A Worthwhile Read

As distraction from the current farce called 'Probation Day', and I can't help but notice Napo are ignoring it this year (only its second year), lets highlight a paper published in the latest edition of the Probation Journal. As with most academic papers, there's a lot in it and sadly the audience will almost certainly be small, but it pretty much covers the mess we're in and the fact it's not certain probation can survive to bake any future bloody cakes. This is but a small extract and the complete paper can be found here.

The reflective practitioner in transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales

Abstract

This article evaluates the recent history of probation services in England and Wales. The author – currently working as a Practice Teacher Assessor in the Probation Service – considers the politicisation of probation, identified as one outcome of a rhetorical narrative to ‘act tough’ on crime and the impact of the New Public Management model of organisational accountability, its focus on performance and targets, and, arguably, the diminution of the professional role. Following semi-privatisation, and currently reintegration, of probation services, the article puts forward an argument for a realignment of practice, to focus on the supervisory relationship, professional autonomy, and the reflective practitioner.

Challenges to reflective practice - workloads

The whole thing about professional identity I feel has gone and you can’t measure that, can you. You can’t quantify what that means to you as a practitioner, what you see going on around you. But it just feels like a series of tasks, every day you have a to-do list and a set of targets to meet. You are making decisions and, somewhere in the middle, you might exercise your professional judgement. It doesn’t actually feel that way, because all the time it's about a process rather than about looking at anything, having the capacity to reflect on what you’re doing and look at the bigger picture and understand what's going on and have time to talk to anybody about what it is you’re trying to do at any point in time (NAPO branch official and Probation Officer in Kirton and Guillaume 2015).

The work is not manageable, in the sense that you can do the basics, but have no time to dig into the detail. No time for reflection or professional curiosity (Probation Officer, National Probation Service. HMIP, 2021).

The first quotation above is derived from a research study conducted in the immediate aftermath of Transforming Rehabilitation, which sought to evaluate the impact of the restructure on probation practitioners and, in particular, on their sense of professional identity. The second is from an HMIP report, considering the impact of caseloads and workloads on probation practitioners. (HMIP, 2021).

In addition to performance and targets, there seem to be two further key issues which currently shape and determine the nature of the work which probation staff undertake; and, importantly, how they feel about it. The first relates to the volume of work – the number of cases held, and the impact of the type of work undertaken. A recent HMIP (2021) report identified that excessive case and workloads were proving highly detrimental to standards of supervision, as well as to the health and well-being of staff. Additionally, the impact of TR resulted in highly specific caseloads for each sector of The Probation Service, with potentially deleterious effects.

Consequently, an aspect of practice which has changed significantly has been the longevity of supervisory relationships. At one point in its history, a probation officer would complete a Pre-Sentence Report for the court, a full assessment of needs and risks relating to offending and harm. Sentencing disposals would be considered and a proposal made. Post sentence, it was likely that the court report author, or a colleague in the same team, would take responsibility for supervision. This localised and simple model of assessment and allocation brought enormous benefits, in terms of the engagement of service users in the process, resting in large part on the validity of assessment, and the formation of a relationship with the Service and its practitioners from the outset. In addition, I would argue that it provided practitioners with a sense of mastery, agency, and ownership over their work.

In this context, the TOM is encouraging, in that it notes the delivery of probation via PODs (Probation Operational Delivery structures):

a small cross grade grouping of Probation Practitioners and a case administrator that draws on the skills and experiences within that team to support each other's probation work and enables service users to benefit from a familiar relationship with a small team to help improve continuity and engagement (HMPPS, 2021, emphasis mine).

This model seems designed to foster a sense of belonging and continuity which could provide positive benefits for supervisees and practitioners – with a possible positive impact on successful completion of orders and licences, and the retention of staff over time.

Training and continuing professional development

Secondly, the current model of Probation Officer training, the PQiP encompasses all the tensions relating to current probation practice. Several authors have suggested that PQiP learners consider that the training programme as currently configured presents a model of practice which is not borne out by their experience (see L Annison et al., 2008; Tangen and Briah, 2018). It is disturbing that trainees continue to experience these dissonances in probation officer training – perhaps in part reflecting the tension in their (binary) role, in that they are employed as Probation Service Officer grade staff, with operational commitments; and as trainee probation officers, with notional workload relief to enable both academic study, and opportunities to develop professional competence. Competence is assessed via the Vocational Qualification (VQ) element of the award; assessment is based upon key indicators of effective practice which have been evidenced in several studies. The assessment of skills of engagement with service users is the first VQ unit required for completion – in recognition of the reality that an absence of these skills and attributes is likely to nullify the effectiveness of supervision. Yet, to revisit an earlier argument, Tangen and Briah suggest that there has been:

a move from individuals educated to critically reflect on their practice, to technicians trained to implement specific processes, eroding the professionalism and autonomy of probation practitioners (Tangen and Briah, 2018).

Carr (2020) asserts that training for probation practitioners is required to encompass theoretical knowledge, alongside;

Advanced skills demonstrating mastery and innovation required to solve complex and unpredictable problems, (and) a degree of responsibility and autonomy involving the ability to manage complex professional activities (Carr, 2020).

The current culture of probation work seems to oscillate between dual tensions, firstly between the managerialist approach, and the motivations for practitioners to sustain the professional relationship with the people whom they supervise, and which, for most probation workers, is the primary driver for motivation to do the job (Phillips, 2014; Tidmarsh, 2020). Secondly, within a context of managerialist approaches, the artistry of the reflective practitioner described by Schon seems a remote vision. The reality of overwork, targets, now set against a backdrop of further organisational change – which is additionally likely to involve an extension to remote working, at least in part, in the wake of the Exceptional Delivery Model response to the COVID-19 pandemic – suggests that at least some of the aspirations of the TOM may be difficult to realise, in the short term at least

These latter tensions are explored by Ainslie et al. (2022) in a paper which evaluates the findings from very recent research into the implementation of the Reflective Practice Supervision Standards (RPSS) within the NPS (RPSS is a key component of the SEEDS framework, originally delivered in probation in 2013/14, shortly prior to the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation). The study highlights the value placed by practitioners on opportunities for reflective supervision, whilst simultaneously noting the barriers to its effective implementation (as outlined above). The title of their paper, ‘A nice idea, but…’ neatly encapsulates this conflict in demands on probation workers, and on their supervising managers.

Conclusion - the future of probation work

If events of the last decade teach us anything, it is that prediction and forecasting are futile endeavours, as much in probation as in the wider global context. During the early years of the 21st century, Nash (1999) considered it likely that probation officers would become much more aligned with the police – and possibly become known as ‘polibation officers,’ with the loss of autonomy that such a job title implies. In 2016, Mair suggested that ‘the probation service is under threat […] faced with extinction…’(Mair, 2016). Subsequently, writing in 2018, Vanstone noted that:

The probation service in England and Wales is much reduced, a substantial amount of work transferred to private sector community rehabilitation companies. It may not survive but now, part of the civil service and confined to the oversight classified as being at high risk of reoffending, more than ever it needs innovative and effective practice in order to continue its unique contribution to the rehabilitation of people who have offended (Vanstone, 2018, emphasis mine).

So – it is impossible not to be acutely aware of predictions of the demise of probation as a unique and valuable part of the criminal justice system, by several authors, over a period of time. And yet – against the odds, the Probation Service remains, unquestionably battered and diminished, but with the appearance of seeking to hold its core values and approaches intact. Mair (2016) asserts that these traditional values and approaches of probation work will inevitably place the service at a disadvantage in fighting its corner with regard to tougher approaches, and achieving measurable outcomes. He attributes this, in part, to ongoing bemusement about the mystery of the core professional relationship; and, also, to the fact that probation practitioners are notoriously bashful at asserting their professional skills, and the evidence base for their practice. Mair asserts that, historically, the identity of probation was that of ‘doing good work with bad people - and that was its own justification.’ (Mair, 2016). Phillips (2020), citing Tomczak, suggests that ‘there are too many ‘directors and detractors’ who highlight what has gone wrong and what needs to happen next, but an insufficient number of ‘effectors’ to put those recommendations into practice.’ Probably both are correct, placing probation work in the invidious position of being good at what it does, yet limited in its capacity to assert its validity as an organisation, and seemingly reluctant to aggressively pursue its unique agenda in the political arena – a significant deficit within the context of an increasingly politicised service. Deering (2010) suggests that ‘ultimately, perhaps, probation practice is based in faith that it is an effective moral good’. In this regard, the values and approaches of contemporary probation practitioners would not seem out of place to the original Police Court Missionaries.

Much has been lost and much has been gained in probation work over its hundred-plus years of existence. It is ironic that, at a point in time when significant organisational change is being revisited for overtly positive and constructive reasons, it also could be at most risk of losing its defining characteristics – of purposeful, humane, one-to-one work with people to effect change; and the informed, reflective approach of practitioners to operate effectively in the liminal world of probation practice. It is possible to applaud the retreat from privatisation, and to remain fearful for the survival of the core values of probation work.

Mawby and Worrall (2013) refer to probation as ‘an honourable profession,’ and conclude by asserting that:

It would be courageous for…the government to respect that this work inevitably involves a willingness to work holistically and optimistically, though not naively, with uncertainty, ambivalence and (to a degree) failure. Someone has to do it.

With these thoughts in mind, it seems ironic that, at a time when there is much to celebrate, in the reintegration of probation work into one public sector organisation, there is also much to fear. The current phase of probation organisation provides grounds for optimism; and yet, it seems possible that this is a period of considerable jeopardy for the traditional values and culture of probation work, the primacy of the professional relationship, and the professional identity of practitioners. These concerns reflect the tension between official stated aims and objectives; and the reality of the lived experience of people who work in, and who are supervised by, probation. Subjectively, I remain of the view that it is entirely possible that the Probation Service will survive in recognisable form for another century, for the reasons outlined by Mawby and Worrall; and, perhaps perversely, I remain hopeful, if appropriately sceptical, regarding its future organisation, and the delivery of its service.

Anne Burrell