The Howard Journal Vol31 No 2. May 92 ISSN 02655527

Governing the Probation Service: Probation Committees and

Polic y -Making

SIMON HOLDAWAY and GREG MANTLE Simon Holdaway is Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Department of Sociological

Studies, University of Shefield Greg Mantle is Probation Of icer , Essex Probation Service and Lecturer in

Social Work, Department of Social Work, Anglia Pobtechnic

Abstract: Probation committees are the statutory emplcyers of all probation staff and have a responsiblify for the eflicient running of area probation services. In this article the role of probation committees is inuestigakd through detailed interviews with probation committee members and chief probation oflicers. It is argued that while the Home Oflice and probation profcsional associations have attempted to develop within probation areas notions of systematic management, which inch& the initiation, dcvelopment and implementation of polig, the role of probation committee members has been neglected. The assumptions magistrate members of committees bring to their consideration o f p l i v are ofparticular importance. Thc implication of these assumptions for race issues and m'me prevention policies is analysed.

Over the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the policies and practices of the probation service. In particular, the government has become much clearer about the kind of probation service i t wants to establish and taken steps to try to ensure that area services respond appropriately (Home Office 1984a, 1988a, 1988b, 1990a, 1990b, 1991). Probation committees have retained a key contribution to the realisation of these changes. They have a primary responsibility for 'the efficiency of an area probation service', which implies an involvement in the making of policy (Home Office 1984b).

Just what role probation committees have in fact played in the governance of area probation services, including the making of policy, has not been the subject of systematic research. In this paper we will draw on extensive interviews with probation committee members serving in five probation areas, and with their chief probation officers, to analyse the role of committees in the making of policy.' Race and crime prevention policies are taken as illustrative areas which, being of fairly recent origin and requiring a broadening of the concerns of the probation service beyond statutory supervision of offenders, indicate how far new directions for policy and practice might find legitimacy among committee members and, therefore, how far particular changes within the probation service might be advanced or impeded.

120

Probation Committee Membership Probation committees are the statutory employers of probation officers. Their members also have a duty to ensure the efficient running of an area probation service. Established within each of the 56 probation areas of England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1926, the first probation committees had a single membership of justices of the peace. An opportunity to widen their constituency of membership by co-options was created by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 but, despite this possibility, committees have largely retained a membership of lay magistrates, elected by their respective benches.2

This judicial basis of membership, we argue, has influenced the ways in which committees have worked, particularly their approach to the initiation and development of policy within probation areas. The ascendency within committees of a magistrates’ perspective on the role and purpose of the probation service may have constrained discussions and decisions about policy change within probation areas.

In order to fulfil its obligations as a statutory employer and to ensure the efficient running of an area probation service, the members of a probation committee require the skills and knowledge necessary for these tasks. Some members, for example, might possess skills relevant to financial accounting, to personnel work or they might have the ability to raise questions about the values which inform the policies and practices of an area service.

Appropriate knowledge and skills required to ensure the efficient running of an area probation service may be diverse, they may be contestable (McWilliams 1990). At the moment, however, they are not straightforwardly related to the present formal criterion for election to a probation committee, which is membership of the magistracy. Some magistrate members of probation committees are no doubt eminently qualified to be involved in the governance of the probation service. Their election to committee membership, however, has been fortuitous rather than an intended outcome of the application of probation rules. Summarising the view of the majority of chief probation officers interviewed in our study, one put it that:

What I find very difficult is the haphazard way in which people are put forward by their benches. There is no pressure to take any account of what the needs of the probation service are.

This system of selection for probation committee membership places a further limitation on the manner in which committees interpret their approach to policy issues. Magistrates are elected to a probation committee by their local bench, an arrangement which tends to stress a parochial view oftheir work. Magistrates are not elected because they have a comprehensivc view ofthe needs ofa probation area and the priority to be

121

afforded to the various issues facing its staff. When placed within what we will later describe as the ‘assumptive world of the magistrate’ this parochial basis of committee membership is strengthened.

Our research data indicate that magistrate members of probation committees recognise their employer and managerial role. We have also found that they subscribe a further and, for them, equally important purpose to probation committee work, which is liaison between their area probation service and the benches from which members have been elected. When asked who they represent on their probation committee 35% of magistrate members in our sample saw themselves as active representatives for their respective benches. A further 30% said that they represented the wider magistracy on their committee or had a dual responsibility to the bench and the magistracy.

This liaison function may be related to a committee’s statutory responsibility to retain the eficicnt running of an area probation service but is certainly not integral to it, being more readily associated with the work of the probation liaison committee. In fact, there is a long-standing ambiguity about the division of responsibility between the probation committee and the probation liaison committee. From their introduction the work of area probation committees has not been sharply differentiated from that of probation liaison committees, previously called ‘case committees’.

A case committee had an original duty to review the work of probation officers’ ‘individual cases’ and, later, under Probation Rules, for general oversight of the work of each probation officer in its petty sessional division. A 1975 Home Ofice Circular then advised liaison committees to undertake a wider review of officers’ work. The ways in which these responsibilities do or do not correspond to those of probation committees has never been formally prescribed.‘

Probation Committees and Policy A further, key aspect of governing the probation service, implied by the responsibility to retain an efficient area probation service, is the committee’s role in the determination of p01icy.~ Probation Rules do not prescribe the extent to which area probation committees should be involved in the initiation, development, implementation and monitoring of policy. Certainly, in various documents the Home Ofice and the Central Council of Probation Committees have urged active committee involvement in the management of their area service but the extent of this involvement has not been precisely spelled out in statutory rules.5

The extent to which members of a probation committee and a chief probation officer should, respectively, therefore be involved in policy initiation and development has not been given clear attention. Without formal definition magistrate members of committees have tended to absent themselves from vigorous involvement in policy development. Thc assumptions they have brought to interpret their role in discussions about policy issues have been of particular importance to this stance. This is a

I22

probation committee member describing the general perspective we identified in the five areas researched:

Generally we don’t initiate policy and probably we should be. The initial policy is drawn up by management, then sent to us and we decide whether we like it or not. (committee chair)

Probation committees as a rule have not initiated area probation policy. They have not presented a considered policy on a subject to chief officers for implementation. Within the framework of statute and Home Office guidelines, policy initiation has been undertaken by senior management rather than by committees.6

The committee members interviewed mentioned a greater level of committee involvement in the development of policy once it had been initiated. Two-thirds of our sample took the view that they had personally contributed to the formulation of policy and 86% said that their committee and its sub-committees had been involved in policy-making. The meaning of this notion of ‘involvement in policy-making’, however, was largely one of discussion and review of documents presented by chief officers. Although area committees were seen as having ‘the last word’ and able to make amendments to policies placed before committees for ratification, senior managers played a more proactive and substantial part in their determination.

This point does not allow us to conclude that probation committees have had no effect on local probation policy. It would be surprising if chief officers were not mindful of the reaction of their committee to policy proposals. The initiation and development of local probation policy are management-led, however, which means chief officer led.7 This suggests a committee role in which the statutory duty to ensure an efficient probation service in an area is interpreted in terms of oversight rather than a more interventionist type of governance, a ‘sounding board’ rather than, as David Faulkner a senior Home Office civil servant urged, a board of directors that has, among other responsibilities, a duty to, ‘formulate general policy for the conduct of the activities of the enterprise, (that is the area probation service), in fulfilment of the objectives defined’ (Home Office 1984c, p. 3).

When asked if there were any constraints on the involvement of their respective committees in the formulation of policy the chief officers reinforced this point. Half of the 14 senior probation managers inter- viewed took the view that their magistrate members focussed their attentions too narrowly:

The biggest constraint is that the committee is dominated by sentencers because they find it amazingly hard not to keep thinking of the implications for magistrates. Our relationship with the courts is important but it’s only one of a number of dimensions the committee should be considering. (chief probation officer)

123

Secondly, chief officers said that magistrate members did not find it easy to think in policy terms:

They come to committee via the Benches where they only deal with individual cases so if we say, ‘We want you to forget about all that and decide whether we have a crime prevention policy’, then that’s miles away from their starting point. (chief probation oflicer)

This perspective of magistrate members comes close to what Parker in his study of magistrates’ sentencing describes as ‘the professional ideology of the lay magistrate’, the basis of which ‘is the belief in (among other features), the uniqueness of each case’ (Parker et al. 1989, pp. 116-17; also see Ham 1981; Young 1977). The assumptive world of the area probation committee member is characterised by ‘ideology, attitudes and opinions’ associated with his or her role as a magistrate (Young 1977). This is a world in which probation policy is directly related to the needs of the work of the magistrates’ court; liaison between the local bench and the probation service; and a case-by-case approach to policy.

Alternative perspectives may indeed be provided by non-sentencer members but they are unlikly to hold sway given the voting power of the magistrate majority. Our data suggest that non-sentencers who are co- opted to probation committees can make a weighty contribution but this is much more likely in the few probation areas where they constitute a significant minority on committee’. The chief probation officer of one such area commented that:

The committee’s role of public oversight is being taken on in this area by the local authority members. So often it is the councillors and the co-opted members who raise the important points in discussions and who have a much wider view of things. They are filling the vacuum left by the magistrate members.

The vast majority of area probation committees, particularly those serving the shire counties, have very few non-sentencer members. Furthermore, the chair and vice-chairs of the 56 committees in England and Wales (and, to our knowledge, of all major sub-committees) are magistrates. On the basis of our evidence, therefore, we argue that the magistrates’ perspective on probation policy, with its court and case-by- case focus will remain dominant. Issues which are seen to be outside the immediate interests of courts will thus be less likely to gain a priority on pressing agendas.

This is not to argue that all subjects for debate within a committee will receive the same slavish treatment. The profile achieved by a subject of relevance to policy is, of course, shaped by a number of other factors and therefore the ‘legitimacy, feasibility and support’ afforded to it (see Hall el al. 1975 for discussion of these notions). If an issue is perceived as a crisis, for example, its claims to be afforded a priority will be strengthened. Changes in the policies adopted by central government may provide an issue with a new lvgitimacy and enhanced support. The

I24

greater availability of resources or technical knowledge may affect the perceived feasibility of an issue. Such factors may all be important in their own right but their particular significance in the probation committee context will also reflect the prevalent concerns of committee members.

Considering Crime Prevention and Race Issues Policy

To further understand the relevance of the magistrates’ perspective on probation policy, committee members interviewed were asked about two areas of contemporary importance, crime prevention and race issues. These have been the subject of particular attention by the Home Office, the Central Council of Probation Committees and the probation staff associations (Home Office 1984d, 1988a; Central Council of Probation Committees 1987a, 1987b; ACOP 1988a, 1988b; NAP0 1984, 1987).

Crime Prevention

Over the past decade the prevention of crime has become a key concern of Home Office policy and the probation service has been encouraged to ‘gear its work more and more towards crime prevention in its broadest sense’ (Home Ofice 1990a, 1990b; Hope and Shaw 1988). The need for clear policy to order the contributions of area probation services to crime prevention has also been emphasised in a Central Council of Probation Committees (1987b) report on the subject, in which it was argued:

Probation Committees have a crucial part to play in establishing crime prevention strategies for their local services . . . they should work towards the production of policy statements identifying the specific contribution their services should be making towards crime prevention activity. (paras. 3, 27)

Probation service involvement in broadly conceived crime prevention work has therefore been afforded increasing legitimacy and support by central government and some of probation’s representative associations.

In the five areas where we completed detailed interviews with committee members and chief officers we found that committees had not been proactive when considering the initiation of crime prevention policy. They had not required their chief officer to formulate specific crime prevention policies.

Many of the committee members interviewed certainly supported various crime prevention activities undertaken by probation staff and when asked about their area service’s crime prevention commitments displayed a wide variety of knowledge. In many cases, however, this was restricted to activities within their own locality, meaning the area covered by their bench. Crucially, ‘Safer Cities’ projects were rarely mentioned by the committee members we interviewed, even though four of the five probation areas concerned had such projects in operation. This is a

125

committee chair from a probation area covering a major connurbation which had a number of projects involving his probation service:

Well I know nothing about the Safer Cities thing so I can’t honestly comment. It’s the first I’ve heard about it. (committee vice-chairman)

Support offered to a range of discrete activities is rather different from an appreciation of how a general policy can underpin and co-ordinate crime prevention efforts across the whole of a probation area. When asked about the need for crime prevention work undertaken by the probation service committee members did not identify the need for a policy within their probation area. Indeed, in the context of discussion about his committee’s approach to crime prevention, one chief officer pointed out that internal and external sources of resistance to the development of probation crime prevention policy had possibly bcen strengthened by this stance:

We ought to be developing our crime prevention efforts more quickly but there are difficulties in terms of cultural and organisational pressures in the service. Because the committee isn’t demanding that we account to them on our progress, we tend not to face those difficulties as quickly as we might.

For the magistrate members of probation committees interviewed, the notion of crime prevention did not harmonise with assumptions they brought to the consideration of policy. They could appreciate and give feasibility to probation service involvement in broadly conceived crime prevention work, ‘prevention is better than cure’, as one of them put it. This view, however, did not adequately legitimise probation involvement in crime prevention ‘in its broadest sense’, to provide a determination to initiate and develop clear policy, as the Home Office and Central Council of Probation Committees have required.

The lack of legitimacy afforded by probation committees to crime prevention work has diminished its feasibility within area services and, accordingly, the support given to it. The assumptions made by magistrate members about the appropriate sphere of probation committee work and the subjects which should be given a priority have played an important part in framing the ways in which crime prevention work has been undertaken in probation areas.

Race Issues

It’s a very difficult subject for the committee and at times there is a reluctance to engage with it. I’ve felt concern about what to do when any attempt to take positive action is seen as positive discrimination which I think belies much more deep-seated issues. (chief probation officer)

The response of probation committees to race issues has also been shaped by the distinctive perspective of sentencer members of probation committees. The principal momentum for policy development, implement- ation and monitoring of race issues has come from various national

126

bodies (Central Council of Probation Committees 1983, 1987a; NACRO 1986; Home Office 1988a). Our research indicates that area probation committees may have delayed and restricted rather than initiated the development of race issues policy (also see Holdaway and Allaker (1990, section 4), on this point).

The perspective of lay magistrates - described by Parker and his colleagues when discussing sentencing practices as ‘a belief in the uniqueness of each case’ (p. 117) - has also influenced the way in which probation committees have tackled the initiation and development of race issues policy. An assumption that each case is unique makes it very difficult for sentencer members of committees to perceive any threads of continuity that link cases of similar or at first sight different types. A case- by-case approach, for example, does not sit easily with one that finds a thread of discrimination running through magistrates’ decision making (see Green 1987; Hudson 1989). The development of policy for race issues and for that matter virtually any area of concern to the probation service must deal with general principles, with organisational objectives related to them, and with strategies to realise those objectives. This requires a different perspective on policy. A deputy chief probation officer put it that amongst sentencers:

There is resistance, particularly from sentencers on committee who have this judicial framework that deals with each case on its merits. To be able to think in terms of the differential experience of different groups, to be able to make the transition from being judges and magistrates to being employers and policy- makers is actually quite a leap on their part.

When probation committee members were asked about the legitimacy they gave to race issues most reasoned that their committee should be concerned with race issues because a recognisable and for some a large minority ethnic population lived within their probation area. They should therefore recruit a work force whose ethnicity reflected in considerable measure that of the local population:

Yes, the service like the magistracy, like anything, really ought to represent the society you live in. It’s also very useful because, if you have a problem with an offender of a particular race, an officer of that race may be able to relate more directly with him than someone who has only had a bit of training perhaps.

Interestingly, while members recognised the legitimacy of race as a subject for probation service attention, there was also a widespread view that at times too much emphasis had been given to race issues:

I think it is very much over-ernphasised as an issue. I think it is defeating its own object by over-emphasis. It needs playing down. I t has developed into such a big industry that its defeating its own object.

Chief officers were more likely to link the legitimacy of race as a matter for policy to discrimination within the probation service as an organisation

127

and more widely within the criminal justice system. They moved beyond the case-by-case approach to a more broadly-based notion of policy dealing with issues of racial prejudice or discrimination in the criminal justice field:

Our race policy is to focus attention on our responsibilities in relation to black people in the criminal justice system, in relation to black people who are or who might be members ofstafl‘, and in relation to any positive leadership role which the service can exert in the local communities.

The relucJance of many magistrate members to acknowledge race as a subject for widely-based policy, corporate policy in the language of management, is related to the assumptions they bring to their probation committee work (Holdaway and Allaker 1990). T o raise the issue of race within a probation committee raises an implied criticism of sentencing practices, including those of probation committee members. I t challenges the case-by-case approach so central to the magistrates’ perspective.

Constructing Probation Policy The Central Council of Probation Committees’ (1986) Discussion Paper on the Role of the Probation Service in the Inner Cities, which was written as a response to the demands made on the probation service after the 1981 and 1985 ‘riots’ in many urban areas of Britain, identified new responsibilities for committee members which appeared to go far beyond earlier definitions of their role.g As employers of a responsive and community- orientated service, including race and crime prevention work within its remit, members were encouraged to ‘. . . speak out clearly in support of the work of their staff with undcr-privileged minorities in the fields of education, employment and housing’ (para. 11) .

Central Council recognised that this role could create tensions for magistrate members of probation committees who are expected to retain a detachment and independence from such an overt stance within their court work. A similar point has been made within a different context by Henderson (1987, p. 69), when discussing his research about community probation work. This, he argued, would draw probation services into local political systems with implications for probation committees and for senior managers.

While the legitimacy of crime prevention and race issues as subjects for probation service policy has been enhanced by central government and by the Central Council of Probation Committees, the response of area committees has been patchy. The issue of crime prevention, for example, has suffered a sharp loss of momentum as its claims for priority have becn reviewed by committees. Chief officers have found probation com- mittees to frequently hinder rathcr than assist the development of race policy.

The assumptions which magistrate members of probation committees

128

have brought to the making of policy within their area has required us to note Smith’s point (quoted in Hill 1988) that:

Attention should not focus exclusively on decisions which produce change, but must also be sensitive to those which resist change and are difficult to observe . . . (P. 64)

It is magistrates’ inertia rather than a more active form of opposition to crime prevention and race issues that has structured the contribution of probation committees to policy development. And this has allowed the interpretation of a committee’s duty to ensure the ‘efficient running of an area probation service’ to be largely the province of the chief officer, with the committee exercising oversight rather than a more active stance in the initiation and development of policy.’O Probation committees have had an effect on policy but their role has not been one of active governance.

Conclusion

In the introduction to this paper we pointed out that in recent years the government has become much clearer about the kind of probation service i t wants. The most recent Home Office addition to the documents which propose reform. Implementing Supervision and Punishment in the Community: A Decision Document (Home Office 199 I ) , continues this task of clarification and contains an important section about the future of probation committees.

The Home Office has now committed itself to new Probation Rules which will provide committees with, ‘clearly defined responsibilities for planning, objectives and monitoring of performance’. Further, within the new rules ‘the respective roles of probation committees and chief officers should be clearly defined’ (Home Office 1991, p. 9). The size of committees will be reduced to around 15 members but 50% of the membership will be appointed from the magistracy and judges: ‘the sentencer members should be reduced to 50% of the total membership; the other 50% of the membership should be co-opted under guidelines laid down by the Home Office’ (Home Office 1991, p. 9). Finally, probation liaison committees will be strengthened, to provide clearer links between magistrates and area probation services and to enable more effective communication between local benches and area probation services.

There is certainly good sense in re-writing the rules defining the purpose and duties of probation committees; in reducing their size; and in forming a new committee membership. Our research leads to these conclusions. The ‘Decision document’, however, leaves a number of key questions unresolved. The most important, as far as the evidence presented in this paper is concerned, is what will be the function of magistrate members on the proposed new probation committees?

If committees are to be concerned with setting and monitoring policy objectives it is essential that they have within their membership people

129

who understand processes of policy-making; who adopt a corporate rather than case-by-case perspective on policy; and who can consider the broad range of functions the service is being asked to perform. It may be that the Home Ofice will detail the skills and knowledge required by all members, including magistrates, but there are no indications of this. The evidence of a sentencers’ perspective we have presented in this paper suggests that if nearly 50% of committees is drawn from the magistracy, conflict about the purpose of the probation service and how its policies should be developed may dominate discussion in an uncreative manner. In such circumstances, committees will not be able to provide a clear direction for area probation service policy and their credibility may be weakened.

Whatever decisions about the composition and functions of probation committees follow from Implementing Supervision and Punishment in the Community (Home Ofice 1991) our research indicates that, as policy is formulated at the local level, account should be taken of the distinctive perspective of sentencers who are members of probation committees. If sentencers continue to remain in the ascendency we now know the effect this will have on the determination of policy.

Notes

The two year research project ‘Probation in the Inner City: The Role of the Probation Committee’, was carried out over a two-year period 1989 to 1991. 77 probation committee members and their respective chief officers, including those responsible for race issues and crime prevention (14), working in five probation areas were interviewed. ESRC research grant R 000 23 1183 refers. We are very grateful to Ieuan Miles, Secretary of the Central Council of Probation Committees, for the assistance and encouragement he afforded the project and to the probation committee members and chief probation officers interviewed. Under the Local Government Act 1985, probation committees were required to co-opt a t least one elected member of each London borough or metropolitan district council within the probation area. Committtees have long had the power to co-opt and some shire counties have co-opted county councillors to their membership. The co-option of other non-sentencers by probation committees is widespread but rarely does the proportion of co-optees approach the possible one-third maximum allowed by the Powers ofcriminal Courts Act 1973, Schedule 3. We estimate that about 10% of all probation committee members are co-optees. Schedule V of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, Probation Rules 1965 and Home Office Circular 181/1975 are the respective, relevant instruments. In this article the term ‘policy’ refers to a written, ‘authoritative statement of intent’. In our interviews with committee members and chief officers we took pains to establish the interviewee’s own working definition of ‘policy’. Our usage is grounded on and legitimised by those interview data. For a detailed exposition of the meanings attributed to ‘policy’, see Hill and Bramley (1986), chapters 1 and 8, and Hill (1988), chapters 1 4 . The Central Council of Probation Committees (1987c), for example, has argued in a pamphlet written to explain the work of committees to new members that the probation committee ‘is responsible for the determination of

I30

policy pursued by its own area service and for ensuring that all policy is effectively implemented’ (para. 14). The Home Office Green Paper (1990b) stated: ‘Within the present statutory structure, probation committees are of central importance to the delivery of good quality probation work. They are responsibile for setting local objectives and priorities within the national framework and for employing probation officers, acting generally as the management boards of the 56 probation services’ (para. 5). And in their response to the Home Office Green Paper, (ACOP 1990), the Association of Chief Officers of Probation said that ‘The responsibility of probation committees is not to manage local services but to be accountable to the Secretary of State for the implementation of national policy’ (para. 5). When asked to rank a list of various influences on policy formation committee members ranked the following in order of priority - senior managers, the Home Office, the probation committee and senior probation officers. The 14 chief officers interviewed ranked senior managers, the Home Oflice, senior probation officers, ACOP and probation committees in order of priority. It could be argued that it is the task of chief officers to lead all phases of policy development and that this amounts to the efficient running of the probation service. We argue that this stretches the notion ofefficiency and its relationship to the accountability of the service to the limit of credibility. We have addressed this issue in Holdaway and Mantle (1990). The number of councillor members we interviewed was small (5) and we are not able to say how influential a group councillers might be across the country. We researched the response of area probation services to this paper and found that very few indeed had taken any action on the basis of it.

l o It may be the case that the magistrates’ perspective we have documented will prevent in some measure the creation of, in Haxby’s (1978) terms, a community corrections service, in which the probation service places much less emphasis on serving the courts.

ti

’

References Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1988a), Anti-Racism Policy Statement,

Wakefield: ACOP. Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1988b) Crime Prevention and the Probation

Service, Wakefield: ACOP. Association of Chief Officers of Probation (1990) Supervision and P u n i h e n t in the

Community: A Frameworkfor Action: A Response from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, Wakefield: ACOP.

Central Council of Probation Committees ( 1983) Probation: A Multi-Racial Approach, London: CCPC.

Central Council of Probation Committees (1986) Discussion Paper on the Role of the Probation Service in the Inner Cities, London: CCPC.

Central Council of Probation Committees (1987a) Black People and the Probation Service: Towards Racial Harmony, London: CCPC.

Central Council of Probation Committees (198713) Crime Prevention: A Role for Probation Committees, London: CCPC.

Central Council of Probation Committees (1987~) The Probation Committee: Role and Function, London: CCPC.

Green, R. (1987) ‘Racism and the offender’, in: J. Harding (Ed.), Probation and the Community, London: Tavistock.

131

Hall, P., Land, H., Parker, R. and Webb, A. (1975) Change, Choice and Conflict in

Ham, C. (1981) Policy-Making in the Notional Health Service: A Case Study of the b e d s

Haxby, D. (1978) Probation: A Changing Service, London: Constable. Henderson, P. (1987) Cornmunib Work and the Probation Service: Report f o r the Home

Hill, M. ( 1988), Understanding Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell. Hill, M. and Bramley, G. (1986) Analwing Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell. Holdaway, S. and Allaker, J. (1990) Race Issues in the Probation Service: A Review of

Policy, Wakefield: Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Holdaway, S. and Mantle, G. (1990) ‘Supervision and punishment in the

community: a submission to the Home Office’, (unpublished evidence to Home Office).

Home Office (1984a) Probation Service in England and Wales: Statement of National Objectives and Priorities, London: HMSO.

Home Office (1984b) The Probation Rules, London: HMSO. Home Office ( 1984~) A View from the Hvme Of ice . Paper presented by David Faulkner to

the Annual General Meeting of the Central Council of Probation Committees, London: CC PC .

Home Office (1984d) Crime Prevention (Home Ofice Circular 8/84), London: Home Office.

Home Office (1988a) Probation Service Policies on Race (Home Office Circular 75/88), London: Home Office.

Home Office (1988b) Punishment, Custody and the Community, Cm. 424. Home Office (1990a) Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, Cm. 965. Home Office (1990b) Supervision, Punishment and the Community, Cm. 966. Home Office (1991) Implementing Supervision and Punishment in the Community,

Hope, T. and Shaw, M. (Eds.) (1988) Communities and Crime Prevention, London:

Hudson, B. (1989) ‘Discrimination and disparity’, New Community, 16( I ) , 23-34. McWilliams, W. ( 1990) ‘Probation practice and the management ideal’, Probation

Journal, June, 60-7. National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (1986) Black

People and the Criminal Justice System, 1,ondon: NACRO. National Association of Probation Oflicers ( 1984) Crime Prevention and Reduction

Strategies, London: NAPO. National Association of Probation Officers ( 1987) The Recruitment, Selection, Training

and Employment of Black Staff, London: NAPO. Parker, H., Sumner, M. and Jarvis, G. (1989) Unmasking the Magistrates: The

‘Custody or Not’ Decision in Sentencing Young Oflenders, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Social Policy, London: Heinemann.

Regional Ijosospital Board, London : Ma cm il I an,

Ofjce , London: NISW.

London: HMSO.

HMSO.

Young, K. (l977), ‘Values in the policy process’, Policy and Politics, 5, 1-12.

Date submitted: 27 April 1991 Date accepted: 3 September 1991

132