The Missing Link: Effective Enforcement And Effective Supervision
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455050004700206 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
126
REFLECTIONS
The
Missing
Link:
Effective
Enforcement
And
Effective
Supervision
Carol
Hedderman
and
Ian
Hearnden
discuss
the
improvements
evident
from
recent
enforcement
audits,
but
warn
that
ever
stricter
enforcement
is
at
odds
with
effective
supervision.
ational
Standards
now
require
that
virtually
every
case
in
which
more
than
one
unacceptable
absence
occurs
will
go
to
court
for
a
breach
hearing.
This
is
because
throughout
the
1990s,
one
Quality
and
Effectiveness
report
after
another
criticised
probation
areas
for
failing
to
offer
appointments
in
line
with
National
Standards
or
to
enforce
them
rigorously.
In
some
cases,
chief
officers
were
even
said
to
have
simply
decided
not
to
require
staff
to
work
to
a
particular
requirement.
With
that
sort
of
view
from
the
top
of
a
service,
is
it
any
wonder
that
both
supervising
officers’
statements
(Ellis
et
al,
1996)
and
case
records
(Hedderman,
1999)
show
that
they
depart
from
the
Standards
with
some
frequency
and
without
consulting
their
line
managers?
By
1998
the
Service
had
come
under
considerable
criticism
and
not
just
from
the
usual
politicians
and
pundits.
Informed
critics
such
as
the
Chief
Inspector
of
Probation
and
the
Home
Affairs
Select
Committee
on
Alternatives
to
Custody
expressed
concern
about
the
laxity
with
which
orders
were
being
enforced.
By
that
point,
the
extent
to
which
cases
were
breached
on
or
before
a
third
unacceptable
absence
had
been
made
a
Key
Performance
Indicator
(KPI),
with
a
target
of
90%.
This
was
probably
counterproductive,
however.
First,
there
was
a
lack
of
clarity
about
how
rates
should
be
calculated
when
breach
was
initiated
more
than
once
in
relation
to
a
single
order;
this
meant
it
was
possible
to
generate
breach
rates
of
more
than
100%.
Second,
it
implied
that
the
government’
s concern
was
managerial,
prompted
by
a
desire
to
see
the
service
’toeing
the
line’
and
recognising
that
it
was,
after
all,
a
law
enforcement
agency.
In
fact,
National
Standards
have
always
been
about
more
than
the
Probation
Service
following
orders
or
being
accountable.
They
also
reassure
sentencers
and
the
public
that
if
someone
is
put
on
probation
they
will
be
seen
regularly
enough
to
ensure
that
risk
of
reoffending
and
risk
of
harm
are
reduced
through
appropriate
To continue reading
Request your trial