A Worthwhile Read

As distraction from the current farce called 'Probation Day', and I can't help but notice Napo are ignoring it this year (only its second year), lets highlight a paper published in the latest edition of the Probation Journal. As with most academic papers, there's a lot in it and sadly the audience will almost certainly be small, but it pretty much covers the mess we're in and the fact it's not certain probation can survive to bake any future bloody cakes. This is but a small extract and the complete paper can be found here.

The reflective practitioner in transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales

Abstract

This article evaluates the recent history of probation services in England and Wales. The author – currently working as a Practice Teacher Assessor in the Probation Service – considers the politicisation of probation, identified as one outcome of a rhetorical narrative to ‘act tough’ on crime and the impact of the New Public Management model of organisational accountability, its focus on performance and targets, and, arguably, the diminution of the professional role. Following semi-privatisation, and currently reintegration, of probation services, the article puts forward an argument for a realignment of practice, to focus on the supervisory relationship, professional autonomy, and the reflective practitioner.

Challenges to reflective practice - workloads

The whole thing about professional identity I feel has gone and you can’t measure that, can you. You can’t quantify what that means to you as a practitioner, what you see going on around you. But it just feels like a series of tasks, every day you have a to-do list and a set of targets to meet. You are making decisions and, somewhere in the middle, you might exercise your professional judgement. It doesn’t actually feel that way, because all the time it's about a process rather than about looking at anything, having the capacity to reflect on what you’re doing and look at the bigger picture and understand what's going on and have time to talk to anybody about what it is you’re trying to do at any point in time (NAPO branch official and Probation Officer in Kirton and Guillaume 2015).

The work is not manageable, in the sense that you can do the basics, but have no time to dig into the detail. No time for reflection or professional curiosity (Probation Officer, National Probation Service. HMIP, 2021).

The first quotation above is derived from a research study conducted in the immediate aftermath of Transforming Rehabilitation, which sought to evaluate the impact of the restructure on probation practitioners and, in particular, on their sense of professional identity. The second is from an HMIP report, considering the impact of caseloads and workloads on probation practitioners. (HMIP, 2021).

In addition to performance and targets, there seem to be two further key issues which currently shape and determine the nature of the work which probation staff undertake; and, importantly, how they feel about it. The first relates to the volume of work – the number of cases held, and the impact of the type of work undertaken. A recent HMIP (2021) report identified that excessive case and workloads were proving highly detrimental to standards of supervision, as well as to the health and well-being of staff. Additionally, the impact of TR resulted in highly specific caseloads for each sector of The Probation Service, with potentially deleterious effects.

Consequently, an aspect of practice which has changed significantly has been the longevity of supervisory relationships. At one point in its history, a probation officer would complete a Pre-Sentence Report for the court, a full assessment of needs and risks relating to offending and harm. Sentencing disposals would be considered and a proposal made. Post sentence, it was likely that the court report author, or a colleague in the same team, would take responsibility for supervision. This localised and simple model of assessment and allocation brought enormous benefits, in terms of the engagement of service users in the process, resting in large part on the validity of assessment, and the formation of a relationship with the Service and its practitioners from the outset. In addition, I would argue that it provided practitioners with a sense of mastery, agency, and ownership over their work.

In this context, the TOM is encouraging, in that it notes the delivery of probation via PODs (Probation Operational Delivery structures):

a small cross grade grouping of Probation Practitioners and a case administrator that draws on the skills and experiences within that team to support each other's probation work and enables service users to benefit from a familiar relationship with a small team to help improve continuity and engagement (HMPPS, 2021, emphasis mine).

This model seems designed to foster a sense of belonging and continuity which could provide positive benefits for supervisees and practitioners – with a possible positive impact on successful completion of orders and licences, and the retention of staff over time.

Training and continuing professional development

Secondly, the current model of Probation Officer training, the PQiP encompasses all the tensions relating to current probation practice. Several authors have suggested that PQiP learners consider that the training programme as currently configured presents a model of practice which is not borne out by their experience (see L Annison et al., 2008; Tangen and Briah, 2018). It is disturbing that trainees continue to experience these dissonances in probation officer training – perhaps in part reflecting the tension in their (binary) role, in that they are employed as Probation Service Officer grade staff, with operational commitments; and as trainee probation officers, with notional workload relief to enable both academic study, and opportunities to develop professional competence. Competence is assessed via the Vocational Qualification (VQ) element of the award; assessment is based upon key indicators of effective practice which have been evidenced in several studies. The assessment of skills of engagement with service users is the first VQ unit required for completion – in recognition of the reality that an absence of these skills and attributes is likely to nullify the effectiveness of supervision. Yet, to revisit an earlier argument, Tangen and Briah suggest that there has been:

a move from individuals educated to critically reflect on their practice, to technicians trained to implement specific processes, eroding the professionalism and autonomy of probation practitioners (Tangen and Briah, 2018).

Carr (2020) asserts that training for probation practitioners is required to encompass theoretical knowledge, alongside;

Advanced skills demonstrating mastery and innovation required to solve complex and unpredictable problems, (and) a degree of responsibility and autonomy involving the ability to manage complex professional activities (Carr, 2020).

The current culture of probation work seems to oscillate between dual tensions, firstly between the managerialist approach, and the motivations for practitioners to sustain the professional relationship with the people whom they supervise, and which, for most probation workers, is the primary driver for motivation to do the job (Phillips, 2014; Tidmarsh, 2020). Secondly, within a context of managerialist approaches, the artistry of the reflective practitioner described by Schon seems a remote vision. The reality of overwork, targets, now set against a backdrop of further organisational change – which is additionally likely to involve an extension to remote working, at least in part, in the wake of the Exceptional Delivery Model response to the COVID-19 pandemic – suggests that at least some of the aspirations of the TOM may be difficult to realise, in the short term at least

These latter tensions are explored by Ainslie et al. (2022) in a paper which evaluates the findings from very recent research into the implementation of the Reflective Practice Supervision Standards (RPSS) within the NPS (RPSS is a key component of the SEEDS framework, originally delivered in probation in 2013/14, shortly prior to the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation). The study highlights the value placed by practitioners on opportunities for reflective supervision, whilst simultaneously noting the barriers to its effective implementation (as outlined above). The title of their paper, ‘A nice idea, but…’ neatly encapsulates this conflict in demands on probation workers, and on their supervising managers.

Conclusion - the future of probation work

If events of the last decade teach us anything, it is that prediction and forecasting are futile endeavours, as much in probation as in the wider global context. During the early years of the 21st century, Nash (1999) considered it likely that probation officers would become much more aligned with the police – and possibly become known as ‘polibation officers,’ with the loss of autonomy that such a job title implies. In 2016, Mair suggested that ‘the probation service is under threat […] faced with extinction…’(Mair, 2016). Subsequently, writing in 2018, Vanstone noted that:

The probation service in England and Wales is much reduced, a substantial amount of work transferred to private sector community rehabilitation companies. It may not survive but now, part of the civil service and confined to the oversight classified as being at high risk of reoffending, more than ever it needs innovative and effective practice in order to continue its unique contribution to the rehabilitation of people who have offended (Vanstone, 2018, emphasis mine).

So – it is impossible not to be acutely aware of predictions of the demise of probation as a unique and valuable part of the criminal justice system, by several authors, over a period of time. And yet – against the odds, the Probation Service remains, unquestionably battered and diminished, but with the appearance of seeking to hold its core values and approaches intact. Mair (2016) asserts that these traditional values and approaches of probation work will inevitably place the service at a disadvantage in fighting its corner with regard to tougher approaches, and achieving measurable outcomes. He attributes this, in part, to ongoing bemusement about the mystery of the core professional relationship; and, also, to the fact that probation practitioners are notoriously bashful at asserting their professional skills, and the evidence base for their practice. Mair asserts that, historically, the identity of probation was that of ‘doing good work with bad people - and that was its own justification.’ (Mair, 2016). Phillips (2020), citing Tomczak, suggests that ‘there are too many ‘directors and detractors’ who highlight what has gone wrong and what needs to happen next, but an insufficient number of ‘effectors’ to put those recommendations into practice.’ Probably both are correct, placing probation work in the invidious position of being good at what it does, yet limited in its capacity to assert its validity as an organisation, and seemingly reluctant to aggressively pursue its unique agenda in the political arena – a significant deficit within the context of an increasingly politicised service. Deering (2010) suggests that ‘ultimately, perhaps, probation practice is based in faith that it is an effective moral good’. In this regard, the values and approaches of contemporary probation practitioners would not seem out of place to the original Police Court Missionaries.

Much has been lost and much has been gained in probation work over its hundred-plus years of existence. It is ironic that, at a point in time when significant organisational change is being revisited for overtly positive and constructive reasons, it also could be at most risk of losing its defining characteristics – of purposeful, humane, one-to-one work with people to effect change; and the informed, reflective approach of practitioners to operate effectively in the liminal world of probation practice. It is possible to applaud the retreat from privatisation, and to remain fearful for the survival of the core values of probation work.

Mawby and Worrall (2013) refer to probation as ‘an honourable profession,’ and conclude by asserting that:

It would be courageous for…the government to respect that this work inevitably involves a willingness to work holistically and optimistically, though not naively, with uncertainty, ambivalence and (to a degree) failure. Someone has to do it.

With these thoughts in mind, it seems ironic that, at a time when there is much to celebrate, in the reintegration of probation work into one public sector organisation, there is also much to fear. The current phase of probation organisation provides grounds for optimism; and yet, it seems possible that this is a period of considerable jeopardy for the traditional values and culture of probation work, the primacy of the professional relationship, and the professional identity of practitioners. These concerns reflect the tension between official stated aims and objectives; and the reality of the lived experience of people who work in, and who are supervised by, probation. Subjectively, I remain of the view that it is entirely possible that the Probation Service will survive in recognisable form for another century, for the reasons outlined by Mawby and Worrall; and, perhaps perversely, I remain hopeful, if appropriately sceptical, regarding its future organisation, and the delivery of its service.

Anne Burrell

Management Have The Answers

Hi Jim,

Plenty of food for thought here. I particularly like the one about the NQO becoming an SPO. Like many others, I have had enough and retire in a couple of months. Good luck and best wishes to those remaining.

Director General’s Trade Union Engagement Event (Friday 25thJanuary 2022): Q&A with Amy Rees, Jim Barton, Ian Barrow

WORKLOAD

Q. What is being done to reduce workloads and stress levels for staff other than using trainees thus overloading them or using resources in another team creating stressors there?

As Amy fully acknowledged in the session, there are currently shortfalls in staffing. However, every effort is being made to increase resource levels as quickly as possible. Our trainee probation officers are the future of the organisation and we will protect them whilst offering the best possible learning opportunities. The Prioritising Probation work being led by Kim Thornden-Edwards is actively looking at ways we can rationalise BAU processes and remove or reduce the number of tasks faced by front-line colleagues in the interim. We will report back on this as soon as we can. We are also looking closely at the way we are implementing essential changes within the organisation and we will seek where possible to regulate the rate at which it is delivered in order to reduce pressure. However, we must remain mindful that public protection is our priority and we know that our front-line staff will continue to work hard to deliver this. We understand and are very grateful for the level of dedication they show under huge pressure.

Q. Has a workload measurement tool been formulated and agreed upon for Victim Liaison Officers? Caseloads are excessive - 250 cases are allocated to a full-time VLO. Covering absences/sickness is also expected as part of duty rota.

It is acknowledged that there aren’t sufficient victim liaison officers in the system. The 22/23 target staffing uplift for VLOs will enable us to start moving towards enhancements and or reinforce the delivery of the existing victim contact scheme. With regards to the workload management tool and the inclusion of VLOS, this remains an area for future development; however, we are unable to give you an indication of the timescale for development due to other priority work.

DIVERSITY & EQUALITY

Q. Do you accept that probation is institutionally racist - and that vetting is an example of how not to reflect the communities we serve?

Whilst we must accept that the results of the recent race survey were not all we could have hoped for, action plans are well underway to address many of the issues raised and we take this very seriously. However, as Amy pointed out, in terms of staffing demographic overall, we are slightly ahead of the 14% national target representation for minority ethnic staff. We do accept that there are regional variations that we are working hard to improve upon. Some work is also still required to achieve this level of representation in senior management posts which currently stands at 11%. We also continue to work towards improving the vetting process with the aim that it should normally take no longer than 20 days. However, we must ask you to accept that the vetting process is prescribed and is not one over which we have sole control.

Q. When can we expect staff that have come across from the CRCs have full access to the I.T. apps in the same way previous NPS staff have?

We are not aware of widespread issues with staff being unable to access apps and there is certainly no reason why this should be the case for staff on the DOM1 system.

We have spoken directly to Darren and offered suggestions for him to get what application and shared drive access he needs. He informs us that someone has already also been in touch with him about Cardinus.

Any other union members experiencing difficulties in this regard please contact the ICT Helpdesk via the Technology Portal in the first instance and they can advise. For applications which are not owned by the service such as Cardinus, please discuss with your local Business Manager who should be able to direct you on how to access.

Q. In 2022 is it acceptable to be adding buildings to the estate which are not accessible? e.g. no lifts.

All PS Probation Offices should be designed with a diverse range of users in mind, some of whom may require increased accessibility in order to act independently, safely and with ease. Under the Equality Act 2010, we must also cater for those with accessibility requirements and ensure that all employees have equal access to facilities, services, and premises. Following the onboarding of legacy CRC sites in 2021, we continue to assess the estate and look at improving accessibility in all of our offices through local Facilities Management and wider project initiatives. We are aware of one property where it was not possible to source a suitable alternative premise or install a lift in the probation building. This is an exceptional circumstance and does not reflect our wider policy.

Over the last 2 years we’ve managed to bring huge investment to the estate with us delivering major refurbishments and new acquisitions which now meet our Design Guide principles and within that meet the accessibility requirements.

Following the Spending Review, we are finalising our strategy a further investment over the next 2 years again including major refurbs and new acquisitions to meet the following criteria:

• Assists the region in aligning their estate to the Target Operating Model
• Following the project, the property will be PS Estates Design Guide compliant (meet the accessibility requirements)
• Following the project, the property will effectively support smarter working

We’ll continue to communicate progress and evolution of the Estate and we are already looking into developing the future estates strategies for your Regions beyond the Probation Reform Programme, improving accessibility and security and support future moves to mixed caseloads.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Q. Positive to hear numbers for recruitment and future forecasting. How do we keep staff in the interim? Staff that will be asked to support these new staff in their development​.

Whilst acknowledging that the resource issue has been both long-standing and frustrating, we cannot overstate how much we value our staff who have stuck with it through that challenge. We are very confident that we are now turning the corner on this issue. As was said in the session, there is an unprecedented investment in growing the workforce. Although it may take some more time and effort to get us to the final outcome, we hope our colleagues whom we know genuinely care about the service will see that there is genuine progress and that the leadership are determined to deliver a fully resourced service to the highest standards.

Q. What is the current retention rate at frontline delivery? Themes are clearly coming through that colleagues are leaving, especially very experienced front line staff, understand Pay is a factor, but so are many other things. ​

For 12 months to 30 September 2021, attrition for the Probation Service is 7.7%, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 6.6% for 12 months to 30 June 2021. This figure is lower than the overall HMPPS leaving rate as of 30 September 2021, which is 10.1%.

Nationally, Probation Officer attrition rates are 6.9% for 12 months to September 2021, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 5.8% for 12 months to June 2021.

In April 2021 we published internally the first Probation Service Recruitment and Retention Strategy (2021/2024) which outlines our commitment in 5 key objectives:

• Increasing Probation Officer numbers
• Ensuring workloads are manageable
• Recruiting a diverse workforce
• Increasing recruitment in hard to fill sites
• Attracting and retaining talented people

We are in the process of reviewing this strategy against our year one objectives (2021/2022) and updating as appropriate our year two objectives (2022/2023). To inform this work we are conducting extensive analysis and wide-ranging stakeholder engagement. Our findings and outcomes will be published in the updated Recruitment and Retention Strategy in spring 2022.

We understand the importance of retaining experienced staff in the service. As outlined in the Strategy, our focus has been on addressing recruitment and retention challenges within the Probation Service, in particular within Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) with the highest average Probation Officer vacancy rates. As part of our work, we identified several common drivers of attrition which include, pay and benefits, and lack of career progression. Work is underway to address these:

• A new standardised approach to exit interviews has been introduced. Alongside analysis of the People Survey 2021 results for Probation, this will help identify current drivers of attrition and further inform our work on retention.

• We launched three career pathways for staff approaching retirement, to help encourage them to remain in service as we recognise that they come with a wealth of experience.

• We are engaging with Trade Unions in February on retention proposals for Newly Qualified Probation Officers as part of our work around retention of staff. These proposals aim to retain PQIP’s in qualifying regions, and new recruits to regions for a period of two years.

• Communicated to staff the availability of key worker housing in some areas (discounted rent or shared equity schemes for key workers including frontline probation staff).

• A new retention toolkit is being developed and will be used by regions to address local retention issues.

Q. Can I ask how we balance fair and open competition with the need for experience in a role before becoming a manager? I am aware that there have been recent appointments of NQOs into SPO roles, where for example, they cannot hold a MAPPA case in their own name as an NQO, but as an SPO they will be core panel reps for MAPPA. This does not seem to make sense to me!

There is currently no minimum experience requirement before applying to become an SPO, this means that NQOs can apply through fair and open competition to an advertised position post qualification. Recruitment panels are required to vigorously test the suitability of all candidates through the application and interview process before they are appointed to the role. Including a minimum level of experience such as 2 or 3 years could amount to discrimination and a breach of recruitment principles. It may be possible to include an alternative requirement (such as experience of dealing with high risk cases) which if implemented would require a reformulation of the SPO Job Description.

PAY

Q. What is the point of pay negotiations if the treasury simply veto's any progress? 

Amy Rees acknowledged the frustration that complex pay deals can cause and the delays in paying out what has been agreed. However, she was clear that Treasury do not "veto" pay progress. Rather it is a case of trying to negotiate with trades union colleagues a deal that is realistic and affordable which both sides can work with. Probation Service leaders are looking at innovative ways to structure pay awards in a way that avoids some of the difficulties, such as multi-year pay deals which mean that there is no need to refer back to the Treasury annually with the potential delays that can cause.

SUPPORT

Q. Would it be possible for a training event for SPOs to support with the use of SOP/managing poor performance/attendance management?

As indicated by Ian Barrow during the event, he is happy to look into arranging this. This idea was also favourably regarded by NAPO and Katie Lomas referred to its previous popularity and success.

Q. Are there any plans to increase the levels of support specifically available to young people transitioning over from Youth Offending Teams? Or a programme of work focusing on those between the ages of 18-24? The transition period is a key time for young people, and we face a significant drop in services who are able to assist us and the young people.

We recognise that it is vital to get the transition from youth to adult services right and that working with all Young Adults aged 18-25, gives us a great window of opportunity to reduce the risk of re-offending and harm and help people lead positive, pro-social lives. On 7th February we launch Next Steps – a resource for Youth Justice Services secondees and Probation Practitioners to support the transition process. The next steps are aligned with the principles of good transition and gives practitioners structure to adhere to the Joint National Protocol for transitions, involving partnership agencies and other important people - all key to the Young Adult's successful transition. It is available on EQuiP and can be recorded as a non-statutory intervention. We have also just launched the Probation Service Management of Young Adults policy framework which, once implemented, will support the Probation Service in responding to the distinct needs of this age group.

WELLBEING

Q. Sensible conversations with managers about stress and workload are well and good - but what is expected of managers to RESOLVE that problem? there is nowhere else for work to go!​

As was said earlier, we acknowledge the resourcing issues, but would once again offer reassurance that everything possible is being done through initiatives such as Prioritising Probation to see what tasks we can cut down on or even potentially halt altogether as a way of managing the situation whilst we grow and train the workforce. We expect some results from this fairly soon and we will report back as soon as we get this.

Q. What central planning is involved in delivering messages, new policies, etc? It can feel at times there is a lack of appreciation of the practicality of implementing a new policy that impacts operational staff that are already over-worked and that this is not centralised in terms of timing and priorities​.

All the evidence points to the fact that change was required to make the future Probation Service all it can be. The Probation Reform Programme has been working hard to design, develop and deliver the essential reforms which we believe will in due course have a very positive impact on how the service operates. However, we also acknowledge that in the current operating environment, the volume and rate of change are challenging. We are currently looking actively at the “change load” to assess whether some adjustments to how change is introduced might improve things at a front-line operations level at least in the short term.

The Probation portfolio is being developed at pace to better align and sequence change across the business as well as the change activity work in the prioritising probation initiative.

WORKING FROM HOME

Q. There was a piece of academic research in the most recent probation journal, which looked at remote contact with the SU. The general finding was that outcomes were the same whether the SU was contacted remotely or face to face. For some of us, we have been able to work from home and contact SU's by telephone or CVP Video link. I have done this as a report writer and generally only need one contact to conduct the interview. For me and other colleagues working from home saves over £200.00 a month and saves a two and half hour a day round trip. This improves my quality of life and time with family. It also goes some way to addressing the pay cuts linked to a decade of austerity, The current pay freeze, inflation, higher taxes /cost of living, and effective pay loss over the last ten years. Where possible will those who can and prefer to work from home be allowed to do so.

The last two years have seen exceptional circumstances with people working from home more than they otherwise would. This period has allowed some time to evaluate our working practices. Taking everything into account we now have the smarter working policy which offers elements of both home and office working. This offers a good starting point and staff should review their own work pattern with their line manager to arrive at the best and most effective for each individual.

PQiP

Q. Would welcome a training approach that seeks to develop existing staff not solely focused upon PQiP learners. Online refresher courses on MyLearning are limited in their effectiveness as don't meet all learning styles.

We have transformed our model for learning and development to enable a comprehensive and modernised learning offer that delivers engaging content at the point of need and is accessible to all staff. The new model is evidence-based and adopts blended and flexible methods of learning and development to suit a range of different learning styles.

Managing People Convicted of Sexual Offences was developed specifically for practitioners with a minimum of two years’ experience. More recent learning products have included Prevent e-learning designed for the Probation staff and a new digital learning package on MAPPA. These are examples of us providing easy access to high-quality, practical learning resources that address existing staff concerns and support day-to-day tasks. Over the coming months, our focus turns to the rollout of the recently commissioned safeguarding and domestic abuse learning for all practitioners, in addition to commencing delivery of SEEDS 2 for Managers.

The new resources made available will support staff throughout their careers, with work underway to help ensure that all learning products form part of an overall curriculum of learning for probation staff. Learning for each role in probation is being mapped out to help to provide a more accessible CPD offer for staff, with the current learning offer being split out into mandatory, required, desirable for each role and identifying gaps in the current offer which will inform the strategic learning priorities for probation going forward. We are in the early stages of developing a CPD framework for the probation service and welcome discussion with the unions as this develops.

The Real Problem

That HMI report really does make for very uncomfortable reading and the following gives an eloquent flavour of how the command and control civil service ethos is the real problem here:-  

Personally what the HMIP report has highlighted for me is the sheer lack of investment in post-qualification training, and particularly training about delivering supervision sessions and sentence plans and reflective practice in a meaningful way....indeed the bedrock of social work practice we were only just discussing here a few weeks ago. The whole ethos of the organisation has been "refer to another organisation" and lo and behold, there are few which deal with the issues of helping people to deal with traumas associated with racism or overcoming barriers to racism.

The little training there is has become focussed on processes...do your CRISSA in this way; make sure your risk assessment looks like that; you MUST it's MANDATORY to do a very basic child protection training online, or a very brief electronic overview telling you what "unconscious bias" is. Their solution to everything has either been investment of millions in electronic solutions such as "my learning", the Parole writing tool or the EPF tool and whatnot; or commissioning services via "other agencies". The solution is never to equip staff with skills they so sorely lack.

When was the last time we had meaningful ongoing professional training which facilitates and engages in reflective practice about race, dealing with racism and cultural prejudice; investing in us, as a staff group, in how to work with people to overcome these barriers and other barriers and the trauma experienced by so many, in this case relating to those of BAME backgrounds; when are we equipped to address these things directly rather than farming them off to "keyworkers" in other agencies? When was the last time we had such ongoing professional training? And then they say our expertise is in "managing risk" - how exactly? By writing a CRISSA entry?

I fear what's coming - a massive round of "let's talk diversity" sessions (they've already been advertised in London), massive pressure to "update statistics in Delius", coupled with a new round of commissioning so that volunteer mentors "specialised" in working with BAME people can do work that we are so poorly equipped to deliver directly, or possibly a "ten session toolkit" chucked on the intranet. Just think - when was the last time you had training in skills for delivering work with your supervisees or in reflective practice so sorely called for from HMIP? And if you were around long enough, did SEEDS really provide that to you?

How painful to read comments of service users in the report: “I wanted support for my childhood trauma, but I have not been referred to anyone or anything”.....and another, who pretty much sums up his feelings about attending probation as:

"I have no idea of their purpose. I just turn up. I tell them a bunch of lies and I go home”.

So sad.

Food For Thought

Prologue

A colleague I haven't spoken to for some time rang me the other day and we were musing on what the future might have in store for probation in a post-Covid world. Our discussion very much reflected a similar conversation with another colleague of even greater experience. The view was that probation is becoming increasingly irrelevant, a situation hastened by civil service bureaucratic control and the de-personalised effect of Covid operation. Effectively its no longer serving any meaningful and useful purpose and in a post-Covid world of inevitable government spending cuts, its further decline in relevance, begun with separation from a social work base, would see its effective disappearance. 

--oo00oo-- 

I now have two friends who have contracted Covid and both became extremely ill, despite both being generally health conscious and neither having underlying health conditions, neither required hospitalization, but both suffered ongoing health ramifications, with one requiring a recent admission to hospital and further tests. The London directors messaging was totally out of kilter with the lived experience of practitioners and the focus on business as usual matters was patronising...the reference to staff expressing "indifference" in the staff survey for simply entering "neither agree or disagree" seemed to discount what a large proportion of staff meant when they entered their answers, and the focus on "recording in delius, reviewing risk registers, updating OASYS" failed to grasp the reality of the lived experience of most practitioners.

******

I have just found out that my colleague who sits within two meters of me tested positive for coronavirus on the weekend. No one from management informed me or the rest of the team of the potential increased risks. No increased cleaning. Hot desking is a daily occurrence. I have no faith in my employer protecting me. As a result I have had to stop providing care for a relative whom is shielding. There is a perception that as prisons provide opportunities for testing that no other precautions are now needed. I fear raising this issue and being redeployed.

*******

Oh I'm so, so, sorry to hear this...so stressful for you and others involved no doubt. Yes, the fear we all feel raising legitimate concerns is extremely sad and very worrying...why else do we all ensure our comments are anonymous on these blogs? The fear engendered comes from those at the top, who constantly scratch their heads wondering why their staff are so disenchanted, while issuing diktats about recording, CRISSA, OASYS reviews, risk registers, HETE data, with seemingly little care for the people involved, both staff and service users alike.

*******

I am - if I survive it - going to wait till the pandemic is at least on the wane before I make any decision about my future in the Probation Service. I realise that the anxiety and, frankly, despair at what my job has become, might be amplified by Covid anxiety and gloom. All the probation officers in the room I work in are at various stages in this: one has got his early retirement pension forecast, I am asking for mine, and another is actively looking for alternative work. That is over a century of experience looking to walk out of the door at first opportunity. The micromanagement and the utter failure of policy makers to recognise the pragmatic reality of our work is soul destroying. Telling me that the increasing layers of recording and scrutiny are "for my protection if anything - SFO - happens" is so not reassuring.

******

Your so right so must be nearly 60 to recall those days as I do. Working with modern qualified staff who are POs but really they are nothing much more than over paid typist clerks. Talking to them in supervision they type into the PC while still talking at you. It is not what we know which is why they could never picture returning [to] professional practice. Old lot out soon as.

******
I'm with you, a post degree CQSW was always, and a 12 month probationary period, a good foundation for learning - oh how this has been diluted. I so remember the broad church of colleagues, some of whom I disagreed with politically but never doubted their integrity, the fountains of knowledge of many SPO's (granted not all) and CPO's willing to challenge govt policy even under Thatcher. I used to respect my management because they welcomed challenge and wanted POs to think outside the box. I am also tired of this but it is not Covid, which I can rationalise but the shit from above 6th.

*******
We are cannon fodder. Frontline so needed at work, "hidden heroes" - thanks for the management clap. But not worthy of a priority jab or a pay rise. Probation in a parlous state: Graylings omnishambles has meant we have attention of policy makers, when actually the mission is much best served when it is off grid. So now we have fuck all resources, and running interference from ambitious fast track numpties in the civil service whose ignorance and ambition will quite possibly snuff out the glimmering embers of what was a valuable service and a joyful place to work.

*******
Why is CRISS crap? Seems reasonable outline for a meeting (Check in, Review, Intervention / Issue, Summarise, Set task). I don't use the same myself in my profession but similar and pursue a collaborative agenda with my clients. It allows for an efficient and focussed use of time.

*******
Great question, but you have to understand the background and context. In principle, the idea of a more structured and focussed way of engagement is not what staff resist....CRISS was initially rolled out via a 3 day training programme, SEEDS, which allowed the time for staff to engage with the material and its rationale.

However, this "way of engagement" quickly got replaced by a "recording convention" - so staff recording exactly what they did and what was said under the various "headings" of check-in, review, implement and so on with prescribed guidance re-designing what CRISS actually means to fit the process of recording. The mantra became "did you record using CRISS" format, "has CRISS been used?", "let's do audits of staff to check if they are recording correctly", irrespective of whether the sessions themselves used that format or how well a session was or was not performed. Staff soon realised they were spending double the amount of time transcribing out their appointments, coupled with organisational diktats from senior managers which essentially said "you MUST use CRISSA in your case recording - it's MANDATORY - we will monitor its use".

Somewhere along the line, the "I" (which was initially "implement the sentence plan"), became "intervention", with managers chucking bundles of 121 worksheets and exercises onto the intranet. The mantra now seems to be "deliver some form of exercise, print out a worksheet, we don't particularly care what it is and for god's sake just, record, record, record".

When you couple the above with other layers of "recording" which have come about over the past few years, you'll get a sense of the hostility CRISS operates within: HETE data, personal circumstances data, professional judgement entries, NSI updating, risk registers, officer diary, OASYS QA standards....all of these require entirely separate processes, within a "case recording system" that is not intuitive, with each entry being in disparate parts of the system, with meaningless "check boxes" which must be filled out each time, otherwise your entry gets rejected. Then of course, couple this with manager's favourite mantra: If you didn't record it, it didn't happen!

You'll see in various posts recently staff referring to themselves as "typist clerks". I see myself as a data entry officiant. The pandemic has brought in this idea that "supervision sessions can only be 15 minutes long", with people scratching their heads as to how that can possibly be meaningful and the organisational response is "we are delivering vital public protection work" which pays no attention to people's lived reality. Lo and behold loads of staff are currently saying "actually, I've noticed some of my people engaging MUCH better on the phone rather than in the office" - no shit sherlock, because you are actually listening to the person and meaningfully responding, one of the most powerful "interventions" known to man, rather than chucking exercise 6.2.9 from "targets for change" in their face.

So please appreciate that staff feel overwhelmed with data entry and data recording, and managers push the data recording agenda aggressively, pandemic or not. Staff's fingers worn to the bone, and meanwhile people have lost a sense of whether any of this has any meaning - does any of this have any impact onto the re-offending rates of the people we are working for.....?

******

Thank you. That explains the hostility. It must be demoralising. What you describe sounds like you are all very busy achieving very little other than producing a record to be audited.

******
Well it's not been a real job since we lost social work it's all admin and order now.

******
I know many social work qualified officers believe DipPs and PQUIP qualified staff have little understanding of 'the real job' but that's simply untrue. I'm DipPs qualified but it was by working with social work trained colleagues that I was inspired to become a PO in the first place. I had then - and retain now - many of the same values as earlier qualified officers, and the notion that I don't do a 'real job', or only do admin tasks is frankly insulting. And it's getting tired. There is much valid discussion of the deskilling of officers but please don't assume that there aren't still staff out here doing the best we can for our clients. It's demoralising to hear those with more experience belittle a job into which many still put a huge amount of work and commitment.

******
Hello Xxxxx and others....I'm so relieved to hear you have the values and ethics which matter, and hope you are surrounded by trainees who have the same - that is not, however, my experience. I also trained via the DIPS route; as I recall it we (or at least in my area) did training on skills like CBT, solution focussed work, Trotter's working with involuntary relationships, pro-social modelling and the famous "motivational interviewing" - the involvement of the service user in their own "journey" via meaningful sentence plan goals became the bedrock of my day to day sessions; at that time I felt I had a good grounding in skills, with academic background, coupled with 1-2-1 support via a PTA who really encouraged/discussed both my ethos, attitude, skills and I was able to work with a relatively small group of service users whose offence/risk profiles were on the "lower" end of the risk scale...not to mention of course we would write regular PSRs, and built up to more complicated matters towards the end of our 2 year period.

What I find now is that within weeks PQUIPS are suddenly dealing with DV, sex offences, and gangs, with little support and lots of ego.... Sentence plans have become little more than stock phrases about "addressing my drugs use" or "managing my risk", and one to one appointments deliver little meaning other than "monitoring", "interrogating" and "questioning", "checking" they have done certain things, or "referring" them off elsewhere. Is it me, or has probation become little more than a referral and triage service, pushing the person's issues off to another organisation "with more expertise". The ethos of probation training has become about completing wonderfully well written OASYS, marking CRISSA entries, and ensuring "risk is managed"....god forbid that people are encouraged to get to know the wider family unit, involving those individuals in the sentence plan or the person's "journey", or involving the person as their own agent of change.

Please people tell me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. Just take a look at the "mandatory" training we are all threatened with sacking if we don't do - what a pile of shite! Did any of the modules on DV, child and adult safeguarding encourage any meaningful supervision sessions, or any of the social work ethos and skills which many of us lament the loss of. Nope! It was all "soundbites" and "acronyms" - we all knew we could pass the test at the end without wasting our time reading the shite which preceded it, and it's this kind of thing (in my view) that angers and belittles the workforce and creates the resentment so palpable on this blog.

The competency of the people is not the issue, but the training ethos very much creates the officers values and ethics.

Probation Death Knell

For those who are still unsure why it's not a good idea to have Civil Servants running probation and why 'reunifying' under their bureaucratic dead hand of command and control will be the death of the profession, the following example of management 'alphabet soup' should serve as a warning:-

"Work on a refreshed PSR Quality Development Tool (QDT) was concluded in March 2019, this has now been supplemented with an Oral Report Specific QDT in recognition that this is now the predominant delivery format for PSRs. Both tools have now been approved by the National Court Strategy Group and are available for use across the division. 

Work is ongoing to develop a PSR Quality Assurance Framework, which will detail how the QDT aligns with Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDS) and The Management Oversight Models. The framework will capture minimum expectations (and whether these expectations are mandatory or for guidance purposes) and will be presented to the Senior Leadership Team in October 2019 for consideration."

A Desperate Plea

I find the following seen on Facebook absolutely astonishing and yet further evidence of the utter chaos probation finds itself in. We desperately need some effective leadership!

I NEED YOUR HELP

This week I have been challenged by a very senior CRC executive to convince them that there is a strong evidenced case to support the theory that reducing average caseloads to say 45 (but increasing the expectation from staff that those who are assessed as being at highest risk of reoffending in the CRC are worked intensively using all we know from the offender engagement project SEEDS etc) will result in reduced reoffending. Whilst we know this may be true any claim to truth needs to be evidenced.

What I am looking for are detailed evidenced comments of research, pilots etc so that I can use to counter the assertion that frontline probation staff are no better at reducing reoffending rates than any responsible person they might hire with a passing interest to supervise offenders/clients. This is quite an important debate to win as failure to provide a compelling counter argument could have dire consequences for our profession.

Whether evidence is ignored is another matter. Please share this message widely as I want to be overwhelmed with considered responses. Let's see if we can crowdsource some arguments. Your job as a Probation Officer or PSO whether NPS or CRC may depend upon it. Please either leave a comment here or contact me.

David A Raho

--oo00oo--

Would be worth contacting Shadd Maruna via message on twitter. Also isn't this the sort of thing the Probation Institute is supposed to be doing? - big ask for a Union rep.

Good on you DR. Police at Xxxxxxxx IOM scheme have produced figures for 2014-2016 showing that during that period Xxxxxxxx IOM with a cohort of approximately 200 service users saved £6 million in saved court police and prison costs. This was owing to intensive work involving police probation DWP housing and drug multi disc work. I'm not sure that is what PTB have in mind exactly. I am sure they are looking for cheap and simple as ever. But it is an illustration and concrete proof that a small investment can produce huge savings.

I think it's like asking someone who likes children to teach a class of them - they might be ok as a one off, but they don't know the curriculum, child development theory, safeguarding... ultimately, they could do more harm than good. The probation training ensures staff not only know what to do, but why they are doing it. We're talking about complex academic theories, backed up by research, which underpin everything we do. It breaks my heart when our experience and qualifications are dismissed as being something anyone could do.

Some might say we need an independent body to look after our professional interests like the BMA.

A mix of shock a CRC manager could be so contemptuous of us but also happy we could disprove such rubbish. But my question is - no one has had 45 cases for years - so how can this be studied? Has a study specifically been done on caseloads?

If it hasn't been done, how can there be real evidence produced on this specific issue? If not, could a study be set up for this purpose? Would need to be funded.

Great challenge I will post you mine and Xxxxxx's response over the weekend.

I can play football but does not mean I could manager a premiership or any team in a professional league and win. I would like to think I could make a good attempt but winning even a game would be very difficult, however If you are a trained football coach you are likely to have a better change you will have knowledge experiences and an understanding of different methods to improve your team and individuals. A football team is made up of a complex set of variables the better trained you are in the variables the better outcome you are likely to have.

What is the difference from being a trained PO and a trained football coach? Apart from the obverse the sentiment yes any one can do it but you will have a better chance if you are well trained. The main variable is how motivated is the person towards change. Do you have the particular knowledge to address the underlying issues. We need to be better trained, not less. Crazy CRC.

The problem with the organisation as it is that they are not willing to listen to any arguments whatsoever no matter how much evidence they are presented with. The attitude is pretty much "My way or the highway".

Post Sentence Assessment - The Verdict

Here's some of the best comments from yesterday on West Yorkshire's award-winning flagship innovation 'Post Sentence Assessment'

"As Chief Executive of the DTV Probation Trust, Russell [Bruce] is charged with running a business". There's the rub. Nowt about working with clients. Its about a profitable business model with people as widgets to be processed in as cost-effective means as possible. Won't be long before we have the introduction of Japanese industrial 'just-in-time' techniques, CRC sponsorship by Toyota in Derbyshire? By Nissan in the Teesside? By Honda in Wiltshire? Court to Induction to Activity to Completion.

Efficient use of public funds is not criminal, but using that as a means to effect de-humanisation of the client group is. Informing people about ways in which they can improve their lives and behaviour and reduce the impact upon others is invaluable, but it will not be achieved by simply processing groups of 'assets'.

My caseload is not a collection of credit notes waiting to be cashed in. It is primarily a collection of variously damaged, disenfranchised, disturbed and dysfunctional men and women who have never been listened to, never been shown any respect, never had more than ten minutes with another person without being abused physically, emotionally, or verbally. The fact that they self-medicate with (variously and/or collectively) adrenalin, alcohol, opiates, amphetamine, benzodiazepines, legal highs should not come as a surprise.

Most of them don't like me because I am part of the system. Many don't want to talk to me because they don't trust me. Some have been in our system for almost ten years (due to back-to-back Orders), others are just starting a lengthy relationship, and yet others are taking what will be their first and only glancing blow with our service. This in addition to those with lifetime requirements of contact.

This is the joy of my caseload, and my professional experience is richer as a result. I am not an accountant. I am not an administrator. I am not a production operative. I am a Probation Officer. As of very soon I will no longer be employed as such. I am sad, I am angry and I fear for the impact upon everyone.

**********************
I'm friendly with a PSO who now works in West Yorkshire. She says that Post Sentence Assessment is used by some practitioners to good effect (especially where other agencies are involved but this requires good knowledge of local resources) and in principle it was a good idea. She says it is a mess though because the expectation is that most offenders do a group to cover their days. The groups are untested, they invite 20 or so to the first group (this is 20 people who may not have been seen for many weeks or even months because of waiting lists so are not motivated) in the hope that some might turn up, and the groups complete with only a small handful still attending. As a result most finish their orders without attending many times and without any meaningful intervention as staff are told not to see people while they are waiting for groups, and the orders are very difficult to breach. Word has quickly got out that people just need to be a bit difficult - eg have GP appointments, sick notes for depression, or claim that if they don't attend JobCetre they will get sanctioned - to avoid groups, appointments and breach.

***********************

Of course, all the evidence suggests 1-1 - face to face working/therapeutic relationships are the most helpful and productive means by which to encourage, achieve and sustain change.................which is why all these tin pot projects are doomed, Capt Mainwaring!

They rely heavily on group work, and whilst I have always been a supporter of group work, it has always been as an add on, not the be all and end all. This way of working, lacks any need to build relationships or to get inside the head and lives of clients, because 'someone else delivers it and it's a template, it has no soul'. It could be delivered by a volunteer, a private company, an 'old lag' a charity, or other organisation....of which we know very little - about their motivation, their ethical base or in some causes their legitimacy. The 'OM' - PO or PSO becomes an administrator, nothing else. Just as with the introduction of conducting key milestones in the lives of prisoners, by video links, phone conferences and through 3rd parties, bollocks, all of it.

I was always excited by the term end to end management, i.e. you wrote the report, and saw out whatever the court imposed, offering continuity and knowledge and hopefully, the trust which began to emerge at the Report stage. Also, because it trumpets the relationships we form with people, it supports the idea that a single person, appropriately trained and qualified, yes those dirty words, can have a significant, neigh humongous impact on a client. TR, like PSA and similar plots, dispense with this in favour of sound bites, without any substance. TR is doing a fine job, assisted by Trusts who say nothing, in transforming our clients into commodities........and the results will be disastrous for clients and painful for those of us, who continue to try to derail TR, but whose voices are largely ignored.

*****************************
I'm prepared to accept that there are a range of motivations for bringing in approaches like PSA. Among these, though probably unspoken, will be the possibility for earning reputation, and money. Along with this I think there is a genuine desire to improve the standard of practice of some staff (and maybe rein in those who went native some time ago) - but this very quickly slipped into standardisation and levelling down skills, not enabling practitioners. In my trust the roll-out of SEEDS came with desistance fanfares and dewy-eyed treatises about the importance of individual skill, but the counter-revolutionary tanks of "you do this work with everyone, all the time, or you'll answer to us" have now rolled in. Any good intentions have just fattened up the goose for the privatisation Christmas.

****************************
Your all making the assumption that 'Activity Requirement' = accredited programme ! Oh no it doesn't . . .it means x no.of days of "meaningful activity". . this can be any old shite delivered by absolutely anyone, it is the model for CRC. Please don't get me started on 'Action For Change' !. . . non - accredited piffle delivered to any size groups where s.u.'s (yes I'm brainwashed) can all have different offences; be of different ages; different sex and be serving a community sentence or be on Licence. Get this, the content can be made up as you go along . . .would you believe a trip to the local theatre was deemed a days 'meaningfull activity' . . I kid you not.

******************************
Current programmes open to and offered by probation services are not under question as they stand. They're delivered and foucused on effecting change to offending behaviour and helping to change lives for the better. The concern being raised is when the private sector have responsibility and access to these tools, where the focus changes from changing lives and assisting people, to profit margins and shareholder dividends.

Probation is no longer going to be a service, it's an industry. The private sector will take everything they can and gear it towards profit. That is it's primary focus. Social values, public safety, clients development will all come a very distant second to happy shareholders.

**********************
This is utter bloody madness. Staff are overheads and clients are collateral, the bottom line ie profit is king. Let's hear it for the Tories and Lib Dems!!!