Nathan Monk

This paper explores the role and purpose of Probation Approved hostels from the perspective of residents and hostel staff. Findings are drawn from a case study into the operation of a Probation Approved hostel and the experiences of those people either working or residing within the hostel.

The fieldwork was conducted over twenty-one months, including the period that the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) was introduced. In conjunction with participant observation within the hostel, comprising informal conversations and interviews, forty-one semi-structured interviews were undertaken with residents (24) and staff (17), and twelve Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Committee meetings (MARACs) were observed.

Key findings are that different levels of staff in the hostel and residents have different opinions regarding the purpose of hostels. From the talk of respondents it is suggested that the differences can be accounted for by the levels of work undertaken by respondents. The significance of this is that some staff groups do not understand the work of their colleagues, and that residents do not appreciate the purpose of the residency in a hostel.

This article reviews the current state of play in youth justice, taking particular note of the rhetoric and initial reform proposals of the incoming coalition government. The recent history of youth justice and the nature of previous debates in this area of practice are considered, in order to ‘set the scene’. In reflecting on past experience, it is suggested that there have been certain predictable patterns to policy debates, and that these have essentially been constrained within a fairly limited ideological framework, reflecting conventional narratives of progress and failure. The question of whether policy and practice in youth justice is best represented in terms of ‘continuity’ or ‘rupture’ is considered, and it is concluded that in the recent past, at least, there has been a tendency to overstate the degree of disagreement between policy positions between governments of different political persuasions, in order to justify reforms which have, in fact, been of relatively modest proportions. At the same time, established trends towards greater liberalisation or authoritarianism appear to have operated more or less independently of the policy process. This pattern is likely to be reproduced under the incoming 2010 government’s proposed reforms, given their reliance on well-established rhetorical arguments, and their lack of engagement with fundamental processes of social division and ‘othering’.

This article explores the use of sanction as a technique to secure the engagement of individuals with intensive support and rehabilitation programmes. Sanction and enforcement became increasingly prominent under the New Labour governments, within rhetoric and rationalities of ‘non-negotiable support’, ‘gripping’ and ‘challenging’ families and ‘making them’ engage. The linking of support to financial penalty or other legal enforcement action for non-compliance was a defining element of Parenting Orders and Family Intervention Projects. The new coalition government’s ‘rehabilitation revolution’ is committed to retaining an emphasis upon early intervention, whole family approaches and parenting skills, with a (modified) continuation of enforcement action for non-engagement with support. This article explores the rhetoric, definitions and existing research evidence about the use of sanction in intensive intervention projects. It then presents evidence from recent evaluations of the Intensive Intervention Project programme and Housing Benefit Sanction pilots in England to identify the actual practices of sanction. The article concludes that ‘non-negotiable’ support is a fallacy; that sanctions and enforcement action are very limited in both their use and impacts; and that this has important implications for the new government’s rehabilitation agenda.

The sociological literature pertaining to the nature of imprisonment has long documented the harm endured by the incarcerated. Such unease has led a range of commentators to challenge the over-reliance on imprisonment and the concomitant demotion of rehabilitative approaches, which have commonly been regarded as ‘soft on crime’ in a neoliberal populist punitive climate. However, recent economic and political changes have led to the promise of a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ relying on collaboration between the state and third sector agencies. Whilst this new direction would appear to support the use of artistic and spiritual activities, which foster empathy, healing and transformation, the intention to make prisons places of ‘hard work and industry’ alongside ‘Payment by Results’ may eradicate all such prospects. The potential benefits of enrichment activities as part of a strengths-based rehabilitation model will be considered in this article, which will review the current state of artistic and spiritual initiatives in prisons alongside empirical data gathered at a weekly yoga class in a UK adult male prison. By so doing, this paper discusses the potential impact of the proposed rehabilitation revolution on enrichment activities and considers whether their unique merits warrant a reconsideration of what should be valued in criminal justice responses.

Community justice initiatives attempt to meet dual aims of dealing with offending and engaging citizens in their local community. They exist throughout the criminal justice system, where policy is being firmly placed at a more local level. Arguably, this requires a clearer understanding of the community in which they are implemented and of what is understood by the term ‘community’. In addition, a feature of community justice initiatives often includes partnership working and concerns over the role of leadership, in relation to responsibility and accountability, in order that such initiatives are effectively implemented. Leadership is also highlighted as a key component necessary for building social cohesion and social capital (Rai, 2008; Cantle Report, 2006; Coleman, 1990), which many community justice initiatives aim to improve on, or draw from. This paper explores the role and type of leadership which can be identified in various community justice initiatives and its importance in contributing to our understanding of social cohesion and communities. The paper assesses current attempts to implement community justice in the context of different styles of leadership and highlights the inherent complexities of organisations and multi-agency working, which need to be better understood.

The advance of Blairite modernisation in criminal justice promised a mixed economy of provision capturing the best of public, private and voluntary sector enterprise. This gave an impetus to the Voluntary Sector (then identified as the Third Sector) to penetrate further into provision for reducing re-offending. Across the seven pathways the VCS became increasingly a partner, or at least a provider, in the provision of services, though still subject to the vagaries and uncertainties of the commissioning process in both prison and community settings. This paper will explore the contradictions in seeking to become a key player in this agenda, drawing on original research exploring the enhanced role of the sector (Senior et al., 2005). Concerns centre on the loss of the traditional independence of services; the compromise to values and capacity for innovation; an increasing business orientation and the consequent growth of new or re-fashioned VCS organisations, which often copy the business orientation of the fledging private sector. This has now taken on a new twist since the election in 2010 with the Big Society and rehabilitation revolution explicitly appealing to community engagement and the voluntary sector seeing this as further potential for growth now more at the expense of the public sector than in partnership with such collaboration coming more from private sector  alliances. This paper concludes by asking questions around this positive vision of civil society as seen by the new government and questions whether services may be delivered on the cheap by agencies, buoyed by government support, but ill-prepared and ill-equipped to take over public provision to the extent which the rhetoric invites.