Responses to Demise of TR 6

Here we have some thoughts on probation training post TR from the Probation Institute in their latest magazine:-

Probation Training and Qualifications: An overview

This issue of Probation Quarterly goes out during the important consultation on the future of Probation itself. It is particularly timely to focus part of this PQ on probation training; the future of training and ongoing professional development feature in the consultation and are of great significance, but there is a risk that these issues will attract less attention than the questions about the future structures and systems. 

The history of probation training over the last 50 years is in many ways the history of probation and reflects the importance of professional training. The decision to retain probation practice within social work training and in higher education in the early 1970s post Seebohm helped to affirm probation as a profession. The retention, after an extensive campaign, of probation training in higher education in the late 1990s, albeit separated from social work as a distinct qualification, continued the professional status.

Whichever way the consultation takes us in 2018 - if indeed this is genuine consultation - there may well be further challenges to the higher education status. Question 10 is a very open question inviting a range of ideological answers: “Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for Responsible Officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?” 

The consultation paper barely uses the term “probation officer” or “probation services officer”. It uses the terms “Responsible Officer” and “Offender Manager” somewhat interchangeably. The naming and defining of job roles needs to be addressed not fudged in this consultation. These are critical issues but there are also bigger gains to pursue in the arena of training and professional development.

The decision not to regulate training and qualifications in TR was one of the many serious ideological errors and one which threatened to destroy the consistency of professional training for probation staff - Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers. 

A Level 6 (Degree Level) Apprenticeship is currently being developed, with PQiP at its heart. This Apprenticeship is being developed by an Employer Development Group led by NPS and CRCs and is intended for all those currently qualified through PQiP as Probation Officers. 

This is an important development not least in having successfully achieved the support of the majority of the CRCs after two years of uncertainty in which a number of the CRCs gave serious consideration to developing their own qualifications for their own “equivalent” roles. Had the Apprenticeship not offered hard cash to the CRCs it is unlikely that they would have cooperated.

The new breed of Apprenticeships led by the new Apprenticeship Institute is far from settled down however, and care will be needed to support and ensure the high quality of this Degree Level Apprenticeship and it’s implementation. In parallel is the development of the Level 3 Apprenticeship replacing the VQ3 for those roles designated Probation Services Officers and equivalent roles in both NPS and the CRCs. It is well documented that this group of practitioners in both NPS and in CRCs carry responsibilities which would once have fallen to a fully qualified Probation Officer and that consistency of training and qualifications is critical for this group also. There is a pressing need to resolve the naming of these job roles.

An important message for the consultation is that training and qualifications must be regulated for clear roles with agreed role definitions. By regulation we mean legislation. The consultation also seeks views on the proposed Professional Register - how this should operate and for whom. In this proposal there is the opportunity to resolve the job titles and regulate the training and qualifications for agreed roles. It should be stated very clearly in response to the consultation that the Professional Register must include any contracted private providers of Probation Services, should these continue.

Not everyone in MOJ is committed to training Probation Officers in higher education. The closer working relationship with the Prison Service and the introduction of Offender Managers in prisons has prompted questions about the disparity between prison and probation training. Respondents to the consultation should take the opportunity to reinforce the importance of a degree level qualification and why it is so important. Bear in mind that policing has now accepted that a degree level qualification is a necessary outcome of initial training for police constables.

There are gaps in training for probation officers and these include brokering and supporting appropriate commissioned services, irrespective of the role of the private sector. 

What of bigger prizes? Given the increasing responsibilities of the role this may be an opportunity to suggest that the qualification for a “Probation Services Officer” and their equivalents should be raised to Vocational Level 4. Police Community Support Officers have introduced a Level 4 Apprenticeship.

For the voluntary sector? The emerging Level 3 Apprenticeship was initially designed to include the voluntary sector. St Giles Trust, PACT and RISE each contributed and supported the draft standard. This support has been lost through delay but in our view this could be rebuilt. The purpose would be to enable voluntary organisations to be a genuine part of the development and management of an appropriate, aligned Apprenticeship, and to draw down funding for training and assessment standards which their practitioner staff could reliably achieve. This step would extend professional training and qualifications to the voluntary sector for the first time, inviting them to join the Professional Register.

A further prize would be to extend the Professional Register to Offender Managers (at least) in the Prison Service and to Youth Offending Practitioners. The benefit of this reach would be to establish one Professional Body across Probation, Prisons, Youth Justice and the voluntary sector working in justice. This would be an independent statutory body having significant scope to advance consistency and professional development across services, a better prospect of resourcing and a breadth of authority currently lacking in any forum.

Helen Schofield 

Acting CEO, Probation Institute