Questions of Legitimacy in Probation Practice after Transforming Rehabilitation
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12200 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 2. June 2017 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12200
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 158–175
Questions of Legitimacy in Probation
Practice after Transforming
Rehabilitation
JOHN DEERING and MARTINA Y. FEILZER
John Deering is Reader in Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of
South Wales; Martina Feilzer is Professor of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Bangor University
Abstract: In this article, we discuss the impact of changes to the organisational struc-
ture of probation on the legitimacy of probation practice. In particular, we explore how
the division of probation into the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) could affect the self-legitimacy felt by probation prac-
titioners in both organisations and the implications for probation of a possible lack of
overall legitimacy post-Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). This article is based on em-
pirical research exploring the views of probation staff of the (then) impending changes
introduced via TR and reflections on what has happened since.
Keywords: legitimacy; probation; Transforming Rehabilitation (TR);
probation practice; self-legitimacy
‘Probation’ practice in various statutory and earlier voluntary forms has
existed for well over 100 years in England and Wales and has, along with
its governance, changed dramatically over this time from its origins in
the Police Court missionary and Temperance movements. This is perhaps
unsurprising for a service that has had to respond to changing political
and policy demands, as well as changes in the nature of crime patterns,
sentencing policy, and the characteristics of those under its supervision.
Moreover, in recent decades, there is no doubt that public services and
service provision generally have had to adapt to social, economic, political,
and policy changes. As a result of these macro-level changes, probation
has recently experienced its most dramatic organisational restructuring to
date and the subsequent implications of these changes for the legitimacy
of probation practice is the focus of this article.
In 2014, under the TransformingRehabilitation (TR) changes (Ministry
of Justice 2013), Probation Trusts were split into the National Probation
Service (NPS) which became part of the civil service and 21 Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which were subject to marketisation and
158
C
2017 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 2. June 2017
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 158–175
a commercial tendering process. After the bidding process was completed
in 2014, eleven CRCs were owned by private sector companies leading a
partnership with third sector organisations; three were joint ventures be-
tween the private, public, and third sectors; three were a public, private,
and third sector partnership; two were owned by the private sector exclu-
sively; and another two were equity joint ventures between the private and
third sectors (Deering and Feilzer 2015, p.13).
The privatisation of criminal justice services raises fundamental ques-
tions about the ethics of private companies making profits from crime,
victimisation, and punishment. Additionally, there are empirical questions
about the effect of privatisation on notions of legitimacy – for example,
in what ways might probation services delivered by the private and third
sectors be regarded as legitimate in the eyes of different groups (those
supervised by probation staff, other criminal justice practitioners, proba-
tion staff themselves and the public)? In brief, legitimacy may be seen to
have three subcategories: external legitimacy which considers the extent to
which those individuals and groups not affected by an organisation see its
activities as legitimate (in this case, the views of the public and other crim-
inal justice agencies); internal legitimacy, the extent to which those subject
to its practice see it as legitimate (in this case probation supervisees); self-
legitimacy, the extent to which those within an organisation (in this case
probation staff themselves) see it as legitimate (Bradford and Quinton
2014). This article aims to consider all three types, but has a particular
focus upon the impact of recent structural changes on the self-legitimacy
of probation practitioners.1
Legitimacy and Probation
Clearly the changes imposed as a result of TR have had the potential
to affect all three types of legitimacy, but perhaps particularly upon self-
legitimacy. In a recent major ethnographic study looking at the formation
of a CRC from the inside, Robinson, Burke and Millings (2016) studied staff
identity during this time of considerable change. They identified a num-
ber of themes: separation and loss; status anxiety; loyalty and trust; and
liberation and innovation, but concluded that the notion of ‘liminality’ –
of being caught in transition between the old and the new – the ‘pub-
lic and the outsourced’, was the most fundamental and important theme
(p.161). Some staff found the emerging CRC to be ‘socially invisible’ with-
out a clear identity, and in danger of being seen as little more than ‘second
class probation’ (p.173). Moreover, their previous identity within the ‘hon-
ourable profession’ of probation seemed under some strain due to fears
that perceived private sector values and priorities might ‘taint’ the pro-
fession. Robinson, Burke and Millings (2016, pp.174–5) concluded that
identities within the CRCs were likely to be liminal for some time until
practitioners came to a settled idea of how they might fit (or not) within
the world of the CRC. In turn, such an impact may have an effect on the
extent to which practitioners might come to see their role as legitimate,
but why might this and the wider issue of legitimacy be important?
159
C
2017 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial