Guest Blog 77

The 'War of Position' in defence of probation values - resistance and counter-culture

Professor Roger Hood is the criminologist who sparked my interest in wanting to enter the world of probation. In 1982 I read a book in which he authored a chapter about the tripartite model of victim, offender and the public which opened my eyes to the relevance of criminal justice to me, then a lay person. In this model, the criminal courts act on behalf of the victim. And it is a priority for witnesses to the 'crime' to have access to the court result, not only "to encourage the others", but more importantly, to avoid the corrosive effects in civil society of seeing injustice being committed with impunity. In a nutshell this triangular framework has informed my probation practice throughout my time as a probation practitioner. This framework of justice conceptualises the court case as a resetting of a disrupted relationship between the offender and society as well as the victim; simplistic and negating the underlying causes of crime, undoubtedly - but it nevertheless captured the imagination of a newbie who up until then knew nothing about probation and crime. This model has been the bedrock of my practice ever since and has always highlighted the importance to me that the local magistrates' court is our key professional setting where we can have a sphere of influence; a place where we can thrive or wither on the vine.

Cultural Resistance - pre-qualifying training

PQiP trainees are not just blank pieces of paper to be imprinted with the current prevailing probation ethos.Some trainees have invaluable insights from personal experiences eg a prior career, adverse childhood experiences which they have overcome, life experiences very different to the mainstream white middle classes which typically populate the civil servant class. Academic teachers and practice assessors have the power to transmit the positive values of the profession (and also of course the contrary!) The window for change in pre-qualifying training has narrowed with the move from an emphasis on the reflective practitioner to mechanically evidencing change (the tyranny of the dreaded and deadening NVQ portfolio ). However there is still space for the trainee to resist by continually challenging and questioning the status quo of current probation policy and practice.

Cultural Resistance - post-qualifying practice

Here the window for change is currently obscured almost to the point of invisibility (or so it seems); with the unassailable power of the HMPPS juggernaut; the policy wonks in the MoJ; the co-option of a large cohort of probation chiefs; and the retreat of Napo, at least on the national stage. However the individual practitioner has power, albeit, often atomised in the absence of collective power. Effective probation practice, in my opinion, is still mainly centred in the interview room. In the interaction with the service user, as much as the Sir Humphreys continue to squeeze out creativity and professional discretion in our work; and overload us with bureaucratic processes to evidence our compliance with their egregious and wearisome managerial policies (or risk being placed on capability measures).

In this adverse professional environment we can still use our training and skills to shape the daily encounters in the probation interview room. By being authentic we can give people the confidence to open up to us. What do I mean by professional authenticity?

Novice practitioners are sometimes fearful of speaking truth in the probation interview room for fear it may cause offence and have the effect of closing down discussion instead of opening it up. The experienced practitioner knows how and when to challenge to promote positive change to convey the message that they respect the other person enough not to accept the lies and half-truths that have often led them to being on probation. The main purpose however of getting the other person to talk, is not to gather the information necessary for a 'robust' assessment but to give a pointer to the best way to promote desistance. What is the point of compiling a defensible assessment if you don't bring the other person with you? We might as well shut up shop and go home. My closest colleague says, "people are motivated mainly by influential characters in their lives. Characters (practitioners) that instill so much authentic trust, moral force and belief that the people they engage with are motivated to summon the moral strength to change; almost to the point of being compelled." (hyperbole? perhaps but with more than a kernel of truth). My colleague continues, "The probation powers-that-be need to decide if we are genuinely authentic instigators of change or probation case administrators daily polishing our case records and sign-posting our cases to be 'rehabilitated' by other agencies."

Another point of cultural resistance are the sometimes dreaded set-pieces familiar throughout the probation world - the Supervision session with the Senior Probation Officer; and the regular Team Meeting. My advice to novice practitioners is to always ask awkward questions. There is a temptation to "play dumb" to bring the all too often dispiriting double-talk to a merciful end as quickly as possible. However this temptation should be resisted lest your silence be misread as tacit approval for the negative probation policies spouted. Cherish those SPOs who in supervision demonstrate their practitioner skills to support you with difficult cases where you are stuck; who can enhance your skills of professional reflection in order to develop your practice. This is because, in the main, managers today are paid to say the emperor is fully dressed . Whilst we practitioners are encumbered with a professional responsibility to point out when he has no clothes!

With thanks to the late Paul Senior who inspired today's blog.