Napo Annual Report 2019/20 Part 2

Professional and Training Network

1. After the AGM met in October 2019 the NEC agreed to change the format of the committee structure in an effort to provide members with a more inclusive means in which to contribute to the work of the former committees. While the Negotiating and Equal Rights committee retain their committee structure, the Probation and Training committee joined the other committees in becoming a networks. 

2. The aim was to ensure that those who had an interest in the work of the networks could make a contribution in all or a part of the work allocated within Napo’s operational plan. 

3. Under the old structure 8 places were allocated with the opportunity to meet once in person and additional work to be supported by telephone and email contact. The move to a network was also designed to encourage numbers to register throughout the year as the committee structure was more recently carrying vacancies. 

4. At the start of the Napo year there could have been little appreciation of the challenges that would frustrate the efforts of the network to pursue the business of the 6 motions it was allocated following last year’s AGM. Prior to the pandemic there was already pressure on the time members could devote to the network. However, all the usual demands were overshadowed by the impact of the Covid-19 virus which has impacted upon every aspect of working and union life. 

5. Prior to the impact of the pandemic the network set a meeting for February and after a number of members were unable to contribute for a variety of reasons, efforts to set up further meetings led to the abandonment of a further three and cancellation of another two. 

6. A virtual meeting was eventually held in July I was elected chair of the network. The July meeting was constructive, and I am grateful to all as work was undertaken to consolidate earlier decisions. Despite this, it was not entirely possible to progress the motions in the way that the network had originally planned. 

7. However, some progress was made including on Motion 9. This was on “Fostering the Probation Profession”. Taking this along with the sentiments from Motion 12 which identified that current training arrangements were not fit for purpose. This was especially the case in respect of identified failures to support those being trained to undertake the work as probation officers. 

8. A survey was undertaken with members establishing their views and experience of training along with their views on OASys. There was a credible response which unsurprisingly exposed the inadequacies of the current training and reflected universal condemnation by respondents. One quote from the survey summed up the majority view that: “I can categorically state that as a mentor for a number of PQUIPS that the training is NOT fit for purpose. Those coming into it are not given a fair induction, training is woeful and line managers are too swamped to support them. Many of the PQUIPS in my area have felt very isolated”. 

9. This led to an article being written by Tania Bassett the Link official and published in Napo Magazine highlighting concerns raised. In addition, the network has written seeking a meeting to review training arrangements on the findings of the survey and to discuss recent accounts from members about their appalling experience that has led in some cases to them considering seeking alternative careers at a time when ministers are seeking to expand staff numbers by a thousand. 

10. A letter has been written on behalf of the network seeking a meeting with the relevant body and head of service on reviewing the quality of the training the experience of the varying support offered to PQUIPS. Including dealing with the capacity of the current arrangements to equip and support new entrants to undertake the role of a qualified probation officer. 

11. In respect on Motion 10 on replacing OASys, contributions to the survey identified how respondents saw it as a repetitive and cumbersome assessment system tool. This was before the additional inclusion of ARMS and the 4 pillars which some would suggest were set to crumble in supporting an assessment process that was “past its sell by date”. 

12. No one gave it a rating and the comments varied from suggesting it should be abolished to the frustration in trying to make it work. Including how the document failed to support a credible sentence plan in its current format. That for some, the time spent completing the assessment would be better spent with people than completing an assessment. One that seemed driven by meeting the demands of quality assurance in support of arbitrary scores on a repetitive set of questions. It was seen by some as antiquated and lacked focus on factors that dealt with desistance and led to the completion of an ineffective supervision plan. Leading to the question exactly who the assessment was being prepared for.  

13. Quotes from respondents included: 

• We must get rid of the SDR OASys Report (as it is not user) friendly, you frequently lose work, (it) does not read or flow properly, (or) paragraphed properly, is far too difficult to go back to work on (it) pulls through information which is not properly laid out; 

• I have for a long time held the view OASys should be abolished completely. It was never helpful or effective and is mind-numbingly repetitive, laborious and time-consuming. 

• OASys is not user friendly… it seems to have been developed to help someone other than a Probation Officer. It asks complex questions and hopes that a simple number reply will provide the answer. Inspectors often comment that we know our cases very well and are doing good work but that this not reflected in the written tools. 

14. Further work is planned on this including ensuring the timing accredited to completing the combined assessments re ARMS is taken into account; along with seeking a modernisation of the tool to avoid repetitive nature of the document while seeking to make its capacity to be used more effectively in other formats such as court and parole as well MAPPA screening forms. It is of concern to the Professional and Training network that some CRC developed innovations, particularly in respect of assessment tools, that have been developed using considerable sums of public money and that are in most cases considered to be improvements, regrettably may not now make the transition to the NPS or form part of planned future developments. 

15. In respect of Motion 11 about the Duplication of Work the network has not been able to devote the work it deserved. The pressure on staff regarding the unrealistic deadlines being demanded for Parole reviews, even in cases where the date of release would not be changed through completion remains an issue. These issues have been raised at the engagement meetings and depending on capacity, work will continue and this issue will be on the agenda and addressed in the forthcoming year. 

16.The content of Motion 12 “Training is not fit for the Job” has been used to inform the work undertaken on Motion 9. It is intended to use this motion to press for the reinstatement of the Probation Training Assurance Board which has not met for some time. 

17. With regard to Motion 13 on Protecting Role Boundaries, this has been taken up by the Forum. The intention is for the P&T network to work with the Forum on revisiting the policy written some time ago on role boundaries with a view to updating and providing recommendations. 

18. Work has been undertaken with the Editorial Board of the Probation Journal on Motion 14 on “Trust me I am a Professional” over the restrictive nature of PI 38/2014 governing outside activities of probation staff. The board sought informal contact with the centre, and on the basis of being encouraged to make a case for relaxing the constraints on the submission for publication of article, wrote a position paper. At the time of writing a response from the centre was eagerly awaited. 

19. In support of the paper the network has written to the directorate seeking a meeting to review the PI with a view to removing barriers to practitioners publishing articles related to practice and their research. Freedom to discuss and write honestly and critically about practice and professional issues and the ability to freely involve a wide range of people with different voices (including, service users, decision makers, academics, practitioners and other professionals) are all essential for our future as a well-researched, scrutinised, defined, healthy, dynamic, and vibrant profession, fit for the 21st century, that we all feel proud to call our own.