{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01796875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003515625, 'mean_word_length': 5.15625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Joining Up Correctional Services

The recent appointment of Martin Narey to the post of Commissioner of Correctional Services may have far-reaching implications. Narey now holds the civil service’s most senior rank of permanent secretary, and is charged with the considerable task of providing the probation service, prison service and youth justice board with a coordinated strategic direction. His appointment has been greeted with suspicion in some quarters. For example, one distinguished commentator (see Harding, J., Letters, Guardian, 26.2.03) has outlined his fear that this represents another step towards the amalgamation of the probation and prison services, the loss of the probation service’s distinct culture and the legitimation of the use of imprisonment as a first line response to crime. Recent press releases in which Narey suggests that custodial and community sentences are equally effective disposals have done little to assuage such concerns. However, there is cause for some optimism. Something that should not be overlooked is his explicit and regular condemnation of the parlous state of many of our overcrowded custodial institutions and his scepticism about their capacity to deliver interventions to reduce offending. Rising prison numbers were of course not within his control, and he also provided a huge push towards what has become known as the ‘decency agenda’ in the prison service. He was known to have a particularly high regard for the contribution of seconded probation staff to changing the culture of the prison service and showed considerable courage in stating that the prison service was an institutionally racist organisation and in need of radical change. He may yet turn out to be a more effective champion of custody as a disposal of last resort than anyone has dared to hope. In light of this, the searching questions asked in Roger Houchin’s ‘Significant change is likely in our prisons. The question is change in what direction?’ assume particular significance. This thoughtful commentary on several articles published in the June 2002 special issue on prisons, suggests that the prison system is riven with contradictions of purpose. It is currently being critically destabilised, he argues, by managerial and fiscal pressures which will force it to better define its main objectives. Two outcomes are possible: one is a US style lock down culture which places little emphasis on the humanity of the offender; the other, more coherent, solution involves recognising that prisoners remain members of the civil