Nathan Monk

This paper considers the findings of a research project within the London Probation Area in which participants in a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) programme (both those who had completed and some who had not and were in custody) were asked what had best supported them. Their responses frequently reflected the importance of a good working relationship with supervising staff. If, as is envisaged, the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) is operated more flexibly than DTTOs, an opportunity presents itself to re-sculpt criminal justice drug programmes, retaining aspects which are working and amending those which are not. This paper focuses particularly on the role which the working alliance might play in future programmes.

This article examines the centrality of victim issues within probation practice in an era of well-publicised, political rhetoric which claims that consideration for victims of crime is now central to the policies and practices of the Criminal Justice System. From the perspective of the Probation Service some, such as Williams, claims that this has represented a cultural shift, facilitating a ‘more rounded picture’ (1999 p113). However, others argue that raising the victims profile has been an ongoing effort within the Probation Service for the last twenty years (Crawford and Enterkin, 1999). The research on which this article is based follows a curiosity about how real and radical this shift is at practice level and to identify the extent of any gaps between rhetoric, policy and practice. Though conducted in only one Probation Area (not that in which the author currently works), as part of the degree element of the Diploma in Probation Studies (DipPS), it provides food for thought and hopefully a basis for further investigation.

Huge cultural changes are underway in probation. At the heart of those changes lie the frontline practitioners who have the daily task of working with offenders. Yet, amidst the plethora of research on probation practice, much of it officially sponsored, the life experiences and motivations of practitioners seem on occasion to be virtually invisible. Some research has been carried out on practitioners’ experience of specific areas (for example, OASys), but very little broad ethnographic research has been undertaken on UK probation practitioners. While much of our academic and criminological knowledge about probation is filtered through officially funded research on particular types of intervention, little is known of probation’s occupational culture. It is argued that ethnographic research with practitioners would substantially enhance our understanding of that occupational culture and help develop our understanding of probation.

This article charts the development of residential work with offenders, explores its place within contemporary criminal justice and speculates upon its future role. Its starting point is the 1914 Criminal Justice Administration Act which gave the courts powers to add a condition of residence to a probation order and paved the way for the establishment of hostels for young people. Over a period of almost a century, the contribution of hostels to the delivery of criminal justice has altered significantly and hostels, known as approved premises since the implementation of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act  2000, are used increasingly for supervising high-risk adult male offenders following their release from prison. Approved premises were not considered in Carter’s strategic review of correctional services yet they appear well-placed to support the policy aspirations it advanced. In particular, they can contribute to the end-to-end management of offenders from whom the public must be protected. However, one barrier to effective practice is that little is known about ‘what works’ in relation to residential work with offenders thus further research is needed to develop an evidence base.

This article focuses on the early history of the probation unit in Inner London that had a specialist function to resettle the homeless and rootless, particularly on their release from prison. I worked in this unit from 1984 to 1989 and was able to access material from its inception. I was involved in researching changes in its function and organisation and interviewed an Assistant Chief PO (ACPO) from the early days of the unit. This ‘rich’ history illustrates the changes that occurred in the wider service, from the time when individual officers were independent and could ‘do their own thing’. It terms of the ACU it included setting up hostels, running volunteers and controlling their work. Senior staff worked alongside the main grade and offered casework supervision. They were not managers in the modern sense of understanding how management has quality control and accountability responsibilities. Conversely, the management of the unit became the senior managers of the service as a whole, including the late Sir Graham Smith who became Chief Probation Officer for Inner London and later Chief Probation Inspector. Initiatives from key staff within the unit led to specialist programmes in the wider service. Quoted
material is from unpublished archive documents seen by me.

At a time of major re-organisation through the development of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) that brings together the work of the probation and prison services, this paper explores what it is that draws people into a career involving work with offenders. It asks the questions ‘what is it about working with offending behaviour that attracts people to this career’ and are the ‘right’ people being selected for training. It draws on a small research study that asked applicants to and students on, one of the prequalifying ‘Diploma in Probation Studies’ (DipPS) programmes in the UK, to comment on their reasons for choosing this career. It concludes that, like most other health and social care public sector organisations, the probation service is continuing to attract more women than men, based on a perception that, despite the rhetoric of ‘punishment and control’ it continues to be seen primarily as a service that ‘helps people’, and that this is a stronger influencing factor for women than it is for men in career choice.

This paper reflects on current probation officer training within the context of both the changing nature of probation practice and the imminent review of the national training programme. It is based on the perspective of two recently qualified probation officers; both graduates of Cohort 7. With Cohorts 8 and 9 currently underway and only ten planned, it is timely to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current training approach, as well as the threats and opportunities posed by the impending review. To this end, the authors provide a brief, contextualising description of probation training and practice. Working assumptions are made about the likely direction of probation practice and its relevance to future training programmes. Based on these assumptions, the authors analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the existing training and discuss possible threats and opportunities that the impending training review may deliver. It is suggested that the current trajectory of probation practice is ostensibly that of information management with the Offender Manager role fundamentally that of knowledge worker; and that this needs to be reflected in the revised training programme if the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) model is to be successful.