Commitment and probation work in England and Wales

Introduction

This may not be the best, or most appropriate, moment to be putting forward a positive and commitment oriented argument about probation work in England and Wales. However, historically, probation workers have been renowned for their resilient, positive commitment to working with people who have been involved in offending (Clare, 2015; Fitzgibbon and Lea, 2014; Mawby and Worrall, 2013). This commitment has continued over many years, despite many organizational and policy changes, although the current climate is a particularly difficult time for probation workers, with the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme involving prominent, unprecedented upheavals. A public sector National Probation Service will focus on court reports and high-risk offenders, with the privatization of a high percentage of current provision involving lower risk offenders undertaken by the newly formed Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) (Ministry of Justice, 2013a,b). Hence, there will be no longer one integrated, coordinated service.

These changes are likely to have ‘a detrimental impact . . . upon the confidence and morale of those currently working in the service’ (Burke, 2013: 7).They have involved transfers of around half of the probation staff to CRCs. Those transferred were consulted about preferences, but ultimately this was a largely involuntary process (Robinson et al., 2015). It will be difficult for probation workers to maintain their commitment, with uncertainties about future roles and tasks, especially in the CRCs. Therefore, these are clearly particularly challenging and stressful times for probation workers. Many authors (for instance, Annison et al., 2014) have drawn attention to the demands involved in the current reorganization. Thirteen probation Chief Executives have resigned their posts (Annison et al., 2014), while around 500 probation workers have left since the start of the reform process (Guardian, 2015). Job cuts may be involved. Sodexo justice services who run six of the 21 newly privatized CRCs have warned probation staff to expect cuts of over 30% – at least 700 posts – in the coming months (Guardian, 2015). Sondexo also will introduce cash machine style kiosks so that service users can ‘report in’ without seeing a worker. There are also concerns about the removal of any mandated professional training requirements for work in the CRCs (Clare, 2015). Furthermore, despite objections from expert representatives from all probation organizations, the extensive alterations have been implemented at great speed. The government’s ideological commitment has been, and is, to reducing the responsibilities of the state, increasing individual responsibility regardless of resources and a preoccupation with a competitive, market-driven, profit-based environment, linked to payment by results – in contrast to the prime commitment of probation personnel to humanitarian-, moral- and value-based approaches (Annison et al., 2014; Deering, 2014; McNeill, 2013).Various other potential dangers have been emphasized about the new developments. For instance, with the new National Probation Service focusing on more serious, high-risk offenders, there are concerns that it could become even more prescriptive, preoccupied with control issues and requirements to protect the public, at the expense of rehabilitation endeavours. In turn, the new CRCs are seen as being in danger of a culture driven even more by a ‘results’ oriented approach, rather than an emphasis the quality of service provision.

However, probation work has also faced many challenges in past years. The most recent reforms are undoubtedly highly significant .Nevertheless, previously, there has always been continuing evidence of ‘tenacious survival of traditional skills and orientation in probation’ (Fitzgibbon and Lea, 2014: 29). Clare (2015: 49) describes probation workers as ‘essential couriers of the probation heritage [and] cultural architects’ who can influence the new service. Similarly, Clare (2015: 49–50) cites Senior (2013), drawing attention to how commitment to ‘best practice can prevail and professional values be maintained [as has been the case with] previous major upheavals’ faced by probation staff. Hence, the intentions of this article are, firstly, to define commitment and briefly consider some criticisms of the concept. Secondly, to explore the theoretical and research underpinnings associated with professional and organizational commitment. Thirdly, to discuss the relevance of commitment for probation workers, the new probation organizations and service users and, finally, to consider possible ways in which enhanced commitment of probation workers might be developed.

Commitment

The term commitment has its origins in existential philosophy. It entails tenaciously involving oneself in whatever one is doing in a purposeful way, in identifying with, and finding meaning and interest in, things, events and persons in one’s environment (Thompson, 1992). For about 40 years commitment has been gaining prominence in organizational behaviour literature (Meyer et al., 2004). It has been defined as ‘a force that binds an individual to a course of action’ (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001: 39). Commitment also links in with psychological attachment, a bond between a person and their target that could be one of, or a combination of, their profession, organization, union, team, line manager and service users, which is characterized by dedication and responsibility (Clements et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2012). Furthermore, commitment has been distinguished from job satisfaction and motivation. Motivation is linked to shorter term, energizing forces and more specific task performance (Meyer et al., 2004). Commitment is seen as more consistent and stable over time than job satisfaction, being related to wider matters such as goals and outside work influences, whereas job satisfaction is linked to feelings of liking or disliking one’s job (Clements et al., 2014; Freund, 2005; Lambert et al., 2008).

Professional commitment

Professional commitment has been defined as ‘one’s attitude towards one’s profession or vocation’ (Blau, 1985: 20). It can also be seen as a measure, or indicator, of behaviour towards one’s profession and the efforts that are invested in it (Freund et al., 2012; Giffords, 2010).The attitudes and behaviour reflect personal autonomy, professional values, ethics and involvement with professional colleagues (Freund et al., 2012). A highly committed professional will be willing to invest many personal resources in their field (Giffords, 2010). Professional commitment ‘has an impact on organizational effectiveness, role performance and the tendency of staff to stay or leave; it also plays an important part in professional socialisation and development’ (Collins, 2015: 3). A high level of professional commitment ‘helps to achieve educational, training goals, the learning of new roles and tasks and the development of professional identity’ (Collins, 2015: 2). Wallace (1993, 1995 cited in Giffords, 2003) has written about the association between lawyers’ professional and organizational commitment, which is also highly relevant to probation work. For instance, Wallace highlights various principles linked to professional commitment that have clear implications for probation professionals. These include:

Organizational commitment

Studies suggest that organizational commitment can vary according to the rank and position of an individual within an organization (Wallace, 1993, cited in Giffords, 2003). Organizational commitment has been perceived to have three dimensions:

Research indicates connections between organizational commitment and outcomes such as lower turnover intentions and less actual turnover of staff, reduced absenteeism, more loyalty and the extent to which workers will put in energy and effort on behalf of the organization (Freund, 2005; Giffords, 2010; Pare et al., 2001).Workers who are highly committed to their organizations display important behavioural traits such as stability, productivity, willingness to take on additional roles in the promotion and attainment of organizational goals, perform better and provide better services to service users (Giffords, 2010; Pare et al., 2001). Other studies indicate that those ‘who experience high organizational commitment find it assists them in meeting demands from the organization; [they] may experience stress as less threatening [and find it] buffers the effects of stress’ (Collins, 2015: 3).

Organizational commitment is said to comprise two major components: affective and continuance (Meyer and Allen, 1984). Affective commitment has been defined as wanting to stay in the organization, a desire to belong, congruence between personal and organizational values and ‘positive feelings of identification with, attachment to, and involvement in, the work of the organization’ (Mayer and Allen, 1984: 375). Continuance commitment has been defined as exchanging involvement for rewards, with high costs involved in leaving – a necessity with limited alternatives. Employees remain because they have to do so (Meyer and Allen, 1984). Another commitment component has been added – normative commitment (Mayer and Allen, 1991). However, questions have been raised about ‘the extent to which normative commitment is independent of affective commitment’, with the latter seen as more significant in workplace behaviour (Clements et al., 2014: 92). Affective commitment has been positively associated with job satisfaction, role performance and well-being (Neininger et al., 2010; Rikettta, 2008). It is enhanced by employee/organizational fit, a sense of collegiality, perceptions of appropriate support, effective leadership, and a sense of genuine engagement (Clements et al., 2014). Employees with low affective commitment can tend to engage in counter-productive behaviour at work and have high absence and turnover rates (Clements et al., 2014; Collins, 2015).

Some criticisms of the commitment concept

It should be noted that the commitment concept has received some criticisms on account of differences in definitions and in the scales used to measure the concept (Lambert et al., 2008; Meyer et al. 2004). It has been suggested also that more attention should be given to qualitative research on commitment in order to develop a better understanding of individual perceptions and experiences. Others have argued that job engagement or dedication might be more appropriate concepts to explore in the future (Clements et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2012; Leiter and Maslach, 2008). Klein et al. (2012) have also raised questions about the well-established prominence of organizational commitment in a rapidly changing world, where people are likely to change their jobs much more frequently. Furthermore, for instance, in probation practice there are dangers in staff becoming excessively committed to badly resourced organizations, in taking on an excessive number of tasks and responsibilities involving role conflict and overload leading to stress, possible health problems, poor work-life balance and, over a prolonged period of time, eventual burn-out (Mayer et al., 2004). In addition, excessive commitment to the profession and organization could lead to restricted critical reflection, to an unquestioning, unthinking commitment to unjust and unfair probation practices. Also, ‘some suggest that commitment to the profession or organization does not necessarily indicate that actual practices with service users will be at a high level’ (Collins, 2015: 6). Nevertheless, ‘overall, even those who have criticised the concept have acknowledged the reliability and rigour of the research evidence on commitment’ (Collins, 2015: 6). Therefore, we will now move on to consider the implications of commitment for probation work.

Commitment and probation work in the present

Probation policy and practice has clearly changed enormously in the past years both in terms of organizational structure and the ways in which service users are ‘managed’ (Farrow, 2004). Examples of these modifications are centralization of policy guidance, the encouragement of competition between probation areas, the introduction of National Standards, funding linked to targets, the increased focus on risk assessment and risk management, closer attention to the position of victims, increased media and public criticism and sensitivity to it, with less emphasis on service user-centred practice (Annison et al., 2008; Davies and Gregory, 2010; Deering, 2011; Maruna 2007). Probation workers now have less flexibility, discretion and autonomy, increased statutory duties, more prescribed tasks and more computer based work (Davies and Gregory, 2010).

Many have suggested that even in the decade previous to the recent reforms that probation workers experienced pressure, stress, suffered from high levels of staff shortages, absences, difficulties in retention of experienced staff, ‘organizational exhaustion’, low morale and alienation from traditional values (for example, Burke and Collett, 2010; Ministry of Justice, 2011; Nellis and Hong Chui, 2003; Robinson and Burnett, 2007). Also a National Audit Office Survey (2006) suggested a third of all sick leave in probation was attributable to anxiety and depression, costing £9.8m in 2004–2005, while attrition rates for main grade officers stood at 12% (NOMS, 2006). In addition, probation work has been subject to considerable on-going cuts in resources, while now the most recent proposed transfer of substantial tasks and responsibilities to the private sector is causing increased, maybe unprecedented, stress (Robinson et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, there are other more positive signs from the recent past that probation staff have experienced many rewards, enjoying considerable job satisfaction, with probation work ranked as high as 17 out of no less than 371 occupations listed in a UK British Household Panel Survey (Rose, 2003). Moreover, a very recent report emphasized the overwhelmingly positive view of service users of relationships and discussions with their probation workers (Lord et al., 2014). Furthermore, probation personnel ‘relish’ actual work with service users, as seen in the National Audit Survey (2006).There has been evidence also of a re- emphasis on, a re-emergence of, ‘older’, more ‘individualized’ ways of working, emphasizing ‘human elements’, relationships, interpersonal aspects, collaboration between probation officers and service users to help the latter develop strengths, to realize potential, to enhance social ties and become non-offenders (for instance, Farrall, 2002; Gregory, 2010; McNeill, 2006; Maruna et al., 2004; Rex and Hoskins, 2013, Robinson et al., 2013). There are also links with Offender Management Models and effective practice literature, which acknowledge the importance of Holt’s four Cs – continuity, consistency, commitment and consolidation (Deering, 2011; Holt, 2002; Home Office, 2005). In particular, Holt (2002) emphasized the importance of continuity, but also the commitment of probation workers to change service users’ behaviour. Commitment is seen as important to the needs of service users – for them to experience the behaviour of Probation personnel as committed and genuine, not just ‘going through the motions’. Prospects for success are increased when a service user feels reciprocal commitment to the Probation worker (Dowden and Andrews, 2004; NOMS, 2006). Rex’s (1999) research, cited in Weaver and McNeill (2006: 6), evidenced that service users’ commitment to change their behaviour, to desist from offending, ‘appeared to be generated by the personal and professional commitment shown by their probation officers, whose reasonableness, fairness and encouragement seemed to engender a sense of personal loyalty and accountability’. As one service user put it, speaking of their probation officer, ‘It’s like it’s not just a job . . . she is doing it because she wants to, because she cares’ (Home Office, 2005: 26).

Commitment to probation work is important generally because of its association with job retention, job performance, desires to ‘make a difference’ and values (Deering, 2010). Committed probation workers are likely to provide a more consistent, stable and good quality service both to employers and to service users. Williams (1973, 1981 cited in Banks, 2010 and Collins, 2015) argues that commitment links to ‘identity conferring . . . projects [with] which we are deeply and extensively involved and identified . . . [it] involves people acting from motives and interests that are most deeply their own’ (Banks, 2010: 2174). The idea of faith, ‘moral’ good, ‘moral’ identity, a virtue based approach and ‘moral’ commitment, with a focus on person and character rather than outcomes, has been noted by several authors and linked to work with offenders (Deering, 2010; Durnescu, 2012; Gregory, 2010; Robinson et al., 2015). As Lincoln and Kelleburg (1990: 22) note, ‘The committed employee’s involvement . . . takes on moral overtones . . . and [the] stake extends beyond the satisfaction of merely personal interest in employment, income and intrinsically rewarding work’. As Whitehead (2010: 79) put it, ‘whilst probation officers are engaged in diverse practices . . . the underlying thread . . . is a commitment to a . . . philosophy concerned with the meeting of human need’. Clare (2015: 53) talks of:

. . . the professional heritage of the probation officer culture . . . a value base [that] incorporates hope, the possibility of change . . . [and] respect for the individual [which accounts] for a wide sense of vocation in the probation community.

In their recent research with probation workers, Mawby and Worrall (2013) found that despite workers having different backgrounds, types of training, length of service and experiences, as ‘lifers’, ‘second careerists’ and, more recently, ‘offender managers’, common characteristics included shared values and beliefs, a commitment to helping people less fortunate than themselves, to working with offenders in the community and a belief in the offenders’ capacity to change. Mawby and Worrall discerned a high degree of commitment, with even cynics seeing the work as more than ‘just a job’, rather as a ‘calling’, with commitment to the value and the significant meaning of professionalism in working with offenders. Clare (2015: 53) argues that it is the ‘combination of ethical values and professional expertise that create a culture, however buffeted by political drives and diminished by organisational pressures [that ] sustains a self correcting mechanism on [the quality of] service delivery’. The importance of commitment to the resilient continuity of, and collective emphasis on, ‘probation values’ and the ‘probation ethos’ as a bridge between the past and the present was emphasized by the staff and managers in the CRC studied by Robinson et al. (2015).

Commitment at the early stages of a ‘career’ in probation

Pre-course, personal commitment to probation work at an early stage of a career, can arise from a wide variety of reasons stemming from strengths or difficulties in one’s family, friendships or work; a need for a career; religious beliefs; a desire to work with, to help, people; and for movement toward a more just and fair society (Collins, 2015). For instance, a third of Gregory’s (2007) probation respondents were motivated by values such as commitment to social justice. However, personal commitment has to be harnessed to professional values that are ‘socialized’ within probation education, training and the organizational context of probation work. Socialization in probation has tended to be seen as a positive process, whereby new entrants become acquainted with ‘what really matters’ and ‘this is the way we do things around here’, with an emphasis on the ‘probation ethos’ and probation values note above. Yet, until recently, there was no universally accepted statement of probation values (Williams, 1995), but Williams suggested these included opposition to oppression and custody, commitment to justice for service users, valuing them as unique, self-determining individuals, their rights to confidentiality and openness, a belief that purposeful relationships can facilitate positive developments for service users and ensuring that victims are protected. Nellis and Gelsthorpe (2003) suggested that probation values should be based on community justice, human rights and restorative justice, with reducing crime a priority. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) (2006) emphasized various values to which it is committed – respect, building on individual strengths, the ability of individuals to modify their behaviours, the promotion of rights of both perpetrators and victims, open and fair treatment, empowerment to reduce harm to self and others and the promotion of equality and anti-discriminatory practice. One of the particularly important, vital tasks already undertaken by the Probation Institute (2014) has been to articulate values and a code of ethics, which provides a basis, a bedrock for the future, for probation staff to meet the demands of different organizational providers.

Various studies indicate that applicants for probation training, probation trainees and probation workers are committed to working with people, to ‘making a difference’, making relationships with, and challenging, service users to help them to alter their circumstances, with financial rewards and academic qualifications occupying a lower profile (Annison et al., 2008; Deering, 2010; Eadie and Winwin Sein, 2004; Knight, 2007). However, some studies have revealed a more pragmatic approach – linked to giving more priority to finances and career opportunities (Gregory, 2007; Mawby and Worrall, 2013). Nevertheless, there is also evidence that probation trainees have a high degree of commitment to their courses, despite demands, stress and some withdrawals (Annison et al., 2008; Deering, 2010, 2011; Knight, 2007).

Commitment to probation work – the role of experience

Farrow (2004: 207) in her small-scale study noted experienced probation officers, when they entered training, had been committed to their work with offenders, ‘to work with people . . . to make a positive difference to their lives[relying ]on that commitment to strengthen the effectiveness of the probation officer/offender relationship’. Gregory (2007) highlighted that for newly appointed workers this was one of the strongest themes in their responses, as well a very strong commitment to anti-oppressive practice. Yet, in a study in the USA, Lee et al. (2009) highlighted that ‘younger’ officers, aged from the early twenties to mid-thirties and those officers with less than three years’ experience were likely to express lower organizational commitment and higher turnover rates than more experienced officers. Mawby and Worrall (2013) also suggested younger, more recently trained probation workers, while loyal to the profession and committed to offender work, were more likely to be socialized into, and accepting of, the National Offender Management Service, structure, provision and culture, as ‘offender managers’, with more concern with public protection, but were more ready to leave if they felt unable to work in the ways they preferred.

Eadie and Winwin Sein (2004) and Annison et al. (2008) pointed out that experienced probation officers with up to five years’ experience continued to be highly committed to working directly with people, to helping individual offenders to change. Furthermore, Farrow (2004: 206) observed the probation officers in her study with more than 10 years’ experience ‘were committed to their work with offenders’, as did Gregory (2010). Hence, it is clear that there are many highly ‘committed survivors’ amongst experienced probation staff who, as a matter of real choice, are dedicated to their relationships with offenders and to the profession.

Alternatively, several authors have suggested experienced probation workers might find it hardest to cope with the many recent, prominent reforms in probation policies that could significantly impact upon their commitment to their organization and their professional values (for instance, Gregory, 2010). Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) research pointed out that those ‘lifers’, with long-term probation careers and close to retirement were the most disillusioned, whilst Robinson et al.’s (2015) research also noted that longer serving workers felt most angry about the Transforming Rehabilitation changes.

At an earlier date, Farrow (2004) noted in her research that experienced workers had started their careers as highly committed to the organization, but had become alienated, cynical and resentful of new tasks, with several thinking of leaving probation, with some comments reflecting ‘continuance’ commitment, that is, staying because of salary, pension, family, geographical and financial commitments, rather than emotional commitment to actual work with offenders. Increased regulation was resented, with enforcement requirements taking priority over resettlement/rehabilitation tasks. Dissonance was noted between probation workers’ own perceptions of good quality, effective work with offenders in contrast with practice that was overshadowed by the prescriptions of the centralized National Probation Directorate, involving limitations on the frequency of client contact and, especially, overall limited contact time with offenders. This was also seen in Robinson et al.’s (2014) research. Also perceptions of a lack of encouragement to have a ‘voice’, to participate in, to engage with, policy change processes and the remoteness of decision makers were other important sources of lack of commitment to the organization (Farrow, 2004; Mawby and Worrall, 2013).This would seem also to be an important factor in limiting organizational commitment to the newly established CRCs, as the lack of attention to ‘grass roots’ probation views in setting up that provision has been clear (Annison et al., 2014).

There are also similarities in the comments of probation officers in the USA. In Lee at al.’s (2007) study, half of the respondents also perceived they worked in a non-participatory environment, feeling they had no involvement in the writing of policies, with no say in the running of their organization. Around 40% felt they received unsatisfactory responses, with lack of feedback to their inputs. Furthermore, in the same study nearly a third of the probation officers did not feel a strong sense of belonging to their organization. The main reason respondents were still committed to their organization was awareness of the costs of leaving, high personal sacrifices that would need to be made if they left, accompanied by the loss of accumulated investments, along with limited alternative employment opportunities. This again reflected continuance commitment rather than affective commitment, with the latter requiring strong emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, one’s work. Nearly a half of the probation officers in Lee et al.’s (2009) study remained with the organization only because their lives would be too greatly disrupted if they left. Nearly a half stayed because of lack of available alternatives. This again could be a negative factor in encouraging workers to stay in the new CRCs – continuance commitment – a fear of disrupted lives and lack of alternative employment.

Commitment to probation work – gender and location

It seems that there is only limited research available on the impact of a variable such as gender to commitment in probation. In the general working population women are seen to be more committed than men, although the magnitude is small, as seen in Mathieu and Zajac’s, (1990) meta-analysis. This was also the case in one study of female correctional staff (Robinson et al., 1992), but other studies of correctional staff have found no difference in affective commitment levels between men and women, with supervisory rewards positively associated with affective commitment for men and work pressure and harassment inversely related to affective commitment for women (Camp and Steiger, 1995; Lambert et al., 2008).

However, more research is needed about the impact of gender on commitment in probation, especially as over 70% of probation officers are now female and 80% of probation trainees, along with 50% of Chief Officers (Annison, 2013). The ‘feminization’ of the probation officer workforce in recent years has been a significant development. It could provide increased opportunities for mutual support for female workers and the likelihood of a more understanding, empathetic approach from those in powerful positions in the management hierarchy (Annison, 2013). Also, as Mawby and Worrall (2013) have pointed out, not only is the female ‘voice’ becoming dominant amongst probation workers – one that is likely to be more valued – it can also more readily influence, more readily define, the profession itself and the organizational context of probation work and therefore could significantly enhance opportunities for commitment amongst female probation workers.

Finally, other variables which affect commitment include the geographical, local location of the probation worker. As noted in the research of Partridge (2004) and Mawby and Worrall (2013), a city, town or rural setting, with different organizational cultures between, and within them, and possible issues around resources, the size of teams, the impact of illnesses, travel and diversity differences are likely to influence the development of strong commitment by workers – or the lack of it. Robinson et al.’s (2015) research has also highlighted this point – about strong commitment to a ‘locality’ in one CRC based on previous local boundaries, where the majority of probation staff identified themselves as ‘local’ people, who had spent the majority of their careers in that area. It will be interesting to see the impact of the new arrangements for CRCs in those areas where the new CRCs do not coincide with existing local boundary arrangements. Hence, ‘local ‘ties are important in considering commitment but, as noted above, these may also be strong for ‘non-professional’ reasons.

Resistance and commitment

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have drawn attention to the idea of ‘job crafting’ within organizations. This involves individuals shaping prescribed organizational work to their own individual requirements to maximise the individual discretion available to them, thus enhancing commitment to what is perceived as an appropriate way to deliver services, through ‘low level viable forms of resistance whereby actors hold true to their world views and value commitments’ (Cheliotis, 2006: 321 in Collins, 2015). Several authors have described the discretion available to ‘street level bureaucrats’ such as probation workers (Evans and Harris, 2004; Lipsky, 1980; Pearson, 1975). They emphasize:

. . . what escapes the supervisory gaze of ‘the system’ is the panoply of personal values and idiosyncratic meanings that individual decision makers bring to their decisions which [can go as far as to] eventually coalesce to sustain, form, or reform organizational routines. (Cheliotis, 2006: 623)

Hence, the probation worker works in, but not entirely for, the probation organization, a device that may be used by them to cope and maintain their commitment. Moral courage, belief in one’s own convictions, reflectivity and reflexivity, resistance and belief in the idea of the active human agent can maintain professional and organizational commitment. Gregory (2010: 2288) has suggested experienced probation officers reveal a commitment to ‘balance the principles of justice and the demands of a technical environment’.

Furthermore, there is evidence that not all technocratic changes are seen as negative, as threatening to professional ‘indeterminacy’. Robinson (2003), for example, pointed out that while probation staff perceived some threats in the introduction of standardized risk assessment forms they also perceived many positives. They were able to combine the more ‘standardized ‘procedures with their existing approaches, seeing advantages in doing so, linked to better quality assessments, more secure decision making and improved evaluation. Other authors have highlighted individualized, intuitive approaches by probation workers partly circumventing ‘scoring scales’ and risk management techniques (Deering, 2011; Lynch, 1998). Robinson’s (2002) study of two English probation areas pointed out that rehabilitation and clinical decision impulses still remained prominent, despite a risk-based approach to offenders and statistical predictors of reconviction. Similarly, Robinson and McNeill (2004) revealed that in Scotland, although there was a heavy emphasis on public protection as ‘official’ policy, criminal justice workers adopted a diverse approach by additionally pursuing practices based on social inclusion and opposition to custody. Therefore, as Ugwudike (2011: 45) observes, although ‘contemporary risk discourse permeates . . . frameworks governing practice, an enduring commitment to social welfarist principles that historically under lined probation practice can be observed, despite policy conditions’. Hence, probation workers can incorporate and/or resist policy provisions and use alternative strategies to maintain commitment to professional values (Deering, 2011; Gregory, 2010). Fitzgibbon and Lea (2015: 30) have made a similar point about the responses of probation workers to the new Transforming Rehabilitation proposals. They argue that probation workers can resist ‘neo-privatization [by the] security- industrial complex’ as represented by Sodexo and Interserve and moderate ‘techno –fix impulses’.

Professional and organizational commitment

Consequently, it seems appropriate at this point to note possible tensions that may exist between organizational and professional commitment (Clements et al., 2014). Probation workers can clearly be committed to their profession, but not to their organization, as seen in the studies by Farrow (2004) and Gregory (2010). Professional commitment develops at an early career stage, as part of a socialization process. It has been seen as ‘intrinsic’, as more deeply rooted, while organizational commitment has been seen as a more ‘extrinsic, added on’ phenomenon, sometimes with a lack of congruence between the two (Collins, 2015; Clements et al., 2014). In view of the apparent limited commitment by a significant number of probation workers even to their previous organization, there seems to be a clear need for the new probation organizations to take further steps to remedy what may well be the lack of organizational commitment amongst some, or even many, probation workers. The new CRC organizations, in particular, are in a state of flux and transition, as is the case with staff. The latter have experienced the loss of their previous organization, their established policies and procedures, colleagues and service users (Robinson et al., 2015). The transition has involved reflecting on past and future careers, experimenting, trying out new roles, coming to terms with lost work roles, recognizing and recreating new identities, encountering the challenges of working with many new service users and office settings, with different colleagues and a new ‘local brand’. Some workers have left probation. However, these are early days for the new system and organizational commitment will take time to develop. Many probation personnel are known to feel anxious, disempowered and uncertain (Robinson et al., 2015). There is evidence also that some staff in CRCs no longer perceive themselves as willing to ‘go the extra mile’, expressing intentions to restrict themselves to a 9 to 5 approach to their work. They also feel a lack of trust in, and commitment to, their senior managers (Robinson et al., 2015.) These are features of negative, continuance commitment.

Clearly, the new changes are likely to involve complex adaptations, with existing workers also ‘carrying over’ with them their professional commitment and a wide range of transferrable values, knowledge and skills, which will differ according to a wide range of variables linked, for instance, to length of experience, age, work setting and role. There is clear evidence they are committed to the profession, team colleagues and service users but, in turn, it is uncertain to what extent and in what ways the reorganized National Probation Service and the CRCs will influence, enhance or diminish the already limited organizational commitment of transferring workers (Robinson et al., 2015). However, there are indications that some CRC staff have been relatively unphased and even energized by the reform changes, with new opportunities for probation workers (Robinson et al., 2015). Government guidelines for the new CRCs emphasize innovation, less central control and more creative solutions to working with offenders in a wider context, with a focus on rehabilitation (Ministry of Justice, 2013,a,b). Working in the CRCs is likely to mean less emphasis on risk assessment, court work and court reports. This diminished focus could provide more opportunities for concentration upon ongoing, longer term rehabilitation work, relationship based emotional and practical support, more focussed on the particular needs of individuals and groups within family and community contexts. These opportunities may encourage organizational commitment from probation workers. However, future organizational commitment could be consolidated or eroded, depending a great deal on the enactment of the values, policies and procedures of the new organizations. Their ability to provide suitable, appropriate working conditions, pay and pensions, fair and just treatment of workers, on – going professional development programmes and, not least, their policies toward service users, will all provide crucial opportunities for determining the professional and organizational commitment of future generations of probation workers.

However, it is important to note that probation staff can still sometimes be committed to their organizations, but life events beyond the control of any formal organization such as changes in family circumstances, for example, marriages, divorces, illness, deaths, promotions for relatives and enforced moves to other geographical areas may also result in movement and departure from probation agencies that does not necessarily involve a lack of commitment to the organization (Collins, 2015). And, indeed, Klein et al. (2012) have argued that in many professions it is not unusual for careers to span organizations, generally employment is increasingly fluid and transient. Indeed, changes in staff can assist some of the more negative consequences of excessive continuance commitment. Hence, in probation it is not unusual for staff to move between posts, occupy different roles and undertake specialisms, such as working in approved premises, prisons, working with sex offenders and in community payback that might, in fact, enhance commitment (Mawby and Worrall, 2013).

Some further suggestions for ways of developing commitment in probation organizations

The early stages of a probation worker’s career are clearly very important, that is, the first two years of full-time practice, in the development of commitment to the organization. In the past the induction process and on-going training needs of newly qualified probation officers received considerable attention and good quality provision, but in recent times it has been suggested that some of this good practice has been lost, with the growth of bureaucratic and managerialist approaches (Gregory, 2007). Recent thorough, rigorous, studies of newly qualified statutory social workers during their first two years of experience have emphasized the key elements in developing organizational commitment at an early career stage (some of which may be already evident in probation practice in some areas). These are seen in work on developing feelings of self-efficacy (confidence), the provision of regular and good quality supervision, ensuring the availability of regular and frequent support from peers and colleagues and manageable, restricted workloads (Carpenter et al., 2015), although, at present, there is concern about excessive workloads in the new CRC systems.

One major point that has frequently recurred in probation research literature is the need for probation staff to feel respected, cared for and valued, to have strengths recognized and positive work appreciated. This has clear implications for the important role of line managers in providing positive reinforcement, recognition and appropriate support for staff and their achievements (Farrow, 2004, Robinson et al., 2013). Annison et al. (2008) also emphasized probation workers’ commitment was consistently enhanced by continuing on-going contact with service users and by probation organizations having a service user centred culture. Eadie et al. (2012) and Mawby and Worrall (2013) drew attention to the fact that probation staff spent only around 25% of their time in face-to-face contact with clients. The clear implications of this is for probation organizations to facilitate a higher proportion of time for face-to-face offender contact with less attention given to form filling and computer based work, but another concern at the moment is about difficulties with overloaded IT systems following the new reforms. Since commitment is enhanced by probation workers having continued on-going contact with service users, increased financial rewards for maintaining such contact would be helpful. However, others may naturally wish to develop their probation careers in different directions, for instance, in more specialist, training, or management roles. In general, on-going professional development is clearly important in enhancing commitment; hence, another key task for the Probation Institute is that of ensuring the provision of sufficient, appropriate, high-level training opportunities.

Another particularly important means of maintaining commitment is through maximizing opportunities for regular, frequent, emotional and practical support from probation colleagues on both formal and informal bases, in order to reflect upon and share the implications of both stressful events and good practice. There is considerable evidence in probation literature that colleague support is often rated higher than formal supervision from line managers (e.g. Davies and Gregory, 2010; Gregory, 2007; Robinson et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, regular and skilled supervision based upon the practical and emotional needs of workers is another significant factor in enhancing commitment (Collins, 2015). Probation employees clearly have different needs at different stages of their careers. Newly qualified staff saw manageable workloads and supportive, skilled, well informed supervision as very important features of their successful transition from initial training/education courses (Gregory, 2007). It is known that less experienced workers are likely to need more frequent and intensive supervision; this should be ‘built in’ to the experiences of newcomers, but this is not to say that some experienced workers will not also require supervision to assist their commitment. The further development of mentors, that is, experienced workers who do not have line management responsibilities for a probation worker, who can offer emotional support and practical advice has also proved positive and effective, while the mentors themselves can experience this work as fulfilling and challenging (Lee et al., 2009).

Facilitating the individual autonomy of grass roots statutory workers offers another possible way forward to enhance commitment. Some researchers have seen this as a crucial element (Hussein et al., 2014; Mawby and Worrall, 2013), while others have seen it as less important (Lambert et al., 2008; Westbrook et al., 2006). However, Robinson et al. (2013) have pointed out that intentions for more discretion for probation workers will be evident with the replacement of rather rigid and prescriptive National Standards by more localized policies. This represents a step forward towards greater autonomy. Furthermore, ‘grass roots’ participation and involvement is linked with empowerment, with an emphasis on facilitating, consulting to develop a sense of control and self –efficacy in probation staff (Lee et al., 2007). Hence, good opportunities in the new organizations for ‘having a say’, and influencing policies and organizational decision making in probation can help develop commitment, improve communication, enable workers to prioritise and resolve organizational problems, enhance a sense of organizational equality, develop new administrative changes and help improve relationships with other agencies (Lee et al., 2007, 2009; Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Webb and Carpenter, 2012). However, there are dangers in relying too much on experienced staff to undertake these tasks. They can become yet further demands and additional commitments for them on top of the many other demands that they already face (Boyas and Wind, 2010). Finally, good quality administrative support, a comfortable and well-provided working environment are also perceived as helpful in enhancing commitment, especially as some aspects of open plan offices and ‘secure’ interview rooms for probation work have been subject to criticism (Mawby and Worrall, 2013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, as noted previously, commitment in probation work is a wide ranging concept that involves individual probation workers establishing and maintaining longer term attachments to working with people involved in offending, to the probation ‘ profession’, to probation values, to organizations that provide services to offenders, to team colleagues, line managers and unions – or any combination of these. Evidence from past years indicates that while the professional commitment of probation workers has been resilient and is likely to endure, organizational commitment has been variable. At the present time it seems likely that with the introduction of the new organizations, especially the CRCs, organizational commitment clearly will take some time to establish and stabilize. In many ways this is positive in that unquestioning and uncritical commitment to the new organizations could lead to acceptance of unjust and unfair policies, procedures and practices that could operate to the disadvantage of offenders. Ultimately, commitment involves the provision of dedicated, consistent, persistent, reliable, responsible, tenacious and energetic services to offenders, as well as providing rewarding employment for probation workers and increased retention and reduced turnover of employees for probation organizations.

One step involves developing more knowledge and understanding of the commitment concepts by students, workers and managers and their implications for selection, for initial education, training and on – going continuing professional development. Existing levels of professional, organizational, affective and continuance commitment can be ‘measured’ at organizational, team and individual levels. They can be monitored and evaluated with appropriate action plans and reviews implemented. However, more importantly, the core aspects, the central features of commitment are strongly associated with positive attitudes, behaviours, morality, virtues and values. These are significant features for all probation workers, that is, grass roots staff, line managers and leaders of the new organizations.

As is the case with statutory social workers, maintaining and improving probation workers’ commitment is clearly a multi-faceted task (Collins, 2015). It requires a flexible, changeable and many sided response throughout a probation worker’s career both from the education and training stage through work in the early and middle years of one’s career, to work as a more experienced member of staff. Empowering responses are necessary from central government, national organizations such as the National Offender Management Service, the National Probation Service, unions, probation education and training and, in particular, the newly formed CRCs, as well as individual probation staff. Effective responses are necessary to enable probation workers to develop and maintain an enthusiastic, optimistic, on-going commitment to probation work, both in these very difficult changing, challenging times, and in the future.