Latest From Probation Institute

I notice Paul Senior, Chair of the Probation Institute, has today published the following blog post:- 

Time to get involved

I gave a lecture last week in which I talked of the ‘the politics of ignorance and despair undermining the Probation Institute and (I hinted) it could go out of business’. In the recent publication of the British Journal of Community Justice (14.1) Professor Emerita Anne Worrall posed a similar question: ‘Standing back and ‘seeing how it goes’ will result in the PI failing. The danger is that too many people will only realize that it might have been worth getting involved when it is too late to do so’ (Worrall, 2016)

New organisations which survive change rapidly at the outset and seek to listen to its constituency to do so. The PI has now completed its set up phase over a two year period, has listened, has developed and changed and in April launched its Business Plan for 2016-17 (see http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Business-Plan-2016-17-Final.pdf ). This represents a restatement of what we have achieved in those first two difficult years but crucially represents a reassessment of who we are, what we do and how we will do it. Unfortunately amongst some commentators there remains a residual resentment of issues which have an history or at least a mythology but one in which we feel we have moved on. This blog is the last time we seek to address some of these concerns.

Firstly a clear statement in the Plan is the rejection of the idea of corporate membership. It was not the right way to go and so we have moved to a concept of partnership. Yet even this has been criticised. Partnership is a concept which allows all partners to pursue their own agendas as we do ours. It does not imply agreement on all issues. In fact given the volatility of the field of probation at the moment this would be unlikely. Yet it must be right to have a relationship with the organisations and bodies which we can hope to influence over the future of the profession of probation. So we will work with NOMS, MoJ, NPS, CRCs, No Offence, Magistrates Association, Napo, Unison, UserVoice, Unlock, the HMI Inspectorate and maybe even the Howard League in order to get our message across. Recently we ran a Consultation event on the new probation officer training and helped ensure that there is one award for the NPS and CRC to avoid accusations of second class citizenship for those within CRCs. The PO qualification remains at the heart of our register, somehow misconstrued by some intent on causing mischief. But, we want to ensure that other qualifications get due recognition both at a beginning level for other grades but also to work towards our aspiration to encourage advanced practice, a clear marker of a vibrant professional presence.

We have listed what we have been doing over the first two years in the Plan and, given the size of the organisation, we have achieved a great deal. All the infrastructure is in place and we are now focusing on developing key messages, see our Position Papers. (see http://probation-institute.org/position-papers/ ) There are more in the pipeline and we are now developing our professional networks. You can join a single network without being a member so if you have a specialist interest please sign up for one of our existing networks – Women in Justice, Veterans, Electronic Monitoring, Professional Development, – or suggest new ones. We want to hear your voice.

The PI grew out of an initiative from the PCA, Napo, Unison and PA. The financial support that PCA supplied was significant in enabling us to develop the infrastructure. But we now have a diverse Board and a Representative Council which reflects much wider interests including higher education, practitioners, union links and voluntary organisations. Our executive membership is evolving along with the organisation, there is only so long that we can be held accountable for that past. Voluntary effort is at the heart of how we function, you want us to do other things then get involved!

This must include our vibrant and diverse group of Fellows. Of course, it includes managers who have a long track record in probation and we are glad that some have applied but the grouping is much wider than that including practitioners, trainers and key probation academics and the voluntary sector. It is not a closed shop and anyone can apply. Some Fellows are working hard to support the PI and we are grateful for such help.

We are acutely aware that our membership numbers have been affected by the plight of staff who are demoralised or worse have been forced to leave probation behind. There is a real personal tragedy in the events of the last two years and we all know it could have been avoided. Nevertheless we have to look forward and try and ensure that the high quality and evidence-based standards of the recent past are maintained despite the cutbacks, the redundancies, the re-modelling, the deprofessionalization and the negativism which abounds. You will see in our Plan we have set out a positive agenda and want everyone who cares about the profession to resist and persist in maintaining commitment to a positive future, however dark it might feel right now.

One key aspect is our desire to create and develop a Centre of Excellence. Our Research Committee is working on this and we have appointed a high-profile Academic Advisory Panel to support this work. We have inherited the Graham Smith Awards which showcase practitioner research and the next round will be announced soon. Our first annual practitioner conference is on June 8th, in conjunction with No Offence and at Sheffield Hallam University. It has a terrific line-up already nearing capacity attendance. Book your place before it’s too late.

If we don’t heed the warnings of fellow travellers like Anne Worrall we will derail the one organisation whose single-minded agenda seeks to maintain the professionalism of probation and community rehabilitation organisations and the profession itself. Shout at us, debate with us, challenge us but do so in a shared spirit of seeking to provide a way forward, not simply to snipe at long gone issues, part myth, part fantasy. This does not help the Institute going forward, read our Business Plan, see what we are actually doing, join if you wish and get involved.

Paul Senior

--oo0oo--

Can I please urge people to read the full PI Business Plan before leaping to comment, but at the very least it might be helpful if I quote the following:-

2 Background

The Probation Institute was set up in 2014 on the initiative of its founding organisations: NAPO, Unison, the Probation Chiefs’ Association and the Probation Association. A Steering Group including representatives of these four organisations had been set up the previous year. 

The rationale for the creation of the Institute was the lack of an independent body that represented the profession as a whole. This contrasts with other professions such as in medicine, nursing, teaching and social work. The lack of a coherent continuing professional development (CPD) structure and code of ethics were two manifestations of the absence of a recognised professional body. 

This rationale was strengthened by the government’s “Transforming Rehabilitation” reforms which have created a mixed market of Probation and criminal justice providers. Community Rehabilitation Companies are in private ownership and have supply chains that include both private and third sector providers. The National Probation Service comprises about 30% of the sector and remains in public ownership whilst commissioning services from private and third sector providers. This diversity of provision strengthens the case for a professional body spanning the whole sector. Such a body has benefits for all parties and provides underpinning for the system. 

The setting up of the Institute was resourced by donations from the Probation Chiefs’ Association and the Probation Association together with a grant from the Ministry of Justice. The latter followed submission of a business case to the MoJ and meetings between Steering Group members and the Minister for Prisons and Probation, Jeremy Wright. The minister was adamant that the funding was to assist in the setting up of the Probation Institute which needed both to be seen and be independent. 

The aspirations set out in that business case were as follows: 

• Providing professional leadership, enhancing the professional status of the sector 
• Publishing a code of ethics which provides an underpinning for the development of practice 
• Being a centre of excellence which provides an independent view of what constitutes good practice 
• Contributing to the setting of competence levels with the profession Providing a professional register that records levels of qualification and continuing professional development 
• Enabling providers to demonstrate that they adhere to common standards of practice with a firm evidence base. 

It was unclear at the time that the Steering Group was setting out their aspirations and composing the business case to MoJ, how the TR reforms would play out in practice. The reality, perhaps inevitably given the accelerated timetable for implementing the programme, has been complex and, one year after the sale of the 21 CRCs to their new owners, the system remains very much in a transitional stage. 

Lack of certainty about work volumes with consequent volatility of funding streams has been a complicating factor for CRCs and their supply chains. At the same time the National Probation Service is undergoing significant structural reform under the “E3” programme. 

This uncertainty and volatility has had a clear impact on some of the early planning assumptions made by the Steering Group. 

• Recruitment and retention of members has been much more of a challenge than anticipated. Reduction in staffing numbers, changes in roles and the sheer pace of change in the day to day roles have not created the ideal climate to focus on longer term aspirations about professional development and recognition, critically important though these remain to the future of probation. 
• Achieving sufficient visibility and getting the Institute’s voice heard amongst the noise in the system has been hard. 
• Whilst the Institute has established good working relationships with most of the new providers, it became clear that the concept of “corporate membership” was not one that was likely to be viable and has been replaced with a focus on partnerships.