Challenges Of Gender-Responsivity In Probation Work With Women Service Users
| Author | Rachel Goldhill |
| Pages | 106-126 |
106
British Journal of Community Justice
©2019 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 15(2) 106–126
CHALLENGES OF GENDER-RESPONSIVITY IN
PROBATION WORK WITH WOMEN SERVICE USERS
Rachel Goldhill
Abstract
This article reports on research into the supervision of women probationers in England. It
is contextualised through a review of the literature on good practice, with particular focus
on Corston’s (2007) recommendations and subsequent guidance d ocuments and through
discussion of the organisational context. The research took place during a period of
substantial change and corresponding un certainty within the prob ation service, prior to
and during th e implementation process of Tran sforming Rehabilitation (TR) which took
place between January 2014 and February 2015. Drawing on qualitative data derived from
extensive analysis of videos of s upervision sessions and interviews with probation workers
and women prob ationers, the research highlights the importa nce and extent of
practitioner awareness of gender-responsivity issues. These are of particular relevance
where women probationers have experienced extensive victimisation. The article
considers implications for probation practice, e mphasising the importance of responsivity
to women probationers , and discusses the place of and attit udes towards women-only
provision. Specific organisational barriers to implementation of a gender-responsive
approach in the short and long-term are explored against the backdrop o f the TR initiative.
Keywords
gender-responsive; probation; women service users; victimisation awareness; trauma
Goldhill
107
Introduction
Criminal offences by women h ave traditionally been far fewer than those by men, and the
treatment of women with in the criminal justice system has been given relatively little
attention. However, si nce the start of the twenty-first century, gender-responsivity in the
justice system has been identified as a concern within governmental and pressure group
publications, particu larly in terms of probation work with women. In the UK, the Corston
Report (2007), a review of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system, has been of
special importance, and subsequent practitioner guidance has provided much-needed
constructive information. In this article p ractitioners’ familiarity with the issues is
explored, de-constructing specific areas which apply especially to women –
practitioner/probationer relationships, women-only environments and their significance
for victimisation/trauma work. There is examination of the operalisation of
recommendations an d guidance from significant documents within probation and
voluntary agencies. This article considers how widely gender-responsive issues were
known and acknowledged, and whether an emphasis wa s placed on creating a suitable
environment for victimisation disclosures within the context of statutory probation
supervision.
Terminology
Woman probationer (WP) or woman service user (WSU) is used to denote all those
subject to a statutory order – either a community order or licence. Officers with a formal
probation qualification are referred to as probation officers (POs) and those without this
qualification (although they may possess substantial experience and other qualifications)
are referred to as probation service officers (PSOs ). Probation trusts managed all these
public service probation workers prior to 2015. Practitioners within the holistic women’s
centres (HWCs) ar e called women’s centre workers (WCWs), and were working in
partnership with the trusts. Trusts were disbanded under Transforming Rehabilitation
(TR), with the service splitting into 70% privatised community rehabilitation companies
(CRCs) and the still public but much-reduced National Probation Service (NPS).
The context for women probationers
This research period took place prior to the in troduction of the TR initiative, which
accelerated neo-liberal marketisation moves, removing state responsibility and financial
backing and prioritising profit and simplified, formulaic approaches (Walker, Annison and
Beckett, 2019). The Corsto n Report (2007), by way of con trast, had emphasised the
complexity of WSUs’ needs. Although these ideas had been expressed before,1 Corston’s
review gained standing and publicity which was previously lacking. The proposals were
taken forward through prob ation worker guidance documents: The offender management
guide to working with women offenders (NOMS, 2008), followed by A distinct approach: a
guide to working with women offenders (MoJ, 2012) and Working with women offenders
(NOMS, 2017).
1 The Women’s Offending Reduction Programme (2004) and the Equality Act 2006 were its
precursors, but many of the issues raised by the review had also been put forward by academics
such as Carlen, Gelsthorpe and Worrall since the 1980s and 1990s (Gelsthorpe, Sharpe and Roberts,
2007).
To continue reading
Request your trial