‘Polibation’ Revisited: Policing, Probation and Prolific Offender Projects

Abstract

The emergence of Prolific Offender Projects (POPs) in England and Wales has been facilitated by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act's emphasis on multi-agency working. The successful establishment of POPs is predicated upon professionals from different, sometimes mutually suspicious, agencies working effectively together in possibly sceptical surroundings. In this paper, drawing principally on our recent experience of evaluating the Stoke-on-Trent POP, we examine some of the organisational implications of establishing POPs. This includes consideration of the development of a ‘polibation’ ethos within the project team, analysis of project location, and the need to establish the value of the project. We conclude that POPs do challenge organisational cultures but that the case for the existence of a ‘polibation’ officer is, as yet, unproven. We also conclude that effective communication and line management, together with establishing credibility through action, are essential to fostering understanding of these projects within their operating environment.

Revisiting Police–Adult Probation Partnerships in Texas: Troubling Signs

“…The importance of training for the success of multiagency partnerships, especially for police officers, has been stressed in the literature (Axford & Ruddell, 2010;Kim & Matz, in press;Mawby & Worrall, 2004;Murphy & Lutze, 2009). However, Kim et al (2010) found a noticeable absence of training for police officers involved in the partnerships in Texas.…”

‘They Were Very Threatening about Do-Gooding Bastards’: Probation's Changing Relationships with the Police and Prison Services in England and Wales

“…In such conditions, the potential for mutual adjustment and respect for organisational domain is likely to be enhanced. There is evidence that probation-police partnership working can bring benefits for the effective management of offenders (see, for example, Mawby and Worrall 2004), especially when complementary skills are acknowledged. As one interviewee remarked:…”

Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques

“…Risk technologies have expanded not only in the realm of punishment, they are being used ever more frequently and intensively in a wide array of crime control and security practices, including in the areas of policing, counter‐terrorism, and border security. An important avenue for future research is exploring homologies, overlaps, and interactions between risk practices in the penal realm and those in other areas of crime control, especially the ongoing rise of preventive/pre‐crime initiatives (e.g., see Zedner, ; Mawby & Worall, ; Mythen & Walklate, ; McCulloch & Wilson, ) . For example, policing practices increasingly utilize risk methodologies and big data analytics to preemptively identify risky areas and individuals (Brayne, ; Brayne, Rosenblat, & Boyd, ; Ericson & Haggerty, ; Ferguson, ; Harcourt, ).…”