Probation In England Research Articles

Regulating criminal justice: The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in the inspection of probation in England and Wales

Criminal justice institutions are held to account in a number of ways yet there is limited knowledge as to how these systems of regulation function. One primary method for regulating systems of punishment is through the use of independent inspectorates, yet very little empirical research has explored how inspectorates engage with the organisations they inspect nor how inspection is received by inspected organisations. Procedural justice theory has been used to understand compliance with laws. It can also shed light on compliance with systems of accountability, although there is a dearth of research in this area. Thus, our understanding of how regulation works in situ is limited. This article uses procedural justice theory to analyse data that were collected in England and Wales to explore how His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation garners legitimacy from those it inspects. The article suggests that the Inspectorate is seen to be trustworthy and impartial, treats people with respect and provides them with a voice although there is variance between groups. The article contributes to (1) our understanding of how regulation works in the field of probation and (2) procedural justice theory by exposing the mechanisms that underpin compliance with regulatory regimes in institutional settings.

The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation. By KingRoy andWillmottLucy (Routledge, 2021, 274pp. £38.99 pbk)

King and Willmott’s The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation seeks to provide ‘an authoritative account of the crisis which has gradually engulfed the prison and probation services since 1991’ (Preface). This book provides an interesting descriptive account of a period of much importance, drawing on interviews with all surviving Home Secretaries and Justice Secretaries of the period. Insights are also provided via interviews conducted with Director Generals of the Prison Service and Probation Service, Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation, and the four most recent Lord Chief Justices. The opening chapter provides a brief history of prisons and probation in England and Wales from 1990 to the present. Chapters 2–6 then provide an oral history of each political period (with chapter 6 providing views from Lord Chief Justices across the whole time span). Chapter 7 then provides a (slightly disconnected) ‘Agenda for Action’, in the spirit of Morris and Hawkins’ Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control (1970), which sets out a normative argument for a better criminal justice system. There is much for the intelligent general reader (the intended target of the book: p. 2) to enjoy.

The thematic review of mental health in probation in England and Wales

While the relationship between offending and mental health is complex, research findings indicate that those in conflict with the law have higher levels of mental illness and need than the general population. This article considers the findings of a joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs, with a particular focus on the probation stage. Inspectors from across justice and health reviewed cases to establish the extent to which needs were identified and met. Interviews were also undertaken with 67 individuals who had lived experience of mental illness while in the criminal justice system. Findings are considered in relation to the identification of mental health needs; the role of trauma; probation practitioners’ skills, knowledge and support; case management; and access to required services. This inspection led to identified effective practice and key agencies agreeing to a number of actions in response to inspectors’ recommendations.

Making, unmaking, remaking: Mapping the boundaries of professional legitimacy, identity and practice in probation in England and Wales

This article maps the (shifting) boundaries of professional legitimacy, identity and practice in probation in England and Wales. Probation established itself in the 20th century as a core institution in the modernist pursuit of offender rehabilitation; however, changing political economic priorities in recent decades have prompted a new consensus that also incorporates mentalities of punitivism, managerialism and risk. With a particular emphasis on the reunification of services after the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the article presents a practical and moral case for how the Government’s (re)professionalisation agenda can be developed. It draws upon the sociology of the professions literature to emphasise the service’s ‘interstitiality’ as a professional jurisdiction that operates between different social spheres. The article argues that reunification provides an opportunity to remake the boundaries of professional practice in such a way that people on probation can take ownership of their desistance, while reasserting the service’s internal self-image and external legitimacy.

What works in promoting ‘What Works’? A comment on Sanders, Jones and Briggs

This short article is a comment on the recent proposal of a What Works Centre for probation ( Sanders, Jones and Briggs, 2021 ). Any new ‘What Works’ initiative needs to be informed by the patchy and uneven history of research on the effectiveness of probation in England and Wales. Problems have included, at various times, failure to keep up with research in other countries; over-dependency on government departments to conduct and fund research; poor planning and/or implementation of experimental projects; excessive managerialism, and failure to engage practitioners in a research culture. Unless they are avoided, these problems will hamper any new initiative.

Finding the Eye of the Octopus: the Limits of Regulating Outsourced Offender Probation in England and Wales

This article discusses the constraints on, and conflicts over, the oversight and regulation of mixed public-private entities, using the part-privatisation of the probation service in England and Wales – a policy called Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) – as its case study. The article shows how TR embodied a policy and set of practices that effectively undermined both institutional and political forms of scrutiny. Actions informed by neoliberal political dogma effectively strained regulatory systems, and short circuited the most important dimension of accountability in a liberal democracy – accountability of ministers to parliament. Ironically, although TR was subject to extensive regulatory scrutiny, the article concludes that these mechanisms were controverted by ministerial disregard for rules, procedures or the advice of civil servants, demonstrating that regulatory structures struggle to trump willfully pursued but ill-advised policy.

Rehabilitating Probation: Strategies for Re‐legitimation after Policy Failure

AbstractThis article draws on insights from the organisational studies literature to make sense of the recent history of probation in England & Wales in the aftermath of the failed Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reform programme. It considers that recent history as a crisis of legitimacy, necessitating active strategies of re‐legitimation aimed at recovering from reputational damage. It argues that top‐down plans to restructure the service will only go so far in this endeavour: the expanded National Probation Service must also be prepared to engage in legitimation work on its own behalf. However, this is likely to be challenging for a number of reasons that include the mixed constituency of external stakeholders whom probation seeks to satisfy, and important questions of identity, agency, and voice.

The probation service in England and Wales: A decade of radical change or more of the same?

This article reviews developments in probation in England and Wales since 2010, a decade in which services were exposed to the logic of competition and profit. In 2014, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government’s Transforming Rehabilitation ( TR) reforms promised an end to a top-down, target-centric culture of state intervention by outsourcing services for low-to-medium risk offenders to 21 privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). And yet, just four years after the reforms were implemented, the Conservative government announced that CRCs’ contracts would be terminated, with all offender management services returned to the public sector. With a focus on the private sector, the article argues that radical change to the probation service’s structure has entrenched a focus on centrally-administered performance targets and audit. In other words, contrary to the decentralising rhetoric at the core of TR, the decade has in many ways produced more of the same managerialism that the reforms were presented as a means to displace. The result has been a general decline in the quality of probation services.

A legitimate business? Representations of privatised probation in England and Wales

The Transforming Rehabilitation reforms implemented in England & Wales in 2014 witnessed the transfer of responsibility for a large proportion of the work of the public sector probation service to 21 newly created Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), which were contracted out to a range of providers dominated by private sector interests. This part-privatisation of probation services has raised important questions about the legitimacy of the new organisations in the eyes of both internal and external audiences, and about the ‘legitimation work’ that the CRCs might engage in to address any legitimacy deficits they themselves perceive. This article presents the findings of an analysis of the websites of all 21 CRCs, and considers what these externally facing representations of the CRCs suggest about legitimation work in the private probation sector. Our analysis suggests that CRCs use some of the same strategies of legitimation that have been found in another ‘tainted trade’ – the private security industry – and are similarly ambivalent about what – and to whom – they are marketing their ‘business’. We suggest that our analysis sheds new light on old questions about how the somewhat intangible goods of probation work can be captured and communicated to a mixed constituency of potential stakeholders, as well as raising new questions about the role of websites (and other marketing materials) in that endeavour.

NHS commissioning in probation in England - Still on a wing and a prayer.

Policy reforms in England and Wales mean that all individuals released from prison will have some contact with probation services, either serving a community sentence, or being on licence post-release. Despite often having complex health needs, including a higher prevalence of mental health problems, substance misuse problems and physical health problems than the general population, this socially excluded group of people often do not access healthcare until crisis point. This is partly due to service-level barriers such as a lack of appropriate and accessible healthcare provision. We conducted a national survey of all Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs, n=210) and Mental Health Trusts (MHTs, n=56) in England to systematically map healthcare provision for this group. We compared findings with similar surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014. We had excellent response rates, with the data analysed here representing responses from 75% of CCGs and 52% of MHTs in England. We found that just 4.5% (n=7) of CCG responses described commissioning a service specifically for probation service clients, and 7.6% (n=12) described probation-specific elements within their mainstream service provision. Responses from 19.7% of CCGs providing data (n=31) incorrectly suggested that NHS England are responsible for commissioning healthcare for probation clients rather than CCGs. Responses from 69% (n=20) of MHTs described providing services specifically for probation service clients, and 17.2% (n=5) described probation-specific elements within their mainstream service provision. This points to a need for an overarching health and justice strategy that emphasises organisational responsibilities in relation to commissioning healthcare for people in contact with probation services to ensure that there is appropriate healthcare provision for this group.

People with severe problematic personality traits and offending histories: What influences occupational participation?

BackgroundOccupational participation is important for personality disordered offenders (PDOs) because it is integral to health and desistance from offending. What influences occupational participation is unknown for PDOs in the community, limiting effective intervention to affect change. In England and Wales, the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway aims to improve outcomes for people considered highly likely to have a severe personality disorder and who present a high risk of reoffending, who are determined to be PDOs on the basis of a structured assessment. This study identified the influencers of occupational participation for the population who receive this service. MethodIn this critical realist, qualitative study, narrative interviews were conducted with 18 PDOs supervised by probation in England. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to establish influencers of occupational participation. ResultsFour themes describe influencers of occupational participation: function of occupations; influence of the past; external forces; and learning and adaptation. The latter theme reflected understandings of occupational adaptation described by the Model of Human Occupation. ConclusionsAn intervention to increase prosocial occupational participation should be developed and evaluated for PDOs in the community, taking account of occupational participation over the life course.

Transforming Rehabilitation as ‘policy disaster’: Unbalanced policy-making and probation reform

This paper utilizes the notion of ‘policy disasters’ to examine the policy developments that led to the part-privatization and marketization of probation services in England and Wales – Transforming Rehabilitation. Specifically, it examines the ‘internal’ component of policy disasters, drawing on semi-structured interviews with senior policymakers and other relevant sources. The findings presented demonstrate that the policy dynamics relating to Transforming Rehabilitation specifically, and the departmental budget as an important underlying component, were both distinctly ‘unbalanced’. This is argued to be an important explanatory factor in its damagingly swift implementation and operationalization. In closing, the paper reflects on the policy studies notion of ‘policy equilibrium’ to consider whether the policy landscape relating to probation in England and Wales has reached a ‘steady state’, or whether the ongoing apparent failings of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms may result in a further round of considerable policy change.

Hollowing out probation? The roots of Transforming Rehabilitation

This article provides a critical perspective on the political and policy history of probation in England and Wales to develop a better understanding of how TR came to be. TR was only the latest act in a longstanding process of changing probation to fit ideological ‘flavours’, and we suggest that it is the hidden nature of probation work in combination with a lack of public legitimation work by probation institutions and probation staff that has placed probation in such a vulnerable position.

Probation practice in the information age

This article analyses the implications of the greater use of technology and information in probation practice. Using data generated via an ethnography of probation, the article firstly argues that probation in England and Wales now exists in what scholars would identify as ‘the information age’ (i.e. that computers and other technologies work to define and create probation practice as we know it). The article goes on to use actor-network theory to analyse two ‘heterogeneous networks’ to explore the way in which probation practitioners and the technologies they use interact to create particular forms of practice. The article argues that unless we understand the technology that underpins practice we cannot fully understand practice. Finally, the article considers the implications of this analysis for probation post-Transforming Rehabilitation (TR).

Videoing Supervision: Messages for Probation Practice

This paper reports on a PhD study, investigating the supervision of women service users (WSUs), by probation officers (POs) based on video data of one-to-one supervision sessions. The research identifies competing agendas of probation in England and Wales – one side emphasises punishment, whilst the other encourages humanistic, relationship-based practices. POs, routinely juggling these opposing expectations, appreciate traditional probation values of giving the WSU a voice and embracing psychodynamic approaches, to provide structure and support in confronting the complexities of officer/service user interactions. However, the data show that driven by managerialist enforcement requirements, it is the punitive discourse which is more frequently translated into practice. Organisational pressures, feelings about the person opposite, the offence or the individual’s background can manifest as conscious or unconscious micro-messages or masking messages. Just as SUs put on masks to disguise negative emotions or feel powerful, so too do POs; POs recognise masks and deceptions in SUs and, similarly, SUs are aware of this dynamic with POs. The research identifies practitioner ambivalence to certain narratives, particularly sexual abuse or poor mental health and, it is argued, reflective supervision is needed to deconstruct difficult personal and professional issues.

Book review: Rehabilitation and Probation in England and Wales 1876–1962

Book review: Rehabilitation and Probation in England and Wales 1876–1962

NHS commissioning in probation in England - on a wing and a prayer.

National guidance in England exhorts Clinical Commissioning Groups [groups of general practices established to organise delivery of National Health Service (NHS) care in their local area (CCGs)] to commission healthcare for those living in the community who are serving non-custodial sentences called 'community orders'. This includes 'approved premises' - accommodation providing enhanced supervision for offenders and individuals on bail who may present a high risk of harm to the public. In this national survey of CCGs in England, we compared the extent to which healthcare services were commissioned for probationers in 2014 with similar data we collected in 2013. A freedom of information (FOI) request was sent to all CCGs (n=212) and Mental Health Trusts (organisations commissioned to provide health and social care services to individuals with mental health disorders) (n=53) in England. Mental Health Trusts were included as they were known to fund mental health services for probation as part of their block funding allocations. A small number of basic questions were asked. The response rate was good with 65% of CCGs (n=137) and 68% (n=36) of Mental Health Trusts responding. The findings show that the proportion of CCGs commissioning healthcare for probation reduced from 7% to 1%, with 20% of CCGs stating that funding healthcare for this group was the responsibility of the NHS England Area Teams. There was also a reduction in the proportion of Mental Health Trusts funding healthcare for probation but from a much higher baseline, that is from 70% to 61%. The prevalence of mental health disorders in probation is high, so it was of concern that only 12% of Mental Health Trusts provided a service to support approved premises and just 32% provided clinics in probation. The results are discussed within the context of the NHS reforms and the government's plans in England to reform probation.

“Beyond the Pale of Mercy”: Victorian Penal Culture, Police Court Missionaries, and the Origins of Probation in England

One of the most striking changes in the penal culture of fin-de-siècle Europe was England's reform of adjudication and punishment. In this “de-moralization of criminality,” the system began to shed its punitive sentencing, which often saw minor offenders imprisoned with hard labor for weeks or months, to adopt a more moderate system of penalties. These concrete changes were intertwined with a broader shift in British criminological thinking from a “classical” view to a “positivist” one. The former held offending to be a rational, individual choice that required severe deterrents, whereas the latter saw criminality as a product of harsh economic and social conditions. This shift in dominant understandings of criminality prompted reformers, judicial officials, police, and policymakers to refocus on the causes of crime and its prevention, the offender as a subject, and the potential for treatment and rehabilitation through state intervention. A central practice of the resultant “penal-welfare complex” was supervised probation as a substitute for imprisonment. Scholars of penal reform have argued that the passage of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, which initiated the professionalization of the probation service, was a key moment in this transition. With it, such arguments hold, England took a substantial step from having a discretionary, moralized criminal justice system toward having a standardized, bureaucratic one.

Consent to probation in England and Wales: How it was abolished, and why it matters

Much of probation theory and probation training in Britain during the 1980s emphasised the importance of ‘contracts’ or negotiated agreements between probation officers, probationers and the sentencing Court – for example, joint decision-making was central to the influential ‘non-treatment paradigm’ and its variants. However, the legal requirement of consent to a probation order was abolished in 1997, partly because it was seen as diminishing the authority of the Court. This article discusses the arguments and attitudes that lay behind abolition, and considers how far the absence of formal consent should be seen as making a difference in practice. Recent studies of supervision skills, therapeutic alliance, compliance with probation, sentencer involvement in supervision, and the role of individual choice in desistance from offending all point to the continuing importance of co-operation and joint ownership of the supervision agenda. Although these can exist in the absence of a formal requirement for consent, they have greater support and legitimacy when such a requirement is present. Finally, the article explores how official thinking and political gestures lead to decisions that are detached from the realities of practice, and discusses some of the current dangers that arise from this.

Rehabilitating and Resettling Offenders in the Community. By Anthony Goodman (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 250pp. 32.99 pb)

Probation in England and Wales is moving, under the impact of the Coalition government’s privatization programme, into what many would consider terminal crisis. From a relatively calm backwater, the agency has been thrust into the front line of neo-liberal political and social engineering. Any text on probation published today is required to help understand what has led to this situation. The book under review was published before the privatization programme was fully articulated and contains little directly on the subject apart from a few ruminations on the shape of things to come. But its value lies in the meticulous documentation, supplemented by interviews with practitioners conducted over a considerable period, of the changes introduced by successive governments particularly from the beginning of the 1980s. If we wish to fully understand the current turmoil, some consideration of this history is vital. Goodman deftly navigates the maze of Home Office documents and the mountain of reports, reorganizations and political injunctions to show how English probation, over a longer period than many might imagine, has metamorphosed from a relatively autonomous agency primarily focused on the rehabilitation of offenders to a tightly controlled and bureaucratized arm of the criminal justice system geared to public protection, control, surveillance and risk management—its own ‘punitive turn’. As Paul Boateng, Minister for Prisons and Probation during the first Blair administration, proudly announced: ‘We are a law enforcement agency: It’s what we are. It’s what we do’ (p. 100).