Transforming Rehabilitation: Evidence, Values and Ideology
Author | Fergus McNeill |
Pages | 83-85 |
83
THOUGHT PIECE
'Thought Pieces' are papers which draw on the author's personal knowledge and
experience to offer stimulating and thought provoking ideas relevant to the aims of the
Journal. The ideas are located in an academic, research, and/or practice context and all
papers are peer reviewed. Responses to them should be submitted to the Journal in the
normal way.
TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION: EVIDENCE, VALUES
AND IDEOLOGY
Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology & Social Work, University of Glasgow
I’m writing this at Heathrow, on my way home from the first World Probation Congress in
London on 8-10 October 2013. For me, it was a bittersweet event. S weet to learn about
and to celebrate what probation is and can be – at its best; bitter to be doing that at the
very moment that the UK Government dis mantles a world-leading, globally-renowned,
award-winning public service with such a proud history.
On the first day of the conference - but at a separate event organised by User Voice - I was
asked what my fears are about Transforming Reh abilitation (TR), specifically from a
research-informed or evidence-based perspecti ve. In one sense, that’s a difficult question
to answer. Since Transforming Rehabil itation is really about disestablishing probation, it is
quite hard to advance a strictly ‘evidence-based’ response. It is impossibl e to experiment
(in the strict sense) with criminal justice institutional arrangements, so there is no
‘evidence-based’ organisational structure for probation. That said, there are man y
arguments that can be made about which structures might best facilitate or impede
desistance. And that’s where my fea rs arise.
Firstly, TR seems to me to be based on several fundamental misconceptions about ri sk.
Many informed commen tators have noted the dangers of creating an organisational
structure that reifies risk classifications; that assum es people can be easily or sensibly
classified for any period of time as high, medium or low ri sk. They have also pointed out -
repeatedly - that most ‘serious further off ences’ by people under supervision are carried
out by those classified as low or medium risk - not necessar ily because the assessment and
classification was wrong, but often because risk is dynamic and situational; it is always
changing.
British Journal of Community Justice
©2013 Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 11(2-3): 83-85
To continue reading
Request your trial