Generation Gap

Every now and then a particular post creates a bit more interest than most and my recent piece on OASys entitled 'Rubbish in - Rubbish out' is just such an example. I was particularly struck by the following comment from a relatively newly-qualified officer:-
  
"I agree with your points about the formulaic and prescriptive nature of OASys and how this can hugely impact on the quality of reports. I too feel that the system could be much improved. I remember reading an article during my training, in which it was argued that OASys far too readily reduces the individual to little more than the sum of sections 1-13. This is an idea that has really stuck with me, and one I am mindful of when proofing my reports.

However, the general tone of this entry makes me rather uncomfortable. The implication is that anyone who does not re-write their reports entirely, once 'generated', is doing a bad job and can't possibly submit a decent piece of work. Are you saying then, that all officers who have qualified in the past decade or so (and whom will have learnt to write their reports in this way) are doing a poor job?

The suggestion makes me feel a little indignant. Yes, I think we would benefit from a partial return to SIR style assessment. Yes, I think that OASys allows for incoherent and illogical reports – if the author doesn’t take the time to thoroughly proof-read and revise them. What I don’t agree with is the insinuation that, in making use of OASys to structure my PSR, I will only ever achieve a shoddy end product. Clearly some staff will have a greater capacity for report writing, larger vocabularies and more distinctive style; a poor report cannot be blamed on OASys alone. As for failing any creative writing test – when did a degree in language and literature become a prerequisite for the job?

I put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that my reports are as good as they can be, given the obvious time constraints. It’s fairly disheartening to hear that more experienced colleagues have such little regard for the work of more recently qualified officers."

For me this really does sum up the problem. Newer officers have only ever known a probation world utterly dictated by proscribed practice through OASys and National Standards. Older colleagues have the benefit, or disbenefit depending on the view taken, of having known the sun-lit uplands of pretty much unfettered professional discretion and judgement. It should not be that surprising that the two worlds sit uneasily alongside each other and I have previously described how trying to adjust drove me to several periods of extended sick leave due to stress.

Remember too that at the same time us older colleagues had to adjust to a change in ethos of the Service, away from its social work roots, to that of a Law Enforcement Agency. Training and recruitment moved from degree and CQSW courses at academic institutions, to NVQ and degree in-house training and distance learning. So what I'm trying to say in this blog should be seen in this context. I have also been hugely indignant and disheartened, both for myself and newer colleagues. 

In my view the author of the above has every right to feel indignant, but hopefully with the situation rather than the commentator. It has never been my intention to cause offence, but there is a generational issue in relation to OASys. Indeed Jonathan Ledger the NAPO General Secretary recently highlighted this during his evidence to the Justice Affairs Committee. Basically he said that opinion was divided on OASys depending on when people joined the Service. But I think there is reason to believe that newer colleagues are becoming increasingly disillusioned with current practice and are asking searching questions of older colleagues as to how things used to be done.

This trend is likely to increase, especially with the recent abandonment of the incredibly proscribed National Standards. As with older colleagues who have had to adjust to structural change, newer colleagues are finding this development unsettling as they are encouraged to use a greater degree of discretion and judgement - a situation they feel justifiably unprepared for.  

So, where does this leave OASys, particularly in relation to it being a rational and effective method of 'writing' court reports? It's barmy of course and as the author of the piece above confirms, the finished result is down to how much editing, tweaking, revision and proofing of the 'generated' text is thought to be necessary. I have previously said that by the way OASys is structured, the end result is likely to be focused on problems and issues, rather than strengths and positives and therefore not really likely to give a 'balanced' picture. I don't think that the proscribed format allows for a three-dimensional view of the offender or a passionate and well-argued case for a particular course of action. This has to be added later.

But why should it be like this? You wouldn't write an essay like this, would you? This is an unbelievably time-consuming, bureaucratic and clunky method of achieving something that then needs a whole lot more work on. In all honesty, wouldn't it be a brilliant idea to start with a blank sheet of paper, four basic headings and just write the damned thing? You know, like an essay?