Probation Diversity

Apart from negative publicity, have we all noticed how probation continues to slip quietly out of view and behind the ever-tightening grip of the bureaucrats now running NPS? Firmly in denial mode and now subject of direct government control, what possible hope can there be for the Service being able to address the many issues it faces, workforce diversity being but one of many? We've discussed this before, so it might be worthwhile reminding ourselves of this from September 2018 which was reproduced from the Probation Institute magazine:-

Where Are The Men?

As we continue to 'mark time' whilst the sham probation 'consultation' exercise is undertaken, we might as well take a look at another article from the latest PI magazine:-

Gender Matters in the PQiP

Paula Hamilton, Senior Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, explores some possible implications of the gender ratio in probation training.

As one of the three nationally contracted Higher Education providers, here at Sheffield Hallam University we are currently delivering the academic component of the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) to the fourth cohort of learners from across the North East and North West divisions. One of the most notable, but perhaps less surprising, features of the first cohorts is the relative lack of diversity in terms of age, ethnicity and gender and the predominance of young, white, female learners. National data from Havas people/ HMPPS (2017) shows that for PQiP cohorts 1 to 3 (including 2A) between 78% and 82% of learners have been women – a pattern of gender distribution that is replicated in the North East and North West divisions.

The age and ethnic distribution of the future probation officer workforce are, of course, hugely significant issues given the widely accepted notion that the probation workforce should reflect the communities they work with. However, it is the feminisation of probation, which continues apace in terms of those recruited to the PQiP, that is arguably one of the most significant changes that has occurred in the organisation but one which has received relatively little attention. While it is not within the scope of this short piece to engage in an in-depth discussion of what is meant by ‘feminisation’, it should be noted that it is a contested term and refers to a potential difference of occupational culture, not just numerical female domination of an occupation.

From its inception until the early 1990’s the probation service was a male-dominated organisation. The ‘tipping point’ came in 1993 when for the first time there were more women than men probation officers. It has been noted that this shift from a masculinised to a feminised service came, paradoxically, at a time when the then Conservative government ideology and rhetoric had become increasingly punitive and indeed ‘macho’; exhorting the probation service to take ‘centre stage’ in the masculinised penal system or face its own demise, and explicitly encouraging ex-police and armed forces (male) personnel into the service as second career entrants via a direct entry, skills based only route.

Against this backdrop the Diploma in PS (Dip PS) was introduced in 1998. While cementing the break with social work education, the Dip PS resisted the technicist, skills-only version of the probation officer envisaged by the Conservatives, retaining training within a higher education framework through the integration of a work-based NVQ alongside academic assessment in a two year qualification. Despite the fact that the Dip PS involved a common undergraduate level for all entrants, it tended to attract mainly female and mainly white graduates in their twenties (NOMS 2013) with the gender ratio at this level in 2007 being 72.86% women to 27.14% men (Ministry of Justice 2007).

In 2010 the Dip PS was replaced by the Probation Qualifications Framework (PQF) in an effort to enable existing probation service officers (PSOs) to train without losing job security and employment benefits via a foundation degree to an honours degree alongside a fast track qualification – the Graduate Diploma – for existing and newly recruited staff with relevant degrees.

In 2016 the PQF was replaced by the Community Justice Learning framework, at the apex of which sits the PQiP. Although access to the PQiP itself is fairly straightforward for those graduates with a relevant degree – and in that respect is similar to the preceding PQF Graduate Diploma - the PQiP is underpinned by a flexible (and complex) matrix of distance learning qualifications that allow learners to ‘bridge’ their previous learning to make them eligible for the PQiP or provide ‘ladders’ for learners who have practice experience but little or no academic background.

Therefore since 2010 and the introduction of the PQF, the two main entry points for professional qualification have been progression from probation service officer grade or via a relevant undergraduate degree, both of which in themselves are female-dominated. As offender-facing work has been increasingly devolved to probation service officer grade, the number of PSOs has expanded and the gender balance is broadly the same as for main grade officers.

Meanwhile a gender gap in those going to British universities has also gained pace - in 2016 66,840 more women than men were on degree courses, compared with a gap of 34,035 in 2007 (The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016). More specifically the requirement to have a relevant degree to be eligible for the PQiP in essence means a criminology degree (in the main), itself a female-dominated subject area.

All of this raises three questions - why has the probation service become feminised, but perhaps more importantly, what are the implications of this and, if deemed desirable, what can be done to attract more men (as well as older people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds) into probation?

Some of the potential answers to these questions are explored more fully elsewhere (see for example Annison, 2013; Mawby and Worrall, 2011, 2013), but in terms of explaining how and why the service has become feminised, commentators have highlighted the broader trend of younger women seizing opportunities for work and education and seeing opportunities for professional development and a place for themselves in probation. Also discussed is the idea that due to repeated restructuring and reorganisation and changes to working practices, the ‘ideal (probation) worker’ (Acker, 2006) has been recast with women responding in terms of adaptability and in addressing competency requirements (Annison, 2013).

In terms of implications, authors have raised issues around the relationship between a feminised probation service and other male-dominated criminal justice agencies, and the difficulties some male officers may face in navigating the feminised environment (Mawby and Worrall, 2011). Significantly however, it has been suggested that the feminisation of probation has not, as might be stereotypically expected, meant a return to the service’s traditional social work roots, and furthermore that many women officers see the ‘symbolic mother’ role as inappropriate, instead seeing their role more as ‘symbolic victim’ in terms of confronting and holding offenders to account (Mawby and Worrall 2013:137).

This brings us to one of the less well explored areas – the implications of a feminised service for work with, overwhelmingly, male offenders. Mirroring most theories of crime causation, and ignoring the fact that crime is an overwhelmingly a male activity, aside from work with domestic violence perpetrators (and perhaps even less so these days even with this group), policy and practice tends not to explicitly recognise or engage with masculinities and masculine self-identity. My own research has suggested that this is a vital dimension of practice, and that the process of personal change for some men would seem to be predicated on a complex, emotionally charged, reworking of masculine identity which then allows them to move towards desistance.

While of course not suggesting that women cannot help men through this process, it would seem that having regular access to a male role model who displays alternative ways of being a man to the harmful masculinities associated with criminal and anti-social behaviour can be an extremely important element. Such practice that engages with men, masculinities and emotions could, in turn, also be seen as offering an opportunity to have a more transformative effect on the particular discourse of masculinity that is seen to still pervade the criminal justice and penal systems into which female officers seem to have been subsumed (Mawby and Worrall, 2011).

Finally in terms of attracting more men into the service – and a more diverse workforce overall, the recent relaxation of eligibility criteria for the PQiP from a relevant i.e. a criminology degree to any degree may go some way to achieve this but it is still too early to tell. However, it is likely that more radical action, including efforts to raise the media and public profile of the probation service in line with other male-dominated criminal justice agencies, along with continued efforts to maintain and promote the professional status of the probation officer will ultimately be what is needed.

Paula Hamilton