No Answers - Just Questions

It would seem that Napo have decided on a policy of asking questions, rather than answering any. The following has gone out to all members today:-

Dear Member,

We are writing to invite you to take part in an online survey about your experiences of TR and the probation split. The survey is being carried out by Professor Gill Kirton and Dr Cecile Guillaume of Queen Mary University of London as part of their research on the gender and union effects of TR.

To be clear, this research is about women and men, and seeks to encompass the full diversity of Napo membership across dimensions of race/ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age, job grade, etc.

Gill and Cécile have conducted interviews with Napo officers in 18 branches and met members at branch events, and these conversations and observations have informed the content of the survey. Gill and Cécile will share the survey results with Napo, but the research is entirely independent and all responses will be anonymous.

This is a fantastic opportunity for all members to have your say about how you are affected by TR and the probation split. We anticipate that the survey will help Napo to achieve a fuller understanding of what is happening to members in probation workplaces so that we can move forward with an evidence-based strategy for organising our union.

The survey is online and should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You can save your responses and return to the survey later if you don’t have time to complete it in one go.

We encourage you to take part – we want to hear from as many members as possible. Please note that the survey will close on 10th July 2015.

Strangely enough, only today Russell Webster has been highlighting the work recently published in the British Journal of Criminology that appears to cover similar ground:-

Criminal Justice Identities in Transition: The Case of Devolved Probation Services in England and Wales

Abstract

This article presents the findings of an ethnographic study of the formation of one CRC, with a specific focus on the construction and negotiation of identities. We identify a number of key themes, prominent among which is ‘liminality’: i.e. the experience of being betwixt and between the old and the new, the public and the outsourced. Other themes discussed in the article include separation and loss, status anxiety, loyalty and trust, liberation and innovation.

Now dare I venture to suggest that "Other themes discussed in the article include separation and loss, status anxiety, loyalty and trust, liberation and innovation." will be very familiar to regular readers of this blog. Indeed, it's been pointed out to me that a recent book entitled:- 

Privatising Probation: Is Transforming Rehabilitation the End of the Probation Ideal? also covers similar ground and what's more is another academic work that has kindly chosen to reference this blog. 

Synopsis

Over the past twenty years, England and Wales have witnessed many changes to probation governance aimed at shifting control to the central government. However, the changes introduced under the Coalition Government's 2013 Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda are unprecedented: probation has been divided and partially privatized. This topical book looks at the attitudes of probation practitioners and managers toward the philosophy, values, and practicalities of TR. Based on a unique online survey of over 1,300 respondents that found practitioners were unequivocally opposed to TR's broad aims and objectives, "Privatising Probation" provides unique insights into the true beliefs of probation staff and how they deliver these services. Including broader discussion of the privatisation and marketisation debate and placing the privatization of criminal justice services and questions of legitimacy and governance in context, this book is essential reading for everyone interested in the future of probation.

Whilst academia can clearly see the worth of this blog in having provided several years worth of first-hand testimony during these unprecedented times for the probation profession, Napo steadfastly sticks to its policy of refusing engagement or even acknowledgement. 

Why, a dickie bird tells me that a forthcoming questionnaire being prepared at the behest of the Trade Union Organisation Committee (TUO) is going to skirt around difficult issues and will not be referencing the blog, or indeed even the moribund Napo forum! 

COMMUNICATION

If Napo set up online networks for different roles and grades to communicate and share experiences (eg a managers forum, an administrators forum, a forum for PQF trainees etc) would you take part?
Yes
No
Maybe

Do you vote in Napo elections for National Officers?
Always
Sometimes
Never

Would you vote if you could do so online?
Yes
No

Do you get enough info from your local branch?
Not enough
About the right amount
Too much

Do you get enough info from Napo HQ?
Not enough
About the right amount
Too much

Do you use Napo's website?
Yes
No

If yes, do you read Napo news online?
Yes
No

Do you read Gen Secs blog?
Yes
No

Do you read the Probation Journal? 

Yes

No

Would you use the website more if it was easier to access/navigate?
Yes
Wouldn't make a difference

CONFERENCES 

Have you ever attended any of the following?
AGM
Managers seminar
Women in Napo
PSO forum
Professional conference

Do you think these conferences should continue?
AGM
Manager conference
Women in Napo
PSO conference

Should AGM be:
Annual
Biannual

Should AGM:
Continue to be open to all members to attend
Become a delegate conference with branches electing reps to attend

I'm sometimes accused of being anti-Napo, but I would suggest they are sometimes their own worst enemy. I don't know who takes responsibility for the above draft, but to call it amateur would perhaps be being kind. At best the authors are ignorant of some basic law, or at worst just plain anti-democratic. An AGM that isn't annual? An AGM that isn't open to all members? If it wasn't so serious, it would be quite funny.