Attitudes and beliefs of trainee probation officers: A ‘new breed’?

Abstract

As part of their attempts to re-package probation supervision as 'punishment in the community' and concerned with risk assessment and the protection of the public, recent Conservative and Labour governments abolished social work training for probation offi cers and, over the last 10 years have sought to recruit trainees from a wider base than previously and train them in these new objectives. This study looks at the attitudes of two cohorts of trainees over a range of issues and concludes that they may be more 'traditional' in terms of these attitudes than government may have wished.

The Construction and Interpretation of Risk Management Technologies in Contemporary Probation Practice

“…Practitioners, and especially group tutors, have reformist and inclusive attitudes. Indeed, although the role of probation officers in regulating and punishing offenders may be increasingly emphasized, there is an 'apparent persistence of the traditional humanistic values of the probation service' (Annison et al 2008: 263) (see also Deering 2010). These reformist attitudes are embedded in practitioners' dayto-day routines and practices and this helps to mitigate the more punitive potential of IDAP/CDVP.…”

Thinking Beyond ‘Utility’: Some Comments on Probation Practice and Training

“…It is also difficult to appreciate the problem, given that part of it (the part concerning humanistic practice) is disguised in those fields including probation, where few would dissent from support for humanistic qualities. For instance, our own trainees were on some level interested in the humane treatment of offenders (a perception supported by a range of research findings on trainees' attitudes (see Gregory 2007;Annison, Eadie and Knight 2008;Davies and Durrance 2009;Deering 2010)). But the issue here is not about the extent to which there is verbal assent for humanism, but in how far this assent is resiliently grounded by a capacity that enables its justification.…”

“…It is important, though, to do justice to the complexity of events. Specifically amongst trainees, there may have been some hardening of attitudes (as suggested by Treadwell (2006)), but there is also evidence of a continued commitment to the needs of offenders (see Gregory 2007;Annison, Eadie and Knight 2008;Davies and Durrance 2009;Deering 2010). For our part, we cannot settle the empirical question of whether trainees have become more punitive or controlling in their attitudes, but we will introduce and discuss one possibility, consistent with the available evidence, that the changes can be framed in a way highlighting the preoccupation with outcomes that we have described in terms of a 'culture of utility'.…”

Investing in ‘Toughness’: Probation, Enforcement and Legitimacy

“…In seeking to answer this question, it must be noted that no large‐scale research on enforcement practice has been conducted since the mid‐1990s' study by Ellis, Hedderman and Mortimer (). We do, however, know that in the following years the professional training of probation officers was separated from social work training, and that the new training provision has been assumed to produce more compliant practitioners (for example, see Treadwell ; Annison, Eadie and Knight ; Deering ). This would appear to ‘fit’ with performance data pertaining to compliance with National Standards, noted above.…”

“…The average length of service reported by the officers was just over eight years. It follows, therefore, that most of the officers were trained under the training arrangements that were introduced in 1997/98 for probation officers in England and Wales – training arrangements designed to reflect contemporary policy imperatives, including tough enforcement practice (see also, Deering ). The probation officers' views about enforcement policy and practice were examined.…”