"Trauma informed" is the fashionable label. It is so not followed through in culture, practice, training. I sometimes doubt those writing this piffle have any understanding of trauma tbh. Actually don't know what they're talking about.
Another fashionable label "Professional Curiosity". When that first came out as a thing, I heard the word "Professional" linked to "Curiosity" and leapt to the erroneous conclusion that what was being encouraged was a deep empathetic interest in the individual. Time to really talk. Nice. Turns out this was translated by HMPPS command, and HMIP, as , in essence, don't believe anything they say, check them out, anything they say and you find out, get it into a risk assessment, and watch your back.
Which brings me neatly round to being informed about trauma: you've been in prison, you're anxious and already traumatised by that and whatever got you there. Your continuing (partial) liberty depends on a person who has been told to build an empathic relationship with you, but who won't believe a word you say, and will recall you if you slip up. So much for that then.
--oo00oo--
Gosh you are so, so right! What could have been a useful concept has been mis-interpreted to the extent of creating dangerous practice. By proliferating the mantra that everything has to be "verified" and "evidence based" dis-credits the person's own views on their own internal world, failing in our aim to formulate meaningful and collaborative assessments. Whoever writes this stuff fails to understand that it is simply not possible to "always seek evidence" for what the person says, and as a consequence, weakens our ability to explore and address relevant factors, and ultimately our ability to "manage risk".
What shocks me is that this is not ministerial policy - no minster stood up in parliament and dictated through law, or otherwise, that this concept had to be interpreted through such a draconian lens. We, ourselves, decided that this was the way.
Interpretations of professional curiosity such as "use an investigative approach" are translated by staff as "use an investigatory style of dealing with your people". As you say, distrust and disbelieve until proven otherwise is the style of interaction encouraged, and use the appointment to "constantly monitor for evidence of risk factors". This leads to interactions such as:
Appointment 1: I asked him where he got his expensive trainers from - he said his uncle bought them for him as a birthday present. I told him this seems unlikely and we explored whether he has reverted back to offending.
Appointment 2: He said he wouldn't engage or answer any questions as I disbelieve everything he says - I told him he must engage - that it is his responsibility to build a good relationship with me.
Appointment 3: Failed to attend
Appointment 4: Failed to attend
Breach
--oo00oo--
Which brings me neatly round to being informed about trauma: you've been in prison, you're anxious and already traumatised by that and whatever got you there. Your continuing (partial) liberty depends on a person who has been told to build an empathic relationship with you, but who won't believe a word you say, and will recall you if you slip up. So much for that then.
--oo00oo--
Gosh you are so, so right! What could have been a useful concept has been mis-interpreted to the extent of creating dangerous practice. By proliferating the mantra that everything has to be "verified" and "evidence based" dis-credits the person's own views on their own internal world, failing in our aim to formulate meaningful and collaborative assessments. Whoever writes this stuff fails to understand that it is simply not possible to "always seek evidence" for what the person says, and as a consequence, weakens our ability to explore and address relevant factors, and ultimately our ability to "manage risk".
What shocks me is that this is not ministerial policy - no minster stood up in parliament and dictated through law, or otherwise, that this concept had to be interpreted through such a draconian lens. We, ourselves, decided that this was the way.
Interpretations of professional curiosity such as "use an investigative approach" are translated by staff as "use an investigatory style of dealing with your people". As you say, distrust and disbelieve until proven otherwise is the style of interaction encouraged, and use the appointment to "constantly monitor for evidence of risk factors". This leads to interactions such as:
Appointment 1: I asked him where he got his expensive trainers from - he said his uncle bought them for him as a birthday present. I told him this seems unlikely and we explored whether he has reverted back to offending.
Appointment 2: He said he wouldn't engage or answer any questions as I disbelieve everything he says - I told him he must engage - that it is his responsibility to build a good relationship with me.
Appointment 3: Failed to attend
Appointment 4: Failed to attend
Breach
--oo00oo--
By way of contrast, I publish here a short extract from stuff I regularly delete. I don't like doing it and regular readers will be aware I ran the blog for years completely unmoderated, but for my well being I have to believe it does not represent widely-held views within the service today:-
"Offenders are deviant and cunning they need managing punishing and watching. That's why they are called crooked bent light fingered and tricky."
.. and it could easily be said that the view from the other side of the desk is.
ReplyDelete“Probation officers are deviant and cunning they need managing punishing and watching. That's why they are called crooked bent light fingered and tricky.
I wondered what context this has been quoted but either way the same is aid about both since tr and it was not like this before. So the culture has become waring factional .
DeleteMany speak about having a good relationship with probation officers, feeling respected, listened to and treated fairly. This is not for all though as many speak about probation officers expecting them to agree even when they don’t, disregarding opinions and feelings of Pops, making unfair and unjust decisions, and being like or worse than the police.
DeleteThis week out of the many Pops I saw a few turned up late, some missed appointments, one tested positive for and admitted returning to drugs, a few were drunk, one was arrested for driving offences, another told me TSP was rubbish, another he hates me, another he hates the police, on and on and on.
None of these Pops were warned or recalled, all eventually attended, the drug user is trying to stop, the drinkers are probably never going to stop, the arrest didn’t result in a charge, all were listened to and heard, all left the office thanking me for my time and even the one that hates me nicely confirmed he hates “the system” more than he hates me and at least he can speak to me while he can’t talk to “the system”. The point is that all had a moment in their week to be “normal” and all took away with the message that they can do whatever is right and necessary for them to do.
But I have other colleagues that would have been warning and recalling some of these Pops. Some would have not listened to these Pops and refused their opinions as if they don’t have a right to think or speak. For me, being a probation officer doesn’t make me perfect or right. I want Pops to learn from me but sometimes I learn from them too. I don’t collude with them, I don’t disrespect them, I can’t offer them much but I do try to advise, assist and befriend.
*Unacceptable absence.
ReplyDeleteNot even allowed to put fail to attend anymore are we!
"Unacceptable", "Failed". Thats our choice of descriptors. Traumatic
DeleteAll you had to do was check his date of birth, it is in the record. But yes, by the time l left people lacked the "Professional Curiosity" to manage that. Not all of them, but just enough to tar all of us with that brush.
ReplyDeleteHad a colleague who worked in Pentonville Prison who said that Prisoners called probation "CID" which stood for "Cunts in Disguise".
I quite often hear the term "community screws" when people are referring to probation officees these days.
DeleteI'm sure there's plenty that that term doesn't apply to, but there's plenty of others that see the job as just that now.
'Getafix
Spoke to a client once he said probation are ‘worse than the old bill now ‘ what an indictment
ReplyDeleteParticularly those on the IOM team who really do think they're CID
ReplyDeleteThink they are CID based on what? I work in an IOM team and I am proud of the work that we do.
DeleteI really agree. IOM is well known as a police scheme. Every probation practitioner I’ve seen join IOM within weeks they starting acting like the police. Crass, loud, racist banter becomes the norm. Recalls on police say so.
DeleteObservation, attitude and the way they sneer at clients
DeleteI was in an IOM pilot team in 2002 and an IOM team from 2005 to 2006. It was not all about the police back then but actually about looking at why the prolific guys were so hard at it. But actually I suppose dealing with the social distress that underpinned prolific offending was too hard, much easier to blame and cage.
DeleteThese young ones love the police telling tales about anything
ReplyDeleteThat too. I don’t know why they don’t just join the police instead.
Delete