It's interesting to note that after six weeks of blogging, my most visited post is on the subject of PSO's. Without doubt this is a tricky area, especially for someone like me that's 'old-style', but I have been thinking it's a topic I should return to. I've been prompted by a recent response by a PSO to a comment made on the Magistrates Blog and a comparison with PCSO's. I can well understand she feels insulted, possibly as I might be by her comment that "Unfortunately, I come across scores of 'old school' PO's who haven't adapted and are still using out-dated methods and are simply not capable of adequately managing the risk of the people they work with."
I think it's very unfortunate that a colleague seeks to denigrate such experienced colleagues, many of whom will have spent years supervising dangerous people, often alone in their homes, in the days before mobile phones, panic alarms and risk assessments. But this very neatly serves to illustrate the cultural and professional divide that has been forced upon the Service and the tensions that inevitably result. But it doesn't get us very much further because we both know there are hapless PSO's just like there are some unsuitable PO's. As it happens some of the scariest people I've ever met have been PO's, and some of the laziest have been PSO's, but to a certain extent that's life.
Firstly some history. When I joined, typically each field probation office or team had a Probation Service Ancillary or Assistant who might have started as a volunteer, or in the case of my office, a clerical officer. Their duties did not involve supervising any clients, but rather undertaking ancillary tasks like transporting clients or family members to a distant prison, or other similar practical tasks. Remember these were the days when we were called the Probation and After-Care Service and indulged in things like Kindred Social Work, Matrimonial Supervision Orders or even Money Payment Supervision Orders. These posts had absolutely no training attached and this remained the case when the post title initially changed to Probation Services Officer. In recent years there has been some general training for PSO's as their role steadily expanded and began to attract a different type of person, more frequently with a degree and aspirations of qualifying as a PO. This situation will become the norm as from April this year the only route to PO qualification will be via previous employment as a PSO.
Obviously during this period of extensive transition we have many PSO's with varying periods of service and levels of experience, training, expectation and capability. One of the real concerns both for them and PO's is the role boundary and that is becoming ever more blurred as the numbers of qualified PO's reduces. Management are continually finding ways of basically getting PSO's to do the work of PO's as they are cheaper. I am aware that some areas are allowing PSO's to take on Tier 4 cases, the highest level of risk and involving sex offenders, domestic abuse and similar.
I've already pointed out that many PSO's, in addition to preparing FDR's, are being asked to write full PSR's with counter-signing by qualified staff. We are rapidly approaching the point where it will be obvious that there is no difference between the two grades, apart from about £7,000 per annum. So, the obvious question will be, why have a PO grade at all if it can all be done by PSO's? Why bother with the training programme? What is going to happen to the staff who qualify, only to be told there are no PO posts? In such a situation, it's going to be very difficult to resist management when they ask such PSO's to do a PO's job nevertheless.
My colleague's penultimate line states "And plenty of newer PO's that are too jaded to care any more." As a Service we've got ourselves into a real mess by basically 'dumping' all the accumulated experience of 'old-style' officers and along the way denying its relevance. I think it's going to be very difficult for this new type of officer to cope in the long term, and deliver all that is expected, as possibly the selection, training, and preparation just hasn't been sufficient or thorough enough.
Some light relief:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgdnDOe6uc
I perhaps should've finished with a comment on how many (in my opinion) sub-standard PSO's there are too.
ReplyDeleteI simply don't understand how so many people (of all grades; reception staff up to management) take so little pride in the work they do. And it can get so frustrating when you spend so long producing a quality piece of work (to ensure it's good quality for the Court, to adequately manage risk or to try to engage the person you're working with) to see other colleagues get away with consistent laziness or poor practice. It's disheartening and de-motivating. But what can you do?
So few cases go wrong enough to attract management attention, that it's easy to get away with this sort of work.
A few points to note - as part of the new qualification framework, there is a graduate diploma qualification (that takes 15 months rather than 3 years) that doesn't require you to have been a PSO first, provided you have a "relevant" degree. In practice however, my area is taking on these graduates as PSOs for a few months first.
Any that qualifies under the new framework, but for whatever reason does not become a PO, is a bloody idiot if they accept PO-grade work without the PO title. Can't refuse management? Why on earth not?
I can't help but question the point of a whole probation service/trust that is willing to compromise themselves and the integrity of what "we" do, to the extent they're letting unqualified officers assess and manage cases that pose a high risk of serious harm.
A-177
Thanks for writing, by the way.
A-177 Thankyou for responding. I agree entirely poor or unprofessional work by colleagues is always dispiriting. Glad you're still reading and I look forward to hearing from you again. Cheers, Jim
ReplyDeleteBehind this development regarding the staff professionalism is something I call "casualisation"; it is happening with all service-providing institutions and organisations but particularly with public bodies.
ReplyDeleteWhat this means in practice is that less-qualified, if qualified at all, people are doing work formerly done by more qualified and trained ones but are presented as being little different from these colleagues - and often act as if they are (sometimes as if they're better).
I am putting together a blog to illustrate this, called "All Is Phoney" (http://allisphoney.blogspot.com - gated at the moment). I am using the
combination of "Phoney" and names to create neologisms that I ( and maybe others) can use to discuss casualisation and fakeness.
So I've created the words "Phobation" (pronounced 'foe-bation') and "Phobation Officer" for what's happening in your profession. As you partly inspired me to do that, you're welcome to use the words anywhere.
Westengland - sounds interesting and I look forward to seeing how you develop the argument. A new term indeed - look how cutting edge this is all becoming...
ReplyDeleteI have been a PSO for many years. The new allocation model since we have merged with NPS is that we are now being allocated all types of offenders. My issue is that I do not feel comfortable managing high risk orders and lifers. POs have received substantial amount of training to manage such orders and are being paid accordingly. Why are PSOs expected to work with such offenders for less money. Surley there should be a cap on cases held by PSOs (70+) who have not had the intense training. Given the amount of SFOs who by the way are mainly managed by PSOs .
ReplyDelete