Gwen Robinson

Exploring risk management in probation practice Contemporary developments in England and Wales

As an exemplar of modern penality’s ‘normalizing sector’ (Garland, 1985), probation is deeply implicated in the purported shift towards a ‘new’ or ‘postmodern’ penal rationality with risk management rather than normalization at its heart. This article reviews the emergence of risk management in recent criminological theory and goes on to explore the emergence of risk and risk management in the Probation Service in England and Wales during the 1990s. Drawing on the author’s recent empirical research it then presents an analysis of the dynamics of offender supervision in probation which, in common with a growing number of studies in other penal contexts, reveals that the increasing dominance of risk-based reasoning has not ushered in an approach conforming entirely to theoretical formulations of risk management. It is argued that in the context of probation supervision two relatively distinct ‘modes of governance’ are emerging, based on a distinction between those offenders assessed as posing a serious risk of harm to the public, and those who are not. It is argued that these modes of governance constitute different but complementary adaptations to the purported shift from normalization to risk management, or from ‘old’ to ‘new’ penologies.

Situating restorative justice within criminal justice

Drawing from the evaluation of three major restorative justice schemes in England and Wales, the article considers the theoretical implications for process and outcomes of situating restorative justice for adults within criminal justice, including the allocation of roles, the balance of power, the importance of procedural justice, and the tasks of restorative justice (such as apology, rehabilitation, reparation, healing, restoration, and reintegration and its relation with social capital). Given that restorative justice events are by definition unique, because of their participative nature, the ability to make generalizations across cultures is problematic, stemming from whether participants bring normative assumptions about justice to the event.

Power, Knowledge and ‘What Works’ in Probation

This article examines the implications of the quest for knowledge of ‘what works’ in the context of probation, both at the level of professional practice and the broader level of the power base of the service as a whole. It is argued that the pursuit of knowledge of ‘what works’ in probation practice has had interesting and paradoxical implications for the probation service and its personnel, being associated with increasing credibility, whilst also exposing the service to a number of risks. The article concludes that the paradox of ‘what works’ has been magnified by its appropriation by the political centre in the form of the Effective Practice Initiative and, more recently, the ‘what works’ programme.

Understanding ‘quality’ in probation practice: Frontline perspectives in England & Wales

In the context of ‘ordinary’ probation practice, quality is a contested concept, as well as an under-researched one. In this article we present the findings of a study which sought to capture, via interviews inspired by Appreciative Inquiry, the views of probation staff about the meaning(s) of ‘quality’ in probation practice. The interviews revealed a ‘frontline’ perspective on quality which has not previously been exposed or articulated as such. Drawing upon theoretical concepts developed by Bourdieu, it is argued that despite significant recent changes in the penal and probation fields in England & Wales, and some signs of adaptation in normative conceptions of probation work, there exists a culture or ‘probation habitus’ among frontline staff that is relatively cohesive and resilient.

Risk Management and Rehabilitation in the Probation Service: Collision and Collusion

This article addresses two trends discernible in the probation service in the last ten years: firstly, the rise of the concept of ‘risk management’ and, secondly, the revival of interest in rehabilitation in the guise of the ‘What Works’ movement. It is noted that, whilst both concepts have received much attention, discussion of their relationship has been limited. This article argues that, despite assertions that they represent radically different approaches to dealing with offenders, risk management and rehabilitation can be understood as complementary as well as competing concepts.

‘Why help offenders? Arguments for rehabilitation as a penal strategy’,

This article considers the variety of theoretical justifications, or moral arguments, which have been put forward to support approaches that can be broadly described as ‘rehabilitative’. The article takes an historical approach, tracing the development of ideas supportive of rehabilitation which begins with the origins of probation in England & Wales, and the Christian mission to ‘save souls’. In the twentieth century context, we consider the emergence of a utilitarian emphasis on maximising decent and productive members of society, subsequently challenged by arguments which emphasised state-obligated or ‘rights-based’ rehabilitation. More recently, utilitarian arguments emphasising rehabilitations contribution to public safety and ‘risk reduction’ have risen to the fore. However, we argue that justifications which emphasise offenders, victims and/or communities as beneficiaries of rehabilitation need not be in conflict; nor should probation services have to choose between the broad ranges of stakeholders they are potentially able to serve.

The future of rehabilitation: What role for the probation service?

In this article, the authors draw on arguments developed in their recent book Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice (Raynor and Robinson, 2005) to discuss the aftermath of the ‘What Works’ initiative and the future of rehabilitation. They argue that our understanding of rehabilitation needs to extend beyond narrow correctionalism to a more socially inclusive and relational model, and outline some of the strategies which might enable the probation service, at a time of uncertainty about its future, to contribute to this kind of development.

Staging restorative justice encounters against a criminal justice backdrop A dramaturgical analysis

Drawing from an ongoing evaluation of three major restorative justice schemes in England and Wales, the article employs a dramaturgical perspective to examine a number of process issues that arise when restorative justice processes are deployed within a criminal justice context. They include the rôle and identity of restorative justice facilitators, the locations for restorative justice encounters and associated matters relating to the values of privacy, openness and accountability.

Implementing OASys: Lessons from Research into LSI-R and ACE

This article draws on original research and other studies to explore a range of issues that probation areas are likely to face during implementation of the OASys risk/needs instrument. It considers how such instruments are viewed by practitioners and focuses in particular on how they perceive them to impact on their professionalism. The article concludes by encouraging a wider debate about the future of indeterminacy in assessment and elsewhere in probation practice.

Doing ‘strengths-based’ research: Appreciative Inquiry in a probation setting

This article considers the application of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) as a research methodology in the field of probation research. Although AI has previously been used in prisons research it has not to date been applied to research on probation. In this article we describe why and how AI was applied in an exploratory study of ‘quality’ in probation practice. The article includes some reflections from us as researchers and from the participants in our study (staff in three English Probation Trusts). It is argued not only that AI served our project well (in terms of furnishing us with a wealth of relevant, good quality data) but also that our choice of methodology rendered visible aspects of contemporary probation culture which, we believe, would have remained hidden had we not chosen to explore quality through an ‘appreciative’ lens. It is further argued that in organizations experiencing challenging times, an appreciative stance has ethical as well as instrumental advantages. There are, thus, both instrumental and normative rationales for recommending AI as a suitable approach in probation research.