Can models of organizational change help to understand ‘success’ and ‘failure’ in community sentences? Applying Kotter’s model of organizational change to an Integrated Offender Management case study
| Author | Neil Cornish,Matt Hopkins,Sam King |
| Published date | 01 July 2018 |
| Date | 01 July 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817721274 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817721274
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2018, Vol. 18(3) 273 –290
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817721274
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Can models of organizational
change help to understand
‘success’ and ‘failure’ in
community sentences?
Applying Kotter’s model
of organizational change
to an Integrated Offender
Management case study
Sam King
University of Leicester, UK
Matt Hopkins
University of Leicester, UK
Neil Cornish
University of Glasgow, UK
Abstract
A number of nationally driven initiatives have led to significant changes in the framework of
community sentences, with various agencies being required to work in ‘joined-up’ multi-agency
arrangements. Most notable, perhaps, has been the increased working relationship between police
and probation, most recently within Integrated Offender Management (IOM). Although these have
produced some positive outcomes in relation to crime reduction, success is sporadic and often
quite modest. Research has identified a number of barriers to successful implementation, and this
article builds on this by drawing upon fresh empirical evidence to argue that the success of such
schemes relies on the management of organizational change that will inevitably and necessarily
occur. Applying Kotter’s model of organizational change to data generated from an evaluation of
two IOM schemes in England, the article offers an explanatory account of the implementation of
the schemes and the possible effect this had on efforts to reduce crime.
Corresponding author:
Sam King, Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Email: sk532@le.ac.uk
721274CRJ0010.1177/1748895817721274Criminology & Criminal JusticeKing et al.
research-article2017
Article
274 Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(3)
Keywords
Criminal justice agencies, Offender Management, organizational change, police, probation
Recent Changes to Community Justice
Community justice has witnessed numerous changes in recent decades, prompting
McNeill et al. (2010) to suggest that change in community sentences has, ironically, been
one of the few constants. New arrangements and initiatives have led to (if not necessi-
tated) changes to organizational structures, professional identities and occupational cul-
tures (Deering et al., 2014; Faulkner, 2008; Gregory, 2010; Mawby and Worrall, 2011;
Robinson and Burnett, 2007). The potential consequences and subsequent impact of
these changes have frequently been reported negatively. For some, the increase in mana-
gerialism since the 1980s has been responsible for changing the dynamics of criminal
justice, particularly with the advent of New Public Management (NPM) under the
Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s (Raine and Willson, 1995), which
was further accentuated under the New Labour government in the early 21st century
(McLaughlin et al., 2001).
The introduction of NPM in criminal justice had a number of potential effects, includ-
ing a reduction in autonomy and the prominence afforded to efficiency as a performance
driver (Raine and Willson, 1995). For others, the introduction of ‘what works’ and the
Effective Practice Initiative (EPI) had particular impacts on the nature of community
sentences and those who deliver them. Newman and Nutley (2003) argued that the intro-
duction of ‘what works’ had shifted the relationship between the policy-maker and the
frontline Probation Service in favour of the former. This resulted in service providers
receiving greater direction within a top–down, technocratic environment. They also
argued that the transformation of probation impacted on the nature of professional
knowledge, but that probation staff were able to retain ‘old’ values in the way that they
performed their roles (see also Farrant, 2006).
Others still have argued that wider organizational changes to the Probation Service
had a negative effect on staff morale and commitment to the organization, albeit not a
lack of commitment to service users or the role per se (Farrow, 2004). Finally, some have
argued that, at least partly as a consequence of the various changes to the organization,
structure and delivery of community sentences, we have witnessed the emergence of the
‘polibation’ and the ‘prisipolibation’ officer (Mawby and Worrall, 2011; Mawby et al.,
2007; Nash, 2008), indicating a shift in occupational identities and a merging, or blur-
ring, of professional roles. It is argued here that whether new initiatives within commu-
nity sentences achieve their intended outcomes depends, to some extent, on how the
accompanying process of organizational change is managed.
Managing Organizational Change in Community Justice
As the introduction of new approaches to community justice will frequently lead to
organizational, professional or cultural changes, the achievement of intended outcomes
is likely to be influenced by the way those changes are managed. Of course, outcomes
To continue reading
Request your trial