Mic Drop

Rather happily, much of today's blog post presented itself yesterday via a readers contribution:- 

Some of us remember when Probation Officers were seconded to prisons. I do not believe the development of Offender Management Units or the later OMIC model has ever truly worked. My recollection is that OMIC was introduced primarily to reduce community probation caseloads by retaining individuals in custody, thereby lowering WMT figures. OMIC might have been effective if prisons had been properly resourced and if OMUs had taken full responsibility for pre-release and resettlement work. It was also a mistake to place Senior Probation Officers under the line management of prison governors, though some seemed to welcome the change for its status rather than substance. It’s always seemed a bit hush-hush if they received the prison pay bonuses we in the community did not.

The ethos and values of probation have undoubtedly been eroded by OMIC’s implementation, which stood in direct contrast to the earlier “end-to-end offender management” model probation had taken on a decade before. The simultaneous continued shift towards risk assessment and management alongside police-led models for managing RSOs and IOM cases further diluted probation’s rehabilitative role. I think the increase in electronic tagging and monitoring is only going to make this worse.

An excellent article by both a Probation Manager and a former Director of the Probation Institute makes a persuasive case for returning to the original offender management model, (without Probation Reset, Probation Impact, or OMIC which have since taken over), and restoring probation’s role as the commissioner of local services. This would allow a single Probation Practitioner to provide consistent support from custody to community, just as recommended by the original blueprint by Baron Patrick Carter in Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach.

The Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into Resettlement and Rehabilitation also focuses on breaking the cycle of reoffending through holistic, rehabilitative methods. Though it has not received much attention I have seen, the submissions are outstanding.

Professors Mike Maguire and Peter Raynor’s submission is particularly strong.They describe the collective failure of resettlement practice, worsened by the organisational upheaval of splitting, part-privatising, and later reunifying the Probation Service. They seem to argue that existing OMIC and resettlement structures prevent the continuity and relational focus essential for genuine rehabilitation, a view that’s hard to dispute.

A submission from a Probation Manager recalls the success of Probation Trusts and reinforces the need for probation as a vehicle for rehabilitation, transformation, and effective supervision. Their related and linked article offers vivid examples of real end-to-end offender management.  It is good this still exists, but it is achievable only through a stable, consistent, and professionally empowered probation workforce.

In what could best be described as a mic-drop on this entire subject I highly recommend Professor Rob Canton’s Probation as Social Work as shows how probation has been recast as a punitive agency, constrained by its alignment with prisons and shaped by risk-based systems, bias, and overreliance on generic interventions. The result is a service that was always destined to struggle.

Most of these authors are, or were, qualified probation officers, their views deserve to be heard. All are calling for an enhanced probation approach, to lead on resettlement from prison and to be coordinators of access community services. I didn’t intend to write an essay (nor did I read all of Napo’s commentary), but on this point, they are entirely right OMIC does not work, and in truth, it was never designed to work for probation. It has never been structured, resourced, or managed to support the prisoner as a client or enable probation to fulfil its purpose.

There are already enough credible voices pointing to what would work. Perhaps it’s time to bring them together with the Probation and Prison Chief Officers, David Lammy, HMIP, the Probation Institute, Napo, and a few renowned individuals, academics and practitioners with lived experience, keeping the rest of NOMS, HMPPS, and associated bureaucracy out of the room, and see what they produce.

The Napo 2025 AGM takes place from October 16th–18th in Eastbourne and online, with key figures such as Kim Thornden-Edwards and Martin Jones in attendance. I’ll want to be optimistic but I won’t be holding my breath.

Anon (Probation Officer)

--oo00oo--

It's interesting that the above takes us back to Rob Canton's 'mic drop' paper Probation as Social Work which I rather cheekily re-published in full over 4 posts in May last year and introduced thus:-

The latest Probation Journal carries an extremely important article by Professor Rob Canton and in my view should be regarded as essential reading for all probation staff past, present and future. I don't say this lightly and in an ideal world I'd rather hope it gained the attention of politicians and indeed anyone in positions of power and influence.

We find ourselves in the middle of an unprecedented prison, probation and criminal justice crisis and it's election year. Essentially this article sets out in forensic but clear detail much of how and why we got here and one would hope it convincingly makes the case for a fundamental rethink of the role and purpose of probation. In my opinion, failure to grasp the urgent need for change will inevitably mean that probation not only becomes increasingly irrelevant but most worryingly, entrenched as part of the problem.

Being conscious that the article may not be easily accessible for those who are not members of Napo, together with a desire to bring it to the attention of a wider audience, I've taken the liberty of sharing it in a number of posts.

But the issue of us being forcibly removed from our social work roots has been discussed on here many, many times. In searching the archives, I came across this from 2020 in response to a blog post:-

1. Did the removal of the Social Work requirement in 1997 move probation from a left wing to a right wing organisation? Yes. More accurately, it anchored the moves that had already taken place. 

2. If the social Work ethos belongs to the left, then its removal must surely cede possession to the right? Yes. Its now 'owned' in every sense by the MoJ/HMPPS, a control-and-command led profit-oriented structure.

3. Why does social work define anyone's political identity? For myself, it's tied up with whether we regard people as a commodity to be exploited or as part of the social fabric, to be cherished. The 'right' embraces control & command, monetisation, exploitation, profiteering - 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. The 'left' tends towards the nurturing, caring & sharing of peoples' experiences, cultures & lives, regardless as to whether its the fruits or the burdens that are being shared.

There you go, Bamber, there's my starter for ten.

Note 

"A "mic drop" is an act of triumphantly and dramatically dropping a microphone at the end of a performance or speech to signify a final, impressive, and unbeatable statement. Figuratively, it can also refer to making a decisive and impactful statement, argument, or action that leaves others speechless."

An Important Read - Part Four

Here we have the concluding part of Professor Rob Canton's article from the latest Probation Journal convincingly making the case for a comprehensive reassessment of the remit and role of probation in England and Wales. Undoubtedly, for a new government, it will require political courage, but most would now agree the service is utterly dysfunctional as part of HMPPS and the civil service and must return to some form of arms-length, locally-administered QUANGO.

Reaffirming probation as social work

While most offending behaviour programmes focus on thinking skills and the development of human capital, the cultivation of social capital is quite as important in reducing offending. The pathway out of offending should not be assumed to be a simple reversal of the route in: achievement of their own aspirations, personal relationships, opportunities for employment, accommodation and social resources are recognised to be strongly supportive of desistance (Shapland and Bottoms, 2017). Programmes are undoubtedly of value to some people, but are not necessary for some and almost always insufficient.

Like other branches of social work, probation must take into account both of personal agency and social circumstances in their constant mutual interactions. Motivation and abilities are necessary to take advantage of opportunities; opportunities must be available and recognised. This calls for encouragement, motivational work and skills development, but also for efforts to make opportunities and resources available. In overcoming obstacles to desistance or in ameliorating difficulties that have brought people into contact with social services, working with other organisations through brokerage, coordination and case management is central. Indeed the concept of ‘offender management’ derived from approaches originally developed in healthcare and social work (Holt, 2007).

There is a further – political – parallel. Many social workers have to confront the accusation that their personalised approaches conceal the structural origins of so much distress. The belief that many disadvantages reflect not only inequalities but also injustices generates moral and practical dilemmas around what has been called working ‘in and against the state’ (London Edinburgh Weekend Return Group, 1980; Walker and Beaumont, 1981).

Individualised or family-centred approaches to social work can eclipse the overwhelming structural factors associated with clients’ struggles, risking collusion with injustice as well as limiting an understanding of the origins of many social problems and how best they might be mitigated. Similarly in penal policy one of the principal critiques of the ‘treatment model’ was that it translated structural, socio-economic disadvantage into individual pathology, obscuring and even exacerbating these injustices in ways that were both self-defeating and unethical (American Friends Service Committee, 1971).

Probation's professional repertoire has seemed substantially limited to trying to bring about personal change6. Centring on the assessment and management of individuals and pushing social context to the side have hollowed out probation discourse and suppressed its political and moral dimensions. Conceived as an agency of punishment – and now organisationally shackled to prison – probation has been discouraged from achieving its potential in community crime reduction7. Recent restructuring sets areas within a national, centrally governed Probation Service and distances it from the local dimensions of crime and desistance. Local areas should have the latitude to respond to their different economic and cultural situations: the responsivity of areas, no less than that of individuals, should be respected on grounds of effectiveness, but also as a component of legitimacy. The ‘sameness’ which bureaucrats tend to value, often mistaking it for justice and equity, could stifle local initiative and sensitivity to factors that matter to people in different communities. Here, perhaps, probation might learn from social services, where structure and lines of accountability at least make it possible for work to be responsive to local priorities.

Education and training

Probably for any profession, best practice takes place when staff endowed with knowledge and understanding deploy their skills in ways that give expression to the profession's values. Knowledge, skills and values accordingly constitute a serviceable framework for examining a professional curriculum8. It has already been suggested that while much of the social work curriculum is properly generic – for example, some knowledge of human growth and development, of psychology, of sociology, of relevant social structures and systems - different areas of social work require specialised knowledge. This challenge could be (was) met by distinctive streams.

Again, all social workers need certain skills, most of which are generic. Notably, both social services and probation work, under the authority of law, with involuntary clients to keep people safe and enable them to thrive. An involuntary client is not necessarily someone who engages reluctantly, or without appreciation – much less without benefit (Trotter, 1999). Involuntary clients are people who are clients whether they want to be or not: probation and social work are involved with involuntary clients in this same sense. Both require their clients (at least sometimes) to do things that they would not choose to do spontaneously or indeed would choose not to do. This calls for skills of engagement, developing relationships with people who may be suspicious or resistant, role clarity, motivational work, cultivating professional curiosity, problem-solving, analysis, judgement, teamwork, spoken and written communication, working purposefully in conditions of uncertainty. These are generic skills, even though they need to be honed and adapted to distinctive challenges. (There are, for example, particular skills in interviewing people who are bewildered - perhaps by mental distress or disability - and engaging with children.) However fundamental skills are common to all social work activities, can be explored in a university setting, and developed in practice. And all these skills are necessary for probation staff.

In their critique of genericism, Dews and Watts wrote of skills, but often what they were particularly rejecting were the values of social work. Many staff in probation at the time of the separation would have come across the authoritative statement of these values in the work of Father Felix Biestek (1957). Central to Biestek's account is the principle of respect for persons - an invaluable safeguard against the degradation or cruelty at which penal practices are commonly at risk. Biestek affirmed some particular values – values which practice and research have been shown to be essential to probation, even if now articulated in a different vocabulary. Thus: (Table 1)

Table 1. Social work and probation values compared.

Social Work	Probation Practice	Rationale
Individualisation	Responsivity	People are not all the same and practice must respect and respond to their differences.
Controlled emotional involvement	Emotional literacy	Work is often emotionally charged, both for client and worker, and workers must be sensitive to this, using it to therapeutic advantage.
Acceptance	Motivational work, including motivational interviewing	Motivations fluctuate and workers may try to change or guide these. This is not achieved by recrimination or rebuke, which are more likely to generate resistance.
Non-judgemental attitude
Self-determination	Agency; self-efficacy	People are and should be in charge of their own lives.

These are among the values specified by Biestek (1957). He included other values – for instance, confidentiality, where the boundaries are not always easy to determine. Once again, the positions for probation and for social work are just the same.

The principle of self-determination, which seems to have especially exasperated the Home Office, calls for particular consideration. This never meant that social workers were indifferent to the ways in which people acted: it affirmed the fundamental value of autonomy. Agency – taking charge of one's own life, actively seeking and creating opportunities - is a common feature of a desistance trajectory (Maruna, 2001; Farrall, 2011).

It is instructive, then, that while these values were likely to have been seen as the occasion for rejecting social work, they not only persisted in probation practice, expressed in a different terminology, but increasingly came to be recognised as essential to achieving compliance and reducing reoffending. They persist because they emerge from the challenges of staff trying to undertake difficult work in a principled manner.

Concluding reflections

Probation is social work, as so many countries recognise, and it is only political expediency that has encouraged successive administrations to repudiate that characterisation. Social work seeks to understand people, the difficulties that beset them and fitting responses to those difficulties in the context of social structure and circumstance, as well as in their psychological characteristics and their relations with others. This is how offending behaviour and desistance must be understood too and probation is limited and impoverished by neglect of social context. It is telling that youth justice in England and Wales has not lost sight of this and has managed to retain a strong social work ethos. Part of the explanation here, perhaps, is that it is politically easier to defend purposes of welfare and rehabilitation for young people, whose needs, vulnerability and capacity to change are more readily apparent than for adults. This makes it easier to defend a social work approach in response to their offences.

Nevertheless, despite the political posturing and reorganisation, there is a sense in which probation never left social work. As David Smith wrote, 

‘… for all the rhetoric of punishment and public protection, risk management and enforcement, when practitioners decide what they are actually going to do to engage and motivate clients, help them access resources and convey a sense of hope in the possibility of constructive change, they will find themselves using ideas and skills that have emerged from social work theory and research.’ (2005: 634)

Yet the formal repudiation of social work has been of considerable detriment to both professions. The separation of professional education in the universities has frustrated opportunities for fruitful exchanges in research and skills development (Raynor and Vanstone, 2016). In the past, the shared curriculum often involved practice placements in other agencies - a probation officer in training, for example, might be placed in family centre, a psychiatric facility or a community project. This made it easier for staff to resist reducing individuals to ‘offenders’, recognising the context in which the offences had taken place and desistance had to be accomplished. Reciprocally, social worker students might work in probation offices, gaining an appreciation of this work that would enhance their practice, especially when the agencies need to work in partnership. The educational curriculum no longer fosters these perspectives.

Safeguarding and public protection are essentially the same activity, even though different professions often have a different starting point in their complementary endeavour. A secure appreciation of one's role and its boundaries is essential in shared undertakings and this can only be fostered when the professions concerned have a deeper understanding of each other's responsibilities, resources, and ethos. So while it has been no part of my purpose to argue that probation or social work should take its educational model from the other, there is everything to be gained by closer alliances, including perhaps the sharing of modules in their respective curricula and even (although organisational difficulties should not be underestimated) exchanges in practice placement.

As for governance, any organisation ought to be structured, resourced and managed in ways that maximise its potential in achieving the purposes set for it. But sometimes it seems that probation policy has got this back to front – starting with governance without sufficient regard to the purposes, character and meaning of probation's work. Specifically, Transforming Rehabilitation was motivated less by ambitions to enhance practice than by ideological preferences for the involvement of the private and commercial sector. Again, while the reclaiming of the Probation Service and restoring it to the public sector was undoubtedly influenced by the transparent failures of TR, the creation of a centralised and national service – rather than a revival of the local Trusts - may well have been driven by the government's concern to have direct control over penal policy - which, as we have seen, became one of the principal battlegrounds in party politics and may become so again. Social services in England are the responsibility of Local Authorities and can be located within strategies for distinctively local provision. Probation should have position as well, as a key agency involved in promoting social (and not just criminal) justice.

This is an essential perspective for probation if it is to carry out its work in a manner that is both principled and effective, but has been ousted from what should be its central place by preoccupations with punishment and control. Rather than regarding other agencies as resources to address criminogenic need, probation could recognise its potential to put these other agencies in touch with some of their most needy and hardest-to-reach clients. As we have seen, research is now suggesting that that approach is invaluable in supporting desistance.

Political courage may be required to advance this understanding of probation. It is unfashionable to assert that probation has a duty to care for people under its supervision, or that the wider community has responsibilities towards people with criminal convictions as well as claims against them. It is therefore all the more important that probation and other social work services should stand as authoritative representations of how a good society should relate to those of its members who are struggling. No doubt these professions often fall short of the idealistic standards set out in this paper. Nevertheless, these are the values to which they should commit themselves and which they would be more likely to achieve if their historical connections were revived and reaffirmed.

Rob Canton

An Important Read - Part Three

As we continue with Professor Rob Canton's' article in the latest edition of the Probation Journal, I notice that Good Morning Britain are carrying on their discussion of the prison capacity crisis. Thankfully it seems to have moved on from yesterday where Susanna Reid was championing the need of prison to 'protect the public' and may become a little more nuanced this morning. The public are hardly 'protected' are they if people come out far worse than they went in? 

Crime, desistance and social context

Probation was especially vulnerable to political assault because of its struggles to demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing crime. Nothing, it was often said, ‘works’ or could be shown to work. This conclusion was countered by emerging evidence in the mid- and late 1990s that some interventions, properly targeted and administered, appeared to reduce reconviction (Chui, 2003). These effective interventions were guided by principles of cognitive behavioural psychology, which emphasised the influences between thoughts, feelings and behaviour. Changes in behaviour were to be achieved by attempting to influence ways of thinking. As the focus sharpened, deficiencies in thinking skills became the target for intervention. Effective practice initiatives harmonised with the political presumption that causes of and responses to crime were to be found inside the heads of offenders. ‘Punishment in the community’ envisaged isolated and self-directed wrongdoers, with any attempt to invoke social context in understanding regarded as making excuses or simply irrelevant.

It is neither fair nor accurate to say that cognitive behavioural approaches neglect social context: the best accounts acknowledge disadvantage and insist on the importance of its being redressed in the processes of desistance (Robinson and Raynor, 2006). Nevertheless, the focus on thoughts, feelings and behaviour ‘entails the expectation that offenders, and not their social circumstances, must change, and encourages the abstraction of the offending act itself from the personal and relational context which could make it intelligible.’ (Smith, 1998: 108) Attention to social context foregrounds the structural, cultural and biographical circumstances that constrain the choices of so many individuals, making it more likely that they will have recourse to offending and making their desistance harder. No doubt probation officers have always been aware of the adverse social conditions that have denied opportunities and brought hardship to so many clients. Yet ironically it is mainly since the turn away from social work that an abundance of compelling evidence has shown the extent of social disadvantage and deprivation. A landmark here was the Social Exclusion Unit report (2002), showing that prisoners are disproportionately over-represented on pretty much all indices of disadvantage, the report linking their multiple needs and social exclusion with the large numbers of crimes they committed.

An historically more recent recognition has been the extent and significance of personal abuse and trauma, scarring the lives of so many users of probation (McCartan, 2020). Responses to these often unrecognised traumas have usually been inadequate (Boswell, 2016). Notably, many women caught up in the criminal justice system have experienced devastating abuse, yet the compassion rightly felt for them as victims or survivors mysteriously evaporates when the predictable consequences of such abuse are manifested (Corston, 2007). While the relationship between trauma and behaviour is vexed and complex, there are compelling reasons to believe that offending is among the consequences of such damaging experiences (Fox et al., 2015). Yet however this is understood, Sarah Anderson insists that ‘involvement in offending does not erase the experiences of victimisation and disadvantage that populate their life histories. Nevertheless, through institutional and systemic responses that isolate the offence from the life history, we act as if it does.’ (Anderson, 2016: 412). Respectful attention to these earlier life experiences raises standards of both ethics and effectiveness.

Among the indices of change in late twentieth century political discourse, Garland identified the rejection of representation of offenders as ‘disadvantaged, deserving, subject of need’. Yet there is abundant evidence, as we have seen, of disadvantage and need. What, then, is to be said about ‘deserving’? Once again, probation and social work are in similar positions. From its earliest origins, arguments have taken place in social work about desert, with attempts to differentiate between those in genuine hardship and, on the other hand, those whose imprudence, intemperance, extravagance or indolence has brought their plight upon themselves (Solas, 2018). With the development of the welfare state, however, judgements about desert were progressively displaced by judgements about need. Some of these needs have been translated into rights - claims upon the state to enable those under its authority to have fair access to resources and thrive.

In contrast to the trajectory of social policy, however, criminal justice remains preoccupied with desert. Ordinarily concern and compassion are felt to be fitting responses to hardship and disadvantage, but it seems a criminal conviction suppresses any such sentiment. People with convictions are ‘offenders’ and so liable to just punishment, but this is not all they are and they continue to have claims, which could be conceptualised as rights - claims on the state and on the community to support them in overcoming their hardships. This should be considered a duty of all social agencies, including those responsible for implementing punishment.

An example of how a loss of social context can blunt compassion and distort policy responses is the association between domestic violence against women and their offending. At least 57% of women in prison and under community supervision are victims of domestic abuse (Centre for Women's Justice, 2023). This will include women who have been compelled to offend under the controlling coercion of abusive men. Here, the distinctive categories of offender and victim - serviceable in most contexts and often indispensable – break down altogether. Experiencing abuse or coercion is not best understood as a risk factor for further offending by the survivor; nor are poverty, homelessness and unemployment best regarded as reoffending risks. However compelling the associations between disadvantage and crime, some of these basic needs matter not only or even mainly because of their putative links with offending, but because they represent deprivations and hardships which cannot justifiably be discounted or reframed as risks.

Among the injustices that disfigure our society are racism and other dimensions of discrimination. Neglect of the ways in which these shape criminal careers and can frustrate attempts at desistance would not only warp policy but leave probation vulnerable to accusations of collusion. Like other social work agencies, probation has tried hard to oppose racism in its own practices. Still, periodic reviews commonly uncover bad experiences, reported both by staff and by service users, and although there are some improvements, the conclusion of a recent report is that this remains (and no doubt always will remain) ‘work in progress’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023). Some of the challenges go far deeper. It has been argued, for instance, that risk prediction algorithms incorporate and reproduce racial biases such that reliance on assessment instruments could propel people from minoritised groups towards unwarranted interventions (Ugwudike, 2020). Again, none of this can be fully appreciated - nor challenged - without an appreciation of the social context and the ways in which racism and other forms of discrimination can contribute to criminalisation and obstruct desistance.

To summarise: closer association with social work might have mitigated the hazards of losing social context in trying to understand offending - plainly a risk if psychological interventions are the favoured response. The contention that those who use the services of probation are undeserving could only be defended by reducing them to their worst behaviour. The tendency to essentialise people as ‘offenders’ obscures and suppresses other ways of understanding and identification. At times, probation is acquiescing in this process, if not actively endorsing it, whereas the challenge ought to be to find new identities and an associated different status. This too should be one of social work's guiding principles: that everyone is more than the worst things they have ever done, more than the problems that bring them to the attention of social work services.

Rob Canton

(to be continued)

Knock On Any Door

For those expecting the next instalment of 'Probation as Social Work' by Professor Rob Canton, I'm taking a short break in order to talk about a remarkable film I caught on TV yesterday afternoon and that 'blew me away' as they say. 

Knock on Any Door is an American film from 1949 starring Humphrey Bogart and it caught my eye from the opening sequence because somewhat intriguingly it gave credit to the American Probation and Parole Association in its making. 

Without giving away the plot, (and don't spoil it by looking it up on Wikipedia) all I will say is that anyone who has an interest in 'Probation as Social Work' will find the time spent seeking this film out highly rewarding. I found it a tough watch, skilfully crafted but with what many will feel a surprisingly contemporary message some 70 years on. I've seen it described as 'left wing', features a social worker and I'm pretty sure would seriously anger today's right wing press. 

Although it seems the film was 'hugely successful', it didn't cut much ice with the New York Times film critic who was positively fulminating in a manner not unlike todays Daily Mail would be:- 

Bosley Crowther, film critic for The New York Times, called the film "a pretentious social melodrama" and blasted the film's message and the screenplay. He wrote, "Rubbish! The only shortcoming of society which this film proves is that it casually tolerates the pouring of such fraudulence onto the public mind. Not only are the justifications for the boy's delinquencies inept and superficial, as they are tossed off in the script, but the nature and aspect of the hoodlum are outrageously heroized."

On the other hand it's not difficult to imagine what the Guardian might make of it:- 

The staff at Variety magazine was more receptive of the film, writing: "An eloquent document on juvenile delinquency, its cause and effect, has been fashioned from Knock on Any Door...Nicholas Ray's direction stresses the realism of the script taken from Willard Motley's novel of the same title, and gives the film a hard, taut pace that compels complete attention.

Bogart's performance is impressive and was reported as saying thus:-

"Knock On Any Door is a picture I'm kind of proud of, and I'll tell you why," Bogart the producer said in a press release trumpeting the film. "It's a very challenging story; different; off the beaten path. The novel (by Willard Motley) was brutally honest. We've tried to be just as direct, just as forceful, in the picture. I think you'll like it better that way."

Unfortunately Knock on Any Door doesn't seem to feature on the Talking Pictures TV catch-up service 'Encore', so we either await a repeat showing or seek it out via YouTube or other similar platforms. Along with the British film I Believe in You from the same era, it's a must watch. 

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Dear Jim,

Thank you so much for taking the time to email us, I am so pleased you have found Talking Pictures TV and are enjoying the films and series. The channel is very much a labour of love for us, so emails like yours mean a great deal to us here.

Sadly, we don’t have the rights to put ‘Knock On Any Door’ on our catch-up service, TPTV Encore, for free. It will definitely be shown again, but unfortunately, we don’t have a confirmed date just yet. I highly recommend signing up for our FREE Sunday newsletter, sent to you by email every Sunday, so you can be the first to know when it airs again. Sign up via www.talkingpicturestv.co.uk by entering your email address in the box that says 'subscribe'. In it we list what's coming on the channel, a weekly quiz, series premieres, film premieres and news relating to film and TV from the eras we all know and love.

Also, our website, www.talkingpicturestv.co.uk/schedule/, has at least 4 weeks' worth of listings ahead on there for you to browse and plan your viewing, and for a list of this week's films available with subtitles please do click here: www.talkingpicturestv.co.uk/subtitles/.

Many thanks for your support, please spread the word in any way you can.

Best wishes,
Olivia
For and on behalf of Sarah, Noel and Neill

An Important Read - Part One

The latest Probation Journal carries an extremely important article by Professor Rob Canton and in my view should be regarded as essential reading for all probation staff past, present and future. I don't say this lightly and in an ideal world I'd rather hope it gained the attention of politicians and indeed anyone in positions of power and influence. 

We find ourselves in the middle of an unprecedented prison, probation and criminal justice crisis and it's election year. Essentially this article sets out in forensic but clear detail much of how and why we got here and one would hope it convincingly makes the case for a fundamental rethink of the role and purpose of probation. In my opinion, failure to grasp the urgent need for change will inevitably mean that probation not only becomes increasingly irrelevant but most worryingly, entrenched as part of the problem. 

Being conscious that the article may not be easily accessible for those who are not members of Napo, together with a desire to bring it to the attention of a wider audience, I've taken the liberty of sharing it in a number of posts.        

Probation as Social Work

Abstract

In England and Wales probation was regarded as social work for most of the twentieth century, but some thirty years ago the government rejected this conception. In the context of continuing deliberations about the purpose and character of probation, it is timely to revisit its relationship to social work. It is argued that a principal reason for the politically motivated repudiation of social work was its associations with care, but this rested on confusion about care and a comparable misunderstanding of the concept of control. Appreciation of social context is argued to be fundamental to the work of probation. Social capital is no less important than human capital in achieving desistance. The skills and values of social work continue to inform probation because they match up to the demands of the job. Reaffirming connections between the professions would enhance the policy and practices of both.

Introduction

Many countries regard the activities of probation agencies as social work undertaken in the criminal justice system. This used to be the case in England and Wales, but this understanding was overturned when social work was rejected as a way of characterising probation's work. The Probation Service, set back and damaged by the project of Transforming Rehabilitation (Burke and Collett, 2015; Deering and Feilzer, 2019), has now embarked on a process of unification as a national service. Since the organisation of any agency should be fitted to its purposes, a review of the character, meaning and point of probation is timely. In a recent contribution to this debate, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (2023) remarking that ‘Caseloads are unmanageable and job satisfaction is low.’ (page 4), referred to an occupational ‘identity crisis’ (page 70). In this paper it will be argued that, while the matter of whether probation ‘is’ social work sounds like a stale debate, reopening discussion can illuminate much about what probation is or ought to be and in particular the values that should find expression in its practices.

How probation was separated from social work

The view that probation was social work within the criminal justice system was scarcely controversial and even taken for granted in England and Wales for most of the twentieth century. Indeed, while the idea that probation might be part of a unified Social Services Department now seems implausible, in the 1960s the possibility was seriously considered. An awareness that families were poorly served by the fragmented arrangements under which services were provided by separate agencies led to an enquiry into the organisation of social work (Dickens, 2011). The resulting Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services (the Seebohm Report) recommended the creation of generic social work departments. This report acknowledged that a further impetus to the enquiry and an influence on the Committee's thinking had been the 1965 White Paper The Child, the Family and the Young Offender. It was abundantly clear to many that crime was bound up with disadvantage and deprivation and that a social work service for families might reduce the incidence of offending.

Outside of the new amalgamated services, ‘probation had severed its umbilical cord from the rest of social work’ (Whitehead and Statham, 2006: 46). Nevertheless, it was to be many years until probation formally renounced its parentage. The political debates of the 1960s and 1970s were more about organisation than purpose or ethos: probation staff continued to regard their work as welfare, sharing with social services workers the commitment to social casework as a mode of intervention.

With the collapse of the broad consensus that had prevailed for most of the mid- twentieth century, crime and punishment became ever more salient as an arena for political contest (Downes and Morgan, 1994). As ‘[t]he emotional temperature of policy-making shifted from cool to hot … the welfarist image of the offender as a disadvantaged, deserving, subject of need’ was replaced by ‘stereotypical depictions of unruly youth, dangerous predators, and incorrigible career criminals’ (Garland, 2001: 10). Welfare was to give way to punishment and control as fitting responses to crimes, together with a stated ambition that much could be accomplished in the community (for fear of an expensive and ineffective prison estate becoming even more overburdened). The Criminal Justice Act 1991 envisaged a ‘centre-stage’ role for probation, but at the price of presenting its work as punishment - a characterisation with which many practitioners were ill at ease.

The project to characterise probation as the agency responsible for administering punishment in the community was always likely to struggle (Brownlee, 1998; Worrall and Hoy, 2005). Not only did staff not understand their work in this way, but it has always been problematic to convince the public that community supervision, whatever else it is, counts as punishment. Supervision can be extremely burdensome and even painful (Durnescu, 2011; McNeill, 2018; Hayes, 2018), but these punitive hardships are seldom acknowledged in public or political debate. However that may be, the envisaged role for probation made connections with social work politically awkward. Association with a caring profession was altogether at odds with how government wanted to present the service.

The structures of governance, however, did not make probation readily amenable to control. The service was made up of 54 local Probation Committees (later reconstituted as Boards and reduced in number to 42). While the Home Office retained a level of oversight and direction, considerable latitude was retained locally, with councillors among the membership of Committees to represent local interests. If political promises were to be credible, central government would need to assert a much stronger and more direct control. That probation was substantially dependent on central funding gave government the leverage necessary to effect their changes. The Statement of National Objectives and Priorities (Home Office, 1984) required local services to draw up their own plans within parameters set nationally. 1989 saw the first National Standards (for community service), with a full set promulgated in 1992 in support of the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Changes in funding formulas from 1992 tightened the screw of control and enabled central government to mould policy and practice.

While the Home Office had increasingly been seeking to exercise a more immediate control, in its assault on probation as social work it was able to exert a direct influence on training. The overall qualifying framework and curriculum had (since 1971) been overseen by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, on the basis that probation officers needed the same generic training as (other) social workers. Yet qualifying courses for probation officers in universities and polytechnics had to be approved by the Home Office, who also ‘sponsored’ students with (relatively generous) remuneration.

Concern began to be expressed that the distinctive knowledge required by staff was overlooked or suppressed, vanishing in a generic curriculum (Coleman, 1989). In response, the Certificate of Qualification in Social Work was replaced by the Diploma in Social Work in 1991. The new curriculum required much greater involvement from the agencies which were to employ their staff at qualification. ‘Streams’, including a probation stream, were devised to ensure that suitable knowledge was imparted. But they remained streams within a generic curriculum, still regarded as fully relevant to all social workers. Even though the probation stream came to be called the ‘jewel in the crown’ in social work education (Marsh and Triseliotis, 1996: 203), the government persisted in its concerns about over-genericism. It is likely there was also a suspicion that it was during their education that attitudes were shaped, perhaps including those that made staff inimical to the government's vision of probation as community punishment. If the ethos were to be changed, there had to be an altogether different approach (Dews and Watts, 1994). A social work qualification would no longer be required.

Political contest in this area intensified in the mid-1990s as parties competed for the claim to be ‘the party of law and order’ (Dunbar and Langdon, 1998). While promising to be tough on the causes of crime as well as on crime itself, as it came into government in 1997 New Labour did little to disturb the policy trajectory for probation. Punishment in the community would still be the watchword. And as the government moved quickly to set up a qualifying university education for probation officers, it was made clear that social work departments should not apply to deliver it.

Connotations of caring associated with social work, then, were still unwelcome. The administration seemed especially preoccupied with terminology. Probation service users had traditionally been referred to as ‘clients’, an established term for users of social services. But the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (1998) averred: ‘We agree wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary's comments regarding the language used in relation to community sentences; in particular we deplore the use of the term ‘client’ to describe criminals who are serving sentences.’ (paragraph 152) The word ‘offender’ was now insisted on. ‘Deplore’ is a strong word and it is worth pondering why the Committee and the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) were quite so vehement. Most plausibly, their aversion rested not on the precise denotation of the word so much as its connotations: offenders are to be condemned and punished; clients are entitled to service and to respect. Seeking ever more punitive credibility, other changes in terminology followed. After-care was to become resettlement; the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 changed Community Service into Community Punishment; the venerable Probation Order was renamed a Community Rehabilitation Order.

By 2008, Mr Straw, now the country's first ever Minister of Justice, congratulated himself that ‘Probation officers now routinely talk of the criminals they are dealing with as “offenders”, which is what they are, and not the euphemistic nonsense of “clients”, when the client is the victim and the tax-paying public.’ (Mulholland, 2008) There was little (party) political objection to this kind of stance. Still, the year before, at a service celebrating the centenary of the 1907 Probation of Offenders Act, the Bishop of Worcester reflected: ‘“Clients” have become “offenders” it seems; and “offender” slides easily from being a statement of fact – that a person has committed an offence or some offences – into an assertion of identity; they like the publicans and sinners of the gospel reading become a social class, a “them”.’ (Worcester News, 2007). Some words can help to sustain a protective dignity without which people may be ‘distanced and so pushed outside the boundaries of the moral community’ (Glover, 1999: 337). Language matters and is one of the principal ways in which the meanings of punishment are conveyed. To be the agency of punishment in the community, probation had to end its association with social work and the lexicon of penal policy rewritten.

Rob Canton 

(to be continued)

The Value of Social Work

Lets be clear about this. Many of us, particularly those with a bit of time under our belt, know that being a probation officer is completely incompatible with being a civil servant. We also know that a social work ethos is desirable and almost certainly necessary in order to be effective. Social workers face many of the same issues and a recent essay competition has served to highlight this, such as the following, one of the winning entries from a student at Dundee University:-  

Working better together: How do we build stronger relationships between social workers and people using services?

Social work, though notoriously difficult to define, is a profession centred upon building relationships, fulfilling the innate human desire to help one another (Soydan, 2012). However, given its legally binding powers and duties, social workers are often caught between tensions, trying to uphold service users’ rights, whilst executing the state’s responsibility towards them, all under the scrutiny of the public eye (Horner, 2006). 

Relationship-based practice is an approach utilised by social work practitioners that views relationships as the principal feature of social work and holds service users at its heart, although arguably there is little alternative, given that almost all social work is carried out via relationships. Relationship-based practice is traditionally rooted in psychodynamic theory, which seeks to understand how our previous experiences impact our relationships and thus how we manage our emotions, and is increasingly underpinned by the concepts of emotional intelligence, empathy and the practitioners ‘use of self’ (Ingram and Smith, 2018). 

One would be hard-pushed to find social work literature that did not place relationships at the forefront of good practice, although the contemporary managerial context of practice, coupled with measures of austerity and gross inequality, increasingly inhibits practitioners’ capacity to centre their practice upon relationship building (McColgan and McMullin, 2017). The worker-service user relationship is not straightforward like those naturally occurring with a family member or friend; embedded in this relationship are legislative and organisational constraints and an intangible yet undeniable power imbalance (Hennessey, 2011). 

To build honest and constructive relationships with others, social workers must know themselves; this is known as ‘use of self’. It is this self-awareness which allows social workers to relate to and engage the people with whom they are working, in a way that is true to their personal and professional values, providing fertile ground for the development of beneficial change (Hennessey, 2011), in line with the British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2012) Code of Ethics which states that social work is “focused on problem solving and change” and holds social justice and human rights among its core values. 

Intrinsically linked to the idea of ‘use of self’ is the idea of understanding one’s own emotions, or emotional intelligence. Emotions guide our reactions, behaviour and decisions and shape who we are. Developing emotional intelligence by understanding oneself allows practitioners to think critically and manage situations that have the potential to trigger highly emotive responses which are common in social work (Ingram, 2015). Greater understanding of one’s own emotions has been shown to allow better understanding of service user’s emotions (Grant, Kinman and Alexander, 2014). 

Empathy is another skill that allows for sound relationship building; it entails an appreciation of how another person is feeling, thus allowing for a greater understanding of their thoughts and behaviour (Howe, 2013). Interviewing is one of the most common activities undertaken by social workers (Kadushin and Kadushin, cited in Trevithick, 2012). However, for service users, an interview with a social worker may be daunting and evoke feelings of anxiety given the authority and power the practitioner’s position holds. Recognising this fact allows workers to practice in a way which does not feel oppressive (Thompson, 2016). 

An unquestionable majority of people who use services hail from less affluent areas (Cree and Smith, 2018). Beckford (2016), notes that those who live in ‘underserved’ areas, challenged by issues such as poverty, are at greater risk of developing mental health problems, and of becoming involved with the Criminal Justice System. Garbarino and Ganzel (cited in Russell, Harris and Gockel, 2008) consider poverty to be the ‘principal villain’ affecting parenting; the effects of poverty can often be seen to minimise parents’ capacity to protect and look after their children, and is a common thread linking families considered more likely to suffer abuse and neglect. Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) cite inequality as the common denominator of a multitude of social problems, including mental health, substance misuse and violence, and their statistically-informed argument is hard to counter. 

The current neoliberal hegemony pervading our media and political climate would encourage us to believe that individuals should be held accountable for their problems which stem from their moral inferiority. Working in this way however, would potentially give rise to a largely punitive and risk-averse rather than welfare-focused way of working, devoid of the values so important to the social work profession, such as social justice and respect for individuals and could put workers at risk of ethical stress, which can occur when one’s practice is incongruent with one’s values (Fenton, 2016).

Utilising a radical social work approach can promote better relationships; recognising the impact that societal and structural disadvantage has upon individuals, families and communities, rather than holding people responsible for their own circumstances and marginalisation, helps people who use services feel understood (Lavalette, 2011). Ecological systems theory is also useful for understanding the way in which a person is affected by the environment in which they live (Stepney and Ford, 2000). Despite previously unseen levels of material comfort, Great Britain is currently one of the most unequal societies in the world (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010). Social workers must recognise that life is significantly harder for some through no fault of their own. By providing a voice and a platform for people who use services, social workers can utilise the privilege their position infers to challenge the barriers they face (Krumer-Nevo, 2016), in turn bolstering relationships by showing concern which people who use services notoriously desire (Lishman, 2009). 

To build strong relationships with people who use services, social workers must firstly understand themselves; this enables them to better understand each person they work with, in turn allowing them to tailor their assessment and intervention according to each individual. Social workers must ensure their practice is neither oppressive nor discriminatory, by recognising structural disadvantage and inequality and their effects, and employing a non-judgemental attitude. Drawing upon sound personal and professional values as well as knowledge and theory ensures that positive relationships can be used to inspire positive change where and when it is needed most.

Verity Clarke - University of Dundee

(References not included here.) 

A Return to Social Work Values?

It's a shame. but understandable, that the amazing government u-turn regarding probation renationalisation and reintegration announced last week has been largely overshadowed by other stories. Nevertheless, all those who care about this vitally important public service must now put all their effort into helping the profession regain it's integrity and distinct identity. In this regard many of us will be pleased by this response from BASW the professional association for social work:- 

BASW comments on announcement that probation services to return to public control

Research and experience on the ground showed spectacular failures.

BASW welcomes the announcement from the Westminster government today that the part-privatised probation service in England and Wales would be fully ‘renationalised’ after research and experience on the ground showed spectacular failures.

In 2014, then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, against much advice from within and outside probation, in haste pushed through the privatisation of unpaid work and behaviour programmes through the Transforming Rehabilitation initiative.

The aim was to reduce costs and increase outcomes through financial incentives and penalties on a US model. It was a spectacular failure with contracted private companies running up huge losses needing government bail outs. Reoffending rates went up 32%. The Public Accounts Committee said the reforms left services “underfunded, fragile, and lacking the confidence of the courts”.

The outsourced workforce was found to be poorly trained and skilled for the difficult tasks of supervising offenders in a range of programmes, underestimating ongoing risks of reoffending and not achieving rehabilitation goals.

The separation of the probation officer role from social work which came in the 1990s remains something BASW seeks to reverse. Probation is still underpinned by social work qualifications, knowledge, skills and values in Northern Ireland and Scotland. While the recent announcement is welcome, we urge the government to talk with BASW and professional leaders in social work to explore again what social work offers.

We will seek to discuss with National Association of Probation Officers and the government the value of re-establishing social work as part of probation service in England and Wales and explore how social workers skills can be effective and humane in supporting change.

--oo00oo--

This from letters to the Guardian:-

Probation has been handled disgracefully

It was obvious that operational failure, massive expense and complex bureaucratic fragmentation awaited a part-privatised system, say professors Lol Burke and Steve Collett

As welcome as the announcement of the justice secretary is that the probation service is to be renationalised (Probation services to return to public control after Grayling disasters, 11 June), the treatment of this relatively small but extremely important public service has been nothing short of disgraceful.

Chris Grayling was simply the last in a long line of ideologically driven home and justice secretaries, from New Labour’s Jack Straw onwards, who were intent on applying the rules and values of the market, despite the fact that in 2014 every one of the 35 locally accountable probation trusts was formally adjudged to be either good or excellent.

Having tracked this trend, we took no pride in commenting in 2012 that “a small island of decency and humanity in the criminal justice system may be disappearing” or indeed, outlining in 2015, five reasons why the government’s transforming rehabilitation strategy would fail. It was obvious to anybody with basic knowledge of the criminal justice system that operational failure, massive expense and complex bureaucratic fragmentation awaited a part-privatised system.

Three questions remain. First, will Grayling be held to account for the waste of taxpayers’ money (£600m and counting) on a scale that would have resourced the National Probation Service for almost a full year of operation? Second, will this government learn one of the lessons from the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and commit itself to rebuilding well-resourced locally accountable services that are free from by the dead hand of centralised bureaucratic control? And finally, will this justice secretary acknowledge the complex and demanding work of the probation service by enhancing the professional standing of its staff?

Professor Lol Burke School of justice studies, Liverpool John Moores University, Professor Steve Collett Liverpool John Moores University; former chief probation officer, Cheshire Probation Trust (2001-10)

--oo00oo--

Update - Comment from Prison Reform Trust:-

Commenting on the announcement by Robert Buckland that probation services will return to public control, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:

“The new structure announced for probation has the advantage of simplicity, at least relative to the byzantine arrangements it replaces. But anyone expecting a significant impact on reoffending as a result should contain their optimism. Mandatory supervision for everyone released from prison, no matter how short their sentence, has resulted principally in an explosion in recalls to prison. As our report “Broken Trust” revealed, people often conceal their needs from probation staff for fear of being recalled. It matters little to the person needing help whether their supervising officer is a civil servant or the employee of a private company if that help isn’t forthcoming. Far from being slowed down, the revolving door has been given an extra shove.

"For probation to work, local partnerships are essential. That will be with the voluntary sector organisations that command the personal trust that statutory bodies often do not. It will be with housing providers, local authorities and local employers. It will be with the police and health services. None of those relationships can be created in a central government department. They all require confidence that organisations will be stable and their leadership sufficiently autonomous to offer the sharing of resources that underpin effective multi agency work.

"The role of central government in probation in recent years has been entirely destructive. Whether that continues to be the case will depend on whether the ministry has the humility and good sense to devolve power to a local level. That rarely comes naturally to central governments of any persuasion. It’s too early to tell how this one will behave.”

--oo00oo--

Further update:-

Dear all, 

11 June 2020

CHANGES TO PROBATION SERVICES 

I am writing because today, the Lord Chancellor has announced how we have adapted our plans to reform the Probation service in light of Covid-19. I would be grateful if you would share this letter with your members. 

In the current context it is essential that we prioritise measures that will deliver a robust probation service that is best placed to respond to its ongoing impact. For those reasons we have decided to integrate Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and other structured interventions into the National Probation Service (NPS) from June 2021. We will not proceed with the Probation Delivery Partner competition. 

This will bring all of the core probation service into a single national organisation that can command the confidence of the courts. We intend there to be a continued role for the Dynamic Framework to provide probation practitioners with access to organisations able to provide specialist support to their work with offenders. We will today launch the competition for that Framework, in order to have services in place from June 2021. 

I recognise that staff across the probation service have experienced significant changes over recent years. The extraordinary response to Covid-19 within both the NPS and CRCs is testament to the professionalism, commitment and expertise of our staff group. I am determined that we will prioritise the interests of staff over the next year in the way that we manage the transition to new structures. 

We will do that in part by continuing to work closely with you as our recognised Trade Unions. I am grateful for the collaborative and open way in which you have engaged with HMPPS throughout this period of acute change. I know my officials are working hard with you with the aim of reaching agreement on terms and protections that will apply for staff transferring from the CRCs. I look forward to those conversations progressing towards a conclusion as soon as possible. 

My ambition is that through this process, the NPS will create the conditions that will allow our staff to thrive, to make the greatest possible contribution to protecting the public by turning around the lives of service users, and to be recognised more widely for the critical service they provide in protecting the public and supporting victims of crime.

Today’s announcement sets a clear direction of travel for the future of the probation service. I am confident that we can build on existing relationships to together deliver these necessary reforms to what is a critical public service. 

Yours sincerely

Lucy Frazer QC MP

We Are Where We Are?

I saw this yesterday and it struck a chord with me:-

I sometimes wonder what happens to people. There's a raft of folks who I just cannot fathom. I have a life outside of probation. I always did have, it's just more outside than otherwise now. Some aspects of who I am are fixed while other elements are flexible and I believe they are directly related to aspects of being a person who makes the effort to be a half-decent human being.

Language, honesty, integrity & courage are essential elements that remain with me wherever I am. Writing PSRs, being a court duty officer (mags & crown) and working with sex offenders were the keystones of my probation career.

I cannot understand managerialism, JFDI, it is what it is. I cannot comprehend what it is that makes people feel so good they surrender their integrity. I cannot even begin to get my head around lying.

As far as I could tell from 20+ years' graft, sex offenders & DV perpetrators lived in a fantasy world built on lies & self-deception. It was never their fault, never their responsibility, they were framed, set-up, slighted, seduced, pushed too far, but they could also be charismatic, believable & full of bon homie - until confronted with the dissonance of their situation.

And that is what I see with Grayling, Johnson &, to be fair, most politicians.

Currently they seem to be living in a world where they're managing a fantasy pandemic - one where there's enough PPE, everyone's prepared, the lockdown was timed to perfection, etc etc. Just watch their responses in the briefings when they are challenged with the reality of the situation - Raab, Hancock, Gove, Jenrick have all snapped, snarled & snipped at the person asking the question.

"So how did you get to the child pornography site?"
"So why did you punch your partner in the kidneys?"

--oo00oo--

It seems to me to link nicely with the response from regular reader 'Getafix to last Tuesday's blog post 'A Defining Moment', which of course was itself a reader's contribution:-

I read today's post several times when it appeared as a comment yesterday. To me it not only illustrates the scale and journey of the probation service over time, but also its decline. The Social Work ethos was the foundation stone of the probation service. It's removal was not only irresponsible, it was an act of political sabotage. It allowed probation to become a tool of the state. A service that could be shaped and manipulated in any way that suited the political ideology and Government agendas of the day.

'Prison Works', Tough On Crime, Tough On The Causes Of Crime, were great mantras from polititions like Leon Britton and Michael Howard, but they had little to do with the advancement of our justice services, they were slogans to bolster public support for electoral purposes. They worked, but they badly damaged probation no longer supported by its social work foundations.

We've had years of debate and discussion on the destructive nature and the folly of TR.
TR would never have been possible if probation had still been underpinned by its social work foundations. I really do think the value of the social Work approach within our Criminal justice system is becoming more understood in today's world once again. Police and even prisons are adopting far more of a social work approach then they ever have before. The wheel will be reinvented, but it will be a slow process. There's small pockets reappearing in specific areas now, but their small and very specific. But as its said, 'The longest journey starts with the first step'.

'Getafix followed this up the following day:-

I'm someone who completely believes that probation should be based on a social work ethos. I've had some difficulties this week understanding some of the comments that's been made. I understand that others don't favour the social Work ethos, and I don't dismiss that point of view. Yet I struggle to understand why favouring a social work ethos indicates any particular political view point. Why isn't it be seen as apolitical? A philosophical and pragmatic approach underpinning a service, with no political colour as a pragmatic method to fulfil its remit? Indeed, did the removal of the Social Work requirement in 1997 move probation from a left wing to a right wing organisation? If the social Work ethos belongs to the left, then its removal must surely cede possession to the right? Why does social work define anyone's political identity?

It's a coincidence that Jersey has been mentioned on the blog today, because reading over the last few days to try and understand more why favouring a social work ethos in probation could be seen as a demonstration of political allegiance I stumbled on a research paper from a few year ago relating to probation services on Jersey. It didn't answer my questions, but I found it an interesting and informative read non the less. Maybe other might too.

--oo00oo--

I'll have a layman's stab from deep inside my kevlar cocoon.

1. Did the removal of the Social Work requirement in 1997 move probation from a left wing to a right wing organisation? Yes. More accurately, it anchored the moves that had already taken place.

2. If the social Work ethos belongs to the left, then its removal must surely cede possession to the right? Yes. Its now 'owned' in every sense by the MoJ/HMPPS, a control-and-command led profit-oriented structure.

3. Why does social work define anyone's political identity? For myself, its tied up with whether we regard people as a commodity to be exploited or as part of the social fabric, to be cherished. The 'right' embraces control & command, monetisation, exploitation, profiteering - 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. The 'left' tends towards the nurturing, caring & sharing of peoples' experiences, cultures & lives, regardless as to whether its the fruits or the burdens that are being shared.

There you go, Bamber, there's my starter for ten.

--oo00oo--

Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with 'Getafix that a social work ethos should be seen as apolitical and it frustrates me how many people on this blog seem to assume that a left wing political preference should be a prerequisite for the job.

As for above, they've tried to set out their position as if commentating from an objective point of view, but clearly the fact they have chosen negative labels for the right and positive labels for the left reveals their own bias.

Ultimately, the right is defined by valuing the individual over the collective. But how is that at odds with the social work/probation value of believing that everybody is capable of change? The right is more likely to believe in the capacity of individuals to change than the left.

--oo00oo--

No, revisionista above, you play with my words. I don't need or want your agreement, but you cannot re-present my piece as something it isn't. I set out *my* position. And there it is in all its simplicity. No attempt to observe from any point of view other than my own, hence I start with "For myself..."

Another right-wing trait I forgot to mention... the readiness to revise history, to remodel the facts to suit the narrative. The coronavirus crisis is a case in point - not enough PPE in stock, delays in ordering it, when it finally arrives its shoddy-as-shit, then they issue out-of-date PPE & refuse to release the test data that proves whether or not the PPE is fit for purpose. Dates on gowns might not be a problem, granted, but filters on medical grade masks might just be a critical issue. I just hope my kevlar cocoon is in-date...

--oo00oo--

That research article from the British Journal of Social Work and referred to by 'Getafix can be found here and I've selected the following:-

Moving Away from Social Work and Half Way Back Again: New Research on Skills in Probation

Abstract

Research on social work in the criminal justice system was well represented in the social work literature until the 1990s. Since then, changes in the organisation, training and research base of probation practice, particularly in England and Wales, have all contributed to a separation between probation research and the mainstream social work research literature. However, recent probation research, by focusing on individual practice skills and on the quality of relationships, is producing findings which resonate with traditional social work concerns. The study presented here, based on analysis of videotaped interviews between probation staff and the people they are supervising, shows what skills are used and the effects of skilled supervision. People supervised by more skilled staff were significantly less likely to be reconvicted over a two-year follow-up, and the most effective supervisors combined good relationship skills with a range of ‘structuring’ or change-promoting skills. In effect, this can be regarded as a test of the impact of social work skills used by probation staff and suggests that a closer relationship between mainstream social work research and probation research could be productive for both.

Background

In recent years, probation has moved away from social work both as a subject and as an institutionalised practice towards what is commonly termed community corrections or offender management, and in so doing has taken on a distinctively different identity. It began its life in the philanthropic and charity movements of the nineteenth century and in particular the early social project (Vanstone, 2004). Although, in one way or another, probation has always been involved in the administration and management of particular non-custodial sentences, it has retained distinctive social work characteristics not only through its involvement in adoption, matrimonial and divorce court functions, but also through practice founded on the traditional social work treatment model. In the latter part of the twentieth century, it shed its family court functions and, in its current, modern form, it focuses exclusively on work with those who appear before the criminal courts and who pose significant risk to the public through their offending, standing apart from social work as a criminological project. At least, this is how it appears. In this paper, through reflections on our study of the practice of probation officers in Jersey (Raynor et al., 2014), we examine this phenomenon and attempt to distinguish between the appearance and the reality. In the process, we reappraise the argument that probation should be seen as social work and reflect on how mainstream social work might adapt to accommodate the roles of social workers in criminal justice. We begin with the relevant history.

Discussion: probation as social work?

Studies such as this, which show a connection between the use of appropriate interpersonal skills and better outcomes for service users, are clearly of interest to probation services, and research on skills has now been carried out in several countries (for some examples, see McNeill et al., 2010). One purpose of this article is to suggest that this kind of research also has implications for mainstream social work, and for the relationship between probation work and the wider social work enterprise. Some of the skills observed in our study, such as relationship skills, are clearly part of the skills repertoire traditionally valued and taught in social work. Probation officers in Jersey, unlike most in England and Wales, are normally qualified in social work; the same is true in other jurisdictions, notably Scotland, where social work in criminal justice is professionally and organisationally a branch of social work. However, good outcomes in our study are also connected with the use of ‘structuring’ skills to facilitate change and to develop new thinking and behaviour. The results are consistent with the idea that relationship skills are a necessary condition for positive influence in individual work, but may not on their own be sufficient to bring about change in problematic attitudes or behaviour. This kind of change often seems to require more structured forms of learning.

Studies of the impact and outcome of professional intervention have been central to improvements in the effectiveness of probation work in the last two decades. Arguably, this has been a less consistent emphasis in broader social work research. Reasons for this include the fact that probation work lends itself to the use of reconviction rates as a (relatively) straightforward outcome measure, since the purposes of probation usually include a reduction in offending, in the interests of both the service user and the wider community. Probation can of course have other valid purposes, such as reintegration into the community, resettlement and the pursuit of a wide variety of individualised forward-looking intermediate goals in particular cases, but most of the time reconviction can be used as a rough-and-ready proxy measure which is congruent with the societal purpose of probation services. Other sectors of social work have more diverse or less standardised goals and more ingenuity may be needed to identify appropriate outcome measures. However, the effort may prove worthwhile. Social work education is under attack both politically and from other professional sectors: Michael Gove, the responsible Minister and a leading figure on the right wing of the current ruling coalition, argues that, if trainee social workers are taught that their service users are ‘disempowered by society’, this makes them likely to explain away and excuse problematic behaviour rather than trying to change it (Gove, 2013). Martin Narey makes rather similar points from a more professional and less politicised point of view in his report on the preparation of social workers for child and family work (Narey, 2014). Essentially, the argument is that commitment to an anti-oppressive stance makes it difficult for inexperienced social workers to challenge problematic behaviour. From such a perspective, probation work may seem too controlling or coercive to be part of an empowering vision of social work. However, such a view, if it exists, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding.

One former Chief Probation Officer with whom both authors worked used to define his job as ‘helping offenders to help themselves to stop offending’ (Sutton, 1996). This has more to do with empowerment than oppression: even if people are not responsible for the problems they face, improvement is likely to require some action on their part. Even cognitive–behavioural offending behaviour programmes, which worried some practitioners who saw them as a form of coercive behaviour modification, are better understood as a way of facilitating change through social learning (Raynor and Vanstone, 1997). The successful probation staff in our study helped their clients by eliciting co-operation and engaging collaborative effort, not by one-sided authoritarianism. This is entirely consistent with our experience of effective probation over many years. Mainstream social work might benefit from a more consistent focus on outcomes, and from probation's experience of trying to use evidence from outcome studies to develop and improve practice. Social work's defence against Gove's attack has so far concentrated on exposing his ideological assumptions and political motivation (for an example, see Social Work Action Network, 2014), but more focus on evidence of positive outcomes would also help to add weight to the argument. In the last century, the education and training of most social workers included some coverage of crime and of social work in criminal justice, but this is less prevalent in the social work degree courses offered since 2003.

Qualitative research alone will not find it easy to provide evidence of effectiveness. As a recent discussion of policy-related research pointed out:

Qualitative research is often advocated as the best way to capture the complexity of social phenomena, but even rich case studies full of insight about how things happen are very limited in answering ‘why’ questions without the systematic comparison of cases that would enable us to understand causation, which is essential to policy intervention (Blackman, 2013, p. 334).

In other words, without qualitative research, there is not much social science; without measurement and comparison, there is not much social science. In our study of skills and outcomes, we have used both approaches, and the results could not have been obtained without doing so.

Finally, we would suggest that probation work itself could benefit from closer integration (or reintegration) with the wider social work profession. This is hardly innovative: any study of the early history of social work will find plenty of examples of work concerned with what was usually called juvenile delinquency (for some examples, see Raynor and Robinson, 2009). Probation in England and Wales is smaller than other welfare institutions and, since coming under the direct control of the Home Office in 2001, it has been something of a political football. Politicians preoccupied with a need to appear tough have obstructed development and made probation more punitive. The current government is in the process of implementing a wholesale privatisation programme (Ministry of Justice, 2013) which virtually all informed commentators believe will make matters worse. Social work may feel itself threatened but has not (yet) faced anything like this. Although several commentators have written about difficulties in maintaining traditional social work commitments and values in the modern social and political environment (e.g. Parton, 1994, 2003), social work has not experienced, as probation has, a political campaign to substitute punishment for welfare (Raynor, 2012). Probation might benefit, as in Scotland, from being seen and defended as part of a wider social work movement for social progress and social justice, which in our view is what it should be. However, this argument strays well beyond the scope of this paper. At least we hope to contribute to a more substantial representation and appreciation of criminal justice social work in the mainstream social work literature.