It's already generated some lively responses and I feel the issues raised and broad message it contains are so important, especially in relation to this blog, that it deserves highlighting. The subject always generates a great deal of heat, but I'd very much appreciate us trying to focus on light as well. Thanks.
--oo00oo--
The Probation Institute and NAPO, acting as a professional association, are actually all that there is to represent probation as a profession publicly and in consultation and negotiation with others. Nobody else proposes to do this job and there are very few in the wider criminal justice community who will campaign on our behalf to preserve our professional status that has been precarious at the best of times.
There appear to be no shortage of short sighted persons either presently or formerly working in probation who seem to have a lot of time on their hands to attack and criticise both NAPO and the PI (or anyone who supports them) mostly for what they think they should have said, or for what they would like them to have done, despite either not being a member or not getting involved. It is in fact these persons who may well be part of the problem now and would perhaps be better occupied adjusting their aim towards our real enemies and trying to offer support to those who are trying to work in and deal with the new landscape.
Anyone who hasn't worked in or been closely associated with work in probation in the last 18 months, probably doesn't realise how much fundamental change there has been and what the experience of this has been, particularly on those trying to fight for jobs and professionals. It has been very demotivating for anyone worried about their future and who actually wants to be constructive and wants to influence change positively.
I have known very hard working professionals and well motivated activists to leave both probation and/or NAPO because of member apathy and others who have been personally attacked for their association with the PI, often by people who have contributed little to the profession. Some of the most vocal of these people seem to belong to a group of persons who believe that it was all so much better when Noah was a lad and that it is ok to land a cowardly anonymous low blow and then run away, apparently thinking this is somehow ok to have no respect for anyone, even though it smacks of hypocrisy.
As a result of lack of respect for anyone or anything, there are fewer and fewer people who are willing to stand up and be identified as supporting probation as a profession, or willing to openly discuss professional issues, including whether or not probation as a profession can now be said to exist. Has our profession been reduced to skulking around in the shadows, taking cheap shots and sniping anonymously at others? If it has, then this is a sorry, dishonourable state of affairs and no way to fight for professional recognition and our much cherished oft-referred to, though to some, semi mythical probation values.
The winners from all this infighting and personal attacks are MoJ bureaucrats who have aimed to destroy probation as a distinct profession because it delayed their plans and multinational corporations who see belief in caring as no more than a PR or marketing approach.
David A Raho
******
The "winners" are those running Napo and the Probation Institute who are receiving funds/revenue and a bit of status for doing less than nothing! Yes these two organisations exist, but have done nothing to change or successfully challenge the increasingly dire state of probation (NPS and CRC's), nor does the PI represent us although I'm sure most wish it did. It's probably fair to say that Napo is well on its way to joining the PI in its role as "lipstick on the TR pig".
******
The "winners" are those running Napo and the Probation Institute who are receiving funds/revenue and a bit of status for doing less than nothing! Yes these two organisations exist, but have done nothing to change or successfully challenge the increasingly dire state of probation (NPS and CRC's), nor does the PI represent us although I'm sure most wish it did. It's probably fair to say that Napo is well on its way to joining the PI in its role as "lipstick on the TR pig".
******
I think you just agreed with what was said.
I think you just agreed with what was said.
******
Actually much of the concerns with both Napo and the PI have been formally raised one way or another. It is a cop out to relegate these types of concerns to 'anonymous comments', especially with these organisation that claim to be member focused. Both Napo and the PI are a let down.
Actually much of the concerns with both Napo and the PI have been formally raised one way or another. It is a cop out to relegate these types of concerns to 'anonymous comments', especially with these organisation that claim to be member focused. Both Napo and the PI are a let down.
******
Concerns have been addressed. The PI will probably cease to exist and Napo will probably lose the battle to negotiate on behalf of all those employed by probation service providers. But it does not change the fact that they are all we have to work through and doing them down by constant criticism of everything they do or say is a hiding to nothing. Anyone involved in either organisation voluntarily now considers it is a thankless task given the negativity heaped upon them.
Concerns have been addressed. The PI will probably cease to exist and Napo will probably lose the battle to negotiate on behalf of all those employed by probation service providers. But it does not change the fact that they are all we have to work through and doing them down by constant criticism of everything they do or say is a hiding to nothing. Anyone involved in either organisation voluntarily now considers it is a thankless task given the negativity heaped upon them.
Some of those commenting on this site show little appreciation for those who day in day out do their best for both the probation profession, whilst those who take satisfaction in this constant barrage are those who want to see probation deestablished and deprofessionalised. The response from a lot of former activists has been to become discouraged and withdraw from the fight against TR. If anyone wanted TR to succeed they would indulge in constant criticism against the only organisations that have opposed TR either directly or indirectly and anyone putting their head above the parapet.
******
These are memberships to services and associations we have paid for. They have not just failed just because they were ineffective, but because they failed to listen to those they claim to represent and are still not listening, even at the eleventh hour. So yes they should be criticised, because had they truly represented the members, then it would have been very different. Had these two organisations not been led by incompetent, money grabbing, power hungry fools ...... and I mean the past ten years of Napo and the PI from the outset.
These are memberships to services and associations we have paid for. They have not just failed just because they were ineffective, but because they failed to listen to those they claim to represent and are still not listening, even at the eleventh hour. So yes they should be criticised, because had they truly represented the members, then it would have been very different. Had these two organisations not been led by incompetent, money grabbing, power hungry fools ...... and I mean the past ten years of Napo and the PI from the outset.
******
The Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association should not have been involved in setting up the Probation Institute. The opportunity for the PI came about and they took control, which is how they have always worked. The unions were foolish to support this move and should have sought a more neutral leadership. Instead it ended up with the very same probation chief clique & co running the show, and right at the top those that ran the PCA and the PA. Just look at which probation chiefs the PI awarded fellowships too, mostly those who were big on commercialising probation, including one currently in bed with Working Links, another that created a super-trust and another that sold off community service!
The Probation Chiefs Association and Probation Association should not have been involved in setting up the Probation Institute. The opportunity for the PI came about and they took control, which is how they have always worked. The unions were foolish to support this move and should have sought a more neutral leadership. Instead it ended up with the very same probation chief clique & co running the show, and right at the top those that ran the PCA and the PA. Just look at which probation chiefs the PI awarded fellowships too, mostly those who were big on commercialising probation, including one currently in bed with Working Links, another that created a super-trust and another that sold off community service!
Ever since its creation the PI has pandered to privatisation and has not been the professional association or voice of probation it claimed to be. These questions were raised far and wide at the start but have been ignored and this is why probation officers won't join it. Too many questions are still being raised about its revenue streams, its MoJ shadow, its CRC pre-paid memberships, its membership structure that equals non-qualified managers with qualified practitioners, and the decisions around its elected committee, its partnerships and more, particularly its silence. Probation practitioners are a forgiving bunch and with the right change in direction this could easily be overturned but it seems the PI is happy being a failure, something it seems to have in common with Napo!
******
The PI's big mistake was not building the support, trust and dependency of members. Why would any of us sign up to a paid membership and professional register when the basics of outlining, promoting and protecting probation practice and qualifications were and still are grey areas for the PI. Instead of gaining practitioner support and building authority to become a regulatory body, it blasted ahead blinkered delivering its messages through the distrusted senior management and the emerging privateer networks and then couldn't understand why practitioners weren't interested. Helen/Paul, if you're reading then don't make the same mistakes and instead listen to the practitioners.
The PI's big mistake was not building the support, trust and dependency of members. Why would any of us sign up to a paid membership and professional register when the basics of outlining, promoting and protecting probation practice and qualifications were and still are grey areas for the PI. Instead of gaining practitioner support and building authority to become a regulatory body, it blasted ahead blinkered delivering its messages through the distrusted senior management and the emerging privateer networks and then couldn't understand why practitioners weren't interested. Helen/Paul, if you're reading then don't make the same mistakes and instead listen to the practitioners.
It's a shame that David A Raho spends half his time in his piece making ad hominem attacks on critics of the PI. These tactics undermine his own argument and are not in any way enlightening.
ReplyDeleteGo on any newspaper website, to the comments sections, and you will see that contributors use social media nicknames – it's part of the etiquette. It's tiresome to defend 'Anonymous' and other 'Handles' – contributors can identify themselves as they see fit. And, really, the identifier is irrelevant, it's the arguments and points of view that matter. I am not defending trolling, but this is a minority sport and this blog suffers from it no more than any other, perhaps less so.
As for the probation institute its fatal flaw is its lack of a regulatory role. You can bang the drum for professional standards but if you have no power to make your voice carry, then the best and most reasonable arguments in the world can be swept aside by those whose agenda is profit- making. Helen Schofield seems to recognise this and see that there is a campaigning role for the PI. It's the PI that needs to change, not its critics.
I once had a lot of support for the PI before its PCA cronyism, pivateer buddying and fear of the MoJ kicked in.
ReplyDeleteNetnipper the use of argumentum ad hominem is justified in this instance by way of balance.
ReplyDeleteI have always been convinced that we need to act collectively and that means joining together and organizing in unions etc so that those we want to take notice actually take notice rather than merely seeing, what are to them our petty squabbles, as light entertainment and doing nothing in response because they are not being challenged.
My initial point is that Napo and the PI are the organisations we currently have (however flawed we might believe they are) with which to engage with those who have the power to make the kinds of changes we might want.
It is true that the PI was formed from the legacy of the trusts that included the PCA and PA and from the outset was a political but rather a broad inclusive professional association working with and alongside organisations that clearly were more political -such as Napo. There have long been calls for a probation institute that brought together a variety of different people with an interest in the work of this thing we call probation. I have always been puzzled why, just because the MoJ gave it a one off grant no strings attached to get started, that it is assumed that the MoJ had control over how it was spent other organisations putting money into the PI pot have been far more influential in that respect. By contrast all of probation whether public or private gets its money from the MoJ and there most certainly are strings attached. Without membership and support the PI will be a lame duck and this is an opportunity missed. We do need to empower them and also be clear what we want from them at the same time.
Napo now struggles with decreasing membership, although this is largely to be expected for all trade unions in the current climate, and also a decline in those willing to be active. In London for example despite having maintained a high level of membership we have a real problem convincing anyone on the CRC side to come forward and stand for branch posts or to represent members. As a result the employers have felt emboldened and take comfort from the fact that those who they might reasonably expect to hold them to account are more concerned with their own internal conflicts and questioning the validity of their very existence.
The facts are that the MoJ NPS and some owners of CRCS (some more than others) would very much like to see Napo reduced in influence and membership and less active in the workplace and are taking steps to ensure this happaens. This is a crisis happening right now and needs to be strongly opposed and stopped.
What I would like to see is more active support for Napo, more people joining, and more participation in order to get things done and influence how things are done. In common with many members I think that there should be reform and change to reflect our changed circumstances but this needs to happen through participation and making sure that the best people for our present situation are elected and more people are involved democratically. We have to encourage good/skilled people to come forward and help build organisations that people feel proud to be a member of and to be associated with rather than one where they feel they have to justify their involvement. At the moment I feel that with both Napo and the PI.
I think that the PI under the leadership of Helen Schofield and Paul Senior is very different and will be a very different organisation going forward with a strong emphasis on training and professional development but it will fail if it no one joins and practitioners turn their back on it. It is not a union but does aim to involve and provide a forum for everyone concerned with probation.
Now is a time for reinforcing and building our defenses and our potential to defend ourselves not criticizing everything out of existence.
The PI is already a lame duck, which is self inflicted. The PI turned its back on probation not the other way around. This and more has already been said above. Instead of telling us what practitioners should do, go and tell the PI what it should do. I took the time to do this myself a long time ago and it didn't listen or want the support, as I personally know others it also didn't listen to and the reasons why. The PI can now choose to fumble along as is, or it can significantly change its structure and direction. Because of its short but troubled history I doubt many outside of the PI are interested whether it folds or not. This state of being at rock bottom is an opportunity for the PI because if it makes the right changes then practitioners will be interested. With interest comes members and with members comes scope for regulatory powers. To do it right this will probably mean going back to the drawing board, stop the premature focus on the professional register and the desperate quest for revenue, drop the PCA/PA approach, the partnerships, the elected committee and the distorted relationships with the MoJ and the CRC owners. The PI currently has too many cooks in its kitchen and is trying to serve too many customers, and in the confusion nobody is getting fed. Paul Senior and Anthony Goodman couldn't make the impact we thought they could. With Savas Hadjipavlou stepping away and Helen Schofield taking the reigns, the PI just needs to start afresh talking about probation practice and probation work, and use a model as if it were led by probation practitioners. The research and literature is already out there, use it, condemn TR, privatisation, E3, be a voice for probation and probation officers.
DeleteGood on you David Raho, you make many valid points and you have the guts to stand up and be counted. We can be positive without necessarily accepting the many half baked ideas and bandwagon searches for easy status we have seen over so many years, coming from all directions, including unexpected ones. We probably need to start again from scratch. That earthquake we have been through has left us with unusable remnants and ruins. Let's clear it out and rebuild that profession from the bottom up, not top down. This would involve interaction with people on the ground. Stoop that low people at the top, and you will get something lasting and genuine.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing NAPO membership and support, or enhancing embracement of the Probation Institute isn't in my humble opinion a solution to anything.
ReplyDeleteBeing a collective body is something that probation services can no longer aspire to.
There are far too many conflicting ideologies held amongst those within the service to allow it to be a collective entity.
There are those that see the service as one of enforcing compliance others place more emphasis on a supporting model.
The purpose and focus of what function and processes the probation service operate are lots of different things to lots of different people within the service. I've read many heated debates on this blog regarding the need for social work qualifications, or the status difference between PSO and PO. I think the reference to 'Noha' in the original comment demonstrates that very well.
I don't for a second suggest that any discussion I read on here that has any particular flavour attached to it is right or wrong, I merely suggest that there are far too many differing opinions held by those in the service to allow for collectiveness.
The question is, how do you get everyone back on the same song sheet.
Once that's achieved, it can be decided just exactly what the service is all about.
'Getafix'
Prior to TR we were Probation Trusts. Probation practitioners were merely minions to the senior management and never listened to. The battle between good practice and targets, between rehabilitation and risk management, and between being a social work agency or an enforcement agency were ever present. I worked in a number of probation trusts/areas over the years and in all the senior management were only ever interested in the views of probation officers and good practice when an inspection came around. So the lack of cohesion you talk about really evolved in the Trust era and never went away. Practitioners are interested in good practice and improving the profession which a professional association should represent first and foremost, but this was never going to work with the PI because it was effectively created and led by senior management. This is very different from the problems faced by Napo which has had a disease festering within its leadership structure and filtered down to its local structures for many years which rendered it outdated and out of touch with members, but still wanted subserviency and to charge members the most expensive Union fees I've ever come across for the pleasure. With my rose tinted glasses I see that probation practitioners mostly want the same things, but those running the probation union and professional association fail to listen to us and are not impartial so as to not risk their own agendas that are far from transparent. If they instead worked for us as they claim to they'd have the members. I think that something we both agree on is that getting everyone on the same song sheet is the starting point, but they won't achieve even this if the approach is to tell us what the tune should be!
DeleteIt was the coming of NOMS that put everyone on a different song sheet, with different instruments to play,making senior management the conductor of the orchestra.
DeleteWith politicians writing the music, it was never going to be easy listening.
I don't see the PI building membership numbers during a period when Napo is seeing membership and active participation decline. Maybe there is a lack of activism because evidence is showing that the unions are unable to make a difference to anything. Maybe it's too late to reverse the decline, maybe talk of building defences and strengthening our potential to defend ourselves is the stuff of dreams when the reality is that everything is still in freefall.
DeleteAn effective collective has to be underpinned by solidarity, but probation is more atomised now than ever before. It will be further weakened by the loss of national collective bargaining which will mark a further decline in influence. The workers have already seen their real pay decline over a decade. It's probable that one of the reasons for not joining the PI is financial and another reason because it's promising something tomorrow and workers don't have a lot of confidence that tomorrow will be better than today. Trade Unions are becoming less relevant in the probation workplace and I suspect it won't be long before we start to hear more about work councils which will be staffed by local 'champions'.
I think 15.02 is spot on in identifying that the Trusts were, if not the onset, then the accelerant of many of the problems – the destruction of professionalism was already underway through Noms and New Labour's obsession with micromanagement and targets. The dismembering of probation was facilitated by the creation of various departments and role titles that gave each little sector its own targets that encouraged friction and competition within probation. It was target-driven practice and when the targets changed, the practice had to follow suit – because management said so. It did not matter what was the right thing to do in individual case, you were expected to do whatever was most likely to satisfy particular targets. Professionals became functionaries.
It is not surprising that one outcome of never-ending changes in probation has been its impact on morale. The workers became gradually powerless. You could see that though the unions may not have approved of many changes they went along with things and were content while their membership levels were holding firm. The situation post-TR shows the work environment worsening further – and there is no reason to suppose that rock bottom has been reached.
Yes although the situation is dire we are yet to reach rock bottom and beyond. I've been in probation a long time and know that practitioners differentiate between a probation Union and a professional association/institute. The Probation Institute is currently that in name only and does have the ability to change and build members. With the right changes and approach probation practitioners will join and support it. Many are already saying this and the PI only needs to lay the foundation. I've said it from the start, start by supporting probation officers, probation service officers, probation practice, and it will build itself.
ReplyDeleteNapo on the other hand would need to win battles it cannot win to regain members, and that's just for starters.
The PI is attempting to do what NAPO should have been doing all these years, being an association of professionals. NAPO should promote professionalism not the PI, instead it chooses to play at being a trade union and fails.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is the rub, but Napo can't turn back the clock. This is why the PI has a place which has the potential to be very successful, but only if it tries to be a professional association for probation officers/workers and nothing more.
DeleteHow could Napo promote professionalism when the service was being deprofessionalised by the introduction of unqualified staff? Napo should withdraw from CRCs and focus on NPS which is where, in the main, the professionals are.
DeleteProfessionally qualified probation officers and social workers are in both the NPS and CRC's. For Napo to remain a Union for probation workers this must continue to include those in both the NPS and CRC's. Likewise the Probation Institute should be supporting the probation profession and where it is practiced, which is specific to the NPS and CRC's.
DeleteThe NPS is the more professionally qualified workforce. There are some professionals in the CRCs but they are a minority. If the definition of what professional means is to be constantly downgraded to include PSO grades, then this needs to be made explicit. It may be unpalatable, but the PO grade diluted the PO grade and it would be better in my view to leave the CRCs to their own devices.
Delete17:51 & 07:25 - It's because of people like you that we are in the mess we are in. Don't forget it could be your turn soon. You may think you are safe and elite.
Delete17.51 what a Pratt
ReplyDeleteSame was said about Galileo. The old assumptions need questioning.
DeleteGalileo was revolutionising the way people thought about the universe. Anon 17:51 is making snide remarks about former colleagues.
DeleteSpot the difference?
Whether you call them traditional or the usual party lines, what is so disturbing about simply opening up the debate about What to Do? If discussions are to have no-go areas, they may has well take place between machines or on autopilot. What is so wrong about fresh thinking, turning over possibilities is one definition of thinking.
ReplyDeleteDoes Napo have the resources to represent staff in both NPS and CRCs? The London CRC cannot provide local representation for its members because of a lack of activism. This situation may not be confined to London. And there are no grounds for assuming it will improve, especially when you look at the recent poor turnout for the elections of officers. And what constitutes a professional group? Are the CRCs on a professional par with the NPS?
Napo's membership is down by 25%. How many members does the NPS has in comparison to the CRCs. What is the breakdown of numbers puts 70% of members in the NPS, should the NPS subsidise the CRCs. We don't have the breakdown of the membership figures - why not?
Keep your union I'm sick of subsidising the nps whilst crc staff are sold down the river time and time again. See what napo do for the nps in the future. The worst has already happened to us we have nothing left to lose.
Deletehttp://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/i_ve_gone_shopping_with_my_mum_how_criminals_are_avoiding_unpaid_work_in_norfolk_and_suffolk_1_4675524
ReplyDelete