As a Trainee Probation Officer I have drawn from my academic study within foundation skills and methods of how and why we need to gather information from offenders, and undergone in house training of how I put such information to use. This information is used to make an initial assessment of their needs and to assess the possible risks they may pose (through filling out the OASys forms), and takes the resulting form of a supervision plan. The need to gather information at certain times is largely dictated through the framework of National Standards (2000), which were issued by the secretary of state and apply to all probation services in England and Wales. Among the requirements set out are……

1. Services to take all reasonable steps to ensure the offenders are supervised in accordance with the principles of effective practice.
2. Full and accurate records to be kept.
3. That standards be adhered to in all but exceptional standards.

                         National standards requirements (2000)

The preliminary stage of the assessment takes the form of the induction, which is the first meeting between the client and the supervising officer. As a general rule inductions are carried out by a specific officer, but as a trainee I wanted to carry out the inductions for my cases, and so the initial assessment began at this stage. In the case of MM I had to go through various forms relevant to his order, and explain what was required of him throughout the order and what would happen should he not follow the requirements.  The programmes forms for his ETS attachment were also explained along with what ETS involved and what would be expected of MM. This offers a first assessment of the client’s ability to comprehend what is said and to an extent their literary ability and motivation to change can also be assessed. This initial meeting also brings to light any primary problems that the offender may have. I found the induction process to be laborious and littered with paperwork, but after completing two separate inductions I realized that offenders come to the service with varying levels of education and understanding, yet they are all required to understand what is expected of them throughout the order, and what would happen should they not comply.

When conducting initial meetings with the client, with the main purpose being to gather information, motivational interviewing is a technique that I have learned about throughout the academic modules and I have applied it in practice. A clear definition of the technique was forwarded by Miller and Rollnick (1991)….

“Motivational interviewing is a directive, client centred counseling style for eliciting behaviour change by helping clients to explore and resolve ambivalence.”

It is my view that this interviewing technique encourages the client to openly engage in giving the information needed by the probation officer. This is largely due to the fact that direct persuasion, aggressive confrontation and argumentation are not associated with motivational interviewing, and it is these traits that restrict the flow of information and cause the client to be more defensive, difficult and/or reclusive. This is highlighted again by Miller and Rollnick (1991) who state further that…….

“the therapeutic relationship is more like a partnership or companionship than expert/recipient roles. The therapist respects the client’s autonomy and freedom of choice (and consequences) regarding his or her own behaviour.”

This is something I not only practice, but developed and appreciated throughout the traineeship.

Essentially this type of theoretical intervention within practical situations has allowed me to gather information on a more effective, practical manner by allowing the client to see that a partnership exists between the probationer and the offender and that specific goals are worked towards to change their behaviour, rather than coercion. Another type of theoretical intervention drawn from my academic study is the functionalist ‘systems theory,’ which states that by intervening in one system it may have an impact on others. In the case of CC she has stated that she is unemployed, depressed, bored and drinks too much alcohol. I referred CC to an employment agency in the aim that by securing employment it will have a positive impact on her depression, boredom and alcoholism, or in other words it will impact on her other systems.

Theoretical interventions are an effective means not only of gathering information, but also of assessing the motivation of individuals to change their behaviour. This is no more apparent that in the ‘cycle of change’ proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente in 1982. The model is represented as a cycle of change containing stages through which people will pass;

  1. CONTEMPLATION

               2. ACTION

                    3. MAINTANANCE

                          4. RELAPSE

Assessing a client’s motivation provides evidence of the risk they present and the objectives that need to be targeted in terms of an offender’s criminogenic need. Furthermore the offenders willingness to accept supervision can also be highlighted by identifying their readiness to contemplate reducing, for example, their intake of drugs or alcohol should they have an issue in that particular area. This acceptance to change would highlight a transition from the area of contemplation to one of action, or from stage 1 to 2 in the cycle of change.

A further assessment tool used within the primary stages of supervision is a self assessment questionnaire (SAQ) for the offender to fill out, and it is a primary attempt at assessing the client’s criminogenic needs and subsequent risk to the community. The completion of this form enables the probation officer to identify what the client feels about factors that affect a cross section of their life, and I have found it an extremely useful tool when producing a supervision plan in terms of assessing an offenders needs. There is also a form called ‘Fast Track,’ which originates from the basic skills agency and is used to identify any literary or numerical problems an offender may have. Presuming an offender can read and write and consequently preceding to let them read their induction forms or supervision plans is not just bad practice, it is unacceptable. However during my initial interviewing periods I have been guilty of such presumptions, but have rectified this through experience and talking to colleagues. Once these two primary assessment tools have been completed, the combined information of the tools and the initial interview are used to complete the relevant OASys forms (including the risk assessment forms) and then the initial supervision plan, which encapsulates the needs and risks of the offender, and how the offender, his supervising officer and other agencies will meet those needs and reduce any risk posed to either the public, probation staff or to the offenders themselves through self harm.

The self assessment form is inherently subjective and if used solely to produce an OASys and supervision plan would distort the scale of risk posed by an individual. However when completing an OASys the use of actuarial information helps to balance that equation and produce an assessment that draws both subjectively (primarily the needs of the offender) and objectively (primarily the risk posed by the offender) and combines the two

In the case of CC I produced a supervision plan which stated that one of her needs was to gain employment, and she reiterated that aim by wanting to be able to produce a CV, improve her computer skills and learn more about how her past convictions might affect her future employment prospects with relation to the rehabilitation of offenders act 1979. I introduced her to an agency that could help her with such problems, (Developing Initiatives for Support in the Community), and we discussed the positives and negatives that may result from such an intervention. We discussed the positives, which were her chances of gaining employment would increase, and with that her confidence and competence in having IT skills and interview techniques. Her negative views stemmed from a previous experience with a similar agency, which she stated did not benefit her and after a few appearances she no longer attended. There was also a discussion surrounding how her alcohol use may interfere with the course, and she assured me that once on the programme she would reduce her alcohol consumption as she would have a new optimism regarding her future. However I warned her that the programme staff would not tolerate an individual who attended whilst under the influence of alcohol and she acknowledged that fact.

In relation to an addiction, which in the case of CC is alcohol, I had to assess her readiness to reduce her consumption in order for her to make some positive changes in her life through the intervention of DISC. This can be linked to the stages of the cycle of change in that CC had contemplated tackling her problems and was now ready to move onto the action stage of the cycle. However it was the maintenance of her change that concerned me the most and she will need a lot of support to sustain a change so great within her life. I decided to take CC to the employmetn interventions headquarters for an initial interview and myself, CC and the course administrator discussed possibilities surrounding training, skills and employment opportunities. She is now assessing the options for training that they have offered her.

In the case of JJ I had a lack of knowledge surrounding the subject of HIV, which this particular individual has. The lack of understanding was based around not only the physical dynamics of the illness, but also on the procedures and guidelines laid out by the probation service. I felt as a trainee that this type of case was too much of a high risk case for me, but on reflection the case offered a different type of experience and I felt no apprehension towards working with HIV sufferers. The first point of gathering information came from the IT systems within the service, which produced Policies and Strategies on HIV. The policy states…

   ‘XXXXXXXX probation service recognises that

     in the light of its responsibilities as an employer

     a clear statement of policy is required in relation

     to the virus known as HIV.’

The policy clearly aims to protect the health of its employees, service users and the public, yet at the same time not deny a lesser service because he/she has HIV or a related illness.

Whilst searching for information on the IT system I also found a telephone number for the GUM department/clinic, which deals with any individual affected by HIV or Aids. I telephoned the department and spoke to KK regarding the HIV illness, and asked for any information to be sent to my office on the subject. Of particular interest, I added, was information on any support groups as JJ has not attended one for a substantial amount of time, and in future supervision sessions his needs may require information on just that. The information was received a few days later, and I discussed issues surrounding HIV with JJ, and his attitude towards support groups. I passed some of the information I received to JJ to read at his leisure, and think about some of the advantages and disadvantages of re-attending a support group, to be discussed at a later date.

The receiving of the above information lead me to search the Internet for additional information, with particular emphasis given to the type of drugs available for the types of treatment available and the possible side effects of these combinations. The information gathered resulted in me beginning to have a basic understanding of HIV, the procedures in place within the workplace and the opportunities available for JJ in the future, which all contribute to the needs and possible risks that accompany this particular individual. At this point I realized that at my workplace we had no readily available information on HIV (as opposed to accommodation/mental health-which there are binders full of information for) and so I created a folder for the floor specifically on HIV information/policy etc…

Contributing to the assessment of criminogenic need extends beyond simply gathering information from the offender, and so I have gathered information most notably on housing issues as many of my cases have issues with housing. This has resulted in me writing letters to support my client’s applications for housing, sending referrals to housing agencies on behalf of my clients, contacting various voluntary groups via the Internet, visiting hostels and reviewing some resources available within the probation service.

In terms of gathering information within the agency there is the CRAMS programme (Discussed in KLO 7) which initially alerts us to any risk the offender may pose. There are also the case files themselves, which possess pre-convictions, CPS papers and past OGRS scores which also give initial indications of possible risks posed. However public protection is a multi agency component, and so the probation service shares the task with other agencies such as the police, prison service, child protection unit and the victim support unit. As my traineeship progresses I feel that the number of agencies I use to exchange information in the assessments of risk will continually increase and become much more important as the level of risk posed by individuals increases with my caseload.

Assessments are not only made from gathering primary information and so on many occasions there is a need to re-assess in the light of additional information being gathered from a client. In the case of CC she attended one of our supervision sessions and informed me that she had committed a second crime whilst on her current CRO. We discussed the circumstances and motivations surrounding the crime, and the likely outcomes of her court appearance. The resultant sentence was a new 12 month CRO replacing her 9 month CRO, and so in the light of this additional information I had to re-assess her OASys forms, but perhaps more significantly the risk section and her new OGRS score, which would of increased due to this new information. As a probation officer I have learnt that ‘new information’ frequently appears, and so the need to be able to assess and re-assess information is vital to the carrying out of effective practice.

Assessment is a key phase of contemporary probation work, and it has been discussed in KLO 7 in relation to the use of language that is none pejorative and anti-discriminatory. However when assessing an offender it is an absolute necessity to provide an anti-discriminatory service to each individual, regardless of ethnicity, gender, age etc…. Discrimination can be defined as…

‘treating an individual less favourably, either on racial grounds, or on grounds of their sex or marital status or any other characteristic than others would be treated in the same circumstances.’

Discriminating against someone at the assessment stage ultimately leads to an inaccurate and unfair appraisal of their needs and risk, which is essentially bad practice. XXXXXXX Probation Board have numerous anti-discriminatory policies which I have read, including its ‘Equal opportunities policy,’ whereby XXXXXX is committed to…

1. ensuring the fair and equal treatment of all people with whom staff have contact.
2. opposing all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origin, gender, age disability, language ability, religion or sexual orientation.

As a professional I must adhere to the policy set out by the service, but I feel that I have to be aware that sometimes I may be discriminatory on an unintentional level. Most of my cases could induce discriminatory issues, including age (PP), gender (CC) and ethnicity (HH) issues. In the case of JJ I showed signs of discrimination by presuming that his HIV was contracted through needles as he is an ex drug user. Fortunately for me we discussed his illness in an initial assessment for the completion of OASys, and he informed me that he contracted it through homosexual activity. The valuable lesson taken from this episode was to not stereotype individuals, that is having a popularly held belief or generalisation about a particular group of people based on misleading assumptions or prejudices. This misinterpretation could have lead to the OASys being filled out inaccurately, which in turn would have mislead and misinform other officers should they deal with him at a later date.

Copyright(C) 2007 - 2020. All rights reserved.

PROBATION HOME