Monday 10 March 2014

The Case For the Defence



Professor Paul Senior argues in his most recent blog post that we ought to 'Give the Probation Institute a chance!' 
"I can’t help thinking that picking a fight with the Probation Institute at the moment is an unhelpful diversion. TR continues to creak and there are a host of targets to undermine and defeat these unwarranted changes, not least the efforts in the Lords this coming week. To my mind the Institute is not one of them. In many respects it is the absence of such a body over the past 14 years which has undermined the profession and now makes staff so vulnerable in the new arrangements. Its uncertain birth at this time is unfortunate and the support from the MoJ is double edged. But it is seeking to fill a gap which, though not realised at the time, is one unintended consequence of the move away from social work training in 1996-8.
The Diploma in Probation Studies which arose out of the ashes of social work training was a potential signalling of a new licence to practice. At that time though the Probation Rules relating to qualifying awards were removed and there was no formal indication of what constituted a probation officer. I prepared a paper as part of the work I was undertaking to shape the new curriculum and award. It suggested the need for a body to undertake the registration and develop the qualification framework which would provide that licence. I was told by the Home Office group I was reporting to, to remove that paper from my work. It was regretted by some including Mike Worthington, the Chief Probation Officer of Northumbria who fought unsuccessfully for a replacement statement in the probation rules. This was not acted upon.
The probation profession under New Labour initially appeared to have weathered the storm and the DIPPS was confidently seen as the de facto professional qualification. Work was initiated by the Community Justice National Training Organisation to develop the qualifications framework to include a new certificate level which would have provided an intermediate award for PSOs and other related staff. The complex history of why this did not work is beyond this blog but includes the reluctance of the Home Office to wrest control of what it perceived as appropriate training for unqualified staff and inadvertently this exacerbated the distance between the gold standard of the probation officer award from the increasingly important training needs of other staff, numerically growing in number and strategically changing the roles and boundaries between different grades of staff for ever. An independent body with the support of all the relevant professional organisations and higher education providers would have provided the necessary distance and authority to install a framework which would have been inclusive, graduated to engage different training needs, support the development of an evidence base independent of government interference, a qualification framework and most crucially a voice to represent and grow the probation profession. It did not happen and as a result these crucial building blocks have been piecemeal, uncoordinated, subject to the whim of politicians and unable to play its part in opposing the current privatisation process. Belatedly the Probation Institute offers the best chance to achieve this goal.
It was half anticipated that the line in the TR proposals about an Institute would not be sustained and that there would be moves to quietly drop the proposal. No fan of regulation, the current government are intent on opening up professions across the welfare system which continues a process of de-professionalisation which dates back to Thatcher. In a deregulated system individual workers are vulnerable to the whim of new employers intent on cost cutting and with a less nuanced understanding of the complexities of the probation role. In concert with the role of unions, an Institute can provide a complementary and independent bolt hole against the excesses of deregulation and privatisation. It faces though a whole host of challenges including sustaining engagement, achieving comprehensive coverage, agreeing core values and maintaining its independence.
Whether the Institute is a flawed vehicle or not to meet these challenges the jury is out and, more pertinently, it is the only kid on the block. It has the support of all the professional associations and unions, PCA, PA, Napo and Unison and this is vital. Universities are also engaged in its development as are Skills for Justice, the relevant sector skills council, and these are all vital constituencies. All potential employers need too to find a place as part of the organisation’s development. Crucially the relationship between the Institute and NOMS and the MoJ has to be managed. Probation workers in the NPS must remain part of a single professional framework to enable movement of individuals between agencies, a likely consequence of deregulation. Whilst clear lines of accountability need to be retained so that the institute can operate independently that does not mean the alternative is no relationship at all with the official system. Engagement with all workers, all agencies and all relevant providers is an important goal of the Institute as it establishes an inclusive agenda. This is not yet there, it is being created under pressure and with the lines of engagement complicated, but that must not undermine the attempt to do so.
The Institute needs to meet the needs of a diverse range of people. It has been suggested that it must represent the needs of the workers wherever they sit. It should certainly ensure all workers, from the full array of professional services, should find a home in the Institute. The growing integration of service delivery demands skill sets of increasing complexity drawn from traditional sources like probation workers but also skills from housing, employment, drug and alcohol services, mentoring, restorative justice and many more and a single framework reachable by different but complementary routes will allow workers to develop a more varied career trajectory. Ultimately this will enable workers to move professions and link better to social work for instance. This is one consequence of this not being out in place in 1998 breaking of links between probation and social work. Another element of comprehensive cover is to make sure researchers are encouraged to be part of the sharing of learning. One of the strengths of the past few years has been the way evidence has guided practice. Now we know that evidence has not guided TR (see special issue of the British Journal of Community Justice – http://www.cjp.org.uk/bjcj/volume-11-issue-2-3/ ) and it will be important to ensure researchers are re-engaged so that professional practice continues to be informed by the results of an increasingly rich evidence base.
Though there has been many discussions about values over the last twenty years there remains no agreed set of core values to guide professional practice. It has to be a core activity for the institute so that any subsequent qualification framework is built on a shared understanding of what must be at the core, the essence of the profession. A statement of core values is being developed and it will be an important contribution as a baseline marker for what is acceptable practice.
The fourth challenge is the one which has sparked this blog. If the institute is to work it must remain independent but inclusive of all relevant organisations and individuals. This is a delicate balancing act and the one thing that would undermine this goal is a splitting of focus, is setting groups against each other, risking the disintegration of the enterprise before it has had chance to breathe. The pace of development has been forced by the unwelcome speed of the TR proposals and yet a lead on professional standards is necessary to guide the future of practice if indeed, the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of TR happens by the end of 2014. If TR happens and if (when) it is a disaster then a reference point for professional practice which stands outside the TR arena, which can shape the agenda for high quality practice will be needed to knit together the disparate and fragmenting environment which is becoming today’s reality. It may not work and it won’t work if good will is withdraw whilst it begins to find its feet, its alliances and its shape. As I said at the start of this piece this is a diversion from the fight against TR and bringing the Institute to a halt will not impact on TR in the slightest but might just have an impact on the future of the institution which we know as probation and which many are seeking to preserve. If TR fails the presence of the Institute will belatedly provide the kind of organisation that should have been put in place in 1998 and help to protect the future against a recurrence of this fragmenting and destructive government agenda."

25 comments:

  1. Sorry but this has come at the wrong time, TR is such a F***ed up idea that this gives it an air of legitimacy,

    ReplyDelete
  2. If TR fails the presence of this Institute...

    There must be some form of universal standard to obtain 'licence to practice'.
    But really, who is going to suffer the costs and years of study at university, to enter a career that with the private sector may only reward you with maybe £17k a year, little autonomy to use your knowledge, and job security that depends on your employers abillity to win contracts?
    What ever level of minimum requirement is instituted it must fall a long way short of the standard requirements of the profession as it stands today, otherwise, in the very near future qualified probation officers will be harder to find then rocking horse s....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly my point. Without a reference to independent standards your scenario is much more likely to happen. I do not pretend its the be all and end all but its an oasis of reference in such dire times. Its a pragmatic defence not a panacea.

      Delete
  3. Naw, I don't think so. Withdraw from this NOW please.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am keen to join this debate but aware there still remains much to be known about the PI but at this stage I am keen to know how it will continued to be funded ? I know it has been inferred there will be membership cost but this won't sustain the financial costs of this beast so who is to fund the PI ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Jim

    Just wanted to make you aware that Chris Grayling will be visiting Trusts soon. In Cheshire we had an email today saying he is coming to visit on 19th March and he would like to meet a cross section of about 15 members of staff. The trust have asked for people to volunteer in the first instance and the CEO will pick who he wants. We then have to submit all questions we will be asking him so they can be screened and he can be informed of them in advance. oh, and we have also been told we are NOT allowed to talk about this visit to anybody outside of the trust!! unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to ask him this question.

      Given the huge amount of assessments and paperwork the NPS will be required to do aswell as manage all high risk and high profile cases, what is the maximum number of clients that an NPS officer can be allocated, to ensure the management of those clients is effective, productive, and ensures as robustly as possible public safety?

      Delete
    2. The secrecy will be so there's no-one on the grassy knoll...

      Delete
    3. Oh please get to see the psychopath and be brave and ask him a non scripted question. What is he going to do?

      Delete
    4. Ask him whether he's considered what he's going to say to the families of the people who die as a result of TR.

      Delete
  6. I'd like to ask him two questions
    How do you sleep at night? and
    When are you going to be sacked?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Public accounts committee review "the probation landscape" on weds afternoon. Link to uncorrected report will follow once its available.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I for one am happy to join the Institute. Paul, I just need the following reassurances:
    1. as a bin man working for Lincolnshire County Council, you will take me,
    2. that office in Vauxhall isn't being paid for by wife's napo subs, or by the MoJ
    3. you will fight against TR and not accept a penny from MoJ or any corporate body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have continued to fight against TR publicly since it started and will continue to do so. I take the defence of probation seriously and will put my name to that defence. I will not bother to answer the other questions.

      Delete
  9. Joining the PI would be cheaper than staying with NAPO. I have always assumed NAPO subs are so expensive because it is a professional association as well as a trade union. If we have the Institute, what is the point of NAPO. I won't need to be in the NAPO professional association. I might as well join UNISON, other than they are shite.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just on the last point. I have always valued the fact that Napo is a professional association as well as a union and rightly represents its members interests. Also as a matter of fact its status as an association, significantly reduces the subscriptions, so actually it has an impact on that alone. I think Napo will continue to have this role. An institute is not representative in the same sense as it has a range of potential regulatory elements as well. The PI will have a range of constituent interests, it spans all th organisations just as CCCETSW did for social work? Napo was then a member of the Council, I in fact represented Napo on this, and I see the PI developing in a similar way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Probation Officer10 March 2014 at 23:22

    An institute or registered body for probation is something we've required for many years. It is not a fair representation that some are presenting it's implementation as a climb-down by Napo over TR, and even if this were the case this should not be used to take away from the long-standing need of an institute for probation. For many years we have all wondered why such a regulatory body for probation has not existed, and so the difficult climate and the bad timing should not undermine the possibility probation is probably finally getting a much needed professional body.

    I agree with Paul Senior's views, and suggest that for those that are uncertain about the Probation Institute, maybe try to consider what it will be like in the new probation organisations WITHOUT any such over-arching professional body trying to ensure appropriate levels of staff training and qualifications, or being becoming placed to set service standards and codes of conduct both NPS and CRC. Currently there is no recognised speaker for probation (or for the NPS and CRC's as a whole), but this will change with the Probation Institute. These are actually factors which make TR less attractive to private bidders for our services and is probably part of the reason why the MoJ was largely against the Probation Institute until very recently and therefore would probably be happy to see it fail. Instead of arguing against it's implementation, probation staff would be better off giving it their full support and making it strong enough to stand-up to whatever the MoJ and private companies have planned for the future.

    There are more pressing issues to be focused on such as why Napo is striking without balloting members, and causing the loss of 1.5 (a strange number) days pay striking against TR agreements that unions have more-or-less already ratified.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This piece by Probation Officer has been posted on the Napo Forum. It makes assumptions about the PI that are not true now and may never be true. It will not REGULATE anything and there will be no licence to practice. On the strike, by the way, the mandate from the last ballot still runs and it's 1 day not 1.5 days.

      The PI is all potential, all possibility. For all the claims about what it may achieve, it is equally fair at this point to claim it will come to nothing and be a talking shop on the periphery of policy and practice. The claim that it may re-professionalise probation really is pie in the sky as that would be the last thing the private sector would tolerate.

      It was self-indulgent of Napo to join at this time. It was a £90,000 seduction.

      Delete
  12. I've no interest in picking a fight with the Probation Institute. I am not longer following the PI on twitter as I think it is made up of Chris Grayling's little helpers. If the PI comes to South Yorkshire on a training mission I will simply not attend the event. No need to fight or mess about with it, and I certainly wont be paying out good money to register for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some interesting questions from & written replies to Lord Carlile of Berriew relating to probation - scroll fown the page to find them listed.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140225w0001.htm

    ReplyDelete
  14. A nao guide - when sociology met geography - the probation landscape -

    http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Probation-landscape-review.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  15. For me the more pressing issue is why Napo are not fighting the case split which was not accurately implemented. Anyone who has looked into the numbers knows this and it's not surprising given the move over to Delius. Caseloads were not accurately recorded and points were not accurately assigned. For some reason this is being ignored, but from speaking with colleagues this is what is causing the most sleepless nights. We feel that we are being left alone to deal with an unfair case split based on inaccurate data. IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Napo should be asking for the data and spending their time and money going through it. They should highlighting the inaccuracies and then be insisting that it is re-done. I can assure you that there are enough inaccuracies out there to ensure a delay.

    ReplyDelete
  16. People please lay off Professor Paul Senior. He's with the Probation Officers/PSOs and staunchly against TR!

    ReplyDelete