The Nature of Probation Practice – From Clinical to Punitive Managerialist Enterprise

  • Marilyn GregoryEmail author


This chapter looks back over the author’s career as a probation officer, social work practice teacher and academic, commenting upon research carried out on probation practice. The author’s journey mirrors that of colleagues she interviewed for her research and enabled her to reflect deeply upon the changes to practice that had taken place in the three decades covered by the research. The chapter goes on to consider the changes that have taken place since the probation service was divided into two parts, the National Probation Service and 21 separate Community Rehabilitation Companies. She remains optimistic that the commitment and calibre of probation workers will continue to survive in these challenging times.


Criminal Justice Service User Reflective Practice Probation Officer Clinical Mode 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. BBC. (2015). Found at: Accessed 18 August 2015.
  2. Biestek, F. (1961). The casework relationship. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, L., & Collett, S. (2010). What New Labour has done to probation. Probation Journal, 60(3), 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron, D. (2016). Found at: Accessed 19 August 2015.
  5. Clare, R. (2015). Maintaining professional practice: The role of the probation officer in community rehabilitation companies. Probation Journal, 62(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DAIP The Duluth Model. (no date). Found at: Accessed 22 September 2015.
  7. Downes, D., & Morgan, R. (1994). ‘Hostages to fortune’? The politics of law and order in post-war Britain. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eadie, T. (2000). From befriending to punishing: Changing boundaries in the probation service. In N. Malin (Ed.), Professionalism, boundaries and the workplace (pp. 161–177). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1994). Truth and power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Michel Foucault, power: The essential works. London: Penguin Books. Google Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, M. (2006). The offender as citizen: Socially inclusive strategies for working with offenders in the community. In K. Gorman, M. Gregory, M. Hayles, & N. Parton (Eds.), Constructive work with offenders (pp. 49–65). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, M. (2007). Ready for probation practice? Newly qualified probation officers talk about their training. Social Work Education, 26(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gregory, M. J. (2008). The probation service in transition: Change, values and the nature of practice. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Unpublished Thesis.Google Scholar
  15. Gregory, M. (2010). Reflection and resistance: Probation practice and the ethic of care. British Journal of Social Work, 40(7), 2274–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory, M. (2011). Masculinity and homicide-suicide. International Journal of Law Crime and Justice, 40(2), 133–151.Google Scholar
  17. Gregory, M., & Holloway, M. (2005). Language and the Shaping of Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 35(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Health Care Professions Council. (2012). Standards of proficiency, social workers in England. London: HCPC.Google Scholar
  19. Hobsbawm, E. (1994). The age of extremes. London: Michael Joseph.Google Scholar
  20. Home Office. (1962). Report of the departmental committee on the work of the probation service, Cmnd 1650. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Home Office. (1984). Probation service in England and Wales: Statement of national objectives and priorities. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  22. Home Office. (1995). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  23. Home Office. (2000). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Home Office. (2011) Research into Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACS) Home Office Violent and Youth Crime Prevention Unit, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  25. Hutton, W. (1995). The state we’re in. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  26. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. May, T. (1991). Probation: Politics, policy and practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Government response to the Justice Committee’s report: The role of the probation service. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  29. NAPO. (2015). Review of probation qualifications framework – A brief update. Accessed 22 September 2015.
  30. Pearson, G. (1987). The new heroin users. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Accessed 22 September 2015.Google Scholar
  31. Rex, S. (1999). Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. Howard Journal, 38(4), 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Straw, J. (1999). Home Secretary’s preface to the government’s crime reduction strategy. London: Home Office. Accessed 14 August 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Vanstone, M. (2004). Supervising offenders in the community: A history of probation theory and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations