Probation and Police

I've been thinking of writing something about the relationship between probation and the police for some time and a recent query from a PC has finally prompted me to try and tackle the topic. Regular readers will be aware that Inspector Gadjets excellent blog was part of the inspiration for this blog and from time to time I'm tempted to add comments on certain of his posts. As other non-police officers have discovered, this can result in some startling responses from police officers and be somewhat akin to grabbing the lions tail. But the blogosphere is about debate and enlightenment as well as entertainment and it's in that spirit that I make my contributions. But in essence the question I have been posed is, what is the current relationship like and has it always been the same?. 

At the time I joined the Probation Service in 1985, most officers were in their late 40's and 50's and typically had joined following a career doing something else. Most were men, but along with the teaching profession after the Second World War, probation was in the vanguard of appointing women. The Service was set up by statute in 1907 and grew out of the work done by the Police Court Missionaries. Early on there was a strong Christian ethos within the Service and for example it was routine for staff to hold a prayer meeting at my office only a few years prior to my arrival. However this aspect faded away as 'professionalism' spread within the Service, hand in hand with the development of social work theory and the recognition of the importance of training. This was basically the period when to be a probation officer was a highly regarded position and officers enjoyed widespread respect.

Even so, I suspect that right from the beginning most people were confused as to exactly what the role of a probation officer was. For this reason it was customary when I joined for an experienced officer to talk to each new intake of officers at the County Police Training School. We also did 'exchanges' in those days and I was fortunate to spend a week trailing around with a beat bobby. I was never sure what he made of it, but for quite a few years I had new police officers spending a day with me in return, getting to know what the job entailed. Long before Youth Offending Teams and CPS was set up, a task given to me by the boss was the fortnightly 'cautioning panel' chaired by the local police Inspector. Over a cup of tea and biscuits, myself and a social worker used to do lighthearted battle with an Education Welfare Officer and the Inspector over which juveniles could be cautioned and which prosecuted. 

In 1985 the miners strike and its effects were still very raw and for years as a PO I had to try and deal with the ramifications. You became aware of numerous testimonies that did not paint the police in a favourable light, but I'm not aware that it ever interfered with my or the Service's professional relationships with the police. In truth there has always been close and quite frequent contact, especially with officers in the Child Protection, Domestic Violence and Sex Offender units. Until the Multi Agency Public Protection process was simplified, PO's regularly had the chance of discussing difficult and high risk cases with police officers and invariably it was our two agencies that had the best intelligence. Of course in more recent times contact has been cemented formally through Youth Offending Teams,  Prolific and Priority Offender projects and the new Integrated Offender Management process. 

In a sense though, none of this specialist or high level stuff touches the ordinary PC and their perception of probation and what the hell it's all about. To paraphrase, I suspect a significant view persists that basically 'the police 'catch 'em' and a soft liberal Probation Service conspires with an equally soft Judicial System to 'get 'em off'. Although I would say this is ridiculous and a grossly simplistic distortion and misrepresentation, I think most PO's have been aware of this view and the limited opportunity of countering it. It is unfortunate, because we have always had a shared responsibility towards public protection. It's just that our methods are necessarily different because we occupy very different parts of the CJS.

Police involvement with an offender basically ends at the time the file goes to CPS. We work with that person right through their sentence and in the past beyond voluntarily. Part of the trouble is that what we do is complex and not easily distilled into attention-grabbing soundbites for tabloid and public consumption. I suspect this is one reason why there has never been a significant TV drama series based on our work. But it has been one reason for this blog.

But there's another factor at play as well. Regular readers will be aware that I have discussed at some length the cultural revolution that has taken place within the Service over the last fifteen years or so. Probation Officers are no longer qualified social workers like myself and our mantra is no longer advise assist and befriend. We were officially dubbed a Law Enforcement Agency and are now joined at the hip to the Prison Service under the joint management of the National Offender Management Service.

A new breed of enforcement and punishment-orientated Probation Officers have been around for ten years, not to mention a growing army of mostly unqualified Probation Services Officers delivering what many of us old-timers would call a very different and less effective service. There is now a widespread perception that the formerly caring Service has given way to a somewhat purely punishment and enforcement-focused Service which many of us are not happy about. It has been suggested that our perception amongst police officers might have changed for the better as a result. Please tell me it hasn't!    

         

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.  

Coping is More Difficult

Following on from my recent piece about 'burnout', a couple of comments from newish colleagues has spurred me on to think about coping and why I think it's much more difficult nowadays.

Having proudly gained my degree and Certificate of Qualification in Social Work, I was absolutely delighted to get a sessional post as a PO quite quickly. Initially I was to cover for a colleagues absence on a temporary secondment to a maximum secure prison. I guess it should have felt more daunting at the time to be given an office, full caseload and responsibility from day one, but I just thought this was how it was done. The team of five colleagues were very supportive and I just got stuck in. I clearly made an impression because six months later when the permanent post was advertised, I sailed through the interview and was duly appointed to the substantive post as a Main Grade officer, complete with nameplate, Jarvis and a pleasant personal note from the Chief.

Appointment signalled the start of my 'confirmation' year. Effectively each newly qualified officer was on probation and had to be confirmed in post. But in those days there was an area-wide first year officers support group. We met monthly and were able to discuss in confidence with an experienced officer issues that were of concern. It was always good to know others were experiencing and feeling the same as you and as a group we could bring those concerns to the attention of management. It served myself and my other new colleagues well, but sadly it seems management became suspicious of it and some years later it was quietly abandoned. I suspect it was about the time that the paternalistic Personnel Department was transformed into a rather more malign Human Resources Department. 

I have said before that I feel the role of a probation officer back in 1985 was very much a vocation rather than a career. This was certainly how I perceived it and for that reason never harboured thoughts of promotion that would take me away from client contact, the very essence of the job. I realised the work would be stressful, but there were numerous ways in which you were supported and could gain strength. It seems hard to comprehend now but in those days we had authority, discretion and exercised judgement pretty much unhindered either by the Senior or the system. Team meetings made decisions based on discussion and democratic process, they were not opportunities for the boss to tell you what you would be doing! Of course the strength of the team, including the Senior, was one of the key support mechanisms in caring for each other and being able to avoid 'burnout.' 

Back then 'burnout'  was only likely to come about because of the work with clients. But the system formed part of the means of coping. There were all sorts of groups and opportunities for career development. I remember going to a Family Therapy Support Group, a Forensic Psychiatric Group and a Drug Interest Group to name just a few. Sadly the situation we have today is that the system is part of the problem and therefore affords little if any help in coping with the work. Managements command and control fetish through the computer has seen to that. In essence the clients are exactly the same. Their problems are not that different from when the Service started, but it seems to me that all the coping mechanisms officers had in the past in having sufficient capacity to undertake the work have been removed one by one. 

I'm afraid this is not going to be a post that ends happily. The really sad conclusion I've arrived at from bitter experience is that a PO can only last about five years in a field team doing the core role as a generic officer. For their own health and sanity I think they must do what so many of my former colleagues have done and move on to one of those less stressful specialist posts either in prison, a drug team or programmes even. Management don't see this as a problem of course. They applaud such moves as career development, but in reality that disguises the fact that front-line probation work is fast becoming an impossible job. Managers delude themselves into thinking that hundreds of applicants for a prison post means people are really keen on working in a prison. In fact it serves as a graphic indication of just how bad things are in field offices, but they won't have it of course.           

Releasing Lifers

It looks as if Sir David Latham, the chairman of the Parole Board, has decided to start the New Year by kicking off a debate about lifers and if the right ones are being released. In this interview with the BBC he raises the issue of accurate re-offending statistics for this group and whether they are 'robust' enough. Basically he seems to be accusing the Ministry of Justice of not knowing exactly how many released lifers go on to commit serious further offences. I'm really surprised by this and wonder if some sort of silly game is going on here? Is this a response to internal criticism from the MoJ about their poor performance in releasing prisoners?

In the scheme of things the numbers can't be that large and the information is all there. As every PO knows only too well, any offences committed by someone on Life Licence is the subject of lengthy reports to the Parole Board. Is this what he means by 'anecdotal' information? Surely someone can just count the reports up and prepare a spreadsheet? Anyway, he goes on to justify this query over statistics by saying that the Parole Board might be releasing the wrong people. I must say I have difficulty with that particular piece of logic, especially the implication that the Board might make different decisions if based on more accurate re-offending data. Surely you concentrate on each individual case, or am I missing something?

What is clear and I have mentioned this before, is that the number of lifers in the system is enormous and the Parole Board are releasing at a slower than ever rate. Sir David makes mention of the danger in Board members becoming even more 'risk-averse' and open to influence by adverse public comment, for example in relation to high profile cases such as Jon Venables. But I think there are other issues involved that are making life difficult for the Board. I really hate to be repetitive but it really does boil down to OASys. The problem is that Parole Board panel members, especially those that are ex SPO's, have been completely blinded by the supposed scientific basis of this magic system that in theory is able to assess risk. In contrast I have written extensively about its many failings that can be basically summed up by that old phrase from the dawn of the computer age 'Rubbish in, rubbish out'.

Unfortunately at the very time the Parole Board have succumbed to the hype from NOMS about the effectiveness of OASys, they have been mostly robbed of the invaluable input of experienced probation officers through retirement and changes in working patterns. PO's used to keep the same lifers for years and this was regarded as excellent practice. Typically a 'pair' was assigned as well to ensure continuity, but sadly none of this happens anymore. As a consequence the quality of knowledge, assessments and crucially recommendations to the Board has deteriorated. Added to this, the vital contribution of an Independent Report from a Panel member who used to visit and interview each lifer was stopped for cost reasons.

When all this is taken into account, I think you can begin to see why Panel members must seem like frightened rabbits staring at the headlights when faced with extraordinary decisions about releasing people. They simply don't feel confident in the information they are getting and as a result endlessly defer decisions. The situation is so bad in relation to IPP prisoners that the recent Green Paper has indicated that the Parole Board will have to apply a new test of 'dangerousness', a lower threshold than at present when considering this group for release. I think that says to me that OASys just might be sidelined for IPP cases. Well it's a start I suppose.      

Court Duty

Lets be honest, Court Duty is not every probation officers idea of a productive use of time and in my experience most male colleagues seem to have an aversion to wearing a tie in any event. Personally, having gone through university with a beard and looking scruffy, I really enjoyed the chance to smarten up when I got my first job as a sessional PO. I've worn a tie to work ever since, but this is even less the norm nowadays. It has meant that I have always been ready to attend court in an emergency or in response to a phone call that one of my regulars was about to appear. The Magistrates Court is only a brisk five minute walk away and many a time I've been able to do a quick 'standown' verbal report on a persons progress, or lack of, thus saving much time and trouble all round. 

In the early days, all members of the team had to take it in turn to standby for Magistrates Court duty one day a week if the dedicated officer was not available for any reason. This happened fairly frequently as he was not a well man and of course the disruption to your carefully planned day was considerable. As it happens our office used to be located immediately beneath the County Court and in the days when we also wore the dual hat of Divorce Court Welfare Officers, the Judge would often tell someone to ring down and 'send a probation officer up'. Guess who that normally was given that apart from the Senior, I was normally the only male wearing a tie. Incidentally, this was only just after the time that it was compulsory for female colleagues to wear a hat in court and the 'office hat' was still very much present, hung up in the general office. 

Eventually this ad-hoc method of staffing the court gave way to a dedicated team and it wasn't for another 17 years before I found myself back on a regular basis in court. In essence the ability to be a good Court Duty Officer in my view is being able to think ahead, anticipate what is likely to happen and be prepared for it. Having good contacts with the solicitors helps enormously, but as anyone knows who is involved with magistrates courts, the most important person without a shadow of doubt is the usher. As many a solicitor has found out to their cost, you irritate or annoy the usher at your peril. They are the key person who keeps business flowing. They decide the batting order and are incredibly knowledgeable about everything from where a missing solicitor might be, to roughly how long each case will take. Our court has some of the best in the business and I feel so sorry for them that sadly it's one destined for closure.

Of course good information is only part of the job of a CDO. The other key part is being able to address the Bench completely authoritatively, invariably at a moments notice. Often from the minimum of notes you have to try and help convince them of the virtue of a particular course of action, whether it be for a standown, a fast delivery report or adjournment for a full PSR. You also have to be following proceedings closely in order to have the confidence to butt in at an appropriate moment either with information, a request for clarification or a helpful suggestion. Obviously this only really comes with a degree of experience and it can be a little scary when it's the District Judge sitting rather than a lay bench. I learnt the hard way that it really isn't a good idea to try and dissuade such a person from a particular course of action when they had made up their mind, but he smiled as he politely put me right.  

I didn't think I'd enjoy my time as a full time CDO as it felt like being put out to grass after my period off with stress, but by the time management decided the job was for PSO's only, I genuinely didn't want to go. I enjoyed the opportunity to be able to step in on difficult cases, like defendants that I could see had a learning disability, emotional problem or mental health issue and ensure that the court were aware and followed suggestions for appropriate disposals or assessment. I saved quite a few people from inappropriate custody or other disposals with an FDR done typically in an hour. I gave hours and hours of advice and counselling to defendants often in quite a state, either in the cells or the tiniest of interview rooms and it reminded me why I chose this line of work in the first place. In short it turned out that court duty is in fact still an important opportunity to practice some good old-fashioned probation work, if the interest and skill is there.  

   

   

A View From The Other Side

One of the many fascinating aspects of this once wonderful job is the chance you get to meet interesting people on a daily basis. I have always loved talking to people and to be paid to do it for a living always struck me as not a job at all, but merely an extension of everyday life. All the endless bureaucratic irritations introduced over recent years can be forgotten in the privacy of the interview room, so far away from the prying eyes and ears of management as video recording has yet to be introduced there.

It's difficult to explain the buzz you get from knowing virtually nothing about a person at the beginning beyond their name, offence, date of birth and address and absolutely no idea where the conversation and subsequent journey will take you. A meaningful dialogue is vital. Some people you might only meet once or twice. Some you will spend a significant part of your life getting to know. All types, all ages, all backgrounds, all dispositions. I would not be human if I didn't admit to enjoying a challenge on occasion and particularly an intellectual one. This can come from any number of directions, but in my experience most frequently from the very long-term prisoner or 'lifer'. 

In trying to find material to keep this blog fed, I've found myself paying rather closer than normal attention to the excellent Probation Journal published quarterly in conjunction with Sage and NAPO. In the September 2010 edition my eye was attracted to an article by Jon Keeler, a long term prisoner presently residing at HMP Long Lartin. To my knowledge this is unique and makes a welcome change from the usual academic and practitioner contributions, worthy though they almost invariably are. In quite a lengthy and very competant piece, Jon has some pretty strong words of criticism for the Probation Service generally and probation officers in particular. He documents the change in ethos of the Service so often lamented on here, but goes much further in cataloguing in forensic detail the effect it's all had on a large part of our clientele, namely the long-term prisoner.

Until I read this article I really hadn't appreciated how probation officers are currently perceived by such inmates - it seems we're now the enemy, barely indistinguishable from the police or prison officers. Apparently they now even use the same terms of abuse previously only reserved for the police and prison staff. Ordinary members of the public might not find this surprising, given their perception of what they think we do, but I'm deeply saddended by it and can appreciate how it's come about. Pretty much it can be summed up by the dreaded acronym OASys. 

Jon confirms the widely held view that the whole ghastly thing was foisted upon the Probation Service as a result of being an unwilling bride in an arranged marriage with the Prison Service. He goes on to say "The effect on us, the prisoner-wards of this unhappy relationship, is a form of abuse in which the probation service is complicit." Strong stuff indeed, but confirming something we might be tempted to lose sight of, namely that all the endless crap that is fed into OASys on a daily basis, affects peoples lives. 

I have seen no end of unsubstantiated gossip and tittle tattle masquerading as evidence or assessments and typically input by inexperienced and barely trained prison officers that then sits there for months, only to be built upon by other officers further down the line without challenge. As we all know, OASys is about risk assessment and the basis on which progress through the prison system is now determined, but the system is becoming completely unfit for purpose by being full of inaccuracies, unsubstantiated and subjective assessments and scores that vary for seemingly no good reason at all. Jon sums the situation up by making the observation that "It is an irony that the process of objectification of prisoners may have the unintended consequence of deskilling the processors. As they reduce prisoners to the single dimension of their offence category, in OASys they are themselves reduced from professionals able to use judgements about people based on training and experience to mere box-ticking technicians."  

In part defence I feel I have to say that most OASys documents on long-term prisoners were initiated and subsequently maintained by prison staff. Probation officers, when exercising the so-called 'offender manager' role are only able to request temporary 'ownership' of the OASys document for short periods when they are faced with the almost impossible task of trying to amend, update and improve an already completed document. This takes hours and to be honest often results in a 'dogs breakfast' unless a complete re-write is attempted. I would also say that sadly one motive for bringing in OASys in the first place was so that it could indeed be filled in by less well-trained 'technicians'. 

Jon's very lengthy article covering many aspects of probation work ends on a particularly bleak note by stating that meaningful contact with his probation officer has become impossible and all that is left "is a running battle over the accuracy of information in OASys and the competance of assessors."  We know that only 24% of our time is available for client contact and prison visits are necessarily curtailed by this and cost restraints. Perhaps not surprising then he sums up with the insightful comment "I can think of no better description of the probation service, as experienced by prisoners, than a deceptive substitute for real contact." Oh dear. What a monster has indeed been created in the shape of OASys and the damned computer.  

Burnout

When I was at University studying for a degree and social work qualification, the term 'burnout' was often bandied about. It was used to describe a state whereby the pressures of the job got so great that the practitioner became incapacitated and in extreme cases would be in danger of suffering a nervous breakdown. It was a clearly recognised condition and occupational hazard for both social workers and probation officers. It was accepted that the work in both fields would inevitably involve becoming emotionally embroiled in clients difficulties, at the same time as it being necessary to sometimes exercise extreme degrees of control that ultimately lead to the removal of children or loss of liberty. 

Strangely I've never heard the term used since, it seemingly having been replaced by the concept of 'work-related stress' instead. The trouble is we all know that a degree of stress is necessary for a full and active life, so the term has never seemed to me to be a suitable replacement for a way of describing the completely debilitating state you get into when you cannot face work any more.

It happened to me several times after 18 years trouble-free service. The first time I didn't really notice it creeping up on me, but I did notice some strange things, like driving past the motorway exit I'd used virtually every working day. Like getting home and not remembering seeing any of the traffic lights. Waking up in the middle of the night for no apparent reason. The pile of PSR's to complete never seeming to go down and the demands on my time appearing to be never ending. Then something happened. In my case it was seeing a long-standing client with intractable problems and I'd simply run out of ideas. I had no answers and unusually I found I couldn't even find the energy to actively engage him. I found myself sending him away leaving me feeling utterly desolate. All I can remember is tidying my normally very chaotic desk and leaving the office, knowing that I would not be returning the next day. 

The GP was very sympathetic and understood my reasons for declining anti-depressants. I opted for counselling instead. Although I kept all eight appointments diligently, the poor counsellor must have known she had an unenviable task in trying to counsel a fellow professional. I made it as easy as possible for her and refrained from pointing out some major errors, but in the end I found it was really only the passage of time and the 'letting go' that gets you through it. I don't think I got dressed on most days and hardly ever left the house for several months.

Until it happened to me, I hadn't really appreciated how the changes in the Probation Service were having such an insidious effect. I'd put all my energy into adjusting, coping and dealing with clients in the way I'd always done and been taught. Clearly it had simply never occurred to management either that changing the whole ethos of the Service just might possibly be damaging to some of its staff. That's been one of the saddest bits of the so-called cultural revolution within the Service really.  

Lets Do Something Different

The Justice of the Peace Blog highlights the sort of story which really gets me annoyed for a whole variety of reasons. He quotes the recent case of a 54 year old itinerant man from Neath who has 220 previous convictions and was in court for breaching an ASBO given in 2007 and which prohibits his presence in a small part of the town centre. He clearly has a chronic alcohol problem and I'm guessing most of his convictions are drink-related and a good number will be for petty offences such as Drunk and Disorderly. 

I have previously discussed similar cases and described how up until the mid 1980's there was a network of hostels and night shelters for such people run by the likes of the Salvation Army, Church Army the DHSS and Local Authorities. They have virtually all closed and been replaced with a smaller and much more highly regulated and bureaucratic regime of projects for the homeless. The trouble is that hardly any are direct access, ie open 24/7 and virtually all have complicated referral and selection criteria.

Now all this is understandable and commendable at the level of professionalism, health and safety etc etc., but of course people like the chap from Neath never quite fit the criteria. He and I suspect many hundreds of other similar men - and it is mostly men because Local Authorities still have some statutory obligation towards women and young people - simply fall through the net. When they cause a problem, society in the form of the Courts just want them moved on in classic Elizabethan-style to the town boundary, a method enforced nowadays by an ASBO. Alternatively they are just incarcerated for a few days before the whole process repeats itself again. Everyone wrings their hands, says nothing can be done and secretly hope that they turn up on someonelses door, or die. 

Over the years I have taken a close professional and personal interest in such cases as our chap from Neath. Until he had a stroke and was eventually housed in a sheltered housing complex, I regularly supervised a man in his 70's who was the subject of a ten year ASBO which amongst other things, forbade his entry into the town of his birth unless to see me. I still find this approach to dealing with such social problems as nothing short of astonishing and will be glad to see the back of the whole damned concept shortly. 

Anyway, back to Neath man, what do we do with him next time he appears in Court? He will of course within days because it is quite unfair and naive to think he can 'turn his life around'  by himself and motivated by a good telling off.  My answer is simple, but will be unpopular. He's given a Community Order with supervision for 12 months, whatever the probation FDR or SDR says. I say this because invariably either will categorically say 'there is nothing the Probation Service can do'. What that really means is that they don't want to get involved as it will be too difficult, for a new-style officer anyway.

Well I beg to differ and in any event the permission of the Probation Service is not required to make such an order. If it leads to trouble, an interesting dialogue can be opened up as to exactly which agency is responsible for trying to tackle this mans offending, if it is not the Probation Service? Homelessness should not be a bar to such an order either. True it is unusual to give a Community Order to someone who is homeless, but there are precedents and the legislation does not stipulate that an address is required. Care should be taken to question the Probation Service closely should the order be returned to court as 'unworkable'. Do they really mean 'difficult'?

This man will have been on probation before and there will be a very thick file held in the dead file store. My guess is that he will have been very well known and may well have some history of violent offending, so his risk level may not be that low. This might be significant because of the probation mantra 'resources follow risk'. I'm even prepared to go that bit further and help write the supervision plan for the hapless colleague who might get the case.

This chap requires someone to talk to on a regular basis in order to get the full history (if not in the file). This will build a relationship and help to discover the reasons behind his downward spiral. There may well be health issues in addition to the alcohol and my guess is he has no GP. The PO can sort that as it is a statutory obligation to have one allocated. This advocacy function can be extended to discussion with the solicitor in order to prepare a case for lifting the ASBO. He may well have special needs that require involvement from Social Services and it will require all the skills of a PO to get them to agree responsibility, but that will lead to assessments and then appropriate referrals to possible housing providers.

I could go on, but I hope readers get the gist. It is ridiculous, callous and inhumane for society to continue to allow men like this to carry on being ignored when they clearly need help. We have an appropriate agency of the State sitting on the sidelines currently saying it's nothing to do with them. They just need a nudge and a reminder as to how it used to be done. So lets do something different next time.    

A Slow News Day

Whilst still in bed and coming round this morning, I caught the tail end of an item on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme about mothers who are imprisoned and what happens to the children in such cases. I heard someone from the charity PACT, the Prison Advice and Care Trust saying that 'of course the Probation Service used to check up on things like that, but not since the creation of NOMS'. I'm not at all sure what this means because every agency, whether public or voluntary, has a duty of care towards children and probation Court Duty Officers will still routinely ask about children (and pets) when a person receives custody or is remanded for any reason.

However, circumstances sometimes prevent a post-custody interview at court before the person is shipped off to the nearest Local Prison's reception. It is true to say that there never has been a statutory system for investigating if a person who receives custody has any children for whom they are responsible. People are asked at various stages in the process, for instance on reception, but action is only taken by informing Social Services if they disclose information. As reported in the Guardian, PACT have prepared a report calling for 'A simple statutory system to track the whereabouts and welfare of such children.' I'm not at all sure how any statutory system of checking would work, or that it would be simple. I think it would be considerably bureaucratic and expensive for very little possible return beyond the ad-hoc system that operates at the present.

It strikes me as a potential nightmare along the lines of the Criminal Records Bureau and you will recall that the government eventually had to concede the futility of getting everyone to register, no matter what contact they had with children. Any comprehensive system would have to include all prisoners, not just females as some men will no doubt have child care responsibilities. Only the Police, Social Services and NSPCC have investigatory powers in relation to children and in the present spending climate piling yet another duty upon any of these agencies seems most unlikely. I think this has all the hallmarks of a slow news day story.     

So, What of 'What Works'?

Just recently there has been a spirited and welcome resurgence in debate on the NAPO forum pages and I was particularly interested in contributions from people about 'programmes'. I discover that I am not alone in feeling that the whole headlong rush into the pseudo-science based 'treatment' model of offenders was ill-thought out, based on dodgy research and ideologically-driven. Rob Palmer neatly sums up the situation thus:-

"Programmes are proving of limited value because, increasinlgy, they are seen as stand alone 'cures' for the targetted behaviour and not part of a wider intervention as they were in the pre-what works days.

The fact remains that the only way to secure change is for trained professionals to spend long enough with the people they work with to a) learn what makes them tick and b) find which of the myriad ways of working available will meet their particular need. This continued search for a magic bullet, be that the perfect assessment tool or the perfect programme, is a fools errand that comes from business models that are about efficiency NOT effectiveness. The increasing reliance on the efficient production of a useless product is what is killing our credibility. We need a model of intervention like the medical profession. Managers manage resources, clinicians manage treatment . The current arrangements see bureaucrats determining the most appropriate means of addressing offending behaviour."


I have recently discussed the whole sorry saga initiated under the 'What Works' agenda and how funding cuts are at last causing a critical eye to be cast over the whole expensive probation programme industry. Just by way of a re-cap, here is Martin Gosling, a former SPO writing in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 25th July 2009:-

"A cornerstone of traditional probation supervision was the establishment of a relationship between the offender and the supervising officer who, in earlier times, was enjoined to befriend each one of his flock. By adjusting the content, frequency and pace of interviews to the circumstances, characteristics, deficits and abilities of each individual, an officer was able to anticipate crises and was permitted to be flexible in enforcing sanctions if a longer term goal could be achieved by their postponement. Against this background the greatest effect of the revolution on previously well established probation practice has been the introduction of “what works” theory and “evidence based” interventions."

"One of the most startling pronouncements from the newly created National Probation Directorate was that all previously existing forms of probation intervention with offenders were ineffective, unproven and unscientific. They would be replaced by accredited forms of groupwork that would teach cognitive skills to those offenders, in custody and in the community, who demonstrated measureable deficits in their thinking patterns. Such was that emphasis given to this diktat that in prisons where groups were being run by seconded probation staff — victim awareness; addressing relationships and others — governors issued instructions that they should be immediately halted, even if mid-way through, and should not be completed. In the eyes of the new regime, established probation theory was de trop. The old methods were deemed primitive and a waste of everybody's time."

The trouble is that the whole 'What Works' bandwagon that we so enthusiastically imported from North America and took up whole-heartedly here, we have been busy exporting with prosletising zeal to the rest of Europe. Here we have the Council of European Probation reporting on a STARR conference held in 2010 on the very topic of 'What Works' and its spread into Eastern Europe. It seems that the somewhat grandly named Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Re-offending has been set up specifically for the purpose, but a hint of trouble is belied in the statement that 'Those Brits are trying to conquer Europe with their programmes approach.' But the CEP says it is a neutral broker, trusted by all member nations. My advice to our European colleagues is to watch what happens over here in the coming months as I suspect there will shortly be some official doubts being expressed as to the efficacy of 'What Works' after all.