NCJ Number
190108
Journal
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 40 Issue: 3 Dated: August 2001 Pages: 235-254
Editor(s)
Tony Fowles,
David Wilson
Date Published
August 2001
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This article focused on the knowledge of "what works" in probation practice, and its implications for power relationships both within the probation service and between the service and its political masters.
Abstract
This article examined the implications of the search for knowledge of "what works" in the context of probation at the level of professional practice and the level of the power base of the service as a whole. The article presented a history of "what works" in the probation service reviewing its roots both in the United Kingdom and abroad and focused on the appropriation of "what works knowledge" by the political center in the form of the Effective Practice Initiative, implemented in 1998. The relationship between the emerging body of "what works knowledge" and the professional status of practitioners were considered before discussions on possible implications for the probation service of the central ownership of the "what works" agenda. "What works" or the new rehabilitationism was viewed as a significant step toward the restoration of faith in the effectiveness of the probation service and an opportunity for the service and staff to regain a measure of credibility. In addition, the perception of "what works" was seen as a threat dating back to the early 1990's. The article argued that the coming of "what works" had been a mixed blessing for the service, being associated at once with increasing credibility and increasing technicality. The appropriation of "what works" by the center confused the picture intensifying both positive and negative correlates of "what works." This lent weight to the service’s claims of effectiveness and introduced standarization on a national level in the form of accredited programs and the development of a national instrument. It was suggested that the "what works" agenda could be understood as a powerful catalyst to the creation of a national service. Much of the risk to the service derived from a degree of over-confidence in the knowledge base that was evident at the center and the service itself. The professional future of the service was seen as depending on its ability to hold on to areas of "indeterminacy." The ways of the expert practitioner were seen as more effective than the inflexible prescriptions of the administrator. References