Beyond marketisation: towards a relational future of professionalism in probation after transforming rehabilitation

AuthorMatt Tidmarsh/Ian D. Marder
PositionSchool of Law, University of Leeds/Department of Law, Maynooth University
Pages22-45
22
British Journal of Community Justice
©2021 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 17(2) 2245
https://doi.org/10.48411/7azj-az90-
BEYOND MARKETISATION: TOWARDS A RELATIONAL
FUTURE OF PROFESSIONALISM IN PROBATION AFTER
TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION
Matt Tidmarsh, School of Law, University of Leeds; Ian D. Marder, Department of Law,
Maynooth University
Contact info: m.j.tidmarsh@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
The Coalition Government pledged to maintain ‘professionalism’ in probation through its
market-based Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms; however, the recent decision to
reverse these reforms came as the service’s professionalism has been downgraded and
diminished. TR eroded the networks of relationships, between and among people and
organisations, which constitute probation’s essence (Senior et al., 2016) – that is, its ability
to overlay the distinct, but interlinked spheres of corrections, social welfare, treatment and
the community. This paper looks to the future of professionalism in English and Welsh
probation after TR. We argue that the service lies at a crossroads, between a continuation
of the punitive and marketising policies imposed in recent decades, and opportunities to
recapture its essence through a relational re-professionalisation agenda. We advocate for a
strategic and evidence-based professionalism i n probation practice that emphasises
relational co-production. Here, a restorative pr actice model can support relationship
building in client facing and multi-agency contexts, begin to rebuild relationships within the
service and offset the worst excesses of other agendas.
Keywords
Probation; Professionalism; Transforming Rehabilitation; Offender Management;
Restorative Practice; Co-Production
Beyond Marketisation: Towards a Relational Future of Professionalism In Probation After
Transforming Rehabilitation
23
Introduction
Among the topics debated at a 2016 conference on the future of probation in England and
Wales was the essence of the service (Senior et al., 2016). The participants concluded that
probation traverses four distinct, but interlinked, social worlds: corrections (prisons, police,
courts); social welfare (employment, housing and benefit provision, education and
training); treatment (mental and physical health, substance use); and the community (local
authorities, community organisations and social networks). The service occupies the space
between these spheres; its essence is to overlay them to produce meaningful change in
offenders. To achieve this, Senior et al. (2016) argue that probation services should support
and empower those for whom it is responsible through ‘relational co-production’. In other
words, probation practice is at its best when delivered by reflexive, emotionally literate
practitioners, guided by explicit values that inform ethical decision-making and working
with their clients to build an evidence-base and strong links with local communities.
Moreover, probation work is reliant on relationships, most prominently those between
probation officers and their clients, and those between their clients and others in their
communities. These facets of culture, identity and practice ‘demand a permanent place at
the table of probation’ (Senior et al., 2016:13).
Such discussions took place against the backdrop of the Coalition Government’s (2010-
2015) much-maligned Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms to probation in England and
Wales. From June 2014, services were divided between the publicly owned National
Probation Service (NPS) and 21 regional, privately run Community Rehabilitation Companies
(CRCs). Maintaining ‘professionalism’ in probation was a key theme wi thin G overnment
documents which sought to rationalise the reforms (Ministry of Justice [MoJ], 2010, 2013).
Just four years after implementing TR, however, the then Conservative Government
announced that further restructuring was necessary ‘to stabilise probation services’ (MoJ,
2018:3). The ‘Payment by Results’ (PbR) mechanism through which private providers were
paid was abandoned and the NPS will assume responsibility for the day-to-day management
of all offenders in 2021 (Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service [HMPPS], 2020a). Far
from restoring professionalism to the service, a key factor in the demise of TR has been a
‘deplorable diminution of the probation profession’ (HMI Probation, 2019a:3).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT