Abstract
That the probation service has undergone fundamental changes to its organization, ethos and delivery is beyond question. What is less well known and understood is the impact these changes have had on front-line staff. How far have probation practitioners accepted and worked with these changes or have they continued to work within a more traditional model of rehabilitation? This is the question which John Deering directly addresses in Probation Practice and the New Penology: Practitioner Reflections. Drawing on a qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with 51 probation staff across three locations, the author attempts to provide a ‘snapshot’ of practice in order to fill the gap between the official accounts provided government and management and the ‘real practice’ of practioners which is still in the main undertaken behind closed doors.
Chapters 2 and 3 reviews the wider societal changes which have impacted upon the probation service in terms of increasing insecurity and heightened fear of crime. The first of these chapters contextualizes the study in terms of the ascendency of punitiveness and the ‘New Penality’, the pre-occupation with the assessment and management of risk, and the all-embracing influence on ‘new public management’. Having discussed the macro level themes and theories that have shaped the criminal justice system he then relates them to contemporary probation practice. He contends that ‘whilst there is a top down influence upon organization members, this is neither hegemonic nor unchanging, as it is not universally or uncritically accepted by all actors who themselves have an influence upon the overall culture’ (p. 26). Using the theoretical framework developed by Bourdieu (1977) to explain organizational change and resistance he argues that contemporary probation practice is characterized by the complex interplay between the ‘habitus’ (the area inhabited by individuals and small groups in terms of their working culture and practices) and ‘field’ (the formal rules that govern public services).
In Chapter 4 he examines the attitudes, values and beliefs of practitioners, trainees and middle managers, towards various aspects of their work and the purposes of the service. The majority of those interviewed appeared to be guided in their everyday practice by a fundamental set of attitudes and values that would not be out of place with the ‘traditional’ values of probation in terms of respect for the individual and a belief in their capacity for change. The author found little evidence to suggest that those interviewed were emphasizing the management of groups based on risk factors, or the control of individuals in their practice (p. 56). Whilst the majority of those interviewed accepted stricter enforcement in terms of increasing the accountability of the service, an even larger group of respondents disagreed with rigid enforcement for purely law enforcement purposes (p. 65).
The next three chapters examine practice in the areas of offender assessment, enforcement practices, and supervision on licence drawing upon the qualitative data obtained from the semi -structured interviews. The data reveals a complex picture, but one with some identifiable themes. Fundamentally, those practitioners interviewed viewed the purpose of their work as motivating, encouraging and facilitating behavioural change through the professional relationship. Although their practice was aligned with central policy in that it tended to be based on the case management model of supervision and rooted in cognitive-behavioural techniques, they were clearly keen to hold onto the supervisory aspects of their work rather than the narrower offender manager approach. In the final count though, what ultimately matters most to most probation staff is ‘people work’. Unfortunately, like those practitioners interviewed by Robinson and Burnett (2007) the creation of NOMS, and more recently the threat of competition have inevitably led to feelings of uncertainty and anxiety.
The final two chapters summarize the findings of the research, relating them to the literature discussed and draw some conclusions as well as considering some of the more recent developments in the service that have occurred since the fieldwork was completed and their implications for future practice. The author summarizes his findings in the following terms:
Perhaps the overriding impression from the data when set against the wider changes in the criminal justice system and the service is one of a group of practitioners with a clear idea of how they would wish to practice working in a structure that has made that ideal increasingly difficult to maintain (p. 179).
As John Deering acknowledges, his research suffers from the absence of observational material to evidence whether those practitioners interviewed were actually doing what they said and believed they were. The research was also completed before the offender engagement programme and SEED (The Skills for Effective Engagement and Development) pilots were rolled out and it will be interesting to see how far these newer developments can address the overly bureaucratic and impersonal approaches that have dominated contemporary probation practice and which the author so eloquently outlines in this text. Leaving these minor quibbles aside, it is hard to disagree with Maurice Vanstone’s eulogy on the cover of this text that: ‘This important book gives a voice to those who implement the theories and practices of probation work, and in doing provides a glimmer of hope for those who have conceded the defeat of humanitarian values to right and left wing punitivists’.