Written evidence from Dr Rob Mawby, Senior
Lecturer in Criminology, Leicester University and Professor Anne
Worrall, Emerita Professor of Criminology, Keele University (PB
30)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 This submission is based on emerging research
findings and addresses the following questions:
What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does it operate in practice?
Is the provision of training adequate?
1.2 The probation service has been through many
changes during its history including, for example, four different
qualifying training routes in recent decades. The service has
demonstrated its willingness to adapt to the changes in contemporary
society and politics.
1.3 Despite these changes the service has maintained
certain core values (eg, recognising the human worth of offenders,
belief in the ability of people to change) that have informed
and guided probation work.
1.4 Therefore there is continuity and change
in the role of the probation service: continuity in core values
and in attracting people who are drawn to working with offenders;
change in functions, structure, ways of working and sentencing
regimes.
1.5 In working with offenders through shifting
contexts during changing times, we would argue that probation
work is complex; to quote one of our interviewees, probation work
"IS rocket science".
1.6 The emerging data from our research suggest
that Trainee Probation Officers (TPOs) on the brink of qualifying
are joining a probation service that is highly ambivalent about
its identity.
1.7 Amid these tensions, routine daily probation
work remains demanding and probation staff do good work over long
hours. Relationships with other criminal justice agencies, especially
the police, have improved out of all recognition.
1.8 The demise of the home visit means that probation
officers have less affinity with local communities, less understanding
of the realities of offenders' lives and less contact with potentially
supportive and rehabilitative relatives of offenders.
1.9 The probation service is particularly poor
at public presentation.
1.10 Terminology is problematic and confusing.
The insistence on the term "offender manager" does not
sufficiently distinguish the work of the probation service.
1.11 We are finding little evidence to support
the view that probation officers are incorrigibly "welfare-oriented"
or unable to adapt to the changing demands of the role. Nevertheless,
there is a danger that probation may lose its distinctive character,
thus running the risk of losing experienced staff and failing
to recruit high-calibre trainees from all sections of the community.
1.12 We would urge the committee to recognise
the complex nature of probation work, the skills and knowledge
required and the importance of its core values.
2. INTRODUCTION
TO SUBMITTERS
2.1 Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall are very experienced
criminal justice researchers who have, separately and jointly,
undertaken funded research on the probation service, female offenders,
prolific and other priority offenders, and the police. Their current
research, Probation officers, their occupational cultures and
offender management, is funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council (Grant reference: RES-000-22-3979) and runs from
April 2010 to November 2011. A summary of the research project
can be viewed at:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/criminology/news/crimnews/occupational_cultures_probation_officers
Anne Worrall is a former probation officer and has had past responsibility
for probation qualifying training at two universities. She is
also a former criminologist member of the Parole Board.
3. SUBMISSION
3.1 This submission is based on emerging research
findings and addresses the following questions:
What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does it operate in practice?
Is the provision of training adequate?
3.2 The probation service has been through many
changes during its history including, for example, four different
training regimes in recent decades. During that time, qualifying
training has moved steadily away from that required for generic
social work and towards a specific focus on managing offenders.
With each change, the probation service has demonstrated its willingness
to adapt to contemporary society, while still insisting that its
complex work requires a highly educated, skilled and reflective
workforce. Our interviewees confirm that current training is exceptionally
demanding, both practically and intellectually. Several spoke
of it as being "transformative" and none was in any
doubt that the primary role of the service is that of public protection.
3.3 Despite these changes the service has maintained
certain core values (eg, recognising the human worth of offenders,
belief in the ability of people to change) that have informed
and guided probation work. Our research confirms that these values
continue to exist across our sample which includes probation officers
at the very start of their careers, more experienced and retired
individuals, as well as CEOs of probation trusts. Participants
have stressed the need to engage with and motivate offenders whose
lives are often characterised by disadvantage, abuse and chaos,
while recognising that offending is a choice that harms others
and must be reduced. Several interviewees have pointed out that
probation officers have always been concerned with assessing "risk"
and reducing re-offending.
3.4 Therefore there is continuity and change
in the role of the probation service: continuity in core values
and in attracting people who are drawn to working with offenders;
change in functions, structure, ways of working and sentencing
regimes. Our research suggests that the service has been particularly
good at attracting a diverse workforce, with good representation
of women (including at senior levels) and black and minority ethnic
workers.
3.5 In working with offenders through shifting
contexts during changing times, we would argue that probation
work is complex; to quote one of our interviewees, probation work
"IS rocket science" and probation officers are the rocket
scientists of the criminal justice system. Our research is suggesting
it is possible to make a distinction between, on the one hand,
probation work that was built on relationships with offenders
and being close to the community and, on the other hand, the more
recent offender management which tends to be office-based and
withdrawn from the community. This changes the nature of the role
of the probation service from one of managing change in people
to a more pessimistic management of risky people. Probation officers
become "project managers" with offenders as their projects,
being managed through interventions provided by a range of state,
private and voluntary bodies. Nevertheless, there is greater consistency
in service delivery and more attention to achieving common standards,
albeit at some cost to the creativity of individual workers.
3.6 The emerging data from our research suggest
that Trainee Probation Officers (TPOs) on the brink of qualifying
are joining a probation service that is highly ambivalent about
its identity. They were drawn to the service commonly as a result
of a commitment to help and change people and with a social welfare
ethic. They start work in "offender management" having
experienced training which leads them to question (or at least
to reflect on) the efficacy of the new framework, though it is
evident that some have found the enforcement ethos unproblematic.
3.7 Amid these tensions, routine daily probation
work remains demanding and probation staff do good work over long
hours. We have evidence of TPOs working 10-12 hour days in order
to complete both university and office work. Relationships with
other criminal justice agencies, especially the police, have improved
out of all recognition and multi-agency work is now accepted as
an integral part of the probation officer's role.
3.8 One particular aspect of traditional probation
work that has been lost is the routine home visit, for reasons
of cost, time and perceived safety. As several of our interviewees
have pointed out, however, the demise of the home visit means
that probation officers have less affinity with local communities,
less understanding of the realities of offenders' lives and less
contact with potentially supportive and rehabilitative relatives
of offenders. This problem is exacerbated by the unwelcoming,
high-security offices in which probation staff are frequently
located, away from the communities in which local offenders reside.
3.9 The probation service is particularly poor
at public presentation. In recent years, it has too frequently
found itself reacting to adverse publicity when things "go
wrong" and its attempts to present the positive aspects of
its work at a national level have appeared ineffectual and counter-productive.
Public awareness of day-to-day probation work is low. While acknowledging
the vacuum that exists between the service and the national media,
our research suggests that the lone voice of NAPO has not always
helped the service's image in the public mind. The establishment
of the Probation Chiefs Association may go some way to remedy
this. At a local level, the picture is more positive and we have
evidence of good relations between local services and local press.
3.10 Terminology is problematic and confusing.
The insistence on the term "offender manager" does not
sufficiently distinguish the work of the probation service, since
it is a term also used by the police and the prison service to
mean slightly different things. It is difficult to see any rational
reason for the political drive to eliminate the word "probation"
from criminal justice vocabulary. Referring to offenders as "clients"
is now widely accepted to be outdated, though some of our interviewees
expressed a preference for the term "probationer".
3.11 We are finding little evidence to support
the view that probation officers are incorrigibly "welfare-oriented"
"sandal-wearers" or unable to adapt to the changing
demands of the role. Nevertheless, there is a danger that probation
may lose its distinctive character, thus running the risk of losing
experienced staff and failing to recruit high-calibre trainees
from all sections of the community. Our research suggests that
a few disillusioned TPOs are already contemplating leaving the
service or taking their creativity into voluntary work in their
own time.
3.12 We would urge the Committee to recognise
the complex nature of probation work, the skills and knowledge
required and the importance of the core values of probation work.
The probation service has shown itself to be highly adaptable
but it is important to preserve what probation officers have traditionally
done well. Reducing them to de-skilled office-bound technicians
or spreading provision too widely across the private and voluntary
sectors will be wasteful of a highly educated and creative workforce.
The criminal justice system, probationers and wider society will
suffer as a consequence.
September 2010
| 
