The Probation Service's Work With Victims Of Crime
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700203 |
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Probation Service’s
Work
With
Victims
Of Crime
Jill Enterkin and Adam Crawford present an overview of the main
findings of an in-depth, qualitative study into the victim contact work
being undertaken in two probation services in response to the Victim’s
Charter. They focus on the shared issues revealed within the different
approaches adopted by the two services, highlighting challenges for
service deliverers. They conclude that while there is broad satisfaction
with the Probation Service’s work with victims, greater clarity is
needed with regard to several issues, including the fundamental
purpose of victim contact work and the limitations of the service
which can be offered.
TT~
ear since the Victim’s Charter of justice agencies which were outlined in the
1990
(Home Office, 1990), the
second edition of the Victim’s Charter
Probation Service has been under an
(Home Office, 1996).
obligation to contact certain victims of
However, implementation of these
crime with a view to preparing release plans
obligations across local probation services
for prisoners, taking into consideration,
has generally progressed at a slow and
where relevant, any anxieties or concerns
uneven pace. Considering the prospect of
that the victim may have regarding the
profound changes in the focus of probation
release. Although this obligation was
work implicit in the Charter’s requirements,
initially limited to the victims of life
a lack of funding to implement this
sentence prisoners, as a result of Probation
additional work and the shortcomings of
Circular 61/1995 (Home Office, 1995) this
national practice guidance, this hesitation
was extended to include the victims of
seemed understandable.
&dquo;serious violent or sexual offences&dquo;.
Uncertainty remained because much
Probation services were required to make
discretion was left to local probation
initial contact with victims within two
managers in the details of how the service
months of sentencing, providing them with
was to be delivered and to what uses
information about the custodial process and
information obtained in victim’s reports
post-release supervision, and seeking their
were
to
be put. The &dquo;drift&dquo;
in
views about release conditions. This duty
implementation which Johnston (1994)
occupies a prominent place among the
predicted in the absence of quickly
&dquo;standards of service delivery&dquo; for criminal
produced and unambiguous national
101
direction was confirmed by both the
hand, runs a large and ambitious
research of Nettleton et al (1997) and the
organisation which incorporates a variety
Home Office’s brief national survey of
of victim services and uses a ’third party’
practice precipitated by Probation Circular
approach. It employs non-probation officer
8/1997
(Home
Clffice,
1997).
staff and sessionally-paid workers who are
Unfortunately, the national survey provided
experienced in victim-offender mediation.
little more insight into the state of
This paper presents an overview of the
developments beyond demonstrating that
main
findings
of
the
research,
there was little evidence of national trends
concentrating on shared issues rather than
in victim contact work and that only a
on the differences that were also revealed
handful of coherent programmes had been
between these two approaches, the
introduced alongside a plethora of hesitant
expectation being that these similarities are
and ad hoc attempts to address the
likely to find resonance elsewhere.
initiative.
- -
-
Within what appeared to be a diverse
and changing context, our own research,
Satisfaction with Victim
funded
.
by the Nuffield Foundation, was
Contact Services
deliberately designed to assess and learn
from established practice rather than to
attempt to provide a representative
High levels of victim satisfaction were
reflection of the apparently unco-ordinated
recorded in both of the probation services
efforts around the country. We sought
studied. When victims were asked to
an
in-depth understanding of the operations
describe their overall level of satisfaction
and implications of two well-established
with the victim contact service they had
and coherent, yet different models of victim
received, most indicated that they were at
service delivery (Crawford and Enterkin,
least &dquo;satisfied&dquo; (70%). Moreover, 45% of
1999). This
victims declared themselves to be
was
achieved through
&dquo;very
qualitative interviews with victims and
satisfied&dquo;. This is a notably high figure with
practitioners involved in 80 victim cases in
regard to victim satisfaction given the
West Yorkshire and Northumbria probation
novelty of the work and in comparison with
services,
the
as well as interviews with other
findings of social research into other
relevant professionals. The research
services for victims (see Hoyle et al, 1998;
fieldwork resulted in a total of 147
Sanders, 1999).
interviews with:
However, a note of caution needs to be
struck in so far as satisfaction and
.
Victims (or their families);
...
To continue reading
Request your trial