The happy pair at the MoJ yesterday:-
"Final all-staff of the parly term. Brilliant to hear the DPM & Justice Secretary @DominicRaab thank @MoJGovUK colleagues. Huge amount achieved to support victims, reduce reoffending, support the justice system & protect the public. Thank you to the best team in Whitehall!"
In June 2021, probation in England and Wales was unified, bringing the part-privatisation of services through the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms to an end after just seven years. For the last few months, I have been researching professional identity, culture, and practice in probation since the collapse of TR. I’ve interviewed 38 members of staff from across the probation estate, and what follows presents some preliminary findings from this project.
Feelings on unification are mostly mixed: staff are happy that TR has come to an end but frustrated that so much money was wasted on ideological indulgences. Unfortunately, the ‘two-tier’ nature of TR, in which Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and their staff were viewed as inferior, persists: legacy CRC staff in many regions reported on a perceived ‘second class’ status within the new arrangements. However, many staff also commented on how unification has restored a sense of professional identity, as ‘we’re all one service now’.
Despite general happiness that services are, once again, delivered under the banner of a single, public sector organisation, the sense that probation is not a good fit with the Civil Service is widespread. With TR, there was an obvious ‘bogeyman’ – Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary when the reforms were implemented – on whom to pin frustrations. In the absence of such a figure since unification, a grey, faceless ‘Civil Service bureaucracy’ has come to (partially) occupy this role. Interestingly, many legacy CRC staff argued that they missed the ‘flexibility’ and ‘dynamism’ of working in the private sector.
Pay, though, is the biggest concern for staff. Probation has not had a meaningful pay rise for a decade. There is a fundamental imbalance between the level of remuneration and the social responsibility involved in keeping the public safe. As such, maingrade practitioners often compared themselves to other public sector professionals (police, nurses, etc.); they argued that they were ‘hidden heroes’ who worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, only without recognition from the public or in terms of pay. Staff feel overworked, with many expressing the view that it is bad for clients and dangerous for the public. These pressures make both recruitment and retention difficult. Senior management are aware of this issue and are working to fill vacancies, but they cannot ‘magic probation officers out of thin air’.
Quite a few, often more experienced, staff expressed concerns about newer recruits into the service, along with the quality of the PQiP, although these reservations were not shared by Trainee Probation Officers nor Practice Tutor Assessors. This was tied into calls for a greater diversity of life experience in the service. This includes hiring people with lived experience of the criminal justice system – something that is made more difficult by stringent Civil Service vetting procedures – along with more people from minority ethnic backgrounds. Staff of all genders, length of experience, and pay grades reflected on how the service is too white and too female.
The feminisation of probation in recent decades is an interesting and underexplored phenomenon. On why the service has struggled to recruit men, responses can be separated into three: pay, the demography of (social science) courses from which many are recruited, and the ‘caring’ nature of the role. To be clear, I’m not saying that women are prepared to work for less than men; that they’re more suited to probation because ‘caring is a woman’s work’; nor even that feminisation is necessarily a problem. Rather, the need to have an ‘appropriate’ degree for the PQiP has meant a pipeline has been established between it and social sciences courses (like criminology) dominated by women. This, added to poor pay in the service, has meant far more women enter the profession than men.
Professional development beyond the PQiP, however, is not fit for purpose. Mandatory e-learning does not adequately reflect the different learning styles of staff – ironically, something the service prides itself on in its work with people on probation. That said, there was significant evidence of the persistence of ‘probation values’. This is to say that staff continue to be attracted into the profession because of a desire to work with people; to believe that clients can change and help them desist from crime.
The last point should give hope for the future. Many of these issues will take time to fix – one senior manager suggested 3-5 years – but there is a sense among staff, and particularly among senior leaders, that the service is once again moving in the right direction. With yet more political change on the horizon, it is my hope that the uptick in investment in probation we have seen in last couple of years continues and begins to be felt by staff. The people that work in the service are, after all, its most valuable asset.
This is a guest post by Matt Tidmarsh (@matt_tidmarsh), sharing preliminary findings from his research with probation staff.
Meanwhile a staff member writes:-
"With a few parole board hearing pending I’ve written a note to self on the front of the dossiers the line I’ll be consistently repeating, “due to new rules I’m unable to answer your question”.
It’s only a matter of time before the parole board, the offenders and legal representatives alike challenge the new rules. Currently Probation attends parole board hearings on behalf of Secretary of State. Until 15th July 2022 Probation made recommendations on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Probation no longer make recommendations in case this conflicts with recommendations of the Secretary of State. Probation is therefore no longer representing the Secretary of State at parole board hearings. There is really no point in us being there. Solution: Secretary of State completes his own Oasys and Parom and attends parole board hearings instead of Probation."
Russell Webster publishes interim research results:-
What Do Staff Think About The (Re-)Unified Probation Service?In June 2021, probation in England and Wales was unified, bringing the part-privatisation of services through the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms to an end after just seven years. For the last few months, I have been researching professional identity, culture, and practice in probation since the collapse of TR. I’ve interviewed 38 members of staff from across the probation estate, and what follows presents some preliminary findings from this project.
Feelings on unification are mostly mixed: staff are happy that TR has come to an end but frustrated that so much money was wasted on ideological indulgences. Unfortunately, the ‘two-tier’ nature of TR, in which Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and their staff were viewed as inferior, persists: legacy CRC staff in many regions reported on a perceived ‘second class’ status within the new arrangements. However, many staff also commented on how unification has restored a sense of professional identity, as ‘we’re all one service now’.
Despite general happiness that services are, once again, delivered under the banner of a single, public sector organisation, the sense that probation is not a good fit with the Civil Service is widespread. With TR, there was an obvious ‘bogeyman’ – Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary when the reforms were implemented – on whom to pin frustrations. In the absence of such a figure since unification, a grey, faceless ‘Civil Service bureaucracy’ has come to (partially) occupy this role. Interestingly, many legacy CRC staff argued that they missed the ‘flexibility’ and ‘dynamism’ of working in the private sector.
Pay, though, is the biggest concern for staff. Probation has not had a meaningful pay rise for a decade. There is a fundamental imbalance between the level of remuneration and the social responsibility involved in keeping the public safe. As such, maingrade practitioners often compared themselves to other public sector professionals (police, nurses, etc.); they argued that they were ‘hidden heroes’ who worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, only without recognition from the public or in terms of pay. Staff feel overworked, with many expressing the view that it is bad for clients and dangerous for the public. These pressures make both recruitment and retention difficult. Senior management are aware of this issue and are working to fill vacancies, but they cannot ‘magic probation officers out of thin air’.
Quite a few, often more experienced, staff expressed concerns about newer recruits into the service, along with the quality of the PQiP, although these reservations were not shared by Trainee Probation Officers nor Practice Tutor Assessors. This was tied into calls for a greater diversity of life experience in the service. This includes hiring people with lived experience of the criminal justice system – something that is made more difficult by stringent Civil Service vetting procedures – along with more people from minority ethnic backgrounds. Staff of all genders, length of experience, and pay grades reflected on how the service is too white and too female.
The feminisation of probation in recent decades is an interesting and underexplored phenomenon. On why the service has struggled to recruit men, responses can be separated into three: pay, the demography of (social science) courses from which many are recruited, and the ‘caring’ nature of the role. To be clear, I’m not saying that women are prepared to work for less than men; that they’re more suited to probation because ‘caring is a woman’s work’; nor even that feminisation is necessarily a problem. Rather, the need to have an ‘appropriate’ degree for the PQiP has meant a pipeline has been established between it and social sciences courses (like criminology) dominated by women. This, added to poor pay in the service, has meant far more women enter the profession than men.
Professional development beyond the PQiP, however, is not fit for purpose. Mandatory e-learning does not adequately reflect the different learning styles of staff – ironically, something the service prides itself on in its work with people on probation. That said, there was significant evidence of the persistence of ‘probation values’. This is to say that staff continue to be attracted into the profession because of a desire to work with people; to believe that clients can change and help them desist from crime.
The last point should give hope for the future. Many of these issues will take time to fix – one senior manager suggested 3-5 years – but there is a sense among staff, and particularly among senior leaders, that the service is once again moving in the right direction. With yet more political change on the horizon, it is my hope that the uptick in investment in probation we have seen in last couple of years continues and begins to be felt by staff. The people that work in the service are, after all, its most valuable asset.
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"As both a home & a seconded Probation Officer I received commendations throughout my career from the Parole Board for PARs I authored. The board value the work Probation do..this includes making informed recommendations...I too am thus speechless."
Since TR there’s been so much of this type of half-baked research that just muddys the water.
ReplyDelete“but there is a sense among staff, and particularly among senior leaders, that the service is once again moving in the right direction.”
What utter nonsense. Matt Tidmarsh needs to start over because most probation officers across the land will tell you probation is beyond breaking point. What exactly is this “right direction” because it’s definitely not pay, recruitment or professional responsibility.
“but there is a sense among staff, and particularly among senior leaders, that the service is once again moving in the right direction.”
DeleteI agree with you. Where on earth did that utter nonsense spout from? In my 20 years with the service I have never known pressure and caseloads be so high and morale so low. It is at breaking point and I for one can’t wait to get out. Unreasonable demands in terms of layers of meaningless bureaucracy and too many complex cases mean that risk issues are often missed. Not due to incompetent officers just overworked ones without time to spend with people.
This self congratulatory patting on the back from the upper echelons is unbearable. They need to see what is really happening on the ground.
“the uptick in investment in probation we have seen in last couple of years continues and begins to be felt by staff.”
ReplyDeleteAnd what would that be then?
This is the shite senior managers spout.
Antonia Romeo 21 Feb'22 - Meeting with Policy Exchange to discuss government reform
ReplyDelete"Policy Exchange is a British conservative think tank based in London. In 2007 it was described in The Daily Telegraph as "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right"
Policy Exchange Launch Event: "Improving the UK’s competitiveness post-Brexit by enhancing the rule of law" - Dominic Raab MP joined an expert panel to offer answers to this question which will have a significant impact upon the wealth of the country following Brexit. This event marked the launch of Everyone has a part to play: Improving the UK’s competitiveness post-Brexit by enhancing the rule of law, a new report from Linklaters on this once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinforce the rule of law and hence the UK’s economic competitiveness and prosperity.
Here is Raab's speech:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/improving-uk-competitiveness-strengthening-the-rule-of-law
Antonia Romeo 10 Mar'22 - Meeting with Reform UK to discuss government reform
"Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded as the Brexit Party in November 2018, endorsing hard Euroscepticism"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10467583/Top-civil-servant-turns-job-leading-Boris-Johnsons-new-Office-Prime-Minister.html
If Probation Officers can’t make recommendations, they shouldn’t need to attend @Parole_Board hearings. SoS Dominic Raab can attend instead. Job done!
ReplyDeleteFrom Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"I have joined this type of thing in the past and found the way questions are pre-selected sickening. It’s just a self-congratulatory smug-fest for those ruining our profession and the lives of those in our charge."
My experience of training as a TPO 20+ years ago and onward, was that NPS provided some of the best face-to-face training I had during my lifetime of working, both in Probation and the private sector. E-Learning, which replaced this, is as basic and useless and educational platform as it's possible to get. Who can recall finishing an E-Learning module and feeling knowledgable and motivated to take this 'new knowledge" forward? Who can recall now, E-Learning modules of last month, last year and beyond? Not me. I do though, still recall with clarity, some of the training I experienced, what must be 15-20 years ago. This tells me that the future for operational staff is doomed unless investment in staff is substantially improved.
ReplyDeleteFrom Twitter:-
Delete"No-one, if a number of us are doing it we write the answers down and pass them around the group."
From Twitter:-
Delete"Between the methods of "training at live events" and "E-learning" there was "cascade training" Another sheep-dip process."
‘…..The feminisation of probation in recent decades is an interesting and underexplored phenomenon.’
ReplyDeleteSome years ago when in my area, the gender split was about 60/40.There was uproar. When the ratios went to about 85% to 15% the other way, this was, and still is, deemed acceptable.
if you are male, white and unemployed working class, as the majority of service users in this area are, probation would be hard pressed to put forward supervising officers who could identify with your route into offending whilst challenging this from a common perspective.
This has been known and understood for the last twenty years or so and whilst steps have been taken to address other inequalities nobody in management or academia has had anything to say on the subject.
I wholeheartedly agree....the mantra seems to be "women deserve trauma informed, gender informed and tailored services" and I wholeheartedly agree. Men's trauma informed needs are often sidelined or not acknowledged....when I see statistics which demonstrate men have less depression/emotional well-being issues or past trauma, I often speculate whether the officers asked, explored those concerns or probed. Ask a man if they have poor well-being or traumatic experiences men tend to say they don't.....explore further and the damage is often there. Womems offending is portrayed as originating from their social circumstances..men are seen to be bourne from their inherent behavioural risks and poor decision making with little context often paid to their poor esteem, difficult social circumstances and personal tragedies. Women are seen to need something different than the awful status quo, possibly because the majority Women in the service are able to see that the status quo does not work for them....as a man I totally see the services provided are ineffective, and yet I don't appear to be able to express this vies other than anonymously here
DeleteOld Timer PO, I agree most emphatically with you, however you fail to appreciate the purpose of todays ‘training.’
ReplyDeleteIt is there purely and simply to meet a legal requirement and to exonerate the employers when something goes wrong.
They will claim that they have trained you in whatever subject and therefore any disasters are your fault because you have deviated from what you were told.
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"It’s like the elephant in the room. Or a ridiculous meme. Tell me your assessment of risks on release without telling me the risks of release."
Under new guidelines is Dominic Raab attending the public Parole Board hearing of Charles Bronson in person to give his recommendation? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-62257934
ReplyDeleteThe over feminisation of probation has other negative impacts. Many of our Service Users are working class, males who have had challenges in their lives and they struggle with authority. Am I being out of order feeling that having young 20 something women walking into supervision wearing mini skirts or short shorts, low cut tops and make up like a night out to a club or social event is not conducive to dealing with males in a vulnerable position who are scared angry, humiliated and may have ego issues. Going into the room dressed to the 9’s to talk to them about how fear caused the secondary emotion of angry. I would be interested in peoples opinions.
ReplyDeleteYes you are out of order and indeed verging on misogynistic.
Delete21:14 I think you exaggerate and it’s you that has the problem. There’s a PO in my office that wears shiny shoes and doesn’t do the top button of bright coloured shirts, is he a problem too?
DeleteYour comments about mini skirts and make up aside, I do see your point. Do some men need a masculinised service to grow and develop? yes I agree some do. Does it always take a man to understand a man's issues with ego, anger and fear...of course not. But the conversation needs to be had organisationally and in training, not e learning , about how we can all (male or female) better empathise and understand issues that men tend to face and gender specific issues from male perspectives...this happens organisationally about women...never men.
Delete2114 makes a reasonable attempt to raise the disproportionate appearances of staffing and then receives the sort of response that makes any sensible man not want to work in probation .
DeleteIf 21:14 had stopped after the first two sentences, I might agree with theie point (and indeed I do agree with 23:55, who made it rather better). However, in revealing his or her prejudices about young female staff, he or she undermines their own point. Signed, a sensible man who works in probation.
DeleteThis has the potential to be more serious. As a rep I am now regularly seeing female managers making unfair and unreasonable findings against male accused employees. You may not like to hear that but there is now a very notable pattern of an empathy absence for the few men remaining in Probation. We need good male role models in this organisation, we are currently going backwards.
Delete"The best practitioners give the client the sense that they understand what it feels like to be who they are". This from an obit of a famous psychotherapist. In a probation context young female PO's, often white and middle class, face a challenge when working with young working class men, especially from ethnic minorities. Not insurmountable, of course, but I think it needs to be acknowledged.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate some of my upcoming comments may be inflammatory however free speech with respect for others diversity keeps important discussions in the open where they belong.
ReplyDeleteThe feminisation of probation Is an important interesting subject seeing as most people on probation are white males being managed by females which does conflict with resistance approaches of understanding backstories. Why do people resist probation? We put male DA perpetrators in front room f their victim demographic and we see conflict and challenge that often goes unaddressed by the female practitioner as after all the male is well versed cohersive and controlling behaviour and unless you see through the lens of both perpetrators and you crimes it puts you at odds with understanding which is required to engage effectively. Agree that a female dominated organisation will have over time see perpetrators as men and victims as females which statistically adds up but only to an element of the wider problem. However, try and move through that agenda without being labelled a sexist which in a female dominated organisation is more than a potential risk it is almost a certainty.
Command and control?
Interesting that it is easier to blame the civil service however let’s not loose sight of the fact probation has more than its fair share of toxic micro-managers who are part of the wider problem. Sometimes it’s worth asking if our own leaders are contributing to a command and control culture.
On the subject of leadership - sometimes we need to push change forward rather than talking about how bad things are all the time. No system has ever changed without challenge and while this forum is great we need to step up and say these things within probation circles otherwise we are just disillusioned grumpy wingers who will be marginalised as such.
Final questions that would really help - who are we defining as senior managers and where does the ability to make a difference sit at?