I've recently been pointed in the direction of a page on the Ministry of Justice website about a typical day in the life of a newly qualified probation officer. I guess it's aimed at people thinking of a career in the Service. The heading is:
What are the challenges of working directly with offenders? We look at a typical working day for newly-qualified probation officer Sian Sadler.
It’s 10am on a winter’s day. A young man is slumped in his seat, aware his life is spiralling out of control. His girlfriend has left him; he’s racked up a criminal conviction for smashing up her property and fears he may lose access to his child. He can’t sleep and gets through a crate of beer a day. The man is the first of three offenders being seen that morning by newly-qualified probation officer Sian Sadler.
The offender is open about his situation, explaining his priority is to get off the booze and get a job. Since moving from another area, he’s stopped receiving treatment for his addiction – a factor in his last three offences. Sian listens patiently, encouraging the man to come up with solutions to his problems. She agrees to help him get support from a drug and alcohol treatment charity and advises him to contact his solicitor about access to his child. She also offers to arrange an assessment with an employment specialist when they meet next week.
The article goes on to explain that Sian has 30 clients on her books and that virtually all of them have some form of either alcohol or drug dependency.
The second offender she sees is a middle-aged man convicted of alcohol-related domestic violence. Sian talks to him about joining the Probation Service’s Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme. An hour later, a third offender turns up for his induction appointment. As part of his sentence for possession of drugs, the man has received a community order with supervision. For the first 16 weeks of his sentence, the he will have to attend weekly probation appointments with Sian.
Now I don't want to be overly critical of Sian because I think the article pretty well gives a flavour of what the new-look probation service is indeed like. But I'm appalled at the speed at which clients seem to be 'signposted' off to other agencies. You mention a problem and 'bingo' a referral is made. Now I don't think this satisfies my test of 'if this was me, how would this make me feel?' But it very neatly serves to illustrate the move from being a client-centred service to one that is increasingly process-driven. I think these clients wanted and deserved some in-depth conversations with their officer so that she could get to know them and they could get the feeling that they were being listened to by her and not just passed around like a parcel. Surely it must make you feel like you are being 'processed?'
To put it at its bluntest, anybody can do some 'signposting', but of course this is indeed the philosphy behind the whole 'offender management' ethos. But evidence shows and common sense confirms that it is the relationship between client and officer that is the key to being able to effect change. So many times I've heard the refrain, 'My officer doesn't spend any time talking to me' or 'They don't listen.' Clearly in this sort of situation clients are merely reporting because they have to. Wouldn't it be better all round if they reported because they wanted to? All that effort wouldn't need to be put into chasing people up for missed appointments and those sullen monosylabic responses encountered when clients are not happy could be avoided. But it's the last two paragraphs that I think serve to best illustrate the gulf between old and new style officers.
Breaking the cycle of reoffending isn’t easy but Sian believes that, given the right help and motivation, even the most hardened criminals can turn their lives around.
She says: 'I believe that people can change and I want to be part of that. I think the work probation officers do is important, not just in rehabilitating offenders, but also in terms of protecting the public from becoming victims in the future. It’s nice to know your job is making a difference.'
Now although we might have shared aspirations, after 25 years service I'm not at all sure that I could say with any great degree of certainty that I had made a difference. Of course there are instances where I've been proud of certain outcomes, but how do you measure such a concept when we really only see people who might be classed as the failures because they've come back round? For the ones that don't come back, we're never likely to know.
I can see why it would suit the Ministry of Justice for PR reasons to promulgate the view of making a difference, but I think it would be far more sensible to suggest a degree of humility or realism even. I think any officer who is regularly telling themself that they are making a difference is indulging in a bit of self-deception and is heading for some serious disappointment quite soon. We try our best, but if it were that straight forward, would there really be so many of us still employed?
I share your frustrations! We're setting ourselves up to fail the way we're working at the moment, it reminds me of those tv adverts that encourage you to 'cut out the middle man' and save money!! We need to be sticking with what we do best not dishing people out left, right and centre!
ReplyDeleteOur problem is, Jim, that the ultimate measure of our success is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing,; in this case reoffending. Despite the rhetoric of evidence basedf practice, we have never been and will neve be able to evidence causality in our interventions. For me, it has alway sbeen a matter fo faith. If I offer an offender assistance in some way, the consequences are not important. It is 'the opportunity to try something else' that matters. Or even 'the opportunity to try something else again'. An average drug user makes 11 attempts to get off the stuff before they succeed. In my mind, the first 10 attempts are as equally important as the eleventh. We all want to be the 'guru' that makes a difference (I want to be Yoda) but we have to accept that we are part of a bigger picture that sometimes takes years and dozens of people and agencies to make the change. Who gets the praise? The last one in the series but that doesn't mean that their intervention was the only one that made a difference. They ALL do, for better or worse. For me, its just about trying.
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely - we keep doing what we do because it's right - and one day it might work. There are no magic bullets - no quick fixes.
Jim
A question please: A 21 year old male runs to the defence of a male friend who is with his girlfriend in the street when an older man in his late twenties, a stranger, walks out of a pub and head butts him in the face. The friend has his nose broken and is bloodied. The attacker runs away and is chased; 21 year old male catches up and looks on CCTV as though his hand is at the assailants back. He falls on the ice and cuts his head. Police investigation and the younger males are arrested. (no previous convictions but attacker has convictions for affray). At court, the Assailant receives compensation for the cuts to his head and lads receive punishment - fines and community service. Question. The 21 year old who helped chase the attacker and was accused of pushing him is headed for a first class degree and wants to apply to LSE for a Masters degree but has to divulge the AOABH, so unlikely to be accepted. Meanwhile the older man is free and hasn't been charged! Where is the justice?
ReplyDeleteWell as you describe it - an injustice indeed, but as always it begs lots of questions. These are two seperate assaults, but connected. Did the original victim make a complaint? Was there a police investigation? Were there any independent witnesses? Any forensic evidence? Basically, what happened in relation to the first assault?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the original victim did not make a complaint. Put this down to being naive and young. He went home with a broken nose and has a scar. There were plenty of CCTV cameras but neither of the two solicitors sought to obtain any evidence. The police investigation only centered around the older, second male, as he had made the complaint. He also who denied assault at court. We were informed by my son's solicitor that he had been arrested on several occasions for Affray, but this was not mentioned in court because the court case was the Crown (the man who was chased after attacking a younger male) versus the original victim and my son (in the past the two would have been regarded as victim and hero...)
ReplyDeleteI don't condone violence at all but the older man was about gratuitous violence, the two younger males weren't.
Moral of this ugly story is if you are attacked never defend yourself unless its immediate - and never ever help a friend in need. In this case, the 'bad guy' has been protected by the Crown. My son's future is in ruins.