Sunday 15 November 2015

New Probation Priorities

The prison visits I had booked, to meet long sentenced prisoners for the first time, have been cancelled. To save money. Boss has told me I need to cut back on the home visits I do, to make some savings. 6 months ago she told me I needed to do more.

******
Got the timetables for 2 oral hearings in Jan 2016! I've written back to ask, a) does the prison have video conferencing and b) is it okay with the parole board, that I am attending via such a medium? Not cos I'm lazy, my head of LDU has said we cannot travel outside the county! Can't wait to hear the sighs from the Parole Board and astute legal eagles, who sometimes rely on us to give considered evidence and risk management plans!

******
We have been told we can't go to our local prisons either.

******

Everything going to dogs! Heard today, from someone cascading from a learning event, that we're soon to be told, not to use services of CRC, but to shop around or DIY! Apparently, their too expensive, ie £3000 for one referral to a DV programme! I should imagine that will be the fee, even if case doesn't complete! Yahoo! You couldn't make this shit up! If I was really a conspiracy theorist, I might think this is the rationale behind those on the day reports, being done on the hoof and just sent onto CRC projects! Make em rich!

******
From Dec 2015 NPS will not have to use services from CRC, which cost, but can go anywhere for services so long as they don't cost. Huge drop in referrals to Programmes, ETE and Accommodation because there is a charge to NPS whereas before they were free. Absolutely ridiculous!

******

After a right good night out Ive made the mistake of browsing and coming back to the probation reality. Thankfully our plight is nothing compared to the horrors being faced in Paris, Kenya and Syria.

TR was designed to be a failure and has achieved its purpose - the end of probation. E3 is a management model designed to restructure and decimate what's left of probation. E3 and the Civil Service to the NPS is the same as what Sodexo is to the CRC's - one big axe.

Probation management lie and tell us that new measures like E3 and the instruction to downgrade court reports are blueprints and drafts ... "Let's give it a chance" they say. We already know the outcome and sadly London NPS is already implementing these "methods" and the rest will follow. Not so long ago London Probation Trust was the first to sell off community service - now 70% of probation has been sold.

Whether your with the CRC's or NPS it's all about the money for those in control. There is no emphasis on what works, they don't care about good practice and all the evidence for 'end to end offender management' no longer matters.

As always, managers and directors will work us all the way to the slaughterhouse - and they'll be no enhanced redundancy or golfing handshakes for those on the frontline. So in the meantime all we can do is what we've always done;

Do what you're required to do. Clock in, clock out and come to terms with working for a shoddy employer. If they want short reports and "efficient" working then that's what you give them. Work your hours and no more. Record your hours and tasks, and email your manager every time you're about to or do go over your contracted hours. If they want overtime let them pay for it as session work and unsocial hours.

Use team meetings, director briefings and whatever public forums they use to introduce new messages to voice your objections and concerns. Join/rejoin a union and make them fight for us. Napo is rubbish but it's better we've a pathetic weakling fighting our corner than nobody at all.

In reports, in letters, in emails and at meetings and hearings, call yourself a PROBATION OFFICER. Every PO I know signed up to help, rehabilitate and change people for the better. We didn't train to be 'offender managers' and we didn't ask to be civil service robots. Be honest with courts, prisons, parole boards, and all the rest - probation isn't what it once was. It's not our job to explain and apologise for the shite forced on us by probation directors.

PO's, PSO's, Admins and support staff - we're all colleagues and in this mess together. Be nice to each other. Remember there are other jobs and professions out there and THEY WANT YOU.

*******
CRC charge NPS. NPS until Dec have to use CRC services. After that they can choose their providers but they have no money to pay for the services.


40 comments:

  1. I wonder what those well fed white boys in suits at NOMS think about their award? Do they believe they've performed a public service by "transforming rehabilitation"? Do they believe they really did a good job? Or are they just overpaid pawns in a Civil Service game played by senior mandarins? Still, they look pretty pleased with themselves. Who wouldn't? You work hard, you apply yourself, you achieve what's asked of you, you get plaudits for your efforts, you get recognition, a fancy night out & probably a healthy bonus. What's not to like? Perhaps its how people cope with designing & building cluster bombs - focus on achieving a technological success but compartmentalise & distance yourself from the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9.25 o take that as racist. What's "white boys" got to do with their success. Jim I'm reporting racism above. Remove it now!

      Delete
    2. We don't know if 9.25 meant it in a racist sense. Looking at the picture of the TR 'award winners' they are all white males. The vast majority of those involved in TR are white and many are males. In a diverse country I think we should point out when teams are represented by one group, and we do have a problem with white males (and increasingly females) having the monopoly and unfair advantage. But yes the wording shouldn't be confrontational.

      Delete
    3. Why focus on them beinge white instead of their sex or age range. I'm Not having "white boys" as appropriate!

      Delete
    4. The style of the posts from Anon 10:13 and 11:02 is very similar to one of those pro-TR cheerleaders, who often complains about their posts being deleted. I wonder if they're manufacturing a sense of outrage just to stir up trouble?

      Delete
    5. The point remains, they are white men in suits, just how diverse is our leadership?

      Delete
    6. I agree, where are the ethnic or female faces. No diversity at the top.

      Delete
    7. Not on. No other race and gender would have been pointed out in a pejorative manner like that. I'm out - and I've done a guest blog, revealing my own working class credentials. Very sad. Thought better of you Jim.

      Delete
    8. No other race would have had the opportunity to fill all of those positions, let alone be given an award!

      Delete
    9. @ 00:25 That's outrageous classism! How dare you privilege your "working class credentials" over my white middle class socialist identity. That's not on. I hope Jim doesn't post your guest blog.

      /irony

      Delete
    10. No such guest blog piece has arrived.

      Delete
  2. Look forward to maybe 10 years time and then maybe the service will be in serious trouble. There are alot of probation officers who are dedicated to what they do now working in the service, however, new blood may be difficult to retain. I mean who wants to work in an office where they can't even get a drink of water unless it comes from the tap. Is there going to be new trainee's using probation as a stepping stone to better things? Is anyone in the higher chambers, actually thinking about the future of the service or are they just thinking well I'll be retired by then who cares!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll be happy to get under 10 years as my mortgage will go right down then.

      Delete
  3. At risk of being considered moronic again -

    consider in addition to signing yourself "PROBATION OFFICER" add your professional qualifications and the date and place where they were obtained.

    i wish I had thought of doing that as soon as probation training was split from social work.

    I think such a suggestion is valid also for probation officers who became a probation officer after the training split particularly those who have what might be termed a 'pure' social work qualification awarded since about 1998/99.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It's important to state we are PROBATION OFFICERS and show we are qualified to do the job.

      OFFENDER MANAGER is the title they introduced to devalue our role and its use does not require qualifications.

      Delete
    2. Funny you should say that, Andrew - putting our professional qualifications in our email signature is a requirement in our CRC 'style guide' (Working Links area). It seems strange to me that anyone would want to downgrade the qualification - it's part of the brand, after all, and what they've bought into.

      Delete
    3. CRC's want to promote 'probation officer' to give credibility to their cut price operations.

      NPS/NOMS want to erase 'probation officer' to justify their plans for probation on the cheap.

      It's a funny old world.

      /Probation Officer

      Delete
  4. Probation Officer
    BA English/Philosophy
    MPhil Social Work
    Certificate of Qualification in Social Work

    Proud of being one, and will continue to call myself a PO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probation Officer - BA (Hons) Applied Social Science with Certificate of Qualification in Social Work. Twenty-nine years post qualifying experience and not ready to quit yet!

      Delete
    2. Me neither!

      Delete
  5. Probation Officer - BA (Hons), BSC (Hons), MA, DipPS. 15 years experience as a Probation Officer. I'm not ready to quit and I've never called myself an 'offender manager'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a lot of dick measuring on here with people pulling out their qualifications. Why? Come on guys. Have some class. I've got no university qualification and I do my bit day in day out protecting the public.

      Delete
    2. Not so. I just see people saying that they're proud to be qualified and able to do the job we love, even if the government doesn't give a rats arse about us. Most PO's are highly educated but most people don't know this, and when many of the other professions we work with are required to state their qualifications. The comment in the title post says be proud to be a PO, and don't let them turn us into 'offender managers'.

      Delete
    3. What a load of status rot . I do all the roles required me I don't care what I am called at all . Delivering FDR delivering in court breaches and swearing them in all no problem. Writing SFRs risk assessment no problem I am well qualified and all the letters I need at my desk is PSO ! Grow up you lot its over, learn what equality means and you might have had a chance with support.

      Delete
    4. Good for you. Yes most PO's and PSO's do simile roles nowadays, though hierarchy is ever present in probation and has its pros and cons. But let's not slate the gaining and sharing of qualifications, it's the norm for the psychologists, counsellors, tutors, medics and even support staff I work with. It's a good thing for staff and clients alike.

      Delete
    5. 23:46 and 00:22 (assuming you're the same person) - I think you've missed the point. No-one is trying to do you down. The NPS and some CRCs are blurring the role boundaries dangerously and it will be to everyone's detriment.

      You do FDRs, SFRs and risk assessments? Well done, I'm sure you do it well, and the court PSOs that I know are extremely competent. But it wasn't that long ago that a PSO wouldn't have be put in that position because of proper role boundaries. Effectively you're being asked to do work that a PO would have done a few years ago, but without the extra pay. Some people might call that being exploited, not equality.

      I don't know your background - perhaps you didn't want to train as a PO, perhaps you didn't have the opportunity - but I'm sure if you had you would be extremely proud of the qualification, as it's a demanding couple of years. I've supported PSOs to gain their VQ3 qualifications and I know they were all chuffed to bits when they completed them. Why shouldn't anyone else be proud of what they've achieved?

      By standing up for professional qualifications people are trying to resist a dangerous tide of de-professionalism. When I go to see my GP, I want to know that he's a doctor, not just a "health manager". If I speak to an architect, I want to know that she's a member of RIBA, not just a "blueprint developer." If they remove the value of the PO qualification, what's to stop them coming after PSOs too? How long before a well-meaning volunteer is doing some of your paperwork and then deciding that they can do just as good a risk assessment, but for free?

      Delete
    6. Volunteers are already doing clerical work in one CRC I know of and effectively acting in loco parentis for qualified staff in supervising offenders. I've heard of one volunteer with a counselling qualification undertaking such work - but with absolutely no qualified supervision - in direct contravention of professional standards and best practice.

      Delete
    7. 03:31 assumption wrong. PSOs doing the same roles for year no pay recognition is the exploitation that has been supported by the status PO nothing more or less.

      Delete
    8. I disagree. In most places PSO's did not write Pre Sentence Reports, did not supervise high risk of harm cases, did not complete parole reports and attend hearings. There are other functions that on probation officers could do which is reflective of training/qualification and pay.

      Delete
    9. @19:55 That's exactly the point I made. Qualifications aren't a fool-proof guarantee of quality - and the lack of qualifications certainly isn't any indication of lack of competence - but they are a benchmark.

      In many cases I think the role boundaries have been eroded out of a sheer sense of goodwill, e.g. court PO X is off sick during the summer holidays, court SPO Y doesn't have anyone to cover, so asks court PSO Z - who's good at their job and well-liked by the bench - to step in for a little while. PSO Z feels flattered by the request and is confident in their ability to write some reports rather than just answering questions about those written by POs A, B and C back at the office, so agrees. 6 months down the line, PO X is back at work but grateful to have someone else helping with the never-ending tide of reports, and SPO Y is flattered by comments from the bench about their 'promotion' of PSO Z. End result: PSO Z carries on doing reports but without getting any extra remuneration.

      That process - albeit with slight variations in each case - happened in two of the courts I've worked at, and I would be astonished if it hadn't happened elsewhere. I suspect the case of the counsellor mentioned by Jim above (and how dangerous is that, by the way?) is a similar situation - someone offering their help and having their hand bitten off, but without the proper framework in place to ensure quality.

      When I call it "de-professionalism" I certainly don't mean any slight on PSOs' competence or attitude. I mean the removal of clear standards from what is still, despite Failing Grayling's efforts, considered a profession. If we allow this to happen then everyone will be ridden over with some very rough shoes.

      Delete
  6. The only priorities are the service levels and reducing Re - offending. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like cutting costs and making profit!

      Delete
    2. 23:44, are you Phil Andrew from Working Links?

      Delete
  7. I am not and have never been an Offender Manager, were I to manage their offending they would be better at it. If you want to give me a stupid title call me a "Desistance Manager". Or better a Probation Officer as that is what I am

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm off to an oral hearing today, on my own, to face the panel, client, hmp, secretary of state representative and defence solicitor. To represent the service I love and I accept that responsibility, as we provide the risk manage plan, nobody else. I do so, proud of my credentials, but also my knowledge and experience of working with those who present the greatest risk to others!

    The client group do not present an equal risk, so different responses and knowledge is required to address this! The parole board want me to fix my colours to the mast, keep in, go to open or release today, and I get paid to take on that responsibility which, in my book seems fair! In every other profession the risks people take, the responsibility they take for those risks, so it's no different in the public sector, be it police, fire fighters, medicine, social work, so unless you're prepared to get the necessary credentials, enjoy the job you do, to the best of your ability, but resist the temptation to think "it's all common sense" if it were my oral hearing would not throuw up the levels of aniexty it has, even when I'm on solid ground!

    I have always had a strong belief in just accepting, you don't know, is what you don't know! Happy Monday!

    ReplyDelete
  9. NPS priorities are also changing with regards to future probation officer trainees.
    Firstly it is open to anyone who is willing to pay (approx £1000) to complete number of University modules. Secondly, passing the modules will not guarantee one a place as one will have to go through a selection process. Lastly, the new training will be for a year only.

    I don't know what CRC probation officer training will look like. Perhaps, someone can comment.

    I don't know what NPS will look like in the future but I can only try my best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A years training is not enough to be a probation officer. Even the current PQF model of 18 months is not enough and the result is fresh faced uni grads with a diploma and not enough understanding of the job. Do they still complete a degree programme?

      More reason to now state qualifications next to name in emails and formal letters/reports. Being a probation officer is a profession and we should ensure all are aware that we are qualified, and of the point the job was de-professionalised.

      The advocates of the old training programme fought hard to keep it as part of a university degree programme, and rightly so. In a few years from now if the Tories are successful in removing the training altogether it will be important to know who trained as CQSW, DipSW, DipPS, etc.

      Andrew, I understand your point that you should have done this when the social work qualification was removed.

      Delete
    2. CRC PO training *should* be the same as NPS, given that it's a national qualification and training arrangement. Whether the CRCs are willing to fund the training, is another matter.

      Delete
    3. The new training takes substantially more than a year to complete

      Delete
    4. It takes 15 months if you already hold relevant degree. This is the only route really being used hence the influx of fresh faced graduates. Not all degrees are actually 'relevant', eg police studies, and 15 months is not long enough to be grounded in probation work/knowledge from scratch. If this is being further reduced to a year then it's pointless.

      Delete