Probation qualifications framework: Getting the right balance
| Author | Lol Burke |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550510361812 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2010 NAPO Vol 57(1): 3–8
DOI: 10.1177/0264550510361812
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Probation qualifi cations framework:
Getting the right balance
The introduction of a new probation qualifi cations framework to replace the
Diploma in Probation Studies (DipPS) marks another signifi cant development
in the training and education of probation staff. The introduction of the DipPS
was seen as groundbreaking at the time, both in terms of its intention to remove
probation training from social work, and its structure in combining an NVQ with
an honours degree. In retrospect, the qualifi cation appears to have served the
organization well and has provided a more focused curriculum although it has not
been without its weaknesses. It has been aimed exclusively at one grade of staff
and in this respect has not been responsive to the needs of the overall workforce.
It has a fairly rigid recruitment structure and high costs of delivery resulting from
the complex infrastructure required to oversee the academic and practice-based
components of the programme. Moreover, whilst trainees generally seem to have
found it a stimulating programme, they have in many cases struggled to balance
the various demands placed upon them (Collins et al., 2009). Studies have also
suggested that the programme has by and large produced confi dent and able
workers possessing appropriate skills and knowledge at the point of qualifi cation.
This has been undermined, however, by a lack of consistent procedures to affect
the transition of newly qualifi ed staff into the workplace and ‘what is lacking for
the majority of the respondents is the kind of supervisory relationship that could
help them in the refl ective cycle so necessary to the continued development of their
learning’ (Gregory, 2007: 67).
The new probation qualifi cations framework would seem to address some, but
not all, of these issues through the provision of more fl exible recruitment processes
which could potentially be more responsive to the needs of local probation trusts.
Under the new arrangements budgetary responsibility is devolved from the centre to
local employers. In recent years there has been something of a mismatch between
the number of trainees seeking employment following qualifi cation and vacancies
available in the local areas. Whilst the new arrangements could potentially lead to
more responsive workforce planning, they will require robust systems at the local
level to meet these challenges. It is important that the infrastructure provided by the
3
4
57(1)
Regional Training Consortiums are maintained in some form and that the role of the
Practice Development Assessors (or their equivalent) remains central to delivery as
this relationship with the trainee has in many respects being pivotal to the success
of the existing arrangements (Knight and Ward, 2001).
The framework provided by the new qualifi cation structure would seem to fur-
ther embed two dominant developments in contemporary practice. Firstly, it has
seemingly been developed to refl ect the structures of the Offender Management
Model offering a tiered curriculum refl ecting the various roles contained within it
(Knight and Stout, 2009). Secondly, it acknowledges the changing staff profi le of
the organization through the introduction of a new minimum qualifi cation for proba-
tion...
To continue reading
Request your trial