Prison and National Probation Service cooperation - Essay Example

Research Topic Over a decade ago, Maguire (1994), a of criminology and editor of the British Journal of Criminology, presented an analysis of the British justice system which argued that the existence of structural flaws directly contributed to the ever-escalating UK crime rate, and especially as pertains to reoffending. The division between prison and probation services and the lack of effective and efficient communication and cooperation between them, culminated in offender mis-management, as opposed to effective management, whereby, upon their re-entry into society, a significant percentage of offender reverted to crime. As such, Maguire (1994) established a direct link between efficient offender management, defined as effective cooperation between prison and probation services, and reduction of crime rate. Within the context of a relatively fragmented justice system and divisive offender management programmes, reoffending is defined as symptomatic of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the operative offender management programme across much of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (Maguire, 1994; Farrall, 2002; Hedderman, 1998; Pratt, 2002). In an effort to address the resultant shortcomings of a fragmented justice system, the Home Office proposed a merger between prison and probation services, leading to the creation of a unified offender management body, referred to as the National Offender Management Service (Valios, 2004). Advocates of the reformation of the justice system contend that the reduction in crime rates can only be attained through the establishment of a systemic framework for joint operation between the prison, probation and police services (Brookman and Maguire, 2003). Were these three offender management bodies to enter into an alliance and to work as one, the resultant facilitation in information flows would allow for the targeted and strategic intervention deemed integral to that level of offender management as would proactively respond to crime and reduce crime rates across the country (Brookman and Maguire, 2003). Despite the above articulated argument in favour of justice system reformation towards alliance, stakeholder reception of the National Offender Management Service (Noms) was mixed, to say the least. While some perceived of it as a constructive step toward the reduction of reoffending rates and a positive contribution towards the greater national aim of crime reduction, others critiqued it as a misinformed strategy which would confuse the boundaries between prison' and community.' Such confusion, as critics maintain, will have dire societal consequences insofar as it is predicated on the assumption that inmate and out-mate offender management subscribe to the same concern, principles, aims and, thus, paradigms (Valios, 2004; Palmer, 2003; Peters, LeVasseur and Chandler, 2004). Proceeding from the background and controversy outlined in the above, the dissertation shall focus on the aims of the proposed justice system reform, critically analysing Noms from the perspective of best practices managerial theories. The rationale for selection did not simply emanate from the contemporaneous nature of the issue, or solely from its societal value but because the researcher has been professionally involved in both prison and probation services for a number of years and is, consequently, in a position to analyse Noms and argue the exigencies of its implementation on the basis of experiential evidence. Apart from the experiential knowledge and both subjective and professional interest in the issue, the topic was further selected consequent to the fact that the researcher's professional background places him in a position whereby he can collect primary data, conduct the requisite surveys and administer the necessary questionnaires with comparative ease. In other words, the researcher's professional background and awareness of the fact that community safety and societal interests are best served through the articulation and implementation of an effective and efficient offender management programme, predetermined topic selection. Research Aim Within the parameters of the above explicated topic, the research's predominant aim may be defined as the critical exploration of the prevalent shortcomings in operational offender management programmes, with the goal of the aforementioned being the determination of whether or not Noms addresses and resolves the identified shortcomings. Framed by the stated aim, the research shall proceed in response to the following questions: What are the shortcomings of current offender management programmes How does Noms propose to resolve those shortcomings Which organisational and people management paradigms should inform Noms Why, if it aims to address the failure of the preceding systems, has Noms elicited diverse and contrary reactions among stakeholders What are the variables which will affect the success of Noms and how may they be exploited and controlled in order to maximise the potential for success As may be deduced from the above stated research question, the research hypothesis focuses on the imperatives of reforming offender management through the unification of prison and probation services' strategies, policies and goals. As such, the research hypothesis may be articulated as follows: Noms is a constructive step towards the reformation of offender management models towards greater efficiency and effectiveness but its success is ultimately predicated on the design and subsequent adoption of a people and organisational management paradigm which is immediately informed by empirical research and studies on offender management requirements and which constructively exploits non-profit organisational management tools. Within the context of the research boundaries established by both the research questions and hypothesis, the study shall seek to prove, through empirical, experiential and heretical evidence, that end to end offender management is more effective and efficient than within the context of the separation of prison and probation services and activities. Literature Review As earlier stated, the primary areas of concern are the National Offender Management Service and organisational and people management theory. As pertains to either of these two issues, the existent wealth of academic literature testifies to their respective values and the extent to which the latter may be constructively informed by the former. Over the past two decades, offender management literature has articulated the imperatives of utilising existent people and organisational management tools and strategies in order to attain the managerial efficiency and effectiveness level upon which the goals of the justice system are predicated (Burnett, 1992; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Belfrage, Fransson and Strand, 2004; Farrall, 2002; Hedderman, 1998; Pratt, 2002; Finch, 2005; Evans, 2005). The justice system, operating according to the principles of offender exclusion and rehabilitation within a prison system, followed by the release of offenders into society and under the supervisory guidance of the probation service, has been largely incapable of satisfying the justice system's expressed goal of reducing overall offence rates and eliminating reoffending (Pratt, 2002; Farrall, 2002; Finch, 2005). The persistent inability to satisfy the articulated goals exposes what some have identified as a fundamentally flawed people and organisational management paradigm (Valios, 2004, Farrall, 2002; Palmer, 2003). According to the aforementioned perspective, the failure of the justice system to either reduce crime rates or rehabilitate offenders, thereby offsetting reoffense potentialities, is indicative of the greater failure to embrace effective and efficient people and organisational management paradigms. The reworking of operative offender management paradigms towards their embrace of proven management principles has been argued in numerous scholarly studies (Burnett, 1992; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Belfrage, Fransson and Strand, 2004; Farrall, 2002; Hedderman, 1998; Pratt, 2002; Finch, 2005). In brief, these studies argue that the divide between public and private organisation management has long been invalidated by the persistent failure of the latter to attain measurable success, especially when compared to the former. The notion of public organisations and systems are unique unto themselves and cannot be governed through management practices and paradigms historically associated with the private sector has proven, through empirical and theoretical evidence, fallacious (Burnett, 1992; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Belfrage, Fransson and Strand, 2004; Farrall, 2002; Hedderman, 1998; Pratt, 2002; Finch, 2005; Evans, 2005). The aforementioned failure, invalidation and fallacy combine to fortify the argument in favour of acknowledging the linkage between probation and prison management and of unifying the various strands of offender management and institutionalising unification within the context of a centralised national body/agency (Valios, 2004). Assuming that the centralised management of offenders within the context of a predetermined management paradigm would ultimately lead to a breakdown of the system, consequent to the interrelationship between strategic management and organisational inflexibility, the previously defined proposition has been strongly critiqued (Pratt, 2002; Palmer, 2003). Certainly, the exploitation of strategic management paradigms, despite their utility and the empirical evidence in their favour, can lead to organisational inflexibility (Luffman et al., 1996). Concurring, Henry Mintzberg (1989), author of Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organization, has constructed a rather comprehensive argument against the feasibility of strategic planning. Such an argument contends that both the concept and founding rationale contain their own negation consequent to two inherent weaknesses. Firstly, it is claimed that the concept itself escapes concrete and focused definition. Secondly, Mintzberg argues that the implications and requirements of strategic planning hardly lend themselves to effective organizational practices/business management (Mintzberg, 1989). Consequently, from the strategic managerial perspective, it is apparent that the cited critics have reason for concern. While conceding to the fact that there may be reasons for concern and that the implementation of certain management paradigms may render offender management inflexible and incapable of timely response to crisis or environmental changes, this does not invalidate the proposal but, instead, emphasizes the importance of selecting and gradually implementing a suitable management model. As noted by Wolf (1999), while there may not exist a difference between public and private organisation management, insofar as the principle of best practices is concerned, there is an undeniable difference between the management of profit and non-profit organisations. Non-profit organisational management is fundamentally geared towards the satisfaction of articulated objectives, usually defined in accordance with societal interests, within the framework of a set budget and resources. The management of this organisational type fundamentally differs from that of profit-oriented organisations, whose primary imperatives are achieving profits and expanding market shares through the utilisation of strategic planning tools (Wolfe, 1999). As regards non-profit organisations, and because of the disparity between the objectives of either organisational type, strategic planning is not called for, although the articulation of strategic organisational objectives and the formulation of a blueprint for action are required (Wolf, 1999). Within the context of the above, one may note that the fears regarding the potential consequence of strategic planning methodologies, if applied to Offender Management, is unfounded. It is unfounded since, as a non-profit organisation or government body, Noms is not in need of the strategic planning methodologies and tools currently operative in relation to profit-oriented organisation but, more accurately, requires the implementation of such management models as are specifically designed for on-profit organisation and which, accordingly, are primarily based upon crisis management principles and on the exigencies of maintaining organisational flexibility (Wolf, 1999). Organisational flexibility, defined as the ability to constructively respond to environmental changes and capacity to confront and resolve crisis, is an essential characteristic of the well-run organisation (Mintzberg, 1989; Wolfe, 1999). Not only is the general environment in which organisations are located constantly changing but the variables and characteristics of the aforementioned environment are fluid and mercurial, whereby survival is predicated upon flexibility. Such flexibility is attained through the design of management strategies which, apart from drawing on paradigms formulated for non-profit organisations, are specifically articulated in response to a specified organisation's unique characteristics and its dominant objectives (Wolf, 1999; Mullins, 2004). On the basis of the above, one might deduce that the management paradigm which should, ideally, inform Noms is one which has been specifically designed to satisfy the service's objectives while taking its unique intra-and extra-organisational characteristics and objectives into consideration. Therefore, and as both Finch (2005) and Evans (2005) contend, the question should not be whether existent management paradigms would positively contribute to offender management programmes but which people and organisational strategies should be selected and operationalised. Research Methods As Alvesson and Deetz (2000) note, management research should proceed only following the definition of a specified problem, the articulation of a well-defied hypothesis and the formulation of a set of research questions which would serve to guide and direct the study. As earlier noted, the research problem, question and hypothesis have all been formulated with the only remaining question being the methodology within which the research shall unfold. Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (1996) contend that without a well-defined methodology which, above all, is specifically tailored to support the research's aims and interests, a research would soon loose direction and may eventually become an unguided narrative which circles around the issue rather than penetrate and explore it. It is with this understanding in mind that the researcher opted for a mixed methodological approach which, apart from utilising primary and secondary data would be informed by variant theoretical paradigms, as determined by the research's interests and requirements. The theoretical paradigms to be employed shall be primarily drawn from non-profit organisational management methodologies, with greater focus upon those models which allow for, and sustain, an organisation's capacity for flexibility and crisis management. Secondary, or desk-based research shall be primarily employed for theoretical management paradigm selections and for background information on offender management programmes in the UK and the rationale behind Noms. Primary data, collected through questionnaires distributed among stakeholders and structured interviews, shall focus on the articulation of the shortcomings of the dominant offender management system and perceptions of Noms as a solution to the aforementioned shortcomings. Ideally, 10-15 probation officers and 0-15 prison officials shall be interviewed, with close-ended questionnaires administered to 25 prison inmates and 25 former offenders currently under probation. Given the researcher's professional background, the assumption is that the collection of this data will be relatively unproblematic and, needless to say, shall maximise the study's value. The collected primary data shall be both quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. Quantitative analysis shall proceed through the use of numerical data analysis software, such as SPSS and qualitative analysis shall unfold within a theoretically-informed context. As stated, therefore, the research methodology shall be mixed, combining between primary and secondary data, quantitative and qualitative analysis and variant management theories. Bibliography Alvesson, M. and S. Deetz (2000). Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage. Belfrage, H., G. Fransson and S. Strand (2004). Management of violent behavior in the correctional system using qualified risk assessment.' Legal and Criminological Psychology. 9: 11-22. Retrieved January 15, 2005 from Oxford Journals. Blaxter, L., C. Hughes and M. Tight (1996). How To Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Brookman, F. and M. Maguire (2003). Reducing homicide: Summary of a review of the possibilities.' RDS Occasional Paper, 84: 1-6. Retrieved January 17 from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/occ84homicide.pdf Burnett, R. (1992). The Dynamics of Recidivism. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Criminological Research. Evans, D.G. (2005). Current issues in community corrections.' Corrections Today. 67(1). Retrieved January 15, 2005 from EBSCOhost. Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works With Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan. Finch, D. (2005). Succeeding on the outside.' The Journal of Correctional Education. 56(2): 134-138. Retrieved January 15, 2005 from EBSCOhost. Hedderman, C. (1998). A critical assessment of probation research.' Research Bulletin, 39: 1-7. Luffman, G. et al. (1996). Strategic Management: An Analytical Introduction. Cornwall, Blackwell Ltd. Maguire, M. Crime statistics, patterns and trends: Changing perceptions and their implications,' in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology., 233-294. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mitzenberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg On Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations. New York: Free Press. Mullins, L.J. (2004). Management and Organisational Behavior. London: Prentice-Hall. Palmer, E.J. (2003). Offending Behaviour: Moral Reasoning, Criminal Conduct and the Rehabilitation of Offenders. Devon: Willan. Peters, R.H., M.E. LeVasseur and R.K. Chandler (2004). Correctional treatment for co-occurring disorders: Results of a national survey.' Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 22: 563-584. Retrieved January 15, 2005 from EBSCOhost. Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and Civilization. London: Sage. Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. London: Harvard University Press. Valios, N. (2004). Merger mystery.' Community Care. 1532. Retrieved January 15, 2005 from EBSCOhost. Wolf, T. (1999). Managing A Non Profit Organisation in the Twenty-First Century. NY: Simon and Schuster. Read More