Feedback Loop

It's always good to get comments, or blogging can become a very lonely pastime. Occasionally I've been pleased to get comments from people who say they are, or have been clients of the Probation Service. I find these are particularly interesting because of course these commentators see things from a very different perspective and what they say can be extremely instructive. I hope the anonymous author of the following will not mind me reproducing their contribution here, but I feel it raises so many important issues that I'd like to try and address some of them in detail. 

"As someone who was for many years in conflict with the CJ system and spent many years in prison, I have of course been aware of the shift from the social work ethos of probation work to one of policing and I call it policing because of the nature of its enforcement and control. I have repeatedly advised fellow offenders not to trust probation officers and not to reveal problems to them for POs are not there to assist and help and will divert offenders/clients to other agencies. The fear of revealing problems is that because of the risk culture in which we live those problems can and are interpreted as possible risks. Best to avoid telling probation officers anything, just turn up on time, avoid drugs and alcohol prior to appointments and simply nod one's head and give the appearance that everything is fine even if they are not. For those on licence from prison, the worst possible outcome to losing one's job, accommodation etc. is by telling one's probation officer of those problems that they might be seen as a risk of reoffending and thus a recall to prison."

As a time-served old-style officer I find this uncomfortable and disappointing reading. I sadly recognise the sentiment and understand it, but it's still quite depressing. In my mind it begs several questions, which I have posed publicly to the author, but so far there has been no response. 

In essence the thrust of the piece gets right to the heart of an inherent contradiction that has been part of probation since it began as a statutory function of the State in 1907. Whilst the Act specified that the job of a probation officer was to 'advise, assist and befriend' there was always a concomitant responsibility to help protect the public. In my mind the square can be circled because by doing the former, the latter responsibility can be fulfilled. It may sound naive, but I've generally found a widespread understanding amongst our clients of what we are about when sometimes we have to reveal the iron fist that has always been present within the velvet glove. But sadly this comment from a former client is becoming all too commonplace and reflective of the change in ethos of the Service.

I would say that back when we were social work trained and 'probation' was an alternative to a sentence, it was probably much easier to exercise the appropriate balance between care on the one hand and control on the other. Given that the essence of probation work is the relationship between officer and client, there has to be a degree of trust by both parties otherwise nothing meaningful can be achieved in terms of rehabilitation, let alone public protection. For this reason I have always felt it essential that the officer is as straight with the client as possible, because we want them to be straight with us. This gets to the heart of the argument contained in the thesis above because it presupposes that honesty on the part of the client will inevitably result in their situation being made worse. Our task on the other hand of course is to try and demonstrate that the childhood adage 'honesty is the best policy' is true.

It's not easy, but a vital part of the job. I well remember a case of a child sex offender, having been released from custody on licence and feeling able to tell me that his partner was pregnant. I had always been straight with him in explaining that firstly any new partner must be told of his past offending and secondly what the consequences would be if she became pregnant. At every stage I emphasised the importance that would inevitably be placed by the authorities on him demonstrating a willingness to be open and co-operative. Yes the child would almost certainly be removed at birth if the couple stayed together, but that the whole process towards ensuring a safe future for the child, hopefully living together with both parents, could be viewed positively if he was deemed open and honest. 

Probation officers are generaly not stupid and are always mindful of clients feeling it necessary to lie, obfuscate, minimise, distort, evade or manipulate. Officers may give the impression of having swallowed a particular line, but in my experience it's almost invariably counter-productive and pointless if there is a good working relationship between officer and client. An officer can only help a situation if they have as complete a picture as possible. The quid pro quo of course is that the officer is straight and fair with them in return. I have previously posted examples of this to the consternation of some, but this job is anything but straightforward and there are lots of grey areas where judgement and discretion have to be exercised.  It's this aspect of the job that has become much more difficult of course.


It's simply not true that someone on licence who loses their job or accommodation would be recalled. Of course there is a big difference if that person is a sex offender, but that just means the sooner the PO is made aware, the sooner alternative accommodation can be found. Such clients have top priority. Paradoxically, failure to inform the supervising officer of a change in circumstances would undoubtedly be grounds for recall in my book. Honesty is the best policy - honestly.