Your editorial on overcrowded prisons and probation (13 October) was most welcome as it highlights a crisis in community justice that shows little sign of abating. You say that problems date back to the failed part-privatisation of the probation service, but in reality political interference has been happening for far longer than that.
Having worked for years as a prison probation officer and then in an aftercare and resettlement unit for ex-offenders, I saw good practice and ongoing practical and emotional support that demonstrated all the important points raised by Enver Solomon in his recent Guardian article.
Staff visited prisons and got to know inmates before they were released, which involved in-depth discussions of their offending history and what was needed for successful resettlement. Staff visited wet day centres for problem drinkers and established links with community organisations. They did not see themselves as the exclusive purveyors of rehabilitation.
In 1984 the government produced a “statement of national objectives and priorities” that made work with prisoners low-profile, and the aftercare unit closed a few years later. When I tried, as part of my doctoral research, to interview probation staff in the 1990s about their role in prison resettlement, I found that such work had stopped.
Since then, probation officers have increasingly lost their autonomy – and the opportunity and permission to get to know the people they supervise. Risk has become the driving force, resulting in an incredible rate of offenders breaching their licence conditions and being returned to prison.
Probation staff are told to be more professionally curious and to give hope to offenders. The service has struggled to hit its targets, but has surely lost the point of its work, which is not the fault of its hard‑working staff. Action is required, now.
Anthony Goodman
Professor of community justice, Middlesex University
Your editorial on rehabilitation in prison makes some important points. It is also worth noting the political hypocrisy around this issue. The Barlinnie Special Unit, which did change people in prison, was closed in 1994, while the rehabilitation policies pursued in Grendon Underwood, which opened in 1962, have rarely been extended into the main system.
Why? Because these places challenged the decades‑long political obsession with punishment and deterrence. Whether or not the “Scandi” units at Wandsworth and Pentonville in London, which pursue a similar philosophy to Barlinnie and Grendon, will also be marginalised and ignored remains to be seen.
More broadly, rehabilitation will not work in a society divided by brutal social divisions, a point made by Victoria Law in her book “Prisons Make Us Safer”: And 20 Other Myths About Mass Incarceration: “What does it mean to rehabilitate a person to their former state if that state involves poverty, racism, unemployment, unstable housing, and/or violence? Can a person be rehabilitated if they have never been habilitated (or made fit or capable for society)?”
We must address these issues, stop prison building, redirect the billions wasted on prisons towards probation and other radical alternatives, and reduce sentence lengths, or the devastating cycle of crisis/reform/crisis will only continue and intensify inside.
Joe Sim
Emeritus professor of criminology, Liverpool John Moores University
Your editorial rightly highlights that the government must prove community supervision works to win support for early releases, while calling for a “person-centred” approach and noting the value of “purposeful activity”.
At LandWorks, a charity providing intensive placements for people on licence or serving community sentences, we see every day that community projects can deliver powerful results. By providing person-centred support wrapped around meaningful, purposeful work and the building of trust, real change can and does happen.
There are many men and women in the system who want to change their lives but face huge hurdles – addiction issues, chaotic home lives, little or no employment history and failed relationships. Providing consistent support can transform lives and reduce the likelihood of further offending. Our independently analysed reoffending rates can attest to that.
The voluntary sector already holds blueprints for breaking the cycles of prison overcrowding, recall and reoffending. A commitment from the government to learn from these existing successful models could transform our criminal justice system and improve public confidence. Rehabilitation and resettlement support makes a huge difference when delivered effectively.
Chris Parsons
Project director, LandWorks
The debate over early release from prison masks a deeper issue. The underlying problem is a failure to invest properly in early intervention and prevention.
The prison governor Polly Toynbee spoke with was right to highlight the need for early-years support (Britain is addicted to prisons. Our crumbling probation service proves they don’t work, 16 October). School exclusion, episodes of going missing and disruption in childhood are often warning signs of the harm and offending that may follow.
Trusted-adult mentoring can make a decisive difference. Giving a young person someone to turn to in a moment of stress can help prevent that moment from ending with a weapon being picked up.
St Giles and other like-minded organisations provide this support in schools, with positive results: a 21% reduction in violence and a 14% decrease in offending, according to the Youth Endowment Fund.
The same approach can support people serving sentences in the community, helping them to access services that address the root causes of offending while strengthening the effectiveness of community sentences.
But investment alone is not enough. We must also rethink our justice system and ask who genuinely needs to be in prison. Effective community-based solutions already exist; expanding them would tackle the causes of offending, while easing the intense pressure on prisons and probation staff.
Tracey Burley
Chief executive, St Giles
