Probation Institute: Right Organisation, Right Timing?
| Author | Anne Worrall |
During our ‘Conversation with Paul Senior’ in Kendal in January 2016, we reflected on the role of the Probation Institute (PI) in the future of Probation, especially its role in training and research. One colleague remarked: ‘It’s had a difficult birth; it’s the right organisation but the wrong timing’. This short article takes up this challenge and concludes that, despite its difficult birth, the Probation Institute is the right organisation, with the right long-term timing.
Elsewhere, I have suggested that the creation of the PI was a ‘courageous’ act (Worrall, 2015). Although it was something that had been mooted for a number of years, it was clear that setting up a PI in the political climate of Transforming Rehabilitation was going to be controversial. Despite being supported by key stakeholders such as the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), Probation Chiefs Association (PCA), Probation Association (PA) and Unison, the PI had an uncertain relationship with other stakeholders, notably academics, who felt that they were being simultaneously wooed and kept at arm’s length in the early days. Consequently, there was a lot of perfectly understandable suspicion, among both workers and academics, that this was little more than a governmental concession to placate the old guard of probation and to undermine legitimate protest against the breaking up of the Probation Service. Setting up a voluntary register of practitioners was viewed as especially inflammatory.
Nevertheless, there have been some promising early developments. In particular, the swift production of a code of ethics (Sinclair-Jones 2014), the launching of a magazine (Probation Quarterly) that includes research-based articles as well as ‘news’ and the creation of a Professional Development Framework alongside the professional register, have all suggested that the PI has a vision and that it is independent in spirit (even if not yet quite independent financially). It contributes now to debates through blogs, social media activity, Position papers, professional networks, consultation activities and seminars and conferences.
The Professional Development Framework’s founding principles are that it is inclusive, integrative, adaptive and aspirational. It is intended as a dynamic tool, constantly evolving to reflect the needs of the sector, through discussions with frontline practitioners and managers. It grapples directly with the complexity of the probation workforce whilst also encouraging renewed interest in advanced practice, which some may feel has been rather neglected in recent years. In the context of great uncertainty about the future of qualifying training (Community Justice Learning) the PDF may prove to be an invaluable anchor for those who...
To continue reading
Request your trial