Hollowing out probation? The roots of Transforming Rehabilitation
| Author | John Deering,Martina Feilzer |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550518820119 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Hollowing out
probation? The roots
of Transforming
Rehabilitation
John Deering
University of South Wales, UK
Martina Feilzer
Bangor University, UK
Abstract
This article provides a critical perspective on the political and policy history of pro-
bation in England and Wales to develop a better understanding of how TR came to be.
TR was only the latest act in a longstanding process of changing probation to fit
ideological ‘flavours’, and we suggest that it is the hidden nature of probation work in
combination with a lack of public legitimation work by probation institutions and
probation staff that has placed probation in such a vulnerable position.
Keywords
probation, privatisation, organisational change, CJ legislations, organisational
culture
Introduction
This article provides a critical perspective on the political and policy history of
probation in England and Wales to develop a better understanding of the roots of
Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). Whilst TR resulted in a significant departure from
probation’s past, it also represented some continuity in the sense that it was the latest
Corresponding Author:
Martina Feilzer, Ban gor University, Neua dd Ogwen, School of Socia l Sciences, Bangor, LL5 7 2DG,
UK.
Email: m.feilzer@bangor.ac.uk
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2019, Vol. 66(1) 8–24
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550518820119
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
act in a longstanding process of change brought by successive governments to the
service’s purpose, practice, structure and governance. We argue here that this
process resulted in probation being hollowed out structurally, professionally and
normatively, something made easier by a lack of effective resistance from within.
Political and policy challenges to public services in the criminal justice system are
not new, but many have been met with considerable resistance both from ‘rank and
file’ and organisational leadership, for example within the police. Leishman et al.
(1995: 27) suggest that the police have been able to resist new public management
reforms quite successfully because of a powerful policy network and coordinated
resistance by the Police Federation, Police Authorities, and some Chief Constables
and ACPO representatives. In contrast, what is noticeable in the context of TR is the
absence of probation leadership in providing a public voice for probation and a
focus of resistance, caused in part by the erosion of probation’s organisational
culture (Collett, 2013) and the hegemonic way in which successive governments
drove change from the 1970s and 1980s (Senior et al., 2007).
Moreover, we have argued previously (Deering and Feilzer, 2017) that changes
carried out over the last 30 years have had a gradual negative effect upon pro-
bation’s legitimacy, not least upon the self-legitimacy of practitioners, caused in part
by government efforts to change the nature of the relationship between the proba-
tion officer and the supervisee and the values underpinning this relationship. The
1907 Act saw probation founded on the ethos of ‘advise, befriend and assist’
(Whitehead and Statham, 2006), and it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that this
central premise came under significant threat. It was abolished by the 1991
Criminal Justice Act, when probation became ‘punishment in the community’ and a
sentence of the court, and since then the issue of legitimacy has raised complex
questions for probation practice.
Changing probation’s purpose and social position
In our view, the process leading up to TR can be traced to the late 1970s and early
1980s, with the emergence of identifiable themes around changes to probation’s
purpose, practice, structure, governance, and penal policy more generally. These
changes contributed to governments’ desire to change probation’s ethos and pur-
pose and have been consistent with theories of late modernity (Garland, 2001; Pratt
et al., 2005). These cite the rise of neo-conservative political ideas about the causes
of and responses to crime, as well as the rise of ‘new public management’, and later
managerialism, and their impact upon successive governments’ views about the role
of the state in public life (Flynn, 2002; Exworthy and Halford, 1999). Such theories
argue that starting from roughly the mid-1970s, we have witnessed the return to
prominence and influence upon government of classical rational choice theories of
crime, accompanied by a belief in the need to punish as an act of retribution and
deterrence (Wilson, 1975; Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Such views were receptive
to, and reinforced by, the (albeit misinterpreted) ‘Nothing Works’ doctrine of
Martinson and others (Martinson, 1974; Lipton et al., 1975) and underpinned
government moves to redefine probation’s purpose away from a general
Deering and Feilzer 9
To continue reading
Request your trial