An Excessive Model for Evaluating Probation Practice
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600203 |
| Published date | 01 June 1989 |
| Date | 01 June 1989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
An Excessive
Model for Evaluating
Probation Practice
Bill McWilliams of the Cam-
bridge Institute of Criminology
invites exploration of an alter-
native model for evaluating
practice, drawn from a defini-
tion of the role of the Service
and emphasising quality of per-
formance as well as quantitative
measures.
, Initiative suggests that the model for
evaluation which the FMI requires is
based almost entirely on three ele-
)
ue
uay or
ments
objectives., control, and
)
the applica-
i-nf,ormation’. The fundamental ques-
) tion of tions which it generates are: ’what is
) perfor-
going on out there?; ’how may we con-
I m a n c e
trol it in pursuit of policy objectives~’,
) indicators and ’is it being done as cheaply as pos-
j
to the Pro-
sible ?’
) b a t i o n
The model for evaluation set out
I
Service
is
here does not deny those questions.
! now
at
Rather it says, knowledge and control
band.
A
and good housekeeping are all needed
) look at the
for evaluation, but account must also
I
literature
be taken of three other ideas: quality,
I f on
the
in relation to persons and things;
/ background
virtue, without which the evaluative
~ and history
enterprise
is
impossible;
and
~ of
the
expression, the ways in which qualities
~
Financial
and virtues are shown to the world. In
58
~ Manage-
sum, this tries to be a more unified
~
m e n t
model than that suggested by the FMI.
Because outcome is the bottom line of
The second problem is that, just as
evaluation, and to give some emphasis
it offers no defence against the removal
to the ways in which the model demon-
of tasks, so it places no natural limit on
strates itself, we might call it the
what tasks might be added to the
Expressive Model of Evaluation.
repertoire. An example of this is the
This Expressive Model would pose
imminent arrival of punishment in the
many questions additional to those aris-
community, the possibility of the elec-
ing from the FMI. Examples of such
tronic monitoring of offenders. There
evaluative questions might be: ’What is
are members of
the Service who do not
the nature of the Probation Service?’.
That is, what qualities does the Proba-
One
can
never
completely comprehend
tion Service have which distinguish it
a
musical performance or an officers
from other social agencies? Another
per~ar~n~ce in court, but one can
question, in similar vein, might be,
approach comprehension through the
’what is the nature of a probation offi-
device of cx4lUcism.
cer ?’.
.
A
third could be ’what guidance
might aid the expression of these quali-
ties ?’. And finally, it might ask ’how
like these
are
things, or are willing to
qualities to be demonstrated in prac-
accept some of them but not others.
tice ?’. I am not suggesting that these
But, if the role of the Service is really
j
are the only evaluative issues which
to be defined as simply what it does,
)
matter; obviously they
there is
are not. Never-
no rational grounds for objec-
!
theless, they are of particular relevance
tions.
Electronic
surveillance, for
at a time when the Service is being
example, cannot be outwith the nature
pressed to demonstrate its value.
of the Service, if no nature has been
defined. The third problem is that the
The Role of the Service
definition gives us no indication of
A
development sub-committee of what
what we should regard as virtues
was then the Chief Probation Officers’
among the tasks, and hence no basis for
Conference said in 1979: ’It is reason-
evaluation.
able to define the role of the Probation
Service by reference to the nature and
Derniing Purpose
extent of its duties’. There are a num-
In contrast, the Expressive Model of
ber of problems with this definition,
Evaluation requires a definition of the
but I will concentrate
role of the Probation
on just three of
Service which
them.
subsumes tasks. That is, the tasks and
First, this definition of role gives
their
us
importance arise from and are
no general justification for the things
sustained by the definition of an over-
which the Service does. Thus it follows
arching purpose for the Service.
that tasks could be removed from the
Ken Pease and I argue that the
list of duties without there being
transcendent
any
purpose of the Probation
real grounds for complaint. For
Service should be the rehabilitation of
exam-
ple, after-care today has
offenders.2
The
a much lower
arguments for the
profIle than it had in the 1970s. And in
selection of this purpose rather than
other
many areas a probation presence is
principles such as reformation,
being removed from the juvenile
say, or social control, are lengthy, but I
courts. Perhaps such changes are all for
can summarise a number of essential
the good; there are arguments both
points briefly, with some help from
ways. My
point is a general one: a defi-
Archbishop William Temple who sug-
nition of role by task offers no defence
gested in 19343 that in administering
-
punishment, the community has three
59
I
against the elimination of tasks.
interests to consider: the...
To continue reading
Request your trial