Questions of Legitimacy in Probation Practice after Transforming Rehabilitation

Abstract

In this article, we discuss the impact of changes to the organisational structure 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 practitioners in both organisations and the implications for probation of a possible lack of overall legitimacy post‐Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). This article is based on empirical research exploring the views of probation staff of the (then) impending changes introduced via TR and reflections on what has happened since.

Transforming Rehabilitation: The impact of austerity and privatisation on day-to-day cultures and working practices in ‘probation’

“…No longer a 'rehabilitative agent' tasked with prioritising therapeutic intervention (Teague, 2013: 17), the modern-day probation worker is one who must 'manage offenders' and demonstrate 'effectiveness' through the meeting of targets (Robinson, 2013). Both Annison et al (2008) and Deering and Feilzer (2017) discuss how increased bureaucracy has impacted on time spent on face-to-face rehabilitative work with offenders.…”

Experiencing penal supervision: A literature review

“…The probation studies literature provides many accounts of these experiences, especially in terms of how changes in the professional contexts of supervisors affect their practice (e.g. Mawby and Worrall, 2011; Mair, 2016; Deering and Feilzer, 2017; and compare Hucklesby, 2011, regarding electronic monitoring officers). However, two further points should be noted.…”

Hollowing out probation? The roots of Transforming Rehabilitation

“…Moreover, we have argued previously (Deering and Feilzer, 2017) that changes carried out over the last 30 years have had a gradual negative effect upon probation's legitimacy, not least upon the self-legitimacy of practitioners, caused in part by government efforts to change the nature of the relationship between the probation officer and the supervisee and the values underpinning this relationship. The 1907 Act saw probation founded on the ethos of 'advise, befriend and assist' (Whitehead and Statham, 2006), and it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that this central premise came under significant threat.…”