Credible Accreditation?
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455050004700407 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
REFLECTIONS
Credible Accreditation?
George Mair critiques the purpose, make-up and effectiveness
of the Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel.
The Joint Prisons Probation all with differing programmes, these could
- Accreditation Panel was set up in
all be equally effective. Subsequent
1999; its task is to assess the design,
research only reinforced this conviction so
delivery and procedures of programmes
that by 1995 I could argue that:
aimed at reducing re-offending in order that
&dquo;...the evidence shows that specialist
those programmes judged to be successful
activities in probation are neither
at meeting set criteria can be replicated and
uniformly distributed nor consistently
delivered on a national basis. The Panel is
organized and operated. They tend to be
made up of 12 appointed members
developed on an ad hoc basis and, as a
(’independent experts’) as well as eight
result, are fragmented and widely
nominated members from the Home Office
varying. An argument can be made that
and relevant organisations. Although it is
this demonstrates local flexibility and
too early to pronounce definitively on
innovation - and this is certainly not a
whether the Panel has been a success, it is
point which should be dismissed out of
not too early to set out some doubts about
hand. But it can also be argued that it
its potential efficacy. The worst that can
shows uncontrolled discretion, lack of
happen is that I will be proved wrong and
accountability, reinvention of the wheel,
that the new National Probation Service (as
’flavour of the monthism’, and that it
well as the Prison Service) will benefit
results in inefficiency and ineffectiveness
from its deliberations and decisions.
and provides a poor service to courts and
This article is not going to be an attack
offenders&dquo;. (Mair, 1995, p.254)
on the idea of accreditation. That would be
dishonest
In the remainder of this
as I applied to be a member of the
paper, I will
Panel; it seemed then - and still seems to
briefly raise some important issues about
the Accreditation Panel. I will first look at
me - that its work is of crucial importance
for the Probation Service. I have for
some of the
many
background, then move on to
years been in favour of some form of
say a little about the membership of the
control
Panel, and
or regulation of what the Probation
finally list some other, more
Service does - which is
miscellaneous matters.
more than can be
said for many of those now in favour of the
Background Issues
Accreditation Panel. Fifteen years ago it
seemed absurd to me to claim that while
First, there is the question of the Pathfinder
there were around 80 probation day centres,
programmes that are currently in the
268
process of being accredited. These seem to
behaviouralism. It is also notable that for
have originated in work deriving from two
the second part of the accreditation...
To continue reading
Request your trial