A fundamental role of the probation service is to provide advice and information to courts assisting in determining the most appropriate sentencing decisions. Historically, all probation officers as part of their mandatory training had experience in a court setting. Under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms, probation services were divided into 21 new privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and a new public National Probation Service (NPS). This resulted in the NPS assuming the right to an audience at court by statute and the withdrawal of a right to an audience at court for CRCs. This qualitative study conducted during the summer of 2017 seeks to gain an insight into the views of CRC practitioners on contemporary court practice, specifically exploring their views on not having a professional role to provide advice and information on their caseload in court. The interviews identified four themes, reflecting both barriers to, and facilitators of, the withdrawal of the right to an audience at court by the CRC. These themes illustrated that the initial developments in the courts post-TR did not give the opportunity for active CRC involvement, resulting in increased scrutiny and criticism of their practice.
This study explores the stories of eight women supervised by probation during the first national lockdown in the United Kingdom in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Probation quickly implemented an exceptional delivery model to protect the health and safety of staff and service users. Covid-19 has highlighted societal disparities across the world, it can be suggested that this has hugely impacted the lives of women and further extending the gender inequality gap. Although acknowledging that this is a small-scale study, it does provide a platform for women to voice and share their experiences of both problematic challenges encountered and the opportunities embraced during the first national lockdown. Firstly, the importance of supervisory relationships kept women feeling connected, emotionally supported and provided a source for practical advice. Secondly, the experiences of lockdown were felt differently dependant on the vulnerabilities and complexities of women; in short, the greater the priority need the more issues and obstacles women encountered. Thirdly, remote probation supervision was regarded as the safest and appropriate way to approach the unchartered waters of Covid-19. And finally, there was shared optimism to return to ‘normal’ face-to-face supervision, re-engage with services that had been paused or interrupted to aid recovery and rehabilitation.
This study aims to explore the partner link worker (PLW) role in supporting women who have been subjected to or at risk of domestic abuse. Prior research in a probation setting tends to focus solely on the person on probation, failing to examine the experiences of people subjected to crime and support services on offer. The PLW role provides an essential service that has been undervalued and overlooked. The study begins to provide some evidence to counter the broader political rhetoric that people subjected to crime are central to probation practice within the criminal justice system. It draws on the findings from thirteen semi-structured interviews conducted across five Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The findings suggest that PLWs demonstrate a professional commitment to protecting and safeguarding vulnerable women and addressing domestic abuse. However, PLWs face many challenges and obvious gaps in provisions to provide a fully inclusive and accessible service to meet the individual needs of women and their children. The recently reunified probation service offers an optimum opportunity to review, resource and regenerate the PLW service to protect and safeguard people who have been subjected to or at risk of domestic abuse.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.