Q493 Sir Alan Beith: There is a balance to be struck between professional standards, professional judgement, professional autonomy, and the setting of externally determined standards, the bounds of which have changed. Are you comfortable with the way that has gone or is going?
Sonia Crozier: In respect to some of the changes that have been made to Probation National Standards?
Sir Alan Beith: Yes.
Sonia Crozier: We’re absolutely delighted. Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust has been the host area for the national pilot, so we were asked in May of last year to develop a framework whereby we would give our probation officers and probation staff more freedom in terms of how they would make decisions around how they would manage individual offenders. Rather than following a one-size-fits-all model, they were given the autonomy back to ask, "How do I want to spend my time? What’s going to have the best impact in terms of the offenders I’m charged to supervise?"
What we have learned over the year of running what has been called the "Professional Judgement Project" is that the probation staff feel more in control. They feel they have been given the right to apply common sense in terms of how resources are allocated, and they can also be more responsive to the offenders, so if people’s circumstances change, they can either up the contact because it seems clear that more contact is required or they can make a sensible decision to reduce contact if in fact there is clear evidence that progress is being made. It has been absolutely welcomed and endorsed, and it has now informed the implementation of the revised National Standards that were released on 1 April this year.
The Trust Chairman John Steele enthusiastically backed his Chief Executive up:-
It might be interesting at this point to ask John Steele, Board Chair from Surrey and Sussex, to give his view, because clearly boards will be holding that responsibility in terms of the safety issues as well.
John Steele: Thank you. Just to add a slightly different perspective on that, clearly it is a concern when you go into new territory. I sat on the programme board, in fact, for the project, and it was interesting to see the journey, and there were anxieties among some staff about letting go, but we helped them through that. We helped them through that with a number of techniques, one of which was to ensure that they record what they do, and actually, they haven’t been used to having to record what they do. They had to tick the box. Now they have to write down what their thought process was, and that has been a learning exercise. Sonia knows it better than I do, but one of the things that some different probation officers have said is that the nature of supervision changes. The nature of what makes a good probation officer has changed. It used to be the person who ticked all the boxes and got everything in on time. Now you’re looking for slightly different skills and a slightly different approach.
It has been a very interesting and exciting journey, and I’m sure, as Sonia says, other trusts will pick this up in a way that is appropriate to them and that maintains public safety, and they won’t all adopt exactly the same approach or exactly the same freedoms. It will depend on where they are in this journey, but it was a really exciting journey and I think this is definitely the way forward. I would far rather have fewer really well-qualified professionals using their judgement than large numbers of staff. You really do need professionals to exercise that judgement.
I think this bit is really interesting:-
"The nature of what makes a good probation officer has changed. It used to be the person who ticked all the boxes and got everything in on time. Now you’re looking for slightly different skills and a slightly different approach."
Oh and this bit:-
"I would far rather have fewer really well-qualified professionals using their judgement than large numbers of staff. You really do need professionals to exercise that judgement."
Oh music to my ears! Now get OASys sorted please!
(The entire uncorrected evidence can be viewed here.)
Although I appreciate the acknowledgement of our professional discretion, I am struggling to see what this will really change. I personally would not feel entirely comfortable seeing anyone less than monthly, and I tend to see people as often as I feel is appropriate, rather than as often as national standards tells me I should. I have some cases I have kept on weekly well past the 16 weeks because I feel they need the extra input.
ReplyDeleteMy issue is usually that, in an ideal world, I would spend more time with the clients, and less typing up endless records and oasys. The only way I can see a difference being made, is like you say, if oasys is dealt with and we are freed up to do the job we all want to do! Oh and of course a sensible caseload would be a bonus! Out of interest Jim, what is the average caseload for a PO in your area? I feel so frustrated at the moment, I just dont have the time to spend with the clients, it feels like a tick box exercise, constantly chasing my tail! It almost feels like that is the intention sometimes, to devalue the work we do (starting with the FDR!) so that they can eventually phase us out altogether!!