Supplementary evidence from Professor
Hazel Kemshall and Dr Brian Stout following the evidence session
on 8 June 2011 (PB 80)
1. Why is there attrition from both training,
and from probation employment?
See for example:
Annison, J, Eadie, T and Knight, C (2008) "People
first: Probation officer perspectives on probation work",
Probation Journal. 55(3): 259-272.
Eadie, T and Winwin Sein, S (2006) "When the
going gets tough, will the tough get going? Staff retention in
challenging times", Vista: Perspectives on Probation,
Criminal Justice & Civil Renewal. 10(3): 171-179.
Attrition rates from the DipPS were not high and
mostly related to poor academic/NVQ progress rather than realising
the job was not for them, until the last two cohorts 10 and 11
when people left early because the Trust could not offer them
a job upon qualification.
2. Any views on how to improve recruitment,
type of persons we should be recruiting
Again, it is not absolutely clear that there is a
problem with recruitment. There were always many applicants per
place on the DipPS and the rigorous selection process meant that
we had cohorts of high calibre students. The DipPS recruitment
process has influenced recruitment into other roles, including
onto the new PQF. Is there evidence to say that there is a demonstrable
need to improve recruitment? Have any comparisons been made into
how staff are recruited and trained by private and voluntary providers?
The nature of the job has clearly changed and has
become far more prescriptive and bureaucratic. Arguably it is
this that needs to change and not recruitment processes. Clearly
having officers who believe in a capacity for change, realise
the importance of balancing rehabilitation with more immediate
public protection measures remains key. They also require emotional
literacy, relationship skills and reflective skills including
risk assessment.
The NOMs offender engagement project itself recognises
the importance of officer/offender relationships and arguably
emphasises the need for shift towards seeing this as a priority
for effective practice, rather than the copious amounts of managerial
processes. The report by McNeill and Weaver (2010) makes very
strong arguments for the people skills, motivational strategies
etc that practitioners require.
McNeill, F and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing Lives,
Desistance Research and Offender Management. Glasgow: Scottish
Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
The DipPS had a centrally run recruitment and selection
process—which was viewed positively. This is in complete
contrast to the recruitment for the Foundation Degree and Graduate
Diploma parts of the PQF which is done on a Trust by Trust basis.
It's being done in a whole variety of ways (from the very structured
to the fairly informal). There is some anecdotal evidence that
some PSOs have not fully understood what they have been recruited
to do (there have been a couple of early withdrawals from the
programme from people who clearly did not want to do a high pressure
distance learning degree in three hectic years)—but absolutely
no evidence of this yet.
The probation service continues to attract more women
than men, and people continue to see it as predominately a helping
profession:
Knight, C (2007) "Why Choose Probation?"
British Journal of Community Justice Vol. 5 No 2 pp 55-69.
See also:
Bailey, R, Knight, C & Williams, B (2007) Chapter
4, The Probation Service as part of NOMs in England and Wales:
Fit for Purpose? In Probation Handbook edited by Gelsthorpe, L
& Morgan, R. Willan.
3. Additional statements on quality &
importance of PQF, and early observations on how well it is working
— It
is really early days for this. Only a tiny number of people have
qualified as Pos through this route (maybe some Grad Dip people
in London who started as soon as PQF was implemented). Many more
will have qualified as PSOs. It is important to remember that
the FD and Grad Dip are only part of the PQF (and not the biggest
part in terms of numbers). We are not aware of any figures, research
or reports about attrition from the PQF.
— We
have not seen significant attrition in the early stages of the
DMU running of the PQF.
— Attrition
from the DipPS was never particularly high, figures on this (from
DMU) could be made available but it would take some work and time
to aggregate.
— Attrition
from the Certificate may be more relevant to the PQF—as
the structure of the Cert has more in common with the PQF than
with the DipPS.
The rationale for the change from the DipPS to the
PQF, including the importance Higher Education provision for all
grades of staff is set out in this article:
Knight, C and Stout, B (2009) "Probation and
Offender Manager Training: An Argument for an Integrated Approach",
Probation Journal 56(3): 269-83.
Brian Stout and Hazel
Kemshall
De Montfort University
17 June 2011
| 
