Probation on the Phone

Covid -19 has dramatically changed the probation supervision landscape and here we have the results of some early research from the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology and KSS CRC:-

Remote supervision: Getting the balance right

1.0 Executive Summary 

1.1 Background 

The sudden onset of Covid-19 has engendered significant policy and practice implications when it comes to delivering probation and allied criminal justice services, with new ’roadmaps’ and emergency delivery models being drawn-up in haste (HMPPS 2020; PBNI, 2020a). Though there have been some early reflections (from academics, commentators and third sector agencies), and even a national review of Exceptional Delivery Model arrangements in probation services, (HMIP 2020), the field has, as yet, been largely unexplored. The current study, therefore, has been conducted to look very directly at this matter, drawing on the remote operational delivery practices amongst case management staff working in three Community Rehabilitation Company divisions, run by Seetec. 

1.2 The current research 

This report sets out the findings of a research project examining probation supervision practice in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It explores case managers’ views of the benefits and limitations of different methods of remote communication, and the suitability for their continued usage in the post-pandemic future. The research sought to answer two key questions: 

1. What practice methods, skills and technologies are currently being used by case managers? 

2. What current practice measures do case managers experience as valuable, with the potential to be retained and developed in the future? 

1.3 Methodology 

The research comprised a mixed methods design, involving an online-survey with 79 case management staff, and 12 semi-structured interviews with survey participants interested in further participation. Interviews were conducted by telephone and video-conference between August and September 2020. Survey data was collected from July to September 2020. The qualitative data was analysed thematically. The quantitative data was explored using Excel. 

1.4 Findings 

Description of practice 

The pandemic has had a profound effect on practice, and has required probation staff to make a rapid shift to remote forms of supervision. When it comes to methods used, most common was the telephone call. Telephone calls enabled a wide range of supervision tasks to take place, with practitioners deeming them more suitable for routine reporting and unscheduled welfare checks, and least suitable for induction appointments. Text messages and emails were also common (the former, for quick and direct communication, the latter for passing on key health/employment documents) but had their problems in the form of data security breaches and the risk that information might be read by someone other than the intended recipient. Video-calls were the least common method, and were used principally for meetings with other professionals. 

The suitability of remote (telephone) supervision 

Though telephone supervision formed the larger part of remote supervision, its suitability was debated. It offered considerable flexibility to service users (e.g. for those with childcare responsibilities, work commitments, or physical health problems), but was not always felt to be inclusive (e.g. for those who had English as a second language, or who had hearing difficulties). When working with service users with drug and alcohol problems, who were homeless, or who were experiencing mental health issues, practitioners saw challenges as they were unable to do visual checks for safety and wellbeing. It caused problems when it came to assessing risk and, significantly, telephone supervision almost always felt unsuitable for cases involving child protection and domestic violence. 

Importantly, telephone supervision denied the engagement of other vital senses. Sight was significant; supervisors who could not see service users worried about missing vital information, but viewed video-calling as potentially a poor substitute for face-to-face work, due to there still being a virtual wall. But practitioners also valued their sense of smell as a means of gathering crucial information about the well-being of service users and talked about the importance of tone of voice in difficult telephone calls. 

Finally, though the flexibility of remote (telephone) supervision increased compliance, its less formal nature was said to risk complacency. Coming into the office signalled active compliance in a way that simply answering the phone did not. 

The professional relationship 

Remote supervision also posed a challenge to building and sustaining professional relationships with service users. Indeed, familiar processes of listening, being friendly, and being clear about the purposes, expectations and options of supervision brought emotional labour, an intrinsic aspect of probation work, into sharper focus. Some practitioners, not used to using a phone for work, found themselves accessible to service users in unfamiliar ways. Experiences of telephone supervision also overlapped with experiences of working from home. This added to the complexity of setting appropriate boundaries for professional relationships – it was not always possible to separate work time from home time. 

Inter-agency work 

Finally, though already common to frontline practice, the pandemic increased the use of video/telephone conferencing for inter-agency work. Some staff were positive about this, citing time saved by not attending in person, however others saw the challenges of supporting someone, especially a vulnerable someone, in a difficult virtual meeting.

1.5 Take home points 

1. Supervision cannot rely on telephone contact alone – Deprived of the opportunity to see, hear (and sometimes smell) properly, supervisors were not getting the full picture of service users and reciprocally, service users were not getting a full picture of them. Telephone supervision constrained practitioners’ ability to gather the information needed to make accurate risk assessments, and was not always sufficiently formal given the statutory nature of probation supervision. Remote supervision was also a difficult experience for vulnerable service users and those with complex needs. 

2. However, there is a place for telephone supervision – telephone supervision can work well in cases where staff and service user know each other well, where the service user’s circumstances are stable and where risk is assessed as low. It also benefits in terms of the expense and inconvenience of travelling to probation offices. In some cases, telephone supervision enables conversations and reflections that are more comfortable, genuine and purposeful than those that take place in the office. 

3. The importance of professional discretion – practitioners would like to continue with elements of remote supervision and would welcome an increase in professional discretion in this area. New guidance is needed to take account of these changes in working practices and professional boundaries, for example around use of work equipment, sharing of email addresses, security of data and recording of decisions about modes of contact. Increasing the scope for the use of professional discretion in this way also brings new support and training needs for staff. 

4. Thinking about video calls – The study supports the continued use of video calls for inter-agency meetings. Though staff had no experience of video supervision, many saw the value of it through offering the prospect of seeing (as well as hearing) service users and their immediate surroundings. A trial of video calling would enable practitioners to explore the benefits and limitations of this technology, assess its usefulness and contribute to developing the necessary protocols and practice guidance. 

5. Developing the use of internet resources for supervision – The study also points to the possibility of broadening structured supervision by drawing on online resources. Ability to use these resources was sometimes hampered by lack of smartphones (for practitioners), Wi-Fi issues in offices, security settings on work devices, and access issues for service users, but there was significant interest. Staff asked for more information about appropriate good-quality online resources, expressing enthusiasm for a resource library that could be used as part of individual supervision. 

6. Flexible working with greater use of remote supervision – ‘Working at home’ and ‘remote supervision’ are two different things which, in the context of the pandemic, overlap. Some of the objections to telephone supervision seemed really to be objections to working at home, for example the sense of intrusion into the practitioner’s home, with staff calling for remote working from the office. After the pandemic, it was hoped that the benefits of working from home might be maintained (including travelling less, staying late in the office less frequently, and managing their family responsibilities more easily), alongside the flexibility, when in the office, to have the option to use remote means of communication.

---///---

5.3 Getting the full picture 

Not being able to see people is a strong disadvantage of telephone calls. Practitioners (in the survey and in interview) were clear about the difficulties of having to work without being able to see the other person. They explained that communication was about spoken words, but also about body language; managing without body language meant that communication was harder and important messages were often missed. When practitioners work face-to-face they pick up on visual clues and on discrepancies between what someone is saying and how they are looking.

‘They are not in front of you so you can't gauge their body language… you can pick up a lot with their body language, in front of you, to gauge whether what they are saying is quite true or not - and on the phone that is quite difficult. It's easy for them to say on the phone, “oh yeah everything’s good, everything's fine, nothing is happening” whereas face-to-face you might pick up some other things that you're not too sure if that's actually the case’ (Nicola) 

‘conversation isn't just about what's being said, it's about how it's being said, your body language, are you being threatening, are you being open, you use gestures a lot to get your point across, so having a visual contact is preferable’ (Paul) 

Not being able to see people increased practitioners’ worry about missing information that was necessary for risk assessment and risk management. It was not possible to see if someone’s physical health or personal care had deteriorated. Speaking specifically of service users with substance use issues, Gemma said: 

‘You need to be able to see them often to verify what they are telling you, whether they’re using or not - because over the telephone you can’t see if there has been a dramatic weight loss or if their personal care standards have significantly dropped... being able to see them definitely helps with your assessment of how they are doing, how's their welfare, have they neglected themselves, have they relapsed, are they drinking more, are they under the influence? They could say “Oh I sound like this because I'm tired” but it could actually be because they have taken something.’

Over the telephone, it was not possible to be sure that someone was where they claimed to be, or to know whether other people (friends, family members or children) were listening into the call. It was harder for practitioners to take a curious and investigative approach if solely reliant on telephone contact. 

Few study participants had experience of using video calls as part of supervision. Many took the view that video calls offered potential benefits over voice calls; it would be possible to see whether someone looked well, it would be easier to understand where they were and if they were alone. However, video calling was still seen as a poor substitute for face-to-face work, and not just because the quality of video calls can be poor. 

‘Seeing someone through a screen rather than seeing them in person, there's still kind of a wall up against you because they could be putting on a whole different persona just because they know you could see them at that time..’ (Paul) 

Sight was not the only sense identified as important for probation work. Practitioners explained that using the telephone required very careful listening, which was demanding and tiring. Poor connections and background noise meant that people could be hard to hear. Practitioners also valued their sense of smell as a means of gathering important information about the well-being of service users and as a warning sign of increased problems with alcohol and drug use. 

‘You might be able to tell over the phone if they are under the influence, slurring their words and things like that, but some people are really good at hiding it. If they actually come into the office I can see, I can smell, so things like that really help.’ (Rebecca) ‘

'on the telephone they can present as sober, you can't smell their breath, you can't see their eyes’ (Andrew) 

Sara talked about having a ‘probation radar’ which enabled her to identify when someone was contemplating change or falling into trouble. Communicating remotely deprived her of the ability to read body language and to ‘sniff out’ shifts in motivation. Her probation radar did not work as well over the phone. 

5.4 The professional relationship 

Remote supervision posed a challenge to the process of building and sustaining a professional relationship. Few of the study participants would choose to start a period of supervision with telephone contact. Face-to-face sessions were the best way of getting to know someone, enabling both practitioners and service users to be able to put a face to a name. 

‘What I found difficult is the new cases that you got, you've only ever spoken to them over the phone, you can’t put a face to the name, you can’t picture that person. I just think for getting to know someone, and building rapport those face to face meetings are quite crucial at the beginning’ (Deborah)

One survey respondent explained the value of meeting service users like this: 

‘Professionally I feel that clients deserve face to face contact. It humanises our service to them and affords officers an insight into clients’ lives and struggle by way of reading body language.’ 

Practitioners spoke of the strategies that they used to build rapport and develop a working relationship over the telephone. They stressed that they used familiar processes: listening to people, being friendly and approachable, and being clear about the purposes, expectations and options of supervision. Remote working brought emotional labour, an intrinsic aspect of probation work, into sharper focus. Experienced practitioners (including Nicola and Claire) reflected on the way that they had adapted their communication approach to suit remote supervision. 

‘Obviously it's not the same as meeting them day one... but I think I have been able to build more or less the same rapport because... it's all about how you talk to somebody’ (Nicola)

‘I've only just realised how much of it [the job] I do by looking pleasant, and you know I'm quite smiley, I'm quite friendly - and if people don't hear that on the phone, I think possibly I sound a bit sharper on the phone, as it were, I talk quite fast... which probably makes a difference to people... I have had to work on talking more consciously slowly. I think possibly the way I come across if people haven't spoken to me before is just less approachable, maybe, on the phone, because I think I'm doing a lot of work with my body language’ (Claire) 

Practitioners were considerably more positive about the use of the telephone to communicate with service users with whom they had an established professional relationship. Few practitioners thought that the telephone had no place in probation supervision. Many had examples of telephone calls in which service users were more relaxed and open. Linda reflected on the possibility that both supervisor and supervisee could benefit from being away from the office environment. 

‘I don't know whether that's because they don’t need to cover up any body language on the phone, or maintain eye-contact. I don't know if they open up a bit more. I seem to have found out loads more about my service users than when they were in the office.’ 

One survey respondent wrote: 

‘I have found telephone discussions to be more open and engaging with some service users than face to face - one has said that he so hates just coming into the office (everything it represents for him), that he is in a state of agitation before seeing me, and so the first period of supervision is spent supporting him to relax (and this service user has been on licence for some years now); we do not have to go through this on the phone and the difference in engagement is remarkable.’ 

The use of telephone supervision also shed new light on the issue of boundaries in professional relationships. Practitioners who had not previously had a work mobile phone found themselves accessible to service users in unfamiliar ways; they had to make decisions about how many times to ring non-communicative service users and also how to respond to service users who phoned often and outside of agreed appointment times. Some practitioners found it easier than others to turn off the work mobile phone outside of office hours. 

Gemma described herself as strict with boundaries: 

‘because I haven't given out my number to service users I haven’t had these issues, but others who have given out their work number have had instances where SUs are constantly calling them or ringing them at inappropriate times.’ 

Lena observed that negotiating boundaries was part of her role; the use of email and mobile phones led to new ways in which people could over-step supervision boundaries, but, in some cases, she did judge it appropriate to share her email address with a service user. 

Practitioners varied in the extent to which they welcomed the changes in interpersonal dynamics that came with an increased use of telephone supervision. One of the most positive comments came from this survey respondent: 

‘Service users have the benefit of feeling like they are in a two-way relationship with their Programme Facilitators because they can easily contact them (with a message) on the phone, rather than simply being required to turn up to meetings with a group. This must encourage the impression that they are equal and responsible agents in their own rehabilitation, so improving their engagement and receptiveness’ 

For the majority of the research participants, their experience of telephone supervision overlapped with a period of working from home. Wider issues arising from home working are outside the scope of this study but, for practitioners, working at home added to the complexity of setting appropriate boundaries for professional relationships; it was not always possible to separate work time from home time and practitioners felt that, on occasions, telephone calls (particularly about difficult or intimate topics) risked being overheard by household members in their home as well as that of the service user. The use of video calls, if the supervisor was working from home, was identified as particularly inappropriate. 

‘I would really have to think about that because I am in my home, it's my background, it's too much of an invasion for me… too much information’ (Linda)

5.5 Working with involuntary clients 

Probation practitioners work with individuals who are subject to statutory supervision; service users are involuntary clients. This context brings a set of obligations and requirements with implications for the use of telephone and internet-based approaches to practice.

A number of practitioners identified that telephone supervision usually involved the supervisor making the call, whereas face-to-face supervision required the service user to attend an office appointment. This shift of responsibility was seen as increasing compliance; more appointments were kept and fewer warnings issued. Service users were more likely to answer the telephone than to report to the office. 

Nicola’s experience was that there was less need for enforcement action as:

 ‘they just pick up their phone….At the end of the day, they've answered you and you've contacted them.’

‘Compliance has actually been quite a lot better during the pandemic as people don't tend to avoid a phone call in the same way they avoid coming to the office’ (Emily) 

Other interviewees painted a more complex picture of the impact of telephone reporting on the formal nature of the supervision process. Sara voiced the concern that the informal nature of telephone reporting was ‘over-familiar’ and risked service users becoming ‘complacent’. 

Andrew made a similar point: he judged that coming to the office signalled supervisee compliance in a way that answering the phone did not. He was uncertain about the authenticity of telephone supervision. 

‘I hate it... I don't like it at all…you feel like you could be being lied to… without face to face contact, there's no way to know if what you are being told is the truth. You kind of get the feeling when you are talking to some people they are just spinning you a bit of a yarn really... almost laughing at you.’ 

One consequence of statutory supervision is the need for evidence of the pattern of appointments offered, instructions given, appointments attended, appointments missed and explanations received. Practitioners in this study valued the way that, when they used the computer system to send a text message, they received confirmation that the message had been delivered to the service user’s device. This confirmation could then be used as evidence in enforcement proceedings. Records of text messages sent replaced the paper appointment slips provided in face-toface sessions. 

Rebecca explained that, as she needed to be able to give an accurate account of contact and attempted contact from service users, she found it hard to turn off her work mobile outside of office hours. If the phone was turned off she did not have the detail of missed calls. If the phone was turned on she was aware of it ringing, sometimes repeatedly and during the night, leaving her anxious that she might be ignoring an emergency. 

Alongside the requirement to maintain contact with service users, practitioners were also aiming to deliver the interventions and programmes identified in supervision plans. As Table 3 shows, fewer than half of the survey respondents viewed telephone calls as always or often suitable for the task of structured supervision. 

One problem faced by supervisors was that implementing supervision plans during the pandemic was made harder because other agencies were having to deliver services in a reduced manner. Table 5 shows that access to drug, alcohol, mental health and money advice provision was constrained by the pandemic. The picture for accommodation services was more mixed, reflecting the considerable effort to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping during the crisis.

A further problem was the extent to which the service user was able or willing to concentrate on the session material. It was hard to recreate the focus that existed in face-to-face sessions and some service users chose to take the telephone call from a public place. Practitioners had examples of cases where service users gave only very short responses to questions, said that they were unable to hear, and simply ended the call. 

‘Early on [at the start of her career] I discovered that having a smiley face and just being able to look non-threatening and engaged in person I think probably goes a long way to counteract the fact that most of the time you are asking quite pertinent questions to people who don't want to tell you. And so when you are asking quite bold questions over the phone my experience has been people are more able to say something like, “well why do I have to tell you that?” “Sorry, what is this all about?” or even on various occasions to cut me off and pretend that they lost signal.’ (Claire) 

That said, practitioners also worked with service users who were less distracted and more able to participate than they had previously been in the probation office. For example, someone in full-time work as a van driver was now able to schedule lunchtime telephone appointments with his supervisor and speak from the privacy of his cab. Prior to the pandemic he had found it hard to attend appointments at the end of his working day, arriving in the office tired and stressed from the rush-hour traffic. 

Practitioners found it challenging to lead sessions without the visual aids and workbooks that they used in the office. However people had found a variety of ways of broadening the range of programme materials that they used in remote supervision sessions. Linda explained that she was sending information packs in the post and then, in some cases, having productive discussions over the telephone. She gave the example of victim awareness work with a service user: 

‘you could hear he was thinking over the phone... that was quite constructive’.