Unlike previous professional dilemma's this one does not relate to a specific incident but rather a series of observations I've made over the years. It's come about as a direct result of a conversation with two long standing friends and colleagues who have progressed to becoming managers. Over a drink and meal out, the conversation wandered onto the topic concerning the particular difficulties encountered by team managers in having to absorb all the crap from below, at the same time as getting it from above. As always, these conversations only ever serve to remind me how clever I have been in avoiding that particular elephant trap.
But then we got onto the serious bit about other colleagues we had known over the years and in particular the horror stories. I'm sure every field of endeavour has them. The people who are completely unsuited to the work; the lazy and bone idle; the dangerous and scary. I had sort of always assumed that management were aware of such people. After all, surely that was part of their job? It certainly never crossed my mind that it would have been in anyway appropriate to impart concerns or negative observations about colleagues to the manager. After all, we were all professionals and it felt so much like 'telling tales out of school'. Surely it said more about the messenger than the subject? I suppose my own insecurity meant that I would have been horrified to learn that I might be the subject one day?
As the conversation developed, my thoughts went back to the colleague that got a 'buzz' out of bullying young male clients. I could still see the look of glee on her face when she had succeeded in scaring them witless. The colleague who made clients lives hell and as a result they demanded to go to prison rather than ever see her again. The colleague who regularly refused to see clients who arrived 5 minutes late. The colleague who just couldn't be bothered. Sadly there had been quite a few 'wrong 'uns' over the years in my opinion.
Having shared these thoughts with my two manager friends I was genuinely surprised by their reaction. In perfect harmony they both intoned 'Oh you should have definitely told the manager'. Until then it had never ocurred to me to do such a thing. It would have seemed so disloyal. Although I was fairly clear the behaviour was unprofessional and didn't meet my standards of behaviour, it didn't seem to fit into any clear-cut disciplinary category of say inappropriate sexual relations with a client. This or similar I would have reported without hesitation. It was just very poor professional behaviour in my view, but surely the team manager can see it if I can?
I'm still not sure about this, even though I am acutely aware that some clients got a very raw deal indeed. Some went to prison who possibly shouldn't have done. Some have been turned off 'probation' for ever. But I would still find telling a manager a real professional dilemma.
Showing posts with label Dilemmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dilemmas. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Monday, 28 March 2011
Professional Dilemma 4
Experience tells me that this series of 'professional dilemma's' often produces comment ranging from the incredulous to the broadly sympathetic, mixed with a degree of surprise as to exactly what sort of scenarios probation officers can find themselves involved in. Painful though it sometimes is, I nevertheless feel it's worthwhile doing in the interests of explaining a bit more to the general public exactly what the work can involve.
Although what follows happened some time ago, it continues to have an effect on me to this day. It was a seminal moment in my career and I've always regarded it as having been a metaphor for the society within which it occurred, up there with the likes of 'Cathy Come Home' or 'Boys From the Blackstuff' as social commentary. Whether something similar would or could happen today is a moot point because so much of the broad context within which it occurred has changed significantly, not least the degree to which the modern probation service has moved away from it's former social work-orientated ethos. Sadly, I'm not sure it would even register on our radar nowadays.
Lets call him John. When he arrived with us as a case at age 17 he was already severely damaged by society. He had been a troublesome, difficult and challenging child and as a result his parents felt they had no alternative to placing him in the care of the Local Authority. Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one 'in care'. Experience has amply demonstrated to me over the years just how damaging the 'care' system can be for many young people. To misquote Philip Larkin, if family's haven't done it already 'care' will. 'They f*ck you up they do'.
Any probation officer will know only too well what harm can be caused by child abuse. As a result society has procedures for removing that child into 'care', but then often compounds the damage, but this time in the name of the State. It really shocked me when Martin Narey a year or two back came out publicly making a case for more kids to go into care when he was still director of Barnado's, saying that this was preferable.
Anyway, it was obvious that John had been very badly affected by his time in several large children's homes and since leaving had been living a feral, nomadic existence. He had become addicted to glue and other solvents which made his moods and behaviour unpredictable. He was beginning to pose society a problem because of his rough sleeping and low level criminal activity. In those days it was inevitable and entirely appropriate that the probation service would become involved.
Despite his challenging behaviour and multitude of needs, John had an engaging personality that quickly made him a significant part of the life of the office. Remember these were the days of day centres and drop-in facilities for clients and being homeless, he made full use of what was available in a very constructive way. As the months rolled by we tried in vain to settle John in numerous hostels, shelters and housing projects, but always to no avail given his increasingly challenging and erratic behaviour. The team became convinced that only independent living accommodation with support was likely to be successful and I argued strongly for a referral to a clinical psychologist in order to try and get to the bottom of the trauma he was suspected of having experienced.
I remember the day well. Real progress was being made. The housing department had finally been bullied into offering John a tatty flat and miraculously I had succeeded in getting him to the top of the list to see a psychologist. The first meeting had been a revelation to behold. Although extremely unorthodox, I was asked to be present throughout because sadly the female consultant felt scared of John. The next meeting was due, however a phone call from the Court Team informed me that he was in custody but likely to be bailed. Somewhat unusually the custody sergeant agreed to a request not to release him until I got to the station.
John was pleased to see me and seemed his normal chatty self. It was only a ten minute walk back to the office and I explained that the next appointment with the psychologist was at 2pm, again a short walk away. All seemed well, until he suddenly insisted we went via the casualty department of the local hospital. He explained he had been there most of the night and until his unwanted presence had triggered his arrest. He would not be dissuaded from going to casualty and became quite agitated so I had no alternative but to tag along, whereupon the reason for the detour became obvious. Hidden behind some seats was a can of thinners which John proceeded to put in his pocket. Of course I made plain how very disappointed I was with his actions, but thinners is not an illegal substance, there was no evidence it had been stolen and I had no authority to remove it from him.
Of course we were aware that John had been addicted to solvents for some time. As far as we knew he had never used the substance when at the day centre and certainly never within sight of any staff. I believed that the absolute priority of the day was to get John back to see the psychologist and the expert counselling that I knew he needed. Sadly he never made the appointment and was pronounced dead by 1.30pm. The subsequent post mortem found that he had died of heart failure as a result of the sustained abuse of solvents. He was just 19. Although the Coroner eventually recorded a verdict of Accidental Death, I have always felt that in the final analysis it was the State that had failed John.
Although what follows happened some time ago, it continues to have an effect on me to this day. It was a seminal moment in my career and I've always regarded it as having been a metaphor for the society within which it occurred, up there with the likes of 'Cathy Come Home' or 'Boys From the Blackstuff' as social commentary. Whether something similar would or could happen today is a moot point because so much of the broad context within which it occurred has changed significantly, not least the degree to which the modern probation service has moved away from it's former social work-orientated ethos. Sadly, I'm not sure it would even register on our radar nowadays.
Lets call him John. When he arrived with us as a case at age 17 he was already severely damaged by society. He had been a troublesome, difficult and challenging child and as a result his parents felt they had no alternative to placing him in the care of the Local Authority. Now there's a misnomer if ever there was one 'in care'. Experience has amply demonstrated to me over the years just how damaging the 'care' system can be for many young people. To misquote Philip Larkin, if family's haven't done it already 'care' will. 'They f*ck you up they do'.
Any probation officer will know only too well what harm can be caused by child abuse. As a result society has procedures for removing that child into 'care', but then often compounds the damage, but this time in the name of the State. It really shocked me when Martin Narey a year or two back came out publicly making a case for more kids to go into care when he was still director of Barnado's, saying that this was preferable.
Anyway, it was obvious that John had been very badly affected by his time in several large children's homes and since leaving had been living a feral, nomadic existence. He had become addicted to glue and other solvents which made his moods and behaviour unpredictable. He was beginning to pose society a problem because of his rough sleeping and low level criminal activity. In those days it was inevitable and entirely appropriate that the probation service would become involved.
Despite his challenging behaviour and multitude of needs, John had an engaging personality that quickly made him a significant part of the life of the office. Remember these were the days of day centres and drop-in facilities for clients and being homeless, he made full use of what was available in a very constructive way. As the months rolled by we tried in vain to settle John in numerous hostels, shelters and housing projects, but always to no avail given his increasingly challenging and erratic behaviour. The team became convinced that only independent living accommodation with support was likely to be successful and I argued strongly for a referral to a clinical psychologist in order to try and get to the bottom of the trauma he was suspected of having experienced.
I remember the day well. Real progress was being made. The housing department had finally been bullied into offering John a tatty flat and miraculously I had succeeded in getting him to the top of the list to see a psychologist. The first meeting had been a revelation to behold. Although extremely unorthodox, I was asked to be present throughout because sadly the female consultant felt scared of John. The next meeting was due, however a phone call from the Court Team informed me that he was in custody but likely to be bailed. Somewhat unusually the custody sergeant agreed to a request not to release him until I got to the station.
John was pleased to see me and seemed his normal chatty self. It was only a ten minute walk back to the office and I explained that the next appointment with the psychologist was at 2pm, again a short walk away. All seemed well, until he suddenly insisted we went via the casualty department of the local hospital. He explained he had been there most of the night and until his unwanted presence had triggered his arrest. He would not be dissuaded from going to casualty and became quite agitated so I had no alternative but to tag along, whereupon the reason for the detour became obvious. Hidden behind some seats was a can of thinners which John proceeded to put in his pocket. Of course I made plain how very disappointed I was with his actions, but thinners is not an illegal substance, there was no evidence it had been stolen and I had no authority to remove it from him.
Of course we were aware that John had been addicted to solvents for some time. As far as we knew he had never used the substance when at the day centre and certainly never within sight of any staff. I believed that the absolute priority of the day was to get John back to see the psychologist and the expert counselling that I knew he needed. Sadly he never made the appointment and was pronounced dead by 1.30pm. The subsequent post mortem found that he had died of heart failure as a result of the sustained abuse of solvents. He was just 19. Although the Coroner eventually recorded a verdict of Accidental Death, I have always felt that in the final analysis it was the State that had failed John.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Professional Dilemma 3
The following happened several years ago when probation officers still enjoyed a mixed bag of cases to supervise, by which I mean we were not restricted to just high risk cases, but some that might have a significant 'welfare' dimension as well. It was also a time when typically you would have written the PSR, decided what the key issues were, what the recommendation would be, how the supervision plan would look and would have taken the case when sentence was passed. All this was regarded as completely normal and in fact was extremely good practice for the time. The ground work had been done, building a relationship had started and the person wasn't passed around like a parcel. Sadly it is most unusual nowadays if the author of a report subsequently ends up supervising the case. But that's another story.
The client in question was a young woman of about nineteen years of age. She had lost touch with her family, been in care, suffered sexual abuse, had a string of unsuitable boyfriends who introduced her to heroin and had already accumulated an offending history that had led to several periods in custody. This is a scenario that will still be very familiar to probation officers nationwide and usually signals a rapidly descending spiral of decline. If I remember correctly I interviewed her on remand for a whole string of shoplifting offences whilst on licence.
The young woman was homeless and in a sense the report was fairly easy to write because the disposal appeared so obvious to me. She clearly needed help and a Probation Order seemed the most appropriate way to try and give her a fresh start, as long as a hostel place could be arranged. I felt it appropriate to attend court on this occasion so as to be able to convey her to the hostel if an Order was made. It duly was about 3pm, but unfortunately no provision had been made by the prison to supply a methadone script so that her treatment could continue straight away when released. This is not that unusual, even though prisoners attending court are routinely 'discharged' with their belongings. It represents but one of those very irritating lack of joined-up parts of the Criminal Justice System.
We arrived at the hostel at about 4pm and I stayed to chat with the staff and make sure she settled in ok. I remember we were in the middle of a conversation in her room when she suddenly announced 'Look Jim you're a nice bloke, but if I you don't give me a lift into town now so I can graft it'll be too late.' It's one of those absolutely classic defining moments in your career. What the hell do you do? There was no hope of getting any methodone legitimately at that time of day. This woman is going to be 'rattling' shortly and could only think about how to avoid it. She had told me too much information and was effectively inviting me, her probation officer, to assist in the commission of criminal activity by giving her a lift into town. My career could be ending with a headline in the local paper. I could refuse, give her a lecture or worse in my view, money. Of course parents of drug-using children are often faced with a similar dilemma. Throw them out, or give them money for drugs.
This is a difficult job at the best of times and sometimes decisions are just not clearcut. I had to carry on working with this person and help her turn her life around. In order to try and fulfill that longer term aim, my decision was to reluctantly give her that lift on this occasion.
The client in question was a young woman of about nineteen years of age. She had lost touch with her family, been in care, suffered sexual abuse, had a string of unsuitable boyfriends who introduced her to heroin and had already accumulated an offending history that had led to several periods in custody. This is a scenario that will still be very familiar to probation officers nationwide and usually signals a rapidly descending spiral of decline. If I remember correctly I interviewed her on remand for a whole string of shoplifting offences whilst on licence.
The young woman was homeless and in a sense the report was fairly easy to write because the disposal appeared so obvious to me. She clearly needed help and a Probation Order seemed the most appropriate way to try and give her a fresh start, as long as a hostel place could be arranged. I felt it appropriate to attend court on this occasion so as to be able to convey her to the hostel if an Order was made. It duly was about 3pm, but unfortunately no provision had been made by the prison to supply a methadone script so that her treatment could continue straight away when released. This is not that unusual, even though prisoners attending court are routinely 'discharged' with their belongings. It represents but one of those very irritating lack of joined-up parts of the Criminal Justice System.
We arrived at the hostel at about 4pm and I stayed to chat with the staff and make sure she settled in ok. I remember we were in the middle of a conversation in her room when she suddenly announced 'Look Jim you're a nice bloke, but if I you don't give me a lift into town now so I can graft it'll be too late.' It's one of those absolutely classic defining moments in your career. What the hell do you do? There was no hope of getting any methodone legitimately at that time of day. This woman is going to be 'rattling' shortly and could only think about how to avoid it. She had told me too much information and was effectively inviting me, her probation officer, to assist in the commission of criminal activity by giving her a lift into town. My career could be ending with a headline in the local paper. I could refuse, give her a lecture or worse in my view, money. Of course parents of drug-using children are often faced with a similar dilemma. Throw them out, or give them money for drugs.
This is a difficult job at the best of times and sometimes decisions are just not clearcut. I had to carry on working with this person and help her turn her life around. In order to try and fulfill that longer term aim, my decision was to reluctantly give her that lift on this occasion.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Professional Dilemma
At some point in every probation officer's career they will be faced with a serious ethical, moral or professional dilemma. I think I've had my fair share, resolved them one way or another, but I've often wondered what other officers would have done........
I remember the situation well, a routine PSR request for Crown Court, a guilty plea involving many thousands of pounds worth of stolen HGV tractor units, a person previously well known to me, remanded in custody. An easy, routine task on someone I hadn't seen for a long time and I was naturally interested to know what the story was. Pleasantries over, my first question of 'why?' was met with the characteristically disarming answer of 'I didn't do it - I'm taking the wrap for my son'. 'Oh dear' I thought. Knowing the family as I did (at various times I had supervised mother, father and son) this was completely understandable and for them culturally normal. I told him he could be looking at about four to five years, but he said that was ok - he wanted to give his son a break and he felt this was the best way he could. His son had five young children. What was I to do?
Before we get to that I suppose I should dwell on why the guy had told me in the first place. He didn't have to, he could have spun me any old story and I'd have had to decide if I bought it or not. Now I haven't done this job for as long as I have without going home at night on occasion, reflected on the days events and in particular whether I'd been told a load of old bull or not. Doing the job we do, some economy with the truth is to be expected and I'm sure our friends in the police would say that in their view we can be more than a soft touch for fairy stories. But I'd known this guy for years, we had a good working relationship and respected each other - he had that old fashioned habit of always addressing me formally as 'Mr Brown' - a sure sign of his lengthy incarcerations in prison. He wasn't exactly a career criminal, but shall we say his cultural background and offending went hand in hand somewhat. He had paid me the huge compliment of telling me the truth because he respected me and in probation that's exactly what we aim for.
So, what did I do? I colluded. I felt I had no choice, but I was very uneasy indeed in being party to misleading a Court and I made that clear to the guy. Of course I could have ended the interview there and then and reported back to the Judge what had been said; that in effect the guilty plea was not safe and that I could hardly write a report if the guy said he hadn't done it. What would have happened? A telephone call from his barrister to say that I must have misunderstood his client and a gentle reminder that there were full admission statements in the CPS bundle; at an adjournment hearing, when questioned by a very grumpy Judge, the defendant would have confirmed the barristers view that the probation officer must be getting hard of hearing. The said PO would have looked extremely stupid indeed when ordered to 'go away and interview the man again'.
He got four years.
I remember the situation well, a routine PSR request for Crown Court, a guilty plea involving many thousands of pounds worth of stolen HGV tractor units, a person previously well known to me, remanded in custody. An easy, routine task on someone I hadn't seen for a long time and I was naturally interested to know what the story was. Pleasantries over, my first question of 'why?' was met with the characteristically disarming answer of 'I didn't do it - I'm taking the wrap for my son'. 'Oh dear' I thought. Knowing the family as I did (at various times I had supervised mother, father and son) this was completely understandable and for them culturally normal. I told him he could be looking at about four to five years, but he said that was ok - he wanted to give his son a break and he felt this was the best way he could. His son had five young children. What was I to do?
Before we get to that I suppose I should dwell on why the guy had told me in the first place. He didn't have to, he could have spun me any old story and I'd have had to decide if I bought it or not. Now I haven't done this job for as long as I have without going home at night on occasion, reflected on the days events and in particular whether I'd been told a load of old bull or not. Doing the job we do, some economy with the truth is to be expected and I'm sure our friends in the police would say that in their view we can be more than a soft touch for fairy stories. But I'd known this guy for years, we had a good working relationship and respected each other - he had that old fashioned habit of always addressing me formally as 'Mr Brown' - a sure sign of his lengthy incarcerations in prison. He wasn't exactly a career criminal, but shall we say his cultural background and offending went hand in hand somewhat. He had paid me the huge compliment of telling me the truth because he respected me and in probation that's exactly what we aim for.
So, what did I do? I colluded. I felt I had no choice, but I was very uneasy indeed in being party to misleading a Court and I made that clear to the guy. Of course I could have ended the interview there and then and reported back to the Judge what had been said; that in effect the guilty plea was not safe and that I could hardly write a report if the guy said he hadn't done it. What would have happened? A telephone call from his barrister to say that I must have misunderstood his client and a gentle reminder that there were full admission statements in the CPS bundle; at an adjournment hearing, when questioned by a very grumpy Judge, the defendant would have confirmed the barristers view that the probation officer must be getting hard of hearing. The said PO would have looked extremely stupid indeed when ordered to 'go away and interview the man again'.
He got four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)