The authors examine current proposals to restructure the probation service in England and Wales. A case study of a midwestern American juvenile court is used to explore the possible consequences of imposing change and constraints on the practice of probation officers, when such change conflicts with their professional ideologies. The authors explore differences between this case example and the British system of probation, in terms of professional ideology, organizational arrangements and networks of influence, arguing that the British system benefits from particular attributes that may be exploited to preserve its traditions and methods of practice in a hostile policy climate. As “street-level bureaucrats,” probation officers have considerable power to subvert policies to which they object.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Probation and Parole Association. (1987, Spring). APPA organizational position statements. Perspectives, pp. 14-17.
2.
American Probation and Parole Association. (1995, Spring). APPA's vision: Welcome to the land of OZ... where dreams can come true. Perspectives, pp. 6-12.
3.
Blomberg, T., & Lucken, K. (1994). Stacking the deck by piling up sanctions? Is intermediate punishment destined to fail?Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 62-80.
4.
Brewster, M. (1993). The effects of supervision style of juvenile probation officers on the recidivism of juvenile probationers (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
5.
Clear, T. R., & Latessa, E. D. (1993). Probation officers' roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10(3), 441-462.
6.
Clear, T. R., & Rumgay, J. (1992). Divided by a common language: British and American probation cultures. Federal Probation, 56(3), 3-11.
7.
Cochran, D., Corbett, R. P., Nidorf, B., Buck, G. S., & Stiles, D. R. (1991). Managing probation with scarce resources: Obstacles and opportunities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
8.
Gelsthorpe, L. (1991). Race and gender considerations in social inquiry reports: Research carried out by the London School of Economics. London: London School of Economics.
9.
Gutch, R. (1992). Contracting lessons from the US. London: National Council of Voluntary Organisations.
10.
Hantrais, L., Mangen, S., & O'Brien, M. (1985). Preface. In L. Hantrais, S. Mangen, & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Doing cross-national research (Cross-National Research Papers No. 1, pp. v-xii). Birmingham, England: Aston University.
11.
Harris, P. M., Clear, T. R., & Baird, S. C. (1989). Have community supervision officers changed their attitudes toward their work?Justice Quarterly, 6(2), 233-246.
12.
Home Office. (1988). Punishment, custody and the community (Cm 424). London: Author.
13.
Home Office. (1990). Crime, justice and protecting the public (Cm 965). London: Author.
14.
Home Office. (1992a). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Home Office.
15.
Home Office. (1992b). Partnership in dealing with offenders in the community. London: Author.
16.
Home Office. (1995a). National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: Author.
17.
Home Office. (1995b). New arrangements for the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers: Decision paper by the Home Office. London: Author.
18.
Home Office. (1995c). Strengthening punishment in the community: A consultation document (Cm 2780). London: Author.
19.
Home Office. (1996). Protecting the public: The government's strategy on crime in England and Wales (Cm 3190). London: HMSO.
20.
Howard, M. (1993). Speech to the 110th Conservative Party Conference. London: Conservative Central Office.
21.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
22.
Mair, G., LLoyd, C., Nee, C., & Sibbett, R. (1994). Intensive probation in England and Wales: An Evaluation (Home Office Research Study No. 133). London: Home Office.
23.
Mair, G., & Nee, C. (1990). Electronic monitoring: The trials and their results (Home Office Research Study No. 120). London: HMSO.
24.
May, T. (1993). Social research: Issues, methods and process. Buckingham: Open University Press.
25.
National Association of Probation Officers. (1988). Punishment, custody and the community: The response of the National Association of Probation Officers. London: Authors.
26.
Nellis, M. (1995a). Probation partnerships, voluntary action and community justice. Social Policy and Administration, 29(2), 91-109.
27.
Nellis, M. (1995b). Probation values for the 1990s. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 19-44.
28.
Nelson, K., & Klapmuts, N. (1984). Probation in an era of diminishing resources. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
29.
New York City Department of Probation. (1994). Adult supervision restructuring: A model for re-engineering city government. New York: Author.
30.
O'Leary, V., & Duffee, D. (1971). Correctional policy: A classification of goals designed for change. Crime & Delinquency, 17, 373-386.
31.
Patten, J. (1988). Punishment, the probation service and the community. London: Home Office.
32.
Raynor, P. (1984). Probation as an alternative to custody. Avebury, England: Gower.
33.
Rumgay, J., & Cowan, S. (1995, March). Pitfalls and prospects in partnership: Probation programmes for substance misusing offenders. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Socio-Legal Studies Association, Leeds, United Kingdom.
34.
Shover, N. (1974). “Experts” and diagnosis in correctional agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 20(4), 347-358.
35.
Weisner, C., & Room, R. (1984). Financing and ideology in alcohol treatment. Social Problems, 32(2), 167-184.
36.
Whitelaw, W. (1982). Parliamentary debates (Hansard), House of Commons, Vol. 21, col. 1122.
37.
Williams, B. (Ed.) (1995). Probation values. Birmingham, United Kingdom: Venture.
