It's always good to have your prejudices reinforced or beliefs confirmed, but it never ceases to draw a wry smile through gritted teeth when academics come up with what just seems to be the bloody obvious. Apparently, according to issue 16 of the NOMS Offender Engagement Research Bulletin, clients respond better to good probation officers than crap ones. Yes I know that might take a bit of thinking about, but in a survey of seven male probationers (no expense spared on this piece of research), all of whom had a long history of offending and a large range of offences:-
"The results suggested that certain characteristics (acceptance, respect, support, empathy and belief) were associated with supervisors 'who worked' and produced a positive climate for change. Conversely, an absence of these characteristics (rejection, a lack of respect, no support, a lack of empathy and a lack of belief) were linked to those supervisors 'who didn't work'."
It goes on:-
"In respect of challenging offender behaviour, the probationers argued that they valued an effective supervisor who was 'straight, direct and honest', a skill that was called ' pro-social push'. The probationers suggested that in order for pro-social push to be possible, a positive climate for change is essential. If the building blocks of acceptance, respect, support, empathy and belief are absent, the probationers stated, challenges by a supervisor were largely ignored and perceived as an 'abuse of power' as well as promoting a 'them and us' culture."
So there we have it in a nutshell folks. The secret after all lies in having a good probation officer. It seems from this evidence that crap officers not only don't work too well, their piss poor practice can be positively dangerous too. Look what one probationer had to say:-
"I finished my meetings with her and went straight to the pub, got drunk and went home to argue."
Another commented:- "I left the session and was so angry I went to the pub, got drunk and went out offending."
I know I shouldn't mock Sarah Lewis of Portsmouth University because she's only doing her job, but this kind of stuff really does make officers of a certain age just a tad irritable. So, on the basis of the bombshell contained here, I think I'll just sign off and reflect on my own practice.
"but this kind of stuff really does make officers of a certain age just a tad irritable"
ReplyDeleteNo one could accuse you of not being predictable hey Jim especially where there's a chance to insinuate us 'new' officers don't 'get it'! Its a shame as I actually like your blog but this old officer good, new officer bad undertone does get a touch annoying after the thousandth mention.
Not sure that's what Jim means. After 30 years of probationing I can confidently say that in every bunch of roses there will always be a few pricks but age,training, gender,grade,length of service,etc has nothing to do with it. Rather it's old gits like me (and Jim?) who are amused (me) or a tad irritable (Jim) by the style of work we learned (which many "new" officers also do get) being rehashed and rebranded as something new.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of the study is to provide some sort of systematic basis for a fairly common gut feeling. The things that seem obvious sometimes turn out to be wrong. Also, there might in fact be room for debate about what a good probation officer is like, if not among probation officers then among others. Showing ex-prisoners support, respect and empathy is, after all, not the kind of attitude promoted in much of the popular press.
ReplyDeleteDot 22,
DeleteYes, you are right. The thing is it just makes some of us very grumpy having to keep re-inventing the wheel and being told the bloody obvious on a regular basis. What we'd really love is to just get on with things unhindered, with a computer system that actually worked and not have to waste time every day filling in crap like OASys. It's time talking to people that is the key to it all - simple as.
Thanks for commenting Dot 22,
Cheers,
Jim
TheurbaneGorilla,
ReplyDeleteYes you're right - there have always been complete pricks in the job right from the beginning - indeed I think I'd put my first SPO in that category. On this occasion I wasn't intending to rehash the old verses new argument, but I can see how it might feel implied, so apologies to anon above. It was always meant to be a bit more of a nuanced point anyway and some of my best friends, as they say, are newer officers. In some of my less grumpy moments of course I'm more than happy to agree that many newer officers do indeed 'get it' but it was often in spite of the training they got.
As always, thanks for commenting guys.
Cheers,
Jim