Another day of well above average viewing figures, 3,194 yesterday and some spirited discussion of what it's like for PQiPs. So, the challenge becomes how to keep some momentum going? Maybe this, another fairly innocuous question:-
Perhaps the degree required to be a PO should be Sociology, not Criminology?"Certainly sociology used to be a component of the degree when I qualified, together with principles of social work, law and criminology. I honestly felt well prepared and informed, qualified in 2002, actually attended university two days per week."
*****
"I so very agree with all of the aforementioned, sociology is, or should be, a core component of probation officer training- it used to be, I also qualified in the early 90s and an old hand told me to really get to know the client, to really get to know them! That if I invested in them and got to understand their sense of social investment, or lack of it, I would find trauma. He was right, he was so very right!
Why Did They Do That?
Since starting this blog I've been reminded of the gulf between the right-wing tabloid press and probation and saddened although not hugely surprised by the apparent gulf between probation and the police. There appears to be a chasm of misunderstanding and an entrenched stereotypical view that basically says 'the police catch 'em and probation and the courts get 'em off'. In terms of offenders the thesis seems to go like this 'they know right from wrong; they've had their chance; they need locking up for longer; they need a harsh punishment'. This is coupled with the other part of the thesis that says the soft liberal hand-wringers 'excuse their behaviour; are easily fooled; are soft on crime; live in nice areas and don't get robbed'.
I want to try and tackle these myths. Although I might be clear about what probation does, why it does it and why it's worthwhile, clearly others disagree or are sceptical. I appreciate it is going to take some explaining because it isn't always straight forward, but I think it's worth giving it a try. If the job of a probation officer is about anything, it's about trying to understand why people do things. Why they acted in a particular way. To be honest I don't think there is anything very unusual about this as it's part and parcel of normal human nature. The difference is that as a probation officer the quest for understanding anti-social or criminal behaviour is at the heart of the job and a major component of our ethos.
It is only when you understand the reasons for certain behaviour that the first step can be made in trying to effect change. However understanding is not to be confused with excusing. I have heard it said that probation officers do not accept that offenders need take full responsibility for their actions. This is complete nonsense and the only limited exceptions that I can think of are those involving either a mental illness, learning disability or personality disorder. Normally our work very much involves getting an offender to accept responsibility for their actions and the underlying reasons that contributed towards them.
People always do things for a reason, but they may not always be conscious of why. Whether it's buying product A as opposed to product B. Choosing a career, life partner, how much to drink, what to eat, how to vote, whether to steal, to take drugs, to hit somebody are all examples of decisions. As often or not the explanation will be grounded in reasoning of some sort. It might be as a result of a careful weighing-up of the pro's and cons and it will be fairly self-evident. But on many occasions people do not make seemingly rational decisions. It could be that they acted on a whim, or prejudice, or ignorance, or impulse. Their reasoning might be affected by drugs, alcohol or emotional state. Every ones intellectual capacities are different, as are their life experiences. We've all been exposed to positive and negative role models, had good and bad experiences and all this affects the way decisions are made.
This may well all sound like teaching Granny how to suck eggs, but it lies at the very heart of what we are trying to do and why probation officers are expected to have some knowledge of sociology and psychology, amongst other things. In trying to arrive at an answer to the question 'why did they do that?' I've never found it particularly helpful to think in terms of 'good or bad' but rather try and stay focused on just trying to understand. Of course there are as many unique explanations as there are individual people and acts. This is why I have difficulty with much of the recent reliance on treatment programmes for offenders, as opposed to individual casework. It's one reason why I feel the programme approach is not being as successful as envisaged.
Probation becomes involved with somebody as a result of an action or set of behaviours. They might on the one hand be relatively minor such as theft from a shop or at the other extreme a single life changing event that involves serious injury or death. In each case there will be reasons or an explanation for the behavior, but this is not the same as a motive which is a much more narrow definition. The police are normally concerned to discover the latter, but not so involved with the former which has become one of our areas of expertise. After some years experience I can say that the process is not always either obvious or straight forward, but a good starting point is to ask of course.
In my small town there is a notorious nightclub that over the years has generated quite a bit of work for the police, NHS, local solicitors and probation. Each time I have been involved in writing a PSR for a common assault, ABH, or GBH I have asked 'why did you hit him/her? and the answer has invariably been 'because he/she looked at me/my partner funny'. It doesn't get you very far, but it does demonstrate the disinhibiting effect alcohol has when someone is already a little paranoid through long-term cannabis use or just feeling insecure or jealous in a relationship. None of this is an excuse though for denying responsibility for the behaviour, but it can help everyone, including the court and offender, to try and understand why it happened as a prelude to change.
"I so very agree with all of the aforementioned, sociology is, or should be, a core component of probation officer training- it used to be, I also qualified in the early 90s and an old hand told me to really get to know the client, to really get to know them! That if I invested in them and got to understand their sense of social investment, or lack of it, I would find trauma. He was right, he was so very right!
The interface between an individual and “society” is complex depending on social norms. That was why having probation officers from a broad sector of society worked, and because their framework was based on sociology. Hence why the CQSW was a starting point in PO qualification. The basic point of understanding of how an individual interacted with society. That with elements of psychology and criminology over 2 years with a 12mth probationary period, even after a degree, led us to be deemed professional."
--oo00oo--
Upon researching the subject, I was directed to some thoughts I penned in the early days of the blog, in fact Tuesday 18 January 2011 :-
Why Did They Do That?
Since starting this blog I've been reminded of the gulf between the right-wing tabloid press and probation and saddened although not hugely surprised by the apparent gulf between probation and the police. There appears to be a chasm of misunderstanding and an entrenched stereotypical view that basically says 'the police catch 'em and probation and the courts get 'em off'. In terms of offenders the thesis seems to go like this 'they know right from wrong; they've had their chance; they need locking up for longer; they need a harsh punishment'. This is coupled with the other part of the thesis that says the soft liberal hand-wringers 'excuse their behaviour; are easily fooled; are soft on crime; live in nice areas and don't get robbed'.
I want to try and tackle these myths. Although I might be clear about what probation does, why it does it and why it's worthwhile, clearly others disagree or are sceptical. I appreciate it is going to take some explaining because it isn't always straight forward, but I think it's worth giving it a try. If the job of a probation officer is about anything, it's about trying to understand why people do things. Why they acted in a particular way. To be honest I don't think there is anything very unusual about this as it's part and parcel of normal human nature. The difference is that as a probation officer the quest for understanding anti-social or criminal behaviour is at the heart of the job and a major component of our ethos.
It is only when you understand the reasons for certain behaviour that the first step can be made in trying to effect change. However understanding is not to be confused with excusing. I have heard it said that probation officers do not accept that offenders need take full responsibility for their actions. This is complete nonsense and the only limited exceptions that I can think of are those involving either a mental illness, learning disability or personality disorder. Normally our work very much involves getting an offender to accept responsibility for their actions and the underlying reasons that contributed towards them.
People always do things for a reason, but they may not always be conscious of why. Whether it's buying product A as opposed to product B. Choosing a career, life partner, how much to drink, what to eat, how to vote, whether to steal, to take drugs, to hit somebody are all examples of decisions. As often or not the explanation will be grounded in reasoning of some sort. It might be as a result of a careful weighing-up of the pro's and cons and it will be fairly self-evident. But on many occasions people do not make seemingly rational decisions. It could be that they acted on a whim, or prejudice, or ignorance, or impulse. Their reasoning might be affected by drugs, alcohol or emotional state. Every ones intellectual capacities are different, as are their life experiences. We've all been exposed to positive and negative role models, had good and bad experiences and all this affects the way decisions are made.
This may well all sound like teaching Granny how to suck eggs, but it lies at the very heart of what we are trying to do and why probation officers are expected to have some knowledge of sociology and psychology, amongst other things. In trying to arrive at an answer to the question 'why did they do that?' I've never found it particularly helpful to think in terms of 'good or bad' but rather try and stay focused on just trying to understand. Of course there are as many unique explanations as there are individual people and acts. This is why I have difficulty with much of the recent reliance on treatment programmes for offenders, as opposed to individual casework. It's one reason why I feel the programme approach is not being as successful as envisaged.
Probation becomes involved with somebody as a result of an action or set of behaviours. They might on the one hand be relatively minor such as theft from a shop or at the other extreme a single life changing event that involves serious injury or death. In each case there will be reasons or an explanation for the behavior, but this is not the same as a motive which is a much more narrow definition. The police are normally concerned to discover the latter, but not so involved with the former which has become one of our areas of expertise. After some years experience I can say that the process is not always either obvious or straight forward, but a good starting point is to ask of course.
In my small town there is a notorious nightclub that over the years has generated quite a bit of work for the police, NHS, local solicitors and probation. Each time I have been involved in writing a PSR for a common assault, ABH, or GBH I have asked 'why did you hit him/her? and the answer has invariably been 'because he/she looked at me/my partner funny'. It doesn't get you very far, but it does demonstrate the disinhibiting effect alcohol has when someone is already a little paranoid through long-term cannabis use or just feeling insecure or jealous in a relationship. None of this is an excuse though for denying responsibility for the behaviour, but it can help everyone, including the court and offender, to try and understand why it happened as a prelude to change.
Ah, the dangerous classes. People arent born criminal, they get sent to Eton to learn how to be venal, dangerous and narcissistic.
ReplyDeleteGive me the child until he/she is 7 and I will show you the man/woman- Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteProbation training should require a relevant degree AND prior experience. A return to social work training even better. These routes were removed to farm in more young recruits through sub-standard training. Qualification can now be achieved in 15 months. The result an abundance of young white female graduates fresh out of uni. Look where this has left Probation. High drop out rates. Staffing crisis. POs and Managers with no experience. Entire Probation regions assessed inadequate by HMIP.
ReplyDeleteI’ve known dozens of mature,experienced PSOs who don’t have a ‘relevant degree’ but who exhibited the highest standards of care towards their cases, as they have that which cannot be taught….that which cannot be swayed in a Mappa meeting….which stands its ground in a PSR and has its place in a well crafted Parom……and when your client tells you that they are thinking of ending their life can be the difference between thought and deed………compassion,it’s our USP or for the gen zs amongst us,it's our super power….use it wisely folks because sometimes it’s all we have left!
ReplyDelete14:05 just the qualities ALL practitioners should have. Let’s not start all this POs v PSO nonsense, it really is different grades to reflect different roles. The PQiP route is really challenging and requires significant commitment, we should never undermine those who complete this. Please know that every time this starts up on this blog it just dilutes the very real issues practitioners are having ie stress and burn out due to being allocated cases far in excess of agreed workloads, yes both practitioner grades. Those cases cannot be managed properly by either grade and results in victims, the person we supervise, the public and yes staff being failed. Just please stop letting Senior Managers off the hook by diverting the testament to this.
ReplyDeleteGive it a rest will ya pso do the same job it ain't no different only ones holding on is dreamin po. Pso deal with reality and accept the pay gap. This blog is loaded with pquip reality it's a paper over exercise to dump more on the weary. I accept when a PSR sir plain old court reports were required a po was a po with a real professional purpose. To analyse the circumstances of a client. They looked deep into their make up with structured interview techniques. Construct a social background report with indicators on triggers risks and in particular contributed to appropriate sentencing. A po had a working relationship that was not 10 mins and a pso will do that now. A po and they all had varying standard were bloody good at seeing who was dangerous and made it clear what had to be done. They saw offenders in jail parol curfews and regularly spoke with partners and identified risk to family. POS font do jack today any different to admin. The role of a po in court meant something to the bench. When a po gave evidence it was welcomed respected and reasoned. Today a po won't have any regard for a magistracy. In the days a po held magistrates meetings joint training and perspective taking justices were better placed. We had orders that could be worked with. In my mind a pquip is not a po a po role went today your admin with a fancy belief of no idea.
DeleteHas to be said at some point but I have left a tonne of role out beyond comparison simple as.
Please can someone let us know what areas are rated inadequate and how this compares to Scotland where Probation qualification is still Social Work. Would be interesting!
ReplyDelete18:00 so very true!
ReplyDelete