Probation reform, the RAR and the forgotten ingredient of supervision

Abstract

Considering the current review of probation services in England and Wales, this comment piece acknowledges the disappearance of supervision as a cornerstone of effective rehabilitation and the emergence of Rehabilitative Activity Requirements (RARs) replacing supervision. The authors raise concerns about the effectiveness of RARs and at this juncture argue the importance of retaining supervision within the responsibilities of National Probation Service case managers and safeguarding against it becoming an intervention that is delivered by external providers.

Can probation be rehabilitated?

“…Turning our attention to eminently possible acts of restoration, no doubt everyone in and around the probation field would have suggestions as to what elements from the past they might like to see return to present day practice. The list of possibilities is a very long one, but one such proposition is the reinstatement of the supervision requirement as an element of today's community order (Robinson & Dominey, 2019). As readers may recall, this was replaced back in 2014, in the context of the TR reforms, by the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement,o rR A R .T h eR A R was introduced as a 'shell', consisting of a maximum number of days, to facilitate the delivery of flexible and innovative interventions in a fragmented and marketised context.…”

Running on the treadmill: Practitioner experiences of mass supervision

“…However, empirical research on TR demonstrates an emerging pattern of considerable constraints on effective practice in multiple areas of modern probation. This includes the ‘relentless’ nature of high-risk work in the NPS (Phillips et al, 2016); the increased growth of standardised office-based work in the CRC (Tidmarsh, 2021); the ‘McDonaldization’ of court-based work (Robinson, 2017); the challenges to supervision practice (Dominey, 2019; Robinson and Dominey, 2019); how payment-by-results has centralised practice, inhibited practitioner autonomy and innovation and entrenched a ‘box-ticking’ culture (Tidmarsh, 2020); and an interlinking set of work-based harms caused by TR and the wider conditions of austerity (Walker et al, 2019). Collectively, these findings suggest that the impacts of ‘mass supervision’ became a structural issue for probation practice during TR, and that the Government should be held accountable if staff are not provided the means to provide meaningful and effective support.…”

The reflective practitioner in transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales

“…This dichotomy seems to encapsulate a position of continued wariness regarding the value of one- to-one supervision – notwithstanding the now extensive body of knowledge which identifies and supports the principles and approaches of effective practice. Robinson and Dominey (2019: 452) have noted the diminution of the place of the Supervision Requirement ‘as a cornerstone of effective rehabilitation…,’ being replaced by the use of Rehabilitative Activity Requirements. The reintegrated Probation Service seems destined to operate at a point of tension between a commitment to such core principles, but also a continuous search for data to support its effectiveness.…”