In an influential article published in the British Journal of Social Work in 1979, Anthony Bottoms and Bill McWilliams proposed the adoption of a 'non-treatment paradigm' for probation practice. Their argument rested on a careful and considered analysis not only of empirical evidence about the ineffectiveness of rehabilitative treatment but also of theoretical, moral and philosophical questions about such interventions. By 1994, emerging evidence about the potential effectiveness of some intervention programmes was sufficient to lead Peter Raynor and Maurice Vanstone to suggest significant revisions to the 'non-treatment paradigm'. In this article, it is argued that a different but equally relevant form of empirical evidence-that derived from desistance studies-suggests a need to re-evaluate these earlier paradigms for probation practice. This reevaluation is also required by the way that such studies enable us to understand and theorize both desistance itself and the role that penal professionals might play in supporting it. Ultimately, these empirical and theoretical insights drive us back to the complex interfaces between technical and moral questions that preoccupied Bottoms and McWilliams and that should feature more prominently in contemporary debates about the futures of 'offender management' and of our penal systems.

For decades, the relationship between the officer and offender (variously labelled as the ‘casework relationship’, the ‘supervisory relationship’ or ‘one-to-one work’) was the main channel for probation service interventions. In the modernized probation service in England and Wales, this relationship element has been marginalized, on a policy level at least, by accredited groupwork programmes and case management approaches involving referrals to specialist and other services. However, there are now promising signs that policy makers are re-instating the ‘relationship’ between the practitioner and offender as a core condition for changing the behaviour and social circumstances associated with recidivism. This article traces the factors behind the paradigm shift from casework (in its broadest sense) to case management (more recently termed ‘offender management’) in order to identify why an element of practice once regarded as vital became discredited. It then briefly draws on findings in the mental health field and desistance research to relocate the relationship element within a practice model that is focused on supporting desistance from crime.

This paper aims to advance the case for a more fully interdisciplinary understanding of offender rehabilitation, partly as a means of shedding light upon and moving beyond contemporary 'paradigm conflicts'. It begins with a review of current arguments about what a credible 'offender' rehabilitation theory requires and by exploring some aspects of current debates about different theories. It goes on to locate this specific kind of contemporary theory-building in the context of historical arguments about and critiques of rehabilitation as a concept and in practice. In the third part of the paper, I explore the nature of the relationship between desistance theories and rehabilitation theories, so as to develop my concluding argument; i.e. that debates about psychological rehabilitation have been hampered by a failure to engage fully with debates about at least three other forms of rehabilitation (legal, moral and social) that emerge as being equally important in the process of desistance from crime.

In this paper, we examine how compliance with community penalties has been theorized hitherto and seek to develop a new dynamic model of compliance with community penalties. This new model is developed by exploring some of the interfaces between existing criminological and socio-legal work on compliance. The first part of the paper examines the possible definitions and dimensions of compliance with community supervision. Secondly, we examine existing work on explanations of compliance with community penalties, supplementing this by drawing on recent socio-legal scholarship on private individuals' compliance with tax regimes. In the third part of the paper, we propose a dynamic model of compliance, based on the integration of these two related analyses. Finally, we consider some of the implications of our model for policy and practice concerning community penalties, suggesting the need to move beyond approaches which, we argue, suffer from compliance myopia; that is, a short-sighted and narrowly focused view of the issues.

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.

Cardiac rehabilitation in the policy targets in UK will only be met with substantial investment to address the barriers identified here.

No abstract

This paper aims to contribute to debates about 'mass supervision' by exploring its penal character as a lived experience. It begins with a review of recent studies that have used ethnographic methods to explore how supervision is experienced before describing the two projects ('Supervisible' and 'Mass Supervision: Seen and Heard') on which the paper draws, explaining these as an attempt to generate a 'counter-visual criminology' of mass supervision. I then describe two encounters with 'Teejay'; encounters in which we explored his experiences of supervision firstly through photography and then through song-writing. Both media are presented alongside Teejay's commentary on what he sought to convey, inviting the reader to engage with and interpret the pictures and song. In the concluding discussion, I offer my own analysis, arguing that Teejay's representations suggest a need to recognise mass supervision as 'Maloptical' as much as 'Panoptical'. Through the 'Malopticon', the penal subject is seen badly, is seen as bad and is projected and represented as bad. Experiences of misrecognition and misrepresentation constitute significant yet poorly understood pains of supervisory punishment. The paper concludes by suggesting several ways in which a counter-visual criminology might follow Teejay's lead in exposing and challenging of mass supervision.