PI and the Brave New World

With some trepidation, I think it's time to mention the Probation Institute again. I notice they are looking for two Directors (unpaid):-

Dear member

PROBATION INSTITUTE DIRECTOR APPOINTMENTS

I am writing to let you know that the Probation Institute has two vacant director positions and to invite you to consider applying. Directors – who need to be members of the Institute - are responsible for the management of the Probation Institute, setting its direction of development and ensuring that it operates in the interests of all its members.

The Institute’s Representative Council, at its next Annual General Meeting on 24 May 2016, will consider nominations and conduct an election.

To be a candidate you will need the support of a member of the Representative Council (an up-to-date list can be requested from admin@probation-institute.org) and you should also submit a short - no more than 500 words - personal statement setting out why you wish to be a director and the relevant experience you would bring to the Board. Electronic submissions are preferable. To be eligible to be considered for election as director, you must, at the time of application, be a member of the Institute. Nominations should be received by no later than 18 May 2016 and should be sent to admin@probation-institute.org.

The Institute’s Board generally meets on the second Tuesday every other month. At this stage of its development the Institute is not in a position to remunerate directors for their time, however reasonable expenses incurred on Institute business will be reimbursed.

You can find out more about the work of the Probation Institute at probation-institute.org. If you would like to discuss the role or process please get in touch with me at savas@probation-institute.org or telephone 020 3053 9280/1

Looking forward to hearing from you

Best Wishes,

Savas Hadjipavlou
Chief Executive

--oo00oo--

I also notice that they very recently published their 2016-17 Business Plan. This from Chairman Paul Senior:- 

I am pleased to set out the Probation Institute’s Business Plan for 2016/17. The Plan represents a move from the start-up phase that has created the structures for a high functioning professional body, to an Institute that now must grow in its visibility, its authority as a professional body and its membership. This will be a critical year that will establish the sustainability of the Institute. 

The need for a membership body that is independent of the MoJ and employers is clearer now than ever. We have suffered compared to similar professions because we have lacked such a body. However, this plan recognises the significant challenges of recruiting and retaining membership at such a volatile time. It sets out the substantial achievements of the start-up phase which have created good foundations on which to build. It then sets out our key objectives for the coming year in respect of membership, visibility, professional development, practice, partnership and stakeholders and resources. 

I look forward to engaging with current and new members in delivering these objectives.

The opening section graphically sets out what an uphill task the Institute has in the brave new world of TR:-

Background

The Probation Institute was set up in 2014 on the initiative of its founding organisations: NAPO, Unison, the Probation Chiefs’ Association and the Probation Association. A Steering Group including representatives of these four organisations had been set up the previous year.

The rationale for the creation of the Institute was the lack of an independent body that represented the profession as a whole. This contrasts with other professions such as in medicine, nursing, teaching and social work. The lack of a coherent continuing professional development (CPD) structure and code of ethics were two manifestations of the absence of a recognised professional body.

This rationale was strengthened by the government’s “Transforming Rehabilitation” reforms which have created a mixed market of Probation and criminal justice providers. Community Rehabilitation Companies are in private ownership and have supply chains that include both private and third sector providers. The National Probation Service comprises about 30% of the sector and remains in public ownership whilst commissioning services from private and third sector providers. This diversity of provision strengthens the case for a professional body spanning the whole sector. Such a body has benefits for all parties and provides underpinning for the system.

The setting up of the Institute was resourced by donations from the Probation Chiefs’ Association and the Probation Association together with a grant from the Ministry of Justice. The latter followed submission of a business case to the MoJ and meetings between Steering Group members and the Minister for Prisons and Probation, Jeremy Wright. The minister was adamant that the funding was to assist in the setting up of the Probation Institute which needed both to be seen and be independent.

The aspirations set out in that business case were as follows:

• Providing professional leadership, enhancing the professional status of the sector 
• Publishing a code of ethics which provides an underpinning for the development of practice 
• Being a centre of excellence which provides an independent view of what constitutes good practice 
• Contributing to the setting of competence levels with the profession 
• Providing a professional register that records levels of qualification and continuing professional development 
• Enabling providers to demonstrate that they adhere to common standards of practice with a firm evidence base. 

It was unclear at the time that the Steering Group was setting out their aspirations and composing the business case to MoJ, how the TR reforms would play out in practice. The reality, perhaps inevitably given the accelerated timetable for implementing the programme, has been complex and, one year after the sale of the 21 CRCs to their new owners, the system remains very much in a transitional stage. 

Lack of certainty about work volumes with consequent volatility of funding streams has been a complicating factor for CRCs and their supply chains. At the same time the National Probation Service is undergoing significant structural reform under the “E3” programme. 

This uncertainty and volatility has had a clear impact on some of the early planning assumptions made by the Steering Group. 

• Recruitment and retention of members has been much more of a challenge than anticipated. Reduction in staffing numbers, changes in roles and the sheer pace of change in the day to day roles have not created the ideal climate to focus on longer term aspirations about professional development and recognition, critically important though these remain to the future of probation. 
• Achieving sufficient visibility and getting the Institute’s voice heard amongst the noise in the system has been hard. 
• Whilst the Institute has established good working relationships with most of the new providers, it became clear that the concept of “corporate membership” was not one that was likely to be viable and has been replaced with a focus on partnerships.

--oo00oo--

Finally, I see that Frances Crook of the Howard League appears to still be deeply suspicious of the Magistrates Association, their connections with some of the CRC owners and now their relationship with the PI. This from Private Eye:- 

Peter Wright, a former Probation CEO on twitter:-

"I wonder what Probation staff (NPS & CRC) think of the 'network' being "incorporated into the Probation Institute?"