Private probation firms criticised for supervising offenders by phone

The part-privatisation of the probation service has led to tens of thousands of offenders – up to 40% of the total – being supervised by telephone calls every six weeks instead of face-to-face meetings, the chief inspector of probation has revealed.

In the first authoritative assessment of the probation reforms introduced in 2014 by Chris Grayling when he was justice secretary, Dame Glenys Stacey said they had created a “two-tier and fragmented” probation system with most private rehabilitation companies struggling to deliver.

The coruscating verdict based on 29 separate inspections over the last 18 months shows that while the performance of the publicly run national probation service (NPS) is rated “good”, that of the 21 private community rehabilitation companies (CRCs), which supervise the majority of the 260,000 offenders on probation every year, is “much more troubling”.

When David Lidington became justice secretary in June, he said the probation reforms had encountered “unforeseen difficulties” and announced he would take a close look at their performance.

In her first annual report published on Thursday, Stacey said initial teething problems had been resolved but identified “deep-rooted” organisational and commercial problems that meant probation companies were not delivering the service the government had hoped for or had met ministerial ambitions to transform rehabilitation.

In particular, she voiced serious concern that the one-to-one relationship between probation officer and offender had been broken by the introduction of new models by the private sector that involve up to 40% of offenders being supervised remotely by telephone or in meetings in open booths that lack privacy. Under the model, offenders have an initial face-to-face meeting with a probation worker but then are not seen again while contact is maintained by a junior staff member through a phone call once every six weeks.

“I question whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well. Above all, a close, forthcoming and productive relationship between an individual and their probation worker is key,” the chief inspector wrote.

“This is where skilled probation staff add most value, by motivating offenders, working continuously with them to bring about change, and at the same time protecting the public from harm. Yet in some CRCs, individuals meet with their probation worker in places that lack privacy ... or supervised by telephone calls every six weeks or so from junior professional staff carrying 200 cases or more.”

Stacey added she found it “inexplicable that, under the banner of innovation, these developments were allowed”.

The chief inspector’s key findings include:

• Quality of work of CRCs is generally poor and needs to improve in many respects.

• Government expectations that the CRCs would supervise mostly low-risk offenders have not been realised with the majority of offenders under their supervision medium risk. The NPS supervise the high-risk.

• Most CRCs are struggling: “Those owners ambitious to remodel services have found probation difficult to reconfigure or re-engineer. Delivering probation services is more difficult than it appears, particularly in prisons and in rural areas. There have been serious setbacks.”

• Unanticipated changes in sentencing and nature of work going to CRCs have “seriously affected their commercial viability, causing some to curtail, change or stall, their transformation plans, mid-way”.

• Staff numbers have been reduced, some to a worrying extent. Probation workers are carrying 50-90 cases, junior staff up to 200.

• The public national probation service is doing well protecting the public from harm from the most high-risk offenders but there is still room for improvement.

Stacey concluded: “Regrettably, none of government’s stated aspirations for Transforming Rehabilitation have been met in any meaningful way. I question whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well.”

It was disclosed in July that the contracts of eight probation companies had been adjusted in a £277m bailout over the next seven years. Eleven of the 21 companies are owned by two organisations, Sodexo Justice Services and Purple Futures.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said probation officers used their professional judgement to assess the level of supervision an offender needs: “In some cases, lower risk offenders can be supervised by telephone after a thorough, face-to-face risk assessment, and their continued suitability for this type of monitoring will be kept under review.”

The justice secretary, David Lidington, added: “I have made probation a priority in my first six months as justice secretary and I am committed to delivering a service which strictly enforces sentences, reduces reoffending and protects the public.”