Abstract
As the probation service is being inexorably dismantled by the state, so probation research is booming. Studies of community-based initiatives dealing with offenders proliferate, academic books multiply and the number of academics studying probation increases. Within the past few years a European Journal of Probation has been started and the European Society of Criminology has a numerically and intellectually healthy Working Group on Community Sanctions and Measures that meets regularly. Much of the research generated by all of this activity follows the predictable – and at times rather boring – path of evaluating the effectiveness of programmes, but every now and then a study comes along that breaks out of the mould, thereby presenting fresh insights and offering new opportunities for research. Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall’s Doing Probation Work is one such study and while it might be worth wondering why a book on this topic has taken so long to appear, it has certainly been well worth the wait.
Doing Probation Work is perhaps slightly mis-titled as it is not so much an examination of what probation officers do (most of which currently seems to involve sitting in front of a computer), but of the meanings that probation officers give to what they do. The book is a study of the occupational cultures of probation workers and, as such, joins a rich tradition of sociological studies that have examined how workers give meaning to their lives. In criminology, studies of police culture are relatively commonplace but Mawby and Worrall’s research represents the first time that probation officer culture has been examined in any detail. Their study is based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 60 current and former probation staff, and while there are perhaps a few too many Chief Officers included (just over a quarter of all interviewees) the sample as a whole is fairly representative of the probation service in terms of age, gender and ethnic origin.
Respondents are classified into three ideal types – lifers, second careerists and offender managers – and this classification is used as a focus for the issues discussed in detail. While all three types are committed to their work, Mawby and Worrall argue that the specific characteristics they identify in each category are together necessary for effective probation practice. The problem is whether a balance of all three types will continue, and the likelihood is surely that it will not. Lifers are, almost by definition, going to be in an ever-increasing minority as they age and retire; and the future for probation would seem to lie, to some extent, in the hands of the offender managers who, perhaps crucially, do not see the job of a probation officer as a lifelong vocation. The other group of staff who are increasingly significant are Probation Services’ Officers (PSOs). PSOs, who are less qualified than probation officers, currently account for 50 per cent of those who work with offenders (Ministry of Justice (MOJ), 2013a: 1), but they are not part of the population sampled.
Apart from the opening two chapters which cover the background to the research, how it was carried out, the key concepts used in analysis and the typology of probation officers, the rest of the book covers some of the most significant issues in 21st-century probation. First, the changing nature of probation work which now takes place in open-plan offices with high levels of security and has no place for home visits, once seen as an essential part of probation practice. This ‘retreat from the community’ (p. 61) represents a major development in probation over the past quarter-century. Next, probation’s changing relationship with the various criminal justice agencies: while the historically close links with courts and prisons have become somewhat attenuated, the traditional hostility between probation and the police has been replaced by ever-closer working relationships. If such developments continue, working with offenders in the community could follow all sorts of potentially interesting paths. Third, despite being more than 100 years old, there is still a remarkable lack of awareness of what probation officers actually do and this is allied to what has been, on the whole, a low media profile. Partly as a result of a number of serious offences over the past 10 years (the murders of John Monckton, Robert Symons, Mary-Ann Leneghan, Naomi Bryant and two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez) and partly due to persistent attacks by government, recent media representation has been negative. In this case bad publicity is not helpful and its impact is only likely to make a difficult job even harder. Chapter 6 examines the ways in which probation officers cope with the ‘turbulent social, economic and political conditions’ (p. 102) and the increasing pressures under which they labour. Despite all of this, probation work remains interesting – at times exciting – and continues to attract committed practitioners. Finally, with 71 per cent of probation staff now female (MOJ, 2012: 113), the feminization of the service is explored as a key development. But how far this has progressed beyond women simply becoming more visible is an issue given the dominance of males within NOMS as a whole (MOJ, 2013b: 14–15).
On the whole, Mawby and Worrall are optimistic about probation’s future and there is no doubt that their respondents give cause for optimism; their views are vibrant, challenging, contentious and thoughtful and any organization would be delighted to have such individuals on its workforce. Whether such an organization will be the probation service in its currently recognizable form is the question. But whatever may be the future of probation, Doing Probation Work will stand as a landmark study; it cannot be recommended too highly.