Racism and Anti-Racism in Probation

David Denney

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN:
  9780415061568
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134925995
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery
• Index: Social Sciences

Racism and Anti-Racism in Probation analyses the complex processes by which black people are treated differentially by the probation service. Drawing on detailed ethnographic material, David Denney shows how conventions used by probation officers can discriminate against black people. He considers the implications of recent changes in penal policy on the development of probation work and considers how future developments may lead to an anti-racist form of probation practice.

Chapter 1
Race, racism and the probation service

In describing the existing research into probation officer-black offender relations, it is necessary to distinguish research which refers to probation practice and work which has been concerned with related but wider issues.¹ There is a growing literature on the sentencing of black people, which does not directly address social-work practice. Here, as with probation practice, a complex picture emerges, since a number of important studies seemed to indicate that there was little if any ‘racial’ discrimination at the sentencing stage of the criminal justice process (McConville and Baldwin 1982; Crowe and Cove 1984). Hudson, on the other hand, in a recent study of sentencing in London, found considerable disparity of sentencing for the most common offences like theft and burglary, commenting that:

The vulnerability of the unemployed to custody, of black people to high tariff, very interventionist sentencing in run of the mill cases, and custody for even minor offences against the person, accompanied by the low use of probation for black males, was entirely consistent between courts.

(Hudson 1989:31)

Both Moxon (1988) and Hudson in their sentencing studies found a lower incidence of social-enquiry reports (SER) being presented on black offenders, which contributed to the low incidence of probation. This was partly attributed to the fact that black people were more likely to contest cases. When probation reports were presented to the courts, fewer probation orders resulted. Such findings lead towards a consideration of the probation process in detail. Much of the work in this latter area is relatively unsophisticated when compared with research into the workings of other parts of the criminal justice system. The amount of data is limited, considering the complexities and importance of this area of probation practice. Although the quality of the research is generally marked by an absence of methodological vigour, an overall conclusion from the existing research is that black people are concentrated at the ‘heavier’ custodially related end of probation caseloads.

Table 1.1 To show previous literature and findings

Such a phenomenon can no longer easily be ascribed simply to black pathology models adopted by white probation officers in social-enquiry reports, since, as will be shown, in the mid-1980s, some research has suggested that probation officers are as likely to make non-custodial recommendations for black offenders as they are for white.

The methodological approach adopted in the more recent research is difficult to characterise, combining both the qualitative and quantitative traditions. Despite the fact that there is no obvious historical continuity, it is possible to describe a number of distinct although overlapping periods in research development.

Quantitative research can be divided into an early phase characterised by the work of Ridley (1976), West Yorkshire Probation Service (1978), Whitehouse (1980), Taylor (1981), North East London Probation Service (1981) and Staplehurst (1983). The later work carried out in the positivist tradition can be seen in the research of Guest (1984) and Mair (1986). A qualitative approach was developed during the period 1982–7 by Carrington and Denney (1981), Whitehouse (1983), Pinder (1984) and Green (1987). Other findings appeared to combine elements of both qualitative and quantitative methods as reflected in the work of ILPAS (1982), De la Motta in Nottingham (1984), the West Midlands Probation Service (1987) and Rogers (1989).

Each of these pieces of research will be examined in chronological order, to emphasise the way in which the research developed over time. Table 1.1 summarises the main features of these findings.

FINDINGS OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH INTO PROBATION PRACTICE WITH BLACK OFFENDERS

The early quantitative period: 1980–3

The early work carried out in this area was initially dominated by local small-scale studies. The notion of ‘small scale’ is appropriate here since these early studies appear to rely solely upon the statistical representation of black offenders on the caseloads of probation officers in individual probation areas.

Husband noted that when the practice of Merseyside Probation Service was examined by the Home Office Inspectorate in relation to ‘ethnic minorities’, with particular reference to clients of West Indian origin, they were critical of the probation officer’s social-enquiry reports, suggesting that more could be done to divert such offenders from custody. This group tended not to receive probation recommendations: 66 out of the 152 social-enquiry reports studied contained no recommendation. This suggested to Husband an ambivalence on the part of the report writers. When examining case notes the Home Office Inspectorate felt that clients were frequently treated as whites (Husband 1980).

Analysis of a caseload of city teams in Leicester in December 1980 revealed a total of 86 black and Asian clients; more than half the ‘ethnic minority’ clients were on the east team’s caseload which constituted 20 per cent of the total for that team (Staplehurst 1983). The figures revealed that as a group, ‘Afro-Caribbeans tended to be under-represented in non-custodial supervision; Asian and white clients had comparable rates to each other.

Similarly in Thornton Heath, Croydon, where the Afro- Caribbean population was estimated at 1 in 5 in 1977, a scan of the office caseloads revealed that Afro-Caribbeans were over-represented in statutory after-care supervision. ‘Afro-Caribbeans’ constituted some 16 per cent of probation cases and 34 per cent of cases in the statutory after-care sector (South East London Probation Service 1977). In a study of the Oxford Probation Service, out of a caseload of 300 in December 1981, black clients totalled 30: one ‘Asian’, three African, and the remaining 26 of ‘Afro-Caribbean origin’ (Gardiner 1982).

A similar picture was found in a caseload scan of Slough in 1976– 7 (Ridley 1980), which revealed that the Rastafarian group of offenders made up 14 per cent of Slough’s probation caseload, although the total ‘Afro-Caribbean’ population for the area was estimated at 2 per cent. In another caseload scan of young offenders in the north-east division of London, there was an overall ratio of ‘Afro-Caribbeans’ to white British of 1:2. In Hackney the ratio was even higher at almost 1:1 with the white British (North East London Probation Service 1981).

In May 1981, the West Midlands Probation and After Care Service and the Commission for Racial Equality jointly published the first major study of black offender-probation officer relations (Taylor 1981). Data was collected from standard statistical forms returned by probation officers to probation headquarters on a monthly basis. The purpose of these returns relates to the quantification of work carried out by probation officers.

The work showed that 13.9 per cent of clients were black. It is interesting to compare this figure with the estimated number of black people living in this country, which at the time the study was undertaken totalled 4.1 per cent. In addition to the statutory and voluntary sector much work was carried out in the preparation of social-enquiry reports, which was not researched.

The largest single group recorded as being in contact with the probation officers in the West Midlands were ‘Afro-Caribbean’, comprising 8.6 per cent of the total county caseload. What emerged most clearly from this research was the fact that black offenders were over-represented in the custody/postcustody category. If all licences are considered, ‘ethnic-minority’ groups were proportionately more likely to be subject to supervision on licence, following a custodial sentence, than the white group. Probation officers also had less contact with black offenders than white according to Taylor. When in prison, black offenders were less likely to be in receipt of pre-release help from probation officers. Taylor’s work in the West Midlands indicated that ‘Afro-Caribbeans’ had larger proportions than their total numbers would warrant under children’s supervision and on detention-centre licence, in borstal, as it was before 1982, or prison.

In the supervision categories (i.e. probation, children and young persons supervision, suspended sentence supervision, money-payment supervision and community service orders), all black offenders were under-represented when compared with the white group. On the other hand, white offenders were disproportionately over-represented in the non-custodial areas of supervision like probation, suspended sentence, supervision orders, or money-payment supervision orders.

In summary, Taylor’s work demonstrated that although white offenders made up a majority of all clients, black offenders, particularly of ‘Afro-Caribbean’ origin, were disproportionately represented in the more punitive areas of probation supervision. The word punitive is used since these areas are more likely to be associated with custody, and in the case of detention centres, borstal and children’s supervision, are more likely to involve the probation officer in ‘recall’ activities in which the probation officer is actively involved in proceedings designed to return the offender to the custodial institution because of ‘bad behaviour’.

Whitehouse (1980) took one geographical area in the West Midlands with a disproportionately high number of ‘Afro-Caribbean’ offenders and carried out a similar counting exercise to that which had been attempted by Taylor. White and black offenders on probation caseloads in the Handsworth area were placed under categories of supervision, where another accentuated tilt towards ‘coercive’ probation contact was found. Only 7 per cent of black offenders were represented under the probation category as compared with 90 per cent for the white probation sample. The proportion of ‘Asian’ offenders on probation (1 per cent), was also significantly lower than recorded by Taylor for the whole county (26 per cent). Twice the proportion of ‘Afro-Caribbeans’ were found to be on detention-centre licence (14 per cent), at the coercive end of supervison, than there were on probation (7 per cent). An even higher proportion of ‘Afro-Caribbean’ offenders, some 20 per cent, were subject to borstal supervision. Thus the work of Whitehouse seemed to compound and reinforce the findings of Taylor.

The early quantitative studies pointed to the fact that young black offenders were more likely than white offenders to be concentrated within the custodial areas of probation work. This research also implied that probation officers might be instrumental within the discriminating process. Until the nature of the professional judgements which could disadvantage young black offenders was more fully understood, the significance of these over-representation figures would remain speculative.

It was also noteworthy that, with the exception of the 1976 Merseyside study, no attention had been given to social-enquiry reports. It was with the emergence of a qualitative approach to the research that a direct link between the over-representation of black offenders in non-custodial forms of supervision and forms of probation practice was made.

The later quantitative period: 1984–90

Guest (1984) undertook an extensive quantitative study of young offenders in youth custody, using data compiled from institutional records, social-enquiry reports and police reports. The research classified youths into three groups: black, white and Asian. For each of these groups, three longitudinal studies of social ‘antecedents’ and previous custody were undertaken. Guest found that the three groups shared remarkably similar histories of types of previous custody, notwithstanding the disproportionately high black population in the institution.

Guest found evidence of acute ‘social disadvantage’ in all groups, while the black group were more likely to have experienced what Guest called ‘severe deprivation’. He argued that the likelihood of delinquency increases when children experience such extreme neglect and poverty. The criminal activity of the black inmates tended to begin during childhood. Guest did not attribute the high representation of black offenders in borstal to the work of the probation service.

Mair (1986) undertook research in two magistrates courts, which was intended to establish whether there were any differences in the way black defendants were referred for social-enquiry reports, the recommendations made by probation officers and the differences in sentencing decisions. Data was collected on all adult offenders, aged 17 plus, who appeared in Bradford and Leeds magistrates court over a specified period. A visual categorisation was carried out to establish what Mair refers to as the ‘ethnic group’. The sample, numbering 1,173, was divided into black, white and Asian. Black offenders were more likely to be charged with offences connected with violence and drugs than white offenders, while Asians were less likely to have been involved in crimes of theft. No differences were found in the recommendations made by probation officers; and reports not containing specific recommendations were spread evenly.

Like Guest, Mair found that the average age of black offenders was lower than for white defendants. He suggests this could indicate that black people were being apprehended by the police at an earlier age than white defendants, or be a function of the age structure of the relevant populations. Mair’s work also suggested that black defendants were less likely to be sentenced to probation, but more likely to receive community service orders, than white defendants. It should be remembered that community service is a high-tariff offence, which puts the offender at greater risk of a custodial sentence at any subsequent court appearance.

Shallice and Gordon (1990) carried out one of the most sophisticated quantitative monitoring studies of four London courts. Although this study examined a wide variety of issues concerning black people in the criminal justice system, including sentencing patterns, specific attention was directed towards social-enquiry reports and the workings of the probation service. This relatively large-scale study examined 578 black defendants, as compared with 124 black defendants in Mair’s sample. They found that black people are more likely to be remanded for reports than white defendants. Although there was no difference in the recommendations being made by probation officers, similar recommendations were being made for people with different histories and degrees of previous involvement with the probation service. Black defendants were being moved up-tariff more quickly than white defendants as a result of the assessments being made by probation officers. Furthermore, this study suggested that report recommendations were more likely to be followed by courts when sentencing black defendants, since recommendations made in connection with white offenders frequently argued for more lenient treatment than the courts were prepared to give.

THE QUALITATIVE STUDIES: 1982–7

In 1981 Carrington and Denney undertook a qualitative study which specifically examined Rastafarian—probation officer relations. This small study was undertaken in Handsworth, West Midlands, which sought to examine an area with a high Afro-Caribbean population. Attention was directed towards the way in which probation officers perceived Rastafarianism and the methods of intervention currently employed by the probation officers in relation to Rastafarians. The personal responses of a group of Rastafarian offenders to probation was also examined. The sample consisted of a cross-section of 30 probation officers, including men and women, from basic grade to assistant chief probation officer. With the exception of one black male, the members of this group were white. A qualitative methodology was employed, based upon loosely structured interviews. The content of 15 social-enquiry reports on Rastafarians was also examined.

All probation officers interviewed found Rastafarians to be a problematic group, with a number of dominant conceptualisations emerging. The two major categories of Rastafari were referred to as: ‘the true Rasta’ and the ‘untrue Rasta’. Respondents held that the true Rastas based their lifestyle upon a system of religious beliefs. These involved a number of rituals, including the smoking of ganja.

This group was apparently more willing to accept probation intervention than the ‘untrue Rasta’. The probation officers divided the latter group into two further sub-categories. One sub-category was often referred to as ‘the Bandwagon Rastas’ who were those who had adopted the outward appearance of the Rastafarians, but who, according to the probation officers interviewed, lacked any cognisance of the Rastafarian world view. The ‘Bandwagon Rastas’ were seen as especially vulnerable to manipulation by a second subcategory of ‘untrue Rastas’, who were perceived by the probation officers as a politically rather than religiously motivated group, with ‘Marxist’ leanings.

Causal e...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• TABLES AND FIGURES
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 1: RACE, RACISM AND THE PROBATION SERVICE
• CHAPTER 2: EXPLANATIONS FOR OFFENDING: THE PERCEPTIONS OF PROBATION OFFICERS
• CHAPTER 3: SOCIAL-WORK PRACTICE WITH BLACK AND WHITE OFFENDERS
• CHAPTER 4: LANGUAGE, POWER AND CONVENTION
• CHAPTER 5: RACISM, ANTI-RACISM AND PROBATION POLICY
• CHAPTER 6: ANTI-RACIST DIRECTIONS IN PROBATION PRACTICE AND TRAINING
• APPENDIX
• NOTES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY