Probation staff supervision: Valuing ‘me time’ within congested spaces
| Author | David Coley |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550520926581 |
Article
Probation staff
supervision: Valuing
‘me time’ within
congested spaces
David Coley
Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, UK
Abstract
Probation staff supervision is an established professional practice tool, documented
historically through the lens of the Probation Journal. This article charts Journal
discussions surrounding staff supervision and places them alongside a recent research
study examining current practice. Study findings indicate that staff value dedicated
time and space for structured supervision that contains significant elements of a more
clinical approach. Nevertheless, supervision functions within congested spaces in
which managerial aspects of staff engagement encroach. Finding an accommodation
between differing approaches appears challenging. More broadly, competing views
resound within a landscape of looming professional registration and associated
requirements of continuous professional development.
Keywords
staff supervision, continuous professional development, reflection
Introduction
Staff supervision is a multidimensional process (Skills for Care, 2007), within which
aspects of contestation or collusion between involved parties can occur (Saltiel,
2017). It is often characterised by managerial demands intersecting with clinical
understandings of how best to conduct individual sessions, with tensions existing
between the two models (Beddoe, 2010). Within probation services, it can be seen
Corresponding Author:
David Coley, Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company, Sussex House, Hollingbury,
Brighton, Sussex, BN1 8AF, UK.
Email: david.coley@ksscrc.co.uk
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2020, Vol. 67(3) 228–245
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550520926581
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
as being increasingly congested and in need of reform, and in some contexts, there
is evidence of poor practice holding unwelcome consequences (Mor Barak et al.,
2009). In the context of best probation practice, it is these dynamics echoing
through the decades and their resonance today that are explored in this article. This
exploration of staff supervision commences in the 1960s when the Probation Journal
at the time spoke of a client supervisory framework located within a social work
model. This working paradigm was reflected within the staff supervision process in
which case discussion was seen by some as an illegitimate and unwelcomed
intrusion into their professional practice. At the time, it was frowned upon and
challenged by front-line practitioners as they sought to articulate and secure their
professional autonomy (Day, 1971; Frayne, 1968; Prins, 1969). This historical
perspective has been captured in the Journal over the decades. It is this archived
record that is accessed here in an attempt to gain insight and learning through
examining practitioner and academic accounts from the past and allying them to
current research.
Through seeking to improve staff supervision structure and content, a recent
study by Kent Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company (KSS
CRC) affords us the opportunity to combine some probation staff’s experiences
of the present to the historical records of the past. The research study sought to
not only explore the mechanism of the supervisory process but more importantly
to capture the meaning and value that staff ascribe to the practice. This included
exploring views on continuous professional development (CPD) and innovative
ideas for improved practice. This article draws upon the study findings and pays
exclusive attention to the expressed needs of the probation service officers
(PSOs) and probation officers (POs) who engaged in the project. Some of the
voices of those who participated are woven into this article so as to illuminate
important issues for staff. The article considers whether accounts from the past
continue to resonate alongside present-day staff experiences. Certainly, some
contemporary voices express the view that supervision should feel more like ‘me
time’ rather than a struggle to be heard within a congested and contested
space, a comment that is redolent of a growing tension recognised since the
mid-1980s (Davies, 1984).
As English and Welsh probation services transition towards a greater degree
of public-sector reunification in the near future (Ministry of Justice (MoJ), 2019),
key questions emerge. To what extent can the professional supervisory needs of
PSOs and POs become better aligned with organisational pressures and risk
management imperatives in the decade to come? Will practitioners experience
their supervision as a crowded space, freighted with elements of organisational
oversight, or as an equitable place of reflection and self-development within
their hectic working lives? Although this study re lates to CRC probation services,
do the CPD aspects of staff supervision require greater consideration by all
probation agencies within a looming world of professional registration? This
article attempts to further the historical dialogue that addresses such funda-
mental questions.
Coley 229
To continue reading
Request your trial