The role of community councils in probation reform

Abstract

A great benefit exists in giving people on probation the ability to contribute their ideas to the process of ongoing change. The direct experiences of people on probation, and embracing ‘lived experience’, can bring valuable input and unique insights as to what is and is not working within probation. In this comment piece, I outline – through a case study and relevant comment – how service user councils can act as a key reference for the evaluation and improvement of probation services.

Introduction

There are around 235,000 people under probation supervision, whether it be in the form of a community order, pre- or post-release supervision, or a suspended sentence. This supervision can vary hugely in terms of frequency, complexity, necessity, and purpose. While there is a common desire to rebuild lives, probation can occasionally find itself being an obstacle to rehabilitation because of excessive bureaucracy, lack of time and resources available to practitioners, a dearth of fresh approaches, or simply poor relationships with people on probation. This is where the person will either flourish or re-offend after a sentence, as do up to 57.5% of people (Ministry of Justice, 2022) who fall back into the clutches of the criminal justice system.

In recent times, reform of prisons has been spurred by prisoners’ legal challenges relating to rules on whole-life tariffs, care of transgender prisoners, and drug testing procedures, amongst other dissatisfactions. Probation reform, on the other hand, has happened in-part through work with people on probation (Hughes, 2012), highlighted by the engagement responsibilities assigned to some probation practitioners. These practitioners work in tandem with organisations such as User Voice and St Giles Trust to bring together people on probation in a council format; part of a long-term engagement strategy of listening and acting upon feedback.

The engagement model acts upon research which establishes that to effectively reduce reoffending, there is a need to relate to people on probation through the exhibiting of empathy and mutual respect, with an appreciation for their lives, perspectives, and needs (Hosking and Rico, 2017). This argument is one in favour of bringing in individuals with lived experience to establish better working relationships with current people on probation.

People on probation and their journey

Community councils consist of people, in selected regions in England, reporting to the Probation Service. The process begins with the recruitment and training of council volunteers – people, currently reporting to probation, who can offer a unique perspective for the formation of change. These volunteers will act as representatives of their wider community and are supported in running campaigns of importance to their fellow people on probation. There is not a fixed base used for the running of a council, but probation facilities have been used in the past for holding forums. The operations of councils are described in later sections of this article.

Once a suitable number of people on probation have committed to their new role, a community council will meet to identify key issues and begin the development of a plan (sometimes referred to as a ‘proposal’) to influence probation managers to drive positive change. The resulting effort will be presented at an event, generally hosted at a neutral venue such as a council facility or town hall. These events bring together council volunteers – the representatives of people on probation – and senior leaders. As well as highlighting key issues, a council is expected to offer realistic and feasible solutions to those issues. The proposals put forward may be engineered as a means for the council to remain involved with a longer-term campaign or initiative.

Initially, these councils existed only in prisons but, due to their success, can now be found in operation within probation regions. Probation councils provide a means for the voicing of issues; from this perspective, it is felt that great benefit exists in giving people on probation the ability to contribute their ideas and thoughts to the process of ongoing change. While it could be argued that a council's outputs might reflect the views of those on the council rather than all people on probation, a suitable counter is that any proposal made must be based on themes found within feedback shared by a larger number of people on probation – and that the responsible council co-ordinator (a paid employee who is not on probation) will exercise their brief properly.

Skill development is a priority for many people on probation, given that only 17% of ex-prisoners manage to get a job within a year of release (Ministry of Justice, 2018). It may pose an opportunity for a person on probation to undergo training, known to increase employability and reduce the likelihood of re-offending (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). The involvement of people on probation in reform can go some way towards forming a critical sense of commitment within a person, allowing them to sport a metaphorical badge of accountability in their life. If probation practitioners demonstrate a genuine belief in a person's ability to change, this can be a large step towards a positive outcome, which should be considered necessary, not optional, as argued by Lewis (2014).

A previously unconfident person on probation may feel a new lease of life once they feel they are taken seriously. That element of empowerment can be the difference between a positive and negative outcome, going some way to reverse any feeling of marginalisation. In Barry et al. (2016), one person on probation spoke positively about his role on a council and how it would help in fulfilling his desire to be a community leader. This person on probation was quoted as saying: ‘I see what can be accomplished when you work together. I want to make my community a better place, and feel like, now, I understand how to do that’.

In that same study, there was a frustration – expressed by a community council member – about bureaucracy impeding progress (Barry et al., 2016), partly due to the structural changes taking place at the time as an outcome of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda. That council member said that ‘everything gets put on hold’ and that all they could do was ‘wait to see what [probation] says’. While those concerns were expressed several years ago, comments such as these may have had a detrimental effect, causing some to question the effectiveness of community councils.

Democratic councils

Community councils act as key references for the evaluation and improvement of the Probation Service. It is important that the scope of the council is set in advance for clarity, allowing a two-way dialogue to be initiated constructively. The council can then suggest policy, leading to better spending of public money and a likely reduction in re-offending, for – at the very least – the individuals serving as council volunteers.

Due to the compulsory nature of court-ordered probation, oftentimes a person on probation will feel little enthusiasm about their reporting journey. However, by encouraging active participation on councils, probation practitioners may find they can better engage with a person, enabling the breaking down of the ‘us versus them’ culture known to be deep-rooted in the criminal justice system. Teamwork, a non-negotiable element upon which councils rely, can build trust between people on probation, practitioners, and the managers to whom proposals are presented.

People on probation must come to terms with their past, as observed by Fitzgibbon (2008), but this does not have to mean an attempt at forgetting their involvement with the criminal justice system. Rather, embracing ‘lived experience’ can be purposeful in many ways. The inclusion of people on probation confers greater legitimacy and generates an enhanced level of trust (Weaver, 2019). One goal of community councils is to help create a culture that is supportive of the rehabilitative ideal (Barry et al., 2016). While a minority of ex-council volunteers have suggested that post-proposal changes looked better on paper than in real life, there remains much confidence in community and prison councils, with one council member interviewee in Barry et al. (2016) commenting that a User Voice staff member with a ‘passionate’ belief was working to make change ‘rather than it being just about a job’.

Community councils are a cost-effective and productive way to bring about lasting change. The benefits of councils, according to Barry et al. (2016), outstrip the running costs of organisations such as User Voice and St Giles Trust, which have contributed heavily to the probation engagement model that thrives today. These independent councils may save time for probation practitioners, who as a consequence can lend more of their attention to the day-to-day workload while people on probation collectively consider challenges and solutions. The councils will form ideas that are creative and ambitious, using their unique experiences of being on probation themselves. This, in turn, contributes to ongoing efforts to create a tailored service for future people on probation, facilitated by past and present people on probation.

Having a council in place can be beneficial when there is a need for a timely consultation, evidenced by the work of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight (HIOW) community council, properly introduced in the next section. In one example, the council were offered a valuable chance to provide their views, on matters including electronic tagging and estates, to ensure the needs of people on probation were considered by probation managers. The probation practitioners in these cases expressed satisfaction with the council model, which presents a convenient way to garner feedback.

Community councils have also brought benefits to programmes connected with Probation – such as Project Adder in Norfolk (which tackles substance misuse) and Reed in Partnership in South London (which seeks to place ex-offenders in training and employment). Through these councils, programmes have been further tailored by adding a previously lacking element of democracy. As a result of the council's proposals at Project Adder in Norfolk, a trauma disclosure course run by a clinical psychologist was commissioned and a recovery stories campaign was launched to inspire hope within those undergoing treatment for drug addiction.

The introduction of councils to the probation environment can be highly democratic. If a council were to become oversubscribed, it would be the decision of people on probation as to who would (and would not) remain as a member. Some councils allow people on probation to volunteer themselves, and other council models involve democratic elections. Furthermore, council volunteers can be of any age, ethnicity, or gender, and provided there exist no relevant restrictions (which could be seen to be a form of unavoidable discrimination given restrictions commonly applied to those on a sexual harm prevention order), the offence that the person committed to ending up on probation is deemed not relevant beyond the assessment of risk. For elected councils, there is fair representation as it is people on probation who choose their representatives; for non-elected councils, it could be argued that there is too much power in the hands of the council coordinator who could cherry-pick, if they wished to, individuals to serve on a community council.

Councils in practice

For several years until early 2022, a User Voice council existed within HIOW Community Rehabilitation Companies and National Probation Services (it is noted that the 2021 unification simplified the running of councils, enabling a streamlining of operations via a single point of contact per PDU). This council consisted of eight council volunteers and met weekly to discuss the feedback that had been obtained by engaging at probation offices and unpaid work sites. The feedback indicated trends in the kinds of dissatisfaction experienced by people on probation, guiding the way for comprehensive proposals to be written and presented to senior probation managers and directors.

There has never existed a requirement for a council's outputs to be wildly complex. In fact, the simplest methods can make a hugely positive difference and are repeatable on many levels. The HIOW community council designed straightforward and informative leaflets, handed by practitioners to every new person on probation. The leaflet contained answers as to the role of probation, the expectations of people on probation, the expectations of the service, the rules regarding travel reimbursement, and the complaints procedure, alongside the details of local contacts. It also defined several acronyms such as ‘RAR’, ‘OASYS’, and ‘CRS’. The acronyms included on the leaflet were chosen using an online poll. A poster version of that leaflet was created shortly after a string of positive feedback was received from people on probation.

The HIOW council made another positive difference in that same period, sparking internal discussions within the service as to the recording and processing of unpaid work hours. It was discovered at the start of 2022 that a delay existed in processing completed unpaid work hours – a particular problem near the end of a community order. The issue had revealed itself through the council obtaining feedback. Those discussions within the Probation Service are still ongoing, but ideas considered to date include the issuing of an unpaid work logbook for people on probation.

Engagement continues to be sought in Hampshire, with St Giles Trust taking the reins in this regard. In a similar manner to the councils of the User Voice era, people on probation are appointed ‘peer consultants’, while supported and trained to help the service identify opportunities for long-term positive change. A crucial difference is that St Giles Trust's voluntary roles are paid, addressing a challenge relating to morale and enthusiasm that is discussed in the following section.

Future challenges

The process of appointing individuals to volunteer on community councils could be addressed. In some versions of the council model, prospective council volunteers can apply and have that application considered by a responsible person. There could be some benefit derived from all councils having elections – to further the element of democracy within the community of people on probation and to mirror the style of appointment that is the norm in some prison equivalents. However, there remain drawbacks to this idea, in particular the potential lack of willingness on the part of the average person on probation to vote in such an election, as well as the resulting decisions to be made on who is and is not eligible to be an elector of the councils.

One frustrating inevitability that councils are confronted with is that proposals will rarely be binding. Proposals can essentially be ignored by probation managers who, despite being solution-focused, may feel the ends do not justify the means. A sufficient demonstration of resilience is sought from prospective council volunteers for this reason. Rather than giving the councils more authority, which is unlikely to happen, specific policies could be introduced – for example, a rule that a senior probation manager must reply to any written questions or points within a set number of working days. This could help the council to quickly determine the viability of ideas, suggestions, and solutions.

Another challenge involves the morale and enthusiasm of a person on probation, who may wish for their role on a council to develop into paid employment. It is noted in Criminal Justice Alliance (2019) that council volunteers have, in the past, felt undervalued after volunteering for a long time and remaining unpaid. While the potential of awards and certificates can be an incentive for some council volunteers, it does not ‘pay the gas bill’, as observed by one participant in that study (2019: 16). Rewards should go beyond incentives such as food, drinks and gift cards, as those incentives do not match the value of that person's time and will eventually result in demotivation on the part of the person on probation.

Conclusion

Community councils can properly represent the needs of the community of people on probation in areas including, but not limited to, training, education, housing, employment, and resettlement, ensuring the service is responsive when it comes to the supervision and rehabilitation of those reporting to probation. Probation reforms may happen from the inside out, with people on probation spearheading positive change through the widely accepted council model. These agendas are not about a move from service control to user control, as argued by Roy (2009); rather, there is an advantage to be found in people on probation assuming rights, responsibilities, and a commitment to the exchange of ideas in an open way.

The great probation reformers are the practitioners, who actively seek the input of people on probation. Nevertheless, while many probation services in England and Wales lack a council that is independent and democratic, it is encouraging that in recent times, the value of engagement has been recognised. While the Probation Service continues to work with the third sector to garner powerful ideas from people on probation (referred to as ‘council volunteers’ or ‘peer consultants’ in this context), there has also been direct hiring of staff with lived experience of the criminal justice system to work in engagement roles and to consult on policy. These staff are able to maximise their contribution to ongoing change, with their lived experience arguably more powerful now that the Probation Service has restored consistency in processes and policies, having been strengthened through reunification.