Christine Munn was awarded Commended in the 2025 Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize.
The quest for what ‘professionalism’ means in probation leads me to look backwards in time as well as currently. How closely indeed is it to consideration of probation as a profession? Does this help determine what the unique standards of professionalism are?
At one time, whether being a probation officer (PO) was a profession was hotly debated, despite related skills, knowledge and expertise. This seemed linked with attempts to change the service. 1983 saw me join the first Napo strike to protest at the reduction of 25% in trainee POs salaries, part of a move to separate probation from an academic social work base and values, differing from Scotland and Northern Ireland. A decade later a further strike, and up to London to meet MPs to campaign against the ending of an academic qualification (known as the Howard Gap). Colleagues visualised Probation officers as becoming more like uniformed US parole officers (we wondered about guns but probably a step too far). The term ‘offender manager‘ for practitioners was mandatory soon afterwards.
1999 saw the then Home Office minister having a stated plan to change the ‘culture‘ of the probation service including renaming the service as the ‘community punishment and rehabilitation service’. Fortunately The Guardian published comments that ‘customers’ might call it ‘Craps’. It was quietly dropped. Probation appeared to be downgraded as a profession. This might change requirements for the service and expectations regarding professionalism. But as an operational worker I was aware that those around me acted in a professional manner, having a strong value base and related ideology.
Where are we now? At the beginning of Transforming Rehabilitation, T.R., (2014 -2021) I was asked, as were all POs and senior probation officers (SPO) in the ‘national’ probation service, to prove we had an appropriate qualification, the intention apparently to recognise probation as a profession (!) with a register of qualified practitioners. Would Newcastle University have records stretching back to 1972 I wondered - fortunately I had kept my certificate safe. It seems, however, that it was more about ensuring that the private companies (CRCs) had proper vetting procedures in place, hence ‘Probation Instruction 31/2014’ – authorisation as “Officer of a Provider of Probation Services”.
Roll forward to the current England and Wales Probation Service and a 2023 updated policy: ‘Probation Professional Register Policy Framework’, to be implemented September 2024. There are six ‘Probation Professional Registration Standards’ for the registered probation officer (including SPOs with roles requiring a probation officer qualification). Then probation practitioners included 5,413 FTE POs, and 5,586 FTE probation services officers not included in the policy, alongside all other staff. Reference is made to the Civil Service Code but this also covers half a million civil servants.
Social workers have been required to register since 2000, currently managed by Social Work England. There are associated registration professional standards. The MoJ appears to have copied this requirement backed by the appropriate Act. But social workers far outnumber probation staff and have myriad roles across the spectrum of care. Registration ensures identification of those having appropriate training for that profession. Probation is a much smaller, specific, service facilitating monitoring of staff and related qualifications/training. The need for such a policy is not obvious. It also includes only 50% of practitioners.
Evidence cited for the policy refers to ‘Professionalism in Probation’ by Dr Matt Tidmarsh, and apparent support of the development towards professional registration for POs ‘rooted in a recognition of the need to re-professionalise staff through knowledge, education, and training’. But Dr Matt Tidmarsh’s conclusion refers to probation staff as a whole regaining an identity, culture and professionalism apparently diminished during the T.R. Period. Given the amount of ongoing mandatory training post 2021 unification, this aspect appears to have been fulfilled.
For me professionalism in probation applies to the body of probation staff as would the six standards. These are: support public protection and changing lives, act with honesty and professional integrity, promote and value each person as an individual, responsible and accountable for my quality of practice and decision making, establish and maintain professional relationships, maintain my continuing professional development. Alongside these is the related body of knowledge, expertise, skills, and evidence that resides in the probation service.
As a probation officer at the age of 22, I wanted ‘to make a difference’. 50 years later the 2022 ‘word clouds’ of the region’s ‘Probation Day’ also included ‘to make a difference’. During T.R, a colleague working in the local CRC said ‘this wasn’t what I joined the service for’, but continued to do the best he could under such difficult circumstances. Recently a member of staff on maternity leave talked about the high caseloads and staff shortages, but said there was still nowhere else she would want to work for the foreseeable future. It is the professionalism of those who work in probation which will continue to ensure we can ‘make a difference’ whilst having to respond to changing demands, difficulties and challenges.
Working in probation is to be part of a shared value base. Professionalism does demand high standards such as the six outlined. In any organisation there are those who do not ‘buy into’, or cannot achieve, expected standards. The challenge for Probation is no different. In times of great stress quality standards may drop, and indeed that applies now. Professionalism needs to be able to thrive. That does not detract from the fact that the majority of staff at whatever grade will do the best they can, in relation to their role, working with individuals, agencies and organisations in respect of the aims of the probation service. Professionalism is embodied in the majority of staff’s commitment to the service, its culture and ideology.
For over 50 years it was a privilege to witness this.
The Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize is annual competition, co-hosted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and Napo, that honours the legacy of Mike Guilfoyle. Mike was a dedicated probation officer and active Napo member, and this competition aims to encourage reflections on all that is valuable and important in probation.
This year’s essay question was What does professionalism mean in probation?
