Probation, Privatisation and Legitimacy

Abstract

This article considers the recent partial privatisation of probation services in England and Wales from the theoretical perspective of legitimacy. Drawing in particular on Beetham's (1991) work, we argue that the question of legitimacy in respect of privatised probation services is a complex one which requires attention to the multiple – and different – perspectives of key stakeholders or constituencies in the probation field. We argue that in the probation context there are five key stakeholder groups: the general public; offenders and victims; ministers and civil servants; sentencers; and probation employees and their representatives. We consider what is known about the perspectives of each of these groups in turn, before concluding that privatised probation services need to be aware of both the legitimacy deficits they face and the complex dynamics likely to be involved in its cultivation with these different constituencies.

When Welfare Professionals Encounter Restructuring and Privatization: The Inside Story of the Probation Service of England and Wales

“…Probation represents a case study of a profession with a profoundly moral purpose that works for the benefit of clients, but that also serves the public good insofar as improving rehabilitation and reducing recidivism are social benefits (Robinson et al, 2017).…”

“…Secondly, practitioners' voices lead us to be concerned that the state's Transforming Rehabilitation project constituted the metaphorical 'death' of the probation profession as practitioners self-defined it. Practitioners rejected the government promulgated benefits of TR and saw it as ideologically and politically motivated, rather than evidence-based (Burke and Collett, 2016;Robinson et al, 2017). This standpoint is now vindicated by the report of the Chief Inspector of Probation (HMIP, 2019).…”

“…Probation represents a case study of a profession with a profoundly moral purpose that works for the benefit of clients, but that also serves the public good insofar as improving rehabilitation and reducing recidivism are social benefits (Robinson et al, 2017). Furthermore, probation provides a study of a less powerful professional group than those usually focused upon in the public services professionalism literature (medicine and law) (Evetts, 2013) whose 'clients' are themselves socially stigmatized and largely invisible to mainstream society (Fitzgibbon and Lea, 2014;Mawby and Worrall, 2013).…”

The revolving door of reform

“…Suggesting reform of the criminal justice system will extend beyond the prison estate and that prison and probation staff will be given more power to reform offenders, Truss (2017b) makes no comment about the mechanisms by which this will be done. These comments also appear to pre-empt the conclusions and recommendations of the comprehensive review of probation services commenced in the wake of critical reports on the performance of both Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service following the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation (Robinson et al, 2017).…”

Probation practice in a velvet cage? Specialist court work after probation privatisation in England and Wales

“…Sarah’s comment suggests an observation of Ritzer’s in relation to the expectations of instant gratification on the part of fast food customers, which can produce consumer displeasure in the face of even the slightest delay (2013: 123–126; see also Tata, forthcoming). Although they did not express it in these terms, workers quite clearly felt that they were, to a great extent, servants of the (court’s) clock, and they were reluctant to disappoint their principal ‘customers’ and put at risk their own legitimacy (see Robinson et al., 2017).…”