The quality of probation supervision: Comparing practitioner accounts in England and Scotland
| Author | Fergus McNeill,Scott Grant |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220314542942 |
| Published date | 01 August 2014 |
| Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Probation
2014, Vol. 6(2) 147 –168
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2066220314542942
ejp.sagepub.com
The quality of probation
supervision: Comparing
practitioner accounts in
England and Scotland
Scott Grant
Glasgow Caledonian University, UK
Fergus McNeill
University of Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Whilst community sanctions and measures in the UK have enjoyed considerable
academic focus on effectiveness and ‘what works’ (see McGuire, 1995; Maguire et al.,
2010), until recently analysts have neglected practices and processes associated with
the routine supervision of offenders in the community. Two recent studies of quality
in the practice of offender supervision in Scotland and England begin to address this
gap by exploring practitioners’ understandings of quality in each jurisdiction (Grant
and McNeill, 2014; Robinson et al., 2013a, 2013b; Shapland et al., 2012). This article
compares results from both studies, exploring convergence and divergence across
key themes and offering a deeper understanding of what quality means in two distinct
but connected jurisdictions. Despite significant and enduring differences in the formal
arrangements for, and policy contexts of, probation services in England and Wales
and in Scotland, our findings demonstrate substantial and significant similarity across
what practitioners conceive as the important elements of supervisory practice. Our
comparative analysis also found a surprising degree of concordance in practitioner
resistance to managerialism – revealing a shared consensus on the importance of values
and ethical practice within each country; indeed, shared understandings which seem
relatively resilient in both jurisdictions.
Keywords
Probation, offender management, offender supervision, criminal justice, quality
Corresponding author:
Scott Grant, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Lanarkshire G4 0BA, UK.
Email: scott.grant@gcu.ac.uk
542942EJP0010.1177/2066220314542942European Journal of ProbationGrant and McNeill
2014
Article
148 European Journal of Probation 6(2)
Introduction
Whilst comparative examinations of community sanctions and measures continue to
gather pace across Europe (see McNeill and Beyens, 2013; Nellis and Bungerfeldt, 2013;
Robinson and Svensson, 2013), surprisingly little is known about convergences or diver-
gences in practices of offender supervision between countries within the United Kingdom
itself (Shapland et al., 2012). Recent activity by scholars interested in comparative crimi-
nal justice includes attempts within Europe to expand local understandings of supervi-
sion across otherwise divergent boundaries of law, nation state, culture and penal
architecture. Early indications from this research suggest that assumptions about penal
divergence are being challenged by emerging evidence of intersections and associations
between countries that have previously been, through a lack of research, simply unknown
(McNeill and Beyens, 2013). Whilst in its infancy, this comparative research is timely as
analyses suggest that community sanctions and measures continue to grow, diversify,
intensify and spread across Europe (Durnescu et al., 2013; McNeill and Beyens, 2013),
leading some commentators to propose that mass supervision (as much as mass incar-
ceration) has become a significant phenomenon (McNeill and Beyens, 2013; Phelps,
2013; Robinson et al., 2013b). Related concerns about the economic costs of incarcera-
tion and re-offending have also emerged strongly as key drivers in broader changes to
penal policy across Europe (particularly in relation to prison sentences).
A possible shift towards a more convergent approach to probation supervision in
Europe is given further momentum by a Framework Decision by the Council of the
European Union (2008/947/JHA), which called for a mutual recognition of judicial deci-
sions made in criminal matters across Member States. If the activity of the EU in this
sphere is a relatively recent development, the Council of Europe has a longer history of
articulation and promulgating rules and standards that outline the requisite skills, knowl-
edge and values expected of probation services in each member country (Morgenstern
and Larrauri, 2013; Robinson and Svensson, 2013). This European calibration of proba-
tion activity indicates both a political agenda and, perhaps, a shift in conceptual analysis
towards more convergent understandings of community sanctions and measures; how-
ever, despite wider interest in the practice of offender supervision throughout Europe
(Robinson and Svensson, 2013), the UK finds itself surprisingly under-researched as a
comparative site of study in its own right.
Within and beyond Europe, comparative studies in criminal justice are also emerging
in fields exploring international developments in policy and theory (Dammer and
Albanese, 2014; Nelken, 2010). But whilst analyses of international criminal justice
have begun to engage with many problems of comparison (for example, relating to dif-
fering relationships to social policy, differences in available data, differences in language
and terminology, as well as wider political and cultural differences), analysis of com-
parative criminal justice practices within Europe remains largely descriptive (e.g. van
Kalmthout and Durnescu, 2008). On a more local level in the UK, existing studies have
focused more on the comparative facets of probation policy and discourse, and less on
associated aspects of offender supervision practice between UK jurisdictions (see
Robinson and McNeill, 2004). As well as contributing to growing European discussion
on convergence in probation practices (see Robinson and Svensson, 2013), this article
To continue reading
Request your trial