Listening and learning: The reciprocal relationship between worker and client

Abstract

The relationship between worker and client has for the best part of 100 years been the mainstay of probation, and yet has recently been eroded by an increased emphasis on punishment, blame and managerialism. The views of offenders are in direct contradiction to these developments within the criminal justice system and this article argues that only by taking account of the views of those at the 'coal face' will criminologists, policy makers and practitioners be able to effect real change in crime rates. The article thus focuses on the views of a sample of previously persistent offenders in Scotland about offending, desistance and how the system can help them. It explores not only their need for friendship and support in youth but also the close association between relationships and the likelihood of offending. It also demonstrates the views of offenders themselves about the importance of the working relationship with supervising officers in helping them desist from crime. The article concludes that the most effective way of reducing offending is to re-engage with the message of the Probation Act of 100 years ago, namely, to 'advise, assist and befriend' offenders rather than to 'confront, challenge and change' offending behaviour.

Hearing new voices: Re-viewing Youth Justice Policy through Practitioners’ Relationships with Young People

“…As successive governments switch tactics to contain youth offending, and strive to manage the widening field of social and economic problems faced by young people using the criminal justice system, the centrality of that relationship becomes ever clearer. Practice literature, across the related fields of youth justice, social work and probation often highlight its crucial importance (Barry, 2007;Farrow et al 2007;Stephenson et al 2007;Annison et al, 2008;), with some youth justice studies focusing on the particular ways practitioners engage young people and the importance of this relationship (McNeill, 2006a(McNeill, , 2006bMcNeill and Maruna, 2008). Similarly, a few studies have captured the perspectives of marginalised young people in and outside of the youth justice system (notably Barron, 2000;Sharpe, 2011).…”

Sex Offender Supervision in Context

“…Offender variables such as race (Steen & Opsal, 2007), criminal history (Morgan, 1994;Steen & Opsal, 2007), marital status (Morgan, 1994), and employment status (Morgan, 1994) have also been shown to impact offender outcomes under supervision. Consistent with social control and routine activities theory, the nature of the officer-offender relationship has also been found to influence supervision outcomes; scholars have noted that officer-offender relationships with lower social distance significantly reduce violations (Skeem, Eno Louden, Manchak, Vidal, & Haddad, 2009) and support offender desistence (Barry, 2007;Rex, 1999;Taxman & Ainsworth, 2009).…”

“…Qualitative interviews are a common method of gathering perceptual data (Barry, 2007;Hanrahan, Gibbs, & Zimmerman, 2005;E. M. Wright, DeHart, Koons-Witt, & Crittenden, 2013).…”

“…Often, these findings have been the result of studies using quantitative measures of relationship quality, including the Dual-Role Relationships Inventory (DRI-R; Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, & Camp, 2007) and the Working Alliance Inventory-Revised (WAI-R; Bordin, 1979;Tatman & Love, 2010), which are believed to directly measure the relationship quality between community supervision officers and offenders. Although these scales have been used within a variety of contexts (Barry, 2007;DeLude, Mitchell, & Barber, 2012;Seiter, 2002;Seiter & West, 2003;Skeem et al, 2007) and varying degrees of social distance have been found, the nature of the sex offender-officer relationship has been relatively ignored in these examinations.…”

Travail social et champ sociojudiciaire : vers une contribution renouvelée?

“…Plusieurs facteurs globaux peuvent expliquer cette désertion. Un premier facteur est le sentiment que les interventions dans ce champ contredisent désormais les valeurs de justice sociale, d'autodétermination et de respect de la dignité de la personne qui sont au coeur de leur profession (Agllias, 2004;Barry, 2007). Un deuxième facteur renvoie à la déprofessionnalisation associée à l'obligation « d'appliquer » de façon stricte les programmes de réhabilitation issus des courants cognitifs comportementaux (Lancaster et Lumb, 2006).…”