Understanding Compliance Dynamics in Community Justice Settings

Abstract

This article seeks to expand the existing literature on compliance in community justice settings by highlighting the importance of service user participation in efforts to achieve compliance. The article’s central argument is that although co-productive strategies can enhance service user participation, the degree to which co-production is achievable in penal supervision is perhaps uncertain, and has received insufficient theoretical or empirical attention. To address the gap in knowledge, the article draws on the data generated from a study of compliance in Wales, United Kingdom, and employs the Bourdieusian concepts of habitus, field, and capital to argue that the convergence of two key factors undermines the viability of co-productive strategies in penal settings. One factor is the service users’ habitus of powerlessness which may breed passivity rather than active participation. The second also relates to the power dynamics that characterize penal supervision contexts. Within these contexts, practitioners are statutorily empowered to implement and enforce the requirements of community orders. In the current target-focused policy climate in England and Wales, practitioners may prioritize measurable compliance over forms of compliance that stem from service user participation and engagement perhaps because these are not readily quantifiable.

Keywords

compliance community-based supervision corrections probation parole

In England and Wales, compliance is a key prong of the government’s agenda for community-based supervision. In 2010, the National Offender Management Service introduced the offender engagement programme (OEP). This was a 3-year program that explored how best to promote one-to-one supervision practices that would enhance service user participation and engagement,¹ and in doing so, reduce reoffending (Copsey, 2011). Rates of attrition from interventions delivered in the community have however remained consistently high (Cattell, Kenny, Lord, & Wood, 2014; Hatcher, McGuire, Bilby, Palmer, & Hollin, 2012). There is also evidence that attrition is linked to increased rates of reconviction (Hatcher, 2009; McMurran & Theodosi, 2007).

In addition, studies in England and Wales reveal that in community justice settings,² high rates of enforcement action (for noncompliance) contribute quite significantly to the sustained rise in the prison population (Gyateng, McSweeney, & Hough, 2010). Furthermore, official statistics suggest that there is a link between enforcement action and reoffending (Wood et al., 2015). These findings indicate that it is important to examine compliance dynamics in community justice settings. As such, this article seeks to expand the literature on service user compliance by exploring a much neglected issue which is the degree to which co-productive practice that could encourage service user participation and engagement is achievable in community justice settings. Co-productive practice relies on the participation of co-producers such as practitioners and service users in co-designing and/or co-delivering services (Weaver, 2014). This article’s key contention is that the feasibility of co-production in penal supervision contexts (within community justice settings) deserves theoretical and empirical scrutiny. Although the article draws on a study of compliance in community justice settings in Wales, United Kingdom, its objective is to provide a primarily theoretical account of the sociostructural and contextual factors that impair participatory practice such as co-production during penal supervision.

The article employs concepts derived from Bourdieu’s theory of social practice to analyze these factors (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Three Bourdieusian concepts are utilized, namely, habitus, capital, and field. These concepts can be used to demonstrate how the power dynamics of social arenas or fields (e.g., penal supervision contexts) interact with the deeply engrained dispositions (habitus) of social actors to shape their perceptions and actions.

In its application of the three Bourdieusian concepts, the article seeks to demonstrate that two interrelated dimensions of the power differential in supervisory relationships within penal supervision settings can help us understand the limits of co-production. One of the dimensions is the service users’ subordinate position in the penal supervision field where practitioners occupy the position of power and authority. This creates a power differential that could foment or reinforce a habitus of limited capability and powerlessness among the service users. The article argues that this habitus can breed service user passivity rather than the active participation that underpins co-production.

The article also contends that another key dimension of the power differential in supervisory relationships (within the penal supervision field) that could impair co-production is the ability of practitioners to prioritize non-participatory practices that produce measurable compliance (McCulloch, 2013; Robinson, 2013). Within the current target-focused policy climate in England and Wales, services under pressure to attain set targets might prioritize such practices. It follows that dynamics activated by the power differential in penal supervision contexts may cumulatively impair the degree of co-production attainable in those contexts.

Conceptualizing Compliance

Compliance is a nebulous and multidimensional concept, but Robinson and McNeill (2008) offer a useful theoretical framework for understanding the nature of compliance in community justice settings. Their theoretical framework distinguishes between two forms of compliance, namely, substantive compliance and formal compliance. Attending statutory appointments without concomitant commitment to the overall aims of a community order exemplifies formal compliance (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). Unlike formal compliance, substantive compliance is more sustainable; it is characterized by service user engagement and a commitment to long-term change goals (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). It can as such outlast the order.

The Relevance of Service User Participation

Studies of supervision in community justice settings suggest that service user participation in the planning and delivery of a community order is vital for substantive compliance (Hughes, 2012; Rex, 1999; Weaver & Barry, 2014). Rex’s (1999) study of the impact of probation supervision on desistance interviewed 21 officers and 60 service users in England. The service users who reported that they had actively participated in implementing the order were more likely to report that they found supervision useful. Hughes’ (2012) study of service user engagement during sentence planning in a probation setting in England found that the opportunity to participate in the intervention by, for example, contributing to sentence planning, encouraged engagement. Weaver and Barry (2014) explored the views of service users undertaking community-based orders. They identified the consequences of limited participation in decision-making as confusion, undermined legitimacy, and disengagement.

Studies of interactions between practitioners and service users in other criminal justice contexts have also identified service user participation in decision-making as vital for compliance. For example, in a large-scale longitudinal study of compliance in court settings and during interactions with the police in Chicago, Tyler (2006) identified procedural justice (perceived fairness of decision-making processes during encounters with legal authorities) as an important antecedent of perceived legitimacy and voluntary compliance. Tyler (2006) dimensionalized procedural justice to include inter alia enabling the service user to participate in decision-making or giving the service user a voice. Other studies across the United Kingdom have revealed that procedural justice can encourage compliance in probation settings (Rex, 1999; Ugwudike, 2010) during encounters with the police (Hough & Maffei, 2013) and in court settings (McIvor, 2009).

Insights from key models of supervision

Key models of supervision emphasize the important role of service user agency and participation in within community justice settings, in achieving change. For example, some sections of the desistance literature stress that service user agency is a vital element of the change process (Bottoms, 2013; Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, & Calverley, 2014; Maruna, 2001). Agency in this context refers to the personal decision to activate and commit to the change process. As Maruna (2015, p. 322) observes, “in leading theories of desistance ‘personal agency looms large’ (Laub & Sampson, 2003, p. 180) and desisters are framed as active participants in constructing their lives”. McNeill (2012, p. 10) remarks that service users “also have strengths and resources that they can use to overcome obstacles to desistance…supervision needs to support and develop these capacities.”

Advocates of the Good Lives Model similarly argue that change processes should involve the active participation and contribution of the service user. According to Ward and Fortune (2013, p. 31), “…the Good Lives Model is a strengths-oriented rehabilitation theory responsive to offenders’ particular interests, abilities, and aspirations.” Therefore, intervention plans should be designed and implemented collaboratively, with the service user playing a meaningful role (Ward & Fortune, 2013). Similarly, proponents of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model³ draw attention to practice skills that can encourage service user participation and engagement; problem-solving techniques represent key examples, and practitioners use the techniques to enable the collaborative identification and resolution of problems (Andrews & Kiessling, 1980; Dowden & Andrews, 2004).

Co-production as a Mechanism of Service User Participation and Engagement

The co-production of outcomes has been identified as a relational approach that can enable service user participation by mobilizing their strengths and capabilities as agents of change (McCulloch, 2013; Weaver, 2014). Co-production involves:
The provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalised service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions. (Bovaird, 2007, p. 847)
Co-production therefore facilitates service user participation. Added to the studies of compliance cited earlier, evidence from sectors within and beyond the criminal justice system, and from key models of supervision, also reveals that service users are more motivated to engage with services if they have participated in the design and delivery of those services (Greene, Hibbard, & Sacks, 2013; Maruna & LeBel, 2010; McMurran & Ward, 2010; Smith et al., 2012). However, the extent to which co-production is achievable in penal supervision contexts has received insufficient attention. Consequently, in these contexts, there is limited knowledge of the factors that impact upon the co-production of compliance and other outcomes. This article argues that Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, field, and capital can help us understand these factors. Most applications of Bourdieusian field theory in community justice contexts have focused on practitioners’ views and experiences (Grant, 2016; Phillips, 2015; Robinson, Priede, Farrall, Shapland, & McNeill, 2014). Deviating from this trend, this article draws on a study of compliance that explored inter alia service users’ perceptions and experiences. The article analyzes these using the Bourdieusian concepts cited above. There is also an exploration of relevant policy dynamics, and the strategies that can promote the co-production of sustainable compliance.

The Study

Although this article seeks to provide a primarily theoretical account of factors that impair the co-production of sustainable compliance (e.g., substantive compliance) in community justice settings, it also draws on insights from a study of compliance with community-based sanctions in Wales, United Kingdom. The study utilized Straussian Grounded Theory Methodology (SGTM; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). SGTM is theoretically rooted in the interactionist tradition, and it describes the interpretations or meanings with which social actors make sense of their interactions and encounters in the social world, as the basis of social action (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This is an ontological position that leads interactionists to assert that social reality, including human social behavior, is socially constructed through the interpretations social actors apply to their interactions and encounters.

Given this ontological stance, insights that emerge from a study that employs SGTM should be grounded in the definitions or interpretations with which research participants make sense of their experiences and interactions with others in the social world. Interactionists maintain that these definitions or interpretations inform self-concept and behavior. Thus, they constitute valid sources of knowledge. This epistemological stance on what constitutes appropriate knowledge of social reality necessitates the use of social research methods that can help us understand the interpretive processes that shape self-concept and social action. Qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews are useful for generating data on the in-depth views of research participants regarding how they, as social actors, interpret their world and how their interpretations inform their perceptions and actions.

This article draws on the data from semi-structured interviews with 25 service users (15 male and 10 female service users) who were undertaking community-based orders under the supervision of the probation service in a location in Wales. The interviews were one-to-one interviews, and they were conducted in probation offices. The study focused on exploring compliance with the main community orders that require service users to fulfill specified requirements under the supervision of a probation practitioner. Therefore, the study did not include those serving the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) because some SSOs do not incorporate reporting or other supervision requirements.

Probation officers within the probation area in Wales were invited to participate in the study and they recruited the service users they were supervising to also participate. Therefore the initial sample was a convenience sample. Theoretical sampling⁴ which is central to SGTM informed subsequent sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Table 1 outlines the stages at which the interviews were conducted.

Table 1.
Service Users Sampled.

Stage of Order Number

Beginning 9

Midway 9

End 7

Total 25

Most of the 25 service users were serving their orders for offenses of violence linked to substance misuse. The overrepresentation of service users in this category of offending is consistent with the general characteristics of service users supervised in the probation area sampled (Table 2).

Table 2.
Service Users Sampled: Offense Type.

Offense type n (%) National statistics %

Robbery — — 1

Indictable motoring offenses — — 1

Other indictable offenses — — 9

Violence against the person (fueled by substance misuse) 10 40 12

Sexual offenses 1 4 2

Burglary 1 4 5

Theft and handling 3 12 17

Fraud and forgery 3 12 3

Criminal damage 2 8 3

Summary motoring offenses^a 2 8 24

Other summary offenses^b 3 12 23

Total 25 100 100

^aThe service users categorized here were serving their orders for drink driving offenses. ^bThe service users categorized here were serving their orders for child neglect offenses.

Furthermore, the interviews revealed that more than half of the 25 service users sampled were unemployed, reliant on social security benefits, and experiencing a range of additional socioeconomic problems including accommodation problems. Two became homeless as the study progressed. The service users’ circumstances are similar to the adverse socioeconomic circumstances of many service users who are undertaking penal orders in England and Wales (Wood et al., 2015).

Of the 25 service users sampled, the case records held in respect of 15 service users were analyzed. The 15 service users were selected because they had served their orders for at least 6 months and it was envisaged that information about their compliance patterns would be available. An analysis of the 15 case records revealed demographics that were consistent with the information provided by the other service users—in terms of their offense type and socioeconomic circumstances. Most of the 15 were serving their orders for offenses of violence linked to substance misuse. Most were experiencing adverse socioeconomic problems including accommodation problems. Further analysis of the 15 case records revealed the risk classifications set out in Table 3.

Table 3.
The 15 Service Users’ Risk Profile.

Risk profile n (%)

Low-risk reoffending/low-risk harm 4 27

Medium-risk reoffending/low-risk harm 7 46

Medium-risk reoffending/high-risk harm 1 7

High-risk reoffending/medium-risk harm 3 20

Total 15 100

As Table 3 indicates, 12 of the 15 service users whose records were assessed were classed as posing a “low risk of reoffending” or a “medium risk of reoffending.” The 15 service users’ offending profile is set out in Table 4.

Table 4.
15 Service Users’ offense Type.

Offense type n (%)

Robbery — —

Indictable motoring offenses — —

Other indictable offenses — —

Violence against the person (fueled by substance misuse) 10 67

Theft and handling 3 20

Criminal damage 2 13

Total 15 100

The study utilized a semi-structured interview schedule that comprised interview questions about compliance mechanisms. The questions were derived from the extant literature on compliance, including the commonly cited theoretical frameworks on compliance (Bottoms, 2001; Robinson & McNeill, 2008). Once theoretical sampling commenced, the interview schedules were reconstructed to include questions that would inform the development of the concepts and categories that were emerging from the data.

Data analysis consisted of coding the initial data into concepts. Groups of concepts pointing to the same phenomena were synthesized into categories. A category that emerged from the interviews with service users was: service users’ descriptions of compliance dynamics or probationer defined mechanisms of compliance. The dimensions (underpinning concepts) of this category were “the practitioner’s relative capabilities,” “the practitioner’s therapeutic and welfarist roles”, and “prioritizing measurable compliance”. The category, service users’ descriptions of compliance dynamics, and its dimensions or underpinning concepts, depicted the service users’ descriptions of compliance mechanisms. They illuminated the dynamics of service user participation in efforts to achieve compliance.

As already noted, probation officers within the probation area in Wales recruited the service users. Therefore, similar to other studies that employ this sampling method, there was a risk of selection effects; the selected service users might have been more committed than others or might have possessed other attributes that made them different from other service users. The possibility of selectivity, the use of a small convenience sample, and the reliance on theoretical sampling techniques are some of the key factors that pose implications for the generalizability of the study. Another factor is the small sample size. However, the study was a qualitative study that aimed for theoretical, not empirical generalizability. The main objective was to develop insights that could be theoretically generalizable to other sites of human interaction where the objective of interaction is to produce compliance.

Setting the Scene: A Description of Bourdieusian Habitus, Capital, and Field

This article employs concepts from Bourdieu’s (1990, 1994) field theory to analyze the interview data that were generated from the participating service users. Here, a description of these concepts is provided. According to Bourdieu (1990, p. 53, 1994), habitus constitutes: “systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures.” The notion of “structured structures” implies that habitus represents long-standing and deep-rooted dispositions that are “structured” or produced by the social world. These dispositions are transposable from one social context to another. They influence a social actor’s beliefs, perceptions, interpretations, and so forth. The dispositions are transmitted and consolidated through the internalization of social norms (including the normative power structures) that prevail in diverse social contexts. In Bourdieu’s definition of habitus, the term “structuring structures” depicts habitus as generative; its underlying dispositions also serve as the tools with which social actors structure or shape the social world through their actions and practices (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53, 1994).

Within Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, fields or social fields represent different networks or connections of social practice in which social actors occupy specific positions. Penal supervision in community justice settings can be described as a field of social practice. According to Bourdieu, social fields: “externally constrain perception and action” (Wacquant, 2013, p. 275). Therefore, the features of a social field (e.g., the power differential that characterizes the penal supervision field) can impact on the dispositions or habitus of social actors, with implications for their actions within that field.

Bourdieu’s concept of capital illustrates how differences in social, cultural, and economic status determine an individual’s position in any social field and frame their habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Those who occupy positions of power in a social field possess greater economic (wealth), cultural (“educational qualifications,” knowledge, taste, etc.), and social (social ties or “connections”) capital (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 47; footnote). They also possess high levels of symbolic (status) capital, which bestow on them the prestige accorded to the three forms of capital⁵ in that social field. Social actors internalize and unconsciously legitimize the hierarchical structures created by these forms of capital. They automatically assume positions and allocate positions to others based on the hierarchical structures (Bourdieu, 1990). Thus, social actors who lack sufficient capital occupy relatively subordinate positions in the field. They internalize and view the norms that govern power relations within that field as common sense or what Bourdieu refers to as doxa (Bourdieu, 1989). The latter, according to Bourdieu, is constructed by social actors with sufficient symbolic capital to impose their will on others and can be described as symbolic violence (see also Fleetwood, 2016). Given their capital deficit and concurrent subordinate position, the norms entrench in the social actors on the lower rungs of the hierarchical ladder, dispositions of powerlessness that coalesce to form their habitus. Similar to habitus, capital is also transposable across diverse social fields.

In most contexts of public sector service delivery involving service users who are mandated to undertake interventions (e.g., in criminal justice contexts and some social work settings), the practitioners typically occupy more powerful positions given their statutory status, level of education, and other attributes (Calder, 1995). By contrast, service users are statutorily subject to the authority of the practitioners. Most service users also possess relatively low levels of capital compared with the practitioners. Shapland and colleagues (2014, p. 41) note that, “service users undertaking penal orders tend, on average, to have low human⁶ and social capital….” Official statistics reveal that many service users undertaking community and custodial orders also lack cultural and economic capital; for example, they are affected by low educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, and other adverse sociostructural circumstances (Wood et al., 2015).

Therefore, many service users lack symbolic capital, and this is exacerbated by the social stigma associated with the label of “offender” that is attached to them. Consequently, they are likely to internalize structures of power and dominance that foment their habitus which as noted earlier is likely to be one of powerlessness. As transposable attributes, this entrenched habitus and the accompanying capital deficit could structure their experiences, perceptions, and actions in several social fields, particularly in the fields where they occupy subordinate positions.

Notwithstanding the power imbalance within the penal supervision field, there is evidence that many probation practitioners embody a humanistic, professional habitus of welfarism rather than a habitus of punitiveness and control (Annison, Eadie, & Knight, 2008; Grant, 2016; Robinson et al., 2014). Studies suggest that many practitioners would prefer to engage in participatory practices that produce outcomes such as substantive compliance and longer term change, in the contexts of good working relationships (see also Phillips, 2011; Robinson et al., 2014; Ugwudike, 2010). That said, this article argues that the dimensions of the aforementioned power inequality that characterizes the field of penal supervision cumulatively undermine the potential for participatory co-productive practices.

Service Users’ Descriptions of Compliance Dynamics

What follows below is an elaboration of the key themes that emerged from the semi-structured interviews with service users who participated in the study of compliance. The themes reflect the participants’ descriptions of their role in achieving compliance, and the type of compliance that was typically achieved. Insights from Bourdieu’s field theory serve as useful heuristic devices for interpreting the service users’ accounts.

Prioritizing the practitioner’s relative capabilities

An analysis of how the service users perceived their position in the penal supervision field in relation to the practitioners revealed that most perceived the practitioners to be the more sensible agents (compared with the service users) with greater ability to accomplish supervision goals. Below, a female service user who was interviewed midway through her order describes her supervising officer’s capabilities:
He’s [my probation officer’s] the sensible one, he’s the one with this job who’s talking to me, this is his job and he knows all that don’t he? He knows what to do and stuff. P18F
Here, the service user alludes to the practitioner’s superior capabilities; she depicts the practitioner as more sensible and knowledgeable with a professional status that equips him with the capabilities required for achieving supervision goals. From a Bourdieusian perspective, it could be argued that this service user has subconsciously internalized the intersection of capital and the hierarchical structure that governs the penal supervision field. As such, he believes that the officer’s professional status acquired through educational qualifications which imbue him with relatively greater cultural and symbolic capital, automatically locates him in a position of comparatively greater proficiency. This is evident in the service user’s reference to the practitioner as the “sensible one” with a professional status (or “job”) that equips him with relevant knowledge and renders him the more knowledgeable and capable agent. Most of the service users espoused this view which from a Bourdieusian perspective would have structured their habitus.

Bourdieu (2000) asserts that internalizing the relationship between the forms of capital and one’s hierarchical position in the field, structures the habitus. The latter embodies the subjective representations of social actors, including their estimation of their capabilities. In the current study, the service users’ habitus embodied a low estimation of their personal qualities and capabilities. To illustrate this further, in the extract above, by depicting the practitioner as the more sensible change agent, P18F reveals a degree of self-stigmatization. Similarly, by referring to the practitioner as the more capable agent, the service user exhibits low self-efficacy. Most of the service users revealed a similar orientation toward self-stigmatization, low self-efficacy and a sense of powerlessness. Below another service user who was also interviewed midway through his order remarks that:
They [probation officers] know best really don’t they? I’ve gotta do what they tell me to do, do you know what I mean? So maybe some things I’ll be thinking what’s the point what’s the point of me doing this? But at the end of the day you know, I’ve committed the crime, so it’s understandable like. P19M
Viewed through the lens of Bourdieusian analyses, this service user’s remarks indicate that he has internalized the hierarchical structure of the penal supervision field and this has shaped his habitus of relative powerlessness. It is a habitus that orientates him toward submissiveness; he implies that given his stigmatized status as an offender who has “committed [a] crime,” his submissiveness or deference to the practitioner’s directives, even when he sometimes questions the directives, is “understandable.” He also believes that the practitioners “know best,” implying that they are better equipped to implement the order while he, the service user, lacks similar capability.

Below, yet another service user explains why the practitioner possesses relatively superior capabilities:
They are the probation officers and that’s their job. And they know better you know? Because they have been trained as a probation officer. P5F

The foregoing extracts from the interviews with service users reflect Bourdieu’s (1990) contention that the features of a social field (e.g., the status differential between the practitioners and service users) are objective structures that impact upon the subjectivities (perceptions and interpretations) embodied in habitus of the social actors within that field. Reflecting this, the extracts indicate that within the normative hierarchical structure that governs the penal supervision field, the practitioners are allocated a higher status position not least because of their professional status. In the current study, most of the service users internalized this hierarchical structure with implications for their habitus. The latter orientated them toward attributing superior capabilities to the practitioners, and their remarks that the practitioners know best or “know better” demonstrate this.

Bourdieu’s analysis of the habitus also suggests that the service users’ habitus in the penal supervision field would have already been deeply entrenched, given that their capital deficit would typically constrain them to positions of perceived powerlessness and limited capability in many other social fields, particularly in formalized or institutional settings. Recall that Bourdieu describes habitus as deep-rooted dispositions that are transmitted and consolidated through the social actor’s experiences in various social fields (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Thus, the habitus is structured by past experiences and is transposable across diverse social fields. Therefore, in the penal supervision field, the service users’ relatively low-status position compared with the practitioners is likely to consolidate their pre-existing habitus of powerlessness. Following on from this, it is clear that Bourdieusian analysis of the connections between field, capital, and habitus also draws attention to the reproduction of power structures in social fields. His analysis illuminates the way in which the normative power structures of the penal supervision field are internalized by the service users who then reproduce these structures through their habitus. The latter embodies dispositions that orientate them toward the perception or belief that the practitioners possess superior capabilities.

Where service users believe that the practitioners are the more capable change agents, they are unlikely to possess the levels of self-efficacy required for participating actively and engaging with supervision objectives. It is not possible to conclude from the accounts of the service users who participated in the study, that the practitioners were domineering and did not permit participation. Rather, what the service users’ accounts denote is how they interpreted the practitioners’ capabilities. Viewed from a Bourdieusian perspective, the features of the penal supervision field (the service users’ relatively low-status position) structured their subjective habitus which embodied their low estimation of their capabilities.

Below, this article explores the service users’ descriptions of how they complied with their orders and assesses whether as Bourdieu’s (1990, p. 53) analysis would propose, their habitus operated as a ‘structuring structure' that fueled their actions. The article also examines the implications of the service users’ actions for achieving co-production in the penal supervision field.

Compliance strategies: The practitioner’s therapeutic and welfarist roles

As noted earlier, studies and models of supervision reveal that service user participation and engagement are vital for substantive compliance. By contrast, formal compliance does not require similar commitment; simply attending supervision appointments is its clearest manifestation (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). The study found that for most of the service users, compliance consisted mainly of fulfilling the minimum requirements of the order (attendance) and was motivated by instrumental considerations to do with the practitioner’s actions in helping to address needs. Thus, most service users engaged in formal compliance (attendance) and instrumental compliance (attendance to access help). Below, a female service user explains how and why she complies with her order:
I enjoy coming into probation, it’s like having somebody sensible and straight to talk to. Somebody that I know I can trust as well, I can tell them whatever I need to tell them and I know [my probation officer] will try and help me as well…P17F
For this service user who was interviewed toward the end of her order, compliance consisted of “coming into probation” (attendance) and the primary motivating factor was the opportunity to “talk to” the practitioner and possibly access some “help.” A Bourdieusian interpretation of P17F’s comments would indicate that her perception of the officer as sensible, trustworthy, and capable of providing help reflects her habitus. The latter embodies her perception of her officer’s status or position in the penal supervision field. It is a habitus that leads her to attribute superior qualities and capabilities to the practitioners. Her description of the officer as “someone sensible and straight” further demonstrates this. It is therefore a habitus that would render the service user more likely to rely on the practitioners’ actions, rather than her personal capabilities, to produce compliance. Indeed, most service users implied that the practitioners’ actions in listening to their problems and in doing so, providing therapeutic relief, motivated the compliance that was achieved (mainly attendance). In the extract below, a user exemplifies this by describing how and why he complies with his order:
I can come here and know that I walk away from here feeling a lot better. I know that when I talk about the things I need to talk about I can walk away from here and feel brilliant and feel whoa! That’s better now! and I’m happy again, and that’s important. I’d rather be at the appointment because there are things I probably need to talk about, things I need to get out of my system. P1M
Echoing this, in the extract below, a service user similarly remarks that her compliance amounts to attending appointments (formal compliance) to access therapeutic and welfarist help (instrumental compliance), rather than active participation and engagement with supervision goals (substantive compliance):
If I’ve got a problem and I need to talk about it, I can always talk to [my probation officer] about it. I can’t always talk to my mum about it, it’s stuff I need to get off my chest and if I’ve got any problems then perhaps [my probation officer] can help me with that. That’s what makes me come in. I look forward to coming in. [My probation officer] is there to help. I had a few problems with some debt and everything like that and she [my probation officer] did make some phone calls for me and she did get things sorted out. Like emm I was behind on my fines and she managed to get them taken off my benefits which was a hell of a weight off my shoulders, it really was. And emm I was a bit behind on my rent, she sorted that out for me yeah. P6F
This service user was interviewed midway through her order and her remarks indicate that for her, compliance was a matter of attending appointments to access therapeutic benefits or relieve mental stress by talking to her supervising officer in order to get “stuff off [her] chest.” She also revealed that her compliance involved accessing welfarist help and she described how her supervising officer provided this help by addressing her problems. Thus, the service user implied that her position in the field was one of dependency; she relied on the practitioner’s actions in providing therapeutic and welfarist help. Indeed, the practitioner’s actions in providing this help motivated her to “come in” (attend appointments).

These reflections concerning the practitioner’s ability to provide therapeutic and other help, and the service user’s position of dependency, encapsulate the views of most of the service users. They appeared to overlook their personal attributes, including their capabilities as agents of change, to participate and actively engage with the effort to achieve compliance and other change goals. Instead, they placed greater emphasis on external factors, namely, the practitioners’ capabilities and actions in producing compliance.

If these findings are analyzed in the light of the Bourdieusian concepts of field, capital, and habitus, it could be argued that in the penal supervision field studied, most of the service users possessed a habitus that fueled their perception that the practitioners were more capable of providing the help needed to address their needs. In turn, their perception of the practitioners’ ability to help them, motivated passive compliance in the form of attending appointments (formal compliance) to access that help (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). Thus, the compliance achieved appeared to stem more from the service users’ perceptions of the practitioners’ capabilities and the practitioners’ actions in providing help, than the service users’ participation and engagement as capable agents.

This is not to suggest that all service users with a habitus of powerlessness are always deterministically propelled by their habitus toward dependency. Bourdieu’s (1990) conceptualization of the habitus does recognize that for some service users, their habitus of powerlessness may generate other possible forms of action. This according to Bourdieu (1990, p. 53, 1994, p. 170) is because as a ‘structuring structure’, the habitus is generative. Social actors are conditioned by its underlying dispositions, but they are also the dispositions with which social actors may exercise their agency and formulate their actions and practices in social fields (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53, 1994). By defining habitus as a ‘structuring structure’, Bourdieu (1990, p. 53) is able to integrate human agency into his account of the structures that influence perception and action. In doing so, he seeks to avert the risk of deterministically attributing all human action to the militating impact of structural forces.

Nevertheless, some critics aver that he did not pay sufficient attention to human agency (see, e.g., McNay, 2001). They argue that instead, he placed greater emphasis on the constraining impact of social fields on the habitus. Their contention has some merit; Bourdieu (1990, p. 53) did certainly emphasize that the concept of habitus as a ‘structured structure' serves as a useful conceptual device for understanding how the objective structures of a social field such as a social actor’s position or status in that field might reinforce deeply embedded dispositions and inform his or her perceptions:
The representations of agents vary with their position [in social space]…and with their habitus as schemes of perception and appreciation of practices, cognitive and evaluative structures which are acquired through lasting experience of a social position. (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 19)
However, as noted earlier, by describing the habitus as a ‘structuring structure,’ Bourdieu (1990, p. 53, 1994) did also acknowledge that the habitus does not predetermine action; it might trigger action, but it does not necessarily determine or control action (Bourdieu, 1990; Fleetwood, 2016). Therefore, some service users with a habitus of powerlessness might play a passive role, not because their habitus disposes them toward reliance or dependency, but because they choose to adopt motivational postures of defiance that are also associated with formal compliance. These postures manifest across a behavioral spectrum that ranges from “capitulation,” “resistance,” to “disengagement” and “game playing” (see Robinson & McNeill, 2008, p. 437). In terms of the latter, Bourdieu does refer to the social field as a site where social actors struggle to access the resources (forms of capital) which confer advantage in the game playing that occurs in the field, as the interacting actors strive to elevate their position (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Robinson et al., 2014). Further research is required to explore the extent to which game playing occurs in penal supervision settings, the form it takes, and its outcome. Meanwhile, regardless of the motivational posture that fuels passivity in some service users, their passivity or lack of participation and engagement would nevertheless undermine the degree of co-production attainable.

Power Inequality in a Performance-Focused Policy Climate: Implications for Service User Participation

So far, the findings indicate that the service users’ habitus can trigger passive reliance or dependency and, as such, undermine their participation and engagement. What follows below is an exploration of how policy dynamics might interact with the powers vested in the practitioners to further erode opportunities for service user participation.

Service user participation and engagement represent key objectives of the penal framework that governs the supervision of community orders in England and Wales (National Offender Management Service, 2015). That said, practitioners operate within a performance-focused policy climate that places demands on them to pursue target-driven outcomes. Key examples of these outcomes are measurable proxies for compliance (e.g., attendance and completion) which do not require service user participation and engagement (McCulloch, 2013; Phillips, 2015; Robinson, 2013; Robinson et al., 2014; Robinson & Ugwudike, 2012). Some have argued that in the current penal policy climate, compliance issues are now embedded in the managerialist imperatives of efficient and cost-effective offender management. Compliance targets now form part of a repertoire of targets that are in place to monitor how efficiently services manage “risky” populations (Robinson, 2013; Robinson & Ugwudike, 2012).

Nevertheless, studies consistently show that despite the demands of the performance-focused climate, the “professional habitus” of most practitioners in England and Wales remains firmly rooted in the long-standing rehabilitative, humanistic ideals traditionally associated with probation culture (Grant, 2016; Phillips, 2015; Robinson et al., 2014, p. 136; Worrall & Mawby, 2014). These studies reveal that some practitioners employ their discretion to pursue relational strategies that encourage service user participation and engagement and to also resist punitive and target-driven policy provisions. Thus, their habitus becomes a structuring structure with which they strive to alter the field of penal supervision, so they can provide a welfarist rather than punitive service. There is limited research on the sociostructural norms and experiences that structure the practitioners’ professional habitus. But, Grant (2016) speculates that a long-standing commitment to social justice principles might underscore their habitus.

However, Bourdieu (1990) argues that a social actor’s entrenched habitus can be resilient but not irreversible and would generally tend to adapt to the peculiarities of a social field. Recent studies of supervision practice reinforce this. There is now evidence that the professional habitus of many practitioners has to a degree adapted to the demands of the target-focused policy climate in the penal supervision field (Phillips, 2011, 2015; Robinson, 2013; Robinson et al., 2014). Studies suggest that some practitioners under pressure to attain set targets now prioritize nonparticipatory practices that produce measurable forms of compliance (primarily attendance; McCulloch, 2013; Robinson, 2013). Practitioners are statutorily empowered to implement and enforce the requirements of orders, and they therefore have the capability to pursue nonparticipatory practices that generate measurable compliance. Phillips’s (2011, 2015) study of compliance in England found that the demands on practitioners to attain completion targets meant that they focused mainly on employing breach avoidance techniques and prioritizing attendance rather than service user participation and engagement (substantive compliance). One practitioner remarked that in some cases:
…all the officer is doing for the order is chasing them round and seeking to get them in and doing the basics and getting them through—actually effecting change in that circumstance is not possible. (Phillips, 2015, p. 46)
Therefore, the officers’ primary objective was to “get people through” their orders.

Prioritizing measurable compliance: Key implications

Pursuing measurable compliance (e.g., attendance and completion) can instil in service users, the perception that attendance is the most important form of compliance (Ugwudike, 2010). This would, in turn, encourage formal compliance rather than substantive compliance, which relies on participation and engagement. Indeed, as already noted, most of the service users in the study reported here offered a one-dimensional definition of compliance; they defined compliance as attending statutory appointments, which as mentioned earlier has been described as the clearest manifestation of formal compliance (Robinson & McNeill, 2008). Below, a service user who was interviewed toward the end of his order espouses the one-dimensional conceptualization of compliance as he describes how he complies with the order:
I turn up. I stick to all my time and dates I know when and what time I am supposed to turn up. If I can’t make it then I ring in advance and let (my probation officer) or whoever happens to be here know…P13M
In the extract below, P13M goes on to express his belief that he is eligible to have his order terminated early for good compliance because in his view, he has complied fully with his order, primarily by meeting reporting requirements:
I think they will half it for the simple reason is I haven’t breached, I’ve always turned up, If I had been breached for not turning up then I can understand for them to keep the full 18 months but I think it would be rather unfair for them to keep the 18 months on me considering I’ve been here every time. P13M
Some of the service users might have recognized that compliance also comprises other dimensions beyond attending statutory appointments. But, most did not identify additional dimensions. Moreover, other studies of compliance in community justice settings have also found that compliance is often defined as meeting reporting (primarily attendance) requirements (see for example, Farrall, 2002).

Discussion: Delabeling and Co-production to Enhance Service User Participation

What might be required is a recalibration of the field of penal supervision to facilitate participatory practices such as co-production. As we have seen, in that field, a key factor that can impair co-production is the service users’ habitus which for some, manifests as an inclination to view their supervising practitioners as the more sensible and capable agents of change. Thus, the service users' habitus denotes a degree of self-stigmatization and low self-efficacy. There is indeed substantial evidence of self-stigmatization among service users (see, e.g., Schneider & McKim, 2003). Furthermore, the desistance literature highlights the importance of self-efficacy but points out that many service users appear to lack requisite levels (McNeill, 2014). A recent systematic review of service users’ views about the causes of disengagement and attrition from RNR programs identified “a perceived lack of self-efficacy” as a key factor (Sturgess, Woodhams, & Tonkin, 2015). A habitus that is characterized by self-stigmatization and low self-efficacy is more likely to foster dependency rather than active participation and engagement.

Although Bourdieu (1990, p. 53) describes habitus as “durable and transposable dispositions,” as already noted, there is nothing to suggest that an individual’s habitus is irreversible. Indeed, Bourdieu alludes to the concept of secondary habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). The latter is acquirable through learning processes that can reorientate an individual’s habitus toward new or alternative dispositions (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). The “delabeling” strategies some desistance scholars identify as useful for helping service users reverse defeatist self-perceptions to achieve desistance could serve as useful reorientation mechanisms (Maruna & Lebel, 2010). Encouraging service users to replace self-condemnatory and defeatist narratives with self-affirming alternatives is an example of a delabeling strategy that can help alter negative self-perceptions (McNeill, 2006). Indeed, a transformed identity or a “subjective reconstruction of self” is described as vital for secondary (permanent) desistance (Sampson & Laub, 2005). The desistance literature, particularly the “criminal careers” strand which explores trajectories of desistance across the developmental phases individuals are said to undergo, refers to the process through which prospective desisters divest themselves of their criminal history and identity as they attain turning points in their lives (e.g., maturation) and transition from involvement in criminality toward a prosocial lifestyle and a corresponding identity (Sampson & Laub, 2005, p. 37).

According to Maruna and Lebel (2010, p. 76), the practitioner’s recognition and explicit acknowledgment of positive behavioral and attitudinal changes represent additional delabeling strategies. These strategies could help reverse the service users’ stigmatized status as offenders and empower them to view themselves as capable agents of change. As mentioned earlier, this stigmatized status undermines their symbolic capital which is already limited, given that they possess relatively low levels of the other forms of capital. Indeed, some have argued that it is important to work with service users to develop the different forms of capital, particularly their social capital and their human capital⁶ (their strengths, competencies, capabilities, and other similar attributes), so they feel able to recognize and act upon their role as capable agents of change (McNeill, 2012; Shapland et al., 2014).

Added to delabeling strategies, enabling service user participation through the co-production of supervision outcomes can empower them. By facilitating service user participation, practitioners demonstrate that they respect and believe in the service users’ capabilities. Maruna and Lebel (2010, p. 76) argue quite persuasively that: “the high expectations of others can lead to greater self-belief (and subsequent performance) in individuals.” They note that the expectations of others can stimulate a Pygmalion effect as individuals adapt their self-identity and behavior accordingly; performing highly if others expect them to do so and vice versa. Therefore, creating opportunities for service user participation can help elevate service users from their subordinate position in the field and positively reshape their habitus. This is a goal worth pursuing given that as the findings of the study reported here indicates, the service users’ habitus of powerlessness can frame or inform their actions. This habitus is undesirable not least because it could embody the belief that the practitioners possess superior capabilities and can provide therapeutic and welfarist help. Therefore, it could trigger a form of compliance that involves attending appointments to access this help without actively participating in implementing supervision goals. Other studies of probation supervision in England and Wales have similarly found that many service users cite the opportunity to access the therapeutic benefits of talking to supervising officers “to get things off their chest” (Mair & May, 1997; Mair & Mills, 2009) as the most important aspect of supervision. In addition, studies similarly reveal that the prospect of receiving welfarist support can motivate compliance; mainly in the form of attendance (see, e.g., Rowe & Soppitt, 2014).

It could be argued that some service users who rely on the welfarist and other forms of help provided by practitioners are self-motivated and keen to take advantage of the help available, so they can make the changes in their lives that would progress them toward long-term positive change. But, relying on external compliance mechanisms (e.g., the practitioner’s actions) can fuel passivity and dependency rather than active participation. Besides as Robinson and McNeill (2008) observe, compliance that stems primarily from external factors such as the practitioner’s actions is best described as formal compliance. This is a form of compliance that is potentially unsustainable. It is unlikely to persist when the order ends and the help provided by the practitioners is no longer available. Therefore, compliance that is motivated by external factors is limited by its:
…externality; someone or something else needs to keep on constraining, threatening or rewarding. By contrast, the efficiency and effectiveness of internalized controls rests in their (eventual) self-perpetuation. (Robinson & McNeill, 2008, p. 441)
This is not to say that formal compliance is of no value. Service users who are motivated to attend appointments to access therapeutic and welfarist support, may eventually develop the motivation to commit to the order’s objectives (or substantively comply). Robinson and McNeill (2008) acknowledge that compliance is not static behavior; service users can fluctuate between formal and substantive compliance as supervision progresses. Nevertheless, participation and engagement during supervision are more likely to trigger substantive compliance which can evolve into longer term change or desistance.

That said, it is worth noting that the desistance literature also reveals that many people who engage in offending behavior do eventually achieve desistance after a certain age (Farrington, 1986; Maruna, 2001). Paradoxically, this suggests that irrespective of the practitioners’ input during supervision or the degree to which service user participation is successfully accomplished, many service users would eventually achieve desistance. The precise mechanism/s through which this occurs has been the subject of much debate. But, Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, and Calverley’ (2014, p. 290) longitudinal study of the impact of probation supervision on desistance did find that probation practitioners can contribute to longer term desistance by sowing “seeds” of desistance that can germinate or become “fully realized” long after the order ends.

It is therefore possible that although the practitioners’ actions in providing therapeutic and welfarist support during supervision may sometimes produce short-term formal compliance, their actions may also contribute to desistance in the long term. Similarly, studies have also found that service user participation and engagement during supervision (substantive compliance) are associated with long-term outcomes such as reductions in rates of reconviction (see, e.g., McMurran & Ward, 2010). However, the current study identified the service users’ habitus which embodied a low estimation of their personal qualities and capabilities, as a factor that undermined their participation and impaired co-production. Several studies of supervision practice have similarly found evidence of limited service user participation, as is evidenced by, for example, the service users contributing very little (or nothing at all) to the sentence planning process (Hughes, 2012; Weaver & Barry, 2014), or lacking the self-efficacy to engage with, and implement, supervision goals (Sturgess et al., 2015).

As noted earlier, another factor that impairs co-production is the prevailing target-focused policy climate that can trigger the pursuit of measurable forms of compliance at the expense of substantive compliance which relies on participation, and engagement with longer term change goals. Alongside the constraining impact of policy priorities, co-production is dependent on the extent to which practitioners are willing to devolve power to other co-producers (e.g., the service users).

In sum, co-production relies on dialogue, negotiation, mutual trust, and reciprocal respect between the practitioners, service users, and other stakeholders⁷ (Weaver, 2014). Importantly, it facilitates service user participation, which is linked to engagement with supervision goals (substantive compliance). Therefore, it is a goal worth pursuing.

Conclusion

This article sought to illuminate the relevance of service user participation, particularly its link to compliance. It drew on insights from a study of compliance that explored the views of service users in a probation supervision context. A Bourdieusian analysis of the service users’ interpretations of their role and experiences revealed that the dynamics of the penal supervision field can impair the co-production of substantive compliance. There was a generalized perception among most of the service users that the practitioners, given their professional status, possessed superior capabilities. This perception appeared to foment service user passivity and reliance on the practitioners’ actions rather than active participation in the effort to achieve compliance. Indeed, from the service users’ accounts, the compliance achieved was primarily motivated by the therapeutic and welfarist support provided by the practitioners.

There is nothing to suggest (from the study reported here) that the practitioners supervising the participating service users purposely set out to dominate the supervision process or assume sole responsibility for compliance. It is clear that providing therapeutic services by being a good listener, and offering a welfarist service by being responsive to socioeconomic and other obstacles to compliance, represent important aspects of a humanitarian approach to working with service users. But as the article has shown, there is evidence that participatory practice such as co-production which enables substantial input from the service users is a key dimension of substantive compliance.

There are however policy-related developments that can impair co-productive practice. One key development is the demand on services to provide measurable outcomes such as increased attendance rates. The current study found that the compliance achieved was primarily attendance focused, and this finding could reflect the quest for quantifiable outcomes such as high attendance rates. Practitioners, empowered as they are to preside over an order and its implementation, might prioritize attendance. Indeed, studies have revealed this to be the case in some probation services (see, e.g., Robinson, 2013). Unfortunately, in itself, attendance though important, is insufficient if it is not accompanied by service user participation and engagement.

This article might usefully inform future analyses of how best to ensure that service users feel empowered to exercise their agency and contribute meaningfully to processes that aim to enhance their lives. Some have argued that perhaps greater attention should now be paid to exploring how service user participation in supervision contexts can empower the service users and equip them with the human and social capital that can facilitate their social participation as full citizens (McNeill & colleagues, 2012, p. 41). A co-productive model of supervision that empowers service users to participate as active agents, in the design and implementation of supervision goals that seek to enhance their lives, can help achieve these outcomes.

Stage of Order	Number
Beginning	9
Midway	9
End	7
Total	25

Offense type	n	(%)	National statistics %
Robbery	—	—	1
Indictable motoring offenses	—	—	1
Other indictable offenses	—	—	9
Violence against the person (fueled by substance misuse)	10	40	12
Sexual offenses	1	4	2
Burglary	1	4	5
Theft and handling	3	12	17
Fraud and forgery	3	12	3
Criminal damage	2	8	3
Summary motoring offenses^a	2	8	24
Other summary offenses^b	3	12	23
Total	25	100	100

Risk profile	n	(%)
Low-risk reoffending/low-risk harm	4	27
Medium-risk reoffending/low-risk harm	7	46
Medium-risk reoffending/high-risk harm	1	7
High-risk reoffending/medium-risk harm	3	20
Total	15	100

Offense type	n	(%)
Robbery	—	—
Indictable motoring offenses	—	—
Other indictable offenses	—	—
Violence against the person (fueled by substance misuse)	10	67
Theft and handling	3	20
Criminal damage	2	13
Total	15	100

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Andersen.

Andrews

D. A.

Kiessling

J. J.

(1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In Ross

R. R.

Gendreau

(Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441–463). Toronto, ON: Butterworth.

Annison

Eadie

Knight

(2008). People first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work. Probation Journal, 55, 259–271.

Bottoms

A. E.

(2001). Compliance and community penalties. In Bottoms

Gelsthorpe

Rex

(Eds.), Community penalties: Change and challenges (pp. 87–116). Cullompton, England: Willan.

Bottoms

A. E.

(2013). Learning from Odysseus: Self-applied situational crime prevention as an aid to compliance. In Ugwudike

Raynor

(Eds.), What works in offender compliance: International perspectives and evidence-based practice (pp. 67–89). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu

(1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14–25.

Bourdieu

(1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Bourdieu

(1994). Practical reasons. On the theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

11.

Bourdieu

Passeron

J.-C.

(1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: Sage.

12.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

(1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Bovaird

(2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.

14.

Calder

(1995). Child protection: Balancing paternalism and partnership. British Journal of Social Work, 25, 749–766.

15.

Cattell

Kenny

Lord

Wood

(2014). Community orders with punitive requirements: Results from the offender management community cohort study. Minister of Justice Analytical Series. Retrieved May 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295645/community-orders-with-punitive-requirements.pdf

16.

Copsey

(2011). The offender engagement programme: An overview from programme director, Martin Copsey. London, England: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://probationchiefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/0711-31-oep_bulletin-overview.pdf

17.

Dowden

Andrews

D. A.

(2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–214.

18.

Farrall

(2002). Long-term absence from probation: Officers’ and probationers’ accounts. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 263–278.

19.

Farrall

Hunter

Sharpe

Calverley

(2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

20.

Farrington

(1986). Age and crime. In Morris

Tonry

(Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 189–250). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

21.

Fleetwood

(2016). Narrative habitus: Thinking though structure/agency in the narratives of offenders. Crime Media Culture, 12, 173–192.

22.

Grant

(2016). Constructing the durable penal agent: Tracing the development of habitus within English probation officers and Scottish criminal justice social workers. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56, 750–768.

23.

Greene

Hibbard

J. H.

Sacks

R. M.

(2013). Understanding the relationship between patient engagement and patient experiences of care. Health Affairs, 32, 1299–1305.

24.

Gyateng

McSweeney

Hough

(2010). Key predictors of compliance with community supervision in London. Retrieved from March 10, 2015, http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10306/Key%20predictors%20in%20compliance%20mcsweeney%20gyateng%20hough.pdf

25.

Hatcher

R. M.

(2009). An investigation of attrition from community-based offending behaviour programmes (PhD Thesis). Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

26.

Hatcher

R. M.

McGuire

Bilby

C. A. L.

Palmer

E. J.

Hollin

C. R.

(2012). Methodological considerations in the evaluation of offender interventions: The problem of attrition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 447–464.

27.

Hough

Maffei

(2013). Trust in justice: Thinking about legitimacy. Criminology in Europe: Newsletter of the European Society of Criminology, 12, 4–10.

28.

Hughes

(2012). Promoting offender engagement and compliance in sentence planning: Practitioner and service user perspectives in Hertfordshire. Probation Journal, 59, 49–65.

29.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

30.

Mair

May

(1997). Offenders on probation (Home Office Research Study, No. 167). London, England: Home Office.

31.

Mair

Mills

(2009). The community order and the suspended sentence order three years on: The views and experiences of probation officers and offenders. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Three_years_on.pdf

32.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.

33.

Maruna

(2015). Qualitative research, theory development, and evidence-based corrections: Can success stories be “evidence”? In Miller

Palacios

W. R.

(Eds.), Qualitative research in criminology: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 20, pp. 311–338). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

34.

Maruna

LeBel

T. P.

(2010). The desistance paradigm in correctional practice: From programmes to lives. In McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(Eds.), Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 65–88). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

35.

McCulloch

(2013). Reanalysing the compliance dynamic: Towards a co-producing strategy and practice. In Ugwudike

Raynor

(Eds.), What works in offender compliance: International perspectives and evidence-based practice (pp. 44–64). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

McIvor

(2009). Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5–25.

37.

McMurran

Theodosi

(2007). Is treatment non-completion associated with increased reconviction over no treatment? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 333–344.

38.

McMurran

Ward

(2010). Treatment readiness, treatment engagement and behaviour change. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20, 75–85.

39.

McNay

(2001). Meditations on Pascalian meditations. Economy and Society, 30, 139–154.

40.

McNeill

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

41.

McNeill

(2012) Four forms of offender rehabilitation: Towards an integrated perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 18–36.

42.

McNeill

(2014). Changing lives, changing work: Social work and criminal Justice. In Durnescu

McNeill

(Eds.), Understanding penal practice (pp. 167–177). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

43.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

Maruna

(2012). Reexamining evidence-based practice in the community corrections: Beyond a “confined view” of what works. Justice Research and Policy, 14, 35–60.

44.

National Offender Management Service. (2015). National Standards for the management of offenders in England and Wales. Retrieved September 12, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454668/National_Standards_Practice_Framework_August_2015.pdf

45.

Phillips

(2011). The exercise of discretion in the probation service and bottoms’ model of compliance. The Howard League for Penal Reform. Retrieved June 3, 2012, from http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/Jake_Phillips__article.pdf

46.

Phillips

(2015). Myopia and misrecognition: The impact of managerialism on the management of compliance. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16, 40–59.

47.

Rex

(1999). Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. The Howard Journal, 38, 366–383.

48.

Robinson

(2013). What counts? Community sanctions and the constructions of compliance. In Ugwudike

Raynor

(Eds.), What works in offender compliance: International perspectives and evidence-based practice (pp. 67–89). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

Robinson

McNeill

(2008). Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 431.

50.

Robinson

Priede

Farrall

Shapland

McNeill

(2014). Understanding ‘quality’ in probation practice: Frontline perspectives in England & Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14, 123–142.

51.

Robinson

Ugwudike

(2012). Investing in ‘toughness’: Probation, enforcement and legitimacy. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 300–316.

52.

Rowe

Soppitt

(2014). Who you gonna call? The role of trust and relationships in desistance from crime. Probation Journal, 61, 397–412.

53.

Sampson

Laub

(2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12–45.

54.

Schneider

McKim

(2003). Stigmatization versus self-stigmatization of probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 38, 19–31.

55.

Shapland

Sorsby

Robinson

Priede

Farrall

McNeill

(2014). What quality means to probation staff in England in relation to one-to-one supervision. In Durnescu

McNeill

(Eds.), Understanding penal practice (pp. 139–153). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

56.

Smith

Gallagher

Wosu

Stewart

Cree

V. E.

Hunter

… Wilkinson

(2012). Engaging with involuntary service users in social work: Findings from a knowledge exchange project. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 1460–1477.

57.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London, England: Sage.

58.

Sturgess

Woodhams

Tonkin

(2015). ‘Treatment engagement from the perspective of the offender: Reasons for noncompletion and completion of treatment—A systematic review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1873–1896.

59.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

60.

Ugwudike

(2010). Compliance with community penalties: The importance of interactional dynamics. In McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(Eds.), Offender supervision. New directions in theory, research and practice (pp. 325–342). Abingdon, England: Willan.

61.

Wacquant

(2013). Symbolic power and group-making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13, 274–291.

62.

Ward

, & Fortune. (2013). The good lives model: Aligning risk reduction with promoting offenders’ personal goals. European Journal of Probation, 5, 29–46.

63.

Weaver

(2014). Co-producing desistance—Who works to support desistance? In Durnescu

McNeill

(Eds.), Understanding penal practice (pp. 193–204). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

64.

Weaver

Barry

(2014). Managing high-risk service users in the community: Compliance, cooperation and consent in a climate of concern. European Journal of Criminology, 6, 278–295.

65.

Wood

Cattell

Hales

Lord

Kenny

Capes

(2015). Reoffending by service users on community orders: Preliminary findings from the offender management community cohort study. London, England: Ministry of Justice.

66.

Worrall

Mawby

(2014). Doing probation work: Identity in a criminal justice occupation. Abingdon, England: Routledge.