The analysis produced seemingly inconsistent findings. Committee members articulated a definition of policy that they could but do not make operational in their committee work. They say that they have been involved in policymaking, but they do not describe cases where this has occurred to any great extent. They give priority to service to the courts when they describe the purposes and functions of the probation service and a probation committee, although the Home Office and other organizations have noted many other tasks. The analysis also noted that the probation committee is loosely coupled to the managerial role of chief probation officers. This loose coupling allows the probation committee to persist in an organization that is developing formally rational structures. However, political influences placing the greatest emphasis on prison and punitive sentencing make unclear the future role of the probation service and probation boards. Notes and 33 references