The marketisation of rehabilitation: Some economic considerations
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550518820122 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The marketisation
of rehabilitation:
Some economic
considerations
Kevin Albertson and Chris Fox
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Abstract
This paper considers criminal justice policy in England and Wales since the Trans-
forming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda implemented in 2013. TR rested on the proposition
that probation services are best provided in a market context. Motivated by profit and
extrinsic rewards, private sector consortia, and their employees, theoretically act
efficiently to deter and rehabilitate offenders from crime. However, there is evidence
that marketisation itself undermines the prospects of efficient social policy. Over-
reliance on markets may undermine pro-social norms through emphasising indivi-
dualism and extrinsic returns. Outsourcing is also associated with increasing
inequality, which may also undermine pro-social norms. Further, the emphasis placed
on self-interest in framing market-based incentive structures is associated with
declining public welfare support for the economically marginalised and increased use
of relatively expensive incarceration. In application, TR proved unsustainable. The
innovation involves increasing reliance on the para-state sector, in which private
profits rely on public payment. However, the profits expected under TR fell short of
expectations, in part due to changes in wider society. The early cancellation of TR
contracts highlights the inflexible nature of such public sector procurement. On the
basis of theory and practice, we suggest a reconsideration of the government’s
position on probation and set out reasonable steps to address shortcomings in the
current system.
Corresponding Author:
Kevin Albertson, Manchester Metropolitan University , MMU Business School, All Saints Campus,
Manchester, M15 6BH, UK.
Email: k.albertson@mmu.ac.uk
Probation Journal
2019, Vol. 66(1) 25–42
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550518820122
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Keywords
marketisation, privatisation, criminal justice policy, probation, Transforming
Rehabilitation
Introduction
The criminal justice system in England and Wales is undergoing a period of rapid
and unprecedented change. This process is informed by a body of political theory
sometimes called neoliberalism; that is to say, that body of theory emphasising
market-based solutions to social and economic problems. This paradigm, intro-
duced into the UK political economic landscape as monetarism and/or neo-
classical economics by Thatcher’s Conservative government of 1979 (Hall,
1993), was mirrored by the Reagan administration’s supply-side economics in the
USA (Feldstein, 1986). It continued during the Blair years (Hall, 2011) and since
through the continued emphasis on marketisation and privatisation, and such pro-
grammes as New Public Management.
Here, we consider the use of marketised solutions in the criminal justice sector,
particularly in the area of probation under the UK government’s Transforming
Rehabilitation (TR) agenda. TR was a market-oriented innovation which, it was
argued, would achieve efficiency gains and cost savings in the criminal justice
sector, particularly in probation. Despite the Ministry of Justice’s stated commitment
to evidence-based policy (Ministry of Justice, 2014d: 3), TR was rolled out without
being piloted. At the time of writing, however, it is clear it has failed to deliver on its
promise.
In the following, we present a theoretical and practical critique of TR and suggest
an alternative approach which might address some of the short-comings of the
policy. In the following section we give a brief history of TR and summarise the state
of play of probation in England and Wales. We then contrast the incentive struc-
tures of the people, the public sector, and the corporate sector. We theorise the
drive for marketisation, in particular considering matters of cost effectiveness, pro-
moting innovation and localism. The negative social and moral impacts of mar-
ketisation are discussed. The role of evaluation is also discussed in and the
implications of our analyses are presented.
A brief history of Transforming Rehabilitation
Under the UK Coalition Government (2010–15), early ideas on reform of the
probation service envisaged a number of probation innovation pilot projects subject
to Payment by Results and devolution of the commissioning of community offender
services to the existing 35 probation trusts. Under the provisions of the 2007
Offender Management Act (HM Government, 2007), 42 (initially) free-standing
local probation trusts were to be created. The act gave the Secretary of State
power to commission probation services and allowed for the marketisation of whole
trusts. The aim was to encourage new market entrants from the voluntary, private
26 Probation Journal 66(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial