Sir, The decision to allow probation officers to exercise much greater discretion and professional judgment is commendable (report, Mar 7), but how were they saddled with so much arbitrary regulation in the first place?
From a healthcare standpoint, evidence about what works in offender rehabilitation must be woefully deficient. It is inconceivable that, say, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines could be cast aside in the NHS in such a cull of published standards.
The observation by the Probation Trust that regulatory overload was “well intentioned” also demonstrates that the production of evidence is not getting the priority it deserves.
This all points to the need for improved research and development in the Probation Service. The Justice Secretary’s “rehabilitation revolution” needs to be driven by more and more reliable evidence. The art and craft of probation might well be served by cutting regulation but greater effectiveness, if experience in medicine counts for anything, will only come if there is also rigorous evaluation led by practitioners in university schools and institutes with the necessary scientific expertise. Moreover, the history of revolutions in patient care shows that practitioners themselves need to lead this charge.
Jonathan Shepherd
Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Cardiff University