Introduction

Over a decade ago, we co-authored an article that made a plea for the use of empowerment programmes on the grounds that the evidence available to date, limited though it was, suggested their relevance to Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people on probation (Durrance and Williams, 2003). Comparing different models of change, we questioned whether the cognitive-behavioural theory base intrinsic to Home Office Pathfinder Programmes was likely to be the best way to reduce offending behaviour among BAME individuals. Occurring in the aftermath of the Macpherson report, which identified institutional racism within the criminal justice system (CJS) of England and Wales (Macpherson, 1999), we were concerned at the superficial adaptation of Pathfinder projects based on cognitive-behavioural theory to ‘fit’ particular offender populations and questioned the logic that such approaches would have an appreciable impact on the structural and social problems experienced by BAME people.

In 2001, under the auspices of the Effective Practice Initiative, there were four intervention programmes specifically designed for BAME offenders subject to community disposals or post-release supervision (Durrance and Williams, 2003). Today, there are none. This dearth of specific interventions for BAME offenders can be read in a number of ways. It could result from a lack of evidence that specifically designed programmes were successful. Another explanation could be that research exploring the link between people's experience of racism and offending have been inconclusive. Taken together this has tended to result in a consensus that Black and Asian offenders do not have sufficiently different criminogenic needs to warrant separate provision (Walmsley and Stephens, 2006). An alternative interpretation, however, is the continued resistance to exploring the use of empowerment approaches that acknowledge the lived experience of many BAME individuals in British society.

Within this chapter, we aim to excavate the ‘triumph of inertia’ (Players, 2013) wherein the contemporary probation service neglects to recognise and respond to the specific needs of BAME people under supervision. To this end, we revisit the central arguments of the earlier article in order to assess whether the intervening years have seen any change in the experience of BAME individuals both within our society and the CJS, or added anything to our understanding of how best to work with BAME individuals.