A Clear Message 2
A number of people have been calling for a response from Napo regarding pulling out of the Probation Institute. Well to be fair it's been pointed out to me that National Chair Tom Rendon made the official position clear last month in this piece written for Napo news. The trouble is, I've not seen anyone support this line on here and you do begin to wonder if there is a disconnect between the top and the membership?
There are fashions in criminal justice that come and go with the seasons. When I was a trainee Probation Officer, we learned about warmth, empathy and genuineness but, organisationally, the approach to clients- sorry, offenders- was all about enforcement and public protection. The new tough talking Probation Service was at odds with the training we received. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy was the order of the day and damn it if you didn’t address offending behaviour on day one of supervision. Never mind the practical problems clients faced- it was all about thinking skills. Centrally driven targets would drive up standards. Did they really?Then it all changed. Targets were burned. CBT was ‘soooo last year darling’ and offender engagement was the new kid on the block. Let’s spend time building relationships with offenders- sorry, now called service users. Many of us breathed a sigh of relief although it was slightly annoying to be told how to do your job by NOMS. A recent Minister of Prisons and Probation said he wanted staff to spend time with those who had offended. An exasperated colleague replied, “I don’t know what you think I’ve been doing for the past 25 years!” We have been advised to look at the psychodynamic reasons for offending and spend time taking case histories. Now the government wants to shift the emphasis to accommodation and employment.
Of course, the above description is something of a parody and it is a truism that all of those approaches have merit. But the essential point is that no one approach is better than the other because much of it depends on the needs of the person sat in front of us. Our profession involves all of those approaches and it is inevitable- and welcome- that the job evolves and develops. The problem is that we get blown about in the prevailing political discourse and have, hitherto, lacked an independent, institutional anchor that brings together the best from academia and practice. The Probation Institute provides us with that opportunity. It’s always been needed to provide what one member described as the ‘academic backbone to our job’. The need for it has become more pressing given the government’s intention to privatise probation.
Napo has supported a Licence to Practice as a way to safeguard training and professional standards and this is vital in a new era of fragmentation. Napo is a professional association and will continue to be so but it is not appropriate for us to act in that way. We might be called upon to represent someone who may not be meeting the standards required by register and it is right that we do that as a trade union.
Subject to ongoing consent by our National Executive Committee, Napo, along with Unison, the Probation Chief’s Association and the Probation Association has been involved with developing the Institute. The organisation is in the very early stages of development; registering itself as a company, writing a Code of Ethics, getting a bank account etc. It is planned to develop over time to include a professional register and hold seminars and events to contribute to continuous professional development. As I have written before, the first principle of the Institute is that it is independent. It was a shame, therefore, that the government announced the formation of the Institute in the same breath as privatisation. This has led to a conflation of the two and I have been asked whether the Institute is a fig leaf for privatisation. The answer is no. If it was, we wouldn’t touch it. Instead, the Probation Institute offers a way to ensure we embed our knowledge and values, and lead the way, in the changing landscape of community justice.
Tom Rendon
National Chair
Napo has supported a licence to practice maybe but it doesn't seem to be a priority for the PI and, let's be honest, the MoJ don't want it to be.
ReplyDeleteGood to see the PI on consecutive front pages, but doubtful that stubborn Napo will grasp this nettle. The notion of a licence to practice is a pipe dream. So we now have a fig leaf and a pipe dream. If a licence to practice was so close to Napo's heart why wasn't it agitating fifteen years back when we saw the first signs of deprofessionalisation taking root with all it's attendant quarrels about role boundaries. That, of course, was another time when Unison and Napo did not see eye to eye, as Unison was naturally looking to protect its PSO members.
ReplyDeleteNapo has been wrong-footed on PI and it should cease trying to justify it at this critical time. When the enemy is waving its £90,000, you don't wax on about a licence to practice, academic backbone and other aspirations – you fight the battle right in front of your nose. Throwing PI back into the MoJ's face would be a symbolic and substantive act of resistance to TR – and another way of saying, probation is not for sale!
This maybe the napo view and I know it is genuine. But Grayling and the MOj have out manoeuvred napo on this occasion, the outline of TR clearly places an emphases on the PI as an integral part of the privatisation plans. While NPs PO staff continue to need to be qualified CRCs do not need to sign up to any agreement which protects a professional qualification. This does not protect or promote professionalism in CRCs. The MOJ has provided funds for PI - if PI was supposed to look independent then this should have been refused. Nothing that Tom writes changes my mind, at this moment in time, THE PROBATION INSTITUTE undermines probation workers struggle and the forthcoming strike action. Napo I need leadership, I want to wholeheartedly oppose TR in all it's forms, that why I voted for strike action, that's why I've attended marches, rallies and stood on picket lines and had numerous discussions with my colleagues and manager. I need my union to be there for me, please napo withdraw from PI before next strike days. We can start our own PI with academics etc. and I'd pay to join, but I'm having nothing to do with this MOJ funded PI which is promoted and supported by grayling. No way
ReplyDeleteAnnon 10:36
DeleteI agree fully with the sentiments and concerns you express, with exception of CRCs not having to sign up to any professional qualification.
It is only my personal opinion, but to retain any credability in the delivery of probation work by the private sector, and to mask a level of professionalism to the general public then they must sign up to some level of training and qualification.
And I feel that is exactly what the PI will exist for, to provide that level of quaification, which once achieved then a licence to practice will be issued.
Unfortunately, I believe that level of training and qulification required to get that licence will be very poor indeed. Not so much a shift from O'Level to GCSE, more of a jump from A'Level to 11Plus.
It may even take the form of probation practice NVQ,Level 1,2,3, with management requiring Level 4.
So to me a licence to practice is just a smoke screen to ligitimise a sub standard service provided by profit driven corporations, who care nothing of social ethics, the staff they employ, or the clients they're charged with supervising.
The PI is just a machine that will syphon professional standards, and readjust them into ecconomic design models and market friendly of the shelf packages.
Members missed an opportunity to make Napo grasp the Probation Institute nettle - as far as I understand it - by not making it part of the business with a motion at the SGM.
ReplyDeleteA way forward now is for a motion about it from a branch to the National Executive Committee.
Andrew you are correct! We need to put the motion forward as soon as possible.
DeleteLets face it, if all we do is sort accommodation and employment, we don't need qualifications. PO's have qualified for nought. It'll be a totally different world now. CRC's will take over all in the name of profit.
ReplyDeleteOff topuc but relative to the bigger picture including bidders for TR.
ReplyDeletehttp://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2014/03/openness-and-outsourcing/
Fantastic approach to fighting crime! Only the offenders with addresses and jobs left to deal with now!!
ReplyDeleteMaybe something could be learnt from the barristers?
Deletehttp://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/2087-guest-post-notes-from-the-frontline-of-grayling-day-the-whole-system-is-in-revolt
We should have been out with the barristers
DeleteDoes anyone know exactly when the membership were asked to vote on whether to join the PI? I know there was a mandate to explore the proposal, but was the actual signing up to it agreed by the membership at large? Is this a case of being given an inch and taking a mile?
ReplyDeleteThe PI has not had proper debate at NEC and in fact little information has been presented to us. When the NEC was asked to vote it was at the same time it had gone public and after Grayling announced the funds provided by MOJ. Many NEC reps believed NAPO should pull out. We had been continually told by the officers and officials that a licence to practice was not going to be supported by the government. Suddenly it was the PI that was the elixir for professionalism and being sold to NEC as the best thing since sliced bread! NEC were not kept in the dark about the developments of the PI by accident, it was a strategic move by NAPO (Tom) and the NEC, majority vote, supported continuation of NAPO involvement despite the arguments and concerns over government interference which still remains a concern.
ReplyDelete