Taking a labour process perspective, this article investigates the impact of government reforms and performance management on officers in the National Probation Service (England and Wales). Based on a case study involving two Probation Service Areas and interviews with national and local trade union officers, insights are gained into changes for probation work and the workforce that perform it. The findings illustrate how reforms of probation practice, implemented locally through performance management, have led to probation work becoming increasingly ‘Taylorized’ with implications for the division of labour based on labour substitution, deskilling and degradation. As the Probation Service was entering a new political era under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, these findings provide insights into its trajectory under previous governments. They also invoke questions regarding the implications of reforms for the Probation Service and public services generally.
BachS (2005) New directions in performance management. In: BachS (ed.) Managing Human Resources. Oxford: Blackwell, 289–316.
2.
BachSDella RoccaG (2000) The management strategies of public service employers in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal31(2): 82–96.
3.
BachSWinchesterD (2003) Industrial relations in the public sector. In: EdwardsP (ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, 2nd Edition.Oxford: Blackwell, 285–312.
4.
BachSKesslerIHeronP (2006) Changing job boundaries and workforce reform: the case of teaching assistants. Industrial Relations Journal37(1): 2–21.
5.
BachSKesslerIHeronP (2007) The consequences of assistant roles in the public services: degradation or empowerment?Human Relations60(9): 1267–92.
6.
Bancroft-TurnerF (1946) What I expect from probation officers. Probation5(1): 3.
7.
BaumolWJ (1993) Health care, education and the cost disease: a looming crisis for public choice. Public Choice77(1): 17–28.
8.
BoltonSC (2004) A simple matter of control? NHS hospital nurses and new management. Journal of Management Studies41(2): 317–32.
9.
BrannonR (1994) Professionalization and work intensification: nursing in the cost containment era. Work and Occupations2(2): 157–78.
10.
BravermanH (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
11.
CarterP (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach. London: Strategy Unit, Home Office.
12.
CavadinoMDignanJ (2007) The Penal System: An Introduction, 4th Edition.London: Sage.
13.
CookeH (2006) Seagull management and the control of nursing work. Work, Employment and Society20(2): 223–43.
14.
CorbyS (1991) Prospects for industrial relations in the NHS. Industrial Relations Journal22(3): 170–80.
15.
FriedmanA (1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
16.
FurnissJNutleyS (2000) Implementing what works with offenders – the Effective Practice Initiative. Public Money and Management20(4): 23–8.
17.
GrimshawD (1999) Changes in skill mix and pay determination among the nursing workforce in the UK. Work, Employment and Society13(2): 295–328.
18.
GrugulisILloydC (2010) Skill and the labour process: the conditions and consequences of change. In: ThompsonPSmithC (eds) Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 91–112.
19.
HarrisJ (1998) Scientific management, bureau-professionalism, new managerialism: the labour process of state social work. British Journal of Social Work28(6): 839–62.
20.
HeddermanCHoughM (2004) Getting tough or being effective. In: MairG (ed.) What Matters in Probation. Cullcompton: Willan Publishing, 146–69.
21.
HM Government (2010) The Coalition: Our Programme for Government. London: Cabinet Office.
22.
Home Office (1999) The Correctional Policy Framework. London: Home Office.
23.
Home Office (2002) National Probation Service Briefing, Issue 2. London: Home Office.
24.
Home Office (2007) A Century of Cutting Crime (1902–2007). London: Home Office.
25.
IronsideMSeifertRV (1995) Industrial Relations in Schools. London: Routledge.
26.
JarvisFV (1972) Advise, Assist and Befriend: A History of the Probation and After-Care Service. London: NAPO.
27.
KellyJ (2003) The Audit Commission: guiding, steering and regulating local government. Public Administration81(3): 459–76.
28.
KesslerIBachSHeronP (2007) Comparing assistant roles in education and social care: backgrounds, behaviours and boundaries. International Journal of Human Resource Management18(9): 1648–65.
29.
KirkpatrickIAckroydSWalkerR (2005) The New Managerialism and Public Service Professions: Change in Health, Social Services and Housing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
KnightCWhiteK (2001) The integration of theory and practice within the Diploma in Probation Studies: how is it achieved?Probation Journal48(3): 203–10.
31.
McKnightJ (2009) Speaking up for probation. Howard Journal of Community Justice48(4): 327–43.
32.
MarxK (1976) Capital: Volume I. London: Penguin.
33.
MayT (1991) Probation: Politics, Policy and Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
NAPO (2010b) About NAPO. Available (consulted 24 May 2011) at: www.napo.org.uk
39.
NAPO (2010c) Good news for Teeside and Durham TPOs. NAPO News, Issue 216, p.7.
40.
National Probation Service (2005) National Standards (2005) and National Offender Management Model: Application of Tiering Framework. Probation Circular PC65/2005, 18August2005. London: NPS.
41.
National Probation Service (2009) Determining Pre-Sentence Report Type. Probation Circular PC06/2009, 8May2009. London: NPS.
42.
NellisM (1996) Probation training: the links with social work. In: MayTVassA (eds) Working with Offenders: Issues, Contexts and Outcomes. London: Sage, 7–30.
43.
NicholsT (1980) Capital and Labour. London: Fontana.
44.
OldfieldM (1994) Talking quality, meaning control: McDonald’s, the market and the Probation Service. Probation Journal41(4): 186–92.
45.
OldfieldMGrimshawR (2010) Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads 2001–2008. February. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
46.
Probation Unit (2000) Guidance on Enforcement of Orders under National Standards 2000, Probation Circular 24/00. London: Home Office.
47.
ProwseJProwseP (2008) Role redesign in the National Health Service: the effects on midwives’ work and professional boundaries. Work, Employment and Society22(4): 695–712.
48.
RaynorP (2007) Community penalties: probation, ‘what works’ and offender management. In: MaguireM. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th Edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1061–99.
SeifertR (2006) Falling into the gap. Police – The Voice of the ServiceFebruary: 14–15.
51.
TaylorFW (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper.
52.
ThornleyC (2003) What future for health care assistants: high road or low road? In: DaviesC (ed.) The Future Health Workforce. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 143–60.
