I bet most people 'on probation' assume that the person they see on a regular basis is a probation officer. This would be a reasonable assumption for sentencers to make as well, be they Magistrates, District Judges or Crown Court Judges. But they would almost certainly be wrong as in reality supervision of all but the most risky cases is now undertaken by people with the confusingly similar title of Probation Services Officer. What many might also find surprising is that most have no relevant qualifications and only a minimum of training. Indeed in my own Service there have been recent examples of clerical staff being appointed as temporary Probation Services Officers. As a cost saving measure it is now most unlikely to find a qualified probation officer serving as court duty officer in any Magistrates Court, all having been replaced with PSO's. In a few years it will be the same even at Crown Court and already PSO's are replacing qualified staff in prison, including the Maximum Security Estate. Whatever management might say, it's self evident that the quality of service is not going to be the same.
It was finally decided in April this year what the new training regime will be for probation officers. For the last nine years or so each probation area had selected Trainee Probation Officers as part of a centrally organised national recruitment programme and each was paid a salary as they undertook the two year distance learning degree and level four NVQ. From now on the only route to probation officer qualification will be via progression from Probation Services Officer and a similar distance learning course. However, the suspicion has to be that in order to save money, the number of PSO grades will continue to rise at the expense of qualified probation officers.
As far as I am aware it is still a legal requirement that Pre Sentence Reports for court can only be prepared by a qualified probation officer. However, the situation was confused some time ago when Fast Delivery Reports were conceived, partly as a replacement for the previous ad hoc 'Stand Down' verbal reports at court. Basically FDR's were introduced so that unqualified PSO's could prepare them and as a cheaper alternative to full PSR's. But things have moved on further now and some Service's are getting PSO's to write full PSR's with a nominal counter signing by qualified staff. Surely sentencers must have noticed these changes and a corresponding reduction in quality of reports? For goodness sake speak up or before we know it the system will be completely discredited and there will be suggestions that reports are becoming superfluous as an aid to sentencing. That will not only be bad news for the probation service, but for justice itself in my view.
Just over from 'the Magistrate's blog' and both interested in what you are saying and depressed by it.
ReplyDeleteAs a PO myself (or OM in 'doublespeak'), good luck with this Blog. Would you have any objections if I posted a link on the forum section of NAPO's website?
ReplyDeleteAlso just flown in from the Magistrate's Blog. I'm on the supplementary list now, but I recognise that slide into ineffectiveness that has begun. But it's all part of the big picture. The same thing is happening to social work, CAFCASS, the police (PCSO), education (classroom assistants), I could go depressingly on, and I fear with the October spending review the process will accelerate - that's if anyone actually gets to court anymore, what with PNDs, conditional cautions and other diversionary measures.
ReplyDeleteSorry to be so optimistic.
Many thanks for the comments - I hope to stimulate a bit of debate so Obi-wan a link to the NAPO forum would be fine. By the way I've resolutely refused to use the term 'offender manager' - I'm a PO and proud of it! Payasoru - I couldn't agree more - perhaps we both remember the early days of CPS - with qualified Crown Prosecutors in Magistrates Courts....?
ReplyDeleteNot sure the Union have done us any favours on the issues of role boundaries and training. An old activist I knew suggested we should have gone down the route of establishing a regulating body to police the qualification and professional development as with Social work and teaching, ah well.
ReplyDeleteI think, by some chance happening, I'm probably the last PO contracted in our service with everyone else being OM's. Ah well, they've managed to get rid of me anyway.
Good luck with the blog
Hi, Enjoyed wht I've read so far, Can I swap links with you?
ReplyDeletehttp://doormansblog.blogspot.com/
A most interesting blog, congratulations. I have just flown in here from the "Magistrates Blog" Too. One thing I have noticed on the "Grits for Breakfast" blog, (A blog which deals with the criminal justice system in the state of Texas) is the strain placed on the Texas jail system by the use of "blue warrants", these are warrants issued by probation officers to jail persons who are on parole. Sheriffs departments in Texas complain that all to often that these are used by probation officers to show "Who is in charge". I was wondering if there is any of this sort of thing happening here in the UK as I recall seeing that one of the categories of the prison population with the greatest increase in numbers was persons recalled to prison.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed an increasing number of reports being prepared by "Trainee Probation Officers" - is that the same as a PSC? One that particularly stood out was in a nasty paedophile case involving multiple victims over a period of time. The report was self-contradicting and inaccurate in many places and signed off by a trainee.
ReplyDeletePaul - recalls to prison are not that common in my experience and not too easy to obtain either. Once the PO takes the decision, management has to be convinced at SPO then ACO level before the forms go off to NOMS - and there is no guarantee that recall is automatic. Obviously it's different if the case is high risk - recall can be swiftly completed in a couple of hours by fax. More recalls could be due in part to a larger prison population and possibly everyone wanting to 'cover their backs' more nowadays.
ReplyDeletephatboy - it could be that your area has started the new training programme for those PSO's selected for PO training. Any report by a TPO must be counter-signed by an SPO or PDA (Practice Development Assessor)and it is to be hoped they have read it. Sadly I have seen many examples of such reports that I would not regard as 'fit for purpose'. Of course sentencers always have the avenue to supply feedback - good or bad.
Well, I've seen cracking good fast-delivery reports and rambling and confusing 'full' PSRs, so wouldn't subscribe to any generalisations.
ReplyDeleteBaldybeak - me too and of course generalisations can be dangerous. I used to love doing 'standowns' before FDR's came along - of course they are mostly used to confirm that a particular sentence is appropriate, so can be succinct. The point about PSR's is that the process by which they are now prepared almost guarantees that they will be rambling and confused.
ReplyDeleteWhilst we occasionally get garbled PSRs, and ones littered with speelnig misstakes, we rarely get ill-considered ones or those where the recommendation is so wide of the mark (either up tariff or down) as to be risible. But perhaps we are lucky on my patch.
ReplyDeleteI second Baldybeak. Especially as I take the preparation of my own FDR/ODRs extremely seriously and I see many poor quality PSRs for POs.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I'm proud of the work I do and confident that the reports I produce (and many colleagues) are of a good quality and aid sentencers as they are meant to, I am only too aware (having been a Court Officer) that some other PSO colleagues are not the same.
Through lack of training, lack of ability or lack of caring. It's a depressing situation.
Despite being a PSO, being young and being female, I am qualified to carry out this job. (Although I'm sure, based on what I've read so far, you'd believe otherwise!)
I've been lucky enough to finish an NVQ in time to start the new qualification soon. 3 years of academic study and a level 5 NVQ, all whilst under the supervision of a qualified PO/SDO and a PDA. I am confident this will create a capable workforce to manage high/v.high risk offenders. And I can't wait to write my first PSR.
I'll be reading your blog with interest, although I anticipate it will be with a degree of frustration!
P177 - thanks very much for posting and I wish you well on your journey to becoming a PO. I thought long and hard before starting this blog and my aim is to get a dialogue going on the issues, not to knock any group of colleagues although it might seem like that I appreciate. Please carry on reading and perhaps spread the word - probation is such a brilliant job and I really want it to remain so. You are its future after all.
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering my question
ReplyDeleteThe objections you hear here are from POs wanting to protect the status of the job, nothing more. PSOs are perfectly capable of doing the tasks they are asked to do. In my own area, when the essential car user allowance was removed a group of POs actually started a campaign to get PSOs to take voluntary pay cut to keep the professional boundaries! PSOs are essential. POs are not and they know it
ReplyDeleteWell said Anonymous, as a PSO I fully agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your post, thanks for sharing the post, i would like to hear more about this in future
ReplyDelete