Seeing and believing: Observing desistance-focused practice and enduring values in the National Probation Service

Abstract

This article focuses on the feasibility of using a desistance-focused approach in the National Probation Service (NPS) in the post-Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) context. Findings are drawn from an exploratory study undertaken in one NPS Division, which used triangulation of three data collection methods: observations of one-to-one supervision sessions, documentary analysis and practitioner focus groups. Findings show that practitioners use elements of a desistance-focused approach, although not exclusively. Values based upon belief in the capacity to change and the need to offer support endure, despite mass organisational upheaval. The article concludes by suggesting that this ‘enduring habitus’ of probation could be an enabler for a desistance-focused approach but instrumentalism in policy and practice is a significant barrier.

‘I don't like this job in my front room’: Practising probation in the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Practitioners bemoaned the almost sole focus on the management of risk alongside the absence of opportunity to engage in the supportive and transformational work from which they normally derive satisfaction. That participants continued to espouse a belief in the ability of people to change in spite of a global pandemic is telling in terms of the enduring underpinning belief that probation staff have in people's ability to change (Ainslie, 2021; Annison et al, 2008). It appears the pandemic has squeezed their ability to do what makes sense to them as a probation practitioner, what they are good at, and where they get support for the challenges of the role.…”

Desistance and the State: Revisiting the Individualization Thesis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

“…Brannen/Nilsen, for example, suggest that "to ignore structure is to ignore the possibility of inequalities and differences in resources that are systemic and systematic rather than individual and random " (2005: 424). Despite the welcomed increase in focus of desistance research on structural constraints to the process of desistance, some desistance commentators continue to suggest that policy makers and practitioners have failed to fully engage with this contemporary literature (Ainslie 2021;Weaver 2019) and still operate on the basis that the adverse socio-economic circumstances that offenders face are changeable primarily at the individual level. Indeed, much desistance research suggests that criminal justice interventions are limited in their broader effectiveness (Halsey 2016;Shapland/Farrall/Bottoms 2016).…”

Probation: what next and who decides?

“…Whilst these are not outlined in the document, a footnote provides the link to the Probation Institute Code of Ethics. Listed in primary position is the belief in the capacity of service-users to achieve a change for the better; a belief consistently communicated by practitioners in the course of probation research despite organisational turmoil and change (Ainslie, 2021;Deering, 2011). This belief is closely followed by charging probation with responsibility for the promotion of social justice and social inclusion, and therefore an alignment with Weiss and Wozner's 'reintegration model'.…”

“…I have previously argued that there is a need to address the dissonance and instrumentalism within probation policy and practice documentation, to provide a clear mandate for desistance-supportive practice and greater alignment with the values of practitioners (Ainslie, 2021). The unification of probation services in England and Wales at the end of June 2021 has inevitably heralded a raft of new documentation and communication from key policy personnel seeking to engage with the 16,000 probation staff across England and Wales and the general public; crucially, this includes the 220,000 individuals subject to probation intervention.…”