Abstract
This special edition of Probation Journal contains a series of articles and personal reflections commissioned by the editorial board that consider specific aspects on the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation proposals. Despite the intense and on-going activity surrounding the implementation of the organisational structures created on the 1 June 2014 it would still seem to be the case that even two years on we are still coming to terms with the full extent of the changes and there still appears to be a lack of clarity in terms of what the eventual outcomes will be. However, the contributions contained within this edition highlight a number of common themes which may yet shape the future direction of the reforms.
In the opening contribution to this edition, Transforming Rehabilitation: Organisational bifurcation and the end of probation as we knew it?, Lol Burke and Steve Collett provide an overview of the policy and ideological drivers behind Transforming Rehabilitation and in doing so provide the context in which the contributions to this edition are located. Placing contemporary policy developments within a longer-term project and reflecting the basic tenets of neoliberal political and economic thinking, they argue that for probation, this has not only resulted in organisational bifurcation but also a significant change in the status of workers across the new delivery structures. They contend, that unlike their counterparts in the NPS, those working in the CRCs as private sector employees no longer retain the historical status as officers of the court. What the longer term impact of this will be is difficult to forecast but as Jane Dominey’s research highlights, which she discusses in Fragmenting probation: Recommendations from research, a significant part of the legitimacy of community sentences, for both supervisors and supervisees, stems from the relationship between the probation worker and the sentencing court. A challenge for the CRCs in particular will be to not only develop services to sentencers that are coherent and useful but also are seen as legitimate by those under supervision as well as other stakeholders. Jane Dominey’s study provides empirical support for the idea that joint work is enhanced through co-location, although it seems likely that NPS and CRC workers will be housed in different locations separated both by distance and operational responsibilities.
This point is also highlighted by Christopher Kay in Good cop, bad cop, both? Examining the implications of risk based allocation on the desistance narratives of intensive probationers, who found that the upheaval caused by the reforms was having a detrimental impact on maintaining stable supervisory relationships and ultimately compliance with their orders. Following the reallocation of responsibilities many of those subject to supervision were not only having to develop new supervisory relationships but also having to commute considerable distances. Based on interviews with 20 males undertaking an Intensive Community Order (ICO) the author uncovered a level of scepticism towards the ability of the CRCs to support the process of desistance.
The nature of the supervisory relationship is also considered by Emily Evans in her contribution, The expected impacts of Transforming Rehabilitation on working relationships with offenders, specifically within the context of Integrated Offender Management (IOM) arrangements. The author warns that existing relationships could be undermined by increased pressure on resources, confused governance, and disincentives to working with a group that may well be less likely to desist in the short term.
In policy terms, the intention of Transforming Rehabilitation was that the new modes of delivery proposed would be underpinned by more robust commissioning mechanisms that focused on the outcomes achieved. Drawing on research undertaken in a Therapeutic Community for those individuals with drug and alcohol problems, Helena Gosling in ‘All this about is money and making sure that heads are on beds’: Perceptions of Payment by Results in a Therapeutic Community, illustrates the tensions and dilemmas that introducing a business-orientated approach into a person-centred environment can bring in terms of commodification and bureaucratic processes that potentially undermine the therapeutic integrity (and hence legitimacy) of such provision and more importantly the journey towards recovery.
As Chris Fox and Caroline Marsh point out in ‘Personalisation’: Is social innovation possible under Transforming Rehabilitation, standardised models of commissioned services could undermine a personalised approach that research suggests is an important component in assisting individuals to desist from crime. The authors discuss a project with 50 to 100 service users being piloted in a CRC to test whether the new arrangements can support social innovation. Whilst acknowledging the challenges ahead, the authors draw upon the insights from desistance research and experiences of the social care sector to consider how these can be overcome to enable service users to have more choice and control over the services they need.
It remains to be seen then whether or not the reforms brought about by Transforming Rehabilitation will result in increased innovation as promoted. Two years on, practice models are still under development in both the CRCs and the NPS. The following three contributions to this edition highlight the impact upon those tasked with implementing and delivering national policy at the local level. In ‘It’s relentless’: The impact of working primarily with high risk offenders, Jake Phillips, Chalen Westaby and Andrew Fowler, draw on empirical data to consider the impact upon NPS workers in holding caseloads of exclusively designated high-risk individuals. The authors provide a more nuanced understanding of the pressures involved in the management of high-risk cases than one that suggests that the caseloads of those now working in the NPS would inevitably result in additional pressure and other negative consequences. For some of those practitioners interviewed they had ended up with a more stable caseload because a proportion of those under their supervision tended to be older individuals with less complex social needs. This corresponded sharply with their perceptions of the often chaotic behaviour of those individuals now supervised by the CRCs. However, the relentlessness of the work was a common theme identified among those interviewed and the authors provide a number of recommendations to potentially mitigate against this.
As Shelly-Ann McDermott highlights in Probation without boundaries? ‘Agile working’ in the Community Rehabilitation Company ‘transformed’ landscape, workers in the CRCs equally face challenges in conducting meaningful relationships that are built on trust, collaboration and engagement. Drawing on her experiences of working in a large inner-city office the author illustrates some of the concerns raised other contributors to this edition about the potentially detrimental impact of the organisational restructuring following Transforming Rehabilitation. In a trenchant analysis she juxtaposes the aspirations of working in a more agile manner, which are being promoted by many of the new CRC owners, with the current realities of a working environment that often mitigates against positive relationship building.
Approved premises are intended to be enabling environments marked by high levels of engagement with those who reside in them. In Transforming Rehabilitation and Approved Premises: The effect of ideologically driven change upon probation practice in an institutional setting, Robbie Williams reflects on his experiences of previous policy changes and considers the potential impact for Approved Premises as rehabilitative regimes. Despite some positive pockets of innovative projects, the author contends that one of the frustrations in recent years has been that the energy required in operationalising such wide ranging and hastily implemented reforms has sometimes undermined other aspects of service delivery and the stalled the momentum of localised innovative practices. Further challenges no doubt lie ahead in terms the E3 (Effectiveness, Efficiency and Excellence) model of service provision within the NPS. As the author notes, whatever the eventual outcome of the review, those working in Approved Premises, as in other parts of probation work, will need to be well-trained, motivated and valued.
The final article in this edition is also a personal reflection, in this case of the author’s experience of undertaking probation training during this period of intense change. The author argues that the ensuing uncertainty was not conducive to an effective learning environment and provides a salient warning that practitioners need sufficient time to reflect on, and develop their practice, regardless of which organisation they are located in.
Taken together these varied contributions provide an illuminating insight into the challenges, contradictions and potential opportunities for probation practice in the reformed landscape brought about by Transforming Rehabilitation. As always the journal welcomes letters, comments or articles in response to any of the issues raised in this edition.