Crime Prevention and the Future of the Probation Service
| Author | Stephen Shaw |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455058303000403 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
127
Crime
Prevention
and
the
Future
of
the
Probation
Service
Stephen
Shaw
Director,
Prison
Reform
Trust
Recent
expansion
in
the
conventional
work-load
of
the
Probation
Service
has
not
removed
the
basic
empirical
and
theoretical
objections
to
present
probation
practice.
However,
there
are
few
signs
of
the
Service
embracing
crime
prevention
as
its
central
objective.
Crime
prevention
and
community
work
are
vague
and
problematic
concepts.
However,
they
do
presuppose
a
’bias
towards
the
poor’
which
has
characterised
the
Probation
Service’s
traditional
concerns.
Four
years
ago,
in
a
major
contribution,
Tony
Bottoms
and
Bill
McWilliams
set
out
what
they
considered
to
be
a
crisis
of
objectives
facing
the
Probation
Service.
In
turn,
they
proposed
a
radical
shift
in
both
philosophy
and
practice.
1
This
much
shorter
article
assesses
how
far
such
a
shift
has
occurred
and
develops
the
argument
for
changes
in
probation
practice.
Bottoms
and
McWilhams
outlined
the
four
primary
aims
of
the
Probation
Service
as
(i)
the
provision
of
appropriate
help
for
offenders;
(ii)
the
statutory
supervision
of
offenders;
(iii)
diverting
appropriate
offenders
from
custodial
sentences;
and
(iv)
the
reduction
of
crime.
In
support
of
the
fourth
objective
they
called
for
a
re-direction
from
traditional
client-centred
methods
towards
crime
prevention
in
the
sense
of
more
general
community
work.
Of
course
this
was
not,
and
is
not,
to
suggest
that
the
idea
of
individual
social
work
with
offenders
-
the
idea
which
has
formed
the
central
basis
of
probation
work
throughout
this
century
-
should
be
thrown
overboard.
But
it
must
be
remembered
that
the
reduction
of crime
has -
at
least
implicitly
-
always
been
a
principal
rationale
for
the
existence
of
a
Probation
Service.
The
research
evidence
from
a
variety
of
studies
is
so
strong
that
it
is
no
longer
plausible
to
argue
that
a
conventional
probation
order
exerts
any
long-term
reformative
effect.
On
the
other
hand,
since
crime
and
the
fear
of
crime
dispro-
portionately
afflict
the
more
disadvantaged
members
of
society,
and
since
community
work
may
be
expected
to
throw
up
other
benefits
aside
from
crime
reduction,
a
shift
in
probation
practice
in
this
way
would
be
entirely
consistent
with
the
traditional ideals
of
the
Service.’
Much
recent
discussion
of the
future
of the
Pro-
batior
Service
has
concerned
a
new
role
following
the
death
(some
would
still
argue,
the
premature
death)
of the
rehabilitative
ideal.
The
idea
that
the
Probation
Service
should
move
into
community
work
with
a
view
to
preventing
crime
was
perhaps
first
advanced
by
Haxby2.
However,
his
proposals
imply
a
less
voluntary
compact
between
the
Probation
Service
and
local
people
than
do
those
of
Bottoms
and
McWilliams:
’we
believe
that
the
Probation
Service
should
not
engage
in
crime
prevention
work
except
m
communities
which
actively
wish
it,
and
that,
throughout
the
work,
the
authonty
base
for
the
social
workers’
actions
should
remam
with
the
residents
and
their
wish
for
assistance’3.
This
voluntary
partnership
with
local
people
has
been
a
central
theme
of
NACRO’s
Crime
Prevention
Unit
whose
projects
on
housing
estates
have
burgeoned
in
the
last
few
years.
(That
a
voluntary
organisation
rather
than
a
statutory
body
has
been
responsible
for
these
initiatives
is
in
itself
very
noteworthy).
What
is
Crime
Prevention?
Before
outlining
the
ways
in
which
the
Probation
Service
has
begun
to
engage
in
crime
prevention
work,
a
cautionary
note
is
called
for.
To continue reading
Request your trial