Prior to joining the service I gained knowledge and experience of supporting people with difficulties through voluntary work with a youth offending team (SOVA-Supporting Offenders Voluntary Agency). This involved the allocation of a young offender to my care, and it was my responsibility to oversee their community orders and offer them support through the process. With the individuals being in their early teens my role was primarily based around support, and although the Probation Service does not deal with the youthful elements of offenders I feel that I was able to bring the basic skills of supporting individuals to the Service.

As a volunteer I felt the old adage of ‘advising, assisting and befriending’ underpinned the work done by the Voluntary Agency, and for many years it was a central focal point for the Probation Service also. However the modern day Probation Service is an agency that no longer sees the rehabilitative ideal as its main focus…

“The NPS is a law enforcement agency delivering community punishments, supervising and working with offenders….to reduce their re-offending and better protect the public”

                                (A New Choreography 2001 Pp.iii)

Despite the changing perceptions of the Probation Service it still holds a pivotal role in supporting offenders with difficulties, which subsequently reduces the risk of re-offending. According to Trotter (2000) working with such clients in the probation setting generally heralds two roles; 

1. A legalistic or surveillance role
2. A helping/therapeutic/problem solving role

He later goes on to add that the Probation Officer works towards rehabilitating an offender through assisting with difficulties that may be related to their offending behaviour. Thus far my Traineeship has highlighted a vast number of related problems, and possible avenues within which I have had to explore….

1. Housing-Foundation Housing/hostels/Advice centre
2. Child issues-CAFCASS, Social Services
3. Employment-DISC, training, job application support.
4. Drug support-Addiction Units/counseling services

These are to name but a few. In tackling such problems I have been able to develop as an officer who is becoming more aware of how to deal with problems more concisely, effectively and efficiently, which subsequently yields effective practice.

A requirement of a Trainee is to assist the CRO (Community & Rehabilitation Order) team in the role of a duty officer, and throughout the weeks in which I have completed the role I became aware of one particular offender, PP, a white male, who had not been allocated an officer for a substantial amount of time. Having dealt with him in a duty capacity it became clear that he had a number of issues that had to be dealt with, yet I felt that this was hindered by the fact that he had no regular officer who could gain his trust and confidence and deal with him more effectively. I therefore asked my line manager to allocate the case to me, and I discovered that he had fled from his original home town due to violence, but as he had outstanding bail and court requirements he could not be fully dealt with by the Probation Service. Ultimately PP was in a state of limbo, and could not be fully involved in our service until his court dates and bail requirements were concluded. Despite the factors involved I felt that he still deserved the same service as other offenders received.

Upon allocation of the case I discovered that PP had many issues that needed to be addressed, and as his new officer I wanted to offer as much support as I could. I decided to adopt a problem solving approach derived from Trotter (1999) which involved following seven steps to resolve difficulties…..

1. Problem survey
2. Problem ranking
3. Problem exploration
4. Setting Goals
5. Developing a contract
6. Developing Strategies and tasks
7. Ongoing review and monitoring

Due to the fact that I was restricted in what I could do with PP, as he has not yet been properly transferred I decided to concentrate simply on steps 1-4. His primary concern was housing, which involved the local authority labeling him as intentionally homeless. I wrote them a letter informing them of mitigating factors, including the reasons as to why he had to leave his previous hometown, and assisted him in securing a hostel place for a short while. PP’s reservations about returning home to answer bail and attend his court date had also resulted in a warrant being issued after he missed both dates. In response I telephoned the police station and spoke to the officer who had dealt with PP, and explained why PP had not attended. I also contacted the courts and the dates for his attendance to both places were changed. This in turn allowed me the time to emphasise the importance for PP to attend in the future through the use of motivational interviewing techniques, and to explain that once issues were dealt with their he could start afresh and be dealt with by our service, which he was keen to do.

I found that by taking the case PP gained a more direct approach to support that would yield more direct action. According to Rogers (1959) there are three central conditions to assist a relationship with an offender; ‘accurate empathy, non-possessive warmth and genuiness.’ By adopting a genuine desire to assist this individual I found that I was in turn able to empathise with his situation and in turn offer support and help deal with the difficulties he was experiencing.

Dealing with an offenders difficulties does not simply imply that the Probation Officer is simply office based and tries to find solutions from his/her desk. Offenders needs can also be met through the use of field work. In the case of CC she constantly reiterated the fact that she needed employment, but due to her criminal history (specifically regarding the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) and lack of carried skills she was finding it difficult to secure work. As a Trainee it would be fair to say that I was not readily aware of the options available to tackling such difficulties, yet through investigation and utilising office resources (including static information and other communicating with other colleagues) I was able to incorporate a supervision plan which dealt with such a problem. One of the interventions utilized was through the DISC team, and I accompanied CC to their head office and spoke to one of the workers there. He discussed the options available to CC and what she could do to improve her chances of gaining employment. Essentially this type of intervention was proposed from the office base, yet utilized and explored in the field. Emotional support was also offered within the office environment. On may occasions CC becomes very distressed and emotional when reflecting on her past life, whereby she was employed and did not re-offend. In these instances emotional support through communication (VC & NVC) is vital in encouraging CC to strive for the very goals that made her happy in her past. However I also have to be very aware that there are only certain lengths one can go to comfort an offender, that is putting your arm on an offender is inappropriate, unprofessional and dangerous. Of course there are individuals with whom you feel you want to go to such lengths in order to comfort them, but there are boundaries and procedures laid by the Probation Service which are there to protect both the worker and the client.

Interventions are extremely important in terms of an individual making changes within their lives. However as a trainee it is sometimes difficult to understand why some interventions are unsuccessful in terms of the goals set not being achieved. In the case of RR, a young white male, his order had an added requirement that he must reside at a probation bail hostel. After contacting the hostel he resided at I spoke to BB, the manager of the hostel, and she was extremely concerned about RR and his failure to provide specimens when required. A few days later he was asked to leave the hostel by the manager, and I told him that I would attempt to get him into another hostel and offer him a second chance. We discussed why he had failed to comply with hostel requirements and he identified continued heroin use to be the sole factor. We discussed how this could be resolved, and concluded that a new hostel would mean a new GG for him, who would put him on a detox programme and offer him a good chance of abstaining from the drug and in turn retaining his accommodation needs. He secured a place there, but within a few days he was asked to leave their also after being apprehended for theft. His failure to attend his supervision with me left no other alternative but to breach him (National Standards-see KLO 2/5) and issue a warrant (rather than a summons) as I had no idea where he was. On reflection this taught me that although we can support individuals who experience difficulties, we cannot resolve an individuals difficulties on every occasion-we can do everything in our power to try but such interventions are not always successful.

There are of course numerous types of intervention skills used by the probation officer, and as a trainee I have been introduced to many through practice and specifically the academic module ‘Foundation Skills and Methods.’ In KLO 2 I have described the use of the Cycle of Change (Prochaska and DiClemente 1982) as a specific intervention, and I have learned to utilise the concept of Motivational interviewing in many instances. However in this KLO I will highlight a different type of intervention which was used to aid an individual who was experiencing difficulties in terms of how he thought. In the case of KK (a white male) he received an order due to a spate of domestic violence crimes against his partner. Having been forwarded to the IDAP programme his case manager wanted me to use the creative thinking tool as a specific intervention, with the aim of getting KK to think more broadly and adopt a different perspective on his attitude towards thinking processes. This specific intervention would cover the two sessions leading up to KK’s commencement on his programme. Having no knowledge surrounding the tool I had to research the area and structure the two sessions to achieve the goals set by the KK’s case manager; which was to ‘stretch his brain’ and think more openly about given situations-ultimately applying such processes to everyday life. Although both sessions were planned and executed in a professional manner I felt nervous about working with what I would consider to be a more ‘high risk’ case, yet as the sessions progressed my confidence increased, and in turn the effectiveness of the delivery of the intervention also grew; communication became clear, accurate and concise. There were of course issues of discrimination in that domestic violence is a crime frowned upon by many, yet my professionalism and ADP awareness dictated the standards expected of an officer, regardless as to the type of offender worked with.

In most cases the Probation Officer supports individuals who experience difficulties within the frameworks set out by the service. For example although we may help an individual with housing/child support, there are still national standards requirements that have to be met; afterall we are a ‘law enforcement agency’ (Paul Boetang 2000). However there are occasions when an officer will struggle to adhere to national standards due to certain difficulties experienced by an offender (issues of diversity). In the case of HH she was given a 12 month CRO. She lived 11 miles from the office she was to report to, had no driving licence, was unemployed and had two disabled sons living at home (aged 15 & 18) which required round the clock attention. The induction officer informed me that HH had attended her appointments, but had to bring both her sons with her, which would be the pattern followed due to National Standards requirements. Having looked at the case and assessed the requirements of National Standards I felt that the order imposed would essentially be setting RR up to fail and that due to the enormous difficulties experienced by RR it would be impractical to expect her, and myself, to adhere to the static requirements of National Standards.

Essentially it is my role to offer her all of the support she needs, yet by asking her to attend weekly (for the first 12 weeks) would only cause her to experience even more difficulties albeit through finance (travel), stress (on her and her two boys) and impracticality. I believed that I should do as many home visits as possible and use telephone contact on a regular basis, and after discussing it with my line manager it was agreed that as long as I had contact and tried to maintain the requirements of national standards (albeit through numerous channels) I could continue to offer this type of support to RR. Essentially through communication myself and RR identified the difficulties that may affect the successful completion of her order, and addressed those difficulties together and ultimately produced a positive outcome for both parties.

The use of the interview is extremely important in discovering an individual’s problems and/or difficulties, as has been demonstrated throughout this KLO. However there are also other tools which can be used to draw the information required to facilitate the overall picture of an individuals needs. The use of a self assessment questionnaire (SAQ) is common practice throughout the initial stages of supervision, and is useful in creating the OASys documentation and subsequent supervision plans. Previous OASys forms, pre-convictions and PSR’s have also been used by myself to measure the extent to which a specific client needs my support in certain areas. Essentially although communication within an interview setting plays a central role in assessing the extent of an individuals difficulties, other assessment tools and information from the office, fellow colleagues and other agencies are all vital in measuring the support, needs and advice needed for a particular person.

In supporting individuals who have had or are experiencing difficulties I have found that a Probation Officer can offer numerous alternatives to find a solution. However as Miller and Rollnick (1991 Pp. 120) state…..

“….you cannot impose your own goals on a client. You can offer your best advice, the client is always free to accept it or disregard it.”

On reflection, as trainees I feel that we must be careful not to over involve ourselves in a clients problems, which I feel I have seen with fellow trainees. We are there to support and to advise, but our role is not to do everything for our clients. It is in their best interests to be encouraged to do things for themselves as well as having things done for them, and that distinction calls on ones experience, communication skills and effective practice skills to be exercised in a proper and professional manner. Nor must we be drawn into matters of discrimination in terms of having pre-conceived ideas, making pre-judgments and displaying signs of discriminatory practice……

“Inclusiveness, equality and fairness are required to ensure simple justice.”

                                 (A New Choreography 2001 Pp. 2)

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

 PROBATION HOME