Helping offenders into employment
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895809103495 |
| Published date | 01 May 2009 |
| Date | 01 May 2009 |
| Author | Julie Vennard,Carol Hedderman |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1748–8958; Vol: 9(2): 225–245
DOI: 10.1177/1748895809103495
Helping offenders into employment:
How far is voluntary sector expertise valued in a
contracting-out environment?
JULIE VENNARD AND CAROL HEDDERMAN
Bristol University, UK, and Leicester University, UK
Abstract
The Probation Service has, for some years, worked with external
service providers in partnership. One strand of this work has
involved collaboration with voluntary sector organizations in helping
offenders into education training and employment (ETE). Underlying
this work is a slim but important evidence base, which shows that
offending diminishes when offenders gain employment, and that
being in work may trigger longer term desistance.
Drawing on an evaluation of a government-sponsored
‘Employment Pathfinder’ and on other relevant research, the article
argues that recent governmental pressure to contract out services,
and to adhere to certain ‘what works in reducing re-offending’
principles, has given rise to tension within this collaboration
attributable to conflicting ideology and practice. Specifically, this
has created a context in which there is limited scope to adopt
practices which are informed by knowledge about ‘what works’ in
getting people into employment. A less prescriptive approach from
the centre about what should be delivered, and how, would restore
effective teamwork and might also open up probation practice
to empirical and theoretical insights into the desistance process.
Wider implications of these findings for the future involvement of
organizations with expertise in the provision of services for offenders
are discussed.
Key Words
desistance • employment schemes • partnership • what works
225
Criminology & Criminal Justice 9(2)226
The Government’s Effective Practice Initiative (EPI) in England and Wales
sought to pilot a range of interventions for those in prison and under pro-
bation supervision, which were designed to reduce re-offending (Furniss and
Nutley, 2000). This work became more widespread and gathered speed as
it was absorbed into the multi-million pound Crime Reduction Programme
(CRP) (Hedderman, 2004). The interventions trialled were said to be based
on the ‘What Works’ literature but, arguably, they prioritized some so-
called ‘What Works principles’—such as ensuring programmes were deli-
vered exactly as they were designed (‘programme integrity’)—over other
important elements, such as careful targeting and ensuring that delivery
matched offenders’ learning styles (‘responsivity’) (Hedderman, 2004,
2007). In a review of this literature conducted before the EPI commenced, it
was noted that, important though the principles were, they did not offer a
blue-print to follow about how to manage or deliver services (Vennard and
Hedderman, 1998).
The results of a number of the evaluations conducted to assess the EPI/
CRP ‘Pathfinders’ are now available.1 They show rather mixed results. Few
of these studies suggest the underlying approaches are flawed, but most
com ment on problems with delivery.2 In particular, inflated government
targets led to unsuitable referrals, high proportions of potential clients failed
to attend, there was poor record keeping and high staff turnover led to a
stop–start approach. In the case of the first Employment Pathfinder there
were problems with inconsistent assessments, overloading offenders with
require ments and insufficient tailoring of responses to individual need (see
Haslewood-Pocsik et al., 2004). A key recommendation was that ‘offending
and employment should not be considered as two independent facets of
offenders’ lives, which can be viewed and dealt with separately’ (Haslewood-
Pocsik et al., 2004: 65). The authors also recommended that a second phase
of the Pathfinder should involve the education, training and employ ment
(ETE) partnership organizations to a greater degree in planning and imple-
mentation in order to improve communication and joint working.
This article draws on some of the results of the evaluation of the second
phase of the Employment Pathfinder (EP2) (Hedderman and Vennard,
2008). We focus in particular on the ad vantages of involving those who
understand ‘what works’ in getting people into employment, and explore
the difficulties ETE providers experienced in applying this knowledge in a
context bound by expectations about ‘what works’ in reducing re-offending.
We argue that, while evidence of ‘what works’ in reducing offending (and
why) has a place in the design and delivery of employment initiatives, an
overly prescriptive approach inhibits flexibility in responding to the needs of
individual offenders. A centralizing tendency, it will be argued, has eroded
what was once perceived by ETE experts as genuine partnership with the
Probation Service.
To continue reading
Request your trial