Wednesday 6 February 2013

Out of Jail and On the Streets - Verdict

Now I've had chance to reflect on the BBC1 fly-on-the-wall documentary 'out of jail and on the streets',  I'm tempted to pass a few comments. It's on i-player here and a news item can be found here.

First off I think it confirms what many of us have suspected, namely that there's plenty of interesting story lines to have a go at. The production company did a good job and I think the edited version tries to be fair in terms of how the 'protagonists' are portrayed. Clients, bless 'em, just tend to say what they think with little or no insight into the irony of some of it, like the rapist who can't see what the problem is in 'going round to collect some things' from an ex whilst 'high' at 2 in the morning. Recall was entirely appropriate in my view.

The sex offenders featured in the programme give a flavour of what sort of issues probation face in supervising them in the community, but I'd have been happier had I seen some evidence of SOTP courses either whilst in prison or as licence conditions. It's no good just monitoring, we  also have to be doing some work that seeks to address the often distorted reasoning that lies behind behaviour. I'm probably being grossly unfair on a programme of only an hour's duration and without sight of the files, so I guess I'm making a case for a long-overdue series.  

As has been highlighted by a commentator to this blog, one danger in a programme like this is that the film crew will record the interview between officer and client, then get the client on their own to say 'what they really' think. So it was that we learnt that Dave regards it all as a 'game of cat and mouse' when 'messing' with probation and 'they only want to set us up to fail.' 

Having been imprisoned for the drunken joint kidnap of a guy, who is then tortured into supplying further alcohol, Dave explains with not untypical twisted logic that the offence wasn't alcohol-related - 'I just do bad things and the alcohol helps me to forget.' In the process of course he completely confirms the accuracy of his supervision plan that seeks to restrict his alcohol intake. One wonders again though what work was done with him whilst in prison, and indeed why there appears to be no licence requirement to attend an alcohol-offending programme?  

To be honest Dave did bother me because the team appeared not to know him. I wonder at what point the public protection team picked up the case and who if anyone visited him in prison? I've said it before and I say it again. In my book best practice is for the PSR author to see the case right through from initial interview to end-of-licence. This guy is going to need a fair amount of work and he needs the stability and consistency of an officer who gets to know him over time. Recall was sadly inevitable.

I think the point about the relationship between officer and client is admirably borne out by the sad case of Roger and his officer Vicky. What struck me most about this was that Vicky felt obliged to pass comment on the amount of care and work she had expended on her clients behalf. You just know that she was somehow made to feel a little uncomfortable about 'going the extra mile' and I find that very unfortunate indeed.

The officer should not be made to feel like that because I think most people can see that it all makes complete sense. Public protection cannot come 'just' from monitoring - G4S could do that heaven forfend - real public protection and effective rehabilitation comes from changing attitudes and fixing problems as well, and that takes compassion, skill and experience.  To me this programme began to give us a sense of the magic that is indeed 'probation.'  A good start, so more please BBC!  

PS To sign the petition go here.      
      

20 comments:

  1. Thought it was pretty good. But in the case of the two sex offenders when they finish their sentences, they are going to be on the Sex Offenders Register for life and possibly be subject to SOPOs, so it's not like they "walk" free either which what they made out in the programme.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The point was that the paedophile sex offender was convicted before the law was changed for him to be on the sex offenders register. He will "walk free".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you too have missed the point as the sex offender will not walk free , he will be monitored by mappa after his licence finishes , the point they were making were his offence pre dates 2005 so instead of serving half his sentence then being supervised for the other half , he served 2/3 of his sentence and will then only spend 6 months on licence giving the probation service little time to work with him.

      Delete
    2. That is true - once 'labelled' as something by the system they will never be 'walking free'. If they are truely a bad person then their consious will keep them a prisoner all their life and no matter what anyone says, we are all monitored and watched anyway and those persons labelled in such a way will get targeted by the Police no matter what they do.

      Delete
  3. I was pleased they included the work being done with the guy Roger and the 'welfare' aspect that is so important to a lot of Probation work. I also felt it highlighted the complete lack of appropriate mental health service for many people in the community. I think this is one of the areas that people are going to be shocked to discover how much Probation takes up the slack of other services (who also also struggling for lack of funding it should be said) if/when privatisation occurs. As you said I can't see a private firm encouraging the efforts to build a supportive relationship with Roger, as the PO clearly had, to be an effective use of time and resources. Especially as it cannot easily be counted or 'tick boxed' in terms of targets.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think your points are fair, Jim, but I do think that, given the time and space, the could onnly go so far before details would be watered down to the point of useless. To an uninformed audience, it was a fair start. Could easily be a series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Rob - always appreciate your input - and your efforts at trying to get the NAPO forum pages going.

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
  5. Im roger - the man in the film. vicky was great , shocked anyone found me so interesting. im on faceboook, and btw i have teeth now!!! rogx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roger,

      Great to hear from you and we all hope you are continuing to do well!

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete
    2. Roger - I am routing for you. It is true that people with certain difficulties get the bad end of the stick too often and the relationship between you and Vicky was enlightening. She was quite clearly a genuine, caring person, not someone who patronises, condesends or looks down on others. I wish you luck with the future and hope you find others like her who will look out for you.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your kind comments - i tend to be a lot better these days and am more strict about taking my meds. Vicky literally saved my bacon - and im pleased to know she had her little boy called Frasier! :) I do feel let down by mental health services, i feel im not taken seriously at times, and when unwell i will lock myself away - its preferable to a 4 hour wait in a+E!! I was going to mind day centre, but thanks to the government my dla was stopped and they changed the rules on bass passes so i cannot afford to attend anymore. You saw me at my worst - but im pretty well these days. :) Maybe one day ill settle down and have a family - Thats what i really want! Cheers rog x

      Delete
    4. I am not a Probation Officer but I'd love to be. I've tried a couple of times but haven't been successful. The PO's in the programme were brilliant, definitely a very difficult, emotionally draining job. I agree that welfare is an essential aspect of the job and it is about balancing enforcement and welfare. Great work POs and Roger, great to hear you are doing well.

      Delete
    5. We were trying to find you on facebook. So pleased things are better for you. We have been regulars at Chapel Street too! Take care.

      Delete
    6. Hi roger , we were moniting , in the summer and you were on the beach laying with your g,friend, you seem very happy.but after a while you got up and left, did we make you uncomfortable. Or was it that you did and left her there.

      Delete
    7. Yes i did notice. Unfortunately quite observant. But it wasnt you. she was just pissing me off with her drone. :) Dont worry xx

      Delete
  6. As a small, narrow snapshot of the work it was a fair programme. Praise to the brave people involved, especially Roger. Brighton & Chichester seemed very genteel offices to work in, no doubt a false impression. It may have benefited by comment on the workload context to illustrate the reality of the pressures involved. This might typically be 6 SDR's on the go, 50 cases half of which high risk etc. It was a specialist high risk Public Protection team so maybe they had a much reduced, protected workload? Not sure why PO felt need to justify welfare work. Definitely worth a series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree - an hour just isn't long enough - we need that series!

      Delete
    2. No thanks. I wont bore you with the crap i got after doing that. Never Again.

      Delete
    3. Sorry to hear that Roger - should you want to say more about what happened, but privately, I can be contacted via the 'my profile' link at the top of the page.

      I hope all is well with you,

      Cheers,

      Jim

      Delete