lecture 3.2 - probation Flashcards
what has punitive control in probation changed socially?
from social care to social control
what does garland 2001 177 say about punitive control and what it did to probation service?
formerly ‘the exemplary instance of the penal-welfare approach to crime control’
and now ‘much more conflicted and much less secure’
what is the commercialisation of justice in probation?
- managerialism and the loss of some professional discretion
- failure of transforming rehabilitation (TR) and its ongoing consequences
what is probation work (community offender manager) since june 2021?
- all offenders on community orders
- all offenders on licence
- PSRs and parole reports
- breaches
- unpaid work
- OPBs and structured interventions
- victim liasion
- approved premises
CJA 2003 s177 states?
community order
how many people on all forms of superivison in 2022? what percent are women?
241,000
8% women
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what type of MANAGER compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = client, service user/ probation officer
1990s = offender/ offender manager
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what type of QUALIFICATION compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = social work qualification
1990s = probation qualification
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what MOTO and STYLE FOR PUNITIVE CONTROL compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = ‘advise, assist and befriend’ :guidance and support, considerable professional discretionary, lengthy individual casework
1990s = ‘assess, protect and change’: punishment, supervision and enforcement, limited discretion, group work, check ins
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what type of SUPERVISION compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = consent, voluntary supervision
1990s = compulsion, statutory supervision
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what VIEWS ON REHABILITATION compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = Rehabilitation as humanistic, rights based: structural responsibilities, social justice
1990s = rehabilitation as utilitarian, reduced reoffending: individual responsibility
penal welfarism/ probation superivision up to 1980s had what type of MANAGEMENT AND NATIONALITY LEVEL compared to criminal justice/ offender management from 1990s?
1980s = localised and individualised practice, independent from central government
1990s = national-level standardisation and required conformity
what values and ideals stayed the same between 1980s to change in 1990s for punitive control in probation?
occupational culture continues to adhere to
-public sector values
-the probation ideal, and
- people work
what political rhetoric emphasises public perceptions for the lack of toughness of non custodial punishments and why?
‘acting out’ by ‘toughening up’
- lack of toughness of non-custodial punishments superior effectiveness compared to short prison sentences
what percent of supervision orders successfully completed?
3/4
what percent on superivisonal probation reoffend within 1 year compared to percent of prisoners
56% probation compared to 63% prisoners
what is there relative invisibility of in the CJS and why ?
- the little debate or public awareness of transforming rehabilitation
- successes not newsworthy enough: only failures
how is probation influenced by managerialism?
- statement of national objectives and priorities
- target setting, performance measurement - league tables
- national standards 1992
- effective practice initiative 1998
- national probation service 2001
what did the national standards 1992 do for probation service?
- quality assurance = monitoring of standards
- consistency and accountability for any deviation
what did the effective practice iniative 1998 do for probation service?
- objective meta analyses
- ‘nothing works’ to ‘what works’
- accreditation panels for approved interventions
what did the national probation service 2001 do for probation service?
-protecting the public: OASys and ‘matching input to risk’
- MAPPAs
what act stated the advent of privatisation for prisons?
CJ act 1991
what happened in the advent of privatisation for national offender management service 2004 ?
- ‘end to end offender management, breaking down the silos’
- to prevent dangerous offenders ‘falling through the cracks’
- new roles: offender managers and offender supervisors
- purchaser/ provider split: commissioning of probation services
what replaced NOMS in 2017?
HMPPS
what 3 things was transforming rehabilitation aiming to do?
- to encourage competition, innovation and efficiency
what did TR do to change probation service?
- payment by results scheme to encourage innovation in rehabilitation
- statutory supervision for more than 12 months
- resettlement prisons and renewed focus on through the gate services
what statutory supervisions accompanies the TR?
the offender rehabilitation act 2014
difference between National probation service (NPS) and community rehabilitation companies (CRCs)?
NPS =
- probation qualifications
- civil servants
CRCs =
-appropriate levels of training and competence
- employees
what was the failure of TR?
- underperformance of two tier and fragmented services
- no pilots to test feasibility
- higher than predicted NPS caseload = staff burnout
- experienced CRC staff felt de-skilled
- inexperienced CRC staff gave some poor quality supervision
- CRCs sometimes gaming the system for financial reasons
- CRCs not as profitable, or innovative, as anticipated
what did HMIP 2017:12 state?
none of the governments stated aspirations for TR had been met in any meaningful way
what happened 2021+ for TR?
innovation partners to deliver some support services
what continuing consequences are there for the failure of TR?
- probation service severely understaffed
- excessive workloads: inadequate supervision
- 500 serious further offences each year
consequences for understaffed probation service
- ongoing recruitment but retention difficulties
- high sickness rates for stress
consequences for excessive workloads and inadaquate supervision
- delays in assigning offenders to a named PO/ COM
- failure to ensure appropriate release conditions
- incorrect assessment of risk, offending seen in isolation
- lack of professional curiosity
- failure to recall to prison promptly
concluding thoughts on probation service
- probation has evolved from welfarism to justice models, influenced by managerialist practices
- expressive toughening up of probation and efforts to restore public confidence in community penalties
what did TR and part-privatisation reproduce?
- reproduced pre-NOMS ‘silos’ making reoffending more likely
- newly reunified probation service faces considerable challenges
