Why Cultural Differences Between Sectors Mean Probation Won't Work as a Commodity
Author | Samantha McGarry |
Pages | 103-108 |
103
THOUGHT PIECE
'Thought Pieces' are papers which draw on the author's personal knowledge and
experience to offer stimulating and thought provoking ideas relevant to the aims of the
Journal. The ideas are located in an academic, research, and/or practice context and all
papers are peer reviewed. Responses to them should be submitted to the Journal in the
normal way.
WHY CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECTORS
MEAN PROBATION WON'T WORK AS A COMMODITY
Samantha McGarry, Probation Officer
The scale of changes pursued by the current government is placing immense p ressure on
organisations in every sector, where service p roviders and companies are having to strive
to deliver to the same standard with fewe r staff and fewer resource s. The proposed
changes to the delivery of Probation Services in this con text are particularly surprisin g,
with preference for an untested an d relatively uncoordinated use of voluntary and private
sector agencies, rather than allowing the Probation Service to work with sh ort term
sentence prisoners. This mean s private and voluntary sector organisations would be
entrusted with risk managemen t duties at a time when investment in training and
research has had to be reduced to the minimum. This is particularly pr oblematic given the
cultural differences between organisations within the public, p rivate and voluntary sectors
which could contribute to poor prioritising and risk recognition.
Research findings highlight that new and unex pected demands placed on an organisation
reveal the significance of organisational culture (O'Donnell and Boyle, 2008.) In the case
of public services, inherently differing approaches to delivery, whilst potentially lower ing
cost, can lead to reduced ex pectations of what will be tolerated as minimum standards.
Serco's provision for the NHS in Cornwall is a prime example of ach ieving reduced costs
yet doing so through greatly reduced staffing, leading to the typical time nurses spend
with patients being reduced by half (Lawrence, 2012). There is littl e evidence to suggest
that these innovations have led to the same or better outcomes via drastical ly reduced
patient contact. Concerns therefore abound that differences in approach in key areas
could mean that current standards on public protection and rehabilitation cannot be
achieved through market competition and could weaken the intrinsic strengths they bring
to partnership working.
British Journal of Community Justice
©2013 Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 11(2-3): 103-108
To continue reading
Request your trial