People First: Probation Officer Perspectives on Probation Work
| Author | Charlotte Knight,Tina Eadie,Jill Annison |
| Published date | 01 September 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550508095122 |
| Date | 01 September 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
People First: Probation Officer Perspectives on
Probation Work
Jill Annison, University of Plymouth
Tina Eadie, De Montfort University
Charlotte Knight, De Montfort University
Abstract The Probation Service has experienced massive changes during the past
10 years, including the way in which its probation officers are trained. Whether
or not the espoused intention of this latter change was to introduce a ‘new breed’
of officer more versed in control than care, the three studies reported here all
demonstrate the same finding, namely that individuals enter the training to work
with people, and that they continue to achieve most satisfaction from this. The
studies focus variously on newly qualified officers, those in training, and those
applying for training. This article reviews these studies and offers a critical analysis
of their key findings.
Keywords change, expectations, job satisfaction, probation officers, relationships,
training
Introduction
Probation policy and practice has been subjected to a maelstrom of change and
transformation over the past decade, with ever-increasing control from central
government over all aspects of work with offenders (Faulkner, 2006; Morgan,
2007). This includes a shift away from client-centred practice towards a more tech-
nicist and prescribed approach to tasks (Robinson, 2003). The development and
implementation of the ‘What Works / Effective Practice Initiative’ (Chapman and
Hough, 1998; Underdown, 1998) saw the one-to-one casework model of work
with offenders firmly consigned to the past (see Chui and Nellis, 2003; Burnett
and Roberts, 2004; Worrall and Hoy, 2005). In its place are standardized
approaches, with assessments of offenders based on actuarial risk tools, which in
259
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2008 NAPO Vol 55(3): 259–271
DOI: 10.1177/0264550508095122
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Article
To continue reading
Request your trial