PROBATION officers are already resisting proposals by Home Secretary Michael Howard to link their pay to whether or not offenders on their books commit more crimes.

However, the ordinary person's reaction to the plan may well be: Why not?

It may be that, in being confronted by this performance-related pay scheme, the probation service finds itself enmeshed in an escalating electoral war in which the two main parties are contending for voter-recognition as the toughest on crime.

But, if the effects on the service of the pressures - and benefits - of the pay scheme thrown up by this overdue political response to public concern over crime were to be considered neutrally, they would still have merit.

To begin with, the basic yardstick of rewarding workers according to achievement is one that is usefully applied to many occupations.

The only real qualification for exemption from it is whether performance can be easily or fairly measured.

And, on this score, the claim that the proposed scheme would be "unworkable" in the probation service does not strike us as wholly valid.

The profession is, after all, engaged in the rehabilitation of offenders and officers have given caseloads of "clients".

Crudely, the numbers of them who re-offend, breach community service orders or licence conditions while under the supervision of probation officers are easily measurable.

Success or failure can, therefore, be reflected in officers' pay awards.

True, there will be an element of subjectivity involved in the reasons why, while on probation, some offenders go straight and others do not.

Nevertheless, the service's task is to seek maximum success in any case - and performance-related pay is only a useful, added incentive that the dedicated need not fear.

Furthermore, in practical terms, it may put a finer focus on the rehabilitation aspect of the criminal justice system.

Under the suggested scheme, probation officers may more accurately target offenders who are less likely to re-offend and so deserve a place in the community.

As a result, less time and resources may be wasted on those who might otherwise abuse the conditions under which they remain at liberty.

Indeed, though they may be uncomfortable with the notion that P.R. pay puts them on trial, probation officers may find that it also gives them the opportunity to prove that the arm of the criminal justice system engaged in rehabilitation works as successfully as the retributive, prison-based branch.

In other words, that probation is not the soft option it is commonly regarded to be.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.