Transforming Rehabilitation as ‘policy disaster’: Unbalanced policy-making and probation reform
| Author | Harry Annison |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550518820117 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Transforming
Rehabilitation as ‘policy
disaster’: Unbalanced
policy-making and
probation reform
Harry Annison
Southampton Law School, UK
Abstract
This paper utilizes the notion of ‘policy disasters’ to examine the policy developments
that led to the part-privatization and marketization of probation services in England
and Wales – Transforming Rehabilitation. Specifically, it examines the ‘internal’
component of policy disasters, drawing on semi-structured interviews with senior
policymakers and other relevant sources. The findings presented demonstrate that the
policy dynamics relating to Transforming Rehabilitation specifically, and the depart-
mental budget as an important underlying component, were both distinctly ‘unba-
lanced’. This is argued to be an important explanatory factor in its damagingly swift
implementation and operationalization. In closing, the paper reflects on the policy
studies notion of ‘policy equilibrium’ to consider whether the policy landscape relating
to probation in England and Wales has reached a ‘steady state’, or whether the
ongoing apparent failings of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms may result in a
further round of considerable policy change.
Keywords
penal policy, policy disaster, privatization, probation, penal politics
Corresponding Author:
Harry Annison, Southampton Law School, Southampton University, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Email: h.annison@soton.ac.uk
Probation Journal
2019, Vol. 66(1) 43–59
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550518820117
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Introduction
This paper adopts the political science notion of ‘policy disasters’ (Dunleavy, 1995)
to examine the policy developments that led to the part-privatization and market-
ization of probation services in England and Wales – Transforming Rehabilitation
(TR). It sets out plausible reasons for casting TR as a policy disaster, against the
criteria established for its use as a definitional term. The paper then utilizes Dun-
leavy’s approach to the ‘internal’ component of policy disasters as a schematic
device to explore the positions of the key policy participants in relation to the reform
of probation trusts during the 2010–15 government.
In order to do so, the paper draws on 26 semi-structured interviews conducted
with senior policymakers. The interviews, conducted between March 2014 and
August 2016, formed the central plank of a research project that sought to examine
English penal policymaking in the novel conditions of the 2010–15 coalition gov-
ernment, as a case study of the ways in which ‘external’ conditions are understood,
and reacted to, by those operating ‘internally’ to penal policy change (see also
Annison, 2017). The TR reforms, as a crucial development in this period, were often
a central focus of these research interviews.
Respondents comprised: eight civil servants with primary responsibility for policy
development (termed policy officials, PO); four Conservative political actors (Con);
five Liberal Democrat political actors (LD); six charities, campaigners, and other
policy participants (Ch); and three other parliamentarians involved in criminal jus-
tice policy (Pa). These ‘elite interviews’ were complemented by analysis of relevant
policy papers, reports, Hansard debates and speeches.
The findings presented demonstrate that the policy dynamics relating to TR spe-
cifically were distinctly ‘unbalanced’, affected also by the unbalanced dynamics
regarding the departmental budget. This is argued to be an important explanatory
factor in its ‘successful’ implementation. In closing, the paper reflects on the concept
of ‘policy equilibrium’ to consider whether the policy landscape relating to proba-
tion in England and Wales has reached a ‘steady state’, or whether further policy
change is on the horizon.
Transforming Rehabilitation as policy disaster
Scholarly understanding of policy ‘disasters’ – what some scholars alternatively
refer to as ‘blunders’ (King and Crewe, 2013) – has been particularly influenced by
Dunleavy’s definition of ‘significant and substantially costly failures of commission
or omission of government’ (Dunleavy, 1995: 52). Dunleavy further adds an ele-
ment from Tuchmann’s discussion of ‘policy fiascos’: situations where ‘the mistakes
made are eminently foreseeable – but decision-makers systematically choose to
ignore an abundance of critical or warning voices in order to persevere with their
chosen policy’ (Dunleavy, 1995: 52).
Common categories of policy disasters include public buildings and stadiums;
transport infrastructure; IT projects; benefits and tax systems; and defence projects
(see King and Crewe, 2013; Flyvberg et al., 2003). Specific examples include the
44 Probation Journal 66(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial