Contemporary probation practice: Some reflections on social class

Abstract

The role that social class plays within the desistance journeys of individuals on probation is largely unexplored. This lack of understanding is acknowledged as a limitation within theorising around desistance processes. It also prompts questions as to the awareness of class and classism issues amongst probation staff and their practice approaches within this difficult area of professional application. This reflective paper offers some discussion areas in which probation staff can collectively consider their experiences within this field, as well as those under their supervision. It is suggested that this topic requires greater attention amongst all involved in providing probation services.

Introduction

Working on a daily basis within the all-pervasive, involved and slippery dynamics of social class can be difficult and come at some personal and professional cost. This discussion primer outlines some of the reflective practice questions involved in addressing class dynamics within probation services. For probation practitioners the organisational culture has repeatedly presented the conviction that staff live and work in an equitable social and employment market in which individual social mobility knows no bounds. This idea has been addressed more recently through the introduction of Ministry of Justice social mobility plans and champions to support staff employment journeys (MoJ, 2019). It has always been assumed that the idea of unlimited mobility also holds true for people on probation, whom through the acquisition of some human and social capital can achieve whatever they want. But how realistic is this? Are the dynamics operative within class interactions that probation officers encounter in work more graduated and entrenched than generally assumed; and how do staff deal with sensitive issues of class when supporting desistance journeys? Of further concern, for any probation practitioners not trained in addressing without partiality the personal, moral, cultural and material manifestations of class, this somewhat taboo subject may appear remote. To add greater contemporary import to this reflective comment paper, campaigns are afoot to establish social class as a protected characteristic in law (BPS, 2022; LSE, 2022).

Any reflections on class issues undertaken by probation staff have in recent decades occurred within the context of the politically dominant narrative promoting free market economics, with its underpinning neoliberal ideology apparently offering the best solutions to all social ills. This sits alongside beliefs that uphold that social advancement is accomplished through individual, personal merit. In accord with this, over the last few decades leaders of various political colours have informed probation staff that they are all currently middle class (Jones, 2020). Underlining this contemporary political narrative, free-market thinking has progressively informed successive UK government policies surrounding probation services in England and Wales, with practice implementation at times experiencing the buffeting effects of market engagement. For probation staff and people on probation, this has been made painfully manifest through the process of part-privatisation and subsequent reunification of probation services (House of Commons, 2018; Ministry of Justice, 2013).

Correspondingly, as the supremacy of prevailing globalised, neoliberal narratives and policies have tried to subvert notions of class identity, they have simultaneously attempted to replace them with a discourse relating to individual equality, with associated ideas surrounding personal advancement through social mobility (Jones, 2020; Sayer, 2005). However, although any improving discourse relating to race, ethnicity, gender, age or impairment is welcomed, class can be considered to underpin and intersect with all other personal circumstances. As such Annette Kuhn reminds us that,

‘class is something beneath your clothes, under your skin, in your reflexes, in your psyche, at the very core of your being’ (Kuhn, 1995: 98).

Airbrushing class from either past or current social relations thus becomes problematic, as may airbrushing it from probation interventions.

In light of the above is it not time to revisit the effects of social class and mobility upon individuals on probation and how this shapes their response to probation interventions, as they hopefully progress on their personal desistance journeys? Desistance theorists speak of transformative journeys being undertaken in part through experiences of personal and social identity change (McNeill et al., 2012) with some suggestions of aspects of the identities of individuals on probation being formed and located within experiences of class (Weaver and McNeill, 2015). Additionally, as Hannah Graham and Fergus McNeill uphold, any correspondence between desistance and class is under researched.

‘with few exceptions, class and privilege have been neglected in desistance research. How do people in positions of power and privilege leave crime behind? How and why is this similar or different to desistance processes of people who have less power and limited access to opportunities and resources?’ (Graham and McNeill, 2019)

Questions equally exist concerning how perceptions of class influence probation staff practice that supports desistance journeys, with any future examinations hopefully providing conceptual and theoretical understandings of desistance and ‘what works’ with some additional empirical underpinning. Just how probation practitioners reflect upon how they interact with the array of class distinctions placed before them and manage the interface between shifting service user identity and class positioning is also in need of exploration as the evidence supporting this question remains scant.

Thinking about social class and mobility

How then might we begin to consider class and social mobility in a probation context? If we think of wealth and its distribution as one aspect of understanding class then as Mike Savage points out, the UK has witnessed levels of inequality that have escalated massively since the turn of the century. New class categories have been devised to try and explain the phenomena, including that of the precariat, those that social mobility left behind. The super-rich have become super-richer and the middle classes have become harder to classify in traditional terms (Savage, 2015). For some commentators, the public discourse surrounding wealth can be seen to represent an active stigmatisation of working-class people in Britain over the preceding decades, as a widespread acceptance of ‘chav’ culture further marginalises certain already disadvantaged groups in UK society (Jones, 2020).

Writing from a cultural perspective John Frow (1995) upholds that the processes of class formation contain elements of collective evaluation and moral ascription, leading towards the production of various human subjectivities. Similarly, examples of the insidious ways in which women can be positioned by social forces within moral and cultural class-related categories are graphically articulated by Bev Skeggs (2005). Moreover, Diane Reay (2005; 2017) reminds us that experiences of class are embedded at an early age and remain pervasive throughout UK education systems, shaping as they do later opportunities and constraining life ‘choices’ for many. Hopefully, within this limited space these selected examples serve to highlight some key areas in which the multi-dimensional, onion layers of subjective and objective aspects of class formation and identity manifest themselves, in both individual and collective terms.

In recent years it has become easier to maintain the associated idea that upward social mobility can resolve all difficulties, as we all strive within the education, employment, housing, health, and wealth arenas towards a secure and fulfilling future. However, it transpires that social mobility may come with a price tag as class-ceilings can remain unbroken, including within public service professions (Snee and Goswami, 2021), with wider existing privilege being seen to entrench social advantage (Friedman and Laurison, 2020). Indeed, the Social Mobility Foundation is itself currently advocating for only small steps up any class ladder, that is incremental and limited movements within any social space (Dixon, 2022). Of course, the extent to which small steps present as the height of individual ambitions for both probation staff and people on probation remains an ongoing discussion. Nonetheless, as these examples suggest, upward social mobility for both professionals and service users can present as limited in scope, with those experiencing various forms of unwelcomed hardship also facing the prospect of downward mobility.

Class, mobility, and probation practice

Considering where issues of class and social mobility overlap with probation practice is not new to this Journal, albeit they have largely been side-lined in recent decades as a deafening silence has ensued amongst criminal justice practitioners. Examples of some lone probation voices echoing from the past would include those of Terry Crolley and John Paley (1983) who present a portrait of ‘manipulative’ middle-class people on probation who utilise their abilities in relation to verbal articulation to attempt to dominate their respective supervisors, offering as they do an analysis of the relationship between class and power in an everyday working context. Still in the decade of the 1980's Bill Jordan and Martyn Jones (1988) explore the issue of how probation staff engage with the so-called ‘underclass’ and find themselves wrestling with the tensions and contradictions that occur at class boundaries. John Devlin (1993) later characterises the issue as a form of oppression of certain groups within society, positioning it as he does within a framework of social discrimination. He further argues that probation staff require training in this area of practice, in line with other anti-discrimination learning and development.

In a more contemporary context, recent research has helped shed a partial light on where certain issues of class impact on probation practice. Communication is key to rehabilitation processes and questions of class surface here through the use of language. So much so that with reference to the word-laden approach of restorative justice Roxana Willis can conclude her study with the statement that ‘class-based linguistic differences risk affecting how participants are received by others’, thus questioning, ‘can restorative justice ensure equal opportunity for participation irrespective of class background?’ (Willis, 2020: 203). A challenge that is surely located across the wider spectrum of probation interventions, requiring ongoing consideration by practitioners.

Discourse surrounding where class meets with matters of equality and diversity in practice is available for probation officers to engage with. Reflection and reflexive awareness, alongside continuous professional development, must surely be utilised here to prevent any barriers to intervention or forms of partiality from occurring. Discussion, for example, is evident in relation to impairment, with Joanne Heeney (2015) placing them at the intersection of poverty and gender, advocating that ‘class be reinstated as a key factor in understanding the lives of families affected by disability’ (2015: 652). Similarly, further consideration is required relating to where class encounters race, a place in which people can identify as being ‘invisible’ within society (Snoussi and Mompelat, 2019). Tellingly, albeit in an American youth justice context, Jeffrey Hilliard's small-scale quantitative study into the intersection of class and race reminds us of the fundamental occupational risk in which,

‘professionals in the field of social work and corrections may be aware of disparities related to class and race in the juvenile justice system, but their level of willingness or selectiveness to discuss the topics may impact the methods to address the concerns’ (Hilliard, 2013).

All probation interventions should be based upon professional risk assessments in which the above factors of not only practitioner class awareness and engagement are evident, but also awareness of the potential for bias or classism to creep-in. With regard to this question, some commentators suggest that class-based bias is inherent within risk assessments tools that influence sentencing outcomes. As such, these tools may be in need of review (van Eijk, 2017). Presumably, most contemporary probation staff are aware of the ease in which social need can be unwittingly translated into criminogenic need when risk assessment tools are utilised without sufficient professional skill, knowledge, experience and confidence. The likelihood of such an occurrence unhelpfully shaping practice under intense workload and risk management pressures must remain of concern. Associated with this, sits questions surrounding the influences that structural forces present in shaping desistance journeys, with these questions equally requiring attention (Farrall et al., 2010). Consequently, perhaps matters concerning individual merit need to be evaluated by staff alongside those of broader social influences, a useful evidence-based example being the varied ways in which poverty can have an effect on a person's decision-making processes for those at the lower end of any socioeconomic scale (JRF, 2017). Here we can begin to glimpse how the processes of risk assessment and supervision can remain open to the potential insidious consequences resulting from any lack of consideration of class issues.

If prejudice amounting to classism in practice is to be avoided then bespoke training would appear requisite, especially in such a currently challenging reflective environment (Burrell, 2022). This would be particularly so should class become a protected characteristic within any future equality legislation (LSE, 2022). The problematic issues surrounding classism within professions are helpfully articulated by William Liu (2011) who advocates training in this area for all professionals in supportive roles. In the context of extensive social and cultural expectations relating to materialism and consumerism Liu outlines how further training and upskilling of professionals around classism must be enacted if better mental health for service users is to be addressed. Interestingly, as mentioned above, this advocacy reflects similar probation voices from some thirty years ago (Devlin, 1993).

So what can we discover regarding staff understanding and learning in terms of social identity and class formation? It must be remembered that staff not only have to attempt to some degree to enter the complex, class-laden worlds of those they serve, but equally have to grapple themselves with living and working within multi-dimensional social spaces, fields of struggle, class perspectives, and cultural and symbolic capitals as envisaged by Pierre Bourdieu (2010). In a probation context, these sociological notions prevail through employer-imposed language and dialogue in the workplace. Regrettably though, some commentators are placed in the position of having to question the general use of metaphors relating to notions of capital gain, urging us to ‘move away from quasi-economic interpretations of the culture of communities of color’ (Hinton, 2015: 313). Within the context of lived experiences of educational and economic oppression it can be seen as simply unhelpful and inappropriate. As noted, any price paid by probation practitioners when navigating their class experiences in work is largely undocumented, albeit reflective accounts of where the complexities of identity maintenance and personal integrity clash with the complexities of frontline practice make for insightful reading. This is reading in which individual personal encounters with class, gender, race, and ethnicity are seen to intertwine and struggle to be held in balance (Rashid, 2022), with some practitioners reflectively tracing the formative social, political and class components of their varied probation careers (Gregory, 2011). Indeed, from a White, male, advantaged position, this paper's author has traversed the social landscape from staunchly working class, ‘Steel City’ social roots, to a position of what some may see as a firmly established member of the middle class, Guardian reading, tofu eating, wokerati. Paradoxically, this journey involved certain inherent subjective and objective contradictions and conflicts remaining evident throughout in relation to identity vis-a-vis material wealth. For staff who straddle different class experiences between home life and work life any incongruences between these different spaces can be costly in terms of struggle in either one or the other environments (Evans and Wyatt, 2023). Should a measure of probation staff wrestle with questions of class identity, values and forms of expression, this surely provides not only an area for reflection in practice but also one for open, developmental dialogue.

Lastly, the above reflections have alluded throughout to one of the most testing features of working within the dynamics of social class, that of its moral dimension. We cannot conclude without presenting this troubling aspect, albeit any accommodation with the personal challenges it exhibits is left within this paper to the reader's individual reflective practice. As Andrew Sayer reminds us, the issue can appear stark.

‘Class is quite properly an unsettling subject, one that prompts feelings of shame as well as self-justification. We are shamed by class because it is shameful’ (Sayer, 2005: 212).

Concluding thoughts

As we continue to search for what works somewhere in the human, relational, moral, and material workspaces that have always characterised probation, it is questioned here whether staff neglect the dynamics of class relations within contemporary probation interventions at some detriment to their practice and those they serve. This may include neglecting to give thought to organisational and wider structural processes that cannot, it would appear, escape intersectional considerations involving social class, gender, impairment and race in twenty-first century Britain. Professionally reflective and reflexive positions need to be considered by practitioners as campaigns pertaining to class as a protected characteristic in law present as emergent, with ramifications should it occur for both staff and people on probation. For probation staff issues such as accurate risk assessment, moral attribution and stigmatisation, and classism within the criminal justice system all need to be considered, not to mention the everyday realities of limited upward social mobility for most, with potential downward mobility for some. Constantly charting a course through these class-saturated predicaments must surely present as an emotional and intellectual expense for probation staff, producing for some a spiritual toll that goes unspoken. Regarding the issue of class identities held by individuals on desistance journeys, situated within the context of supportive input from probation services, we perhaps currently have more questions than answers. These are nonetheless questions that certainly require further attention. Whatever one's current work role involves, it is evident within this reflective discussion that when considering the demands integral to contemporary professional life, daily practice remains for probation staff, as ever, personally exacting.