Understanding Compliance Dynamics in Community Justice Settings

• Author: Pamela Ugwudike
• Published date: 01 March 2017
• Date: 01 March 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1057567716679231
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
International Criminal Justice Review
2017, Vol. 27(1) 40-59
Understanding Compliance
ª 2016 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Dynamics in Community
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1057567716679231
journals.sagepub.com/home/icj
Justice Settings: The
Relevance of Bourdieu’s
Habitus, Field, and Capital
Pamela Ugwudike1
Abstract
This article seeks to expand the existing literature on compliance in community justice settings by
highlighting the importance of service user participation in efforts to achieve compliance. The
article’s central argument is that although co-productive strategies can enhance service user par-
ticipation, the degree to which co-production is achievable in penal supervision is perhaps uncertain,
and has received insufficient theoretical or empirical attention. To address the gap in knowledge, the
article draws on the data generated from a study of compliance in Wales, United Kingdom, and
employs the Bourdieusian concepts of habitus, field, and capital to argue that the convergence of two
key factors undermines the viability of co-productive strategies in penal settings. One factor is the
service users’ habitus of powerlessness which may breed passivity rather than active participation.
The second also relates to the power dynamics that characterize penal supervision contexts. Within
these contexts, practitioners are statutorily empowered to implement and enforce the require-
ments of community orders. In the current target-focused policy climate in England and Wales,
practitioners may prioritize measurable compliance over forms of compliance that stem from
service user participation and engagement perhaps because these are not readily quantifiable.
Keywords
compliance, community-based supervision, corrections, probation, parole
In England and Wales, compliance is a key prong of the government’s agenda for community-
based supervision. In 2010, the National Offender Management Service introduced the offender
engagement programme (OEP). This was a 3-year program that explored how best to promote one-
to-one supervision practices that would enhance service user participation and engagement,1 and in
doing so, reduce reoffending (Copsey, 2011). Rates of attrition from interventions delivered in the
1 College of Law, Swansea University, Wales, UK
Corresponding Author:
Pamela Ugwudike, College of Law, Swansea University, Singleton Road, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.
Email: p.ugwudike@swansea.ac.uk

---

Ugwudike
41
community have however remained consistently high (Cattell, Kenny, Lord, & Wood, 2014;
Hatcher, McGuire, Bilby, Palmer, & Hollin, 2012). There is also evidence that attrition is linked
to increased rates of reconviction (Hatcher, 2009; McMurran & Theodosi, 2007).
In addition, studies in England and Wales reveal that in community justice settings,2 high rates of
enforcement action (for noncompliance) contribute quite significantly to the sustained rise in the
prison population (Gyateng, McSweeney, & Hough, 2010). Furthermore, official statistics suggest
that there is a link between enforcement action and reoffending (Wood et al., 2015). These findings
indicate that it is important to examine compliance dynamics in community justice settings. As such,
this article seeks to expand the literature on service user compliance by exploring a much neglected
issue which is the degree to which co-productive practice that could encourage service user partic-
ipation and engagement is achievable in community justice settings. Co-productive practice relies
on the participation of co-producers such as practitioners and service users in co-designing and/or
co-delivering services (Weaver, 2014). This article’s key contention is that the feasibility of co-
production in penal supervision contexts (within community justice settings) deserves theoretical
and empirical scrutiny. Although the article draws on a study of compliance in community justice
settings in Wales, United Kingdom, its objective is to provide a primarily theoretical account of the
sociostructural and contextual factors that impair participatory practice such as co-production during
penal supervision.
The article employs concepts derived from Bourdieu’s theory of social practice to analyze these
factors (Bourdieu, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Three Bourdieusian concepts are utilized,
namely, habitus, capital, and field. These concepts can be used to demonstrate how the power
dynamics of social arenas or fields (e.g., penal supervision contexts) interact with the deeply
engrained dispositions (habitus) of social actors to shape their perceptions and actions.
In its application of the three Bourdieusian concepts, the article seeks to demonstrate that two
interrelated dimensions of the power differential in supervisory relationships within penal super-
vision settings can help us understand the limits of co-production. One of the dimensions is the
service users’ subordinate position in the penal supervision field where practitioners occupy the
position of power and authority. This creates a power differential that could foment or reinforce a
habitus of limited capability and powerlessness among the service users. The article argues that this
habitus can breed service user passivity rather than the active participation that underpins co-
production.
The article also contends that another key dimension of the power differential in supervisory
relationships (within the penal supervision field) that could impair co-production is the ability of
practitioners to prioritize non-participatory practices that produce measurable compliance (McCul-
loch, 2013; Robinson, 2013). Within the current target-focused policy climate in England and
Wales, services under pressure to attain set targets might prioritize such practices. It follows that
dynamics activated by the power differential in penal supervision contexts may cumulatively impair
the degree of co-production attainable in those contexts.
Conceptualizing Compliance
Compliance is a nebulous and multidimensional concept, but Robinson and McNeill (2008) offer
a useful theoretical framework for understanding the nature of compliance in community justice
settings. Their theoretical framework distinguishes between two forms of compliance, namely,
substantive compliance and formal compliance. Attending statutory appointments without conco-
mitant commitment to the overall aims of a community order exemplifies formal compliance
(Robinson & McNeill, 2008). Unlike formal compliance, substantive compliance is more sustain-
able; it is characterized by service user engagement and a commitment to long-term change goals
(Robinson & McNeill, 2008). It can as such outlast the order.

---

42
International Criminal Justice Review 27(1)
The Relevance of Service User Participation
Studies of supervision in community justice settings suggest that service user participation in
the planning and delivery of a community order is vital for substantive compliance (Hughes, 2012;
Rex, 1999; Weaver & Barry, 2014). Rex’s (1999) study of the impact of probation supervision on
desistance interviewed 21 officers and 60 service users in England. The service users who reported
that they had actively participated in implementing the order were more likely to report that they
found supervision useful. Hughes’ (2012) study of service user engagement during sentence
planning in a probation setting in England found that the opportunity to participate in the inter-
vention by, for example, contributing to sentence planning, encouraged engagement. Weaver and
Barry (2014) explored the views of service users undertaking community-based orders. They
identified the consequences of limited participation in decision-making as confusion, undermined
legitimacy, and disengagement.
Studies of interactions between practitioners and service users in other criminal justice contexts
have also identified service user participation in decision-making as vital for compliance. For
example, in a large-scale longitudinal study of compliance in court settings and during interactions
with the police in Chicago, Tyler (2006) identified procedural justice (perceived fairness of
decision-making processes during encounters with legal authorities) as an important antecedent
of perceived legitimacy and voluntary compliance. Tyler (2006) dimensionalized procedural justice
to include inter alia enabling the service user to participate in decision-making or giving the service
user a voice. Other studies across the United Kingdom have revealed that procedural justice can
encourage compliance in probation settings (Rex, 1999; Ugwudike, 2010) during encounters with
the police (Hough & Maffei, 2013) and in court settings (McIvor, 2009).
Insights from key models of supervision. Key models of supervision emphasize the important role of
service user agency and participation in within community justice settings, in achieving change. For
example, some sections of the desistance literature stress that service user agency is a vital element
of the change process (Bottoms, 2013; Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, & Calverley, 2014; Maruna, 2001).
Agency in this context refers to the personal decision to activate and commit to the change process.
As Maruna (2015, p. 322) observes, ‘‘in leading theories of desistance ‘personal agency looms large’
(Laub & Sampson, 2003, p. 180) and desisters are framed as active participants in constructing their
lives’’. McNeill (2012, p. 10) remarks that service users ‘‘also have strengths and resources that they
can use...