The best we can do? - Ian Lawrence interviewed on Russia Today. Where is an effective voice for what's left of probation?
I read this on the blog at the weekend and it shocked me:-
"Visiting HMP yesterday to do a cold OASys (cos someone was sentenced to 4 years without a report - not unusual these days."Everywhere you look, the Probation Service is being systematically dismantled. Pre Sentence Reports used to be regarded as an absolutely vital core element of our work and yet under the NPS E3 programme, there's an aim for 85% of defendants to be sentenced on the day, even at Crown Court, with a cursory 'stand-down' or 'short format' report, almost certainly delivered by someone other than a qualified Probation Officer.
This is an outrageous situation and one you'd reasonably expect would be addressed by the likes of the Probation Institute, but they appear content to continue with their policy of not rocking the boat for fear of upsetting the MoJ and the CRCs whilst pursuing the case for becoming a Regulatory Body:-
"The Probation Institute has developed a Policy Paper setting out the case for a Regulatory Body for Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement – Probation Institute Policy Paper Regulatory Body. Initial consultative meetings have responded positively to the proposals which seek to address some of the challenges facing the sector post Transforming Rehabilitation. Please let us have your views and we will keep you informed of developments."But what is the point if the probation ideal has already been smashed beyond recognition, a situation arrived at during their silence on TR?
Whilst providing a platform, mostly for practitioners, to tell the reality of the TR omnishambles, I've been generally supportive of the PI and the position it finds itself in, often to the extreme irritation of many readers it has to be said. Somewhat reluctantly I have now come to the same conclusion though and it was triggered by an ill-tempered exchange with the PI on twitter recently:-
"The PI has not made ANY comment on TR which many feel is surprising, unwise and unhelpful!"
"Jim, I am surprised at you. We have made many comments on TR, in publications, blogs, to Justice Committee, to members. Peddle your myths."No doubt readers can decide whether myths are being peddled on here or not, but there is still no PI Policy Paper on TR and it would seem not likely to be.
Probation officers have to find their own voice and take their own action. And we must stop whinging. We are having to work under rubbish circumstances. But unless we are willing to take action and unite we will just disintegrate. Because of why we do what we do it is as important to fight for our services as it is to fight for our work environment. We should be prepared to fight for being allowed the time to do proper work with the service users. We should go on strike when we are told we are not allowed to undertake prison visits, liaise with agencies over benefits, mental health, advocate, work with the service users family etc. We should be striking over having nowhere to house the service users on release from prison.
ReplyDeleteYour wrong, you strike over terms and imposed or unfair conditions. That has nothing to do with service users . last time I looked they are clients your an employee get a grip this is about the jobs we do not the people we serve. That is why probation officers don't seem to understand what is happening to them.
DeleteNot too sure about the tone of your comment 20:47 but you are right. Successive Governments, since the maggot hatcher have curtailed the ability of unions to call a strike; the legal reasons for striking are so prescribed and limited these days, which is why striking is now a thing of the past...but I wish the POA well with their efforts today.
DeleteWholesale privatisation programme now intended by Theresa May's government!? Does that mean what I think it means?
ReplyDeleteSo that's one giant leap for the General Secretary's ego. So many opportunities handed to him on a plate about financial concers, no mention of staff being robbed of EVR, pensions, whole life careers carelessly thrown away to save a shilling and then him appearing to welcome the privateers changes, staff pay, terms and conditions being eroded as long as they receive appropriate training! No mention of P.O status being lost whilst the duties are passed to P.S.O grade, with no recognition or renumeration - as long as they are trained? The man needs to go, he is a fool and can't protect any of us with that attitude. He hasn't fought or successfully defended one action against T.R - he admitted as much in the interview. His reputation is weak, vain and compliant and the privateers love him. He only talks a good job. Ambition way above ability and eager to preen like a peacock and drink like a fish. In the same mould as others who have been G.S of NAPO and have gone down in history achieving nothing.
DeleteWhat have you heard?
DeleteI have to say I gave up watching the video half way through in disgust. The interviewer was handing Ian prime questions that should have received a blistering response however he managed to sidestep many of them and waffle through the rest. Didnt sound like a Trade Unionist to me - disgruntled privateer more like. What a wasted opportunity.
ReplyDeletePublicity for our cause is hard come by. Brexit, Trumpet being news headlines that have swamped the media headlines for what seems like forever. However, if we do not keep the beacons alight we will fail. Change is, I sense, is in the air. Let's us keep the flames burning. People are starting to cast their gaze in our direction.
DeleteThey may well look but the light house of Ian Lawrence will not shine on anything after that performance more like a defective bulb. From what I saw at least. We need a speaker who is a challenging force not a wannabe look a like intellect he certainly is not that. Not even a huff and a puff.
DeleteThe Probation Institute is not fit for purpose. There have been so much negative comments on this blog and elsewhere I need not repeat it. It is not a credible or recognised 'voice for probation', nor is it purposeful for probation and practitioners. As has been said already, in two years or more it has said nothing against TR that has ravaged probation and it is more interested in bowing to the Ministry of Justice, backslapping the NPS, romancing the owners of CRC's and handing out fellowships to its former probation chief officer buddies. A few important points about the Probation Institute ;
ReplyDelete1. Probation officers are not interested in becoming members because it has failed to speak up for probation.
2. Probation officers are not interested in its 'code of ethics' because it has failed to speak up for probation.
3. Probation officers are not interested in its 'professional register' because it has failed to speak up for probation
4. .......... .......... .......... because it has failed to speak up for probation.
Paul Hindson leaving WL. Most likely pushed - he should also get out of the PI as should John Wiseman.
DeleteA quick google and I find this about the Probation Institute over at the old Napo forum. Written in 2014 but nothing has changed!
ReplyDelete"It is MoJ funded and MoJ dependant; a conflict of interest on both sides due to TR. A recent Napo GLB press release claimed the PI was seeking funding from private companies, including TR bidders; another conflict of interest.
It is led by probation leaders (PA and PCA); a contradiction as these groups aided and abetted TR and the demise of probation.
It will have no statutory authority over the National Probation Service and Private probation companies (CRC's). This means no statutory authority to provide guidance, to set codes of practice, to set performance standards or to set expectations for training and professional development. This means it will have no power to 'strike off' private probation companies that fail to any uphold expected standards of practice.
It will have no authority to require probation staff (NPS and CRC) to sign up to its professional register. This register will not be a mandatory requirement to practice, and it's doubtful CRC's would recognise or sign up. We know from social work that a professional register does not stop bad practice or the erosion of standards.
It will have no research base to develop its own evidence based guidance and practice for probation staff. It also has a lack of academics and frontline probation staff involved in the PI. It will have no statutory authority over the training of probation officers and staff, more concerning for probation staff based in CRC's.
It has so far failed to speak against TR or oppose probation privatisation, it was silent during the probation strike, it has been silent against the ongoing government media campaign against probation, it has been silent in speaking on behalf of the probation staff and profession, and it's doubtful it will in the future will be anything but silent against any erosion of probation staff terms, conditions and salaries in both NPS and CRC's.
It may only be £20 per year (increasing after the first year), but that's £20 too much to pay for nothing, and we shouldn't be expected to pay to retain the PCA and PA."
http://probation-institute.org
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=641
What a disaster of an interview. It was PR gold handed on a plate which the GS managed to spill on the floor. Body language, tone & presentation was of someone not remotely interested, almost bored; the interviewer was more animated and appeared disappointed his enthusiasm wasn't reciprocated. It wasn't so long ago that Napo agreed NOT to use the term 'offender' but in reference to Sodexo's open plan policy the interviewer quotes the term "service users" and asks if that means Napo members: "No, no. Offenders" smirks Lawrence. He didn't give any impression of a leader of a union whose members are being shafted inside out, upside down & back to front; whose members have been fucked over day after day for the last ten years. Disgraceful, cringemaking, amateurish twaddle. £70K a year... Really??
ReplyDeleteCant fault him on not using "service user", it's a ridiculous term to use for someone on probation.
DeleteRubbish.
DeleteThe GS role is won by election not by a coup.
DeleteStarted following this Blog in January 2013 when off work with stress. One catastrophe after another + another spell of work-related stress sickness absence last year.
ReplyDeleteWhy have I stayed? Mixture of personal/professional value systems that people can change if provided sufficient support and financial needs to pay the mortgage.
Why not look for another job? Live in an area where PO pay, top Band 4 is difficult to match - coastal area where seasonal work in tourism and leisure predominant.
My plan for 2017 - get out. VS very tempting. Tired of waiting for Napo to do something effective.
Mr Lawrence is a poor advocate for the Probation Service and values. I agree, he missed a number of opportunities to be bold and forthright and that is to say nothing of his seemingly bored presentation.
ReplyDelete