Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Voices from Practice – What Probation Has Been and What It Could Become

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Probation and Politics

  • 446 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the degree to which two different constituencies agree about the purposes and values of the probation service. The official government view is examined alongside those of probation practitioners, using ‘voices from practice’ – a series of mainly empirical but also theoretical studies. The broad conclusion drawn is that practitioners have continued to join the service for ‘traditional’ reasons associated with approaches based in a belief in ‘help’ and ‘rehabilitation’, rather than ‘offender management’ and punishment. In this way, some elements of practice have had a different emphasis from those of government and represent a degree of resistance to successive governments’ plans for the service in recent decades.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Annison, J., Eadie, T., & Knight, C. (2008). People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work. Probation Journal, 55(3), 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A., & McWilliams, W. (1979). A non-treatment paradigm for probation practice. British Journal of Social Work, 9, 159–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L., & Collett, S. (2010). People are not things: What New Labour has done to probation. Probation Journal, 57(3), 232–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, P. (2003). Managing offenders, reducing crime – The correctional services review. London: Home Office Strategy Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copsey, M. (2011). Offender Engagement Programme: An overview from the programme director. London: NOMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K., & Gregory, M. (2010). The price of targets: Audit and evaluation in probation practice. Probation Journal, 57(4), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J. (2010). Attitudes and beliefs of trainee probation officers – A new breed? Probation Journal, 57(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J. (2011). Probation practice and the new penology: Practitioner reflections. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J. (2014). A future for probation? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 53(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J. (2016). Practice and practitioners in 2020? British Journal of Community Justice, 14(1), 77–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deering, J., & Feilzer, M. Y. (2015). Transforming rehabilitation: Is privatisation the end of the probation ideal? Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrow, K. (2004). Still committed after all these years? Morale in the modern-day probation service. Probation Journal, 51(3), 206–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy for corrections. Criminology, 30(4), 449–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, N. (2002). Organisation and management: A changing agenda. In D. Ward, J. Scott, & M. Lacey (Eds.), Probation: Working for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (1992). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (1998). Effective practice initiative: Probation circular 35/98. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (2001). A new choreography. An integrated strategy for the National Probation Service for England and Wales. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (2004). Reducing Crime – Changing Lives. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C., & Pease, K. (1992). Effectiveness measurement in probation – A view from the troops. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (1996). Offender risk and probation practice. In H. Kemshall & J. Pritchard (Eds.), Good practice in risk assessment and risk management. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. (2013). Assisted desistance and experiences of probation supervision. Probation Journal, 60(2), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M., & Raynor, P. (2010). Putting the OM into NOMS: Problems and possibilities for offender management. In J. Brayford, F. Cowe, & J. Deering (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. (2009). People first: Probation officers’ perspectives on probation work: A practitioner’s response. Probation Journal, 56(1), 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(1), 39–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, W., & Pease, K. (1990). Probation practice and an end to punishment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2011). Competition strategy for offender services. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2012). Punishment and reform: Effective probation services. Consultation paper CP7/2012. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2013). Transforming Rehabilitation, a revolution in the way we manage offenders. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napo. (2013). Justice not for sale: Time for action! In 2013, Napo news (March ed.). London: Napo.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Probation Service (2015) Train to be a probation officer. http://www.traintobeaprobationofficer.com/the-opportunity/. Accessed 25 November 2015.

  • Newburn, T. (2003). Crime and criminal justice policy (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOMS. (2005). The NOMS offender management model. London: NOMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOMS. (2010). Offender Engagement programme news 1. London: NOMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOMS. (2011). National Standards for the Management of Offenders. London: NOMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOMS. (2013). Offender Engagement Programme news: Final edition. London: NOMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., Brown, D., Brown, M., Hallsworth, S., & Morrison, W. (2005). The new punitiveness: Trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P., & Maguire, M. (2006). End-to-end or end in tears? Prospects for the effectiveness of the National Offender Management Model. In M. Hough, R. Allen, & U. Padel (Eds.), Reshaping probation and prisons: The new offender management framework. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (2002). Understanding community penalties: Probation, policy and social change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & McNeill, F. (2004). Purposes matter: Examining the ‘ends’ of probation. In G. Mair (Ed.), What matters in probation. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (2000). Government and control. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R., & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and rehabilitation. Ottawa: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senior, P., Crowther-Dowey, C., & Long, M. (2007). Understanding modernisation in criminal justice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straw, J. (1997). Commons written reply. Hansard: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanstone, M. (2004). Supervising offenders in the community: A history of probation theory and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D., & Spencer, J. (1994). The future of probation qualifying training. Probation Journal, 41(2), 95–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, B., & McNeill, F. (2010). Travelling hopefully: Desistance theory and probation practice. In J. Brayford, F. Cowe, & J. Deering (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1995). Probation values. London: Venture Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of South Wales, Treforest Campus, Pontypridd, UK

    John Deering

Authors
  1. John Deering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Deering .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law , Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom

    Maurice Vanstone

  2. Bristol, United Kingdom

    Philip Priestley

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Deering, J. (2016). Voices from Practice – What Probation Has Been and What It Could Become. In: Vanstone, M., Priestley, P. (eds) Probation and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59557-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59557-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59556-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59557-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation