Youth custody throughcare : the role of the community based probation officer

Introduction:Following implementation of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 in May 1983 the semi-determinate sentence of borstal training was replaced by the determinate sentence of youth custody. Consequent upon these changes was a statutory requirement of the Probation Service or Social Services to supervise all those released from youth custody centres. This statutory supervision would run until the date when the sentence would have expired had no remission been granted, subject to a minimum of three months and a maximum of twelve months, (and always subject to expiry on the offender reaching the age of twenty two). As an alternative to release on statutory youth custody supervision, offenders could be released on parole licence with the requirement that should the licence expire before normal supervision would have done, that it was followed by a period of supervision which continued until the date on which it would have ended had parole not been granted.These rather complicated legislative changes had quite extensive implications for the 'throughcare' of young adult offenders sentenced to custody. Both the probation and prison services were afforded the opportunity to review and reformulate their objectives, principles and procedures for throughcare, producing for the first time official national guidelines for throughcare policy and practice, in 1983. In 1984, however, throughcare was allocated a relatively low priority in the Government’s Statement of National Objectives and Priorities for the Probation Service in England and Wales, (Home Office 1984a) and has subsequently been a major issue in the National Association of Probation Officer’s 'withdrawal of probation officers from prisons' policy (NAPO 1986a).Early in 1986, the Home Office Research and Planning Unit commissioned a major piece of research on young offender throughcare to be carried out by Professor A Keith Bottomley and Ms Alison Liebling at the University of Hull’s centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice. The primary focus of this research was upon the provision of throughcare within Prison Department establishments for young male offenders although a limited comparative study of throughcare provision for young adult female offenders was also carried out. Bottoraley and Liebling’s study (published in 1987) examined the views and experiences of staff and trainees in youth custody and detention centres and made it clear that:The picture that emerged naturally reflects the problems and priorities of throughcare from the perspective of those in custody, and may not always appear to give due weight to the problems and priorities relating to throughcare from the perspective of the probation service and individual probation officers working in the outside community. (Bottomley and Liebling, 1987, p3).Consequently, the Economic and Social Research Council funded this linked PhD which is intended to complement Bottomley and Liebling's study and redress any imbalance contained therein.The purpose of this thesis is twofold and can be summarised as follows: to describe, analyse and evaluate the provision of youth custody throughcare by the community based probation officer and Service on a national and local basis; and develop a conceptual framework within which throughcare must be viewed. The thesis is an analysis of the provision and organisation of throughcare to youth custody clients by the community based probation service within the existing framework and guidelines, which it is argued, are inadequate, insubstantial and lead to a reactive rather than proactive service to the client.My central arguments are that; 1) the official guidelines and principles have not clarified an already confused understanding of thoughcare; 2) priorities and resources mean that throughcare has barely progressed beyond the more traditional notion of welfare; 3) although clients and probation officers may differ in their basic understanding of what throughcare is about, their practical experience of the scope of the work involved converge; and 4) a greater understanding of throughcare as a concept must be had before a consistent approach can be made, based upon a broader perspective of success than that offered solely by recourse to reconviction rates.The aims and structure of the thesis are as follows:Chapters 1-3 trace the origins and developing nature of after-care for adult and young adult offenders in England and Wales, the changing legislative prcedures for young adult offenders, and the emergence of the throughcare concept and official recognition of thoughcare from these processes.Chapter 4 restates and expands upon the research problem and background to the research, describes the data collection methods and draws attention to some methodological issues which need to be taken into account in the practical as well as theoretical implementation of a study such as this.Chapter 5 examines the national situation in terms of the Probation Service’s provision and methods of organisation of throughcare following the Criminal Justice Act, 1982 and subsequent restrictions on throughcare imposed by low priority and limited resources.Chapter 6 offers a description and preliminary evaluation of the provision of youth custody throughcare within a local Probation Service (Humberside). The organisation of throughcare at this level is examined and an assessment of the work carried out during the various stages of throughcare based upon work recorded in case records, is offered.Chapters 7 and 8 provide the main description, analysis and evaluation of the provision of youth custody throughcare within Humberside probation Service. The chapters examine the probation officer perspective and client experience of throughcare during the custodial and supervision parts of the sentence and make comparisons with other research and literature in the discussions.Chaper 9 summarises the major findings of the research, attempts an evaluation of youth custody throughcare, considers the need for a conceptual framework for throughcare within which the community based propbation officer must work, and offers a good practice model for thoughcare