Was There Ever a Golden Age?

I've been in deep reflecting mode since publishing last Saturday's Guest Blog 91 and was particularly struck by this:- 

We could pretend to believe the Probation Officer was once a professional elite. A silent pillar of the Criminal Justice System, neither social worker nor enforcement agent. An expert at resettling prisoners after long sentences, helping aggressive or prolific offenders to CALM or Think First, walking those with complex needs through drug, alcohol and mental health support, and being the link between the Court, prison, the community and their future. An advisor to the Court, Parole Board, Mental Health Tribunals and anyone else needing an expert witness, opinion, risk assessment or plan involving a supervised offender. It’s a nice memory for some, a rose-tinted nightmare for others.

Basically, I felt compelled to visit the attic and search the archives. Lets take a snapshot look at the past for some kind of comparison, say the period 1st March 1990 to 31st March 1991 because I have a staff appraisal for that year, together with work diaries and other stuff. My caseload was recorded as 31, comprising 15 Probation; 3 Parole; 4 YOI; 8 Imprisonment (Pre Parole) and 1 Matrimonial. Total SER's for the year was 117. This was the tail end of generic field team officers undertaking both Divorce Court Welfare work as well as criminal and before establishment of Cafcass. All officers had to have CQSW or equivalent and have a car for which an Essential User Allowance was paid monthly. 

"Mr Brown, together with his co-worker Mr Xxxxx covers the patch comprising Xxxxxx town and its environs. In a recent National Survey of deprivation Xxxxxx town came 146th out of 150 towns in England Scotland and Wales. The unemployment rate is 14%. There is a high incidence of domestic violence. The vast bulk of the housing stock is local authority owned. Mr Brown has a generic case load covering all aspects of Probation work other than Divorce Court Welfare."

We each had our own office and half an allocated clerical who was responsible for transcribing letters, records and reports from micro-cassettes recorded on personal Dictaphones. A photocopier had arrived, together with a fax machine and electric typewriters. Records were kept in personal filing cabinets and there was an extensive 'dead' file room and updated card index held in the combined general office and reception. The team comprised six main grade officers; an SPO; a PSA; a Senior Clerical and four reception/clerical staff. In addition there were two cleaners.

The town had a Magistrates Court and a County Court and each had to be staffed from within the team, with assistance from volunteers in the case of the Magistrates Court. Fieldwork was patch-based and it was routine for weekly reporting centres to be held away from the office. Each PO was expected to cover Office Duty for either a day or half day a week and Court Duty averaged at least once a fortnight. Team meetings were each Wednesday morning and included Case Allocation. 

Because my patch was the town centre, regular reporting was each Monday and my SER numbers were higher to compensate for not having to travel to outlying centres. Client bus fares could be reimbursed and all PO's were authorised to make discretionary payments to clients up to £10 from the Office Befriending Fund. This was often used to fund either emergency food or accommodation. There was a clothing store; provision of subsidised coach transport for family prison visits and access to charitable funds.

The office had a pool table and developed a drop-in facility staffed by volunteers. Tea and coffee were available and volunteers meetings were held monthly in the evening. There was regular contact with the local Magistrates and at least four meetings a year for updates on clients progress and sentencing exercises. The SPO attended weekly Cautioning Panel meetings with the local Police Inspector; SSD; and EWO and decisions made as to whether it was possible to avoid prosecutions. I often deputised for the SPO. 

All PO's were encouraged to pursue particular interests and in my case this included membership of the local management committees for CAB; Drug project; Youth club and Homeless Accommodation Forum. In addition my regular attendance was authorised for meetings of Psychiatric Interest Group; Addiction Unit; Family Therapy and Napo. During the year 1990/1 I note a two week residential training course was authorised in respect of 'Working with Psychiatric Offenders'; a three day Practice Teachers course, together with an in-house Advanced Counselling course. During the year I supervised an observation Youth and Community student for 10 weeks; several CQSW students on four week placements, together with three psychiatric students for one day observation placements. 

Other things of note at this time was my practice to attend in person at court hearings, either at Crown or Magistrates, in support of particular recommendations which I felt might benefit from either Bench or Judge having the opportunity of questioning the SER author. In my experience this practice often proved pivotal in sentencers having greater confidence in following particular courses of action suggested.

"Mr Brown's standard of report writing is good. During 1990 he was credited on computer with 86 SER's although the actual number was higher. Congruence was achieved in 34.4% cases. The recommendation was higher than sentence in only one case. Custodial sentences amounted to 13.76% . Probation totalled 11 or 9.6%, including 2 cases with mental health conditions. Community Service equals 16 or 13.76%."  

My diaries record regular prison visits for clients on remand locally and other visits, often by means of car-sharing, to further afield prisons of all categories either for Sentence Reviews, SER interviews, Parole Hearings or just to maintain contact. It occurs to me that at this time regular correspondence with prisoners was routine and particularly with 'lifers'. It should also be noted that it was felt good practice for officers to have a nominated 'pair' in respect of this group in order to ensure continuity and support.

Mention must be made of 'records', not least because maintaining them was a notoriously difficult task for many officers at this time, including myself:-

"I have seen 17 fully completed case records, but there were 19 cases where records were incomplete, or at least untyped. Mr Brown does not do himself justice here as among those records I have seen copious notes, including very detailed drink diaries which could have been typed up virtually as they were as Part 'B' summaries." 

To my astonishment, the archive contain copies of four 'papers' I felt motivated to pen during the year 1990/1 'What Am I doing and Where Am I Going'; 'Exactly What is Happening in Room 110?'; 'Suggested 3 Week Remands for SER's - Team Response' and 'Notes For a Meeting Concerning Xxxxx'. Apart from the SER paper, the topics are all concerned with various aspects to do with high dependency/welfare cases involving drink, drugs (solvent abuse), homelessness and psychiatric issues. 

In each instance it's noteworthy that the team as a whole were totally focused on how to try and address the issues directly, either professionally or by community action, and in each case with the full support and encouragement of senior management. Sadly, despite all the best and heroic endeavours of all the team over many months, it did not prove possible to save the life of one young man who tragically died in the office that year, poignantly only hours after finally getting him to a psychology assessment. 

That day's events had a profound and lasting effect on many of us, but I remain convinced that for me at least, it did indeed represent part of probation's 'Golden Age'.