Perceptions and practices of 'rehabilitation' in a community rehabilitation company: disconnects between theory and practice
| Author | Nicola Roberts/Katy Rohan |
| Position | University of Sunderland/University of Sunderland |
| Pages | 67-85 |
67
British Journal of Community Justice
©2021 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 17(2) 67–85
https://doi.org/10.48411/hx37-7q02
PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES OF ‘REHABILITATION’
IN A COMMUNITY REHABILITATION COMPANY:
DISCONNECTS BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE
Nicola Roberts: University of Sunderland
Katy Rohan: University of Sunderland
Abstract
Much academic writing has been published about the then government’s disastrous
Transforming Rehabilitation agenda and the subsequent impact of this on the part
privatisation of the probation service: particularly about the failure of the newly formed
Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) to meet targets (National Audit Office, 2019;
Roberts, 2018; Tidmarsh, 2020). Much less has been published about practitioners’ views
on working in a CRC. This article presents findings from interviews with such practitioners.
Whilst the wrap around community response provided to offenders is worthwhile in
principle, in practice the funding structures of CRCs hinder rehabilitative work and the
reintegration of offenders into the community.
Keywords
Rehabilitation, reintegration, Community Rehabilitation Company, hub-working, private
sector, funding.
Roberts and Rohan
68
Introduction
From 2015, 21 CRCs supervised low and medium risk offenders who had been sentenced by
the courts on community orders, suspended sentence orders or who were released from
prison on licence. Since then, academic, official and media sources have criticised the
practices of these companies for their capacity to reduce reoffending. This article is based
on empirical research of interviews with long standing probation practitioners in the
probation service, who subsequently found themselves working in a CRC. We explore their
perceptions of rehabilitation and practices of working with offenders in their new
organisation. Before we do this, it is important to conceptualise rehabilitation, from
academic and practitioner viewpoints, and outline its trajectory in the probation service.
This also involves reviewing the risk and Transforming Rehabilitation agendas, and the
existing research that has been carried out on practitioners working in the CRCs. This
provides us with the analytical tools to explore practitioners’ perceptions and practices of
rehabilitation, which we write about in the methods, after which we present the findings
and a discussion of these, concluding with areas for further research and the limitations of
our research.
The Driving Ethos of ‘Rehabilitation’ in the Probation Service
Rehabilitation has been the central ethos of the probation service (Canton, 2018), since its
inception (Raynor and Robinson, 2009). Broadly, rehabilitation focuses on offender change
and on societal change (Maruna, 2011). The theoretical roots of rehabilitation stem from
positivistic notions of the causes of crime, which are deemed to reside within an offender’s
biology, psychology, and/or social environment. Under this paradigm, offenders are
thought to be determined to commit crime because they cannot control the causes of
crime. As such, offenders are thought to be fundamentally different to non-offenders
because of their pathology. To change an offender to non-offender status, what Canton
(2017:113) refers to as ‘a previously settled state’, offenders are in need of treatment, help,
care and welfare to address the causes of their crimes. These causes, or often termed
criminogenic needs, can include mental disorder, substance use, and lack of
education/skills. Such a focus on changing or reforming the individual offender is what
McNeill (2012:14) refers to as ‘ psychological’ rehabilitation. He also argues for ‘legal or
judicial’ rehabilitation, which is about addressing the barriers for offenders reintegrating
into their communities (ibid:14). If rehabilitative attempts at changing the individual are to
be successful, then the ramifications of conviction, for example, a criminal record, must be
addressed and alleviated (Maruna, 2011). Canton (2017:113) similarly argues that a
community must support offenders to change by respecting an offenders’ ‘liberties’.
Liberties are offenders’ right to be treated fairly and without discrimination, despite a
criminal record. In legal/judicial rehabilitation then, it is important to address offenders’
non-criminogenic needs, factors which may not be explicitly related to their offending
behaviours, such as lack of accommodation, finances, and supportive social networks, but
they could be implicitly essential to their rehabilitation because addressing these factors
enables them to reintegrate into the community.
Therefore, it is often difficult to separate out criminogenic from non-criminogenic needs
because they are often related to one another (Canton and D ominey, 2018). Yet McNeill
(2012:15) argues that psychological and legal/judicial rehabilitation focuses on the
To continue reading
Request your trial