Towards Race Equality
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Author | Michael Teague |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700411 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
280
mentoring
programmes.
However,
it
would
have
been
instructive
to
have
cast
the
net
rather
wider
than
North
America,
as
the
Probation
2000
conference
was
able
to
do
earlier
this
year.
Barry
Goldson
of
Liverpool
University
was
perhaps
the
only
speaker
who
engaged
head-on
with
the
wider
political
and
theoretical
context
of
What
Works.
With
skill,
wit
and
insight,
he
placed
current
developments
at
the
end
of
a
continuum
which
began
in
1815.
Saj
Akhtar,
a
Governor
at
Wormwood
Scrubs,
gave
an
all
too
brief
address
on
her
(as
yet
unpublished)
research
on
the
under-representation
of
black
prisoners
on
the
Sex
Offender
Treatment
Programme.
Finally,
David
Perry
of
the
Home
Office
Probation
Unit
offered
an
optimistic
view
of
the
future
of
What
Works,
suggesting
that
the
real
problem
may
be
managing
its
rapid
expansion.
A
wide
range
of
topics
were
covered
in
the
workshops
and
symposia,
including
Adolescent
Sex
Offending,
Drug
Treatment
and
Testing
Orders,
Racially
Motivated
Offenders,
Partnerships
and
Resettlement.
The
fundamental
message
was
that
What
Works
is
here
to
stay.
The
government
is
prepared
to
put
its
money
where
its
mouth
is,
and
to
fund
What
Works.
The
process
of
change
and
development
continues.
Michael
Teague
Senior
Lecturer
in
Criminal
Justice,
University
of Hertfordshire
Towards
Race
Equality
For
the
Probation
Service,
as
for
every
other
criminal
justice
agency,
the
Macpherson
Report
into
the
racist
murder
of
Stephen
Lawrence
signalled
a
seismic
shift.
It
unambiguously
defined
institutionalised
racism
as
the
&dquo;collective
failure
of
an
organisation
to
provide
an
appropriate
and
professional
service
to
people
because
of
their
colour,
culture
or
ethnic
origin&dquo;.
The
Report’s
rigour
and
lucidity
achieved
such
widespread
acceptance
that
when
we
read
in
one
newspaper
report
that
Metropolitan
Police
Federation
Chair
Glen
Smyth
described
Sir
William
Macpherson
as
an
&dquo;upper-
class
twit
from
a
privileged
background
who
lives in
a
castle&dquo;,
we
breathed
a
sigh
of
relief.
We
are
not
like
that
in
Probation.
We
have
a
professional
culture
which
sees
through
such
ill-judged
apologias
for
institutionalised
racism.
Or
have
we?
Such
cosy
complacency
is
shattered
by
the
Probation
Inspectorate’s
Thematic
Inspection
’Towards
Race
Equality
2000’
(TRE).
One
all-pervasive
message
emerges
from
the
222
densely
packed
pages
of
TRE:
we
should
never
underestimate
institutionalised
racism’s
resilience,
or
its
tenacious
capacity
to
survive.
Main
points:
Methodology -
In
1999,
HM
Inspectorate
of
Probation
(HMIP)
audited
all
54
individual
probation
services
and
visited
10
services
(both
inner-city
and
rural),
meeting
staff
of
all
grades.
All
643
minority
ethnic
staff
in
the
10
services
were
sent
a
confidential
questionnaire;
185
(29%)
were
returned.
Four
hundred
and
eighty
four
pre-sentence
reports
(PSRs)
were
read.
Case
files
for
offenders
on
probation
and
community
service
orders
were
requested.
There
is
no
doubt
that
this
is
an
evidence-based
study.
Employment
Practices -
Figures
published
under
Section
95
of
the
Criminal
Justice
Act
1991
confirm
that
8.3%
of
Probation
staff
are
from
a
minority
ethnic
background,
compared
to
7%
of
the
total
working
population.
This
is
in
stark
contrast
to
minority
ethnic
representation
amongst
police
and
prison
service
staff,
and
lay
magistrates
(2%,
2.6%,
and
4.5%
respectively).
However,
minority
ethnic
staff
are
strongly
underrepresented
at
senior
levels
in
the
Probation
Service.
Half
of
the
services
visited
had
no
minority
ethnic
managers,
and
at
the
end
of
1999
there
were
just
50
minority
ethnic
senior
To continue reading
Request your trial