Taking It Personally

Whatever your views are regarding the Probation Institute, there's never been any doubt where Paul Senior's heart lies. This from the latest edition of Probation Quarterly:-

Probation is a Profession, Never Let That Go 

A fascinating insight from Professor Paul Senior

In 1997 I submitted a paper to the Home Office regarding the urgent need for a Professional and Regulatory Body in the light of Probation’s withdrawal from social work training and its partnership with CCETSW (Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work) and as part of the construction of independent training for probation staff. I was told to remove this paper from discussion as it would cost too much so we proceeded to craft an excellent training, the Diploma in Probation Studies, with only light touch and non-independent oversight from the Home Office. 

There have been costs to this approach with uncertainty over qualifications for different grades of staff, whether probation could or should be regarded as a profession, the demise of post-qualifying training and much more. It always felt to me and others a wrong decision to make and there has been a gap ever since.

It has taken a long time since then to create a framework for a body and an organisational home to support these issues in the more uncertain post-TR world, but these issues remain pertinent and are now the central rationale of the Probation Institute. I have been honoured to Chair the Board of the Probation Institute over the past three years in a much-overdue effort to shape an organisation which, through its independence and expertise, can ensure the creation and maintenance of a regulatory framework, a professional body and a centre of excellence. This work remains in progress given the difficult times in which such an organisation has been introduced. In this paper I reflect on my time in this role which I leave in September 2018. 

I want to be clear about my reasons for leaving. I was diagnosed in January 2012 with an incurable, ultimately terminal, cancer. I have had a lifetime commitment to the profession and to the maintenance of professional standards of probation practice, having actively resisted attempts to de-professionalise the job against political pressures over many years. Through a range of guises - Probation officer, Chair, NAPO Professional Committee, CCETSW Council, joint appointment in training between probation and university, designer and implementer of the DipPS and researcher and probation academic - I have tried for over 40 years to support the best in probation. 

Jan 2012 was not a good month for me but it was disastrous for probation as the TR paper was published then. Like many others I campaigned against the changes and spent time attending rallies, speaking at events, tweeting endlessly and submitting papers. My paper to the 16th Bill McWilliams Memorial Lecture in 2014 ‘Privatising Probation: the death-knell of a much-cherished public service?’ (P Senior, (2016) Howard Journal, 55, 414-431) attempted to capture many of the critical features of this change. I took it personally having worked on making probation practice robust and effective since I started as a probation volunteer in 1975.

As the new arrangements came into being in 2014 with a bifurcated service delivery model comprising the public sector National Probation Service and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies I promoted the construction of a professional development framework working with others, most notably, Helen Schofield and Mike McClelland. The danger of this split was that professional standards would become inconsistent and there appeared to be no attempt to insure against this. This framework would eventually be adopted by the Probation Institute (PI). 

The PI came into existence rather hurriedly, supported by a steering group of professional associations and unions, at an inauspicious time for it to be an easy ride. From the outset it sought to shape its identity and its independence through its members, its representative groups and committees and ultimately through its national Board. Though arguments have remained strong for such a body (nothing had been put in place since I had attempted to do so in 1997) it had to fight critiques from across the spectrum from ministers, unions and disgruntled and disillusioned probation staff. At a time of job insecurity and cutbacks it did not secure sufficient membership to grow the organisation quickly but recognition that it filled a gap ensured the PI was invited to the table on many professional discussions. I joined the Board in March 2015 and was made Chair in September of that year.

Having spent a lifetime fighting for probation this role has suited me. I took early retirement from Sheffield Hallam University in 2016, driven sadly by ill-health, but this allowed me to focus exclusively on the PI. All the work we have all done in the past few years has been done pro bono with a tireless acting chief executive, an energetic Board and fellows, volunteers and members. We are independent with no external funding outwith project work. I think we have succeeded through a lot of our initiatives to shape our future engagement with the sector. 

We worked tirelessly to campaign for a Regulatory Body for Probation and Rehabilitation staff and it now has strong support amongst government, organisations, unions and members and awaits time for legislation which Brexit is blocking on many fronts. We have published position papers on a range of topics which have contributed to national debate on key issues, submitted written and oral evidence to Justice Select Committees and other committees/enquiries such as the Lammy. Enquiry, we have worked with NPS and CRCs on the development of the new qualifying training, apprenticeships, on equality and diversity issues, on a women’s strategy and our Trainees Conferences and our annual Practitioners Conference are well supported.

Through our Research Committee we have successfully promoted practitioner research with the Sir Graham Smith Research Awards, we have strong links with universities through the Academic Advisory Panel chaired by Professor Anne Worrall as well as ground breaking research and e-learning on veterans in the criminal justice system. 

This summary of our work does not do justice to the development of a strong sense of purpose in what we can offer both as a bulwark against the isolation and disillusion of probation staff but also to support and promote good practice in the future.

Sadly for me my time is up, and I hate leaving a job incomplete but such is life. The world of probation remains uncertain as we go forward and there are no easy solutions. I am convinced that the PI can contribute to a brighter future for individuals within criminal justice and help deliver practices I remain proud of. Through my PI Honorary Life Fellowship I will continue to dip a toe into the work of the PI and wish the next Chair and the Board every success.