“I’ve Never Been Arrested At A 12-step Meeting”: How Structural And Functional Mechanisms Of 12 Step Programmes Might Support Criminal Desistance

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 14/03/2023
Type Article
Author(s) Sarah Nixon
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/0dtk-wg13

Abstract

This article aims to highlight how the structural and functional mechanisms of 12 step programmes (12SPs) might support criminal desistance. Drawing upon a small sample (n=7) from a wider PhD study (n=38) on peer work and desistance in prisoners, probationers and former probationers in England, narratives were reanalysed thematically to explore the desistance potential of 12SPs. The author has personal experience of 12SPs and has also worked within criminal justice (Prison Service). Themes identified suggest that 12SPs can be a ‘hook for change’ and allow for ‘changing of playground’. Tools offered through 12SPs can help structure and shape daily routines, develop discipline and manageability of self, and the collective responsibility of 12 step groups can develop social, human and recovery capital which might potentially support desistance supporting roles like employment and parenting. Not all 12 step members are involved with the criminal justice system, so this article presents a small sample of participants with extensive criminal careers. 12 step sponsorship (peer support) can allow for development of generativity, altruism and empathy where self becomes an ‘expert by experience’ thus transmitting experience, strength and hope to others. Redemptive narratives and moral agency were also evident. The aim of this article is therefore to help criminal justice practitioners to understand (from an ‘insider perspective’) the transformative potential that 12SPs might offer in supporting criminal desistance.


Policing Disability Hate Crime

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 10/10/2022
Type Article
Author(s) Louise Hewitt
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/8bxr-s755

Abstract

There is no aggravated offence for disability hate crime (DHC). The current legislation fails to place the disability characteristic on an equal footing with the characteristics of race and religion (for which there are aggravated offences). The effect of this is evident not only in law, which does not adequately punish the perpetrators of DHC, but also in the actions of the police who find it difficult to recognise and record DHC. In its 2021 report on hate crime laws the Law Commission has echoed its previous recommendation made in 2014 to extend aggravated offences that currently exist for race and religion to all other existing characteristics including disability. No changes were made in response to the 2014 report, and it is unlikely immediate changes will be made following the 2021 report. The police, however, are in a position to change how the current law relating to DHC is implemented if they improve their recognition and recording of it. This article examines the Metropolitan Police Service response to DHC, making recommendations that if implemented could have a national effect on how DHC is approached by the police.


Race Equality in Probation Services in England and Wales: A Procedural Justice Perspective

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 18/07/2022
Type Article
Author(s) Kevin Ball, Avtar Singh & Trevor Worsfold
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/pye4-0f44

Abstract

Probation services in England and Wales supervise over 240,000 people sentenced by the courts or after they have left prison; around one in eight of these people are from a non-white ethnic minority (Ministry of Justice, 2022). Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation recently published their inspection report on the experiences of ethnic minority people on probation and staff. From fieldwork across five areas, the inspectors found significant problems in the quality of relationships between probation workers and ethnic minority people on probation, and reported significant gaps in the availability of services and interventions.

This article will review the policy landscape of probation provision for ethnic minorities, summarise the inspection findings and official data, and provide an analysis of the narrative data collected in the fieldwork with probation staff and people on probation. We will analyse the narratives of those involved in probation provision for ethnic minorities through the lens of procedural justice, which encompasses the elements of understanding the process taking place; having a voice in that process; feeling that you have been treated with respect; and having trust in the fairness of the process (Hunter et al., 2020).


Editorial (Volume 18, Issue 1)

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 28/04/2022
Type Editorial Comment
Author(s) Kevin Wong, Jean Hine
DOA
DOI

This Special Issue is themed around the Future of Probation – post 2020. Contributors were invited to take as their starting point (but not exclusively) the special issue of this journal which we published in March 2016 (Vol 14 Issue 1). The landscape of probation provision in England and Wales looked very different then. The Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) changes (MoJ 2013) had just seen the part privatisation of the public probation service. The papers in that issue – in part a response to that significant structural change – were based on the theme of: “Imagining Probation in 2020: hopes, fears and insights”. It drew on discussions which occurred at a retreat hosted by Paul Senior the then Co-Editor of the journal, with a small group of probation academic colleagues.


“Safety Is Freedom From Trauma”: Lessons From the Brownsville Community Justice Center

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 28/04/2022
Type Article
Author(s) Greg Berman
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/ys3h-j358

This interview with one of the leaders of the Brownsville Community Justice Center explores how the innovative project in Brooklyn, New York is working to promote community health and safety without conventional law enforcement strategies. The article also provides an overview of the history of community justice centres in both the US and the UK, including the short-lived North Liverpool Community Justice Centre.


Co-productive Approaches to Homelessness in England and Wales Beyond the Vagrancy Act 1824 and Public Spaces Protection Orders

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 28/04/2022
Type Article
Author(s) Anton Roberts, Benjamin Archer
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI

Those experiencing homelessness exist in a precarious position in society; these individuals are simultaneously sites of vulnerability and criminogenic risk. For the street-sleeping homeless population, these citizens occupy a position of constant risk, requiring management and consideration of ethical obligations that arise from these environments (Killander, 2019). For as long as this social problem has persisted, politicians, policymakers and those involved in the criminal justice system have struggled to identify the appropriate means to grapple with this problematic dichotomy, which as a result has led to a continued criminalisation instead of other, more holistic approaches to tackling homelessness. This article explores two statutory instruments that have been used to tackle the issue of homeless in England and Wales: The Vagrancy Act 1824 and Public Spaces Protection Orders, introduced through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. These measures, it is argued here, stimulate further the punishment and degradation of homeless people in society. Using co-production as a methodological framework, we argue that concerted efforts can and should be made to include and engage people experiencing homelessness in the utilisation of these measures.


PROBATION, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PRACTICE AFTER REUNIFICATION: AN EXAMINATION OF HISTORY AND POLICY

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 01/02/2022
Type Article
Author(s) Anthony Goodman
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/d9rq-nd88

Abstract

The probation service is at a crossroad in its history with the two sectors, the National Probation Service and the privatised Community Rehabilitation Companies being reunited. This is a good time to examine discrimination both within the criminal justice system, including probation, and in society to improve the service and experience for staff and service users. The article provides the reader with a detailed literature review on discrimination in criminal justice, its history, policy and practice over time. It starts with the beginning of anti-racist practice ideas and continues up to the present time, with the latest report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (2021) thematic inspection. This report, like its two predecessors, in 2000 and 2004, details how people of colour, both probation professionals and clients have reported being disadvantaged. There is evidence to show that this is beyond personal reflection. Targets in subsequent action plans should include addressing disproportionality, outcomes of probation supervision, breach and recall, improving life chances for ethnic minorities and developing a race equality strategy for people on probation, drawing on the evidence base. This can only take place if practitioners hold anti-oppressive practice at the centre of professional practice, with the need to build and develop trusting relationships with their clients.


CALL FOR PAPERS: Special issue on community responses to the prevention of ‘radicalisation’ and hateful or violent extremism

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 20/12/2021
Type Rapid Communication
Author(s) Kevin Wong & Jean Hine
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI


Since the 2001 9/11 terror attacks, and particularly since the 7/7 attacks in London in 2005, an overarching policy objective has developed in the United Kingdom (UK) and other jurisdictions, in which individuals and communities are to be prevented from engaging in hateful or violent extremism. In the UK and elsewhere, while this was prompted by and focused on Islamist extremism, the preventive approach is now also applied to right-wing extremism and can be extended to other forms of violent extremism such as incel/misogynist extremism, and left-wing extremism as well as to cases where ideology is ‘mixed, unstable or unclear’.

The response to extremism commonly includes policies promoting pro-social attitudes and ‘community cohesion’ – especially where they connect to community conflict more widely (Thomas 2010) – and focusing on education as it relates to both ideology and economic and social inclusion. It also includes ‘community engagement’ and ‘youth engagement’ programmes that do ‘hearts and minds’ work on orientation towards the state but also carry out surveillance and lower-level coercive interventions. Importantly, the fear of extremisms and a broader downward spiral of communal relations has prompted governments to allow the prevention of violent extremism to overdetermine relationships with some parts of society, and Muslims in particular.

While the vast majority of people are not favourable to hateful or violent extremism, we should not expect consensus with regards to where the cut-offs should be placed for these categories, or consensus on the appropriateness of any response. A universal educational offer that educates for democracy or against extremism (Davies 2009) will have broad support, as do criminal justice responses to terrorist activity (e.g. prison sentences for convicted terrorists). Between these two, however, we find a variety of community-level and person-specific interventions, of which some may be broadly punitive but most are ‘administrative or social based measures’ Eijkman and Roodnat 2016). Such measures – which are not formally mandated by a court, do not always require consent and are rarely open to challenge – can produce the ‘grievance, structural inequalities and alienation from power structures’ (Pilkington 2018) that can drive extremism.

This range of interventions raise questions, not only about their appropriateness and the accountability of the agencies involved, but about the ways in which the lives of (mostly younger) people are encroached on and reshaped both by extremism and by counter-extremist interventions. Is the “community” envisaged as a space of unbounded (and potentially risky) dialogue, or one where any radical possibilities are (or should be) foreclosed by diffuse social control? As such, this is a community justice issue.

We therefore call for papers that address the following, or related themes in relation to preventing hateful and violent extremism:

  • Community leadership, local polities and local (responses to) extremism which occurred, for example, in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bomb in 2017.
  • Stigmatisation through counter-extremism, e.g. through assumptions that particular demographic categories are uniquely susceptible to extremisms, and how this relates to the stigmatisation of young people more generally
  • Related, the understanding of everyday attitudes and behaviours that may be problematic or not (e.g. everyday sexism and racism, teenage anger, language, mental health issues, communal norms) as indicators or risk factors, especially where this understanding is applied inconsistently
  • Attitudes to counter-extremist interventions by the police and the criminal justice system more broadly
  • The role of wider injustice, and perceptions of injustice, on identities, resistance and radicalisation
  • The normalisation of counter-extremism in community policing and community justice
  • The role of the media in generating ‘concern’ and the need for ‘something to be seen to be done’, particularly where demographic groups, towns or neighbourhoods are given special focus
  • The role of ‘formers’, those who have engaged in extremist activity and reformed, in high-profile and street-level interventions, and the associated ideas of redemption, rehabilitation, and prison education.

 

The journal is policy and practitioner as well as scholar focused, so writing will be aimed at this wider audience, as well as including writing by policymakers and practitioners.  We call for abstracts or outlines of papers from prospective contributors that address the broad theme of community responses to prevent ‘radicalisation’ and hateful or violent extremism, in the UK or internationally in other jurisdictions.

Please send abstracts or outlines of up to 200 words to  bjcj@mmu.ac.uk by 11th February 2022. Alternatively, do get in touch at the same email address if there is an idea you would like to discuss.

We look forward to receiving your submissions.


Beyond Individual Trauma: Towards a Multi-Faceted Trauma-Informed Restorative Approach to Youth Justice That Connects Individual Trauma With Family Reparation and Recognition of Bias and Discrimination

Articles


Geroge Julian

Published 09/11/2021
Type Article
Author(s) Meghan Spacey, Naomi Thompson
Corresponding Authors
DOA
DOI https://doi.org/10.48411/vcqn-0794

This article outlines findings from surveys and interviews with young people and their parents/caregivers in a Youth Offending Service (YOS) in London. The YOS worked to a model of three elements, these being: trauma-informed practice; restorative justice; awareness of unconscious bias. The article presents a literature review that explores these key elements of the YOS model before presenting the findings that emerge from the data. We found the trauma-recovery approach builds resilience, hope for the future, and a positive sense of self-identity in young people. Within this, restorative practice between young people and parents was identified as a unique and impactful form of the trauma-recovery process. Awareness of bias and a non-judgemental approach also appeared to impact positively on young people, with some limitations. Integrating restorative practice and awareness of bias into the trauma-informed approach built a unique multi-faceted approach to trauma-informed care that took account of individual, family and institutional trauma. This integrated approach makes possible trauma-informed restorative practices centred on reparation of harm done to young people, including by the professionals and institutions that should protect them. We argue that truly restorative trauma-informed youth justice interventions need a combined focus on the individual and systemic traumas experienced by young people in order to recognise how their lives are impacted not just by individual or family problems but by broader issues of structural inequality.


A Simple Idea for Complex Lives

Geroge Julian

Published 24/09/2021
Author(s) Rob Turner

The Beginning of a Conversation:

The following explores a proposal once made by a Probation service-user but fundamentally asks how the Future of Probation can adapt to facilitate and advocate such voices from those with Lived Experience.

‘We-Look-Back-to-Move-Forward’:

Time is important but of the essence. In 2016, I was convicted for ‘the-possession-of-indecent-images-of-young-people’. I received myriad sentences/restrictions, 5-years engagement with the Public-Protection-Unit (PPU) of the police, and 3-year Community Order supervision under Probation – the Horizon’s Programme (Northumbria-Sexual-Offenders-Group (NSOG) and Better-Lives). This is brute ‘black-and-white’ of conviction. It doesn’t begin explaining the other 99% of identity, nor the array of reasons why one commits these crimes. That is a different article and time altogether.

However, very early on, I was keen to hold myself to account, attempting to navigate supporting others, enabling unique perspective, through Lived Experience, that Probation (one can argue only partly, from a singular, potentially biased, criminal’s perspective – with labelling problematic itself) was, and still is, flawed.

‘Breaking-Through-the-Glass-Flaw’:

Probation provided an internal and external rhetoric to debate, a processing of thoughts, feelings and behaviours. But I was desperate to catalyse my own rehabilitation to help inform and develop Probation’s practice, advocating more sustainable rehabilitation (beyond confines of law-bound necessity), educating greater skill-sets (promoting/valuing wider social rehabilitation) and placing offenders at the centre of their Lived Experience, using their ‘expertise’ to guide their journeys.

So, I wrote a proposal with a view to setting up a ‘Simple-Idea-for-Complex-Lives’. This mentoring scheme would allow participants to learn core creative skills (confidence/communication/collaboration/identity/leadership), graduate to become volunteering or funded mentors for future groups, developing roles in shaping and enriching wider rehabilitative pathways, elevating and empowering valuable Lived Experience. The beginning of a conversation, asking for just 10 minutes within NSOG sessions for kinaesthetic, service-user-led activities – inspired by ideas from Michel Foucault, Paulo Freire, amongst many others.

The following quote surmises these ideas: “the fear that many (prisoners) have of the power of their home environment to damage their best intentions to change, needs to be reframed by offering them the skills and confidence to change that environment. Whilst this might seem a daunting task…even an engagement with the process of social change would provide a context for personal change to be sustained.” (J. Thompson, 1999, p.37-38).

I sent this proposal to my Probation-Officer, PPU-Officer, Universal-Credit-Work-Coach, facilitators of the NSOG course, along with my fellow participants. I received a comment of thanks and… nothing else. It was as if it was written in a different language.

‘A-Better-Life-Is-About-Seeing-All-of-Yourself-and-Not-Being-Afraid-of-It’:

We can argue the merits and detail of this proposal and, in being afforded an ever-more platforms for Lived Experience voice, I would gladly do so.

But remember, this was the beginning of a conversation, at a time when Probation’s ethos was one of promoting mentoring opportunities (specifically encouraged by staff to express ideas, although the HMIP wouldn’t publish “Service-User-Involvement-in-the-Review-and-Improvement-of-Probation-Services” until 2019). To be ignored, practically silenced, was symptomatic of my experience in emphasising transferrable and newly-learned skills to travail the hurdles of my conviction, champion authentic alternatives, housing a sense of purpose again, to be courageous when no element of my life was allowed to be, to see all of myself and not be afraid. I was met with fear.

‘The-Future-of-Probation’:

So, has Probation changed? Will it ever change?

There have been recent adjustments to the Active-Risk-Management-System (ARMS) process to shift the balance from protecting/safeguarding the public and how criminals pose varying harm towards how offenders can re-contribute to society and limit reoffending through proactive means. Probation/PPU use these newly-framed tools to assess, but both are still challenged by bureaucracy and public opinion. There is no time, money or impetus for how these organisations can apply this apparently encouraged re-contribution into valuing Lived Experience voice towards sustainable, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation.

Perhaps it’s unfair to say, perhaps improvements are afoot but my experience as a Probation/PPU service-user recognises limitation in voice, drive and advocation of a better system from within. Yes, I experienced examples of kindness and what felt like tokenistic emboldening but venturing change for those with Lived Experience was largely met with bafflement and suspicion.

So, would this not so simple idea be given more credit now?

The Future of Probation and its wider impact on society, lies in its ability to shift perspectives, stepping away from past top-down methodology into a future bottom-up ethos. For staff to have more funding, training and belief in its system and participants, former staff and wider networks informing practice, collaborative and holistic approaches to sustainable rehabilitation/desistance. But, fundamentally, a seat at this table must be reserved for service-user’s themselves. If not the head of said table then at least a valued, bespoke voice for their own and other’s rehabilitative journeys.

What’s so complex about that?

 

This is the beginning of a conversation. The Future of Probation needs to hear it!