IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/crimin/v64y2024i2p468-486..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legacies of Change: Probation Staff Experiences of the Unification of Services in England and Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Tidmarsh

Abstract

A discourse of professionalism has proved crucial to driving recent organizational restructurings of the probation service in England and Wales. The Coalition Government argued that bureaucratic, state provision of services had stifled probation practice—for which the introduction of market logic, via the 2014 Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms, would restore professional discretion. And yet, the detrimental impact of TR on practice meant that re-professionalization was an important objective of yet more restructuring. This paper explores probation staff experiences of organizational change, particularly since services were returned to the public sector, in June 2021, through three dominant modes of workplace organization around which change has been articulated: professionalism, the market and bureaucracy. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 38 members of staff, it argues that the exercise of professionalism in probation has been, and continues to be, shaped by a legacy of organizational change that is both bureaucratic and dependent upon market(-like) mechanisms. It contends that the ongoing impact of a ‘discursive battle’ between market and bureaucratic forces has further eroded professionalism in probation.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt Tidmarsh, 2024. "Legacies of Change: Probation Staff Experiences of the Unification of Services in England and Wales," The British Journal of Criminology, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, vol. 64(2), pages 468-486.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:64:y:2024:i:2:p:468-486.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/bjc/azad042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:crimin:v:64:y:2024:i:2:p:468-486.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/bjc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.