The Probation Service must not be subsumed
Probation is a unique profession that requires different working practices to prisons or the Civil Service — to give our clients the best support, we must be given our independence, write Katie Lomas and Ben Cockburn.
Probation was accidentally nationalised and moved into the Civil Service as a consequence of the government’s failed Transforming Rehabilitation reforms in 2014. The National Probation Service that was created at that time was markedly different to the service that had existed before, with the former probation trusts abolished despite all of them having performance assessed as “good” or “outstanding” and many having externally assessed excellence marks.
The cancelling of the CRC contracts in 2021 moved the final elements of probation work into the Civil Service and now all of the probation system exists in the Civil Service, either directly provided or in small contracts for specialist support services. This has been a disaster for the profession.
The move away from trusts that valued and supported the professionalism of their staff to the top-down command and control ethos of the Civil Service has stifled professionalism so much that there is now a move to “professionalise” probation staff. The insult that this term brings to professionals who have struggled to deliver a service in the face of cuts to budgets and staffing and a disastrous and dangerous split in the system cannot be underestimated.
It is unlikely that the decision makers in the Ministry of Justice will ever hear the true voice of the profession however, as they are far removed from probation, a tiny part of the huge machine that delivers justice across England and Wales. Now we are told that, in response to the announcement made by the outgoing prime minister about Civil Service job cuts, the Probation Service will be subsumed into HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and no longer exist with a separate framework to support it.
Early versions of the communications about this move promised that decisions would be based on evidence and data. It is not clear if these will make it into the final cut after Napo pointed out that this is the latest in a string of harmful decisions made on the basis of political whim rather than any evidence or data.
The probation system is markedly different to the prison system. That does not mean that either one is better or worse, they are simply different. The prison system works on strict rules, security and hierarchy. These are necessary for safety of staff and those in prison.
Probation is a unique profession that requires different working practices to prisons or the Civil Service — to give our clients the best support, we must be given our independence, write Katie Lomas and Ben Cockburn.
Probation was accidentally nationalised and moved into the Civil Service as a consequence of the government’s failed Transforming Rehabilitation reforms in 2014. The National Probation Service that was created at that time was markedly different to the service that had existed before, with the former probation trusts abolished despite all of them having performance assessed as “good” or “outstanding” and many having externally assessed excellence marks.
The cancelling of the CRC contracts in 2021 moved the final elements of probation work into the Civil Service and now all of the probation system exists in the Civil Service, either directly provided or in small contracts for specialist support services. This has been a disaster for the profession.
The move away from trusts that valued and supported the professionalism of their staff to the top-down command and control ethos of the Civil Service has stifled professionalism so much that there is now a move to “professionalise” probation staff. The insult that this term brings to professionals who have struggled to deliver a service in the face of cuts to budgets and staffing and a disastrous and dangerous split in the system cannot be underestimated.
It is unlikely that the decision makers in the Ministry of Justice will ever hear the true voice of the profession however, as they are far removed from probation, a tiny part of the huge machine that delivers justice across England and Wales. Now we are told that, in response to the announcement made by the outgoing prime minister about Civil Service job cuts, the Probation Service will be subsumed into HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and no longer exist with a separate framework to support it.
Early versions of the communications about this move promised that decisions would be based on evidence and data. It is not clear if these will make it into the final cut after Napo pointed out that this is the latest in a string of harmful decisions made on the basis of political whim rather than any evidence or data.
The probation system is markedly different to the prison system. That does not mean that either one is better or worse, they are simply different. The prison system works on strict rules, security and hierarchy. These are necessary for safety of staff and those in prison.
The probation system works on transparency and constantly questioning everything — including instructions and rules. Probation training encourages the professional to question the system in which they, and their client, exist and to seek to understand and explore issues relating to power and control in their working relationships. This inevitably effects the way that those professionals respond to their own working relationships in their own supervision and management arrangements. Probation professionals should be expected to ask for evidence and data, to scrutinise the motivation for instructions and policy changes and above all to have an active voice in their own management.
For many years Napo has been warning that the move into HMPPS was a risk to the profession, and the “one HMPPS” programme is likely to realise our fears. Probation as a profession will be under threat due to the needs of our larger and more costly partner — the prisons. Senior leaders will continue to struggle to make the voice of probation heard and, in order to survive, will adopt more of a command-and-control approach, discouraging questioning and becoming more remote.
The phrase “that’s not how Civil Service/HMPPS/prisons do it” will continue to be the stock response when those who retain probation values and approaches try to be heard. It is important to note that in all the work done since 2014 to rebuild probation in the Civil Service you never hear anyone say “that’s how probation do it.”
This is a great shame; there is much that our colleagues in the wider HMPPS and Civil Service could learn from the former probation trusts, those outstanding performers with externally verified excellence standards. If the Civil Service headcount needs to be reduced then Napo have the perfect solution which is “oven ready.”
It is: move the Probation Service out of the Civil Service into a non-departmental government body. Keep probation in the public sector but freed from prison and removed from the Civil Service. Give probation professionals the freedom to practice, give senior leaders the freedom to truly lead. Make the Probation Service locally accountable, enabling partnership working while retaining their unique culture and values.
Katie Lomas is former national chair of Napo and Ben Cockburn is national vice chair.
For many years Napo has been warning that the move into HMPPS was a risk to the profession, and the “one HMPPS” programme is likely to realise our fears. Probation as a profession will be under threat due to the needs of our larger and more costly partner — the prisons. Senior leaders will continue to struggle to make the voice of probation heard and, in order to survive, will adopt more of a command-and-control approach, discouraging questioning and becoming more remote.
The phrase “that’s not how Civil Service/HMPPS/prisons do it” will continue to be the stock response when those who retain probation values and approaches try to be heard. It is important to note that in all the work done since 2014 to rebuild probation in the Civil Service you never hear anyone say “that’s how probation do it.”
This is a great shame; there is much that our colleagues in the wider HMPPS and Civil Service could learn from the former probation trusts, those outstanding performers with externally verified excellence standards. If the Civil Service headcount needs to be reduced then Napo have the perfect solution which is “oven ready.”
It is: move the Probation Service out of the Civil Service into a non-departmental government body. Keep probation in the public sector but freed from prison and removed from the Civil Service. Give probation professionals the freedom to practice, give senior leaders the freedom to truly lead. Make the Probation Service locally accountable, enabling partnership working while retaining their unique culture and values.
Katie Lomas is former national chair of Napo and Ben Cockburn is national vice chair.
--oo00oo--
When my attention was drawn to this article a couple of days ago via Twitter, I remarked I didn't know what to make of it. I queried the statement that 'probation was accidentally nationalised' and 'it is a great shame' that the probation way is not valued within HMPPS.
Given the history and trauma the Service has been through, to be perfectly honest I found these phrases astonishing. There is now the almost certain likelihood of a change of government within two years and what we surely need is a robust campaign for probation's independent future, not soft soap and flannel. We also need to get the history right. What Grayling did was very definitely a deliberate political act of vandalism. It was not 'accidental'. I'm not alone in this view:-
"Jim, this is not the right place for this Napo nonsense, but it does need to be aired. Feel free to reposition it where you think fit. What on earth are Napo up to? Reads as though they're apologists for the whole debacle and those who enabled and continue to enforce it. None of what happened to probation was accidental. Napo spent months celebrating the "win" of "re-nationalisation". With a very few exceptions, none of the senior leaders are capable of leading, have been actively complicit with HMPPS and the political direction of travel and HMI Probation have verified this with Nil Points all round - despite Justin's kind words in a desperate bid to spare his chums' blushes. This article is revisionist and misleading."
The article is clearly gaining some attention. This from Twitter:-
"The most perfect description of Probation that I have ever read, as described by those from@Napo_News" :-
"The probation system works on transparency and constantly questioning everything — including instructions and rules. Probation training encourages the professional to question the system in which they, and their client, exist and to seek to understand and explore issues relating to power and control in their working relationships."
Transforming Rehabilitation was no accident, it cost millions and many staff lost their careers or were deskilled. Now we are re-unified the scars are still visible with ex NPS staff continuing to look down their noses at former crc staff. They forget that prior to the destruction of Probation we all had the same skills.
ReplyDeletehttps://www-unison-org-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.unison.org.uk/news/2022/10/delegates-pass-key-motions-to-protect-probation-workers/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16664293333256&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unison.org.uk%2Fnews%2F2022%2F10%2Fdelegates-pass-key-motions-to-protect-probation-workers%2F
ReplyDeleteProbation service
DeleteSeveral key motions were passed on providing security and support to UNISON members working in probation, after years of turmoil and instability due to the rapid restructuring of probation due to the failed ‘transforming rehabilitation’ agenda led by Chris Grayling.
Christine Grant, introducing a successful motion on probation service policies on behalf of the national probation committee, said: “Ever since the creation of the national probation service in 2014, UNISON has been fighting to defend our members’ terms and conditions.
“Members who have been transferred to the probation service from community rehabilitation centres (CRCs) have retained distinctive probation service terms and conditions.
“The Ministry of Justice fail to understand the pay and conditions of probation staff. We have had to enter disputes and legal action in order to safeguard our members’ interests.
“We’ve had to fight to retain the right to negotiate over subsistence allowances. We’ve had to fight to get back pay for members who have been upgraded through job evaluation because the civil service does not give back pay on job evaluation outcomes. It is a continual struggle and there is much work that lies ahead to secure our members’ terms and conditions.”
UNISON recognises that, while reunification of probation – after years of fragmentation and privatisation – is a triumph, members working in the service have absorbed huge amounts of turmoil and change. One of the motions passed unanimously demanded the union works to slow down the rate of change within the probation service, to provide consistency both for UNISON members and the people on probation who they support.
Frank Radcliffe from Eastern region probation branch, said: “What we are faced with now is an organisation led by a small army of civil servants, intent on introducing policy after policy, initiative after initiative, making the service more bureaucratic and less independent.”
Jill Harrison, speaking on behalf of the service group executive, commented: “Six years and half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money poured into the ground, Grayling’s transforming rehabilitation experiments collapsed into disaster. In many respects, it was out of the frying pan and into the fire, because the probation service is now wholly in the control of the civil service, and probation is where the government always wanted it to be, under its thumb.”
“Every week, there’s an avalanche of consultations on ways of working, new jobs and new ideas. Probation staff have not had the chance to settle into the new service. The so-called ‘One HMPPS’ is an attempt to merge the probation and prisons service, and UNISON is opposed to this. We’re working with a broad coalition to protect the future of probation and secure the future of an independent probation service.”
Resisting prison-related plans
DeleteAnother motion was passed on resisting attempts by the government to impose policies designed for the prison service onto the probation service. Speaking in support of a motion to ‘protect probation’s identity’, one member working in HMP Chelmsford reminded delegates: “The probation ethos is to ‘advise, assist and befriend’. We may share the same service users as the prison service, but our ways of working are very different.”
Vice president of the service group Debi Potter said: “The profession of probation is under threat. The Ministry of Justice is gradually eroding its independence and ethos. First probation was split up, then privatised, then reunified after several years of mismanagement.
“Now, under centralised command under HMPPS, probation remains under threat because the public service ethos is being subsumed.”
Prior to the privatisation of probation in 2014, the probation service was run by 35 independent probation trusts, each run by a chief probation officer with authority equivalent to that of a chief police constable.
Ms Potter said that the independence of the probation service was “always seen as a threat to the Ministry of Justice: too independent, too outspoken in defence of probation, so they had to go. Now there’s only one chief probation officer, who is a civil servant, and recently the justice secretary made a decision to prevent probation officers making recommendations to parole boards on the release of people from prison.
“We’re facing the threat of merging probation with prison services. We’ve already seen probation officers line-managed by prison governors. We need to maintain the independence and ethos of probation.”
Unison, Napo and probation unions actually ushered in the death knell for probation. Look at the recent pay deal they walked members into. They also failed against TR and unification, yet they take member subs and offer nothing but puff and bluster.
DeleteWhat are probation unions going to achieve here?