The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime
| Author | Ros Burnett,Fergus McNeill |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550505055112 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The place of the officer–offender relationship in
assisting offenders to desist from crime
Ros Burnett, University of Oxford
Fergus McNeill, Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde
Abstract For decades, the relationship between the officer and offender (variously
labelled as the ‘casework relationship’, the ‘supervisory relationship’ or ‘one-
to-one work’) was the main channel for probation service interventions. In the
modernized probation service in England and Wales, this relationship element has
been marginalized, on a policy level at least, by accredited groupwork
programmes and case management approaches involving referrals to specialist
and other services. However, there are now promising signs that policy makers are
re-instating the ‘relationship’ between the practitioner and offender as a core
condition for changing the behaviour and social circumstances associated with
recidivism. This article traces the factors behind the paradigm shift from casework
(in its broadest sense) to case management (more recently termed ‘offender
management’) in order to identify why an element of practice once regarded as
vital became discredited. It then briefly draws on findings in the mental health field
and desistance research to relocate the relationship element within a practice
model that is focused on supporting desistance from crime.
Keywords case management, casework, desistance, interpersonal skills, motiva-
tional interviewing, officer–offender relationship, practice skills, supervision
The various eras of probation’s history have been associated with differing
paradigms for practice (McWilliams, 1987). However, the relationship between
the officer and the offender, as a basis for working towards change, remained a
constant, even though the theoretical rationale and required skills altered in
complexity and focus. Although the approach switched from a missionary model
of befriending and converting offenders, to a treatment model through social
casework, there remained an underlying assumption that the relationship was ‘the
probation officer’s main instrument’ (Davies, 1969: 121). In keeping with this,
221
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2005 NAPO Vol 52(3): 221–242
DOI: 10.1177/0264550505055112
www.napo.org.uk
www.sagepublications.com
Article
02_055112_Burnett (JB-D) 27/7/05 3:24 pm Page 221
when the Morison report set out government policy for probation in the early
1960s, it defined casework as ‘the creation and utilisation, for the benefit of an
individual who needs help with personal problems, of a relationship between
himself and a trained social worker’ (Home Office, 1962: paras. 54–56).
It is only in recent years that – for the probation service in England and Wales,
more so than in Scotland – this one-to-one relationship has ceased to be a defining
characteristic of probation work. Practitioners have continued to identify relation-
ship building as a prerequisite to influencing change (e.g. see Burnett, 1996;
McNeill, 2001; Rex, 1999) but on a policy level the ascendance of groupwork
programmes, and the reformulation of probation identity in the ‘language of law
enforcement and risk rather than social work and rehabilitation’ (Bhui, 2001: 639)
served to undermine the relationship foundation of probation interventions. There
are many factors in this demise, some in the recent past, and some which need
to be traced back through the combined histories of the probation service, penal
policy and of rehabilitation. To address these factors comprehensively would be a
separate article; here, we limit ourselves to identifying major influences on levels
of confidence in relationship-based probation practice. With the benefit of hind-
sight, and in the light of research findings in the mental health field and in the
accumulating body of desistance research, our main intention in this article is to
consider the position of relationship-based practice in 21st century probation inter-
ventions aimed at reducing reoffending.
A necessary preliminary is to note the tendency, in both probation literature and
the ‘what works’ literature, for the terms ‘casework relationship’, ‘supervisory
relationship’, ‘counselling’ and ‘one-to-one work’ to be used interchangeably. The
concept of ‘casework’ is additionally problematic because varieties range from the
more Freudian ‘psychodynamic casework’ (e.g. Ferard and Hunnybun, 1962) to
person-centred models of ‘social casework’ which include attention to environ-
mental problems linked to offending (e.g. Biestek, 1961), and to ‘task-centred
casework’ (Goldberg et al., 1985). Indeed, as we discuss later, it may be partly
because of narrow associations with psychodynamic approaches that confidence
in ‘casework’ was eroded. To avoid giving the impression that we are referring
simply to classical, psychoanalytic casework in this article, we use the more general
concept of ‘relationship-based practice’. Occasionally we shorten this to ‘relation-
ship’, with the caveat that there is no intention to reify the concept. Beyond these
various labels, our focus is on the interpersonal processes, decisions and activities
that are enabled when a relationship (or working alliance) has been formed, and
the practitioner skills and probationer responses that are expressed through the
relationship.
The disappearance and reappearance of ‘relationship’
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the relationship basis for probation practice
fell from grace. It survived critiques of ‘casework’ and the period of correctional
nihilism following the gloomy research message that ‘nothing works’ (see next
section). In a 1990s review for the Home Office of the professional skills and
Probation Journal
222 52(3)
02_055112_Burnett (JB-D) 27/7/05 3:24 pm Page 222
To continue reading
Request your trial