The Probation Experience

It's long been recognised that, whatever the prevailing political and institutional directive of the day may be, it's the relationship between probation practitioner and client that remains absolutely key as to whether the process is likely to prove positive or not. Here is an extract from an article in the latest Irish Probation Journal that sheds light on that relationship. It's worthy of note that the Irish Probation Service remains founded on the original Probation of Offenders Act of 1907 and hence the core mantra of 'advise, assist and befriend'.

‘Helping, Hurting, Holding and Hands Off’: Preliminary Findings from an Oral History of Probation Client Experiences of Supervision in Ireland

Summary 

This paper presents preliminary findings from the ‘Histories of Probation in Ireland’ project which aims to provide an extensive, detailed account of Irish probation practice from the 1960s onwards. The core objective of the paper is to highlight patterns emerging from client participants’ lived reality of probation, which is achieved through the application of an oral history methodology. The paper provides an overview of relevant literature, before outlining the research design and explaining the methodological approach of the project. Findings are presented from interviews with current and former probation clients who experienced probation in the 1980s up to present day. Inspired by the work of Fergus McNeill, a thematic framework of analysis, ‘helping, hurting, holding, and hands off’, is employed in order to understand the individual and collective voices experiencing probation in Ireland during the timeframe.

Preliminary findings 

The following analysis draws on McNeill’s (2009) framework for understanding supervision experiences and aims to build on his work in two ways: first, by adding a new dimension to the framework; and second, by exploring the powerful emotions elicited by the supervision experience. Such frameworks constitute useful tools for conceptualising supervision experiences but also run the risk of over-simplifying complex phenomena. As McNeill (2009) notes, the different dimensions are closely interlinked and frequently overlap. To contextualise the findings and avoid over-simplification, it is important therefore to discuss briefly the nature of the supervisory experience, which is revealed by our findings to be complex, subjective and porous. First, our research confirms that supervisory experiences are multifaceted and cannot always be neatly classified into distinct ‘types’ of encounters. For example, supervisory experiences varied both within and between individuals; most of our sample had been on probation more than once and recounted different kinds of experiences at different moments in their lives. PC2 (2010s cohort) had a short-lived supervision experience as a teenager and characterised officers of that era as being ‘all about authority’ and ‘ticking boxes’. However, he believed that officers encountered later in his life displayed more empathy, support and understanding. He attributed these shifts to changes in the Service and in his own attitude, acknowledging that, as a teenager, ‘I wasn’t in the right place, state of mind to realise what they were trying to do for me.’ Interestingly, his experience contrasts somewhat with other accounts, which suggest that, while probation practice changed little during this period, it has become increasingly structured and less welfare-focused in recent years (see, for example, Healy, 2015b). This highlights the need to consider personal as well as ‘official’ accounts of supervision, leading to our second observation – that supervisory experiences are subjective, and similar practices are perceived differently by individual probationers. For instance, in our study, home visits were described as helpful by some and as intrusive by others. To illustrate, PC1 (1980s cohort) commented, ‘She [Probation Officer] was very good. She called out to the house, got to know the family and became a friend of the family.’ Conversely, PC6 (1980s cohort) stated, ‘It’s kind of like, OK, the Government is coming to my house to see if I am OK or is everything OK in the house, like, you know, and I remember my Da wasn’t working and he got offside [as a result of the visit].’ Third, supervision does not operate in a vacuum, and people’s experiences were sometimes shaped by external circumstances, both positive and negative. For example, PC16 (1980s cohort) felt apprehensive when first placed under supervision because he had previously experienced institutional abuse and maltreatment, becoming distrustful and guarded around authority figures as a result. Consequently, his engagement with probation was, in his words, not ‘the healthiest’, and he believed that the order had minimal impact on his life or offending. Bearing in mind these caveats about the nature of supervision, the different dimensions of the supervision experience are now explored. 

Helping 

According to McNeill (2009), ‘helping’ relates to the classic probation philosophy of ‘advising, assisting and befriending’. Helping experiences were described by many of our participants who tended to characterise supervision in positive terms if officers offered advice and practical support, attempted to build rapport, put a clear supervision plan in place, and actively sought out rehabilitation opportunities. Existing research shows that such experiences can contribute to increased satisfaction among probationers (e.g., Durnescu et al., 2018; Healy, 2012). Probationers also valued officers who demonstrated empathy, were caring but assertive, were willing to advocate on their behalf, and communicated a belief in their ability to change. They appreciated officers who listened, took the time to get to know them, and communicated clearly. The following quotes, in particular, highlight the powerful impact of high-quality professional relationships built on trust, acceptance and support. PC15 experienced significant difficulties with gardaí on release from prison, explaining: ‘Every time the police seen me, they just arrested me.’ Feeling hopeless, he contacted his Probation Officer to say, ‘Look, I’m going to finish my sentence and just leave me alone.’ However, instead of accepting this, the officer arranged for him to decorate her house and spend time in the probation office to keep him off the streets. He remained in touch with his Probation Officer and still has some contact over thirty years later, saying: 

‘They tried to do their best for you. […] Now the one that stood by me, [NAME], she stood by me through thick and thin, through everything and I was even asked to go to her retirement party, that’s how well I got on with her because I done her house up and minded her husband, […] she didn’t judge me.’ (PC15, 1970s/1980s cohort) 

Despite initial reservations around engaging with probation, PC18, a life-sentence prisoner, found that his relationship with his Probation Officer created a safe space to complete difficult personal work. Though many years have passed, he continues to meet this officer regularly for coffee and a chat. 

‘I felt that somebody was actually listening to me, that I could talk about stuff that was very important for me that I never spoke about before and I could speak and, you know, not fear it going anywhere else … every aspect of my life was opened with [PO], you know.’ (PC18, 1990s cohort) 

Testifying to the strength of this relationship, he concluded, ‘I remember saying one day, I said there was only two people in the world who know me – my wife and [PO].’ In terms of the emotions activated by helpful supervisory experiences, hope emerged as the strongest. Hope, as expressed by our participants, reflected Burnett and Maruna’s (2004, pp 395–6) definition as having ‘both the “will and the ways”: the desire for a particular outcome, and also the perceived ability and means of achieving the outcome’. 

Hurting 

McNeill (2009) found that probation may be experienced as hurtful when overly focused on surveillance, enforcement, or threats of enforcement. These kinds of pains were also evident in our study. Probation was characterised by participants as hurtful when perceived as intrusive, inflexible, and focused on monitoring and punishment, rather than support. Hurtful experiences often arose from relational issues; for instance, some participants described their encounters as disrespectful, while others found it difficult to build trust with Probation Officers because of personality clashes. Frustration also emerged when participants felt that officers did not listen to them or failed to recognise attempts to change. PC11 (1990s cohort) described probation as overly intrusive and highlighted a power imbalance between the officer and himself, noting that non-compliance with even some requirements could be met with a bad report or a ‘threatened’ return to court. 

‘Probation Officers think they’re guards and fucking have the power to send you to prison if they want like they can easily write a bad report and you’ll get locked up, so I was, like, well, we’re not getting on so what’s the point in getting a report? I’ll go back to prison meself. […] I know that’s part of their job – I understand that part – but when you have your appointments, you’re going to your appointments. “What did you do with your week?” Well, it’s none of your business really. I’m here because I have an appointment. I’ve done – whatever you asked me to do, I’ve done. If you want to know everything … and then you don’t tell them, or they threaten you with the courts.’ (PC11, 1990s cohort) 

PC24 (2010s cohort) did not get on with his first Probation Officer, describing her as ‘grumpy’. He felt that he had been labelled by her as a ‘bold person’. At the time of the interview, he was no longer in contact with his family and believed that his Probation Officer’s negative view of him, expressed during meetings with his mother, was a contributing factor.

‘Just really the old woman [PO], that’s it. She was negative, you know what I mean. She was labelling me. Like my ma was with me and all so she was making my ma fight with me and all. Where me ma wouldn’t really be like that. So, she was making people act different around her. So that was negative. She changed. She changed me ma’s perspective to who her son is. Said like, “He’s out robbing cars, you don’t have control over him”, this that and the other, you know what I mean. I don’t have family so there was no point fighting for family all them years.’ (PC24, 2010s cohort) 

The pains of probation are, of course, already well documented in the literature (see e.g., Durnescu, 2011; Durnescu, 2019; Griffin and Healy, 2019); however, our findings also highlight the emotional burden imposed by these pains. In particular, feelings of anger, frustration, sadness, and resentment are palpable in the above quotes. Ultimately, PC11 became so exasperated with the supervisory experience that prison seemed a preferable option. He was subsequently returned to prison on a different charge. PC24 also ended up back in court, although his later experiences were more positive. As he explained, the judge gave him a ‘second chance’ and assigned him a different officer who proved more helpful and supportive. While it could be argued that these examples show Probation Officers simply doing their jobs (by holding people to account for their actions) or participants deflecting responsibility for their behaviour (by blaming the officer for causing conflict in relationships), we suggest that these experiences should be classified as ‘hurtful’ when experienced as such by people under supervision. While the pains arising from perceived power imbalances and stigmatisation may be subtler than those arising from overt abuses, these examples show that they can still elicit a powerful emotional response and may ultimately undermine the utility of supervision. 

Holding 

In McNeill’s (2009) framework, ‘holding’ describes a sense of being monitored and restricted or, more positively, a kind of harm-minimisation strategy where a chaotic life is safely contained, albeit temporarily, within the confines of a probation order. Other scholars have highlighted this dimension of supervision; for instance, Hayes (2018) observes that the structure of probation can help some people to feel a greater sense of control in their lives. This theme was less evident in our research, tending to overlap quite strongly with either the helping or hurting themes. The first quote, from PC17 (2010s), illustrates an experience at the boundary between helping and holding. As can be seen, PC17 found that the structure of the probation order helped to change his routines, expose him to law-abiding lifestyles, and generate a sense of calm and security. 

‘The most helpful for me personally was just keeping out of trouble, having a structure, having a plan, so Monday to Friday, between two and four, I’d have to be here so that was definitely most helpful because it was good structure, it was a good opportunity to see how – I hate to say normal, but how normal working people was living and how much more calmer and better it was than the life that I was living previous to that. So that would have been the most helpful, just as a bit of an eye opener. […] And it wasn’t too overwhelming, like two hours isn’t a lot just to come in and see what they had to offer.’ (PC17, 2010s cohort) 

Alternatively, PC5’s (2000s cohort) experience is located at the intersection between holding and hurting. On the one hand, he was reassured on being told that the purpose of supervision was to help him stay out of the prison system, as illustrated by the following quote: 

‘Like, they keep making it clear: “Look, we’re not here to put you back into prison […] we’re here to try and get you out, stay out and manage your sentence” – so, that’s good they kind of say that from […] so kind of reassured from the start, but yeah, as I say, I haven’t had much experience working with probation outside; it’s all been inside, so yeah, I think it will be all right.’ (PC5, 2000s cohort) 

On the other hand, he felt constrained by the knowledge that post-release supervision would tie him to a criminal past he wanted to leave behind. When asked if he wanted probation support after release, he responded, ‘To be honest, no. […] I’d rather forget about jail completely and move on. Now I have no choice.’ (PC5, 2000s cohort) 

Hands off 

The final theme does not appear in McNeill’s (2009) framework but has been added here to capture another dimension of participants’ supervisory experiences. For some, probation supervision seemed inconsequential, constituting a minor commitment that imposed minimal restrictions on their lives and asked little of them in return. Such individuals typically said that probation meetings were rare and/or brief, or that their officers seemed detached and laissez-faire in their approaches to supervision. Others admitted that they themselves were disengaged from the supervision process. Many of these supervision experiences, particularly if they took place many years earlier, were only half-remembered. Some appreciated the hands-off approach, largely because they preferred not to engage with the Service. PC16 (1980s cohort) was apprehensive about his first probation order due to a distrust of authority figures and a deep immersion in criminality and drug addiction. Consequently, he engaged instrumentally with probation supervision, complying merely to avoid prison rather than to stop offending, and felt it had a minimal impact on his life.

‘It didn’t have any restrictions for me. It didn’t … you got probation and you seen it as a victory, didn’t go to prison – you got out of it. I’ll go in and I’ll tick the boxes. The Probation Officer tells me to turn up at two o’clock; I’ll be there at ten to two, you know what I mean? The Probation Officer asks me a question or wants me to do this: yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir. Play the game, you know, play the system, like, and that’s what I done, so it didn’t impact on me. It certainly didn’t stop me committing other crimes.’ (PC16, 1980s cohort) 

Such experiences generated little emotional response in those subjected to probation supervision. However, probation supervision was also perceived as irrelevant in a more problematic way. Several participants wanted and needed assistance, and even asked for help on multiple occasions, but found that none was forthcoming. In such cases, strong emotions were provoked, including resentment, feelings of helplessness, and anger, as is evident in the following quote: 

‘So, what’s the difference if I’m clean or not ’cause I was going to her for weeks and weeks and weeks clean and she didn’t really do anything for me […] and then I go in dirty and she doesn’t really do anything for me, so […] It’s just a formality. She has an appointment with me today – it’s just to see how you’re getting on and off you go.’ (PC10, 2010s cohort) 

This aspect of the supervision experience is perhaps less well documented, although Crewe and Ievins (2021) describe a ‘loose’ form of penal power within the prison system that imposes few restrictions or requirements on prisoners but can be experienced as painful by those subject to it. In such cases, prisoners can feel forgotten because they receive little support and are offered few rehabilitative opportunities.

Conclusion 

The research employed and developed McNeill’s (2009) ‘helping, holding, hurting’ framework to further comprehend probation supervisory experiences in Ireland from a historical perspective. However, as noted above, experiences of supervision are complex and can vary both between probationers and within probationers over time, making it difficult to categorise individual experiences distinctly (McNeill, 2009). In some ways, the findings also mirror Crewe and Ievins’ (2021) work on ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ forms of penal power. For instance, ‘helping’ experiences may be evoked by approaches that are responsive to people’s needs, that respect and preserve their sense of self, and that enable them to take an active role in decision-making. ‘Tight’ forms of penal power that impose strict obligations on people – even when they are provided with the resources to meet these requirements – may generate the kind of ‘hurting’ experiences discussed earlier in this paper. Lastly, ‘hands-off’ experiences may be elicited by ‘loose’ forms of penal power, described as fairly undemanding in terms of their requirements, but also unresponsive to people’s needs. As our participants’ experiences showed, such approaches can have a powerful impact, leaving some people feeling frustrated and abandoned. 

The findings have contributed in several ways to knowledge about supervision. The ‘hands-off’ dimension added by this paper highlights experiences where probation supervision bore minimal relevance to the lives of probation clients. This approach was welcomed by some but in others brought about feelings of hopelessness and of being left behind. The research also shows that being under probation supervision can elicit a broad range of powerful emotions – an aspect of the supervisory experience that is currently under-researched. As can be seen from the findings, emotions varied from hope to anger, frustration and hopelessness. Moreover, the research revealed that there are instances where the lines between ‘helping’, ‘holding’ and ‘hurting’ can become blurred (see also Hayes, 2018). Experiences of supervision were considered helpful if probationers felt listened to and Probation Officers took a solution-focused approach to rehabilitation. Efforts to help became hurtful if supervisory techniques were considered intrusive, if a probationer felt misunderstood, or if their efforts went unacknowledged by their Probation Officer. With regard to ‘holding’, the findings show that probation can offer a more stable routine for clients, which can lessen anxiety and promote an alternative lifestyle. However, for those who want to move on, probation supervision is seen as a constant reminder of a criminal past. 

While participants acknowledged that they had to be in the right state of mind to accept help, the findings suggest that Probation Officers play a significant role in adding meaning to the client’s experience of supervision. Irish research on the experience of probation supervision is scarce, but this finding is consistent with existing Irish and international work, which suggests that a positive supervision experience is contingent on the building of rapport with the client, the implementation of clear and achievable supervision plans, the offering of practical support and advice, and the provision of opportunities for rehabilitation (Durnescu et al., 2018; Healy, 2012). Positive supervisory experiences that incorporate these practices are more likely to evoke feelings of hope in the probationer. 

While this article has focused on the experiences of those under supervision, it is important to note that others, such as Probation Officers, may offer very different accounts. Every perspective is equally valid, though, and our research project attempts to capture the experiences of diverse stakeholders, including people who have been subject to supervision, Probation Officers, and policymakers (see e.g., Healy and Kennefick, 2019; Healy and Kennefick, forthcoming; for overviews of probation in Ireland, see Healy, 2015a, 2015b; Carr, 2016). Ultimately, historical accounts such as those discussed in this paper provide a better understanding of supervisory experiences, illuminating the lived experiences of people under supervision, animating official accounts and adding nuance to existing scholarly research on the evolution of probation practice.

Louise Kennefick, Deirdre Healy and Niamh Wade