The probation system: public and private roles
The National Probation Service was established in 2004 as a statutory criminal justice body responsible for supervising high‑risk offenders released into the community.
It operates alongside Community Rehabilitation Companies as part of HM Prison and Probation Service, with both sectors contributing to rehabilitation, public protection and offender reform.
Patrick Carter, a supporter of the NPS, described its purpose as establishing a better balance between the prison population and the correctional resources available.
Both sectors gather pre‑sentence reports, manage approved premises, assess offenders, support compliance with court requirements and maintain victim wellbeing. However, because CRCs operate within the private sector, concerns have been raised about whether profit‑driven models are compatible with public protection.
What are Community Rehabilitation Companies?
In 2015, the probation system underwent significant privatisation. Reforms introduced by Chris Grayling transferred responsibility for low and medium‑risk offenders to CRCs, leaving the NPS to supervise only high‑risk individuals.
CRCs obtained contracts through a competitive bidding process. The Ministry of Justice published formal contract notices inviting tenders, and interested companies were assessed for suitability during a pre‑qualification stage. Those involved in the bidding process described it as chaotic and confused, with reports that the Ministry of Justice appeared to be improvising procedures.
There are 21 CRC areas across the United Kingdom, with some companies operating in multiple regions. Contract values vary significantly, particularly in London. Bidders often consist of private companies working with charities. For example, MTCNovo, which operates in both Thames Valley and London, is a joint venture between Management Training Corporation and Novo, a consortium of public, private and third sector organisations.
Reforms and political attention
The probation system has faced sustained criticism since the 2015 reforms. During the 2019 general election, Jeremy Corbyn emphasised its importance and stated that Labour would review its processes.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has expressed support for extending the 2015 reforms, despite widespread concerns about privatisation. The Daily Mail described this approach as placing profit above public safety.
In contrast, former justice secretary David Gauke announced in May 2019 that parts of the probation system would be re‑nationalised. Contracts with existing CRCs would be shortened by two years, and no new companies would be selected due to overwhelming negative attention.
CRC failure: evidence from inspection
A 2016 report examined the performance of CRCs in London, which supervised nearly 30,000 offenders. The findings were so concerning that a second inspection was scheduled for March 2018 to assess progress.
In relation to public protection, the 2016 report found responses to be variable and unacceptable. Although improvements were noted in 2018, overall protection remained unsatisfactory due to the slow pace of change.
Efforts to reduce reoffending showed some improvement, but rehabilitation remained inadequate. Offenders were not sufficiently involved in planning or reviewing their supervision. Communication failures were significant, including a 19% rise in suicides among offenders on probation.
Key statistics highlight systemic inefficiency. Since the 2015 reforms, serious offences committed by offenders on probation have risen by 50%. An average of 76 murders per year are committed by individuals under supervision.
These figures raise urgent questions about public safety.
Why are CRCs failing?
The 2018 report identified inadequate plans, interventions and reviews as major obstacles to effective risk management. A lack of skills, knowledge and experience among some responsible officers left the public vulnerable.
Officers reported struggling with caseloads even after numbers decreased. Some attributed this to a shortage of case administrators, which made workloads feel unbalanced. Others described the situation as not manageable.
Interviews with offenders revealed that many did not understand the role of CRCs or the details of their sentence plans.
Cases illustrating systemic failure
Several high‑profile cases demonstrate the consequences of CRC shortcomings.
Joanna Dennehy
Joanna Dennehy murdered three men while serving a twelve‑month community order for assault. The CRC responsible admitted to missing risk indicators after assigning her case to a junior officer. Dennehy failed to attend probation meetings and breached area restrictions after moving to Lincolnshire, yet no concerns were raised.
Marvyn Iheanacho
In 2016, Marvyn Iheanacho murdered his girlfriend’s five‑year‑old son. Despite being on probation for assaulting five women, his girlfriend was not informed of his violent behaviour, substance misuse or restrictions on unsupervised contact with children. She later attempted to sue the London CRC for failing to communicate these risks.
These cases highlight the profound consequences of inadequate supervision.
The future of probation
Calls for reform continue. Although David Gauke proposed re‑nationalisation, the Conservative victory in the 2019 general election and Boris Johnson’s support for further privatisation suggest limited prospects for immediate change.
Statistics indicate that probation failures have risen significantly since 2015. The introduction of CRCs and insufficient regulation appear to be major contributing factors.
While some risk assessment errors are inevitable, the question remains: to what extent should society tolerate such failures? Does public protection justify privatisation, or does it demand a return to a fully public model?
Not sure how close you are to qualifying?
The path-fit quiz reads your situation and shows you which routes you are ready for, and exactly what to do next. Four minutes, no account needed to start.
Check your readiness