Abstract
I am privileged be taking on the role of Editor of the Probation Journal from Lol Burke, who stepped down in December 2016 after ten years at the helm. We will miss him but know that he will stay connected through his continued scholarship and contributions to the journal. Lol’s leadership was evident in his stewardship and always insightful editorials, where he maintained a critical focus on the changes within probation and the wider criminal justice system. Building on the work of his predecessors, Lol has developed the international reputation of the journal. The articles in the journal, which reflect on probation and community justice and the wider framing of social and political contexts, receive a wide readership. One of the strengths of the journal is that it attracts contributions from practitioners and academics (and those who move between these spheres). The contributions to this edition are no exception.
This issue continues a theme which has been at the forefront in recent years – the intersection of mental health and criminal justice. Jo Borrill and colleagues’ research on suicides of people under community supervision sheds light on an important area that has received limited previous attention (Gelsthorpe et al., 2012). Their article reports on findings from research on a population of people who died as a result of suicide in one probation area over a three-year period. Key issues such as the difficulties in complying with a community order in the context of complex needs and vulnerabilities and the salience of missed appointments are explored. The need for further staff support and training in this area is highlighted.
The development of services for people who are identified as having personality disorders has been one area where specific attention has been focused on the intersection of mental health and criminal justice (NOMS/NHS, 2015). A number of recent articles in the journal have explored the out-workings of the Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway initiatives in England (e.g. Castledine, 2015; Nichols et al., 2016; Ramsden et al., 2016), which have involved the development of joint-working models between probation staff and psychological services. Harvey and Ramsden’s contribution to this issue builds on this body of work by exploring ‘contracting’ between professionals working with people with personality disorder. As the authors explain, in the context of clinical consultation or probation supervision the main aim of contracting ‘is for each party to be aware of the practical and psychological components of the relationship’ ([p. 2]). Harvey and Ramsden’s article reports on some of the effects of contracting on practice cultures, including the attendant focus on the nature of the working relationship with service users and the value placed on reflective practice.
Practice cultures are also the focus of Scott Grant’s article on the first-year experiences of newly qualified criminal justice social workers in Scotland. He explores how new practitioners become acculturated to the ‘field’ of criminal justice practice. Significantly, Scotland retains the generic social work qualification for criminal justice staff (so too does Northern Ireland), so much of the specialist knowledge of work within criminal justice is learnt on the job. Some of the key issues highlighted in the article include the importance of peer support and the desire for supervision to move beyond a dominant emphasis on case management to focus more on professional development.
In a different context these themes are echoed in Rosie Lee’s practitioner response to Philips et al.’s (2016) article on the impact of working primarily with high-risk offenders in the National Probation Service (NPS), published in our special issue on Transforming Rehabilitation: Two Years On. Lee discusses her experience of working with women in the NPS and vividly captures the tensions of working in a risk-dominated environment where she argues the emotional impact of work is given insufficient recognition. She too concludes that there is a need for more reflective space for practitioners to discuss the impacts of the emotional labour involved in managing a high-risk caseload.
Finally, Summer Alston-Smith provides a practitioner response to Hutton’s (2016) article on families and prison visits, published in our special issue on Children and Families and the Collateral Consequences of Punishment. She notes the ‘gulf in provision’ across the prison estate for families of prisoners and the particular challenges for family members of those detained in women prisons or in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), required to travel long distances for prison visits.
The critical dialogue between research and practice evident in the contributions to this issue increases in importance in the context of an ever-changing landscape. Over recent months, probation in England and Wales has been in the spotlight in the wake of critical inspection reports conducted after the changes wrought by TR (HMIP, 2016, 2017). We will continue to explore the impact of these changes but look also at probation and community justice within wider contexts, where there is much to be learned. As always, the journal welcomes comments or articles in response to any of the issues raised in this issue.