I don't know where to start. Over recent months you will be aware that there have been many, many comments about you, but how many have been written TO you? This is a highly sensitive subject, causing much anger, pain, frustration and disbelief, with words which I won't repeat, to describe you.
But you are a human being, in a long (presumably) strong marriage, and 2 young adult children. I have not read of any scandals involving you, in contrast to the accusations and confirmed revelations of the despicable behaviour of many politicians (and other noted people). You are an intelligent well-educated and highly qualified man, with a deeper side, having written an eclectic mix of books including a review of waterways. Who would have thought that this man, who puts his foot in it every time he opens his mouth, could show such sensitivity.
So today I am not calling you psychotic, dangerous etc etc, I am appealing to that sensitive, 'normal' side, who I presume loves and has protected his family, like the rest of us (and I genuinely am not being sarcastic, I am respecting the private man.)
I am a retired Probation Officer, qualifying with a DIPSW and Masters degree at the age of 48, after a history of working with young people, in the public sector, both part-time and full time, during which time I had also gained a relevant community and youth diploma at 44 after 2 years at Poly. Through my work I gained experience of every social problem, homelessness, fractured families, domestic violence, unemployment, abuse, self abuse, isolation, mental health, drugs, alcohol, sex offending, and personal issues of race, gender, sexuality, literacy skills, disabilities and confidence issues. I have worked in offices, community organisations and walked the streets, working with damaged families and seeking out disaffected youth. In those days, life experience was essential. I now understand you can be a trainee at 18. Surely that must be wrong? Even under 25 is still a bit unnerving, having to challenge streetwise, damaged, nothing-to-lose offenders.
Throughout a loving upbringing, I had been taught respect and understanding of other people, and these are the qualities essential in Probation. Staff need to have the skills to interact with and to understand clients/offenders/service users issues, and gain their trust where there may have previously only been indifference, rejection, intolerance or arrogance. And vitally, give those people TIME to trust you and open up to you. People aren't born criminals; not all rejected people go on to hate or steal or misuse substances, they somehow muddle through, no doubt with support somewhere, but for some, it is just too despairing a battle. And they break the law, out of frustration, hunger, isolation, anger, despair, rejection, fear, and resentment.
But you are a human being, in a long (presumably) strong marriage, and 2 young adult children. I have not read of any scandals involving you, in contrast to the accusations and confirmed revelations of the despicable behaviour of many politicians (and other noted people). You are an intelligent well-educated and highly qualified man, with a deeper side, having written an eclectic mix of books including a review of waterways. Who would have thought that this man, who puts his foot in it every time he opens his mouth, could show such sensitivity.
So today I am not calling you psychotic, dangerous etc etc, I am appealing to that sensitive, 'normal' side, who I presume loves and has protected his family, like the rest of us (and I genuinely am not being sarcastic, I am respecting the private man.)
I am a retired Probation Officer, qualifying with a DIPSW and Masters degree at the age of 48, after a history of working with young people, in the public sector, both part-time and full time, during which time I had also gained a relevant community and youth diploma at 44 after 2 years at Poly. Through my work I gained experience of every social problem, homelessness, fractured families, domestic violence, unemployment, abuse, self abuse, isolation, mental health, drugs, alcohol, sex offending, and personal issues of race, gender, sexuality, literacy skills, disabilities and confidence issues. I have worked in offices, community organisations and walked the streets, working with damaged families and seeking out disaffected youth. In those days, life experience was essential. I now understand you can be a trainee at 18. Surely that must be wrong? Even under 25 is still a bit unnerving, having to challenge streetwise, damaged, nothing-to-lose offenders.
Throughout a loving upbringing, I had been taught respect and understanding of other people, and these are the qualities essential in Probation. Staff need to have the skills to interact with and to understand clients/offenders/service users issues, and gain their trust where there may have previously only been indifference, rejection, intolerance or arrogance. And vitally, give those people TIME to trust you and open up to you. People aren't born criminals; not all rejected people go on to hate or steal or misuse substances, they somehow muddle through, no doubt with support somewhere, but for some, it is just too despairing a battle. And they break the law, out of frustration, hunger, isolation, anger, despair, rejection, fear, and resentment.
The majority of people I supervised had been abused or neglected/rejected in their childhood, had gone in and out of care, to be abused again - many children's homes were harsh, threatening places where abuse was rife. I have cried with offenders who have broken down, and opened up to me, some big 'tough' even high-risk, middle-aged men, (who have threatened me with unspeakable things and later apologised) after a life of silence or rebuke from social workers for being naughty and telling lies. When it does come out, it is in a torrent of exorcism, but likely to be quickly hidden again if the PO goes too fast in this hallelujah moment.
Chris, that damages people permanently, and often results in crime sooner or later. For people to heal, they need other people to understand, and to be able to point the way. And there needs to be time to demonstrate understanding, and facilities to support them, something which is becoming harder and harder in this current political climate. What is certain, is that this cannot be achieved by just dealing with the crime and not the person, by looking at the offence, with no background knowledge or means of accessing it, by brief court reports, or ticky lists, or nothing at all, just the defendant, with judges and magistrates second guessing what the person has experienced before, what they have DONE before, with no guidance on what levels of support or restraint they need to impose. If a person is just shoved through a conveyor belt process, then quickly ticked out at the end, that is only bottling up the CAUSES, with a likelihood of going through the revolving doors again and again.
You have said that yourself, with your oft-repeated signature quote about the under 12 month supervision - they need to be supported during and at the end of their sentence, and on licence. Why then, are you removing or at best limiting, the quality of support AND control of offenders on community supervision?
- which brings me on to other issues, which confuses and to be honest, angers me. -
1) Why do you keep repeating a mantra of the under 12 months supervision being the reason behind this demolition of the Probation Service, when the Service has done this before? In my time we would offer them voluntary supervision for 12 months, and we would write to them at the end of their Order, inviting them to call in if they had a problem, in the early days of readjusting without support. We would also frequently go to the prison to pick up higher risk or more vulnerable offenders, having ensured they had accommodation, or have found accommodation for them.
Chris, that damages people permanently, and often results in crime sooner or later. For people to heal, they need other people to understand, and to be able to point the way. And there needs to be time to demonstrate understanding, and facilities to support them, something which is becoming harder and harder in this current political climate. What is certain, is that this cannot be achieved by just dealing with the crime and not the person, by looking at the offence, with no background knowledge or means of accessing it, by brief court reports, or ticky lists, or nothing at all, just the defendant, with judges and magistrates second guessing what the person has experienced before, what they have DONE before, with no guidance on what levels of support or restraint they need to impose. If a person is just shoved through a conveyor belt process, then quickly ticked out at the end, that is only bottling up the CAUSES, with a likelihood of going through the revolving doors again and again.
You have said that yourself, with your oft-repeated signature quote about the under 12 month supervision - they need to be supported during and at the end of their sentence, and on licence. Why then, are you removing or at best limiting, the quality of support AND control of offenders on community supervision?
- which brings me on to other issues, which confuses and to be honest, angers me. -
1) Why do you keep repeating a mantra of the under 12 months supervision being the reason behind this demolition of the Probation Service, when the Service has done this before? In my time we would offer them voluntary supervision for 12 months, and we would write to them at the end of their Order, inviting them to call in if they had a problem, in the early days of readjusting without support. We would also frequently go to the prison to pick up higher risk or more vulnerable offenders, having ensured they had accommodation, or have found accommodation for them.
Then in the recent past, a meeting of CEOs offered to NOMS the facility to supervise that group of offenders, in the awareness of the likelihood of reoffending (the immediate period after the end of custody or supervision for some, was always regarded as a potentially risky period, after losing a line of support.) Indeed some Trusts had already successfully run trials. But the CEO's were told that it would not be proceeded with, without explanation. I can remember the topic of discussion before I retired was the possibility that we would be supervising this group in the near future (then), and we speculated on additional staff being recruited.
2) Secondly, why do you insist that crime is staying stubbornly high, when even NOMS records in 2013 revealed that it has been steadily dropping in 10 of the 15 Trusts, since 2010, with some areas, particularly in the North East and London, 'achieving better than expected results'? This is what the public are being told, with no one in the system appearing to contradict you. And did you know that the National Probation Service were the first ever public organisation to be give the British Quality Foundation's award for excellence?
3) Why have you said this transformation will be cheaper than retaining the status quo when hundred of millions of pounds has already been spent, with much much more still to come?
4) Why are you saying that NAPO is misleading and that most staff are happy and the reforms are 'bedding in well' and teams are making 'good progress', when the reality is spectacularly different? Many people are afraid to speak out, for fear of serious repercussions; some are tucking their heads in, ignoring the rumbling earthquake; staff in NPS have been warned not to speak out, and some CRCs too, and some senior managers are - dare I say - giving false impressions, understandably I suppose, protecting their own livelihood and salaries.
I know it is not like that. I have friends who are still working there, and I have been receiving emails from a number of colleagues. detailing the problems they are enduring on a daily basis. They are not lying, they are too distressed to lie. They are exhausted, with sickeningly faulty IT systems, inability to find info, unmanageably high case loads, systems which take hours to complete and are not worth the paper (computer) they are written on, and most importantly, potentially dangerous offenders passing unnoticed or 'un-assessed', domestic violence cases identified as low or medium risk, when this group is a simmering volcano (living with the victim and then RETURNED to the victim by the courts, sometimes because of the naivety of the unqualified, inexperienced, temporary officer in the court who has not had training on such a high risk group), newly released prisoners being sent to wrong address (into an exclusion zone where the victim lived in one case); indeed I could go on and on and on - those few words are the tip of the iceberg.
2) Secondly, why do you insist that crime is staying stubbornly high, when even NOMS records in 2013 revealed that it has been steadily dropping in 10 of the 15 Trusts, since 2010, with some areas, particularly in the North East and London, 'achieving better than expected results'? This is what the public are being told, with no one in the system appearing to contradict you. And did you know that the National Probation Service were the first ever public organisation to be give the British Quality Foundation's award for excellence?
3) Why have you said this transformation will be cheaper than retaining the status quo when hundred of millions of pounds has already been spent, with much much more still to come?
4) Why are you saying that NAPO is misleading and that most staff are happy and the reforms are 'bedding in well' and teams are making 'good progress', when the reality is spectacularly different? Many people are afraid to speak out, for fear of serious repercussions; some are tucking their heads in, ignoring the rumbling earthquake; staff in NPS have been warned not to speak out, and some CRCs too, and some senior managers are - dare I say - giving false impressions, understandably I suppose, protecting their own livelihood and salaries.
I know it is not like that. I have friends who are still working there, and I have been receiving emails from a number of colleagues. detailing the problems they are enduring on a daily basis. They are not lying, they are too distressed to lie. They are exhausted, with sickeningly faulty IT systems, inability to find info, unmanageably high case loads, systems which take hours to complete and are not worth the paper (computer) they are written on, and most importantly, potentially dangerous offenders passing unnoticed or 'un-assessed', domestic violence cases identified as low or medium risk, when this group is a simmering volcano (living with the victim and then RETURNED to the victim by the courts, sometimes because of the naivety of the unqualified, inexperienced, temporary officer in the court who has not had training on such a high risk group), newly released prisoners being sent to wrong address (into an exclusion zone where the victim lived in one case); indeed I could go on and on and on - those few words are the tip of the iceberg.
I am sure you, or a sifting MoJ staff member, have been reading the Probation Blog. If so, you must wonder are all these people, nationwide, telling lies? Are all these people, who have loved their job as a vocation, telling lies? Are those people who have placed themselves at risk by revealing their identity by oath for the purpose of the JR also lying? Are all those people who have left with a broken heart - up to top management - also lying? Are the handful of senior managers who have risked putting their name to a comment also lying?
5) And on a related subject - do you honestly believe that everyone who states that prisons have become dangerous places is lying? Is Nick Hardwick lying? Are the governors lying (read between the lines)? What is the reason then for the high increased percentage of violence and deaths in prison? Why did a jury acquit 3 inmates for their protest? Why are people being banged up for 19 hours a day in crowded cells? I can remember regularly visiting prisons where there was generally a busy but contented atmosphere, with unproblematic prisoners moving around with no atmosphere of fear. Why is it recorded that all this has changed since June this year?
6) Where have the quoted 500 new recruits been placed, when people are still struggling with staff shortages, either left or on long term sick? Long term sick used to be a rarity when I was there, until 2011, not in the Dark Ages, which we rapidly appear to be returning to.
7) Why did you allow the split between the 70/30% staff to be managed in such a slap-dash unsafe way? 2 hats - take one name out and into that heap and 2 names into that heap, etc; sending some expertise and specialisms to CRCs and placing inexperienced PSO's (not all inexperienced I will grant, I have thoroughly experienced friends working in CRC's) into a role which gives them an entire case load of high riskers, a very stressful role for anyone. And I hear that some specialisms eg SOTP officers, (which I used to do, once a week, alongside my team PO role, after having extensive training) are struggling to operate, having lost their specialist worker to CRC.
8) And why assume ALL DV offenders are low/medium risk when this group are the most difficult to define? They usually live with their victim - AND children, who are the most vulnerable of all. The offender often has psychological issues, or drug/alcohol ones, which can turn a loved one into a monster in a wink, with the victim fearing the perpetrator but always believing his cries that he is sorry and will change. DV perpetrators are phenomenal deniers, sometimes, I believe, to themselves, which makes it harder to rehabilitate, like sex offenders. Again, it takes specialist training to work with such cases. Harking back to my early days in the 90's , every office used to have a trained person (which was me in my office at one time) who would sit in with the PSR writer when interviewing. There would always be 2 interviews. This was also the case with sex offenders, and the specialist worker would also produce a report. Now these same people are being sentenced with NO report or a ticky list. Do you honestly think this is ideal, or even safe?
It surprises me that DV offenders have a blanket assessment of low/medium risk, at a time when the government is paying more attention to the crime, (quote from Vera Baird - Police and Crime Commissioner - 'it is the most heinous of crimes') Do you not think that more attention should be given to this group?
9) Magistrates have always depended on the court probation officer for their knowledge and experience - a neighbour of mine is a long serving Magistrate who tells me how much they were valued for their analyses, background info and recommendations.
10) Can you imagine - have you seen it on the Probation Blog? - the technicality of re-arranging the offices, leaving one office, in many areas, with only high risk cases reporting? These offices have already been identified as the 'nonces and nutters office' around the country, with risk of confrontation. In the past no one knew what others had been convicted of, within the office anyway. Do you think this is safe? And some offenders are having to travel many more miles, to some offices in rural areas, which have only one officer and one admin. Again, do you think this is safe? And this leaves some offices overcrowded and some half empty, but unable to be used by CRC, as it belongs to NPS. Is this not bizarre? And travelling further afield to report, makes it more awkward to get there on time, if at all. Will they be at risk of breach if they arrive late? Will bus fares be paid - twice as much as before for the longer journey? I could go on.
11) I must also ask why, when people are posing questions at you, or informing you of problems, you either deny it, which is puzzling as there is clearly evidence to uphold these declarations. Or you will thank staff for doing so well, (when you must know that they are really hanging on by their finger tips, or have given up and left the Service, in tears over the death of a job they had loved for years) and then you say how everything has been improved, when it hasn't. Could you please explain? Are you being given the wrong information? The very day Parliament was told that the issues of N-Delius have been resolved, and people in CRC can now access info from NPS, I read a comment on the blog that attempts to gain info on 3 separate cases which were likely being re-assessed as high risk, were futile. I know that staff are supposed to be able to access info on N-Delius from admin staff, but is that really fair, given that admin staff have always been driven hard and overworked?
I implore you to think again about selling off the Probation Service to huge multi-nationals, employing staff who will have had little experience of such work. New graduates in NPS will be very young with little experience of understanding disaffected, damaged and dangerous criminals, yet will be making decisions on their future, with no idea of the implications for public and victim safety.
Probation has no issue with partnerships - it has worked alongside the police, voluntary organisations and educational systems, but it has retained control of sentencing and supervision. I ask you not to put many many lives at risk, nationwide, including offenders and staff and again I will say it - the children of victims and offenders, the most distressing issue, at a time when the government is reducing support systems and voluntary and charitable organisations.
I have just read that you have made the decision to go ahead with the sale - please at least put that on hold, until you hear what the High Court has to say. The Probation Service and its employees, and service users and the general public are at least owed that.
Your plan could still work, with a significant overhaul of partnerships, with more authority remaining in the public sector.
I could say more but I think I have said enough. Sadly I think it is all too late, but I still send this, with respect and with hope, and maybe, just maybe, you might accept that other ideas might just be better. You will gain much more respect if you decide to take a more moderate step.
Mgt Locklan
5) And on a related subject - do you honestly believe that everyone who states that prisons have become dangerous places is lying? Is Nick Hardwick lying? Are the governors lying (read between the lines)? What is the reason then for the high increased percentage of violence and deaths in prison? Why did a jury acquit 3 inmates for their protest? Why are people being banged up for 19 hours a day in crowded cells? I can remember regularly visiting prisons where there was generally a busy but contented atmosphere, with unproblematic prisoners moving around with no atmosphere of fear. Why is it recorded that all this has changed since June this year?
6) Where have the quoted 500 new recruits been placed, when people are still struggling with staff shortages, either left or on long term sick? Long term sick used to be a rarity when I was there, until 2011, not in the Dark Ages, which we rapidly appear to be returning to.
7) Why did you allow the split between the 70/30% staff to be managed in such a slap-dash unsafe way? 2 hats - take one name out and into that heap and 2 names into that heap, etc; sending some expertise and specialisms to CRCs and placing inexperienced PSO's (not all inexperienced I will grant, I have thoroughly experienced friends working in CRC's) into a role which gives them an entire case load of high riskers, a very stressful role for anyone. And I hear that some specialisms eg SOTP officers, (which I used to do, once a week, alongside my team PO role, after having extensive training) are struggling to operate, having lost their specialist worker to CRC.
8) And why assume ALL DV offenders are low/medium risk when this group are the most difficult to define? They usually live with their victim - AND children, who are the most vulnerable of all. The offender often has psychological issues, or drug/alcohol ones, which can turn a loved one into a monster in a wink, with the victim fearing the perpetrator but always believing his cries that he is sorry and will change. DV perpetrators are phenomenal deniers, sometimes, I believe, to themselves, which makes it harder to rehabilitate, like sex offenders. Again, it takes specialist training to work with such cases. Harking back to my early days in the 90's , every office used to have a trained person (which was me in my office at one time) who would sit in with the PSR writer when interviewing. There would always be 2 interviews. This was also the case with sex offenders, and the specialist worker would also produce a report. Now these same people are being sentenced with NO report or a ticky list. Do you honestly think this is ideal, or even safe?
It surprises me that DV offenders have a blanket assessment of low/medium risk, at a time when the government is paying more attention to the crime, (quote from Vera Baird - Police and Crime Commissioner - 'it is the most heinous of crimes') Do you not think that more attention should be given to this group?
9) Magistrates have always depended on the court probation officer for their knowledge and experience - a neighbour of mine is a long serving Magistrate who tells me how much they were valued for their analyses, background info and recommendations.
10) Can you imagine - have you seen it on the Probation Blog? - the technicality of re-arranging the offices, leaving one office, in many areas, with only high risk cases reporting? These offices have already been identified as the 'nonces and nutters office' around the country, with risk of confrontation. In the past no one knew what others had been convicted of, within the office anyway. Do you think this is safe? And some offenders are having to travel many more miles, to some offices in rural areas, which have only one officer and one admin. Again, do you think this is safe? And this leaves some offices overcrowded and some half empty, but unable to be used by CRC, as it belongs to NPS. Is this not bizarre? And travelling further afield to report, makes it more awkward to get there on time, if at all. Will they be at risk of breach if they arrive late? Will bus fares be paid - twice as much as before for the longer journey? I could go on.
11) I must also ask why, when people are posing questions at you, or informing you of problems, you either deny it, which is puzzling as there is clearly evidence to uphold these declarations. Or you will thank staff for doing so well, (when you must know that they are really hanging on by their finger tips, or have given up and left the Service, in tears over the death of a job they had loved for years) and then you say how everything has been improved, when it hasn't. Could you please explain? Are you being given the wrong information? The very day Parliament was told that the issues of N-Delius have been resolved, and people in CRC can now access info from NPS, I read a comment on the blog that attempts to gain info on 3 separate cases which were likely being re-assessed as high risk, were futile. I know that staff are supposed to be able to access info on N-Delius from admin staff, but is that really fair, given that admin staff have always been driven hard and overworked?
I implore you to think again about selling off the Probation Service to huge multi-nationals, employing staff who will have had little experience of such work. New graduates in NPS will be very young with little experience of understanding disaffected, damaged and dangerous criminals, yet will be making decisions on their future, with no idea of the implications for public and victim safety.
Probation has no issue with partnerships - it has worked alongside the police, voluntary organisations and educational systems, but it has retained control of sentencing and supervision. I ask you not to put many many lives at risk, nationwide, including offenders and staff and again I will say it - the children of victims and offenders, the most distressing issue, at a time when the government is reducing support systems and voluntary and charitable organisations.
I have just read that you have made the decision to go ahead with the sale - please at least put that on hold, until you hear what the High Court has to say. The Probation Service and its employees, and service users and the general public are at least owed that.
Your plan could still work, with a significant overhaul of partnerships, with more authority remaining in the public sector.
I could say more but I think I have said enough. Sadly I think it is all too late, but I still send this, with respect and with hope, and maybe, just maybe, you might accept that other ideas might just be better. You will gain much more respect if you decide to take a more moderate step.
Mgt Locklan
Excellent letter. Have you sent it to him?
ReplyDeleteGRAYLING - TLDR 46 pounds, pocket, sodexo, increased share prices.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point in this? Chris Grayling is a mendacious and vicious man he is despotic and has no redeeming features.Sorry, I realise you have made great effort in your guest blog but my view is that he will print this and frame it.
ReplyDeleteHe is proud to be responsible for the destruction of the high performing public sector probation, he is beyond this and frankly does not deserve any consideration.
I agree - and this is not about one politician. Simon Hughes at Justice Questions was quite at ease in his support for TR and he, too, did the £46-in-your-pocket routine. The privatisation of the public services is politically normal and thus there is nothing unusual about Chris Grayling, just as there was nothing unusual about Blunkett and his paving legislation on behalf of his outsouring and privatising government, some of whom now work in the private sector.
Delete"What is the point in this?" It's called free speech. Why not write a guest blog? I have acres of space to fill over the Festive Season.
DeleteNetnipper - I have a cracking letter sent on behalf of Simon Hughes for publication tomorrow.
DeleteDoing something may be better than doing nothing, Even Grayling cannot be ALL bad. Did we not praise and encourage offenders when they tried to do something positive? But I got it wrong abut no scandal being attached to him -a little bird reminded me of his expenses scenario! Ah well, could have been much worse!
DeleteAnd yes Clare, I did send it to him on both his contact addresses - his constituency and his parliamentary email sites. And thank you.
I sent it about 3 weeks ago, before other events took over, and also passed it to Jim, who I think has been waiting for other rising issues to be discussed. I was going to send it to the press too to drill into them how bad this is, but none of the popular tabloids have appeared to be interested.
I need to know why NO ONE is challenging his constant mantra about umpteen thousand violent people walking the streets with £46 in their pockets, making them sound like a plague of zombies. And his lies about reoffending statistics 'stubbornly' remaining high!! - as he did yday on Justice Questions in Parliament, saying it was the most serious issue about prisons!!!!! NOT TRUE.- why does someone, many ones, not challenge this, and many other weak examples of his rhetoric??
Please - someone tell him that this is not true, that is not true, because I am beginning to think that the Big 3 have convinced themselves that it is all true.
But yday, Sadiq Khan pulled no punches - didn't he refer to CG as a tinpot dictator? Prove him wrong Mr G, and let us see that you do have a heart somewhere.
"why does someone, many ones, not challenge this, and many other weak examples of his rhetoric??"
DeleteI guess the reason other MPs do not say such apparently obvious things is because very few have a proper understanding of probation work.
In nearly 30 years as a practitioner I only remember one parliamentary candidate ever visiting where I worked merely to discover for himself about probation.
that was Jim Fitzpatrick in Bow before 1997 - he is still an MP and still speaking up for the Fireworkers - his former profession.
http://www.jimfitzpatrickmp.org/
I agree with almost everything in this letter and would support it completely except for one comment - you have dismissed in an instance all probation staff under 25.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best people I ever worked with was a young officer in South west London. That very same person who is now responsible for community payback in most of London now. At 19 she understood more about offenders than most of her older colleagues.
Just because people are young please don't assume they are inferior.
I didn't mean to be dismissive of under 25's and I certainly did not suggest they were inferior. I agree with what you said, but 'life experience' used to count for the suitability of someone, for the job. You can be older but not have appropriate life experience which would assist in the way you work with people, and vice versa. But - you are more likely to have suitable experience if you are older, either in the people you have met, worked with, or your own experiences, which is NOT ruling out all younger ones. But when I read of 18 year olds, going unqualified into NPS, or 21year olds going from school to uni to working with high risk offenders......... they may have the paper qualifications, but would they have the confidence to cope with some hazardous situations??
DeleteI think the point about age of entrants into probation is well worth making even if it touches a raw nerve in some and who see emotive words like 'inferior' which was not in the original post.
DeleteLife experience does count and it was once a prerequisite to post-graduate training and candidates were usually over twenty-five. There may well be some exceptional candidates, but the exception does not make the rule. And the other raw nerve is perhaps gender balance amongst probation staff. It must now be in the region of 80:20 in favour of women. If it was the other way around there would be claims of institutional sex discrimination. And ethnicity counts too.
'There may well be some exceptional candidates' exactly so let's not exclude them because of their age. I joined the service at 21 and qualified at 24 and had more life experience then than many. It is important we don't lose the opportunity for great staff because they are young.
DeleteThere is this general dismissive attitude towards young staff and young female staff in particular. There will always be some staff who are employed on the basis of paper qualifications as opposed to life experiences but surely it is for each individual to demonstrate the competency required?
DeleteIf the young female officer referred to above and the other young qualifier who responded here are competent individuals then they should have jobs.
I've met a lot of older staff who have no discernable ability to do their jobs. They have life experiences but zero empathy or compassion.
Age is a number. I say well done to the young lady referenced. She seems highly regarded.
I think this perception of reverse ageism is missing the point. When I joined, 1990, my team was made up of a teacher, an industrial chemist, an oil rig worker etc etc. Now there is an alarming homogeneity to the workforce. I don't care that a worker is a woman of 'child bearing age'. I care that they are nearly ALL of tat type. The problem is not what is there, it is what is missing.
DeleteAgeism is ageism. There's no such thing as reverse ageism. Ageism against the young is just as valid and real as against older people.
DeleteFair point
Delete- except the recognition that greater experience and understanding is more often than not related to greater age is unrelated to any notion of 'ageism' no matter how distorted. The refusal to acknowledge the likely greater experience and understanding of older people, on the other hand, is the very essence of ageism
Deletehaving had " life experience" in itself is not whats key its how you are able to use it to expand yr understanding of people and apply knowledge appropriately.
DeleteHow you are able to use it is vital of course. You do need to have it before you can use it though...
Delete18:20 Brilliant point about homogeneity
Deletepolice at 18, nurse at 16, kill for your country at 18. MP at 21 Why are probation officers so special?
DeleteNot completely on a different subject - I believe probation work is a branch of social work.
ReplyDeleteThere is to be a review of the professional capabilities of social workers and contributions are invited: -
http://tinyurl.com/kwpmx4v
I have today had to write a begging letter to the Police Safeguarding unit - as Court did not notice on charges of Breach of Restraining Order and Arson that it may be DV related. They would normally make a request for call outs etc. It is also the Police's policy not to send them more than once, and so if they have been sent previously, they are very relucatnt to do it again. We have become aware of this in last 18 months or so and now try to ensure when cases are terminated, they remain in the file and are not pruned out to the confidential waste. I got out the dead file form earlier this year, as I was aware the Call Outs had been provided and shoudl have been there, but no, they have been shredded. So, I have had to beg and hope that some senistive colleague feels charitable and send it to me. If not, I won't have the history and the Crown Court will consider us all incompetant; I have for the last few months been explaining to Courts and Parole Boards why I cannot provide the necessary informaiton, no holds barred.
ReplyDeleteIt has also been brought to my attention today, that the temp staff currently going through all our dead files and packaging them up for a destination unknown, may not be aware of the need to retain certain documents, and in fact that doesn't matter, as they will all leave this building courtesy of TNT to a some place we don't know. Yes, you couldn't make it up. All that information previously at our fingertips, gone and the Police maintaining it is a resource issue to duplicate the provision of the informaiton...a recipe for disaster....shite, shite and more shite. Sorry, if I have offended anyone's sensitives there, but with all the rubbish about nDelius, and constant IT speak emails I am losing the will to dig in.
These are the sorts of issues that MPs should be asking direct questions to Grayling,Selous and Hughes about and also HMIP should be commenting about - HMIP may have done, I have not had the stamina to go through the report.
DeleteThree of the recommendations (22, 36, 37) in the recent HMIP deal with getting information from the police and one of recommendations says it's incumbent on senior managers to put in place arrangements that work swiftly, in court situations, in real time, on the day. Personally, if I was having any problems in getting critical information from another agency I would not care if they had provided it before, not least, as earlier information may easily be out of date where 'call outs' are concerned. But I do admire that fact that the police will seek to protect their resource and posit finite limits, which was never a strength of probation management when dealing with other agencies. With problems like the one described I always kept managers in the email loop, so they could have share that sense of foreboding... if down the line such information was later deemed essential during the SFO!
DeleteWhat an excellent letter, Margaret. Unfortunately, this will read like Chinese to Chris Grayling as he does not think in the same way as most of us who contribute to and read this blog, but you've put into words what I would like to say to him if he had the ability to understand. This, for me, incorporates so much of what this blog has given to people over the last couple of years - the priceless feeling that I am not alone in thinking the way I do.
ReplyDeleteThanks Joanna. I thought it was worth a try, trying to highlight his earlier less contentious skills as an author, and television presenter, as a husband and a father (until I read of his approval of physical punishment of your children!).
DeleteBut I think I hit a raw nerve, referring to under 21's or even under 25's as not having 'life' skills. I was not criticising their ability, and some may have experienced similar problem backgrounds to that of their offenders, I was just making the point younger people, generally, will not have had the opportunity to develop their people or communication skills.
You may have a degree in psychology, criminology etc, but you can't work with all people by the book. There is no simple 'one size fits all'. And through experience you learn to recognise the body language, the eye contact, the fears and the dangers, the nuances, what they are saying and what they are not saying, and the ability to work with violent high risk offenders, and stroppy younger low risk offenders. And you learn when to back off... I doubt if I would have done the job as well at 25, as I did at 45! Trust and understanding is a time-consuming 2 way process.
Some young officers may have had similar harsh experiences, and there is always the risk then of being regarded as the offender's friend. I have frequently said 'I am not your friend. But I am your Probation Officer and I will do my best to help you'. And I wasn't young!
We do need to have a range of ages and gender, as officers, to gain experience from each other, but currently they seem to be employing more younger unskilled in CRC's, or unskilled graduates in NPS, and that is not good. There needs to be a balance.
I hope that clarifies things a bit.
I sometimes despair of my colleagues aged or whatever who presume to judge on the individuals whose lives they cannot imagine. Race, gender disability, class platy their part. I would value teenage colleagues advice on younger people in a developing culture.
DeleteAre the contracts being signed tomorrow 18th? Not heard anything although this has been said, can someone clarify.
ReplyDeleteMy spo told me that contracts in our area are to be signed tomorrow
ReplyDeleteExcellent letter.
ReplyDeleteRegarding age, I agree that many under 25 may not have relevant life experience and may struggle when working with seasoned offenders and those with various life related problems. However, and there is a VERY BIG however. Just as many officers over 25 may also struggle with the same there are also many under 25's that are amazing probation officers with a wealth of experiences.
Age is a diversity strand and we should get away from the myth that our longer-serving colleagues are the experts, or that our younger colleagues don't have life experience. I've known probation officers both under and over 25 with unique backgrounds and experiences involving poverty, discrimination, military service, parenthood, imprisonment, being in the care system, gangs, substance misuse, victimisation, high achievement in education and employment, etc.
I tick a few of these boxes too and I also joined probation not long after leaving university. I can also say I've learnt a thing or too from our younger members of staff, and likewise from our longer serving colleagues.
better put than my earlier comments. Spot on
DeleteMy view, younger officers have limited experience, to work with offenders. There is no issue regarding upw or assisting offenders to the job centre etc... but undertaking the kind of intensive work is not appropriate & could actually "end up doing more damage then good" (quote by an offender).
ReplyDeleteI have had to intervene on several occasions to assist & guide the young person. This was extra work on top of my workload. did I get a queens honour for this, no. did I get any recognition of my input, no. I have also had to deal with situations were the cases had to be transferred to me after younger officers were struggling. The feedback from the offender was shocking with the way the person was supervised.
Wow, your attitude towards younger officers is appalling - I'm honestly saddened that, as a professional, you appear to have such entrenched negative views. Did it ever occur that 'assisting and guiding' new staff members is part of the job regardless of age? Or that maybe your 'intervention' was unwanted?!
DeleteYounger officers have "limited experience" in comparison to what?
DeleteAs I suggested in 19:55, let's not equate age with skill and experiences. I've known probation officers under 25 with unique backgrounds and experiences that some older officers have no experience of.
I've had to intervene in cases of BOTH younger and older staff members to assist and guide them. Just as I've learnt loads from BOTH younger and older colleagues.
I worry for the experience of clients supervised by people who respond to a difference of outlook with calculated outrage - 'appalled' 'saddened' and so forth. Efforts to stifle discussion through self serving moral indignation do nothing to progress understanding.
DeleteOn a different note i wonder whether these opinions are simply a reflection of the arrogance of youth. The thing younger people who have an issue with the notion of experience and understanding being related to age fail to appreciate is that those of us who are older have of course been younger, and a fundamental aspect of our more developed understanding reflects the recognition that we weren't half as clever as we thought we were when we were young...
I worry for our clients, being supervised by someone who makes such generalisations regarding colleagues based on age. You talk about 'progress(ing) understanding' - does this apply to you as well? We always talk about not stereo-typing the people we work with and viewing them as individuals. I fail to understand why this does not apply to other staff and it is blatantly unfair to say that younger officers undertaking intensive work with clients is not appropriate. I acknowledge that your personal experience if younger officers may not have filled you with confidence, but you can't use this to stereotype all younger officers.
DeleteAll of us as officers are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. We should celebrate this, learn from each other and stand together in what we do, especially in this difficult time.
Funny though how that celebration and learning increasingly doesn't extend as far as the greater experience that is inevitably reflected in more advanced years. The diminution of the experience that comes with age seems the last acceptable face of prejudice in some quarters
DeleteYou seem to have responded to a lot of points that i didn't actually make...
DeleteOk, at no point have I attempted to stifle debate. I have a right to express my opinion as do you.
DeleteYes, older officers have more experience - this does not necessarily equate to skill. Being more 'experienced' does not automatically make you a better officer. I work with older colleagues who are fantastic, some who are not. I do not appreciate my opinion being dismissed as 'the arrogance of youth' - of course, personal slights are easy to make. I just hope that when I invariaby become seen as an 'older officer' I'm not as judgemental of younger staff as some of the people posting on this blog tonight.
I sometimes despair of colleagues ability to join the dots.My younger colleagues may see me as dismissive (lack of my social skills and a lousy sense of humour) but I see value in their contribution. As a recruit in the eighties the problem was the established experienced workforce ignorant of the cultures around them. Youth was the answer- it still is.
DeleteIn my experience a broad range of clients HATE being supervised by younger probation staff. They find it deeply patronising and humiliating to be subject to control by someone they see - rightly or wrongly - as having no natural authority from which to presume to impose on their autonomy. They KNOW when someone doesn't have the experience and understanding to back up the all too often clumsy and unsophisticated advice and guidance as cribbed from a psychology text book. Think about your own discomforts when faced with a younger manager and multiply the feeling by a few hundred times....
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you're just projecting your views onto others given your sweeping generalisation? I have no doubt that some clients may not like being supervised by younger officers, just as some may not like being supervised by older officers. Your views seems to be to preclude anyone under the age of 30 from being an officer which is ludicrous. I certainly hope you don't make such generalisations about the clients that you work with. Anyway, I'm off to 'crib from a psychology text book' now, ready to impart lots of clumsy advice tomorrow.
DeleteProjecting? No. I'm talking about what many clients have said to me, many times, over many years. I appreciate though that as this is a reflection of my experience over time you no doubt feel it counts for nothing, and that you are no doubt similarly dismissive of the older clients views and experiences. But hey - this is about you and your job isn't it. What's it got to do with them?
DeleteNo, this isn't about me and my job. Nor do I think your experience counts for nothing. I've learnt a great deal from older colleagues and they've helped shape me as an officer. Equally, I've worked with clients of all ages and again, I've learnt a great deal from them. I've never seen the age of an officer as being a barrier to supervising clients - what's important is building a rapport, understanding how their experiences have shaped them and how you can support them. being able to do this isn't dependant on age, it's about being human. Yes, we all make mistakes but we reflect, learn from them and try not to make them again! The point I'm trying to make is that each of us bring something different to the job, but I don't feel that the age of officers should used to criticise them and infer that they're able to do their job.
DeleteTo 20:54
DeleteI'd say many clients hate being supervised by ANY staff. If the staff member uses the right approach a relationship can be built quite quickly in many cases. I've found some younger clients relate better to younger staff, and much of the caseload are 'young'. But to respond to the grossly discriminating views about younger staff, what about a probation officer that looks young but isn't?, or an older probation officer that just joined the service and has no experience of working with offenders?
Where did the comparison about a younger manager come from? I for one have no discomforts about working with a younger manager, and why would you? Note that in the private sector many managers are 'young' and this is a trend increasing in the public sector. It's surprising this needs to be pointed out here to probation staff trained in diversity. I suppose it's not long ago that we heard similar pathetic views about those that were 'uncomfortable' working under a black or female manager!
On an end note can somebody direct me to this 'psychology textbook' where all our advice and guidance is cribbed. 'Clumsy and sophisticated' or not, I'd like a read.
You probably should do a bit more reading if you're seriously seeking to equate some risible notion of 'ageism' against younger probation officers with the grim realities of racism and sexism. What a way to diminish real issues! 'Ooh that old client thinks my experience of life is in a way less than his just because i'm straight out of school whereas he's been coping with a life i can barely imagine for 50 years . Now i understand how ethnic minorities and women must feel!'
DeleteAre you really looking to equate some spurious notion of 'ageism' against younger probation officers, or younger managers, derived from a discussion of relative levels of professional and/or life experience experience, with peoples' experiences of racism and sexism?
DeleteAgeism IS a real issue!
DeleteOf course it is. Considering a possible difference of levels of professional and /or life experience in differently aged probation officers isn't 'ageism' though. In fact the suggestion diminishes the real issues of ageism
DeleteTo suggest probation officers could not and should not do their job due to their age is discrimination. To suggest only those over a certain age have the skills and ability to be a probation officer or manager is discriminating, particularly when it's being said to an abundance of young probation staff and managers. If you can see that then that's pretty unfortunate for any young people you have contact with.
Delete"Ageism (also spelled "agism") is stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. This may be casual or systematic."
'To suggest probation officers could not and should not do their job due to their age is discrimination. To suggest only those over a certain age have the skills and ability to be a probation officer or manager is discriminating'
DeleteIt's just as well that no one has said any such thing then. While we're quoting Wikipedia though:
'Straw Man' : The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition'
I am 20.41- Look its very simple really. There are some officers who have come strength out of university, pleasant and happy life's, with posh middle class backgrounds, state funded schools in middle class areas, never lived in the Bronx, never had a parking ticket, never been to a council estate, never seen never mind contact with a drug user, never seen dysfunctional families, never witnessed their dad beating the shit out of their mother and u telling me that young officers can work with offenders. Come on get real. The basic principle is to relate. You can't relate if you don't appreciate or understand clients reality. That's how simple it is. Pls do go and look that up in a text book.
ReplyDeleteWhat about older people who've never experienced any of that? How many of us have!
DeleteThe September 2014 Probation Journal has a peice on desistance that's along these lines. Yes it's better for probation officers to have relevant life experience alongside other characteristics, but let's not ignore that this can be and is present in both young and old, and those of all social classes.
DeleteAnon 21:50 do you know that people from "posh middle class backgrounds" can be drug users, abusers, live on council estates and even get parking tickets too! Some even become probation officers!
DeleteI've been thinking about whether these posts are offensive or not. They aren't really. But they deeply deeply sadden me. There are obvious debates to be had about the way we work with clients but drawing upon age of officers and making sweeping generalisations is really unpleasant and worries me about the views of my potential colleagues. Do they really think that?! I am somewhere in the middle. I'm not young or old. I started when I was young (no degree or university education like my contemporaries, to my regret, but plenty of life experience). Clients used to say they liked a fresh approach and the energy and enthusiasm of a younger officers. Now I am older many clients say to me they appreciate a mature view. The crux is: people like to be LIKED. They want to appeal to our better nature be cause WE make that working relationship a good experience. We all do it. Our clients (sometimes) may not be able to fully articulate what it is they like about working with us so they draw upon something obvious, like age or gender. But there is far more to a working relationship. There are exceptional officers out there; young and old, male and female, straight, gay, transgendered and bi. Please let's not fight amongst ourselves and just celebrate what we do well. We need each others support more than ever now!
ReplyDeleteWell said!
DeleteOf course these posts are offensive. If we replaced 'young' with 'old', 'black', 'white', 'male, 'female', 'disabled' etc, would this be acceptable? To suggest a PO is not as good due to being young is offensive. How can a probation officer motivate young clients to be achieve when they have little confidence in their own younger colleagues due to their age.
DeleteI think age does matter and if we say it doesn't then that doesn't seem right either. Black clients may prefer black officers. Women offenders may prefer women officers. It's about who we can relate to and the quality and meaning of the relationship.
DeleteTo quote Stephen Fry, 'It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.'
DeleteIn my view, like with anything in life, there is no definitive answer in respect of the age debate. I started as qualified PO some thirty three years ago at the age of 22. I'm still at it and still learning. The early 80s were a different era in probation practice when compared to today and in particular, the demands placed on POs in the NPS with a 100% high risk caseload. I recall my first year as being one of a fully protected caseload. There was a five year mandatory post-qualification training programme and because parole was a privilege not a right, no one's caseload consisted of a high proportion of serious sex/violent offenders as most would be released at their EDR. Thus, in spite of my relative youthfulness, I was able to build on my training and two probation placements that I had undertaken whilst training and increase my skills in what was a mostly safe environment. My age was an issue at times and I would be dishonest to pretend it was not. Working with under 18s as we did then was fine but I recall some issues with some older clients at times because of their, understandable lack of trust in my judgement. My personal concern is not about age but the short length of time that TPOs will have to learn to work with a high risk caseload. My training was four years, this has been reduced to around 15mths and there will be no subsequent protected caseloads.
ReplyDeleteI just love the way probation officers can go so far off tangent. In many ways the responses are so typical of the way we get wrapped up in just missing the point. All this talk of age and experience amounts to what exactly? I've worked with young OMs who are useless and those who are exceptional. Older ones who I wouldn't trust supervising a clothes peg but those who are again exceptional. The original post wrote about the fundamental flaws inherent in TR. Futile? Perhaps but at least coherent and heartfelt.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear age has nothing to do with ability. It does however have a lot to do with experience. Please don't confuse the two.
I remain, as ever, your obedient, sometimes able, but always experienced etc etc.
Shut it junior
DeleteI must admit that I would struggle with having a manager decades younger than me
ReplyDelete"I must admit that I would struggle with having a manager decades younger than me"
DeleteWhy?
It's just that the temptation to pat them on the head or ruffle their hair can be overwhelming
DeleteLol. I'm sure this happened to bill gates once or twice and he survived.
DeleteI am an PO but once was an SPO. I supervised as an SPO many people who I would now welcome as my manager. They are younger but by god they are good (and well trained).I have also experienced management by decent men and women younger and more experienced. Very good but what I struggle with is the ambitious without talent.
DeleteGood points 22:15 and lol!
ReplyDeleteEveryone calm the f down. Enough said in the words of my client. We are different and bring different things to the table. The fact is times have changed. People have changed. We living in an age of machines and robots designed to detach us from the people we are supposed to serve. We need to be ground our practice in those communities we serve. We need time to learn and support others in change. Only together we can achieve this.
ReplyDeleteBlimey this blog can take us down some avenues at times. Lets calm down and spare a thought about what tomorrow is bringing - contract signing. Night all.
DeleteEgo. Without exception, all of the "most excellent" probation officers I have had the privilege to work alongside (and in a past life be supervised by) had NO ego; they have been humble, respectful, honest & effective.
ReplyDeleteAs a child, the adults I grew up with used to refer to such people as having "no back doors". Fifty years back there were village doctors who were respected and listened to and revered. They were ageless - no-one would ever have been able to say if they were in their twenties, their thirties or fifties. They were, simply, "the doctor". My own doctor from my childhood is still alive, although recently retired. I'm in my mid-fifties - she's comfortably in her eighties, so must have been relatively "quite young" as my childhood GP.
So I'm sad to read (what might be a small handful, but seems many more) probation staff fighting over who has the better claim to professionalism. I would not want to be supervised by any of you.
ML - free speech is fine and I applaud your letter to CG. He'll not be remotely bothered by it (if it even passes before his eyes) but that's his shit, not yours.
This particular profession has never, at least until recently it seems, been a competitive one. It was, in my overwhelming experience, a deferential world of contemplation, reflection and measured proposal - almost Zen in its status of consideration before action.
I fall into the camp of finding post-2000 as being the years when we experienced the rise of the young, thrusting, competitive 'eager-beavers'. I do not offer a broad brush of criticism but I do see how this is believed to have damaged the profession, i.e. it broke the mould of the time-served and allowed for nepotism. It led ambitious managers to surround themselves with & promote like-minded others, to the detriment of others; and I am totally convinced this ultimately led to the rise of the ovine Trusts who 'sheepwalked' [sic] to their own slaughter.
I am very sad about the current state of the UK in many respects.
Oh, sorry, forgot - G'night Jim-Bob.
DeleteThe "rise of the young" did not damage the profession. If anything it helped that probation began to break away from probation officers and managers sticking in the same place for 30 years which festered bad practices in some places. Part of the battle against institutional racism and sexism in the UK is due to the break up of the 'old school boys club' and yes the reduction of the view that older means better.
Deletemarvelous-Better than Ive put it elsewhere
DeleteOops I referred to post of 23:23- bring on the youth
Deleteoops meant post of 23:23
DeleteWhat an entertaining evening. Something probation staff do with seemingly, no sense of self-awareness, is challenge behaviour in each other, that would be let go with their caseload, through reasons of self-preservation. Pun intended - grow up, the lot of you. Perhaps a good blog subject might be some of the daft rows colleagues have had, Jim. I remember a massive one over whether colleagues cooking Xmas dinner (with community service clients) for a pensioners club, were discriminated against because the vegetarian option was the same meal, just without the meat. Robust and challenging does not do it credit!.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that that those being offended and discriminated against won't find it as entertaining. This is a blog visited by probation staff and it's pleasing to see many disagree with belittling colleagues due to their age.
DeleteIn the few months I have been following the Blog, I don't think I have seen so many comments on one topic - age ( 34 comments at the last count.) And I was surprised to see that, although I had mentioned many issues in my letter to Chris, I have caused so much anger on just one issue, which was never meant to be ageist.
ReplyDeleteAfter years of working for the National Coal Board, I qualified as a youth worker in 1976 at the age of 30, almost middle-aged but kept a young attitude. I qualified as a Youth Justice Worker (now YOS) at 44 and a PO at the age of 48, wearing tie dye fringe skirts and tops, and red, and green chukka boots, (why not?), retired at 65 and am now 68. So, during my career as a PO, for most of the time, most staff were younger than me, including managers at every level.
Most of the time I never thought about it, although some managers over the years would come to me to open up about issues they struggled with, seeing me as some sort of neutral mother figure, I suppose, with a foot in both camps, which I was happy with, but I never saw myself, and still don't, as the age I was/am and indeed, many of my friends are 10-20 years younger than me. Maybe, by the time I am in my 80's, the cracks will show! - or is that being ageist against really oldies??
What I am trying to say is that whatever age you are, your approach to life will identify you in a certain age group. I see myself as young, therefore I am, therefore I get accepted as 'young' most of the time. I don't feel a generation older than the mums who wait outside the school where I am waiting for my grandson, and they include me in the same chatter,.
Likewise, I never noticed any difference between me at 60 and colleagues between 25 and 45. But -I stand by what I was trying to say which is - if you appoint A LOT of very young trainees, there will be an imbalance within the workplace of skills and experience. And I remain concerned about 18 year olds being appointed, as I don't think there is the staggered move into more demanding work as there was 15 years ago. In the 1990's, first years couldn't supervise 'throughcare' (later resettlement) and you couldn't supervise a sex offender for 2 years, so you got a good grounding in the job. But I agree, seniority does not necessarily bring people skills, or knowledge, and certainly we are slower to digest changes, certainly IT!. Younger people are much speedier than the oldies. That is a medical fact.
But it is crucial that there is a balance between ages, gender, and skills, for us all to share each others knowledge and experiences, and ensure that the offender receives the most appropriate officer . Sadly, the Service has moved further away from good practice and left it up to individuals to carry on as best they can. And who trains those younger people with no previous experience of Probation?- overworked PO's in situ?
What a mess. But please don't argue - you need each other, whatever your ages.
"In the 1990's, first years couldn't supervise 'throughcare' (later resettlement) and you couldn't supervise a sex offender for 2 years, so you got a good grounding in the job."
DeleteSilly rules made up by those that made it up as they went along.
some valued that, which also included not getting a lifer until you had been there 2 years, to ensure they had developed the necessary knowledge and confidence to work with high risk offenders, while they honed their skills on TWOCers, thefts and motoring offences. I was glad when I could have the more meaty cases and ended up with every sex offender the office had, as no one else wanted them. (you had a choice those days - horses for courses)
Delete@ Probation Officer
Delete"Silly rules made up by those that made it up as they went along."
Care to tell us why these rules were "silly", or are you following the Grayling school of thought - "it's true because I believe it, and I don't need to offer any further argument or explanation"?
I was thrust into working with lifers six months after qualification with very little support - there just wasn't anyone around who had the time. I reckon I made a decent job of it, but probably more through luck than judgment. Given that most probation work is done in the community, or with those expected to return to the community, I think it makes a lot of sense to give NQOs a good grounding in community supervision.
About 5 yrs ago there was a trend for young females to wear their trousers / jeans at a level just below the base of the spine. The top of their buttocks would be on show, with a tiny piece of material forming some kind of 'T' shape just above the buttocks!. This was in fact known in various guises as 'thong', 'G string', or 'tanga brief'. Before you all jump to the conclusion that some late- night pervert has infiltrated Jim's blog, I'll make my point. . . many of the young women in my office would not think twice about interviewing men of all ages /persuasions with said underwear on show and still expect to be taken seriously. The point is that could never be acceptable . . and that's why experience is essential.
ReplyDeleteI am a female PO and was surprised to read abut the thong issue, I had thought it only happened in my office. I too think it unacceptable in a professional environment and breached boundaries, so did a sex offender client who told me he was shocked by this. Had it been a male officer words would have been had....but I can honestly say the wearer of said garment was a 40 year old PO - not the "youngsters" referred to in this debate....
DeleteThere's a debate to be had but I think it all got a bit frenzied tonight. All of you sticking up for the younger generation - do you think that Uni/researcher/advisor/MP is a grounding to run the country and do you really believe Grayling will EVER be mature enough for the role?.
ReplyDeleteReport released on 18/12/14 - timely?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30527392
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFunny isnt it, the subjects that spark the most debate, whilst other (some may feel more key) issues raise barely a murmur. Anyhoooo, no space (or time) to recount what I feel as a PO who qualified 15 years ago aged 40, however in the situation we find ourselves in I think experience will count for nothing. It will all boil down to this: basically more years in the job means a higher salary and therefore vulnerability in the new world order when it comes to axing jobs to save money - end of.
ReplyDeleteDeb