Businessmen, lawyers and justice

A prisoner in a cell

The simple fact that most prisoners come out of jail and reoffend is the government's central justification for dismantling the state-provided probation service in England and Wales. The hard part is putting something else in its place that will work better.

The Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is determined to cut recidivism but he wants to save money at the same time. His answer is, effectively, to privatise probation. All but the highest risk offenders will be managed by non-state providers.

The government talks about private and voluntary sector bodies running the 16 contracts, but few charitable organisations have the capital reserves or expertise to win the tendering process. There will be a role for not-for-profit bodies in front-line delivery of some services, but it looks almost certain that the people in charge will be hardheaded businessmen out to make a return.

The Ministry of Justice is convinced that the profit motive will deliver a cheaper and more efficient service. Critics argue it will lead to confusion, waste and risk.

Ministry of Justice logo

Companies like Serco and G4S, which already advertise their willingness to expand into the probation sector, are front-runners for the contracts - a prospect which naturally alarms the 20,000 people employed by the state-run service at the moment.

It is thought that around 14,000 probation officers may lose their state-funded jobs. Many will be re-employed by the private providers but, since one of the key aims of the reform is to save money, a significant number will not.

It is no surprise that the National Association of Probation Officers, the union for the sector, say the government's motives are "purely ideological" and warn that "if this plan proceeds it will be chaotic and will compromise public protection". The association's influence, indeed its very existence, is threatened by the reforms.

What, though, is one to make of the predictions of chaos and public risk? Similar arguments were put forward when the Labour government privatised prisons and introduced payment by results in other public services like the NHS.

Graph showing re-offending rates of convicted offenders in England & Wales

Indeed, the concept of "contestability" (market competition) was inserted into the DNA of the National Offender Management Service when it was being created almost a decade ago. The sky did not fall in.

The public risk argument comes down to this: if you have low-medium risk offenders being managed by the private/voluntary sector and high risk offenders by the state sector there will be confusion and error because risk is dynamic.

A survey of probation cases in London has suggested that 24% see a change to their risk status while under supervision. Most, of course, see their assessment go down. But some may suddenly be identified as a much greater risk than originally thought.

Chris Grayling: "I want to capture the skills that exist across the public, private and voluntary sectors."

The man jailed for reckless driving, a low risk at the outset, may emerge as someone who presents serious risk of domestic violence. How easy will it be for that person to be moved from the non-state provided service back into state supervision?

Here lies the conundrum. The government insists that the new streamlined state-run probation service must not be "constantly looking over the shoulder" of the contract providers. Equally, they say the state-run service must have oversight of all cases. Where is the line drawn? Get it wrong, and confusion and risk increase.

The Ministry of Justice stresses that a lot of the detail is still to be worked out; many of the challenges will be dealt with in the construction of the contracts. But, as ever, the devil will be in the detail.

Putting together payment-by-results contracts often proves much more complex than originally planned. For example, an operation where Serco and the existing state-run London Probation Trust jointly provide Community Payback services for the MoJ took around two years to procure.

One big headache is defining the "result" for which payment will be made. In the context of probation, how much reward, if any, should a contractor get if an offender with a history of violent crime commits no offences of violence while supervised, but steals a chocolate bar from Tesco's?

There is also a concern that private providers might maximise profits by focusing on the less challenging cases. Offenders with complex needs may require high levels of investment which don't make business sense. The contract is key in addressing such questions.

So the most important people in deciding whether these proposals work will not be politicians. Nor will they be businessmen, probation officers or voluntary sector mentors. Success or failure will be in the hands of contract lawyers.

Mark Easton Article written by Mark Easton Mark Easton Home editor

Savile: 'How could this be allowed to happen?'

Today's investigation into Jimmy Savile reveals how his criminal behaviour "was facilitated by ministers or civil servants".

Read full article

More on This Story


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 108.

    The private sector will cherry pick the "easy" cases, & reclassify anybody thought "too difficult" as high risk. Therein will lie the rub, for who will be responsible for policing the changes in status. Cue lawyers, & lots of public money wasted trying to get Serco of G4S to live up to their side of the contract (cf - Public–private partnership & slipshod buildings needing constant maintenance).

  • rate this

    Comment number 107.

    In 2011 the National Prob Service was awarded a gold medal for excellence. In 2012 Merseyside Prob Trust was the first public sector org to win the prestigious UK Excellence Award. Despite being set endless annual performance targets in a climate of reducing resources, they have always met or exceeded those targets. So why would you give their work to an organisation like G4S? Amazing!

  • rate this

    Comment number 106.

    Pity the government don't take in (they almost certainly read it) Private Eye. Back issues ad nauseam have exposed not just serious underperformance by such privateers, but fraud and other malpractices. These scabCos are all lined up at the privatisation trough, _claiming_ to save money. They don't even do that sometimes, despite deskilling, so paying minimal wages, and cherry picking.

  • rate this

    Comment number 105.

    Most criminals get away with their crimes. Offenders remain undetected on most occasions. The minority that get caught often have court sanctioned opportunities to correct themselves before going to prison. The criminal justice system is a lottery. Probation does not work for career criminals.
    People reading this blog should be fed up with this shambles that only benefits the worst in society.

  • rate this

    Comment number 104.

    I am sure we will all be pleased to know that the job is in the hands of well respected organisations like A4E and G4S. This government is in the business of dismantling public services as an act of ideological faith. The Lib Dems have ceased supping with the devil they are now sleeping with him.

  • rate this

    Comment number 103.

    Why don't we have prisoners doing charity work projects under the army abroad, not only are they being proactive they are repenting by helping others. Better than being stuck inside doing nothing.

  • rate this

    Comment number 102.

    Having spent the past 7 years under probation, I would fully support the complete scrapping of probation. I have Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) reports that I instigated proving institutionalized incompetence. The greatest threat to public safety is the current probation system. It MUST be replaced, anything is better than the current farce.

  • rate this

    Comment number 101.

    Since according to politicians privatisation seems to be the best solution for everything then we should privatise the government, employ professionals to do professional jobs overseen by an elected HOC.

  • rate this

    Comment number 100.

    No,it won't work until part of the rehabilitation of prisoners is a boundaries based strict routine whilst they are incarcerated.If they sit about all day inside they are reflecting what they do outside,make them get up early in the mornings,do a full hard days work,reduce sentences by a couple of days if they do well,this will work better.

  • rate this

    Comment number 99.

    How many more people will die before britain grows a pair and rejects what passes for governent.

  • rate this

    Comment number 98.

    This is a spectacularly ill-conceived plan which is a thinly-veiled attempt to save money and delegate responsibility. How long will it be, I wonder, before something goes tragically wrong, and law-abiding citizens bear the brunt?

  • rate this

    Comment number 97.

    'It is thought that around 14,000 probation officers may lose their state-funded jobs. Many will be re-employed by the private providers but, since one of the key aims of the reform is to save money, a significant number will not"

    Ahh, Privatisation. As we can see they will be off to a good start straight away. Worst service and more skill people in the sector out of a job and will cost us more.

  • rate this

    Comment number 96.

    Another triumph of ideology over common sense. Someone bring me a handbasket and point me towards hell - please!

  • rate this

    Comment number 95.

    Solidus, you are so correct.
    I retired after 37 yrs in HMPS/NOMS with my last 7 yrs in Offender Management.
    Inexperienced /untrained staff will find it very difficult to discern between High, Medium and Low Risk of Harm offenders.
    Private providers will be incentivised to lose their least co-operative offenders by elevating Risk Of Harm Levels, transferring control.
    I really do not envy you.

  • rate this

    Comment number 94.

    Ah well thats more of the countries money leaving the coffers and going to pay for some Chief Executive million pound home, car, holiday etc....Just like Care, Energy, Transport and soon NHS. Thats why were skint !

  • rate this

    Comment number 93.

    To declare an interest, I despise Tories.

    But, repeat-offending is horrendous in this country. So all that has gone before has failed in a big way.
    What can we expect if a man with no more to lose walks out of the prison gate with 46 quid in his pocket, no home, no friends and no future? The result is almost inevitable.
    Usually the humanity hating Tories say, "Go to Hell."
    Give this a go.

  • rate this

    Comment number 92.

    This is a recipe for disaster in the making - I work in public protection.

    You cannot privatise justice!? is everything for sale with the tories?! How are the public going to have confidence if "profit" organisations are monitoring the dangerous offenders?

    Low/Med risk offenders TURN INTO high risk ones - they are not just conjured up and need proper supervising by experienced staff.

  • rate this

    Comment number 91.

    This whole proposal reads like the school project of an (average) Year 12 GCSE student. The whole thing is so flawed and naive that it beggars belief. It's entirely inspired by political dogma and no thought has been devoted to the potential consequences. Maybe I'm wrong and a cuddle and a few words at the prison gates are just what offenders need to turn their lives around!! Doubt it though.

  • rate this

    Comment number 90.

    @ 26.Mark_from_Manchester
    If only it were true. From someone who has 20 experience, let me paint an alternative picture.
    1/ They will get paid regardless, when they sign a prisoner they will get paid, only additional payments will be withheld for failure
    2/ They will cherry pick the easy cases to guarantee a profit
    3/ More licences= more breaches= more people in private prisons= more profit.

  • rate this

    Comment number 89.

    Er, um... It was only six month ago that G4S were contracted to provide security at the Olympics but failed and HM Forces were seconded as back-up, remember? Has Parliament learnt nothing, again?


Page 1 of 6



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.