Citizen‐agency versus state‐agency at the frontline in prisons and probation services: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Abstract Street‐level bureaucrats play a key role in the delivery of public services to the citizens with whom they interact. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses approach, we rely on a street‐level perspective to report a systematic review of 46 studies about officer–offender interactions in prisons and probation services. In doing so, we examine how correctional officers articulate state‐agency – whereby they focus on the implementation of rules and policies – and citizen‐agency – whereby their decisions regarding offenders are based on judgements of offenders' worth. Our results provide evidence that frontline work in prisons and probation services stems from a mix of citizen‐ and state‐agencies in which the former is prioritized over the latter: when rule enforcement allows it, correctional officers often make discretionary decisions based on professional judgements rooted in professional norms. In this respect, the managerial and actuarial approach to risk management and public protection involved by contemporary correctional reforms comes with new role expectations that conflict with correctional officers' rehabilitative ideals. At the same time, the literature provides many instances of officers coping with workload in order to meet policy objectives and organizational demands while maintaining satisfactory working conditions. In other words, there is an increasingly elaborate and fragile articulation of state‐ and citizen‐agencies at the frontline, in prisons and probations services. We conclude with some implications and an agenda for future research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.