Taking It Personally

Whatever your views are regarding the Probation Institute, there's never been any doubt where Paul Senior's heart lies. This from the latest edition of Probation Quarterly:-

Probation is a Profession, Never Let That Go 

A fascinating insight from Professor Paul Senior

In 1997 I submitted a paper to the Home Office regarding the urgent need for a Professional and Regulatory Body in the light of Probation’s withdrawal from social work training and its partnership with CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) and as part of the construction of independent training for probation staff. I was told to remove this paper from discussion as it would cost too much so we proceeded to craft an excellent training, the Diploma in Probation Studies, with only light touch and non-independent oversight from the Home Office. 

There have been costs to this approach with uncertainty over qualifications for different grades of staff, whether probation could or should be regarded as a profession, the demise of post-qualifying training and much more. It always felt to me and others a wrong decision to make and there has been a gap ever since.

It has taken a long time since then to create a framework for a body and an organisational home to support these issues in the more uncertain post-TR world, but these issues remain pertinent and are now the central rationale of the Probation Institute. I have been honoured to Chair the Board of the Probation Institute over the past three years in a much-overdue effort to shape an organisation which, through its independence and expertise, can ensure the creation and maintenance of a regulatory framework, a professional body and a centre of excellence. This work remains in progress given the difficult times in which such an organisation has been introduced. In this paper I reflect on my time in this role which I leave in September 2018. 

I want to be clear about my reasons for leaving. I was diagnosed in January 2012 with an incurable, ultimately terminal, cancer. I have had a lifetime commitment to the profession and to the maintenance of professional standards of probation practice, having actively resisted attempts to de-professionalise the job against political pressures over many years. Through a range of guises - Probation officer, Chair, NAPO Professional Committee, CCETSW Council, joint appointment in training between probation and university, designer and implementer of the DipPS and researcher and probation academic - I have tried for over 40 years to support the best in probation. 

Jan 2012 was not a good month for me but it was disastrous for probation as the TR paper was published then. Like many others I campaigned against the changes and spent time attending rallies, speaking at events, tweeting endlessly and submitting papers. My paper to the 16th Bill McWilliams Memorial Lecture in 2014 ‘Privatising Probation: the death-knell of a much-cherished public service?’ (P Senior, (2016) Howard Journal, 55, 414-431) attempted to capture many of the critical features of this change. I took it personally having worked on making probation practice robust and effective since I started as a probation volunteer in 1975.

As the new arrangements came into being in 2014 with a bifurcated service delivery model comprising the public sector National Probation Service and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies I promoted the construction of a professional development framework working with others, most notably, Helen Schofield and Mike McClelland. The danger of this split was that professional standards would become inconsistent and there appeared to be no attempt to insure against this. This framework would eventually be adopted by the Probation Institute (PI). 

The PI came into existence rather hurriedly, supported by a steering group of professional associations and unions, at an inauspicious time for it to be an easy ride. From the outset it sought to shape its identity and its independence through its members, its representative groups and committees and ultimately through its national Board. Though arguments have remained strong for such a body (nothing had been put in place since I had attempted to do so in 1997) it had to fight critiques from across the spectrum from ministers, unions and disgruntled and disillusioned probation staff. At a time of job insecurity and cutbacks it did not secure sufficient membership to grow the organisation quickly but recognition that it filled a gap ensured the PI was invited to the table on many professional discussions. I joined the Board in March 2015 and was made Chair in September of that year.

Having spent a lifetime fighting for probation this role has suited me. I took early retirement from Sheffield Hallam University in 2016, driven sadly by ill-health, but this allowed me to focus exclusively on the PI. All the work we have all done in the past few years has been done pro bono with a tireless acting chief executive, an energetic Board and fellows, volunteers and members. We are independent with no external funding outwith project work. I think we have succeeded through a lot of our initiatives to shape our future engagement with the sector. 

We worked tirelessly to campaign for a Regulatory Body for Probation and Rehabilitation staff and it now has strong support amongst government, organisations, unions and members and awaits time for legislation which Brexit is blocking on many fronts. We have published position papers on a range of topics which have contributed to national debate on key issues, submitted written and oral evidence to Justice Select Committees and other committees/enquiries such as the Lammy. Enquiry, we have worked with NPS and CRCs on the development of the new qualifying training, apprenticeships, on equality and diversity issues, on a women’s strategy and our Trainees Conferences and our annual Practitioners Conference are well supported.

Through our Research Committee we have successfully promoted practitioner research with the Sir Graham Smith Research Awards, we have strong links with universities through the Academic Advisory Panel chaired by Professor Anne Worrall as well as ground breaking research and e-learning on veterans in the criminal justice system. 

This summary of our work does not do justice to the development of a strong sense of purpose in what we can offer both as a bulwark against the isolation and disillusion of probation staff but also to support and promote good practice in the future.

Sadly for me my time is up, and I hate leaving a job incomplete but such is life. The world of probation remains uncertain as we go forward and there are no easy solutions. I am convinced that the PI can contribute to a brighter future for individuals within criminal justice and help deliver practices I remain proud of. Through my PI Honorary Life Fellowship I will continue to dip a toe into the work of the PI and wish the next Chair and the Board every success.

General Secretary Election 6

I notice Ian Lawrence was out and about in Leicester yesterday for the Probation Institute's first trainee's conference and he made a speech:-

Probation Institute Trainee Conference Monday 21st May 2018 

Firstly, many thanks to the Co-Hosts in the form of the NPS and the Probation Institute for this opportunity and can I say how appreciative I am of the important work carried out by the Institute in what are incredibly testing times for anyone delivering Probation services in a Criminal Justice System that itself is beset by a number of major challenges. 

As Helen Schofield said earlier I am currently the General Secretary of Napo an elected 5 year term position for which I am approaching another election shortly, so I am rather hoping that this is not the first and last time that I have the pleasure of addressing this conference.

My duties range between being the senior elected employee within Napo with responsibility for our members in Probation and the Family Court Service, typically my work involves high level interface with Government Ministers and the senior leadership of the Official Opposition and senior NPS and MoJ departmental heads.

I am also the lead spokesperson for Napo in our regular contact with TV and media and I also have a negotiating role with the three CRC Contracts in Wales and the South West which keeps me well in touch with the types of issues being faced by our members. 

Can I also wish you all the best with your studies as you approach qualification and hope that you have acquired vital knowledge and experience during your time within either the NPS or a CRC. 

I will have a bit to say about Napo in a few minutes and why I hope you may consider joining us, and Tania Bassett our Press and Parliamentary lead is also here to answer any questions that you may have. 

So where next for Probation? 

I make no apologies for saying that you have committed to an especially challenging career path but one that performs a vital public service in assisting clients and safeguarding our communities. 

Having listened to Sonia Crozier explain that the NPS has been awarded an excellence rating, reminds me of the situation prior to the part privatisation of Probation under Chris Grayling’s Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) for short, when probation was the holder of Gold standard awards prior to establishment of the NPS and CRCs. 

I am grateful to Sonia Crosier for outlining the history behind TR and whilst Tania and I of course knew the answer to the earlier Quiz question about not being able to pilot a Revolution we couldn't quite bring ourselves to utter the answer. 

I wanted to spend a few minutes focusing on three specific issues which I hope will be of interest to you.

The Post TR landscape 

Well, whether or not TR is the much vaunted revolution that Mr Grayling said it would be, and you will gather that I could use a variety of adjectives to describe it from our perspective, there are a litany of problems facing staff wherever they work. 

Within the NPS there are still problems over staff shortages despite the excellent efforts by Sonia and colleagues to encourage recruitment, and there are pay and pension administration problems, difficulties over Market Forces payments and the outsourcing of AP waking night cover arrangements. I also echo concerns over the OMIC project and the need to better support victims of crime. 

And we need a less bureaucratic management structure in HMPPS and an improved interface between the NPS Divisions and the recognised Trade Unions. 

There is also a desperate need for Probation pay reform and we await the Ministerial nod for negotiations to get underway soon, which means ending gender discrimination, decent pay rises for all and quicker movement up the pay scales. This must also apply to our members in Cafcass and PBNI. 

We also need to return to genuine collective bargaining across the NPS and CRCs so that we have common standards of employment across the two arms of the service which will bring stability and certainty for staff and more scope for movement of staff across both parts of the service. 

But while Napo’s stated position is that we want to see Probation back in public ownership we will, as I said in the Oral evidence that I gave to the Justice Select Committee in March, work with all politicians for a community focused, desistance driven probation model, one which ultimately I want to see set free from the still Prison-centric HMPPS. 

We must also strengthen the Professional aspects of your work and that’s why Napo along with the Probation Institute are campaigning for a Licence to Practice across probation and prisons. 

All these issues will be important as we start the run in to the serious consideration of what happens to the CRC Contracts and how we will need to learn the harsh lessons of the TR Experiment. 

Look, let me be clear, I have always been opposed to the privatisation of public services, but I have gone on record before and will again, in saying that not all of the post-TR difficulties are the fault of the CRC Owners.

It was not their fault that the CRC contracts were insufficiently structured from the outset, it was not their fault that TR shut the door on meaningful engagement with third sector providers and they're not to blame for a flawed PbR model. 

Of course there are a few things some of them and this government are to blame for. But today my message is that of seeing how we can work with NPS and CRC employers to ensure that where service improvements are needed we can try and work together, but that this ought to be similarly matched by some CRCs engaging positively with the trade unions on the issues I have touched upon today. And by them recognising the imperative to deliver safe operational models, understand that people must come before profit, and treat their hard working staff with dignity and respect.

So what might the future might look like? 

I mentioned the objective of freeing Probation from HMPPS control but in Napo’s view we need to campaign for a publicly owned model that embraces the concept of Community Justice. 

A model that builds on the key principle that its governance structures must be founded and delivered by people who understand the diverse needs of their communities: probation, police, the NHS (especially in the fields of mental health and drug and substance abuse), the judiciary, regional and Metro Mayors, PCCs diversity groups and those organisations in the third sector who are desperate to make a meaningful contribution, but need the resources to do so. 

Localism was the bedrock of the pre-TR Probation Service and it should be the cornerstone of a new future which encompasses the proud traditions of your profession, one which engenders trust from our communities and does right by the clients it seeks to assist and redirect into making a meaningful contribution to society.

It’s a big ask, but I wish you all the very best in helping to achieve that transition. 

Finally, what is Napo and why be a member? 

We are, as the title says both a trade union and professional association for Probation and Cafcass staff. Membership of Napo brings with it access to the Probation Journal and our recently relaunched and if I may say excellent Napo Magazine and regular personalised mail outs on the issues that matter to you and it means that the union will seek to help you with issues relating to your employment and professional development. You will also have access to legal support depending on the circumstances, and through Napo Extra you can also access a range of lifestyle discounts and financial advice. 

More information and application forms are easily accessible on the Napo website.

Ian Lawrence

News From Probation Institute 5

Mention has been made previously of Bob Neill MP and the Justice Committee having recently held a private session on probation privatisation. Held under 'Chatham House Rules', strictly-speaking we're not supposed to know who attended or what was said, but both Ian Lawrence from Napo and Prof Paul Senior from the Probation Institute have publicly mentioned being present. 

As we all know, the PI has come under considerable criticism from contributors to this blog for failing to speak openly and plainly about the realities of TR, so it's particularly interesting to have insight into what might have been said in private from publication of a one page briefing document from the day:- 
   
Presented by Professor Paul Senior Emeritus Professor of Probation Studies, Chair, Probation Institute 21 Oct 2016

ANALYSING THE EXPERIENCE OF TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION 2014-2016 

Predicted and predictable 

Speed - to seek to implement an entire system at one go with an unseemly rush and no trials or piloting was always high risk and unnecessary. 

Resourcing - to implement a new element of provision - compulsory post-prison supervision - previously absent for short sentence prisoners - with no additional resources always fraught with risk 

De-professionalization - the need to save money would trump the need for quality services. Tasks previously done by highly trained staff would be dumbed down to cheaper, less trained staff. 

--//--

Pattern of concerns emerging from official reports (The Audit Office, HMI Probation, HMI Prisons, Clinks, Public Accounts Committee), extensive media coverage and emergent research 

Bifurcation - the fracturing of delivery has caused additional problems for providing joined up justice. IT systems not talking, separation of office spaces, demarcation of roles, confusion for other agencies 

Accountability - increasing complexity and overlapping roles in this plurality of delivery modes makes coordination and joined up practices more difficult and accountability less certain 

Public Safety - with practice under such pressure and diffusion of responsibilities there are heightened risks regarding the management of Serious Offence Reviews and the consequences for staff of high caseloads of those supervising entirely high risk cases and agencies struggling to meet demands 

Management of risk - the splitting of risk levels between agencies seen as a pragmatic rather than a practice-driven benefit. all staff need to be aware of the dynamics of risk as it changes over time and circumstances 

Distorted decision making - evidence emerging that decision to breach on such as community payback or non-attendance at supervision driven by Payment by Results concerns not the demands of the case Severe financial pressures driving the business - changes in resource allocation due to changes in number distributions leading to staff uncertainty, redundancies and planning blight 

Hemorrhaging of staff - stress, redundancy and disillusionment leading to experienced staff exited both NPS and CRCs leaving the agencies with inexperienced and often new staff not equipped to deliver a complex business 

--//--

Future directions 

Maintain professional services via regulation - staff increasingly uncertain of role and struggling to meet the demands of the new systems. their professional status is undermined by the problems identified above by organizational changes and uncertainties. 

Case for a Regulatory Body - founded on the need for consistent, coherent and agreed standards and qualifications to which all practitioners and managers, in all agencies, can adhere; to be a profession. This case is underpinned by the need for appropriate staff to manage risk; treat individuals with respect and dignity; and develop staff to improve practice outcomes. 

More funding across the criminal justice system - The whole system has been subject to cutbacks which impact both on individual services e.g. prisons, policing and probation and therefore on shared systems of intervention e.g. Through the Gate provision, Integrated Offender Management, joint MAPPA arrangements

--oo00oo--

Dear Members

November has been a busy and productive month at the Probation Institute

1. The Probation-Sentencer Liaison Network (PSLN), a joint initiative with the Magistrates Association, launched at Middlesex University and Manchester Magistrates Court addressed by Dame Glenys Stacey. The two launch events demonstrated the urgency of improving communication between all probation services and sentencers. Key issues and discussion points from the two events will be posted on the PSLN Pages on the PI website which is open for Registrations at http://probation-institute.org/probation-sentencer-liaison-network-on-line-forum

Our thanks to Dame Glenys for her informative and very accessible presentation and to our hosts for the two launches. Some important areas of good practice were shared, also thinking about justice devolution and problem solving courts, including the Women's Court in Manchester.

2. The PI was represented at a Round Table Seminar on Community Sentences as part of the Lammy Review of Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System and we now look forward to a one to one meeting.

3. We were also represented at the Electronic Monitoring Action Group (EMAG) and will keep a close watching brief on the GPS Monitoring Pilots launched by MOJ this month as we propose Probation Institute Policy on Electronic Monitoring.

4. The application to develop a Trailblazer Apprenticeship for the role of Rehabilitation Practitioner, submitted to DfE by the Probation Institute on behalf of CRCs led by Seetec, and voluntary organisations, has been accepted. The employer development group will get back to work on this important project before Christmas, working with key representative groups.

5. De Montfort University have kindly agreed to host the Probation Trainees Conference 2017 which will take place on Wednesday 5th April for all trainees.

6. The Probation Institute Research Committee met on 24th November and with the Griffins Research Society we have proposed joint actions to implement three areas of research into aspects of probation practice with women, previously posted on this site and available at http://probation-institute.org/network-dashboard/women-and-justice-network

The Research Committee will now also take forward actions towards becoming a Centre of Excellence within our proposals, gathering increasing support, for a Regulatory Body for Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement.

7. The Westminster Legal Policy Forum on the Future of Probation on 22nd November proved an interesting discussion. We heard from HMIP, the Audit Commission, the NPS Director of Probation, NOMS Operational Assurance, a CRC, Napo, voluntary sector agencies, and a software solutions company on data sharing infrastructure. The quote "meeting the target but missing the point" (the point being effectiveness and quality) seemed to resonate throughout the debate, recognising that the implementation of TR, at the very least, was insufficiently understood and planned, and that action to address increasing gaps in quality and actual provision is critical. Sonia Crozier spoke of the importance of bridging NPS and CRCs and of her commitment to prioritising quality in NPS. It was clear from this event that more open, robust discussions are needed about the future of probation, the sustainability of the present arrangements and the role of probation in relieving the prisons crisis. Some bold local initiatives within CRCs and the voluntary sector also need to be encouraged, made more visible and shared.

8. The Sir Graham Smith Awards applications close on 31st December, and would be a great way to learn more about local initiatives, apply here http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/information-sheet-for-2017-GSA-applicants.docx

9. And finally we are commencing a review of the Probation Institute Code of Ethics and we will soon be inviting comments on this important topic.

We hope you enjoy the lead up to the holidays and please let us know - is this information helpful to you?

Kind regards

Helen Schofield
Acting Chief Executive
Probation Institute

Probation Institute Debate

I thought it would be useful to summarise the recent debate and exchanges concerning the fledgling Probation Institute. It was kicked off by a comment I re-published from Facebook by Napo's David Raho. The ensuing contributions raised some serious questions and I'm grateful to him for openly responding:-

It has been suggested elsewhere that we continue to sign our correspondence PO PSO SPO as per employment contract and in addition start listing professional qualifications. In order to preserve our professional status including designations we need a recognised professional body that registers our qualifications courses etc as CPD. It was hoped that the Probation Institute would perform this role in the same way as the Institute for Learning does. Unfortunately the Probation Institute got a bad press (mainly due to Grayling dishonestly attempting to take credit for its establishment) and continues to be unfairly maligned and undermined and weakened by a small number of very vocal critics who have failed to recognise its potential importance to our profession.

I would encourage anyone concerned about their professional status and probation as a profession to join the PI in addition to NAPO (who are a professional association) who recognise the Probation Institute as aspiring to be a centre of professional excellence including all those with an interest and/or involvement in probation including academics, leaders, politicians, voluntary sector etc. Some of us have been calling for a PI for years and now we have one we need to join it and support it. 

David Raho

******
A Probation Institute with licence to practice powers rather than mere 'registration' may have been welcomed as it would have protected excellence as the PI aspires to become to a 'centre of excellence'. Though supported by the Napo leadership it is quiet support as I don't recall any strong promotion by Napo of the PI. It never gets mentioned by the general secretary and I don't see any evidence of Napo urging members to join.

There are trained and experienced staff seeking to transfer to the NPS and being told they will revert to the bottom of the pay scale. On this issue and other issues that affect conditions of service and livelihoods the PI is silent.

The MoJ spent 90,000 on the PI because it was good PR at a time when they needed to show their commitment to maintaining professional standards in the post TR world. No wonder its critics saw it as more fig leaf than supposed centre of excellence. The PI enjoys more traction with academics than practitioners. Is this just because practitioners have been deterred by a small number of very vocal critics, or could it be that in general it is regarded as a cosmetic: lipstick on the TR pig?

******
The practitioners I know see very little benefit in joining the PI until all the grand words about being a centre of excellence translate into concrete action towards achieving a proper register of licensed practitioners. Until then, and particularly whilst corporate entities and those with no background in probation can simply buy themselves higher levels of membership than frontline staff, to most people it will remain little more than yet another quarterly glossy magazine.

******
The PI should have been free to all frontline probation staff. Not everyone has to buy a registration, as does the humble NPS probation officer. CRC's had it paid for, NPS did not. The PI's 'code of ethics' didn't have a problem with this.

The other way is to be handed it for free by your friends. Funny that, the PI was set up by probation Chiefs and now they're awarding themselves "fellowships". This list of current 'awards' is packed with probation Chiefs (I'm not counting Andrew Bridges as he's the only one that's deserving in my book). I hope they enjoy writing C.O.R.R.U.P.T after their names.
http://probation-institute.org/about/fellows/

******
CRC's staff may have been offered free membership to the PI but I don't know anyone that took up the offer in Kent. Maybe this was offered as compensation for NPS staff being given a day off for the Queen.

******
I disagree with David Raho on the Probation Institute (PI). It's a bit unfair to blame the critics when there are many flaws in the set up and operation. It failed us, we didn't fail it!

The PI may have worked if it'd been properly established in the first place. It's silly it was started by absorbing those of the Probation Association and Probation Chiefs Association, those that did nothing to fight the Govt destruction of probation. The PI has still not spoken against TR, it is silent against every new/additional Govt attack on probation, and I have never seen or heard it speak publicly in defence of probation. 

It's committees/boards are heavily packed with persons from Community Rehabilitation Companies and private firms. The PI has had ample time to combat/correct all of the above but seems to be only interested in increasing member fees and issuing silly 'fellowships' which include those that helped the sell off, and have nothing to do with, probation. Its professional register might have worked if it were not so intent on bowing to private companies by registering and giving silly post nominal letters to those without probation qualifications, and even volunteers those not working in probation. I don't see why it's partnered with Uservoice either, or why it needs to be propped up by Napo.

I agree probation needs a professional body, a format for registering qualifications and professional development, a credible place for identifying and accessing research and training, and a probation focused authority to speak on behalf of probation practice. Sadly the PI in its current form is not it, and has tried to be too broad and therefore too vague. Rather than blaming its failure on the critics it should go back to the drawing board. There's a lot we all could say on the PI but it would already know this if it tried to listen.

******
I agree with David Raho on much, but his comment that the PI "continues to be unfairly maligned and undermined and weakened by a small number of very vocal critics" is rather odd.

Who are these critics, except for those on this blog? Do we really have that much power? The PI has had a huge amount of establishment support, and its failure to gain traction is the result of the fundamental flaws in its design - particularly the offer of corporate memberships - as well as the PR problems that was the initial £90k seed money from NOMS and Grayling's early championship. The fact that it seemingly can't overcome the challenge of a few naysayers is a mark of its fundamental weaknesses, not the strength of the critics.

We do need a professional body, separate from the trade unions, but not this one. As Probation Officer says, to be credible the PI needs to be seen to be standing up for probation values and actively challenging the TR wrecking ball - but the current PI is financially dependent on the CRCs and will end up being complicit in the destruction of what it professes to value.

******
I intend to contact David Raho directly to explain why I am so opposed to the Probation Institute. I will express myself here anonymously because this is social media and being NPS I would be sanctioned for having the temerity to express my views. Yup in the land of Magna Carta, in 2015, I dare not speak out because I am a (second rate...no access to the better pension remember) Civil Servant. Not once has the PI ever spoken up about the truly shocking experiment-turned-reality of TR. Not once has the PI expressed any concern about the impact of TR upon victims, communities, clients/service users/offenders. Not once has the PI ever raised concerns from practitioners or managers.

******
I work in the NPS and horrified by the PI which incidentally was set up and funded by Chris Grayling's department, the MOJ. PI has no credibility and no teeth to uphold probation 'core' values. The only thing PI is interested in is using this organisation as a marketing tool to advise the aims of the private sector and supporting companies that are out to make a profit.

******
The PI was introduced as a smoke screen to smooth the muddy waters that the MOJ knew would follow TR. What they didn't envisage was us mere mortal front line PROBATION staff seeing right through it. I am quite frankly shocked by David Raho's statement, I always held him in high esteem.

******
It's a bit unclear. All this E3 nonsense is actually an opportunity for the Probation Institute to find itself. The PI, if it's reading, should tell the MoJ, NOMS, the NPS and CRC's - what best practice is, what probation practice must be and the role of the Probation Officer, how professional qualifications and standards must be maintained, how justice cuts will affect standards, the problems and effects caused by TR and privatisation, the restraints and robotisation of being civil servants, etc.

If the PI wants to be a "centre of excellence" and "voice" of probation then it needs to put in the work. Get rid of the premature partnerships, give the MoJ back its £90k, get involved in a few news interviews about crime, punishment and rehabilitation to promote and defend probation work, and then build in the right direction. Look how the police have taken the current terror threat and spoken out about justice cuts! I respect the likes of Paul Senior and Sue Hall but they're not doing enough if they want it to work. I'm an NPS PO and there is literally no point in joining, in fact I don't even know what it is except that it tried to run before it could walk. I'd love to help them make it work but clearly the PI's priority is membership fees, glossy magazines and pampering the self-believing 'elite'

******
I expect unions to fight for terms and conditions. I expect the PI to promote and preserve probation practice. Being a probation officer has always been and still is a profession. It is more than 'just a job' and therefore should not be subject to silly models and initiatives that strip it bare. This is not idealistic or a "fantasy", the fact is that with many 'professions' such as doctors, lawyers, police, surveyors, counsellors, social workers, etc, us professionals on the frontline should and must expect to be able and supported to do the job we are paid for and held accountable for. The reason for the superstructure of specialist unions, institutes, inspectorates, etc is to ensure this.

******
I am happy to talk to anyone regarding my current dealings with the Probation Institute. Like many I was sceptical at first but the PI will only be as effective as those involved in it and to a large extent prepared to give up their spare time to further its aims and projects. I am fully aware of how it was formed and the relatively small contribution from the MoJ. I think it has value as a means of networking and bringing together different people with an interest in probation that would not necessarily be comfortable dealing with trade unions. My experience has been that there are good people involved such as Paul Senior that those who have been around a while will recognise as good friends of the probation profession and will aim to do no harm. As a profession we need to engage with a wider audience and we need recognised infrastructure to do so. I am happy to hear from anyone directly.

David Raho

******
David Raho, total poppycock. That silly "only as good as it members" line may work in excusing the sham of the Napo exec/leadership, but the PI is not a union. It is in fact the responsibility of those running the PI to make it effective for and attractive to those that make up the profession it seeks to represent. If the PI cannot realise this then it is not ready to be an organisation/institute. There are many posts above stating the failings of the PI and what it could do to change. These points and more have been raised many times over, here and elsewhere. Let it show us how it is a voice of probation and centre of excellence, as it claims, because "networking" is not enough.

******
You are right to say the PI is not a union but some of those commenting do not make that distinction. It does however strive to be a democratic organisation and members therefore have a say. I do not expect it or similar institutes in their infancy to behave in the ways described or as a radical pressure group. However, I think some of the work currently being done may be influential. Nothing is ever as perfect as we want it to be and whilst it is easy to be negative about what exists it can at least be worked with rather than simply dismissed as irrelevant. 

If the PI fails it will be as much a casualty of TR as anything else and will be seized upon by those who's interests are served by deprofessionalising and silencing voices speaking up for the probation profession. As I said before I was initially a sceptic but I can see the sense in engaging with a wider group through the PI who would not necessarily feel comfortable engaging directly with NAPO as a professional association. I'm happy to do this. Without a professional institute there is no obvious home for specialist networks etc to find a home and those with interests in probation would rely on ad hoc professional conferences etc to communicate. So in providing the means to have a forum and network the PI fits the bill. They currently rely on members subscriptions and as far as I am aware do not get any money from the MoJ. My own hope for the PI is that it does provide professional services in the way the Institute for Learning does to te teaching profession. If it's membership increases so will its potential to have a stronger voice and a bit more clout and may well be more critical of policy makers. It is not however and should not be seen as being a trade union.

David Raho

******
If it makes you feel better to say that, congrats. The fact is it was badly set up and is doing little to nothing for our profession. If it's a "professional association" then it should be it now, and not 'when it has enough members'. You may say it's a catch 22 my friend, I say it must put in the work and the members will come. Look how the police spike and fought against cuts and are now protected until 2020. We've not heard a snippet from the PI on TR, sodexo, E3 or the looming cuts, but it claims to be the voice of probation but will not while it bows to the MoJ and romances its privateer friends. As I said, the comments are above and elsewhere, and the PI has done nothing to rectify this. You're not its spokesperson so you can't answer any of this either, so little point debating with me on an old blog post nobody else is reading. I'd love the PI to be an institute of probation, the fact is it is far from it.

Recognition

This blog has been around for some time now and of course really 'took off' as a result of the TR omnishambles, but despite sailing past 2 million hits, it's never been officially acknowledged by either of the main protagonists, Noms and Napo. Although bemused by this, I can say I'm not that surprised and probably grateful as I'd hate to feel in any way compromised in what I might be tempted to publish. 

Right up until dissolution, both the Probation Association and Probation Chief's Association studiously avoided any acknowledment of the blog's existence either and I guess all these bodies would cite the 'unaccountability' through anonymity as reason enough to ignore it publicly, but at the same time read it avidly in private. It's a strange world isn't it, but how big does something that's 'anonymous' have to get before it can be talked about in any official way? As big as Banksy?  

Even the mainstream media have generally given me a wide berth and almost invariably contact with journalists has been a futile exercise I'm sorry to say. Until now, the only exception in openly mentioning the large elephant in the room has been academia, and I guess that's only right and proper in recognising and referencing a useful source of material for when the time comes for the inevitable post mortem on the whole TR omnishambles. 

Happily bloggers as a group are not at all churlish in highlighting each others work and in this context it's pleasing to note that Russell Webster has chosen to cite this blog as a key resource on his contribution 'Should We Reverse The Privatisation Of The Probation Service?' on a brand new discussion website called ShouldWe. I wish the site well in being able to spread the word and distill sometimes complicated issues into easy to read bit-sized chunks. 

On the subject of recognition, following his recent election to the Probation Institute's Representative Council, I'm grateful to Mike McClelland for putting his head above the parapet over the weekend and making the following contributions to the discussion:-  

Just for the record, I applied as an individual. Napo haven't yet decided whether they want to engage in the PI going forwards. I have written to the Officers/GS stating that they need to do this but they've missed the boat re these elections. My election allows them an option. If they decide against further involvement then its my own time going forwards. 

Mike McClelland Not anonymous - just don't know how to operate in the blogosphere & not very keen to find out!

Now that I seem to have figured out how to do this blog thing, just a few more thoughts on the PI. See above as Anonymous for earlier comment.

I've been involved since before its birth and have been on the Steering Group since the outset. The others on the Steering Group, from the PA (now no longer in existence) and the PCA (also now no longer in existence) - that's the Probation Association and the Probation Chiefs Association, and from UNISON are all people who I believe have the best interests of Probation at heart.

The Code of Ethics that we developed are largely based on European Probation Rules and Napo's own Professional Practice Book is sound in my view.

I have always favoured a Professional Register operated independently rather than what we have at present - operated by NOMS and the Prison Service ( see PI 31/14). This is hugely unsatisfactory in my view though nothing we are likely to change this side of the Election and/or the back of Mr Grayling. Then, we might have a chance and the PI is the obvious candidate for operating it. Napo couldn't because of conflicts of interest in the event that we had to represent members faced with being de-barred.

A word more on training.

NOMS are undertaking a review of the PQF. The current contracts with Higher Education (HE) providers expire in March 2016. It is now urgent to plan for a successor training structure to ensure there is no training gap. A Review Group has been convened and has started work . Napo and the PI are represented on this group as are some of the CRCs. But primarily this is aimed at ensuring continuity of training within the NPS to Probation Officer level.

What the CRCs do is up to them - so they can buy into the (son of) PQF if they wish. But the Secretary of State's new training and qualification guidelines, issued under the 2007 Act, are at pains NOT to fetter the CRCs in any way in this respect. It is true that some if not most of the CRCs, in the shape of training staff transferred from Probation Trusts know that training for staff is required and some plans are in place but they have also been waiting to see what the new owners want to do about it. It is fairly evident that the new owners mostly haven't even begun to think about training - other things to think about. We also know that CRC staff, notably PSOs, are feeling very much "second class" in this respect - the longer route to PO qualification having been closed off to them. In fact, the CRCs themselves are pretty fed up since NOMS/NPS staff did not, indeed were not able to, talk to them about training issues until the new owners were in place. They were thus effectively shut out until February.

So yes, the CRCs should be arranging their own training, but who will ensure consistency, accreditation, portability etc? Is it a good idea for the new owners to all plough their own furrows in this respect, or should there be some national co-ordination? We think the latter and see the PI as the obvious vehicle for doing this. Again not something I think Napo could possibly have done. So the PI is planning a workshop later this month to talk to the CRCs about their training requirements and maybe help and guide them to achieving a consistent national framework that works for everybody.

Maybe there is a view that one shouldn't seek to breathe the oxygen of life into the CRCs because we are still completely agin their very existence as private/voluntary sector providers in what we hold as being public sector work. But, like it or not, they are now a fact of life and i believe we have to do our best by their staff, our Napo members, and indeed the service users who should expect properly trained and qualified supervisors. 

That is why I, personally, thus far on behalf of Napo, have been actively working to promote this work alongside what has at times seemed a one person crusade against PI 31/14. So having given my 'take' on training and the PI, if nothing else, I encourage you now to read that Probation Instruction to see what we are up against in terms of a professional register. If you work in Probation - NPS or CRC, it affects you. And if you don't know where to find it - MoJ website - NOMS - Homepage - Probation Instructions.

Alongside this, I have been working with others whom I greatly respect, from HE and other places, under the umbrella of the PI, to develop a training framework mainly for CRC staff (who else would do this?) both basic qualifying and CPD. I don't give their names because I don't think it's appropriate and nor do I have their permission.

I'd be sorry to leave this work if Napo chose not to support the PI going forwards, but I would have to - I work on Napo's Training & Professional committees, but sadly I don't think we have the resources to progress this work. Moreover, I don't believe other stakeholders, such as the new CRC owners would entertain Napo holding such a pivotal role.

I think that Napo and the PI can co-exist and work to the same end - protecting and promoting Probation but in different ways. But you'll need to make up your own minds.
Does it have the ear of Westminster? Not particularly. Certainly not Chris Grayling. Andrew Selous has made positive noises but not much more. It's still all to play for on this front.

Was the election fixed? I doubt it very much. Not a clue how you'd do this. Was it independently verified? No. It's early days in developing democracy within the PI but I think it's moving in the right direction.

Mike - I think I'm right in saying you are the very first Napo official to come on this blog openly and make a contribution - so thanks for that. Any chance you can encourage any of your colleagues to do the same, or at least acknowledge the blog's existence?

Cheers, Jim

I rather doubt it on either front. I responded because you questioned my mandate (understandably). However I like the record to be straight when my motives are questioned. What i have shared with you here is largely about the PI rather than Napo - and of course training. 

Until quite recently I have used TR Briefings as the outlet for most of my information sharing with members. Now that TR as a programme is over, I guess we need to decide on a different vehicle and I have raised this issue. It's difficult to get the balance right - not too much info' and not too little. But, so far as Napo is concerned, I should probably confine myself to official channels - though it is possible I have appeared in other guises over the months past. 

I'm sorry, I'm not well engaged with social media - it's just taken about 3 hours of my holiday to figure out how to respond here! I do keep an eye on your Blog but not every day. I'm confident we both have the best interests of Probation at heart. I fear we have entered a dark period which may last for many years. That isn't even necessarily a criticism of new CRC owners, though if I had my way, it'd still all be in the public sector. The worst of it is that we have had a crazy operating model foisted upon us which will be damaging and difficult to operate. But we have to try to make the best of it for everyones sakes - and primarily that means trying to counter the impact of the fundamental split. I believe the unions and the PI have a central role to play in seeking to achieve this. It's pretty evident, talking to NOMS civil servants, as they shuffle uncomfortably in their seats, that they realise that having no means of talking collectively to CRCs could just be a rather big problem. There is a whole new empire of contract managers with each team managing one of the 21 contracts. I have heard that they are setting up some sort of collective interface but so far details are scant. Competition - v - cooperation. Bit of a tricky challenge.

Mike McClelland

Well, a guest blog will be welcome any time you fancy Mike. 

PI - Jury Still Out

From where springeth Mike McClelland's mandate to seek a representative role on the PI? He is paid by the membership to represent their interests in a so-called 'member-led' union. Is he seeking this position for selfish reasons or on behalf of Napo? If elected, will he be 'representing' in his own time or paid Napo time?

There has been absolutely no attempt by the Napo leadership to engage on the PI. The PI membership has been bloated for political reasons through the corporate funding of membership fees, which would have included personal details being passed on to a third party without the consent of members. Napo's position on the PI is hypocritical and sneaky.

******
There are two perspectives on the PI: one to ignore and boycott, the other to join and influence the direction it takes. I am boycotting it until I know what my future in Probation actually is (I am at a significant risk of redundancy). I would not criticise Mike or Keith for taking the alternative position. I know and trust them both and would feel better knowing they are in there rather than many others I could (but will not) name. NAPO cannot do right by many at the moment but I consider them to be in an invidious position at the moment. We cannot stop the train so need to decide whether we get on or watch it roll off into the distance without us. Both actions will draw criticism.

*******
The sadness is Napo have not developed a disengagement policy for the time being. Ultimately PI maybe the right organisation but the timing is too soon or too late & I am not clear where it leaves Napo's Professional Committee work. In view of there not being a definite motion from 'the floor' to disengage - I presume the NEC had to take some action to get Napo at the centre of the organisation.

What I find so despicable is the PIs complete public silence on the main issue of TR which makes what we have now more dangerous than what preceded - namely the split. I have had past contact with Mike and respected him, I am not so sure now. I think he is in an awful position. Meanwhile MOJ seem planning to bring Napo to their knees by ending the direct deductions from salary. That is at least one issue Labour could make a public stand about NOW - presumably they do still believe in Trades Unions being active in the workplaces?

*******
If the generic Mike's and Keith's of this world wish to take alternative positions, then it's a free country, but these particular namesakes are in positions of leadership in Napo and Napo is scared of actually consulting with it's membership about the PI. 'Member-led' is as nauseous a phrase as '£46 in your pocket'. If they haven't got a mandate then they are self-serving and are patronising the membership – and in the case of the funded Mike, at our expense. The PI is the condom with which the MoJ screwed Napo.

*******
The split has happened, it's about saving what we can. A nice bit of pragmatism here, unburdened by the principle of joining up in the first place. In what way will the PI contribute to the salvation effort? It is not a pressure group, so it will not campaign against TR which would, I suppose, be parricide as it's an offspring of TR.

The PI will be a cultist, networking chatterbox representing TR in all its public/private/third sector diversity - and an earner for some academics. The PI will validate and institutionalise the split. It will do its best to keep its multiplicity of providers happy. That's always easy when you stand for everything in general and nothing in particular.

*******
There have been calls for a Probation Institute for years. We have one now and Napo are now strongly represented within it. I have had some dealings with the PI and they are open to constructive engagement and are no doubt bemused at the continual raging of a handful of contributors to this website who, when not bashing Napo, bash the PI whenever it is mentioned.

Some of the most prominent academics in the probation world and others are now engaging with the PI and yes they are using its meetings and functions to network and build bridges to encourage professional practice. TR is often discussed critically as it has had a disastrous impact on professional practice. We are all trying to get to grip with the new organisations and structures and trying to make the best of things.

PI is not part of TR and has arguably fallen foul of Grayling's cynical attempts at PR manipulation that would have us believe that he dictates the terms of our professional status. Is it any wonder that several of those from Napo who were elected are the ones who have kept the professional light burning for our profession. Now is the time to support the PI and the values it stands for. Grayling wants it to limp along and fail so let's make sure he is disappointed.

*******
Napo is 'strongly represented' in the PI. Yet Napo has been so quiet in promoting PI. Why? To criticise either Napo or the PI is to be one of a handful of discontents, according to its stout defender. As complainants through the ages have heard: 'No one else has complained!'

The claim that PI is not part of TR is a new twist on the truth, but then so was the rhetoric about Brutus being a reasonable man. The PI was a £90k indulgence by the MoJ to demonstrate its pseudo commitment to professional practice and development - to give credence to its TR agenda. But now we must separate these two events and understand there is no connection, just one of life's coincidences. Yet we are told, all they talk about within the walls of the PI are the evils of TR!

The PI people are bridge-builders, busy building bridges, including toll bridges, I presume, that will, perhaps, bridge the spilt. In my jaundiced opinion the PI is a bridge too far. The PI is clearly enabling some tormented souls to 'move on' with their careers and you have to admire their powers of recovery in adapting to the new structures.

*******
I think there's a chance to use it positively. The TR mess will fall whichever way it will. We have little control over that but the PI can be built into something that continues to develop an alternative national voice and doesn't have to be an MOJ lapdog. I believe it will be independent if we support it and work within it.

*******
The PI perhaps represents what might be regarded as the remnants of the establishment within probation ie the bit Westminster really listens to. If you continue to ignore that fact then you are ignoring the realities of the world we live in which clearly suits some. The PI is the only credible connection we have at present to those in power and you are wishing it away. We need to engage more not less as Napo's thinkers and strategists know only too well.

*******
We are not apologising for the PI but rather defending its existence. It is growing and increasingly influential. It is also now attracting funding from a large variety of sources and tapping into funding streams that have long been available to similar institutes in the EU. There are some very smart and experienced people involved and they are in it for the long run. The smart money is on the PI.

*******
Any evidence that 'Westminster listens'? Any evidence it listened to the probation establishment over TR? Maybe it's time the Napo thinkers and strategists went public with their thinking and share it with their member-led union, as it all sounds a bit elitist, what with smart people and smart money.

*******
At AGM in 2013 I voted for an institute with the expectation that a licence to practice would follow which would ensure the future professional standing of my vocation. The half arsed kite mark it seems to be offering is the opposite, and to my mind an insult. Instead of defending our professionalism it will see it diluted.

PS - Another pedestrian blog by Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence and absolutely no mention of the Probation Institute. 

Summing It All Up

I thought this was so good and succinct, I'd republish without delay! Many thanks to the contributor:-

So, we have reached Week 22 and far from systems "bedding in" and adjustment to the new working way, everything just gets worse!

1. IT moves from weakness to weakness with "workarounds" hastily brought in to at least get some semblance of process working now being removed progressively and staff again having to figure out what to do. Still no definitive tried and tested systems but rather bodge jobs that someone must have been paid an awful lot of tax payers money to develop.

2. Courts now progressively moving to majority of reports being done by tick box orals, yes even High Risk, read the PI, it is the national system. Court staff instructed to do this against their professional judgement and OMs becoming increasingly angry at the hasty assessment done by court staff and the absence of information to complete Initial Supervision Plans with. Knock on effect is of course ISP targets being missed and very many likely to be of poor quality due to errr, lack of information. Best not mention that lack of information leads to poor risk assessment eh? 

3. Case Allocation and RSR (Risk of Serious Recidivism) tools proving to be a disaster with most areas having paid scant heed to the detail required and very many having been done incorrectly in the absence of clear guidance and training and of course, appropriate staffing levels. Three line whip on this I hear now with NOMS panicking and sending staff around the country to talk to court based case allocators trying to figure out why everyone is doing this differently.

4. Risk Escalation - the Jewel in the TR Crown - takes 3 hours easily the first time anyone tries to use it (that's CRC 3 hours plus NPS 3 hours) to replace a simple line management discussion. Official timing on this is 24 hours for a decision, previously took perhaps half an hour max? Now takes two PO/PSO grade staff and two managers (CRC/NPS side) so double the staff just to make the decision!

5. Staff split - chickens are really coming home to roost - numbers wrong, locations wrong, roles changing without any discussion or agreement or even consideration of Equality issues. A great example is an NPS colleague trying to use Shared Services who has hearing issues and is told to email rather than phone (yes this has happened) but email will only get a response in 7 days as opposed to hearing colleagues who can get a response instantly on the phone.

6. Breach processes - CRC staff having cases rejected by NPS enforcement officers but not told why and only discover this by a delius entry because NPS staff told not to communicate directly with their former colleagues, there is no time. 

7. Cases still unallocated or being warehoused and held by managers so NOMS can say they have been allocated, but really they are held until a resource (that's PSO/PO) becomes available. So remember for 'case' we really mean a person with complex needs and risks to be assessed. Perhaps sexual offending, perhaps domestic abuse, perhaps mental health, perhaps child protection...perhaps SFO???

8. Duty of care...to service users and to staff being totally disregarded. Truly an Omnishambles of Epic proportions!

Postscript

Don't forget the never ending amount of emails that we keep getting telling us what processes we are now supposed to be following, what changes have happened, the latest instruction etc. Who has time to read them?!