A View From The Other Side

One of the many fascinating aspects of this once wonderful job is the chance you get to meet interesting people on a daily basis. I have always loved talking to people and to be paid to do it for a living always struck me as not a job at all, but merely an extension of everyday life. All the endless bureaucratic irritations introduced over recent years can be forgotten in the privacy of the interview room, so far away from the prying eyes and ears of management as video recording has yet to be introduced there.

It's difficult to explain the buzz you get from knowing virtually nothing about a person at the beginning beyond their name, offence, date of birth and address and absolutely no idea where the conversation and subsequent journey will take you. A meaningful dialogue is vital. Some people you might only meet once or twice. Some you will spend a significant part of your life getting to know. All types, all ages, all backgrounds, all dispositions. I would not be human if I didn't admit to enjoying a challenge on occasion and particularly an intellectual one. This can come from any number of directions, but in my experience most frequently from the very long-term prisoner or 'lifer'. 

In trying to find material to keep this blog fed, I've found myself paying rather closer than normal attention to the excellent Probation Journal published quarterly in conjunction with Sage and NAPO. In the September 2010 edition my eye was attracted to an article by Jon Keeler, a long term prisoner presently residing at HMP Long Lartin. To my knowledge this is unique and makes a welcome change from the usual academic and practitioner contributions, worthy though they almost invariably are. In quite a lengthy and very competant piece, Jon has some pretty strong words of criticism for the Probation Service generally and probation officers in particular. He documents the change in ethos of the Service so often lamented on here, but goes much further in cataloguing in forensic detail the effect it's all had on a large part of our clientele, namely the long-term prisoner.

Until I read this article I really hadn't appreciated how probation officers are currently perceived by such inmates - it seems we're now the enemy, barely indistinguishable from the police or prison officers. Apparently they now even use the same terms of abuse previously only reserved for the police and prison staff. Ordinary members of the public might not find this surprising, given their perception of what they think we do, but I'm deeply saddended by it and can appreciate how it's come about. Pretty much it can be summed up by the dreaded acronym OASys. 

Jon confirms the widely held view that the whole ghastly thing was foisted upon the Probation Service as a result of being an unwilling bride in an arranged marriage with the Prison Service. He goes on to say "The effect on us, the prisoner-wards of this unhappy relationship, is a form of abuse in which the probation service is complicit." Strong stuff indeed, but confirming something we might be tempted to lose sight of, namely that all the endless crap that is fed into OASys on a daily basis, affects peoples lives. 

I have seen no end of unsubstantiated gossip and tittle tattle masquerading as evidence or assessments and typically input by inexperienced and barely trained prison officers that then sits there for months, only to be built upon by other officers further down the line without challenge. As we all know, OASys is about risk assessment and the basis on which progress through the prison system is now determined, but the system is becoming completely unfit for purpose by being full of inaccuracies, unsubstantiated and subjective assessments and scores that vary for seemingly no good reason at all. Jon sums the situation up by making the observation that "It is an irony that the process of objectification of prisoners may have the unintended consequence of deskilling the processors. As they reduce prisoners to the single dimension of their offence category, in OASys they are themselves reduced from professionals able to use judgements about people based on training and experience to mere box-ticking technicians."  

In part defence I feel I have to say that most OASys documents on long-term prisoners were initiated and subsequently maintained by prison staff. Probation officers, when exercising the so-called 'offender manager' role are only able to request temporary 'ownership' of the OASys document for short periods when they are faced with the almost impossible task of trying to amend, update and improve an already completed document. This takes hours and to be honest often results in a 'dogs breakfast' unless a complete re-write is attempted. I would also say that sadly one motive for bringing in OASys in the first place was so that it could indeed be filled in by less well-trained 'technicians'. 

Jon's very lengthy article covering many aspects of probation work ends on a particularly bleak note by stating that meaningful contact with his probation officer has become impossible and all that is left "is a running battle over the accuracy of information in OASys and the competance of assessors."  We know that only 24% of our time is available for client contact and prison visits are necessarily curtailed by this and cost restraints. Perhaps not surprising then he sums up with the insightful comment "I can think of no better description of the probation service, as experienced by prisoners, than a deceptive substitute for real contact." Oh dear. What a monster has indeed been created in the shape of OASys and the damned computer.