Fears and Hopes

The latest edition of the British Journal of Community Justice is extremely important for a number of reasons, but most particularly because it seeks to address the fundamental question of whether probation has a future. The last to be co-edited by Prof Paul Senior and although available in it's entirety online, it's probably one of those publications that probation 'lifers' would wish to buy and keep. 

For anyone with the slightest interest in our profession, how it's got to the current state and what might lie ahead, this publication really is worth reading from cover to cover and in order to encourage this I have taken the liberty of offering a taster in the form of an article abstract, together with complete article by Paul Senior.        

THE ESSENCE OF PROBATION 

Paul Senior & Dave Ward, with Lol Burke, Charlotte Knight, Michael Teague, Tim Chapman, Jane Dominey, Jake Philips, Anne Worrall and Anthony Goodman 

Abstract 

At the 'conversation with Paul Senior' event in January 2016 at Kendal the group had to go back to first principles to test out a basic proposition - whether probation, however it is defined, has a place in 21st century responses to crime and any societal attempts to rehabilitate, reform, reintegrate and/or restore offenders back into communities. If we could agree the core principles of what constitutes 'probation' and also understand and articulate the boundary issues, would most societies driven by human rights and equality of opportunity for all its citizens inevitably seek to create some form of probation? This was the proposition. This has been seen to happen for instance in recent years in Eastern Europe where the limitations of a penal system based just on imprisonment has led to the creation of services in the community akin to probation. Or is an opposite proposition equally possible that there is nothing universal about probation and we are seeing its death knell in the UK? The changes wrought by Transforming Rehabilitation have suggested that the very future of probation is at risk. Commentators have talked about the death knell of probation (Senior, 2014); questions of legitimacy attendant upon privatisation (Deering & Feilzer, 2015); or the most radical change since it was introduced a little over a century ago (Newburn, 2013). This is the core question at the heart of this paper, is there a future for probation and, if so, what defines its essence?

--oo00oo--

TRAGEDY AND FARCE IN ORGANISATIONAL UPHEAVALS FOR PROBATION: WHAT NEXT? 
Paul Senior, Professor of Probation Studies, Sheffield Hallam University

Is this an unlikely scenario, circa 2011? 
Government hiring a consultant in organisational and personnel management and challenging them to:

“Map out a way of changing the entire organisational matrix of probation. This is your brief: 

• Undo the governance arrangements completely and create a bifurcated and multiple ownership model using a range of companies with no experience of running probation services 
• As it worked so badly in 2001 when 17 chiefs were retired at a stroke losing the leadership skills of a service at a time when a new national organisation was created, repeat this tragedy as farce in 2014 so aim at, at least, 13 CEOs leaving the Trusts as the new organisations are created thus decimating leadership 
• Create new arrangements which will downgrade the skills of its workforce, create confusion over what is required to be a probation practitioner and then squeeze funds to the extent that redundancy, low morale and sickness escalates and the core of probation, its workers, are decimated, set against each other and disillusioned.” 

And yet this is just what has unfolded in the most farcical episode in probations' rich, if turbulent, history of organisational change. The changes initiated by Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) are maybe more disruptive than previous changes but there have been plenty of changes since the steady state of 1970s and 1980s. For most of the last forty years, probation has been a local public service managed via a variety of Probation Committees (magistrates initially as the employers) and then Boards with a changing relationship with its courts, local authorities, the region and the centre.

At one time the local authority also contributed to part of its budget, though the extent of local oversight was limited as direction has always come from the centre. This gathered pace when probation was projected ‘centre stage’ in the early 1990s and a more managed service was required. Boards became more diversified to include representatives from business and finance and the occasional academic. However, the funding requirements, controlled by the centre, ensured increasing compliance to central direction, ultimately increasing such control so that a National Probation Service was created in 2001. It was an opportunity for influence and recognition for the distinctive work of the probation service but which ultimately failed. A closer relationship with a more dominant partner, the prison service, a succession of lack lustre national leaderships plus a submissive attitude to the demands of government saw probation drift from its core ideals to a weak and divided organisational arrangement lacking rationale, connectedness and a sense of direction. 

The 2001 version of the NPS did not last and another organisational shift brought Probation Trusts, increased local engagement through Local Criminal Justice Boards and Community Safety Partnerships, regional bodies and enhanced working partnerships with the police and with the third sector. As we reached 2012 the Trusts were regarded, by the government's own measures, as in good health and had become the first public organisation to be awarded the ultimate business kitemark, the British Quality Foundation’s 2011 Gold Medal for Excellence Award. 

Now just four years later we have governance models which are predicated on survival and ensuring the new Community Rehabilitation Companies at least break even. Many of the CEOs who started the CRCs before ownership was transferred to a strange band of catering, workfare, cleaning and security companies have now gone or been superseded by senior managers from the owners. There is no continuity between the different providers and less and less organic links with the new National Probation Service despite originally sharing buildings and having a common IT language. Now many models prevail and communication has become difficult. 

Leadership is a difficult issue to get right. Too often the balance between management and leadership is blurred. In 2001 there was a strong move to centralise probation policy and practice and make all local areas dance to a new choreography (National Probation Service, 2001). For the new director faced with a brain drain of 17 Chiefs, amongst which were some of its most innovative thinkers and leaders, an administrative model prevailed and the new chiefs were managers working on behalf of a target-driven centre. This did not work well and as successive central leaders failed to resist the prisonisation of probation local leaders began to emerge. 

The new Trusts arrived with a younger, more female dominated leadership of the 35 Trusts which through its representative organ, the Probation Chiefs Association (PCA), began to drive forward a new agenda. Evidence showed it was performing well and innovating around such issues as Integrated Offender Management (IOM), domestic violence, sex offenders, accredited programmes, desistance agendas, the Offender Engagement Programme, etc. PCA as a fledging organisation, was beginning to assert itself and give a voice, often a female voice, to the views of its leadership in ways which approached the earlier more vocal ACOP in the recent past. 

Even if you took the ultimate government measure of success, reducing re offending, it was demonstrable on MoJ's own statistics that being on probation in the Trusts did help reduce reoffending (MoJ Analytical Services, 2013). During the early TR debates, this leadership was visible and articulated its dismay at the dismantling of the successful Trust arrangements. However, the corporate silencing which was imposed by the MoJ quietened that voice to a whisper and it felt that at that moment the leadership lost its power to influence the changes. Indeed many faced with the uncomfortable job of making TR work either resigned or were quietly invited to do so. Once again the leadership was decimated and as the new arrangements emerged, it did so with a much less experienced set of individuals, nervous about their futures whether as a result of their civil servant status in the NPS or the insecurity of their future in the new CRCs. The voice of that new leadership has been largely silent. 

Ironically the review of research initiated by the MoJ (MoJ Analytical Services, 2013) which drew on the good practice highlighted above suggested the following four characteristics should be at the centre of the new organisational arrangements: 

• Skilled, trained practitioners; 
• Well-sequenced, holistic approaches; 
• Services and interventions delivered in a joined-up, integrated manner; 
• Need for high quality services. (Senior, 2013) 

I posed this question rhetorically in a blog concerning these aspirations in 2013: 

’High quality services? Where can we possibly find a public service with top quality kite mark awards, reductions of up to 10 per cent in reoffending from community orders, a highly trained and motivated staff group, delivering integrated holistic services in cooperation with voluntary and private providers? Is this why we are seeking new providers? Wait, these criteria are met by an organisation in existence – probation trusts. So it makes sense to rip them in two, give it to providers with aspirations but little track record.’ (Senior, 2013) 

If the farce of diminishing the leadership was enough to impact on probation, it is a further tragedy that the organisational changes have wrought an existential crisis at the heart of the probation profession. This is discussed elsewhere in this volume (see Worrall et al.) which interrogates the impact on the occupational culture; here it is sufficient to note the warnings from voices rising above the parapet to reveal a sorry tale of the disestablishment of the Probation ideal. It can be summarised emotionally as confrontational, demoralising and divisive. In practical terms the status of probation officer has been diminished, particularly but not exclusively, in the CRCs; colleagues have been set against each other as they work for different organisations; communications have been made more complex and IT systems have proliferated without positive interconnected outcomes. 

At the time of writing, redundancies, sometimes as much as 40 per cent, are likely to be implemented! Training arrangements within the CRCs are undermined and practice is often being devolved to PSO equivalents in both NPS through E3 (NPS, 2016) and in the various models of the CRCs. There are, nevertheless, examples of good practice across the country, maybe in spite of rather than because of the arrangements. The future of probation as a profession is threatened by these changes yet skilled, trained practitioners were at the heart of the research evidence quoted above (MoJ Analytical Services, 2013). One voice picked at random from Twitter sums up the crisis: 

'#probation fast becoming a concept, not an institution/public service NPS enforcement and CRCs failed business.' (@sadSPO, 5th March 2016) 

140 characters says it all. The profession is under threat. 

So, above are insights into the changes, below are some of the fears and hopes expressed at the conversation in Kendal. 

Fears 

• Commodification of emotional labour (see Knight et al. in this volume); 
• Individualist, oppressive, competitive environments; 
• Silos will be created with no common language to ease communication; 
• Individual CRCs will be amalgamated for the needs of efficiency thus breaking local links even more; 
• Loss of expertise/local community links following abolition of trusts. Where is the link with courts in CRCs?; 
• Management becomes procedural not professional; 
• Commercial imperatives are prioritised at the expense of best practice;
• The mantra becomes low cost service for maximum profit; 
• Workforce no longer expects to stay in probation for life - short term work then move on; 
• New managerialism defines training, then practice, of managers. 

Hopes 

• Freed of National Standards this will release the creative potential of CRCs; 
• Mobilising the creativity of people to manage change; historically probation staff are resilient; 
• Will become more outward looking, the profession of probation expanding to include not just direct probation staff but all working in community rehabilitation and community justice including third tier organisations; 
• Creative new way of managing in the changed structure; 
• Strong confident leaders who can communicate the meaning and purpose of probation to the public and politicians; 
• Strong occupational cultures regardless of diverse organisational contexts buttressed by an independent voice for the profession, the Probation Institute. 

The future of a recognisable probation institution is at risk given the organisational changes, arguably more invasive than previous attempts. Bifurcation of delivery means that integration of services for the individual service user is threatened. The deskilling of qualified Probation staff is a product of where an individual was placed in the reorganisation and not any assessment of their skills and knowledge. This threatens the professional confidence, independence and creative potential of probation staff, an integral part of delivering the always difficult role of probation. The need for effective leadership is compromised by the bifurcated arrangements. Perhaps it is prescient to speculate that when further organisational changes arrive, they may well seek to undo some of the consequences of this farcical and tragic organisational transformation.

Paul Senior

The Hidden Hand

Thanks go to the reader for sending in this interesting piece:- 

Kent Surrey and Sussex branch news. Don't let your CRC employer off the hook when they blame the owners!

Dear Members

There has been so much confusion around the staff transfer that has led to members not really understanding who their employer is and how it all works. I have therefore put together this briefing for our members in the hope it may clear the fog and help to understand who our employer is and how we got to be here.

The CRC is a limited company (companies Act) and their records can be obtained from the Companies House website, including details of the registered officers and executive Directors.

Company Law requires company directors to prepare reports, keep adequate accounts of transactions to disclose at any time the company and group financial position, in accordance with Companies Act 2006. Other duties to be exercised under the Act are to promote the success of the company, retain independent judgement, take reasonable care, skill and diligence, and avoid conflicts of interest. Safeguard the company and group assets, including taking reasonable steps to prevent and detect fraud and other irregularities.

Following creation of the CRC and staff split, 'a transfer of undertakings' resulted in the Trust staff and business functions being transferred to the CRC (TUPE regulations applied). The secretary of state determined that share sale, seven months later, did not constitute a secondary 'transfer of undertakings' to the parent company as share sale situations are not generally bound by the provisions of TUPE regulations.

Staff were therefore transferred under the government statement of practice (COSOP) but provided for 'no less favourable treatment' than TUPE although arguably through previous tests it is a less binding arrangement than an Act. Nonetheless, negotiations and agreements were made on specific time bound and permanent measures under the OM Act 2007 to protect terms and conditions of employment, including a binding agreement to retain the functions of the national negotiating body (NNC).

Interestingly, case law presents that a 'transfer of undertaking' has previously been determined by a tribunal court to have taken place in spite of the share sale scenario not generally covered by TUPE regs. Where a parent company mixes funds with the subsidiary, shares insurance contracts and employee benefit plans, markets both companies as a single entity, files consolidated income tax returns for example, it may be an indication of an inappropriate level of control exerted over the subsidiary by the parent company which significantly reduces its independence. Notably, there are publications that state the relationship between parent and subsidiary should not be a parent/child relationship or present as a single entity as this may arguably cause liability issues. Notwithstanding, it gives rise to potential claims for compensation on the grounds that the parent company is the employer but there was a failure to consult over the secondary transfer.

At any rate, KSS CRC remains a subsidiary of Seetec Group, the parent company, but the CRC untested remains the legal employer. The contract for the package area to deliver probation services is held between the CRC and the authority (SoS) and not with the parent company albeit they provide for certain warranties under the contract.

Whilst the employers identity may be confusing and relevance not immediately apparent, the union recognition agreement was transferred to the CRC in much the same way the employment contract was transferred. This means your local union reps, unlike Napo HQ, are ensuring we consult and negotiate with your employer to maintain employer relations. That is not to say we are not in discussions with Seetec but our employer must be accountable and ensure the parent company is not inadvertently or knowingly advancing their interests to the detriment of the CRC, its employees, our members.

Although the Secretary of State may indemnify the parent company against liabilities arising from CRC employee claims, in turn the CRC indemnifies the SoS against liabilities arising out of performance issues against contract obligations, including breaches of statutory duties. Liabilities here include any award, compensation, damages, loss, order, penalty or settlement payments, costs and expenses reasonably incurred in connection with a claim or investigation. The parent company underwrites these liabilities but this should not be an enabler for the parent company to stand between the employer and employee on negotiations neither an enabler for the CRC to delegate or deny responsibilities to their employees. In any event claims against an employer must be brought to their direct attention so it stands to reason we and our union leaders should be engaging with the CRC.

Yours,

Latest From Napo 109

The latest blog post from Napo's General Secretary:- 

NOMS launch a Probation System Review

In previous postings I have highlighted the key findings of independent reports into probation by the National Audit Office, The Cabinet Office (Through the Gate) and latterly, the new HM Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacey.

As you would expect, Napo takes every opportunity to use these types of reports to press our agenda with politicians and senior NOMS management. One example of this was the request we made to Secretary of State Michael Gove on the back of last years HMIP reports to instigate a full post-implementation review of Transforming Rehabilitation.

Predictably, this was turned down on the basis that the minister wanted to see the outcome of the NAO and HMIP reports which were being published this year and consider what actions, if any, he needed to take.

Whilst we have unfortunately not yet been able to meet with Mr Gove as planned due to the undoubted pressures of the Euro referendum (roll on the 23rd June please?), it was encouraging to hear this week that the NOMS Contracted Services Directorate are to conduct a Probation System Review.

When I first saw the heading in the letter I assumed this was all about the still inadequate ICT Systems, but upon reading it became evident that this review is a direct initiative following the findings in the above reports. Moreover, it is about as near to a post-implementation review as you will get without actually calling it one.

An opportunity for Napo

I am told that the NOMS review is predicated on the basis of the already planned 12 month review of CRC Contracts and that it will start by measuring delivery against the stated aims of TR which, to remind ourselves (I know its painful) were broadly about:

• Opening up the so called market to a diverse range of rehabilitation providers including mutuals;
• Incentivising providers to innovate through payment by results linked to a reduction of reoffending;
• Extending rehabilitation in the community to an estimated extra 45,000 short sentence clients and
• Re-organising the prison estate to provide a ‘through the gate’ service to give continuous support from custody into the community

Next week I will be writing out to Napo Branch Chairs to ask them to work with our Officers and Officials in pulling together some empirical evidence about the realities of life in the NPS and CRCs.

I will not be asking for a 'War and Peace' job here; for one thing people will be so busy dealing with the impact of the reforms to spend lots of time responding, and secondly we need to move quickly as there is an intention to provide an initial report to Ministers in July. That said, we do need to be able to validate the sorts of things that Napo has been saying to anyone who will listen: that despite some improvements in the last few months, the TR reforms are just not cutting it.

What is being looked at?

We have been advised that The Probation System Review (somewhat ironically abbreviated to PSR) will assess what adjustments, if any, can be made to the CRC contracts and wider probation system to support the achievement of the original TR objectives as summarised above. Yes, we would all like to see it torn up and go away, but this won't happen any time soon and as I am consistently told by our members, there are things that need addressing urgently and some contractors who are simply unfit for purpose and who should be invited to hand back the keys, and people in high office ought to hear about it.

Importantly, and no coincidence given the endemic panic amongst a number of CRC owners about the reduction in Weighted Annual Volumes (WAV), the review will examine the continued viability of the system given the reduction in numbers and variability in delivery.

In seeking to address the the observations and recommendations within the National Audit Office, HMIP and Cabinet Office reports, the review will focus on six particular areas:

• Allocation of cases
• Payment mechanism
• TTG
• Performance mechanism
• Financial and Commercial Health and
• Contract management

Finally it will also take into account other wider initiatives within the MoJ, such as prison and courts reform, and the NPS E3 project and how they impact on the CRC contracts and delivery thereof.

Even one side of A4 from Branches and NEC members would be hugely appreciated in terms of us being able to offer this review an accurate, real time contribution about our members experiences.

Watch out.. Contract Management are about!

As an aside, Napo has recently had cause to take up some serious concerns directly with the Contracted Services Directorate regarding a somewhat comical, if it were not so serious, approach by a CRC to the basic requirement to consult with the recognised trade unions over planned staff reductions and estate restructuring.

I will not name the CRC involved as local talks are in progress involving our National Official and local Napo reps which I hope will bring about an agreed way forward that will be of assistance to all the parties. Nevertheless, the intervention of the Directorate was timely and very welcome and sends a signal about conduct befitting publicly funded providers, that CRC owners everywhere would do well to note.

Lots more news next week.

Probation Training Post TR

The Probation Institute published another position paper this week:-

Training and Professional Development 

1. Impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on Training, Learning and Professional Development 

The training and development of staff is essential to an effective justice system. At all levels and in all roles personnel must be able to understand and perform their role in a professional manner, keep up to date, improve their skills with increasing knowledge and experience, and support the practice of others. As a society we expect those who exercise positions of authority to demonstrate formal, recognisable and consistent competence and progression. 

The recent changes to the probation structures have also brought changes to the training, learning and professional development environment. For the 50% of former probation staff moving into Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) effectively “deregulates” the previously stable and funded qualification requirements, hitherto applicable across all Probation Trusts in England and Wales. Contracts under TR require the new owners of the CRCs to ensure that their staff are trained and competent but do not stipulate in detail either what this means nor how it should be achieved.

In seeking to offer support to the probation environment in addressing training and professional development going forward, the Probation Institute is keen to open up debate and make recommendations recognising the impact of change, engaging a wider set of organisations, and seeking robust measures both to prevent loss of skills and knowledge and to enhance continuing professional development. The Probation Institute also sees an important opportunity to make stronger and more inclusive arrangements for training, learning and professional development across a wider range of probation, rehabilitation and resettlement organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors. 

Qualifications for Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers were previously defined through the Probation Qualifying Framework (PQF) set down by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the Probation Officer Qualification was funded centrally by the NOMS. These arrangements no longer apply in the CRCs, for whom it is an option not a requirement to use the defined qualifications and there is no central funding available to them. For new roles in CRCs, for example in new posts delivering Through the Gate Services, and in services subcontracted to Tier Two providers there are no training or professional development requirements, a situation made more concerning by the increasing number of employers, job titles and recruitment processes. 

Concerns expressed to the Probation Institute about the impact on staff arising from these changes include: 

• Higher workloads and greater responsibility for less well paid and less well trained/qualified roles 
• Staff feel deskilled and demotivated 
• Trainees in both NPS and the CRCs have limited access to the necessary breadth of experiences to learn and demonstrate competence

Recommendations

A. Consideration should be given to providing access to central funding for the training and qualification of Probation Officers in the CRCs. 

B. There is a compelling case for the establishment of an independent process to set and coordinate training and qualification requirements for priority roles in Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement organisations. 

C. The Probation Officer role, for any post in England and Wales designated as a Probation Officer, should be clearly defined and the qualification requirement should be set down as a Statutory Instrument as it was prior to 1998. 

D. There is a strong case for the introduction of a minimum Recruitment Standards across NPS, CRCs and the Tier 2 Providers contracted to deliver the services for the NPS and CRCs. The Recruitment Standards might be based on the Probation Institute Code of Ethics and the Generic Professional Competences introduced in the Probation Institute Professional Development Framework.

2. PQF Review/ Community Justice Learning 

NOMS have reviewed the PQF and launched a new set of arrangements in April 2016, known as Community Justice Learning, including the Probation Qualifying Programme (PQiP), which will be a requirement in NPS and a permissive option in the CRCs. 

The new arrangements continue to locate the Probation Officer Qualification in higher education at Level 6 on the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF), incorporating a vocational qualification (VQ) at RQF Level 5, but also open up access by offering a range of routes to achieve the Level 6 qualification. The new Community Justice Learning Framework seeks to build ladders and bridges from prior learning and qualifications, aiming to facilitate recognition and progression, particularly for those in Probation Officer and Probation Services Officer roles.

The Probation Institute supports the new arrangements but recognises that these are not yet implemented and are untested and do not include progression beyond the probation officer level. A concern is that the number of probation officers required by the National Probation Service going forward may not be sufficient to make the new Level 6 Qualification viable, particularly as some CRCs will limit the training of probation officers to small numbers because of cost. 

Recommendation 

E. Measures are required to ensure that the numbers required for viability in higher education are achieved and sustainable.

3. Probation Institute Professional Development Framework 

In November 2015, as one of its early commitments, the Probation Institute launched the Probation Institute Professional Development Framework, a comprehensive framework encompassing roles, at four levels aligned to the Probation Register, across all organisations in probation, rehabilitation and resettlement. The Framework offers to practitioners, managers, leaders and advanced practitioners:

• Job descriptions 
• Generic activities and competences 
• Role specific activities and competences 
• Learning and qualifications 
• Endorsed Learning Providers 

The Probation Institute intends the Professional Development Framework to be relevant to staff in the public, private and voluntary sector, and seeks to encourage a culture in which learning and development are actively supported in all roles. The framework is a tool for self-development, improving performance and sharing information. We will maintain this Framework online, accessible to all; and we are keen to receive feedback from right across the sector on the value of the framework, also omissions, challenges and improvements. To achieve this the Probation Institute is keen to recruit learning and development professionals in the field into membership, and to develop our Professional Development Network. 

Recommendation 

F. Practitioners and managers are encouraged to provide feedback on the Probation Institute Professional Development Framework.

4. Diversity Training 

There are some indications that diversity training may be reduced under the new arrangements. This would be extremely unfortunate in an environment where equality, fairness and a demonstrated commitment to comply in full with the Equality Act of 2010 is critical to effectiveness. Moreover effective practice and professional development in the area of diversity particularly requires that practitioners need time and support in testing out their understanding and reflecting on their actual practice; beyond the basic requirements of legislation. 

G. Recommendation Diversity Training must be an ongoing commitment for new staff and at refresher level

5. Workforce Capability and Planning Reviews 

The introduction of new roles and responsibilities points to the need for some new skills and knowledge. In addition, although CRCs inherited a largely qualified practitioner workforce, the high levels of staff turnover, both optional and compulsory, since the start of TR has significantly altered the balance of both the location and the numbers of skilled practitioners. A comprehensive and open review of Workforce Capability and Capacity is required across NPS and the CRCs; seeking to identify what current and new skills are required, where, when, and in what numbers. 

Recommendation 

H. Workforce Capability and Capacity Reviews should be commissioned by the NPS and Community Rehabilitation Companies and the findings shared across NPS and the 21 CRCs; this could be an initiative taken by MOJ.

6. Gaps in Professional Development 

A number of gaps in professional development in probation, rehabilitation and resettlement have been recognised over time; these include:

• Foundation/Entry Level Learning and Qualifications 
• CPD and Post Qualifying /Advanced Practice 
• Management and Leadership Development 
• Resources for Professional Development 
• Evaluation and Review 

Foundation, Entry Level Learning and Qualifications 

Many professions offer preparatory learning opportunities for those seeking to work in the sector; including “Preparing for Work in Health and Social Care”, “Preparing to Work in Adult Social Care”. Initial training and qualifications in the probation and justice environment typically require the candidate to be already in a practitioner role and are more focussed on specific roles. The gap recognised by the Probation Institute is in the opportunity to learn about the roles, responsibilities, values and challenges of this occupational sector before application, or on appointment. Recognising the importance of early preparation for work in this sector the Probation Institute has introduced Level A on the Probation Register to identify and encourage foundation and entry level learning and qualification opportunities, which could be used in conjunction with Recruitment Standards. 

Recommendation 

I. Consideration should be given to the active encouragement of foundation and entry level qualifications for Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement roles

Continuous Professional Development, Post Qualifying and Advanced Practice 

The Probation Service has been criticised for the lack of any formal continuous professional development beyond the Probation Officer qualification, which has been the formal skill ceiling for too many years. Post-qualifying practitioners and managers demonstrate high levels of skill and knowledge in very challenging areas, often carrying responsibility for managing risk of serious harm. Advanced practice requires tutoring, access to research and formal recognition. The Probation Institute also notes the high levels of responsibility held by practitioners in the voluntary sector and the lack of funding for professional development in this part of the sector. 

In the absence of a formal approach to Continuous Professional Development the provision of learning opportunities is unplanned, leaving individuals to seek individual solutions and without access to funding. This is a complex area which requires careful planning and implementation. 

Recommendation 

J. The Probation Institute will hold a series of consultations on the most appropriate approach to Continuous Professional Development across Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement organisations reporting back on a framework by the end of 2016.

Management and Leadership Development 

There is little consistency to the training, development and qualifications for managers and leaders in Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Roles. A number of vocational management qualifications have been developed at different levels. Higher Education offers a range of Masters Awards which are also taken up, though currently not in great numbers, across the sector. A review of the most appropriate training and learning opportunities and qualifications supporting both current and new management and leadership roles would offer an opportunity to set a strategy. 

Recommendation 

K. A review of management training, learning and qualifications should be commissioned leading to a sector wide strategy and the Probation Institute would be willing to support and/or conduct such a review.

Resources for Professional Development 

CRCs have indicated to the Probation Institute their firm commitment to the professional development of all staff, but acknowledge the lack of funding. Professional development is a clear cost to an organisation and should be planned through active consultation annually; lack of training and professional development raises the risk of incompetent or demotivated staff which carries an even higher cost to the organisation. 

Recommendation 

L. The Probation Institute should work with employers to press for dedicated funding for professional development.

Evaluation and Review 

Transforming Rehabilitation has increased the range and scope of learning and development in the sector, increasing potential to improve quality but also the risks of reducing quality, pointing to a greater need for evaluation and review of learning and development at all stages. Good evaluative approaches should be built into the development and design of learning enabling outcomes to be more readily identified. HMI Probation has an important part to pay in ensuring that all providers of probation, rehabilitation and resettlement services have plans in place to evaluate training learning and development. 

Recommendation 

M. Evaluation and Review of training, learning and professional development should be inspected by HMI Probation, a Regulatory Body would have a role to provide oversight and support.

7. New skills and roles 

Some skills, not previously formally recognised as core to justice sector competence, have been identified and are being captured in job descriptions and potentially in new arrangements such as the Trailblazer Apprenticeship (see below).

These include: 

• Skills and knowledge in supporting and enabling the education, training and employment of ex- offenders 
• Skills and knowledge in the commissioning and procurement of services 
• Skills and knowledge in performance management and outcomes monitoring 

Recommendation 

N. A formal ongoing process for identifying forward looking skills gaps and skill needs across the sector is required.

8. Trailblazer Apprenticeship 

A group of employers and owners, led by the CRCs are coming together to develop the first Trailblazer Apprenticeship in Probation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. The first Trailblazer will be to achieve an agreed assessment standard for the PSO or equivalent role and will seek to include public, private and voluntary sector roles. There is also interest in a Higher Level Trailblazer Apprenticeship for the PO role. 

From April 2017 employers with a payroll of over £3m will be required to pay an Apprenticeship Levy and submit monitoring returns on the take up of apprenticeships. This requirement is encouraging employers to work together to develop common standards with approved training delivery and assessment arrangements so that each employer can recoup their levy costs. The Probation Institute is coordinating the Trailblazer initiative supported by the Sector Skills Council Skills for Justice. Once the Trailblazer Apprenticeship Standard is in place any employer wishing to access the funding will need to ensure that their training and assessment meets the standard. 

Recommendation 

O. Employers are encouraged to join the Trailblazer Apprenticeship project to ensure the appropriate development of the common, funded, training and assessment standards for the PSO or equivalent role.

9. Role of providers in FE, HE and Independents Providers 

There is little history of coordination or grouping of providers of learning and qualifications for probation, rehabilitation and resettlement and indeed, financial models do not favour collaboration. Nevertheless where the “unifying” influence of the single customer has been removed by the TR changes, there are strong arguments for encouraging a more collaborative and aligned approach by learning providers and stronger engagement by learning providers with the Professional Body, Trade Unions and Trade Associations. 

Higher education has had a long history of support for probation training both for qualifying probation officers but also for probation service officers. We need to work constructively with higher education providers and NPS to build on their commitment across the training continuum. Higher Education should be more actively engaged with employers and practitioners in supporting research and advanced practice. The Probation Institute encourages the development of post qualifying initiatives. 

Further Education could play a part in preparing the next generation of staff for work in probation, rehabilitation and resettlement and could enable employers to access more funding for training and learning at the foundation levels. 

Where independent training companies work closely with employers in specific areas of development they too can help to meet ongoing CPD needs and may help to manage costs. A number of the new CRC owners own training companies who could lead in some appropriate areas of ongoing professional development of the workforce, provided that they are responsive to practitioner needs. 

Recommendation 

P. There is a case for better coordination and evaluation of the offer by learning providers to the needs of probation, rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of standards, content, access and continuous professional development. 

10. Probation Institute Learning Provider Endorsement Scheme 

Introduced in December 2015, the Probation Institute Learning Provider Endorsement Scheme offers a One Stop Shop to find learning providers who meet the quality standard set by the Probation Institute for endorsement. The breadth and number of providers endorsed by the scheme is expanding. Currently the panel for endorsements is made up of representatives from the Probation Institute and Skills for Justice.

Recommendation 

Q. The Probation Institute should attract a wider group of Endorsed Learning Providers and a more widely representative Endorsement Panel.

11. Vision 

Taken together it is our view that the proposals and suggestions set out in this paper point to the need for a more consciously coordinated approach to training, learning and professional development to pre-empt and prevent the disaggregating impact of Transforming Rehabilitation. Whilst MOJ has held this role prior to the restructure, there is an argument to suggest that a new body should be independent and outside of government but with representation from MOJ/NOMS as well as the private and voluntary sector. We would describe this as a Regulatory Body in order to indicate towards its purposes many of which are indicated in this Position Paper. We regard the Probation Institute as being ideally placed to take on this role and align its own work on registration and the Professional Development Framework to this wider agenda. However we recognise that there will be other views and we would welcome a dialogue to move this forward in a coordinated and cooperative manner across the sector. 

Recommendation 

R. The benefits of a more collaborative approach would be enabled and enhanced by the promotion of the recommendations in this position paper, including an independent, regulatory approach. The Probation Institute will convene an open meeting to discuss all the recommendations in this paper.

Sodexo News 2

Thanks go to the reader for sending me a copy of the latest Napo newsletter aimed specifically at members working for the Sodexo CRC's. I have no idea if these newsletters reside somewhere on the Napo website, so I'm extremely grateful if stuff like this is forwarded to me so as to enable more general publication. 

Napo News (Sodexo) Newsletter for Napo members in the Sodexo CRCs

Workload Special In this issue

This issue of Napo News (Sodexo) will focus on the findings of the workloads survey carried out earlier this year, and will look at the following:

• Findings of the survey
• Work-related stress and the law
• Napo advice on what to do if you are suffering from work-related stress
• Other news.

Findings of the Survey

A previous edition of this newsletter included the headline figures from Napo’s workload survey carried out in March this year. The findings themselves are stark and they provide a reality check for CRC employers on the actual working conditions staff must endure while working in the Sodexo CRCs. Napo will use these findings to exert pressure on Sodexo (both nationally and at CRC level) to encourage them to work in partnership with the unions and to take the necessary measures to mitigate the inevitable fallout from this ticking time bomb of excessive workloads.

The findings clearly indicate that excessive workloads are endemic across the six CRCs and furthermore causing work related-stress. It is no wonder then, just over 80% of respondents indicated that they are actively looking to leave the CRC or would leave if they could. Moreover, the working environment has drastically deteriorated as 85% of respondents indicated that their workload has increased since September 2015 and worryingly 95% of respondents indicated that their workload was causing them stress.

OUT OF CONTROL

Other findings from the survey provide for further depressing reading: We asked members if they feel in control of managing their workload: 64 % of respondents replied saying they only rarely felt in control and 22% of respondents replied saying they never feel in control of their workload. One respondent commented ‘we have increased workloads, uncertainty, no stable location from which to work and health and safety concerns are ignored. Senior management don’t care and ignore what is happening. We tell them but they blame Sodexo’

The survey went on to ask if members felt they had been given effective guidance on how to manage their workload and prioritise their work: Not one respondent replied by saying ‘yes’ they had received effective guidance; instead, 71% answered ‘no’ [they have not been given any effective guidance] and 29% indicated that they had been provided with some effective guidance ‘in part’.

It has been 15 months since Sodexo took control of its six CRCs but we still have not seen the Sodexo operational model fully implemented as it is still a work in progress.

Sodexo argue that once the new operating model is implemented this will help address workload issues. However when we asked members what impact they thought the new operational model would have on their work, 75% responded saying that they thought the new operational model would lead to an increase in workload and only 3% thought that it would lead to a decreased workload and 10% believed it would have no impact at all. In addition there are still some who are not even aware a new Sodexo operating model exists, as 12% of respondents reported that they were not aware of the new model.

Changes not helpful

Staff in the six CRCs have been subjected to a period of constant change. Over three quarters of respondents (77%) stated that their role has changed over the past few months and only 1% of respondents believed these changes had been helpful regards workload management whereas nearly 70% of respondents stated changes to their role had not been helpful.

A major cause of stress in the workplace relates to how organisational change has been managed and communicated. It is evident from the findings of the survey that insufficient consultation is taking place in the CRCs. Since the share sale in February 2015 change has been constant but consultation has been sadly lacking. This is evidenced from the findings of the survey, as only 1% of respondents agreed there has been a good level of consultation about changes in the workplace, whereas over a third (37%) said that there had been no consultation and 62% reported that there had been only some consultation on changes introduced.

It is clear to Napo that the demands being placed on staff are now reaching breaking point. A good employer should provide employees with adequate and achievable demands in relation to the agreed hours of work.

Measuring Workload is part of the solution

A manageable workload is only possible if there is an effective workload management tool in place. Currently only 16% of respondents in the survey worked in a workplace where their workloads were measured, this indicates that the vast majority are working in workplaces where no monitoring takes place. Despite repeated requests to speed up the roll-out of an effective workload measurement tool we appear to be no closer to getting a firm date for when this will be done. We have been told a workload measurement tool is in development and it is being tested in Essex and BeNCH CRCs. However, Napo has not been given the opportunity to help assist in the development of this tool and furthermore we have not been consulted on it, and we therefore doubt it will be fit for purpose.

Napo believes the current situation regarding workloads is a consequence of a massively reduced workforce. One respondent commented ‘In our CRC, it is quite clear that there are simply not enough staff to do the work, and so people are being directed to fill the gaps in various areas, at some point there will be nobody left to move’. Indeed this position was supported with first-hand testimonies from staff when Napo visited a number of workplace offices recently in Essex, South Yorkshire and Northumbria CRCs.

Staff Leaving

We asked in our survey what happens to the work of colleagues who are away from work (for example on long-term sickness or maternity) 97% of respondents stated that the work either isn’t done or it gets distributed amongst other members of the team adding to workload pressures and stress. It is no wonder that staff are voting with their feet and choosing to resign rather than continue to work in the CRC and we know that when staff leave they are not replaced; thus exacerbating the situation for those that remain.

Finally, we finish with a comment left by a member. We believe it accurately reflects and sums up the general feeling across the six CRCs regards the current situation:

“We have currently been asked to audit our own cases on top of our daily work which is impossible to do and feels overwhelming. For some of us our travel to work has increased significantly and impacting negatively. We are constantly bombarded with new directives which results in more work, more forms to fill, more targets, more stress. We feel the stress and panic of senior management and there is a sense of constant chaos. New working practices have resulted in isolation and time consuming visits out of the office. The office itself is an impossible environment to do any significant work, there is no alternative, yet we are being almost hounded to evidence offence focus[ed] work. Wanting a 5 [star] service in a 1[star]environment/context. All adding to stress. Personally the only way I cope is to work way over my hours using my laptop at home”

Work-related stress and the law

Work is one of the main causes of stress. It is generally accepted that there is a clear link between poor work organisation and subsequent ill health; therefore an employer must take seriously its responsibility to tackle work-related stress. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) defines stress as ‘the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demands placed on them.’

In law, work-related stress is deemed to be a psychiatric illness. Symptoms of stress on the body can be divided up into two categories:

1) Short Term; examples include anxiety, boredom, headaches, fatigue, indigestion, heartburn, depression, muscular tension, difficulty sleeping. 

2) Long Term; examples include neurosis, insomnia, hypertension and chest pains, cough and asthma, gastrointestinal disorders and ulcers.

The Common law states employers are responsible for the general safety of their employees while they are at work. In addition employers have to comply with a number of statutes such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

To pursue a successful claim against the employer an employee must first show that they suffer from work-related stress and then additionally must prove two things 1) that their employer breached their duty of care and 2) that their working environment posed a real risk of causing the illness and the employer knew (or ought to have known) that their employee was exposed to that risk.

Foreseeability: proving a work-related stress claim depends on what the employer knew, or ought to have known, about the pressures on the individual at the time. This is called ‘foreseeability’. Once an employer becomes aware that an employee is suffering from work-related issues, they must investigate the problem and find out what they can do to resolve it.

Napo advice on what to do if you are suffering from work-related stress

Stress affects different people in different ways. A level of pressure which one person may find stimulating may cause a serious problem for another. Although it is normal for most people to experience a certain amount of stress in daily life, this can be damaging if it continues in the long term.

Therefore the impact of stress on employees must be properly managed by the minimisation or elimination of work-related stress and its causes. It is the employers’ responsibility to match resources to demands and ensure that staff do not carry excessive workloads.

If you believe that you are suffering from work-related stress due to excessive workloads. Napo recommends you take the following course of action:

• Raise and record instances of stress and stress-related health symptoms (including on fit notes (sick certificate).
• Ensure you have had the training/instruction on local area stress arrangements.
• Don’t suffer on your own – use local support services and seek the help of your local health and safety reps.
• Put workloads on team meetings agenda and register your concerns.
• In individual supervision sessions raise workload concerns and ask for prioritisation of work and what should be left undone.
• Record hours in excess of your contractual hours on your timesheet.
• If your workload is causing you stress and exceeding manageable levels submit a “foreseeability notice” (see attached appendix 1).

Napo nationally, and at branch level, will continue to raise issues about workloads and work related stress and remind Sodexo and the CRCs of their legal responsibilities.

Other News 

Sodexo failings

In the last edition of Napo News (Sodexo) we listed a number of failings across the CRCs. The newsletter mentioned that Norfolk and Suffolk CRC were experiencing difficulties with their unpaid work teams. Norfolk and Suffolk CRC has been in touch with NapoNews (Sodexo) and told us that although they are currently suffering from a staff shortage they have assured us that all their unpaid work teams are on site for at least 5 hours work, so we are happy to report this to members and correct our previous report.

Working in partnership

With the appointment of the two new regional CEOs: Nick Hall in the North and Nick Leader in the South, we hope we can make swift progress addressing the issues. Progress on setting up a pan CRC consultation forum is making slow but steady progress. Sodexo have now accepted the idea in principle. However there is still further work to be done to ensure that all local CRC Napo reps are involved in the decision making process and that this new pan forum respects the legal position of CRC JNCCs.

Napo re-engagement strategy and Workplace visits

Napo News has now visited workplaces in Essex, South Yorkshire and Northumbria. Plans are in progress to visit workplaces in the remaining CRCs (Norfolk and Suffolk, BeNCH and Cumbria and Lancashire). Look out for notices when NapoNews will be visiting a workplace near you so that we can listen to your views on what Napo should be doing.

Pick of the Week 6

Reading some of these colleagues on this blog over the last few days is depressing. You have a duty not to only focus on negativity as that in itself is creating a self fulfilling prophecy for many staff preventing them from moving on from this TR disaster #irresponsible editing.

*******
It's always someone elses's fault. Why insist on infantilising the probation workforce by placing "many staff" in the role of victim? The only self-fulfilling prophecy is the catastrophe that is TR, i.e. a not-thought-through, not piloted, rushed & utterly piss-poor piece of parliamentary incompetence & organisational vandalism.

*******
The simple truth is that many of us would move on....but to what? We are working through the most ill thought industrial/workplace change there has ever been. The main principles of sound business change are all at the 'work in progress' and even planning stage...yet the business is operating with no allowance or adjustments for change to consolidate and then build. You want examples? The NPS IT system is an unmitigated disaster with repeated failure in real time delivery. E3 should be renamed 'suck it and see' workforce planning. 

Then there is management, given HR processes with little experience or insight into the human bit of the process, that this is about people management not process delivery. Then there is the fundamental error of making civil servants (second class) of practitioners. Moving on is impossible when there is no destination, no vision, just a series of process maps without cohesion or purpose in any way related to probation. NPS PO.

*******
E3 is the new enemy within, a deeply flawed system to support court closures shorter format reports to ensure that the system doesn't slowly grind to a halt...and on other matters does anyone know if ACEs are on performance related pay or if they receive bonuses as there just seems to be an unhealthy obsession with targets at the moment.......

*******
Work to rule is the only way we can achieve anything in CRC! Down tools, by which I mean do your actual job and stop being chained to the computer. F**ck targets!!! Set workload limit and refuse to see any new cases above this! That will soon focus peoples minds! Why should we continue to absorb more and more work? Where are the workload weighting tools? Why is maternity leave never covered, or long term sick leave for that matter. Why are we being treated in this appalling manner? Sod the conferences and intellectual bullshit. Why have NOMS sold us to the cleaners and let them pilfer the redundancy pot? SHAMEFUL NOMS. We need some support and advice now. The bloody ship is sinking and not enough lifeboats and all the unions want to do is carry on playing the violin whilst we sink!

*******
No doubt sometime soon we will look and act just like all other civil servants, sad, depressed, overworked with bullshit. Our attitude towards offenders will be like that of DWP staff towards the unemployed. The meaner we are the more targets we hit and the bigger the bonus for the boss. We have become part of the apparatus that punishes the poor and the vulnerable. We failed ourselves.

*******
You're right. But we've been bullied into this. Human beings now a market, in whatever circumstances. Stock to be used up. Conform to their robotic, soulless idea of existence for the plebs, or die. What a nasty, bleak, oppressive, unimaginative, vindictive society unfolding before our eyes, creating mini despots everywhere we look. Know in your hearts that what you see is wrong. Hold onto your individual truth, patience, grace and dignity. Be kind to your fellow colleagues because they delight in division and resentment, keep doing the things that you know you're doing right, and well. We are being governed by very damaged people who cannot love or care.

*******
How am I supposed to function and retain my morale when everything seems to be crumbling around me? Sitting in increasingly empty offices that are echoing because so many staff have been given the boot over the past 6 months(CRC). What is left of our small team are soon moving out of entirely suitable offices to save private company money. No idea where we are going or what to tell the service users! Too busy doing OASys and breaches to respond to service users as I used to. Starting to harden and go into self protection mode. Still prioritise the higher risk and service users who are motivated and really want to change, but really flagging now and exhaustion is taking over. Can't see how I can do same quality of work with the cuts we are facing! Is it just me?

*******
Don't know whether you will ever get to read this. Hope so. It certainly isn't just you. Thank you for this candid and heartfelt share. Words are easy I know but, there are many out here that do care and daily think, pray and indeed take steps to share concerns/experiences to a wider audience. 

Having retired early I can relate to some of what you have shared and know how difficult it is to stay strong and positive when facing so much adversity. However, as I often say @iangould5 you owe it to yourself and those that you work alongside to be very KIND to yourself and just do the best that you can. That's ALL anybody can reasonably ask. Stay true to your values and beliefs and acknowledge that it was not you that created this situation. You are taking positive steps and prioritising what you can do and Yes everyone will understand that a degree of self preservation is essential to survive. I do hope that you are able to get support from you Manager and that you continue to find ways that reduce the impact of all these changes on your health and well-being, including, being kind to yourself. Today is Sunday and off shortly to church alongside ALL things Probation you will be in MY thoughts and Prayers. Simple words I know but take great care.

*******
I'd like to ask the world's 18th largest employer why it now regularly takes a half day to get a computer password reset where once it took 5 minutes. Pourquoi? RSVP.

*******
For the second time in a month, I have spent valuable time hunched over a computer terminal completing an assessment by pasting "I have not yet met Mx X but have to complete this assessment in order to meet target" into the boxes, plus some bits and pieces from a clearly hurried court report. This is known as "gaming" the targets, or otherwise, Absolute pants.

*******
An advert has gone out internally in my CRC begging 'critical business need for PSOs'. 1st dibs to those facing redundancy; permanent staff; fixed term contracts and finally temps. It almost sounds as though anyone with a pulse who applies will get in. This makes me worry - some of us doing this job a long time make it look easy when the reality is very different indeed.

*******
It is interesting to read about all the constructive engagement between the unions and Noms over E3, yet hard to square this with the relentless attacks on facility time. Noms is now saying that all travelling expenses – attendance at JNCCs, representation of employee meetings – all previously covered by the employer – will in future have to be financed by the unions. Allied to the drastic cuts to facility time, this is death by a thousand cuts – at what point does the term 'facility agreement' become a misnomer?

********
Is this a real report because statements like "We heard that the ‘rate card’ system limits.." are very ambiguous? It doesn't sit right with me that "charities" have been so eager to take the work of paid professionals. Even though we all knew TR was a lemon, the charities still put up bids as they wanted to take the work and secure the £contracts. Now they are crying because it hasn't worked out and they're not gaining the expected revenue, probably haven't even recouped their bid outlay. "I told you so" is an understatement.

********
"TrackTR aims to support the improvement of services for people under probation supervision by advocating for the successful transformation of probation."

So Clinks, the voluntary sector and Brum Uni are going to tell us how to do our job, and no doubt tell us all how probation should be further transformed by handing contracts to Clinks and the voluntary sector! From what I've seen of the voluntary sector under TR it is us that should be telling them how to do their job, because there are a lot of substandard services out there positioning for probation work. This is one of the consequences of TR, it took the 'expert voice' away from probation (100 years old btw) and allowed every man and his dog to become a self styled expert.

********
There's quite a marketplace in so-called research. You pay your boffins and they produce findings that help to promote your cause. It's known as 'funding bias'.

********
It's all so predictable not only has Probation been destroyed the voluntary sector and even the greedy multinationals are bound to be damaged by Graylings mad scheme.

It's such a shame that the previous links with organisations have been severed in the chaos but on an individual basis I have been able to make some positive relationships with the voluntary sector which has been very helpful in helping clients. Shelter have been particularly useful and able to do the stuff I can't anymore, but clearly don't have the risk management experience and have been happy to leave that responsibility to me. It makes a bit of a mockery of the rate card system though, why would we go through CRC to pay for services we can access for free?

*******
One of my initial observations on joining the Probation Service many years ago, coming from the voluntary sector, was the relative lack of connection between Probation the services that were available almost immediately outside the office door, in the local community. There were some very good collaborations that were happening and were managed on a secure footing, a win – win in my experience. 

My own voluntary organisation at the time had a contact with the local Probation Service and received a fee for that service thereby securing a stream of funding. The spin off was that we had more people coming through our doors and whom we could then seek to engage in other services whose outcomes supported other sources of funding. In addition the link made the organisation more attractive to volunteers who like me joined up, made a name for myself and then secured a Probation career from it. Note here the localism, local people, community and Probation. Probation has long needed to get away, by degree of course, from the desk in the Office and make in - roads into the local community and community in the wider sense, not just the voluntary sector.

*******
Many of us who comment on this blog know by example and intuitively that the new structures that TR created are poorly positioned to deliver locally and draw on the community in the way that its creators might have imagined. Maybe someone else can develop the idea why this is the case (I am struggling to collect my precise thinking on it) and propose some alternatives. Alternatively you might disagree and think TR created the basis for localism, community, Probation and voluntary sector and equally your thoughts please.

*******
Before TR I recall working closely for many years with the voluntary sector. As probation officers we always accessed local community services and used what was local. Sova, Mind, CAP, CAB, Shelter and more. One other organisation made bikes with the homeless, another helped with reading and writing, another collected and provided furniture, another financial advice and debt support. We once had a drive to get in even more community services and got local charities to come into the office once a month and tell us how we can work together. A 'Local Agency Tree' we called it I think and each leaf was a new partnership. All this ended with TR and since then we only see charities that have CRC contracts or are out to make money for doing relatively little, and so are not really charities.

*******
The problem was that the probation service never paid for any of the services it got from those local charities. And since none of those local charities had a magic money tree, they were unsustainable. Charities cannot provide services with fresh air - they have to employ staff to actually do stuff. Those staff need to be paid.

*******
Not true. Many probation trusts had financial arrangements with local charities they worked with. Others readily encouraged sending clients their way at times their services were underused. The difference now is that the charities we're talking about here are those "charities" in name only seeking big bucks and contracts whether they can deliver or not, usually they cannot!

*******
Completely lost at work today. Just have no idea where this is all going. Voluntary sector relationships. Just everything. What an utter mess HMP is in. NPS omnishambles.

*******
Imagine the scene: a professional probation service, working creatively and fruitfully with energetic community groups (particularly effective with women clientele). Imagine some local trusts building this into a gold standard effective service. This is not now. The labyrinthine procurement and commissioning arrangements are right up there with the incomprehensible finance packages that brought about the last recession. Same deal, different sector.

*******
Jobs..new jobs. The way you chuck the words around gives you away - that you think its just a job. That's the issue with your frankly asinine comments. Maybe you need someone with the balls to point out that when people give themselves to a vocation it is not just a job. I left my 17 year vocation as a PO 20 years ago for complex personal reasons. But I still miss it, and I follow this blog - why? Because a vocation isn't a job. Years ago I had a job in supermarket but I don't follow Asda on Facebook. Why? Because it was just a job. Many people are leaving their vocation. which is why your stupid comment misses the point by a country mile. Mind you, from what you wrote I think my comments here are pearls before swine.

*******
The colleagues I know are not just leaving a job to try something new they have been forced out of a profession because it's damaging to stay. They haven't got jobs to go just lucky enough to be in a position to get out. Over half the staff in my office are seeking alternative employment, surely that indicates something's wrong with the employer?

*******
I can't understand the comments about being disillusioned if only that was the case! We are destroyed physically and mentally by the rapid unnecessary and enormously costly changes. Most of us have spent years training and studying to work in the profession so you can expect us to be a little " upset" at being destroyed for political ideology. It's sickening.

******
This blog post would have been the same if written by me or any probation officer I know. It symbolises what probation has become, a dead end job with no career prospects. Something is very wrong when the entire staff group are more interested in how they can resign or retire.

*******
People are not leaving because they're slightly fed up and fancy a change. They chose their profession for particular reasons, reasons which were once taken for granted because they were fundamental to the role ie working with people. Time and time again it has been shown that the relationship between officer and individuals is key. The message now is that targets are key - and due to high workloads and fewer staff probation staff are basically being turned into data inputers to ensure targets are met and profit protected. It's warped. It doesn't work in either CRC or NPS. 

I spend so much time and effort under constant duress battling with clunky, dysfunctional IT in order to meet targets that I haven't time to breathe or complete fundamental tasks in any meaningful way. It's pointless and soul destroying and no wonder people are leaving as and when they can. These are significant losses, however no doubt viewed as a successful reduction in costs in the sick, twisted view of profiteers destroying what was once a functional and well performing joined up service which worked with people to change lives.

*******
The whole service has been destroyed. You have to just look at NPS recruitment for trainees. How many of the trainees about to qualify in June have any life experience? Very few I suspect. Probation used to have a proud tradition of employing Ex Offenders, imagine sitting across from someone and telling them you would be good at doing this job? It gives them hope and something to aspire to. 

I was an ex offender never believed I would ever become a PO but I did. After declaring all my convictions I was given a chance by an ACO to become a Probation Ancillary (later became known as a PSO) I didn't look back. The most crucial aspect of my role was developing a professional relationship with the people I was supervising. It's all gone now, it's not a worthwhile vocation anymore. It's fraud and the individuals we are responsible for see right through it! If I could afford it I'd get out now and not look back. BTW I'm in the NPS.

*******
I am NPS too and I would leave tomorrow if I could. It is truly awful. Last week 3 days with massive IT problems again. Try writing a parole report when the system keeps stopping /phasing, crashing, ejecting you without warning from delius so work is lost. I actually saw a colleague cry because she had 2 OASys to do, a termination and an ISP so for deadlines. Remember we are all over 100% so no spare time to catch up. It is truly awful. NPS = Firefighting.

******
Yup our office too, PO transferred to fill shortfall in another team and now we are all on 120% to 130% so we are managing the cases belonging to the transferred PO. All high risk of course, NPS the employer that just keeps taking.

******
Same in ours. PO's move from court team to prison. Staff move from field team to Courts. Field team vacancies are not filled an PO's do double/triple the work. Similar story in CRC, staff leave and those left pick up the extra work. Nobody wants to do it but fear the threat of disciplinary for missing targets. In the meantime managers play little Hitler and take all the credit. Those that can retire and resign already have, those that are left are job hunting.

******
What has happened to the NPS managers? They are all stressed off the planet and taking it out on their teams. You want to know why sickness absence is so high? Look at the behaviour of managers to staff. You can put all the action plans / stress management plans in place but a simple trick would be use of good manners and civil behaviour.

******
The JFDI management style of SPO's and ACO's has got worse since TR. Managers try to create a "fear me" culture to stop staff challenging them. They'd do better being part of the team and admitting they don't have the answers. They won't though because they won't accept staff don't give a damn about targets and all the crap coming out of the NPS and MoJ, because then they'll have to accept they're obsolete.

*******
This post was great and it's a pure reflection of what's going on at the moment. I'm currently on annual leave going back to the transforming rehabilitation dungeon tomorrow and I feel like shit about it. It's gone to the point where I just don't care about anything in regards to the work. This post gives motivation and it shows someone who has had enough of being a mug and has done something about it. I think that's a lesson for all including myself most definitely. Enough of the talking and it's time for action. 

There's only so much can continue in going in circles talking about how crap the service is and how everyone is stressed. I think by now we have more then identified the issues and how we are all feeling and now that we have identified these it's time to develop our own personal sentence plan of what we are going to do and achieve for ourselves. We can bang on about the service and how shit we feel or we need to switch up the gears like this person who posted this great piece. Get that laptop, iPad or what ever gadget out and start exploring the world outside probation. There's are things out there and you just need to allocate time to look properly. 

I know for me personally this isn't living. I understand that there are many who have families, mortgages, rent etc and I appreciate that and sometimes it's not easy but you only need to believe in yourself that there is another world out there. It's a shame because we all have a real passion for this but it's time to smell the coffee and if you are genuinely not happy and you been going on and on then do something. Some people get on with it and have good stress management and that's ok if they are comfortable with what their doing but for others, if your getting that sick feeling on a Sunday that your going to work on Monday, or you genuinely don't give a shit about the job anymore due to all the crap going on and you are just not happy- then the power is in your hands and this is the conclusion that I've come to. And believe me I moan and feel like utter shit hence I feel enough is enough. All you practitioners both NPS and CRC are great and have amazing skills, don't let it go to waste. There's a big world out there.

*******
My 15 years in Probation has had various peaks and troughs and I think over the course of any professional career these are more likely than not. Deciding to leave is a very personal decision and I have taken a great deal of thinking about it but events also play their part, events that are particular to me. My blog in a part was about trying to communicate an essence of something that I think the ‘powers that be’ need to listen to and I hope they will. That it has resonated with so many should by reason have their attention. I do think the post that someone made stating something along the lines of, ‘people get disillusioned, they move on, what is all the fuss about?’ was a fair enough point although for me it misses an understanding about how you and I and many others have been affected by, what I would say, are an ill thought out set of reforms that have caused a great deal of distress to our profession and professional careers. 

I had firmly decided to leave several months ago, in the early part of this year, and prior to that I had been mulling ideas and options. Recently an opportunity opened and I have decided to take it. On one level it feels like a risk but ultimately I am happy with my decision. I guess I am suggesting, for fear of sounding patronising, think it through, take your time, consider your options including trying to adapt to the situation with your current employer. Yours with respect and heart felt concern.