This article examines the complex reasons why staff choose to remain in or leave the Probation Service in England and Wales, using Hirschman’s Exit-Voice-Loyalty-Neglect (EVL-N) framework as an analytical lens. In the context of major systemic reforms, including the failed privatisation of services and subsequent reunification, the study explores the persistent staffing crisis and its impact on workforce morale, professional identity, and organisational commitment. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with probation staff across a regional case study, the findings highlight constrained voice, organisational dislocation, and heightened responsibilisation as key drivers of dissatisfaction. Many participants described intense workloads, emotional burnout, and limited professional autonomy, yet expressed strong loyalty, not to the organisation, but to a vocational ideal of probation work. This ‘complicated loyalty’ underscores a paradox: while it sustains workforce commitment, it may also mask systemic issues. The research also identifies muted or ineffective channels for staff voice, particularly post-reunification, exacerbated by the service’s integration into the civil service. The article concludes that the EVL-N model offers a valuable framework for understanding public sector workforce dynamics and urges reforms that centre staff voice and well-being to improve retention and service delivery.
AlbertsonKFoxC (2019) The marketisation of rehabilitation: Some economic considerations. Probation Journal66(1): 25–42.
2.
AnnisonHBurkeLCarrN, et al. (2023) Making Good? A study of how senior policy makers narrate policy reversal. British Journal of Criminology64(3): 726–743.
3.
AshfordSJSutcliffeKMChristiansonMK (2009) Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In: GreenbergJEdwardsM (eds) Voice and Silence in Organizations. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 175–202.
4.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
5.
BraunVClarkeV (2024) Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine. Palliative Medicine38(6): 608–616.
6.
BurrisERDetertJRChiaburuDS (2008) The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology93(4): 912–922.
CarrN (2024) Early release: More pressure – time for a fundamental rethink. Probation Journal71(3): 211–213.
9.
CharmanSBennettS (2021) Voluntary resignations from the police service: The impact of organisational and occupational stressors on organisational commitment. Policing and Society32(2): 159–178.
DeeringJ (2011) Probation Practice and the New Penology: Practitioner Reflections. Aldershot: Ashgate.
12.
DeeringJFeilzerM (2019) Hollowing out probation? The roots of transforming rehabilitation. Probation Journal66(1): 8–24.
13.
DetertJREdmondsonAC (2011) Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal54: 461–488.
14.
DikBJDuffyRD (2009) Calling and vocation at work. Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counselling Psychologist37(3): 424–450.
15.
DowdingKJohnPMergoupisT, et al. (2000) Exit, voice and loyalty: Analytic and empirical developments. European Journal of Political Research37(4): 469–495.
16.
FarrellD (1983) Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal26(4): 596–607.
17.
GarlandD (1985) Punishment & Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies. Ann Arbor, MI; Farnham: University of Michigan; Gower.
18.
GrantS (2016) Constructing the durable penal agent: Tracing the development of habitus within English probation officers and Scottish criminal justice social workers. British Journal of Criminology56(4): 750–768.
19.
GuillaumeCKirtonG (2020) Challenges and pitfalls for workplace unionism in a restructured public service. Economic and Industrial Democracy4(1): 212–228.
20.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
HMIP (2023) Annual Report 2023: Serious Further Offences. Manchester: HMIP.
JohalRDaviesN (2022) Reunification of Probation Services. London: Institute for Government.
28.
JohnP (2017) Finding exits and voices: Albert Hirschman’s contribution to the study of public services. International Public Management Journal20(3): 512–529.
29.
KemshallH (1998) Defensible decisions for risk: Or ‘It’s the doers wot get the blame. Probation Journal45(2): 67–72.
30.
KimJYCampbellTHShepherdS, et al. (2020) Understanding contemporary forms of exploitation: Attributions of passion serve to legitimize the poor treatment of workers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology118(1): 121–148.
31.
KirtonGGuillameC (2019) When welfare professionals encounter restructuring and privatization: The inside story of the probation service of England and Wales. Work, Employment & Society33(6): 895–1080.
32.
LambertEGHoganNLTuckerKA (2009) Problems at work: Exploring the correlates of role stress among correctional staff. The Prison Journal89(4): 460–481.
33.
MawbyRWorrallA (2013) Doing Probation Work: Identity in a Criminal Justice Occupation. London: Routledge.
34.
MillingsMBurkeLAnnisonH, et al. (2023) A necessary but painful journey: Experiences of unification in a probation service region. Probation Journal70(4): 331–349.
35.
MillingsMBurkeLAnnisonH, et al. (2025) A fork in the road: Probation unification in England and Wales two years on. Probation Journal72(3): 256–273.
NeelyMT (2020) The portfolio ideal worker: Insecurity and inequality in the new economy. Qualitative Sociology43: 271–296.
40.
RobinsonG (2016) Patrolling the borders of risk: The new bifurcation of probation services in England and Wales. In: BosworthMHoyleCZednerL(eds) Changing Contours of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 42–54.
41.
RobinsonGBurnettR (2007) Experiencing modernization: Frontline probation perspectives on the transition to a National Offender Management Service. Probation Journal54: 318–337.
42.
RobinsonGAnnisonHBurkeL, et al. (2025) Anchors through change: Exploring identity work in the Unified Probation Service for England & Wales. The British Journal of Criminology65(6): 1262–1279.
43.
SherfENParkeMRIsaakyanS (2021) Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety and burnout. Academy of Management Journal64(1): 114–148.
44.
TidmarshM (2022) Professionalism, payment by results and the probation service: A qualitative study of the impact of marketisation on professional autonomy. Work, Employment & Society36(6): 1118–1138.
45.
TidmarshM (2024) Legacies of change: Probation staff experiences of the unification of services in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology64(2): 468–486.
46.
TysonJCharmanS (2023) Leaving the table: Organisational (in)justice and the relationship with police officer retention. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 25(4): 1016–1032.
47.
VanstoneM (2004) Mission control: The origins of a Humanitarian Service. Probation Journal51(1): 34–47.
48.
WestabyCFowlerAPhillipsJ (2020) Managing emotion in probation practice: Display rules, values and the performance of emotional labour. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice61(1): 100362.
49.
WestabyCPhillipsJFowlerA (2016) Spillover and work-family conflict in probation practice: Managing the boundary between work and home life. European Journal of Probation8(3): 113–127.
