when it comes to delivering services to minority groups such as women, although others – such as Mabgate Mills in Leeds – have closed down. In spite of the increased use of hubs in the probation landscape, very little research has sought to understand whether and how they improve probation practice and even less has considered what makes for a good community hub. Thus, this article presents data on what probation providers need to consider when commissioning community hub provision
What do we already know about hub-based probation practice?
A community hub is ‘a place where agencies (including the CRC) share premises and other facilities, pooling resources to offer a holistic service’ (Dominey, 2018: 5). Durham and Tees Valley CRC (2015) describes hubs as: spaces where participants come to see their Responsible Officer whilst on a community order or licence. Within the Hubs participants also have access to additional support offered by Volunteers and Peer Mentors as well as signposting information for additional support from partnership agencies for example Education and Training, Finances, Health and Housing.
There has been little research on the use of community hubs. Dominey (2018: 5) cites Watkins’s (2016) unpublished research which found ‘promising indications that community hubs were improving the delivery of offender supervision and encouraging engagement and compliance’. Ellis (2017) found that many participants were initially uneasy at the prospect of hub-based working but eventually came to value hub-based work. Dominey’s (2018) study of three hubs in CRCs found that the skills of staff working in a hub are paramount to the way it functions and that service users valued the relationships which were developed. She found that hub-based working increased service user awareness of other agencies, co-location made accessing other services easier, and hub-based probation delivery improved relations between staff in different organisations. On the other hand, there were some concerns around privacy and confidentiality (which were also raised by participants in Ellis’s (2017) study). Finally – and importantly – Dominey (2018: 35) highlights the potential for community hubs to ‘make community links that will last beyond their contact with the CRC’, something we return to later in the context of our own study.
What sets hubs apart from traditional probation offices is the physical environment in which delivery takes places. This raises questions about the extent to which probation engages with the community it serves. A focus on risk management and public protection has alienated probation practitioners from the community they serve (Senior, 2013). Hubs allow for collaboration between organisations and CRCs as a response to keeping the public safe, facilitating the sharing of information and joined up support which, in turn, is based on the axiomatic role of the helping ‘relationship’ in supporting desistance. The location of hubs in the communities they serve represents the intention to meet local needs. These ideas meet Senior’s (2013) notion of ‘community engagement’ and relates to the notion of community justice which encapsulates a number of other concepts such as social inclusion, reintegration, restorative justice, belief in the possibility of change, and the role of social capital in desistance that constitutes many of the values of probation (Canton, 2011).
Thus, we also need to consider the location of probation offices as well as the way in which they engage with people on supervision. In Shah’s (2015) study, the physical appearance of the office – and thus the presence of parolees – was hidden from the larger community. This could be to protect parolees, but it also suggests a tendency to reassure the public that they are being protected. Shah’s concerns about parole offices supporting reintegration and the development of social capital in communities with high levels of need resonate with notions of ‘community engagement’ and ‘community justice’. Shah (2020) argues that probation offices (albeit in the United States) maintain community corrections as a public secret, thus potentially perpetuating the retreat from the community that we have also witnessed in the English and Welsh context.
The physical environment in which probation is delivered is also important. Research has focused on the way in which the ‘architecture’ of a probation office shapes practice. For example, Phillips (2014) focuses on the way in which the architecture of the probation office can reflect policy concerns of risk management. Irwin-Rogers (2017) points to the importance of the physical layout of approved premises in which a more open, inclusive layout enhances the potential for positive relations. Tidmarsh (2019) argues that the managerial tendencies observed in a privatised probation service had filtered into the design of the building and thus influenced practice. Although this is a small body of knowledge, the physical environment in which probation is delivered should not be discounted. This is particularly important considering Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) of Probation reports have highlighted serious problems with some of the premises in the National Probation Service (NPS) including ‘faulty plumbing, broken lifts, vermin infestations, general lack of maintenance’ (HMI Probation, 2019: 44)
This present study explicitly sought to understand the extent to which hub-based probation practice can facilitate desistance. Theories of desistance accept that the process of desistance is neither quick nor easy (Phillips, 2017). Although early desistance research was focused more on understanding the process than about generating policy, there has – understandably – been calls for this now considerable body of evidence to be translated into criminal justice policy (McNeill, 2006). That said, probation cannot ‘cause’ desistance. Rather, probation can have a role in creating the conditions which make desistance more likely (King, 2013). Thus, we make use of McNeill et al.’s (2012: 2) eight principles of desistance-focused practice to explore the ways in which practice in community hubs adheres to them (see HMI Probation (2020)). These are: Being realistic about the complexity and difficulty of the process, Building and sustaining hope, Recognising and developing people’s strengths, Respecting and fostering agency (or self-determination), Working with and through relationships (both personal and professional), Recognising and celebrating progress, Individualising support for change, Developing social as well as human capital,
In the course of our research, we identified a set of factors which seemed to make this type of work more likely to occur and it is here where we focus our attention in this article.
Method
The data analysis presented in this article was generated through fieldwork at six community hubs in a study commissioned, funded, and published by HMI Probation. The research presented here was part of a wider study undertaken by HMI Probation on the use of community hubs in probation. The wider project was approved by the National Research Committee and Sheffield Hallam University’s Faculty Ethics Committee. Access was facilitated by HMI Probation and then approved by relevant gatekeepers within each CRC. We adopted a mixed methodology design which comprised interviews and observations to gain a deep understanding of what hubs do, how they work, and what they achieve. We undertook research in a range of different hubs which served different populations because one aim of this research was to explore differences between hubs and so we decided to aim for a range of hub types. The sites were chosen following a survey of all CRCs undertaken by HMI Probation prior to phase two of the research being commissioned. The survey sought to understand which CRCs used hubs for the delivery of probation services and identify what services were made available through the hubs. The survey identified over 46 hubs spread over the seven CRCs which responded (see HMI Probation, 2020, for an overview of the survey results). Although only a partial picture, the findings were useful in terms of identifying which CRCs provided services to different hubs and provided an initial point of contact when identifying research sites. The sites were split between rural (sites 1 and 5), city centre (site 2, 3, and 4), and large towns (site 6). Sites 3 and 4 both served female-only service users and site 5 served only men, as it was situated outside a prison to support men immediately upon release. The hubs we visited were all slightly different in terms of how they were governed, what services they provided. and how well embedded in the community they were. This heterogeneity in the sites means we have been able to identify the hubs in which staff found it easier to deliver desistance-focused practice. All research sites have been fully anonymised.
To ensure consistency of data collection, one member of the research team visited all six research sites and was accompanied by another member of the research team on each visit. Data were collected in two primary ways: interviews/focus groups and observational data collection which focused more on the hub’s environment. To get a broad range of perspectives and experiences, we spoke to service users, front-line staff, managers, and, where relevant, volunteers. The interviews were semi-structured to enable consistency across the researchers and sites but also allowing for flexibility. Across the six sites, we spoke to 74 participants. We interviewed 21 CRC staff, 7 employees of voluntary sector organisations, and 1 member of the NPS. We also interviewed 38 interviews service users and undertook 7 interviews with people in strategic positions. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. For the purposes of this article, we focused on participants’ answers to our questions about what was particularly good about the hub. This process resulted in the five themes discussed below.
What makes for a ‘good’ hub and why?
The primary aims of this research were to understand the ways in which hub-based probation delivery can facilitate desistance and to identify what makes for a ‘good’ community hub. Not all the hubs we visited were able to deliver desistance-focused practice to the same extent. This was partly a product of the aims of the hub. For example, site 5 – situated outside a prison – was intended to act as a first point of call for people being released from prison. What follows is an analysis of how the hubs enabled desistance-focused practice and so site 5, for example, features less than the other sites. This is not a criticism of site 5 – rather, the range of hub types included in our sample means we could use them as heuristic devices for considering what it was about a particular hub – or mode of delivery – which was conducive to desistance-focused practice.
Location
A key theme that we identified was the importance of the location of the hub. A city centre location was seen as a real advantage to our participants: Responsible Officer (RO) 1: It’s city centre, so yes. Most people that we support live in and around the [city] area. RO1: The amount of women who say, ‘It’s two buses up to [Main] Road. You’ve no chance of getting me up there’. That’s the difference. [The hub] is one bus journey away. RO2: And then if they’re in [the city] and they have to go to the Jobcentre or housing, that’s all in the centre of [the city] as well, for a lot of them. (CRC staff, site 3)
Being in a city centre location enabled service users to attend more easily and overcomes one of the key practical problems to compliance (Ugwudike and Phillips, 2019). While this may only increase formal compliance in the first instance, more contact with servicer users makes future substantive compliance more likely (Robinson and McNeill, 2008). Prior to Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), the Probation Trust which covered site 3 had two offices – one in the city centre and one out of the city. After TR, the NPS took over the city centre office and the CRC inhabited the out of town office. Site 1 was in a rural location a long way from the nearest probation office in the nearest town and the hub made a real difference to journey times for service users.
However, site 4 was situated out of the city centre in a dedicated building for female service users. On the one hand, this could have negative consequences because it was harder to reach by public transport. However, the fact that the hub was not in the ‘normal’ probation office meant service users felt less stigma at attending here. As one RO told us, this was appreciated by service users: ‘You know what? I’m so made up to be coming here now’, she said, ‘rather than do that walk of shame’. And I said, ‘What do you mean walk of shame?’ So, she said, ‘Well, when I used to go to [Fargate], walking down [Walton] Road, I always used to feel like it was the walk of shame going to Probation’. (CRC staff, site 4) I don’t feel such a stigma coming here as I did going to probation in [City] because, like I said, people just assume you’re there because you are a criminal and basically yes, I am here for a criminal purpose but I’m not actually a criminal. People just assume, so it’s not so suspect, if you know what I mean. (Service user, site 1) You don’t get a sticker going ‘you’re on probation’. (Service user, site 1)
The location of a hub can both enable improved compliance and contribute to reduced levels of stigma by situating contact outside of traditional probation offices. It is thus linked to what we know about how people’s identity changes as they desist from offending, especially in terms of the relationship between a stigmatised identity and a non-stigmatised identity (Stone, 2016).
Environment
Existing research has explored the ways in which the office environment can shape probation practice (Phillips, 2014; Tidmarsh, 2019). Our findings suggest that environment can also play an important role in how service users experience probation. Notwithstanding the fact that hubs involve a much wider range of services, the hubs we visited were all, to varying degrees, purpose built or – at least – designed as community hubs. As a result, the physical environment came up frequently in our discussions with practitioners and service users.
The working relationship between a probation officer and their client has long been recognised as a key tool in the probation officer’s armoury (Burnett and McNeill, 2005). Moreover, familial relationships and ties have been described as the golden thread that should run through criminal justice interventions because they support the development of a non-offending lifestyle and identity (Farmer, 2017). Hubs provide opportunities for service users to experience a different relational experience that is not based on their offending history but on their skills, passions, and interests.
The staff with whom we spoke talked at length about how being in a hub has improved the relationships with their clients. All sites facilitated probation meetings in a less formal environment, conducive to fostering trust and putting the service user at ease: I think the environment.…I think it makes them feel more valued. Hopefully it’s quite a calm environment. They don’t feel, certainly with the traditional probation office, you go in and you’re really, because some of them don’t like to think that they’re like the person sitting next to them who’s a proper offender and they’re not. You’ve got a mix of people in the waiting room. We don’t keep them waiting in the waiting room that long. They can see if we’re in because it’s all open. As soon as you go into the probation office, there’s just a screen and you speak through a little hole in the screen. (CRC staff, site 1) Building up a relationship with an individual, it’s a more relaxed environment. It’s not more relaxed in what we’re discussing but it feels more relaxed. (CRC staff, site 3) But I’ve met people in that room [waiting room] and I don’t know where the foodbank is and they do, so then we get together. Now a couple of us are boxing down the beach, because we were in a bad place the year we got out and yeah, like four or five of us box … like three times a week. (Service user, site 6)
Service users also recognised the potential for hubs to enable more interaction between family members and probation: Well, it’s important to me because this was my first time offending so all of this stuff is really new to me and to my family and there’s lots of things that both me and my family don’t understand so I said to my dad the other day when I was trying to explain about what I was doing…Because I knew it’s such a big space here and I know that you’ve got those booths as well I thought, well, I know my dad could come along and have a chat as well and kind of be involved which is obviously really important to me…so that he can understand it. (Service user, site 2) It’s less enforcement centre. You go back to [Main] Road, you walk through the door there, it’s a bit like banks used to be, there’s a counter, a Perspex screen from the top of the counter to the ceiling, microphones and all that. So, here we don’t have any of that, it’s just you walk in, your meeter and greeter will see people, sit them down and, if they want probation, we’re here to help. (CRC staff, site 2) I think it’s a lot easier for the women to adapt to that, especially the women who are coming out of prison, it’s much more user friendly. We’ve got an open reception, it’s more welcoming. Probation offices can be very male dominated anyway. It’s all behind screens, we have turnstiles getting in and out of probation which in itself is a barrier, just going through the turnstiles, they don’t work halfway through, they stop, so it’s all the uncomfortableness for the women going in to those centres where here it’s an open reception, you’re greeted well, you can make a cup of tea, it’s just got a nicer feeling to it really. (CRC staff, site 3)
Interestingly, other research in this area has highlighted issues around confidentiality (Dominey, 2018; Ellis, 2017), but our participants did not see this as a notable problem. This may be because the hubs had environments which enabled private conversations to take place – with the exception of site 5, each hub had at least one or two rooms which could be used for confidential meetings. This is an important lesson which can be taken beyond hub-based work and into any field of work which requires confidential conversations between practitioners and service users.
Co-location
The co-location of a range of services was seen as critical to being a good hub because it enabled staff to ‘individualise support for change’, considered one of the most important ways of delivering desistance-focused practice (McNeill et al, 2012). For example, site 2 offered specialised support for veterans, site 3 offered specialist support for refugees, and site 4 had a trilingual volunteer who was able to support foreign nationals. While site 5 did not run groups or activities within the hub, the hub formed part of a programme that started in the prison 12 weeks prior to release and involved one-stop shop support for release such as employment, housing, and mental health support.
Service users across all sites were asked by probation if they needed other support putting in place and assisted individuals to access these if necessary. This approach recognises the importance of tailored support, specific to the needs of the service user: I’ve always accessed probation through the hub, but I also use it for…[the] drug and alcohol service and…a mental health service. (Service user, site 2) I think the biggest thing is timeliness, so being able to refer someone quickly and knowledge of what is in the community because you’ve got partners working out of the building that you become familiar with and signposting because in a generic office you can refer in obviously…. So I think for me it’s doing things quite quickly and the familiarity of staff with other staff in other agencies speeds up the process. (CRC staff, site 1)
Co-location also seemed to create a more positive experience for service users, thus working to build and sustain hope: I can get off from seeing [my probation officer] and go and see the careers woman. I usually get up and bounce around the whole room, like go and see them all and try and achieve something, whether it be a job search or I’ve got issues with housing or something like that…When they are all there, like all the networks are there. So life can’t touch me at the moment. (Service user, site 6) They could be more complex sometimes and things like childcare responsibilities. A lot of them are single parents so that presents barriers and financial issues. (CRC staff, site 4) I mean most of mine are still stuck on the first stage crisis but with the other resources I would hope that eventually they may move down…(NPS staff, site 2) She’s really vulnerable but she never comes in on her appointments but knows where the office is…and she can come in whenever, even if it’s just to get some clothes or use the washing machine or whatever. That’s really useful…from a risk point of view and checking her safety. (CRC staff, site 3) Yeah, I went to [my probation officer] and said just throw everything at me, I want it, I need it. Because otherwise I sit at home on my own with nothing but the telly on and my thoughts and it makes me worse. I need to get out. Even, I just come and sit here for the day and don’t do anything, it’s being around different people and it’s a really healthy atmosphere here. (Service user, site 3) So, I wouldn’t go out of my way to – like I wouldn’t come to probation then…walk another mile after probation to see National [Careers Service] – I wouldn’t do it, I would just think’Oh, fuck that, I ain’t going now but having it all under one roof – it’s the two birds with one stone scenario. As simple as that. I could resolve anything under this roof.’ (Service user, site 6) [Name] came up to see CAB, Citizens Advice and he waved, I say, oh, hiya. He said I’ve got a baby, so I came around talking to the baby. I said, do you know what – because he’s a single dad now, I said you’re doing a really good job, look at him, I’m really proud of you. He was like, you know. Because they’d never had it. All they’ve been told is you’re rubbish, you’ll never make anything, you’re not going to be anything but he is, he’s a single dad to a one year old baby. (CRC staff, site 1)
However, the nature of the co-location was important. In site 2, there was a fully integrated model of co-location in that staff from different agencies truly shared the space. This meant that probation clients were treated as equals when compared to other users of the hub. In site 3, on the other hand, the CRC staff had separate offices which restricted communication and some staff described the way in which this physical barrier could cause issues. One such example revolved around the charity which ran the building closing it for a day and failing to inform the CRC. This presented issues for the probation staff with service users booked in. While probation workers prioritise reporting appointments, charities can have different priorities, pointing to tensions when the voluntary sector becomes involved in the delivery of penal policy (Tomczak and Thompson, 2017).
Communication was also hampered because some staff were based half time between the hub and CRC office. This meant they were less likely to know everything that was available in the hub, thus defeating one of its key strengths. For example, staff talked about how they only know what happens on the day they are in the hub: I don’t really know much about what else happens here, apart from what I deliver and who else is here on the day that I’m here. (CRC staff, site 1)
Cultural factors
The location, environment, and co-location of services are all relatively practical issues. However, there are some cultural and strategic elements of community hub-based work which need considering. Delivering probation in a hub was seen by our participants to be a fundamentally different model of probation practice, which, in turn, brought particular challenges. For example, in site 1, staff discussed the cynicism of hub-based work that they faced from their colleagues in the traditional office: One of our colleagues said on Tuesday see you tomorrow. I said oh, you won’t see me, have a nice day. Oh, yeah, that’s right, sunning yourself with your suntan cream sitting on a roof. (CRC staff, site 1) think that’s one of the conflicts about it because we’re asking them to come to appointments, they have to, it’s part of their sentence alongside this holistic approach that everything else is there, so getting your hair done for free is lovely…But also you’ve committed an offence that you’re being punished for and actually we need to do some work on that. (CRC staff, site 3) We support each other. I think also you’ve got to have a team dynamic where they support each other. You can’t have a team of individuals. You’ve got to support and help each other. You can’t be, ‘That’s not my job. You’ve got to do it. That’s not my job, I’m not doing that.’ That wouldn’t work. (CRC staff, site 2) Staff who care, who want to be in the role and I know that that’s not always the case because when [Name]’s been here he’s said that there are some hubs, they’re dragging people in there kicking and screaming because they really don’t want to go and work in a hub. (CRC staff, site 1). Collaboration and co-production, like a garden – needs constant tending – as it is human beings that make it work. (Strategic staff, site 2) Just make sure you’ve got everybody, you’ve done your strategic planning first and you’ve got everybody on board who needs to be because otherwise what will happen is, as we’ve seen in some of ours, your officers will just end up running around and doing everything. (Strategic staff, site 5)
Innovation
Our final factor which is critical to a ‘good’ hub relates to commissioning arrangements. Participants in strategic positions highlighted their philosophy which began with the end of an Order: It’s key to commissioning: An exit strategy. (Strategic staff, site 4) So people moved out of their little siloes to realise that actually the success of their client or their service user is born by all of us working together. (Strategic staff, site 2) Include service users (they are the experts) – what they want and what they need and where the hub should be. (CRC staff, site 4) A lot of people volunteer while they’re still linked to probation. It’s obviously based on risk, what they’ve done. I’ve had someone who’s been with me as a client and then started here as a volunteer. They’ve finished their probation order and they still stayed here as a volunteer because it opens opportunities for them then. Because when they’re working here as a volunteer, it’s not probation they’re working for. (CRC staff, site 2) I’ve got a woman who was really isolated and I didn’t think she was going to attend at all, but…it was lunch club that got her to attend. Her order is now finished, but she still comes and attends lunch group every Friday…then she knows if her mental health deteriorates or she’s feeling lonely, she can just come back to the [hub] for some more support because she’s kept in contact that way. (CRC staff, site 2)
This approach presents some important challenges to leaders in probation. In some respects, it requires probation to ‘let go’ of some of the control it holds over both its service users and the services it delivers. It raises questions about where responsibility lies for certain activities, but it can also symbolise a shift in terms of how service users are empowered to take control over their own desistance journeys. The foundations for this type of work are already being laid with the implementation of Skills for Effective Engagement and Development 2 (SEEDS2) in the NPS, which seeks to engage service users in a similar vein to the original Offender Engagement Programme and skills for effective engagement, development and supervision in 2008–2010 (Rex and Hosking, 2013).
Hub-based delivery forces probation providers to look beyond probation and into the community which it serves, and its service users reside. Probation should not be a ‘public secret’ because to function in that way serves to cocoon service users from the communities to which they are ‘returning’ (either symbolically or physically) and ignores the fact that people subject to probation supervision can – if given the right opportunities – be productive members of society.
This is not to ignore the importance of risk and it is here where we see the greatest challenge for probation providers. Indeed, managing the risk of people on probation in hub-based settings was highlighted as a key challenge. Probation is and must be concerned with the management of risk. Hubs however can be beneficial in terms of managing that risk – it means people can be referred into services quickly and intelligence can be shared more easily between professionals when someone is at risk of reoffending. However, the risk posed by people on probation was a common theme among the staff we spoke to. there are no children here whereas we have worked out of other premises for example old churches where maybe there is a baby and toddler group running on a certain day so we’ve got to always make sure that each case is risk assessed and risk is dynamic…we have to be respectful of the other partners working out of here as well. (CRC Staff, site 1) RO1: I would say though that also does come with its own problems sometimes if you have a particularly volatile female or who has an alcohol problem or who is unhappy with one of us for a decision that’s made…They’ll come in to the [hub] where there’s women who are vulnerable who aren’t on a probation order and they’re really angry, could be kicking off. It can be hard. (CRC Staff, Site 3)
In spite of these challenges, we would argue that commissioning services with one eye on the end of an order is critical to the implementation of ‘good’ desistance-focused practice in a hub setting (Goldhill, 2016).
Conclusion
In this article, we have presented data that were collected through a study of six community hubs in six different CRCs. Although each hub functioned slightly differently, we have identified some clear ways in which hub-based probation can facilitate desistance (HMI Probation, 2020). Hub-based probation links people in with their communities and creates a support network which lasts beyond the end of an order which we consider paramount in terms of supporting desistance. In this article, we have focused on what we consider five key ingredients for a ‘good’ hub which leaders who are considering implementing such a way of working need to take into account. Moreover, we have explored why these should be considered critical in relation to McNeill et al.’s (2012) key principles of desistance-focused practice.
There are some limitations to this research which need highlighting. Disaggregating hub-based work from ‘traditional’ probation delivery is difficult. We know that effective probation work relies on the relationship between the officer and the client as well as on what Dowden and Andrews (2004) call core correctional practices. Thus, while service users spoke highly of their experiences of accessing probation in a hub, it is hard to know the extent to which the relational aspect of probation practice was more important than the service being received in a hub. It is also worth remembering that we have not looked at outcomes. The quotes in this report are people’s perceptions about hub-based probation practice, albeit incorporating a range of perspectives and experiences. It may be that reoffending rates (and other intermediate outcomes) are higher or lower for people accessing hub provision; further evaluation needs to be undertaken to ascertain this. That said, there is value in delivering probation in a way in which people – both staff and service users – perceive as more positive even if it does not result in reduced reoffending. The impact that this can have in terms of enhanced legitimacy could prove invaluable should that person come into contact with probation further down the line and we uncovered some evidence that working in a hub is better for staff well-being (HMI Probation, 2020). We should also note that the practice we observed in community hubs may well – and indeed most probably does – take place in ‘traditional’ probation offices. Thus, while we have presented hub-based work positively, this does not mean they are the silver bullet to desistance-focused practice.
That said, community hubs represent a real opportunity for probation as it progresses to its next phase. In 2021, all ‘offender management’ will be brought within the remit of the NPS. This will – by necessity – involve some decisions around what to do with the current probation estate. We would urge probation leaders to seriously consider making greater use of hubs in the new target operating model because the benefits to those subject to supervision, the staff that serve them, and the communities in which they reside are manifold.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation.
