under new orders: the redefinition of social work with

Br. J. Social Wk. (1987) 17,

Under New Orders: The Redefinitionof Social Work with Young Offenders

HOWARD PARKER, GRAHAM JARVIS ANDMAGGIE SUMNER

Howard Parker is a Senior Lecturer, Graham Jarvis and Maggie Sumner are Research Staff inthe Sub-Department of Social Work Studies, University of Liverpool. The findings reportedin this paper come from a larger study of the implementation of the 1982 Criminal Justice Act,funded by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit.

SUMMARYThis paper reports on the significant changes in policy and practice presently beingimplemented by the Probation Service and other social work agencies responsible for workwith juvenile and young adult offenders. These changes concern Social Enquiry Reportwriting, the more intensive supervision of young offenders through the attachment of daycentre type requirements to Supervision and Probation Orders and the extension ofCommunity Service Orders. Illustrating their analysis with data from a national survey of theProbation Service, the authors argue that these changes which have emanated in variousforms from central government have had a mixed reception. Whilst on the one hand, thisthrust from above has been viewed as an unwelcome extension of community control throughsocial work practice, it has also been seen to contain opportunities to provide genuinealternatives to custody for young offenders. The authors argue that, taken in the context ofrecent overall sentencing trends, it is unlikely that custody rates will decrease significantly, asCourts will tend to use community service and supervision packages to serve other purposes.

It is not easy to make sense of recent changes in English criminal justice,particularly in relation to young offenders (14-20 year olds). On the onehand amidst some decidedly strong rhetoric about law and order andlocking up young 'hooligans and thugs', the Courts have been given, via theCriminal Justice Act (CJA), extensive new custodial sentencing powers.Yet on the other hand, diversion through cautioning schemes is flourishingand high tariff community supervision programmes backed by newlegislative powers, significant capital investment and explicit encourage-ment from central government, have multiplied. Indeed the alternatives to

Correspondence to Dr. H. Parker, Department of Sociology ind SocUl Work Studies Univemty ofLiverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Myrtle Street, P.O.Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX

0643-3102/87/010021 +23 $03.00/0 ©1987 Britiih AnocUtion of SocUl Worken

at Penn State University (Paterno L

ib) on April 8, 2016

http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from


22 HOWARD PARKER, GRAHAM JARVIS AND MAGGIE SUMNER

custody movement in Social Services, the voluntary sector and Probationhas grown into a thriving industry during consecutive Conservativeadministrations. Why should the law and order party provide such fertileground for social work practice with young offenders? What is the pricesocial work must pay?

In this paper we want to look at the pressure which has been exerted onsocial work in general and the Probation Service in particular by a broadthrust from central government. The pressure for change has come in avariety of forms including the 1982 Criminal Justice Act and accompany-ing Circulars, the Financial Management Initiative Scheme, the Statementof National Objectives and Priorities for the Probation Service (SNOP) andthe DHSS Intermediate Treatment Initiative. Furthermore, these specificdirectives have arrived almost simultaneously and have been administeredby agency managers painfully aware of the political ethos and financialclimate from which they have emerged. We will attempt to unravel thiscomplex and apparently contradictory situation and consider its implica-tions for social work practice with offenders in the light of sentencing trendsand, not least, youth unemployment. First, however, it is necessary to layout the component parts of this thrust from above.

THE THRUST FROM ABOVE

The CJA aims to provide the courts with both a wider range of sentencesand a greater say over the sentences they impose. It moves in two directionsat once. On the one hand, it clearly allows judges and magistrates to specifydeterminate periods of custody from a significantly extended range. On theother it emphasizes that 'unnecessary' custody should be avoided (Sections4 and 2 (5), (7)). It strengthens the Supervision Order with SpecifiedActivities (Section 20), rearticulates the role of Intermediate Treatment andintroduces Community Service Orders (CSOs) for 16 year olds. TheProbation Order is given similar new attachments though Schedule 11 '4a'and '4b' requirements. In practice this has meant that 30-60 day 'daycentre' type activities have become prevalent.

The new Act, by making Social Enquiry Reports (SERs) the norm forcases where custody is being considered and by emphasizing that Courtsshould always consider alternatives to custody, implicitly requires socialwork agencies to focus on high tariff cases and so to become particularlyactive at the 'threshold' of custody.

The Circulars, discussion papers and notes of guidance which tricklefrom government departments have been particularly important in the caseof the 1982 Act because of its 'permissive' nature. It is through theseinstructions that the ethos of expectations from central government arearticulated. What was particularly noticeable during the 1983/4 period was




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 23

that the trickle became a fast running stream. Along with a dozen otherCirculars, 17/83 and 18/83 stand out. These Circulars provide SER writerswith a definite message. Reports should be more factual, more focussed onthe offence and more concerned with the likely effect of different disposals.Any recommendations should follow logically from the body of the reportand authors should ration their descriptions of personal and familycircumstances, unless they are directly 'relevant to the court's assessment ofhis culpability' (Home Office Circular No. 17/83).

In early 1984, SNOP arrived. The Statement of National Objectives andPriorities for the Probation Service did not mince words. The Service mustbe effective and relevant. It should concentrate its report writing on cases'where the court may be prepared to divert an offender from whatotherwise would be a custodial sentence' (Section V,A,(ii)). Supervisoryresources should concentrate on offenders who are at risk of custody(Section VI, (a)). A change of priorities and a redistribution of resources islikely to be required to produce such a change (Section VII).

The implicit message in SNOP was that the Probation Service had beencosseted from the financial cuts, which have fallen upon most of the publicsector, particularly Social Services, because it was part of the protected 'lawand order' machinery. However, value for money must become a key issue.SNOP provided the basis for introducing a Financial ManagementInformation System for the Probation Inspectorate. The purpose of thisscheme was to ensure that grant aided expenditure on the Service is relatedto 'clear objectives and securing value for money that the taxpayerprovides' and that resources are not 'dissipated into activities which areuseful in themselves and for which there may be some local demand butwhich are nevertheless peripheral to the main functions of the Service'(Home Office, 1984). This demand for new priorities was not so muchencouraged by the allocation of further resources as demanded on thegrounds that no reduction had occurred.

In the more general atmosphere of cost cutting, the allocation of £15million by the DHSS (Circular 83 (3)) to provide alternatives to custody(and care) for juveniles came as a surprise to most commentators. It thuscarried a potent message: that the government really did mean what it saidabout supporting alternatives to custody. For practitioners committed toproviding alternatives to custody for young offenders, this initiative hasbeen a significant boost. By the end of 1986, nearly 100 initial or re-fundedschemes offering some 3400 places were in operation as a direct conse-quence of the initiative (JOT, 1986).

How should we interpret such a rapid series of messages? Have the newAct, the Circulars, the DHSS Initiative and SNOP surfaced together assynchronized swimmers (Elkington and Chamberlain, 1986)? Certainlytheir deft timing has aroused strong suspicions in the Probation Service




Dow

nloaded from



that they are a product of careful coaching by a government committed to afirm stance on law and order and thus requiring that the ProbationService's primary aim be the containment and surveillance of seriousoffenders. Whilst this would, if true, be a short and simple conclusion to thecare and control debate which eternally pervades the Probation Service(e.g. Harris, 1977; Jordan, 1983; Raynor, 1985), we would doubt that theissues are so straightforward.

ORDERS FROM ABOVE?

In Criminal Justice: A Working Paper (Home Office, 1984), the then HomeSecretary, Leon Brittan, wrote that the criminal justice system should betreated as a system, indicating the necessity of coherently dealing withcrime at every level, with the objective of 'sustaining full public confidencein our ciminal justice system'. This was, after all, an important part of theGovernment's appeal to the electorate. But to assume that the appearanceof the 'synchronized swimmers' is a manifestation of such a systematizedpolicy is to take political rhetoric too much at face value. SNOP and the Actare related but only in a rather looser sense that both originated in a climateof concern about law and order on the one hand and about cutting publicexpenditure on the other. SNOP and the CIA may converge in terms ofstressing alternatives to custody, but they have rather different origins.

The White Paper Young Offenders (Home Office, 1980) acceptedcriticism that the Greep Paper Youth Custody and Supervision (HomeOffice, 1978), published under the previous Conservative administration,had focussed too nairowly on custody. But it still concentrated on this issueand in particular on the structure of custodial sentences. It did containproposals to strengthen community supervision, but this seems to havebeen more related to a desire to enhance the confidence of the courts inSupervision Orders, following pressure from the Magistrates' Association,than to sentiments expressed in Criminal Justice: A Working Paper aboutthe strengthening of Probation Orders to allow the Service to supervize 'agreater number of offenders who would otherwise face custodial sentences'.The background to the Act suggests that a commitment to cutting custodyrates was not a central plank of government policy, despite the statedintention to limit the use of custody to offenders who are 'a real danger tosociety'. The restrictions on the use of custody in Section 1 (4) were not partof government policy but were introduced at Committee stage by the AllParty Penal Affairs Group. Nor were government ministers very forth-

. coming with statements that the Act would reduce custody: rather theyexpressed the hope that it would. But equally, the more overtly controllingelements in community supervision, notably the Night Restriction Order,were added at a late stage by back bench amendments and did not reflect




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 25

government policy either. An examination of the background to the Actthus casts doubt on the view that the CJA is one clear element of aconcerted thrust. Overall the CJA is a piecemeal collection of disparateelements, although with a general theme of increasing the options insentencing. Providing new social work supervision type sentences andgiving Intermediate Treatment a financial boost is, in this sense, quiteconsistent with extending the courts' powers in relation to custody andembarking on a new prison building programme. Both are concerned withextending sentencing options in both directions (see Home Office, 1980, p.2§3).

SNOP, on the other hand, combines concerns about criminal justice withthe search for efficiency and effectiveness. A similar dualism has been laidupon the Police and the Prison Service—also stemming from the FinancialInitiatives Scheme. Moreover, the contents of SNOP do not indicate afundamental change of direction for the Probation Service. SNOP acceptsthe need for local differentiation (see Raynor, 1984) and indeed many of itsrecommendations correspond with the goals of progressive social Work/probation practice, emanating from the alternatives to custody movementand some influential academic work (e.g. Thorpe et al., 1980). It has beenthe very existence of SNOP and its apparently carefully timed arrival whichhas aroused concern within the Service. Such direct 'new orders' from theGovernment are seen as unprecedented.

Finally, even the DHSS initiative was a lot less carefully plannedfinancially than its £15 million value would suggest. It seems that whilstplans for such an initiative were well formed, the actual allocation of thefunds was more a case of good fortune than carefully arranged priorities.The haste with which the initiative was implemented bears witness to this. Itcan also be noted that the amount involved is very small compared to thecapital costs alone of the 2000 new places for young people in the prisonbuilding programme.

In conclusion, then, the thrust from above is real enough, but it is muchless cohesive and rather more ambiguous than appears at first sight.

CHANGES IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Whilst Intermediate Treatment programmes are being scrutinized byBottoms' Cambridge study and NACRO's Juvenile Offenders Team, it isnot clear how the Probation Service is in fact responding to these newdemands. Lloyd's (1986) analysis focussed on changes in local policystatements specifically in response to SNOP and there remains what hedescribed as 'the inevitable, all-important question of what is actuallyhappening in local areas'. It is still not clear whether the Service is 'diggingin' and refusing to change or is responding rapidly and enthusiastically to




Dow

nloaded from



the 'new orders'. In order to evaluate the Probation response, and as part ofa larger project looking at the impact of the 1982 Criminal Justice Act, weadministered a questionnaire to all Probation Services in England andWales, the results of which are reported in this section.

The survey was administered, following extensive consultation with theHome Office and with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, via apostal questionnaire in June 1985. After a follow up letter, 38 of the 56Areas provided the information requested. This is a response rate of 68%which is good for a postal questionnaire, although a higher response ratemight have been expected given the backing of ACOP and of the HomeOffice. The Services not represented in the sample are spread nationally andare from the less heavily populated and more rural areas. Being less likely tohave Research and Information Officers, these areas probably had genuinedifficulty in collating the information. This seems to be the main reason fornon-response. Only one area refused explicitly for reasons other than lackof time and resources to provide the data requested. Despite the under-representation of the more rural areas, the survey gives national coverageand does include the metropolitan and urban areas within whose courtsmost criminal matters are dealt with.

Turning now to the results of the survey, we begin by looking at the tenorof local policy changes since the 'thrust' and then at specific aspects ofpolicy and practice, namely SER work and the provision of 'alternatives'for juveniles and young adults.

( a ) CHANGES IN GENERAL POLICY

Twenty-five (71%) Areas responding to the questionnaire had recentlyproduced new or revised policy statements. This does not indicatewholesale change in policy. Various degrees of enthusiasm for changecould be discerned. A few Areas seemed willing to construct local versionsof SNOP and a style of management in keeping with it. Thus the policydocument drawn up by Service L described the need to work towards clearobjectives and priorities as 'imperative' in view of SNOP. This area alsorequired Senior Probation Officers to monitor events and to 'keep twodisplay charts in a prominent place in the main group office... (which) willprovide information with regard to (a) the length of probation andsupervision orders made each month and (b) the number of clients withprevious convictions made the subjects of probation and supervisionorders each month'.

But in other areas, a less enthusiastic response was evident, ranging fromthe stoical acceptance that 'the Act, whatever some might see as itslimitations, became law and has to be implemented' (Service A), toattempts to balance off new directions with a continuing commitment to




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 27

traditional values. This latter approach seems the most common one and isclearly exemplified in the policy statement of Service E:

As is often the case, these enactments have received a polarised response. On the onehand, some see in them a greater amount of control and coercion, a restoration ofpowers to the courts, and thus a combination of factors to be applauded. Others seein the provisions of the Act an erosion of personal freedom and a short-sightedsubstitution of control for rehabilitation. Finding the middle ground in this sort ofargument is very difficult but it is precisely that middle ground which I want topromote as a way forward for the Service . . .

This attempt to find the 'middle ground' is the most common response,with some few Areas welcoming the changes, but with little evidence ofopen revolt.

(b) SOCIAL ENQUIRY REPORTS

The volume of SER work might have been expected to increase as a resultof the 1982 Act, given the provisions of Section 2. Although a substantialminority of Areas did report an increase, as Table 1 shows, there isconsiderable variation between Areas. Within this rather mixed pattern,

TABLE 1. Reported changesin the volume of SER worksince the implementation of

the CJA, 1982

IncreasedStableDecreasedNot Answered

Total

16 (42%)9 (24%)

11(29%)2 (5%)

38 (100%)

there has been an increase in the proportion of reports prepared on adultsas against juveniles, but again there is some variation with a few Areasreporting an opposite trend.

The expected increases could of course be counteracted by the curtail-ment of SER work in other types of case. Reconsideration of priorities inorder to avoid additional strain on resources does seem to have occurred insome Areas. For example:

Courts have always had a high level of expectation that Probation Officers wouldsupply a considerable number of reports, but the volume has increased withrequests from many other quarters. It will be necessary to review the category ofoffender remanded for sentencing reports; obviously those at a high risk of custody




Dow

nloaded from



must rank as a high priority and particularly where there is a statutory duty toprovide information. (Service S)

Twenty-six (68%) Areas had already changed their strategy in this wayand review was underway in a further five (13%), with some of theremaining seven indicating that consideration was likely to be given to theissue in the near future. There is clearly a significant shift in the kinds ofcases in which SERs are prepared. Generally the trend is away from thepreparation of reports on first time offenders (mentioned by about a thirdof the Areas) and away from pre-trial reports (mentioned by a sixth),towards an emphasis on reports on those at risk of high tariff sentences.However, in some Areas this process is being undertaken with greatcaution, with one reporting that 'In one sub-area on a trial basis we are nolonger doing pre-trial reports on first time juvenile offenders' (Service N)!

Changes in the content of SERs, as well as changes in target groups, arebeing made. Generally these are in line with Circulars 17/1983 and 18/1983,that is firmer recommendations (mentioned by seven (18%) Areas), and,more strikingly, a particular emphasis on alternatives to custody in almosthalf of the Service and with nearly a fifth (18%) adopting a policy of notrecommending custodial sentences at all.

These trends would seem to demand some reconsideration of therelationship between the Probation Service and local courts if requests forSERs are not to be made inappropriately and sentencers are to be aware ofthe range of community based 'alternatives' on offer. Nevertheless, two-thirds (25) of the Areas in our sample had not revised their policy andpractice in relation to local courts. Such revisions as have been made havefocussed mainly on a higher profile for the duty officer in court, althoughproviding information to sentencers about new disposals and develop-ments was also mentioned. Some reported that they were encouragingmagistrates to visit facilities such as Day Centres and a few Areas hadproduced information leaflets. Interestingly, some of these seemed to begeared to 'selling' the new disposals on the basis of their punitive andcontrolling aspects.

SER work is obviously a 'live' issue within the Service: the Act, SNOPand the Circulars all giving an immediacy to existing debates such as thoseon the appropriateness of pre-trial reports (likely to be resolved in a newCircular) or the role of SERs in diversion from custody. Nevertheless, thereis no evidence of wholesale change, but rather a piecemeal implementationof guidelines emphasizing a focus on finding 'alternatives' for high tariffcases, but not accompanied by any 'hard sell' in respect of the Courts.

( c ) COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR JUVENILES

The availability of the various new sentencing options for juveniles is




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 29

shown in Table 2. It is evident that some of the new options have been takenup extensively whilst others have been virtually ignored. Thus theimplementation of negative requirements in Orders has been minimal:apart from the evidence shown here, the Criminal Statistics for 1985 revealthat very few 'curfew' conditions and other 'negative' requirements wereappended to Supervision Orders in that year. This is not surprising, giventhe policy of NAPO in relation to requirements of this type. 'Post-custody'Attendence Centre Orders also show little take-up, but the high non-response rate on this topic, together with some of the additional comments,suggest a low level of awareness of this disposal rather than opposition to it.

By contrast, Community Service Orders for 16 year olds show acomprehensive take-up. The importance of CSOs is also revealed in theirrapid growth from 1 % to over 3% of disposals for this age group between1983 and 1985, with some 2000 Orders a year now being made on 16 yearolds (Criminal Statistics for England and Wales, 1984, 1985). Clearly thismust make demands on Service resources and seems likely to continue todo so.

TABLE 2. Implementation of new sentencing disposals in 38 Probation Areas inEngland and Wales

Available Available Not Implementationfor males for females imple- anticipated Not

Disposal only also mented shortly answered Total

Supervision withspecifiedactivities

Supervision withnegativerequirements

CommunityService Ordersfor 16 year olds

'Post-Custody'attendancecentre orders

2(5%)

0

(-.)

0

(-)

2(5%)

28(74%)

1(3%)

38(100%)

1(3%)

3(8%)

35(92%)

0

(-)

24(63%)

3(8%)

0

(-)

0

(-)

0

(-)

2(5%)

2(5%)

0

(-)

11(29%)

38(100%)

38(100%)

38(100%)

38(100%)

Table 2 also shows a widespread provision of Specified Activities, with87% of the Areas having this option available or expecting to in the nearfuture. Access to these 'high tariff schemes in the making of recommenda-tions is regionally differentiated. Twenty-one Areas (55%) have accessthroughout the PSDs which they cover, with a further 15 (39%) having only




Dow

nloaded from



partial access (or expecting to during 1985). In part the unevenness isexplained by the non-viability of such schemes in low-population areas, butthe main reasons are connected with the division of responsibility forjuveniles between Social Services and Probation and the fact that most ofthe Intermediate Treatment programmes available have been developedoutside the Probation Service.

The Probation Service has a high level of responsibility for 14-16 yearold offenders, supervizing three quarters of the Orders on this age group,though only a fifth on those under 14 (Probation Statistics, England andWales, 1983). There is of course considerable local variation in the divisionof responsibility for juvenile offenders between Probation and SocialServices and this was confirmed by the differences in our sample Areas (e.g.nine (24%) claimed responsibility for 100% of 14-16 year olds and five(13%) for 'hardly any'). But there is also an important distinction (which isoften ignored in official statistics) to be made between the formalnomination of a supervising agency within the terms of a court Order andthe practical supervision of involvement in IT or other groups. That is, aproportion of official Probation Service clients are referred on to projectsrun by Social Services or the voluntary sector. Whilst there are signs thatsome Probation Areas (30% in our sample) have taken on new partnershipsand responsibilities for IT provision since the CJA, it is clear that the maindevelopment of programmes for attaching to Supervision Orders has beenoutside the Service. In particular, the DHSS initiative has meant a majorexpansion of Intermediate Treatment and Specified Activity programmeswithin a local authority/voluntary agency partnership. However, themonitoring of this initiative by the Juvenile Offenders' Team (JOT, 1985)suggests that early targeting has not been good, with new schemes oftendeveloping in 'Shire' areas rather than in the urban areas with the largestnumbers of juveniles being sent into custody or with the highestproportionate use of custody. There are also some signs of slippagewhereby these new community supervision programmes are not being usedas alternatives to custody but as sentences in their own right. In the contextof a major expansion of cautioning and a rapid decline in the number of'atrisk' 10-16 year olds in the population, over-capacity and mis-targetinglook increasingly likely.

The impressive array of community based disposals billed as alternativeto care or custody may therefore not actually make any substantialimpression on custody rates. Decarceration may be more at the level ofrhetoric (Garland and Young, 1983 p. 18; Hudson, 1984).

( d ) COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OF ADULT OFFENDERS

The important new sentencing options here are the inclusion of require-




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 31

ments under Sections 4 (a) and (b) of Schedule 11 of the CJA, which dealswith requirements in Probation Orders. Although some of the new'packages' are,technically 4 (a) requirements, mostly this sub-section isused to insert individualised requirements in Orders and requirements ofattendance at day centres are made under 4 (b).

SECTION 4 ( a ) REQUIREMENTS

These 'one-off' requirements do not seem to be being used extensively.Restraining or 'negative' requirements have been subject to opposition byACOP and by NAPO and it is consequently no surprise to find that suchstipulations are not generally being appended to Orders. It is perhaps alittle more surprising to find that 'positive' requirements are not beingextensively used either. They are not being recommended at all in 11 (19%)Areas, 'very rarely' in 14 (37%) and although 14 (37%) Areas said thatofficers make recommendations for these additional conditions 'wheneverappropriate', this could mean frequently or rarely. Some Areas appear tobe moving towards the use of such resources for high tariff offenders. Apriority in Service F, for instance, is the development of:

The concept of differential individualised supervision, particularly of the moreheavily-convicted offenders, made explicit within the terms of a probation orderand entailing wider use of service and community resources, e.g. individualcounselling, group work, alcohol self-management programmes, use of day centrefacilities, use of'reporting in' schemes, hostels/lodgings placements, compensation/restitution/reparation requirements.

But these conditions seem to be sought more usually in order to secureattendance at groups dealing with specific problems such as alcoholism.There is no real evidence of a move towards the use of these conditions forextra surveillance and control. Three issues can be identified as significanthere in explaining why there has not been a greater take-up of 4 (a)requirements, some of which are also relevant to the 4 (b) 'packages'. Firstthere is an objection to the inclusion of requirements which are difficult toenforce: an objection which has been well rehearsed in relation to 'curfew'conditions in particular. The following comment from one Area illustratesthis:

The merits of extra conditions are debatable and where possible the flexibility of theordinary Order is perhaps desirable . . . extra conditions in order to appear to'toughen' an Order are dubious and when argued in terms of extra surveillance andcontrol are quite unrealistic given the limitations of use placed on courts by therelevant law and the resources of the Service. (Service Y)

Secondly there is the fear of 'tariff slippage', the downgrading of the basicProbation Order. The argument here is that it is more important to retainthe confidence of the courts in the basic order than to use additional




Dow

nloaded from



requirements for the purpose of gaining credibility. As one Area policydocument expressed the fear:

Placing emphasis on what it is claimed can be achieved by the use of probation withspecial programmes creates the risk that orders with standard requirements are seenas somehow ineffective. It is argued that courts are reluctant to use probation forthe more serious offender and that special programmes are therefore needed if weare to move 'up-tariff* effectively. But it is difficult to ensure that such programmesare used solely for those who would not otherwise be placed on probation, and ifthis is so, the net effect may well be that we would be supervising—at more expenseand with a greater curtailment of their liberty—many of the people we already geton probation. All this would be arguably worthwhile if it could be demonstratedthat such programmes produced substantially better results in terms of reoffending.We know of no evidence of this kind. (Service B)

The third issue leading to resistance to the use of additional requirementsfor control purposes is based upon a reassertion of classic social workprinciples of voluntarism and intervention on the basis of need. This isexemplified in the following policy statements:

Service policy is that existing and future conditions should be related to client needrather than intensity of surveillance. It is hoped that this will act as a guide to thefuture introduction of packages. (Service W)

A probation or supervision order is a flexible measure which can be applied to meetthe varying needs of offenders, whether high or low risk in terms of criminality.Such an order is made instead of a sentence. Its strength lies not necessarily in theconditions which are attached to the order, either negative or restrictive, but in thesubstance of the agreement between the Probation Officer and the offender and thedemands that it makes on both parties. (Service H)

These general reservations about additional conditions were expressed by asignificant minority of Areas in relation to 4 (a) requirements and recurredin relation to Schedule 11/4 (b) requirements. They reflect the ideologicaland academic debates which continue to rumble on (Harris, 1977; Jones,1981; Raynor, 1985).

SENTENCING 'PACKAGES'

There has been a rapid development of'Schedule 11 packages', which tendto revolve around Day Centres and the old Day Training Centre regimes,although 10 of the 38 sample Areas did not, at the time of the survey, havethese facilities. Very significantly, six of these ten Areas had not introducedsuch schemes as a matter of deliberate policy, based on the objections notedin the previous paragraph. Even in those Areas which do have this new'high tariff sentence, some reservations were expressed on the issue of




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 33

compulsory attendance and its compatability with social work values ofvoluntarism. For example:

We "have a successful and well attended Day Centre and are in the process ofopening 'activity centres' in other main areas. If clients are to get the best out ofprogrammes in Day Centres and Activity Centres they must be motivated to wantto take part of their own volition. In the Day Centre we have found that formalconditions in Orders can be counter-productive and that we can produce betterresults, which satisfy magistrates without them. (Service L)

We recognise that there is a major job in persuading the courts to use a straightProbation Order and of the need to be clear about what will happen to a client if anOrder is made. Our concern is that if the decision about who has access to trainingfacilities is made by the courts then the level of commitment could well be less than itis with a client who voluntarily uses these opportunities. (Service O)

Other problems encountered by Areas with Schedule 11 provision fell intotwo categories. First, practical problems in getting new Centres underway,particularly financial problems. Of the 32 Areas which had not decidedagainst the development of'packages' on policy grounds, over half (56%)had experienced problems of this nature. Several Areas had founddifficulty in obtaining initial funding from the Home Office and in two casesthis had prevented provision getting underway at all. Problems exist bothin relation to capital expenditure and pressure on annual revenue, the latterresulting in one Area confessing to a certain amount of'laundering' of theannual budget. Particularly difficulty in obtaining premises was experi-enced in those parts of the country where property values are particularlyhigh. Another problem of a practical nature, mentioned by nine Areas, wasdifficulty in recruiting staff, particularly senior staff. Some Areas alsomentioned difficulties between Probation officers and non-trained staffworking on programmes.

A second type of problem experienced with the new schemes was the usemade of them. Referral rates are, in practice, largely controlled by basicgrade officers. Initial objections from some NAPO branches do not seem tohave caused longer term difficulties, but the reception of the new schemesby basic grade officers varies, according to our survey, from no objectionsbeing raised to 'significant problems'. Of the four Areas which gave detailsof these problems, two mentioned objections from officers who prefer 'oneto one' methods of working with clients. Others had found difficulty ingetting officers to make referrals appropriately:

being confident where such projects come in relation to other sentencing options[and] predicting accurately a client's risk of being sent into custody. (Service W)

or in persuading basic grade staff to make referrals at all:




Dow

nloaded from



Staff in general do not articulate professional reasons for not using the Centre.However, at Headquarters there is the view that more use could be made of thefacility. (Service Q

Despite these reservations and difficulties, there has been a significantgrowth of these pre-planned, time limited, Day Centre based group workprogrammes. At the time of the survey, 15 Areas (39%) reportedcomprehensive provision in the area covered (although it should be saidthat our personal knowledge of provision in certain specific areas suggeststhat the return is not entirely accurate and probably overstates the extent ofavailability) and a further 13 (34%) have provision in part of their area. Therapid growth of these schemes was still continuing, with over half of thesample planning either to initiate schemes (four Areas) or to expandexisting provision (16 Areas) during 1985/6.

There seems to be a large measure of agreement between Areas in termsof what is offered in Schedule 11 schemes. The vast majority (25 Areas,89%) intend their schemes as high tariff disposals which are alternatives tocustody. They are aimed primarily at 17-25 year olds (though notexclusively so) and several are open to women (although the take-up forwomen has been considerably lower according to the most recentsentencing statistics). Another main target group is the unemployed,although some Areas are running evening groups to include people inemployment. The programmes, almost all of 30 or 60 days in length, whichare offered to these target groups are also very similar, being basicallyconcerned with social and practical skills (literacy, woodwork, crafts,computers, etc.) with community involvement also being a frequentlymentioned feature. Unlike many IT schemes using a 'corrective curriculum'approach, offending behaviour does not appear to be a primary element inmost of the 'package' schemes: rather the focus is on dealing with the socialdifficulties which are assumed to underlie offending.

Nine Areas commented upon the response to these developments in thecourts they service. Five reported that the schemes were being well received,although two felt that they were not perhaps being used appropriately andthat a degree of'tariff slippage' was occurring. Only two said that the localcourts viewed the 'packages' as a 'soft option', perhaps surprisingly in viewof the content of the schemes. Although less than a third of the Areas withschemes commented upon this aspect, it might suggest that there are someregional differences in the way in which the new disposal is being received inthe courts.

Day Centre provision under Schedule 11 is, then, in the course ofsubstantial growth, albeit unevenly and primarily for younger adults. SomeAreas remain in entrenched opposition and this, together with fundingproblems, accounts for the absence of provision in some areas. But despite




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 35

pockets of opposition and more widespread fears about Day Centresbecoming places of involuntary containment, it does seem that this part ofthe Criminal Justice Act and the expectations in SNOP are beingimplemented.

AN AMBIVALENT PROBATION SERVICE

The 'alternatives to custody' movement in social work outside probationhas shown little hesitation in providing 'heavy end' intervention. Whilstthere has been some conflict within the new specialism of 'juvenile justice'social work, evidenced by the split between the National IntermediateTreatment Federation and the Association of Juvenile Justice, thedifferences are not fundamental. It is clear that nearly all in the specialismaccept the need to focus on diversionary schemes with the heavily convictedoffender. This non-probation influence, although spreading continuously,is still not nationwide. There are still areas where such an approach is notoperating either because of a reasoned rejection of the principles involvedor, more worryingly, because local Social Services have failed to develop acoherent strategy, usually involving a reorganization of residential andchild care services, the development of a specialist approach, monitoring ofperformance and bidding for extra funds to run IT type programmes. Theapproach to court work in this latter group of areas is usually muddleheaded and third rate (Macmillan and Whitehead, 1986).

The Probation Service in the main lies between these two extremes.Whilst rarely as single minded or proficient about diversion and decarce-ration as the front running juvenile justice teams (see Thomas andWilbourne, 1985; Whitehead and Macmillan, 1985), the Service at the sametime guards against an inefficient service to courts or 'inadequate'supervision (see Webb and Harris, 1984). It rarely leaves itself open tocriticism from court officials about a lack of professionalism.

Underneath its professional veneer, however, all has not been well inProbation. The Service is divided ideologically as well as hierarchically.The pages of professional journals have, in recent years, regularly featuredarticles about the future of the Service (e.g. Senior, 1984; Bryant et al.,1978). For some, the decline in the use of Probation by the courts in the '70ssignalled a need for the Service to strive to increase its credibility withsentencers by 'toughening up' (Griffiths, 1982). This period also saw agrowing awareness of the harmful consequences of incarceration and agrowing commitment to keeping people out of custody. For others, thetraditional social work values of helping and voluntarism remainedparamount, though not necessarily through the traditional forms of one-to-one casework (e.g. Hugman, 1981). Alongside this was a determinedresistance in some quarters of achieving 'credibility' through becoming




Dow

nloaded from



'screws on wheels' and an insistence that compulsory punishment is notpart of the Probation Officer's function (e.g. Walker and Beaumont, 1981).These debates which cut across hierarchical divisions, remain largelyunresolved (Coker, 1984). They continue to foster ambivalence about anysubstantive change. One view is that the opportunity to overcome suchambivalence is now lost and that government intervention is the inevitableconsequence of the Service's failure to put its own house in order (Jordan,1983). A characteristic of the Probation Service has undoubtedly been a:

resistance to change and insistence on tradition; even so and despite resistance, ithas had imposed on it after-care, parole, Community Service, day centres and nowthe CJA. The only new duty it has embraced has been divorce court welfare. All theothers have been resisted on the grounds that they constituted breaches of traditionbut eventually absorbed. (Jordan, 1983)

But there is more to it that this. Within the debates on the future ofProbation, there are strands which make the CJA, the Circulars and SNOPmore acceptable. Whilst a soaring prison population and the new prisonbuilding programme can be proof that the 'synchronised swimmers' are notto be trusted, a different interpretation is that custody rates can be cut if theopportunity is seized.

An elaborate practice theory, covering cautioning (NorthamptonCounty Council, 1983), SER preparation, high intensity communitysupervision programmes and Appeals (Chard et al., 1984), has alreadybeen developed by social workers and probation officers concerned withthe diversion and decarceration and young offenders. It is true that mostprobation officers have drawn back from involvement in the extremelyintensive IT schemes and 'tracking' initiatives favoured by some socialworkers (Robinson, 1986) and that the history of Day Centre provisionwithin the Probation Service has been rather different, although alsoinfluenced by ideas of'decarceration' during the '70s (Vanstone, 1985). It isobvious that such trends in practice owe little to concerns with 'law andorder': rather they are the product of a generation of social workers whosetraining included critical and radical academic theories about crime anddeviance (Thorpe et al., 1980) and an invitation to move away fromtraditional casework towards task centred and group work approaches lessconcerned with 'treatment' (e.g. Bailey and Lee, 1982).

The shift away from welfare as a prime consideration in probationpractice is one which logically follows from the critique of the discretionarypower wielded by social workers in the name of 'treatment', particularlywhere juveniles are concerned (Bottoms and McWilliams, 1979, Taylor etal., 1980; Morris et al., 1980). Although reaching their conclusions by adifferent route than that followed by the law and order lobby, advocates ofthe justice model should welcome such changes as the determinate sentence




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 37

for young adults and the shift to a judicial rather than administrativeresponsibility for breach of conditions of post-custody supervisioninitiated by the CIA (Clarke 1985). It might be noted here also that someadvocates of this model would go further than emphasizing the contain-ment aspect of probation practice and argue for the replacement ofprobation by some form of intermittent custody.

The Service's ambivalence to the 'new orders' is thus quite understand-able. Some aspects of the demand for change resonate with strands ofthought within Probation and others do not. Because of the Service'sparticular traditions, it is fair to say that officers have found the new ordersmore threatening than their social work colleagues who also work withyoung offenders. The rapid development of day centre schemes noted in thesurvey cannot, therefore, be regarded as completely voluntary, as there isno clear consensus either within the Service or between Chief Officers andthe government. The Probation Service has undertaken change, in part atleast, because it fears the consequences, given the current economic andpolitical climate, or failing to do so. The expansion of Section 4 (b) or daycentre requirements, as opposed to 4 (a), holds another key to explainingwhy change has been accepted within the Service. The greater resistance to4 (a) requirements is explained by the fact that these have to be proposedand recommended in an SER and actually supervised by the main gradeofficer, bringing the elements of control, surveillance and breach muchcloser to home: mental health requirements may be acceptable butsupervising a client's curfew or ban from attending football matches is, formany, quite beyond the pale. Section 4 (b) requirements, on the other hand,are taking the form of 30/60 day programmes operated in separate DayCentre premises, with newly appointed and often non-probation trainedstaff. Probation officers who wish to become involved in this, or otherspecialisms such as CSO or throughcare, can do so, but others can merelyrefer their 'heavy end' clients to the scheme and continue their ownpreferred style of working. Specialization is the vehicle through which theexpansion of Schedule 11 provision, like CSO before it, is taking placewithout provoking the resistance which might have been expected.

SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISION, SENTENCING ANDSOCIAL CONTROL

The restructured social work disposals of CSO for 16 year olds, Super-vision Orders with IT and Specified Activities and the Section 4 (a) and 4 (b)requirements are now extensively available. All are being advertised asalternatives to custody. In terms of national coverage, the picture looksnearer completion for juveniles than young adults. However, even for




Dow

nloaded from



young adults, availability is extending rapidly except in rural areas and thefew Areas where resistance to commissioning day centres and using 4 (a)and 4 (b) requirements is total. The key question remains, however will thecourts use these social work organized programmes instead of custody?The fear is that they will not. The steep rise in the use of custody whichmany expected as a result of the increased powers afforded to sentencers bythe CJA has not happened, but neither have custody rates come down.Statistics for the first two years of the Act's operation show a slight fall inthe numbers of 14-16 year old males going into custody, compared with theprevious two years. This might have been expected with the falling numbersin the age group. There has also been a drop in the proportionate use ofcustody if the percentage of males receiving a custodial sentence isexpressed as a proportion of those found guilty and those cautioned by thepolice. However, the custody rate for those convicted has not dropped andthe custody rate for females has actually risen (Criminal Statistics, 1984and 1985). Moreover, for 17-20 year olds or both sexes, whose numbers arealso falling relative to the total population, there has been a rise in both thenumber and the proportion receiving a custodial sentence. The inevitableconclusion is that the new 'alternatives', like others before them, are notsupplanting custody but other sentences.

However, these disposals are 'taking off' in terms of proportionate use aswell as of availability. There have been increases in the use of CSO foradults as well as the dramatic rise in its use for 16 year olds. Supervisedactivities requirements were included in 13% of Supervision Orders in 1984and Day Centre requirements in 3% of Probation Orders, a figure which,according to our survey, will continue to rise. If these sentences are notreplacing custody, then logically they must be being used as an alternativeto other forms of sentence. In looking at the effects of new sentencingoptions on overall sentencing patterns, it. is always problematic to say withany certainty which other penalties they are replacing, but recent trendsprovide some clues. As Bottoms has pointed out in an examination ofsentencing trends in the post-war period, rates of imprisonment have fallenand there has been an expansion of sentencing options which do notinvolve supervision within the community, particularly the Fine (Bottoms,1983). Whilst the use of some non-supervisory penalties, such as theDischarge, is increasing, the proportionate use of the Fine has in factdeclined since Bottoms' analysis, although it still remains the mostcommonly used penalty. The (probably temporary) disappearance of theSuspended Sentence for under 21s also means a loss of what was arguablyan alternative to custody. It seems plausible to suggest that it is these non-supervisory penalties which initially the Attendance Centre Order and nowthe new social work options are replacing. Is the implementation of thesenew provisions evidence for the view that the reality behind the rhetoric of




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 39

decarceration is an escalation of control and surveillance (Cohen, 1979,1983, 1985)? If so, the fears of many in the Probation Service (Hudson,1984) about the new developments are in fact being realized.

This is not an appropriate point at which to embark upon a detailedexegesis of the 'dispersal of discipline' debate and to deal with suchquestions as whether current developments are continuous or disconti-nuous with the major transformations of forms of social control in thenineteenth century (Foucault, 1977). As Cohen observes:

Beyond all the complex empirical problems, historical comparisons and impliedvalue judgements which terms such as 'dispersal' and 'discipline' might hide, there isthe over-riding fact of proliferation, elaboration and diversification (Cohen, 1985,p. 84)

More people, so the argument goes, are becoming the objects of greaterdegrees of intervention through a proliferation of programmes for whichthey are assessed as 'suitable' by a parallel proliferation of'experts'. Theseprogrammes are seen as reproducing the conditions of the prison outside itswalls, within the 'community', and carrying the penetration of the statedeeper into civil society.

Undoubtedly, a certain amount of'net widening' and what Cohen ratherconfusingly refers to as 'mesh thinning' is occurring (see Pratt, 1985). Someof the more obviously controlling elements of this process are clearlyapparent in the IT field and, whilst our survey results suggest that the new'packages' for young adults are not particularly 'heavy' in their content,their 'full time' nature and overt inclusion of the breach threat areobviously a major step up in terms of surveillance and containment.However, as Cohen recognizes, the content of the programmes throughwhich the dispersal of discipline is said to take place can have its betteraspects, albeit ambiguously so:

their clients (reluctant as they are to be 'clients') are being offered (thoughsometimes it is an offer they can't refuse) the very range of services, facilities andcontacts which the middle classes take for granted. (Cohen, 1985, p. 258)

This seems to be true of the Schedule 11 schemes currently on offer.But what may be at least as important about the new developments is

that they mark a further change in the form of control in that, unhke moretraditional forms of social work intervention, they do focus on groups andcategories of people rather than individuals. That is they are in keepingwith Mathiesen's analysis of a shift towards more collective forms ofcontrol (Mathiesen, 1983). The low take-up of Schedule 11/4 (a) is oneelement here. Another, and perhaps more significant one, is the emphasison the young, mainly male, unemployed as a target group for 4 (b)provision evident from our survey. Preliminary indications from our




Dow

nloaded from


4 0 HOWARD PARKER, GRAHAM JARVIS AND MAGGIE SUMNER

research in Magistrates' Courts are that CSO is frequently seen by thecourts as a valuable sentencing option for the unemployed: magistrates dosee it as a chance for defendants to gain work experience or experience ofwork discipline. There is a distinction to be made here between 'work ethic'discipline and the more limited and stricter 'shock' of discipline whichmagistrates have in mind when using Attendance Centre Orders. What wewould wish to draw from this is the possible interpretation of the newprovisions as being in practice about the control of a category of theunemployed who are perceived by the courts as unable to pay meaningfulFines or Compensation and have previously received Discharges.

This trend towards the extension of control over the unemployedthrough statutory social work intervention must be kept in proportion. It isonly a tendency which is being unevenly operated. Secondly, it is not amajor element in the overall pattern of sentencing. The new sentences,whilst they have been extensively taken up, still account for a relativelysmall proportion of all sentences.

Overall, the increases in the use of Discharges and the continuingprevalence of the Fine do not suggest major extensions of discipline.Moreover, other major developments are taking place outside the courts,with the increased use of cautioning by the police. 1984 figures show that arecord number of 190,400 people were dealt with in this way, a 15%increase over the previous year {Criminal Statistics, 1984). This isparticularly true for juveniles: 78-5% of 10-14 year olds and 49-5% of 14-16 year olds received cautions in that year, compared with 7-8% of 17-20s(though with very substantial differences between Police Areas). What ishappening here does not seem to be 'net widening' in the simple sense thatthose cautioned are 'extra' to those prosecuted: the increase in cautioninghas taken place without any significant increase in the level of formalcriminalization of the population within the age group. Nevertheless, thereare signs of a whole cautioning apparatus growing up which exemplifiessome of the features of'dispersal': the development of new agencies whichmake decisions on prosecution as an administrative rather than publiclyaccountable process; the formalization of categories which have becomealmost disposals in themselves (cautions are citable and may well be seen bymagistrates as previous convictions; 'no further action' is a recordeddisposition); diversion into programmes as part of the conditions of beingcautioned, etc. It is in this arena that the growth of discipline andsurveillance may be more apparent.

The expansion of cautioning also has implications for what happens incourt in that as young offenders appear in court with one or more cautionsbehind them, the relative use of low tariff disposals might be expected to fall(Ditchfield, 1977) and the proportion of those receiving custodial or otherhigh tariff sentences would appear higher. However, since the low tariff




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 41

disposals such as the Discharges are in fact increasing, it would seem thatthe process is less simple. The most likely explanation is 'bifurcation'whereby, as Bottoms suggest, there is a differentiation between the 'serious'and the 'ordinary' offender (Bottoms, 1983). The increasingly elaboratecautioning apparatus is one method of differentiation but it is a sortingprocess which is reviewed and refined at the time of the court appearance.The 'new orders' indicate that the SER, whilst potentially functional at allstages of a criminal career, should be a key instrument for differentiatingbetween the very serious offender, who is seen to be at risk of custody, andthe 'ordinary' offender, who is likely to be dealt with by Discharge, Fine orthe 'old style' Supervision or Probation Order. This may not be what reportauthors intend, but it is nevertheless what magistrates do as they sift and re-define social enquiry information.

In conclusion, we are suggesting that although the changes broughtabout by the 'new orders' contained in SNOP, the Circulars and the 1982Act are being implemented, the prospects for cutting custody ratessignificantly are not good. The development of new community supervisionpackages in this context clearly runs the risk of involving social workagencies in the escalation of control particularly in relation to the youngerunemployed.

However, this does not necessarily require the conclusion that the 'neworders' should be totally resisted. Those involved in the new measures maywell be able to steer an acceptable path. Some of the better organizedjuvenile justice teams, for instance, have used 'packages' as part of acoherent strategy which has been highly successful in cutting local custodyrates (Longley, 1985). At present these initiatives are, because of theirlocations, not affecting national juvenile custody rates. These 'successes'can be repeated in other areas and there is no reason why similar strategiescannot be utilized by the Probation Service to reduce custody rates foryoung adults. Qearly Petty Sessional Divisions with long traditions ofextensive custodial sentencing are the least amenable to change. However,if more attention was paid to developing an integrated, coherent approachand to working on relationships with local courts, much could be done. Atpresent, as our survey indicates, it is very rare for the courts to be seen as a'target'.

The dilemmas for those engaged in running 'packages' or day centreprogrammes clearly remain. If such requirements in Orders are not beingaccepted as clear alternatives to custody, can they be justified? One view isclearly that they cannot. On the other hand, it can be argued that the formsof social work involved in these schemes (e.g. group work, skills training)are actually of more relevance to unemployed youth than traditional formsof one-to-one casework. The issue is surely resolved by each client'sattitude to such provision being recommended in their case, having been




Dow

nloaded from



given a clear idea of the alternatives (Parker, 1979).The picture of the present and of future prospects is grey. The long

standing ambivalence of practitioners about the role of social work withoffenders seems certain to remain, not least because the 'new orders' arehere to stay.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Stan Cohen, Andrew Rutherford and theHome Office for their comments on a previous draft of this paper.

REFERENCESBailey, R. and Lee, P. (1982) Theory and Practice in Social Work, Oxford, Basil Black well.Bottoms, A. (1983) 'Neglected features of contemporary penal systems,' in Garland, D. and

Young, P. (eds) (1983) op. cit., pp. 166-202.Bottoms, A. and McWilliams, W. (1979) 'A non-treatment paradigm for probation practice',

British Journal of Social Work, 9, pp. 159-202.Brake, M. and Bailey, R. (eds) (1980) Radical Social Work and Practice, London, Edward

Arnold.Bryant, M. et al (1978) 'Sentenced to social work', Probation Journal, December.Chard, A. et al. (1984) 'The Appeal Process and the Juvenile Justice System, London, NITF.Clarke, J. (1985) 'Whose justice? Politics of juvenile control', International Journal of

Sociology and Law, 13, pp. 407-421.Cohen, S. (1979) "The punitive city: notes on the dispersal of social control', Contemporary

Crises, 3, pp. 339-363.Cohen, S. (1983) 'Social control talk: telling stories about correctional change' in Garland, D.

and Young, P. (eds) (1983) op. cit.Cohen, S. (1985) Visions of Social Control, Cambridge, Polity Press.Coker, J. (1984) 'Sentenced to social work: the revival of choice', Probation Journal, 31, pp.

123-125.Ditchfield, J. (1977) Police Cautioning in England and Wales, HORS No. 37, London, HMSO.Elkinglon, H. and Chamberlain, J. (1986) Synchronized Swimming, Newton Abbot, David

and Charles.Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London, Allen Lane.Garland, D. and Young, P. (eds) (1983) The Power to Punish: Contemporary Penality and

Social Analysis, London, Heinemann.Griffiths, W. (1982) 'A new probation service', Probation Journal, 29, pp. 00-00.Harris, R. (1977) "The probation officer as social worker', British Journal of Social Work, 7,Home Office (1978) Youth Custody and Supervision: A New Sentence, London, HMSO Cmnd.

7406.Home Office (1980) Young Offenders, London, HMSO, Cmnd. 8045.Home Office (1984) Criminal Justice: A Working Paper, London, HMSO.Hudson, B. (1984) "The rising use of imprisonment the impact of'decarceration' policies',

Critical Social Policy 11 pp.Hugman, B. (1980) 'Radical probation work', in Bailey, R. and Brake, M. (eds) (1980) op. cit.Jones, H. (1981) 'A case for correction', British Journal of Social Work, 11, pp.Jordan, W. (1983) 'Criminal Justice and probation in the 1980s', Probation Journal, 30, pp.

83-88.JOT (1986) Unpublished 'Interim Monitoring Report' London, NACRO, Juvenile Offenders

Team.Lloyd, C. (1986) The Response to SNOP: an analysis of the Home Office document and

subsequent local responses, Cambridge, Institute of Criminology.




Dow

nloaded from


UNDER NEW ORDERS 43

Longley, R, (1985) 'Halving the custody rate', Community Care, 5, December, pp. 17-19.MacMillan, J and Whitehead, P. (1986) Social work and recommendation! for custody,

(unpublished).Mathiesen, T. (1983) The future of control systems', in Garland, D. and Young, P. (eds.)

(1983), op. cit, pp. 130-145.Morris, A., Giller, H., Szwed, E. and Geach, H. (1980) Justice For Children, London,

Macmillan.Northampton County Council (1983) Diversion: Corporate Action with Juveniles.Parker, H. (1979) Social Work and the Courts, Ch. 8, London, Edward Arnold.Pratt, J. (1985) 'Juvenile justice, social work and social control: the need for positive thinking',

British Journal of Social Work 15, pp. 1-25.Raynor, P. (1984) 'National purposes and objectives: a comment', Probation Journal, 32, pp.Raynor, P. (1985) Social Work, Justice and Control, Oxford, Blackwell.Robinson, A. (1986) Befriending and Tracking Schemes, London, National Children's

Bureau.Senior, P. (1984) 'The probation order vehicle of social work or social control', Probation

Journal, 31, pp. 64-70.Taylor, L., Lacey, R. and Bracken, D. (1980) In Whose Best Interests?, London, Cobden

Trust/MIND.Thomas, H. and Wilbourne, R. (1985) 'A view from the bridge', Probation Journal, 32, pp.Thorpe, D. Smith, D., Green, C. and J. Patey (1980). Out of Care, London, Allen & Unwin.Vanstone, M. (1985) 'Moving away from help? Policy and practice in probation day centres',

Howard Journal, 24, pp. 20-28.Walker, H. and Beaumont, W. (1981) Probation Work: Critical Theory and Socialist Practice,

Oxford, Blackwell. •Webb, D. and Harris, R. (1984) 'Social workers and Supervision Orders: a case of

occupational uncertainty", British Journal of Social Work, 14, pp. 579-599.Whitehead, P. and MacMillan, J. (1985) 'Checks or 'blank cheque': justifying custody of

juveniles'. Probation Journal, 32, pp.




Dow

nloaded from


under new orders: the redefinition of social work with

Documents