This essay aims to critically discuss the whether a Probation Officer’s priority in working with those convicted of crime is either to manage the risks they pose and punish instead of understanding and then addressing the problems involved. To put this into context the history of probation will be discussed to understand the practice of probation from both welfare and punishment model will be discussed. The differing approaches that have influenced practice in probation from rehabilitation approaches and punitive. In addition to the Good Lives Model (GLM) and Risk Needs Responsivity Model (RNR) how this has impacted upon practice. Coupled with the current changes in probation to what approaches are being taken currently within the service.
…show more content…
The introduction of the Probation and Offenders Act 1907 gave Magistrates’ Courts the direct powers to “appoint probation officers whose job it was to advise, assist and befriend offenders placed under their supervision”. (Worrall 2014:66). Worrall (2014:67) argues there have continuously been tensions in the role of a probation officers role concerning caring for offenders and controlling their criminal behaviour. This focus shifted during the period of 1930s-1970s to a casework diagnosis, rehabilitation and positivism (Whitehead and Statham 2006:5). During this time probation became increasingly “secular and scientific” to a more social work role concentrating on a probation officer’s role to identify and address behaviour. In addition to this psychological understanding of one’s behaviour, informed the work of probation officers was seen as the most effective in changing and influencing behaviour(Canton 2011:21). The 1970s saw the collapse of the rehabilitative ideal (Whitehead and Statham (2006:5). Very little research was carried out by the UK government from 1976 until the late 1990’s into the effectiveness of probation. During this time there was an acknowledgement specifically the Home …show more content…
This approach emphasised on matching resources put in to an offender to the level of risk of re-offending posed by the offender. However many argue that this approach does have weeknesses this approach argued by Burke and Collett (2015:16) “concentrates on risks rather than the needs and interst of those under supervision”. This could imply that it focuses on offender deficits rather than an offender’s strength which could hinder building a relationship with an offender in addition to them actually engaging honestly in supervision rather than just going through the motions of the supervison process. This in itself could hinder risk management as you could not develop a meaningful relationship to understand an offender’s risks. Another critism of RNR approach is by putting increased resources into low risk offenders could be ineffective and increase the risk of an offender re-offending (Burke and Collett,
The introduction of the Probation and Offenders Act 1907 gave Magistrates’ Courts the direct powers to “appoint probation officers whose job it was to advise, assist and befriend offenders placed under their supervision”. (Worrall 2014:66). Worrall (2014:67) argues there have continuously been tensions in the role of a probation officers role concerning caring for offenders and controlling their criminal behaviour. This focus shifted during the period of 1930s-1970s to a casework diagnosis, rehabilitation and positivism (Whitehead and Statham 2006:5). During this time probation became increasingly “secular and scientific” to a more social work role concentrating on a probation officer’s role to identify and address behaviour. In addition to this psychological understanding of one’s behaviour, informed the work of probation officers was seen as the most effective in changing and influencing behaviour(Canton 2011:21). The 1970s saw the collapse of the rehabilitative ideal (Whitehead and Statham (2006:5). Very little research was carried out by the UK government from 1976 until the late 1990’s into the effectiveness of probation. During this time there was an acknowledgement specifically the Home …show more content…
This approach emphasised on matching resources put in to an offender to the level of risk of re-offending posed by the offender. However many argue that this approach does have weeknesses this approach argued by Burke and Collett (2015:16) “concentrates on risks rather than the needs and interst of those under supervision”. This could imply that it focuses on offender deficits rather than an offender’s strength which could hinder building a relationship with an offender in addition to them actually engaging honestly in supervision rather than just going through the motions of the supervison process. This in itself could hinder risk management as you could not develop a meaningful relationship to understand an offender’s risks. Another critism of RNR approach is by putting increased resources into low risk offenders could be ineffective and increase the risk of an offender re-offending (Burke and Collett,