Privatising probation: what is the true cost for the probation workforce?

John Deering and Martina Feilzer have looked at the topic of the outsourcing of probation and offender management for a few years and John himself was a probation officer for 12 years.

In today’s guest blog post they contrast the findings of the survey they conducted across a range of probation service staff just prior to the overhaul of the probation service last year which saw 70% of all work being outsourced to private sector and voluntary partnership organisations.

John Deering

John Deering

Martina Feilzer

Martina Feilzer

Whatever you make of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) and the outsourcing of probation, whether you question the normative principles or you regard this as nonsensical nostalgia, what is clear is that the changes have proven highly divisive.

Split

The Probation Service was split in June 2014, almost a year ago now. The new National Probation Service (NPS) became responsible for carrying out risk assessments, making recommendations to the courts, and the management of high risk offenders.

The NPS retained about 30% of the previous Probation Service workload. The remaining 70% of work was outsourced to 21 new Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), some run by private sector companies, such as Sodexo, and some run in partnerships between voluntary and private sector organisations.

John and I wanted to understand how these seismic changes were being felt throughout the organisation and so we conducted a series of interviews and an online survey to gauge responses.

We started by interviewing a very small sample of probation managers who had joined the public sector in consultant or senior management positions. Our findings suggested that those who volunteered to join the private sector felt capable of holding on to their values of despite moving to the ‘dark side’. Interviewees in this study suggested that the private sector would see the provision of a good service as the best way to make a profit.

“those who volunteered to join the private sector felt capable of holding on to their values of despite moving to the ‘dark side’”

We then contrasted the privileged positions of those choosing to work in the private sector with the views of probation staff who had no voice in the changes proposed to their work environment. We sent out a link to an online survey via NAPO – the probation trade union – and some probation trusts and received responses from probation staff of all grades.

Strongly opposed

What emerged was that those who responded to the survey were strongly opposed to the changes brought about by TR, in particular the involvement of ‘for profit’ organisations. Respondents felt strongly that: ‘People who commit offences need to be seen as humans not cash cows’.

There was a sense that the changes imposed on probation were destroying a good quality service, that the fragmentation of the service was stoking up problems for the future, and that ‘probation has now lost the meaning it used to have’. As a public service which was able to accommodate staff with varying views of the causes of offending behaviour and the best ways to address this, probation has disappeared.

“‘The TR changes are only going ahead because the majority of the current workforce feels trapped or captive, without short-term options.’”

Our findings showed a divided and disparate workforce. Some probation practitioners mistrust their managers, NPS staff and CRC staff do not communicate easily, and ‘dinosaurs’ appear to be at odds with ‘newbies’. The CRCs have inherited a workforce in which a significant minority have doubts over their own future in the service, and whether they will be able to stick to their values and ideals which led them to taking up this work in the first place. As one of our survey respondents suggested: ‘The TR changes are only going ahead because the majority of the current workforce feels trapped or captive, without short-term options.’

How then can staff ‘get on’ with the work of supporting some of the most vulnerable and disliked members of our communities? I meet many students who want to join probation and work with offenders and there is hope as they are still motivated to help change lives and protect communities from the harm of crime.

However, they are entering the world of offender management at a time of great uncertainty and unhappiness. In our book we have asked the question whether the motivations and values of the individual are more important than organisational features and priorities.

There are some in probation who say it is time to stop moaning and get on with the job! What the future will bring for probation is unclear and for many of those caught in the middle of current transitions it has been and continues to be an emotional and difficult ride.

Privatising probation [FC] Privatising Probation is part of new Policy Press Shorts series just published on Friday 29th May. You can order your copy from our website here (RRP £9.99).

Don’t forget Policy Press newsletter subscribers get a 35% discount when ordering through our website. If you’re not a subscriber yet why not sign up here today and join our Policy Press community?

You can also follow @martina0074 on Twitter

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

2 Responses to “Privatising probation: what is the true cost for the probation workforce?”


  1. 1 essexandrew June 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    What needs to be remembered and seems to often be ignored is that for those 70% of probation workers in the CRCs (Community Rehabilitation Companies) there is no longer any national qualification requirements although they do remain for the Probation Officer grade of workers in the NPS (National Probation Service).

    This suggests that over time there will be increasingly fewer probation workers who have completed University Degree level professional training.


  1. 1 Public service outsourcing: criminal ignorance? | The Policy Press Blog Trackback on January 19, 2016 at 11:24 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

The work on the Policy Press blog is licensed under a Creative Commons licence.