A Licence to Practice?

Ahead of tomorrow's Napo AGM, an interesting discussion seen on Facebook:-

David A Raho I’ll be proposing and speaking to this motion at the Napo AGM

‘Urgent call for a licence to practice to safeguard Probation as a profession. 

Our profession is under existential threat as some of the most influential employers, are now seriously questioning whether probation qualifies as a profession at all, and whether, for example, individual Probation staff are in fact qualified professionals and therefore deserving of professional status.

It is now an urgent priority that an independently validated ‘Licence to Practice’, that is universally recognised by all employers, that unifies all the various qualifications, training and experience, that might allow someone to describe themselves as a probation practitioner, is carefully considered and developed. This could be similar in format to that used by other professions, such as Teaching and Social Work, where a range of qualifications, including those obtained overseas, are recognised and accepted, by all employers.

We call on Napo’s Officers and Officials, as an urgent priority, to do everything possible to work with the employers and others to establish and agree a ‘Licence to Practice’ to safeguard our probation profession and preserve the professional status of all probation practitioners both for now and in the future.

London Branch’

I have just heard my seconder who is pretty knowledgeable about the subject will not now be attending conference so I will probably be formerly seconded. If you are coming then feel free to contribute to the debate. However, I am interested in hearing any views you might have on the subject whether or not you are a Napo member.

I am fully on board with this. The way people are being pushed through various forms of training with no consistency is a huge worry. Not to mention the fact that 90% of my HR records went to the CRC when our HR people did, even though I did not. That's my training courses since qualifying as an example.

How would people get a “licence to practise”? I’ve been in my role as a PSO (now responsible officer in CRC) for over 12 years, yet the only relevant training I’ve had is training events run by Probation. Would that qualify, or would I suddenly find myself unqualified to practice? And what would happen then?

David A Raho I think a better question might be to consider who actually authorises us to carry out Probation work/services and what is it that we should and shouldn’t do in terms of tasks and responsibilities as persons employed in our particular pay band/role? I would argue that this is unclear at present and needs to be clarified. 

It is often assumed that we are authorised to do what we do because we can do it or have been asked to do it or have been doing it. This is not right and unscrupulous employers are presently able to exploit this grey area as no one is telling them otherwise and they have no authoritative reference point or benchmarks. Is it your employer the MoJ or perhaps someone else or the law that authorises you? 

I think you have just highlighted one of the knotty problems that many employers would not really like to tackle properly nor wish to debate professional status or identity as they would rather treat frontline staff as a homogeneous group who can be paid less. The term Responsible Officer applies equally to all practitioner probation staff as it does to Electronic Monitoring Service employees, those employed by a mayor on probation related projects or indeed anyone contracted or sub contracted to provide probation services. It is a worrying and unwelcome development. 

Until TR there was effectively a licence to practice (it was never referred to as a LTP but technically existed within the NNC framework effectively preventing maverick employers from making up job roles when it suited them) agreed by probation employers and conferred upon staff when employed that allowed you to call yourself a Probation Officer or Probation Service Officer and to hold particular cases and carry out particular responsibilities and undertake particular tasks if you happened to be employed by a probation service. 

PSOs were differently qualified (I would never refer to PSOs as unqualified staff) and some aspire to be specifically qualified POs and some decide to remain as PSOs doing excellent work in that role. This once generally accepted arrangement has gradually been eroded to the point where employers now see little difference between different grades of staff such as POs and PSOs and have attempted to conflate roles, for instance some CRC owners regard the PSO job as the best fit with the tasks and responsibilities that they now carry out and in some cases argue that the place for the majority of POs is in the NPS and CRCs only require very few POs with PSOs being used to do everything necessary for a reduced cost.

CRC employers appear to be encouraged in this process to cut cost rather than strive for professional quality and raised standards and indeed invest in the recruitment and retention of experienced POs or be overly concerned about training new POs. This was highlighted to me a few months ago when a senior manager challenged me to explain the difference between a PO who had received 2 years training and a recently recruited PSO who had received received 8 weeks training other than cost. Their argument was that you didn’t need an in depth knowledge of criminology to do the job they wanted them to do. Furthermore they questioned whether a PSO might be appointed to an SPO role or indeed ACO (Area Manager in London) if they had acquired management experience in another job. 

The fact is that the contracts that the CRCs for example signed with the MoJ see little difference between frontline roles because to be frank the MoJ, Noms and now HMPPS have traditionally been prison service dominated and they have not understood Probation and therefore avoid the can of worms of defining professional roles and/or professional boundaries. Some decision makers see no defined roles or boundaries and simply see PSOs as cheaper more malleable POs. 

Pragmatically if you were an employer and the MoJ says that you do not have to, then why bother to employ POs if you can employ cheaper staff to do the same/similar tasks? That is not to devalue the considerable experience, good practice and training of PSOs who may well wish to progress to the level of training required to be a PO or indeed remain as a PSO and take on particular tasks according to their training and experience. PSOs perhaps need to question more what they are being asked to do and why and also whether it is really their job to do it. 

Importantly PSOs should reestablish the right to say ‘no’ to supervise particular cases, do particular tasks, and take on certain responsibilities that they should not be expected to perform. In this context blurring the boundaries between staff grades by using generic terms such as Offender Manager and Responsible Officer could well be seen as a thinly veiled attack on the Probation profession as it is misleading and using it does not recognise differences in qualifications and experience. It opens the door for employers to reduce staff who are more expensive to train and/or who have proven that they can reach particular standards and replace them with cheaper staff they do not have to train to the same level but from whom they expect similar work. 

If the current thinking of some employers was applied to other professions then qualifications to do things would become meaningless. You would go to your local medical centre and not know whether you were speaking to or being treated by a Doctor, Nurse or Receptionist trained in first aid. ‘A medical manager will see you now’. In schools those teaching children and responsible for their education may not be qualified teachers and no real differentiations made between educators such as Teachers Classroom Assistants and administration. Those giving health and safety advice for example may not know what they are talking about or those that do may not be easily recognised putting people at risk of accident an injury. Social workers would all be the same and not necessarily professionally qualified to make professional decisions any to carry out particular statutory functions such as sectioning and taking children into care. 

The public expect that matters are being carried out by those qualified and accredited to do so. All those professions have professional bodies that define what it is to be a Teacher, Doctor, Nurse, Health and Safety Advisor, Social Worker etc. and employers who wish to make up roles or pay professionals to do some of their core tasks for less are firmly resisted. Hence the urgent need for an independent organisation in Probation to look at all the qualifications and experience a person has to perform a particular role and not leave this for individual employers to work out and define according to their business models. 

In Probation we would need to recognise different roles, qualifications and experience both retrospectively and going forward. The usual way is through a verified record of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and the establishment of pathways to professional recognition. Training events might, for example, be validated for the purpose of CPD. Qualifications, including those from other countries, could be assessed properly rather than guesses as to their validity made. It is a large project not least because Probation qualifications and the qualification bar has changed in the last 45 years - which accounts for most of those now working in Probation. However, I am confident that if established this will do much to preserve professional identity and recognise probation staff of all grades as professionals.

*****

I’ve found recently I’m one of the rare ‘qualified’ diploma level 4 PSOs through Portsmouth Uni that exists. I have two other degrees and many PSOs are highly experienced and qualified but it would be nice to be recognised in the way u r proposing thank you!! Oh and I thank Xxxxxxxx my previous SPO for supporting and pushing all of that cohort through just before the split!!

David A Raho I would definitely like that to happen and make it possible for more clearly defined pathways and more standardised and logical career progression and development for you and others.

Agree Dave but I hope we are not creating stick to beat ourselves like HCPC for SW's. A licence to practice means it can be taken away and bang goes your career anywhere in Probation.There needs to be safeguards in place.I have represented people at HCP it is very formal and hideous for the member.

David A Raho Agree but hopefully if we get the right people such as your good self with all your years of training expertise involved and have core probation principles at the heart of it so we can hopefully avoid the pitfalls. Be happy to discuss and pick your brains over a pint or two at conference. About time we took charge of our own profession.

David A Raho ok see you there.