Nathan Monk

This article discusses the prison and probation organisation in Sweden. The changes in the organisation and the shifts in combinations of supportive and punitive aspects are presented in a brief historical description of the development from the early 19th century to the late 20th century. The Swedish prison and probation service is described in terms of its organisation, professionals and main ideology. Finally, the effects, or rather, the problem of evaluating the effects, of the most recent re-organisation, in 1998, is discussed in the light of, on the one hand, support and help and, on the other hand, punishment and control. The conclusion is that the causes and effects of the changes are difficult to pinpoint, but that the Swedish prison and probation service has gone through a major shift to an integrated organisation where punitive ideas predominate over ideas of help and support.

Mergers of community corrections staff and staff from correctional institutions has occurred at both the federal and provincial levels in Canada over the past several decades. At the federal level, the amalgamation began more than 25 years ago, although the impact continues to be felt to this day. Current policy suggests that a unified service is thought necessary as part of an overall offender risk management strategy. Considering the case of Manitoba at the provincial level, an amalgamation of provincial parole officers with adult prison staff has been slowly underway for several years. Recent legislative changes combined with the development of generic ‘competencies’ suggest a reduction in emphasis on educational requirements and the sense of a professional staff in community corrections.

Abstract

Criminological research has historically focused on the crimes of marginalised sections of the population and in particular marginalised young people. However, very rarely are marginalised young people provided with an opportunity to ‘tell their story’ and have their voices meaningfully heard in the research process. In this paper it is argued that ethnographic methodological approaches afford researchers the opportunity to generate in depth appreciative data, which can improve criminological understanding of how young people experience life on the margins of society and can also provide respondents a with ‘voice’ (Becker, 1967). However, Yates argues that whilst ethnography brings a number of strengths it also presents researchers with a range of risks and ethical dilemmas, which require careful consideration. He argues that these issues relate to the level of immersion and reduction of social distance, which are central to the approach. Yates draws on his experience of conducting an ethnographic study of youth and crime in a working class
community over a 20 month period to illustrate some of the ethical dilemmas which can arise when employing this methodological approach. The paper incorporates a discussion of how ethical issues relating to researching marginalised communities, generating data on criminal activity and child protection issues were negotiated in a flexible yet defensible manner.

This paper reports on the process of conducting peer research in order to identify barriers to employment, training and education (hereafter referred to as ETE) for women (ex)offenders. In this study (which is part of an overall programme called Women into Work)i members of the target group (primarily (ex) offenders)ii adopted the role of active researchers, interviewing their peer group about their experiences of ETE. The objectives of the peer research were twofold:

• To provide a sound evidence base from which to commission pilot projects to address the needs of women (ex)offenders when attempting to access ETE;
• To encourage the empowerment of peer researchers by increasing their skills and self esteem and thus enhancing their employability

This paper uses the Women into Work programme as a case study to reflect upon the steps taken to facilitate the involvement of women (ex)offenders in conducting qualitative research with their peer group and also considers the particular implications of using this approach with this cohort of women. The paper also begins to consider wider methodological and epistemological debates around peer research and its potential as a methodology within  community justice.

This article starts from the position that the Carter report’s proposals for combining the Prison and Probation Service into a single organisation with separate arms for commissioning and providing services are basically sound, although there are serious concerns about their implementation. Those concerns – the simultaneous pressure on prison and probation resources, the uncertainty over what ‘contestability’ is to mean in practice, the speed at which implementation is to take place, the detail which has still to be resolved, the consultation which is needed – are clearly expressed elsewhere in this
volume. This article acknowledges but will not try to repeat or assess those concerns. It will instead examine two related issues which have not received much attention in the report or the Government’s accompanying statement, or in subsequent comment or discussion. Those are the relationship which will need to be established between the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the courts, especially in the context of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; and the possible implications of the Government’s policies on civil renewal and active citizens.

The rise of the evidence-based approach has influenced how criminological research is conducted in Britain. Funding bodies increasingly specify a quantitative research design as the most appropriate way to determine ‘what works’. Indeed, there is a growing tendency to regard the randomised control trial (RCT) as the ‘gold standard’ for such studies. In this article, restorative justice research is used as an example of the pitfalls of relying on a purely quantitative paradigm. By ignoring issues of programme integrity and context, RCTs often produce contradictory or inconclusive results. The article  concludes that the artificial divide often imposed on researchers between qualitative and empirical approaches is unhelpful, and that research into  restorative justice (and other areas) would gain from the integration of an in-depth, qualitative component within the experimental approach.

Criminological research has historically focused on the crimes of marginalised sections of the population and in particular marginalised young people. However, very rarely are marginalised young people provided with an opportunity to ‘tell their story’ and have their voices meaningfully heard in the research process. In this paper it is argued that ethnographic methodological approaches afford researchers the opportunity to generate in depth appreciative data, which can improve criminological understanding of how young people experience life on the margins of society and can also provide respondents a with ‘voice’ (Becker, 1967). However, Yates argues that whilst ethnography brings a number of strengths it also presents researchers with a range of risks and ethical dilemmas, which require careful consideration. He argues that these issues relate to the level of immersion and reduction of social distance, which are central to the approach. Yates draws on his experience of conducting an ethnographic study of youth and crime in a working class community over a 20 month period to illustrate some of the ethical dilemmas which can arise when employing this methodological approach. The paper incorporates a discussion of how ethical issues relating to researching marginalised communities, generating data on criminal activity and child protection issues were negotiated in a flexible yet defensible manner.