States of exception? Criminal justice systems and the COVID response

Abstract

This Special Issue of the journal explores the ways in which different countries adapted probation services in response to the public health restrictions imposed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The issue contains contributions from several jurisdictions including Austria, the Netherlands, England and Wales and Scotland. A notable feature is the way probation services, like in many other areas of life, were required to adapt rapidly to restrictions in face-to-face contact, necessitating a move towards online modes of engagement. These included models of ‘blended supervision’ involving phone contacts and door-stop visits, videocalls and other uses of technology. Many of the contributions to the issue note both the potential benefits of more adaptative use of technology (including increased compliance), and more creative approaches to supervision, as well as the downsides in terms of meaningful engagement. Dominey and colleagues explore the implementation of a blended approach to supervision in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in England in the summer of 2020 following the implementation of an Exceptional Delivery Model (HMIP, 2020). Their research, which focused on staff experiences of the changes in practice during this time, highlights some important findings about the blurring of the boundaries between work and home life, in the context where most people were required to work from home. This theme is also picked up in Phillips’ and colleagues’ research of practice within theNational Probation Service (NPS). As well as having to adapt to different ways of working, staff found themselves in situations where they were dealing with difficult and sensitive information in their own living spaces. This ‘work-life spill over’was particularly difficult in the context of isolation from colleagues and where the space to discuss ongoing challenges or seek support was diminished. In Austria, as Stempkowski andGrafl document, the restrictions led to similar adaptions, and while most probation staff reported the ability to maintain contacts with their clients, there were challenges for some clients because of accessibility (not having a telephone, a suitable residence, or language barriers). In the Netherlands research with staff and supervisees conducted by Sturm and colleagues also showed, differential impacts. Some services users found the move to online supervision to be less intrusive. Less of their time and money was taken up with the requirement to attend meetings, and so some of the ‘pains of supervision’ (see Durnescu, 2011), were Editorial The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice