Probation supervision as a network of relationships: Aiming to be thick, not thin
| Author | Jane Dominey |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550519863481 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Probation supervision
as a network of
relationships: Aiming
to be thick, not thin
Jane Dominey
Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract
This article is about the networks of relationships (between people and between
organisations) that underpin probation supervision. Drawing on evidence from a
study researching these interactions, it develops two models of supervision (‘thin’ and
‘thick’) by taking themes that shape supervision and charting the interplay between
them. The article develops these models in the increasingly fragmented landscape that
has followed the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in England and Wales. The
concepts of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ are used here to describe the supervisory network. Thin
supervision describes a minimal and administrative approach to supervision. By
contrast, thick supervision requires a network with strong and purposeful links. The
article acknowledges the impact of public sector spending cuts on probation services
and concludes by reflecting on the challenge of building and sustaining thick super-
vision in the current context.
Keywords
inter-agency work, probation, relationships, supervision, Transforming Rehabilitation
Introduction
This article is about the networks of relationships (between people and between
organisations) that underpin probation supervision. Drawing on evidence from a
Corresponding Author:
Jane Dominey, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA,
UK.
Email: jad78@cam.ac.uk
Probation Journal
2019, Vol. 66(3) 283–302
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550519863481
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
study researching these interactions, it develops two models of supervision (thin and
thick) by taking themes that shape supervision and charting the interplay between
them. The concepts of thin and thick are used here to describe the supervisory
network. Thin supervision describes a minimal and administrative approach to
supervision. By contrast, thick supervision requires a network with strong and pur-
poseful links. Raynor and Maguire (2006) wrote about ‘thicker’, more supportive,
forms of intervention, and the term is used in a similar sense here. This article sets
these models in the increasingly fragmented and unstable landscape that has fol-
lowed the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in England and Wales. It
acknowledges the impact of public sector spending cuts on probation services and
concludes by reflecting on the challenge of building and sustaining thick
supervision.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets the legal framework for community sentences
in England and Wales. In response to offences that are ‘serious enough’ (s148 CJA
2003) for a community sentence but not ‘so serious’ that only custody can be jus-
tified (s152 CJA 2003), sentencers in England and Wales have the power to
impose a community order. Sentencers shape the community order (which can last
for up to three years) by imposing requirements selected from a statutory list. The
most commonly used requirements are unpaid work (formerly known as community
service) and the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (individual or group sessions
with the aim of supporting rehabilitation). Courts can also make alcohol, drug and
mental health treatment requirements (s177 CJA 2003). Community sentences are
managed by a probation worker who is responsible for ensuring that the require-
ments are met and taking action in the event of non-compliance. Many court-
ordered interventions are not delivered directly by the probation service, but are
provided by other agencies with the supervising probation worker having a referral
and coordination role.
The meaning and experience of supervision has varied from place to place and
worker to worker since the earliest days of the probation service. The business of
supervision has developed and changed in step with shifting understandings of the
nature of probation. At different points in the 20th century, official accounts of
supervision gave varying emphasis to reform, therapeutic casework and punish-
ment in the community (Canton and Dominey, 2018). Into the current century
supervision remains an activity shaped by the professional relationship between
supervisor and supervisee (Shapland et al., 2012), and ‘supervising offenders in the
community’ remains the best short explanation of what probation work is about.
The importance of this supervisor/supervisee relationship is a constant theme in
probation research (examples include Bailey and Ward, 1992; Rex, 1999;
McCulloch, 2005). Evidence points to the importance of the relational aspects of
practice for outcomes such as desistance, compliance and legitimacy (McNeill and
Weaver, 2010; Ugwudike, 2010; McNeill and Robinson, 2013). However, for
supervisees, the experience of supervision is shaped not just by their probation
supervisor but also by workers from other agencies providing a range of services
and interventions. This article looks beyond the supervisee/supervisor dyad and
considers supervision as a network of relationships. It argues that the relational
284 Probation Journal 66(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial