I feel that this KLO is perhaps one of the more difficult ones to address in the early stages of the probation traineeship simply because we have not had too much experience in dealing with cases considered ‘higher risk.’ This in turn would lead to a higher possibility of having to deal with offenders who might use aggressive and/or abusive behaviours. My previous experience is somewhat limited, but through working in a bar for a year the abuse received by people and the role played by alcohol as a trigger was highly apparent. Protected only by a bar there were times when I was a little fearful of some abusive people, but I learned to diffuse the situation in a number of self-adopted ways; including the use of non-pejorative language and using non-verbal communication to portray an image of calmness. Whilst undertaking voluntary work with young offenders I experienced a different kind of problem behaviour that required me to deal with it in a different manner, through reasoning and verbal communication. However since working within the probation service these basic skills have been built on and developed primarily through experience and learning.
In the case of KK, who was a white male, he had been convicted of domestic violence and had an attachment to his order of attending the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme. His caseworker asked me to deliver a strategy called creative thinking, to prepare him for the Programme. The aim of delivering such a specific intervention was to enable KK to move away from his rigid, static way of thinking, and learn to think more broadly and openly by building on his areas of strength to improve weaknesses. I delivered the two sessions, which incorporated the work of Edward De Bono, and involved the tools of CAF (consider all factors) and PMI (plus, minus and interesting). As the instigator of domestic violence I felt a little apprehensive in terms of working with him, but as a professional I was able to move away from any pre-conceptions I may have had and delivered the sessions in an effective, efficient manner void of any discriminatory behaviour…..
“Probation staff will not detract or superimpose any degrading treatment on offenders stemming from their own personal belief systems.”
(A New Choreography 2001 Pp. 7)
In my view domestic violence is one of the worst crimes an individual can inflict on another. This was made no more apparent than the training programme ‘Domestic Violence’ undertaken at head office earlier this year. The course developed the one dimensional view of domestic violence that I previously owned-that a man hits a woman-and opened my eyes to the numerous types of violence that can be inflicted.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing cases (from a personal point of view) that I have worked on was that of SS. I co-worked on the case with a colleague and produced a full risk analysis on the basis of evidence available. The offence included the mistreatment of children by the mother and her partner, through the medium of abuse. Upon reading the numerous reports (including doctors and social services) I discovered that the behaviour displayed by SS and her partner included the ‘punching and sexual abuse to the daughter and the biting and bruising of the sons genitalia. This type of behaviour is both abusive and aggressive and I found some of the information disclosed about the offence to be quite disturbing. When speaking in a 3 way meeting with my line manager and PDA I mentioned my thoughts and feeling surrounding the case and was told that if I find anything a little disturbing or over bearing then I could always talk to a colleague. However I felt that on this occasion it was more a reality shock than something that I found disturbing, and on reflection my dealing with such cases in the future will not be a problem.
The risk assessment for SS also asked for information surrounding possible triggers and motivations towards committing such offences. In this case it would seem the role played by the partner of SS took a central role, and the reasons behind her involvement stem from her wanting to protect her partner.
In the case of CC, she had been in and out of the Probation service for a number of years and was considered to be a persistent offender. Her pre-convictions showed that she had a string of theft offences and an assault on a security guard. Continued reading of her file also highlighted a verbal and physical attack on a fellow probation officer whilst in a supervision session. Furthermore she has a long history of alcohol abuse and one previous PSR had requested a psychiatric assessment, which incidentally never materialised. My first meeting with CC highlighted the extent of her problem behaviour in that she had been drinking and she refused to sit down, but instead stood near the door. I had only been an officer for a few weeks, and after reading about the attack on an officer I felt very apprehensive about being in a room with her, and I am not ashamed to admit that it probably showed on that occasion.
Violent and aggressive behaviour is something that can be identified in that the definitions are focused, yet to define the behaviour displayed by CC is something I found much harder to identify. The ‘problem’ behaviour was not only in her appearance whilst under the influence of alcohol, but in the fact that she was not able to engage and wanted to leave the room as soon as possible. I myself was perhaps a little too cautious and apprehensive of her, and the first session was an uncomfortable situation. On reflection that session could have been conducted in a much more professional manner, but alternatively the fact that she acknowledged my nervousness may have helped her connect to the fact that I too was only human. This would seem to fit in with the views echoed by Buchan and Miller (1997 Pp. 35), who suggest that ‘when people feel they are being dealt with a dehumanising and disrespectful way, they are likely to respond very positively to any advice or guidance given.’
CC’s problematic behaviour continued throughout the sessions, and although my learning curve allowed me to apply new techniques (i.e. motivational interviewing), models (i.e. the cycle of change/7 step problem solving approach) and behaviours (i.e. verbal communication and non-verbal communication-learned through my academic modules) the information gathering process became very drawn out. I repeated the fact that the Service wanted to help her by addressing her problematic behaviour, yet to do that we needed to understand why the behaviour occurred and the ways in which her thought processes worked. Her problems seemed to lie in the past in that she always referred to the time she worked in a hospital and how she would never be able to work in one again. Despite a referral to our in house employment agency, helping her with applications to other places of work, motivating her to undergo training at a local college and drawing on her positive experiences she had within the hospital workplace she would become tearful in each session and recall her work at the hospital. Essentially she firmly believed that should she work at the hospital again she would stop drinking and stop offending, and by believing in the idea so much she refused to engage in any other topic of conversation or activity. As the sessions continued I felt that I was gaining her confidence, yet the information surrounding the need for her to offend was no more apparent than the first time we met.
Her problematic behaviour continued and resulted in her appearing twice at court on counts of theft. Her reason for both offences was an argument with her boyfriend leading to the consumption of alcohol, and subsequently theft. These have coincided with my attempts to carry out home visits, unbeknown to CC, and the ongoing problematic behaviour may now be understood more clearly. Primarily a psychiatric assessment has again been requested, which both myself and her PSR writer discussed and agreed it was a positive step in the right direction. Secondly I plan to carry out a home visit in the next few weeks to attempt to discover more about the offender and try and communicate with her in an environment which may be more favourable to her disposition. Lastly I plan to utilise the ‘creative thinking tool’ to try and get CC to think less rigidly about issues such as employment.
These cases highlight certain types of behaviour that the probation officer may have to deal with, whether a general problem behaviour or more specifically abusive and/or aggressive behaviour. However in terms of the latter I have learned through courses I have attended and academic modules that there are steps that can be taken to prevent such behaviour, or at least reduce the likelihood that such actions will occur….
- Communicate in a manner which is
appropriate, free form discrimination, encourages an open exchange of
views and information and minimising any constraints to communication.
- Maintaining an environment in a way
which encourages meaningful interaction.
- Taking actions to maintain calmness and
safety in a manner which minimises any restriction of movement and which
does not deny peoples rights.
- Taking appropriate action to prevent
triggers to abusive or aggressive behaviour occurring and to enable
individuals to find alternative ways of expressing their feelings.
- To protect potential victims at whom
the behaviour may be directed
It is said that prevention is better than cure, and thus far the application of such steps has ensured the contact I have had with offenders has been, to say the least tranquil. However there have been occasions when offenders have shown abusive and aggressive behaviour, and I have observed this within the reception area. However again the courses I have attended have illustrated the steps I should bear in mind when dealing with such behaviour in a supervision setting, ensuring that…
- constructive action is taken to
minimise identified abusive and aggressive behaviour which is consistent
with any inherent risk, agency policy and procedures (i.e. Violence to staff
policy) and evidence of effective practice.
- opposing interests are acknowledged and
constructive action is taken to address them
- construction action is taken to defuse abusive
and aggressive behaviour.
- necessary assistance and support is
called for when required (I have been made aware of the numerous panic
alarm buttons within the interview rooms, and the telephones).
- one acts in a manner which is likely to
promote calm and reassurance and make this clear to all involved.
- physically aggressive behaviour is
managed in ways which are consistent with statutory requirements, and used
with the safest possible methods for the individual, myself and others
that may be affected.
Although I have not had to adopt such steps per se a fellow TPO was threatened ‘to be killed’ by an offender, MM. My colleague took step 3 by cutting the interview short and step 4 by reporting what was said. This was followed up by an incident report, in line with statutory requirements (step 6). The following week however I had to see MM as my colleague was away, and being aware of the aggressive behaviour shown to my colleague I had to be aware of the steps I would take should a similar incident occur. Upon engaging MM I took the necessary steps (1-4 of preventing abusive/aggressive behaviour) and, although I was both wary and nervous of this man, I conducted the interview in a professional and effective manner. At the conclusion of the interview he asked for financial assistance in order to buy some food, but having had money from the service the previous day I refused, explaining the reason why he was not entitled to receive any. At this point I felt that aggressive behaviour may once again surface, as was the case with my colleague, but he accepted my explanation and left without incident.
Throughout my traineeship I have been in situations that require the steps mentioned in this KLO to be acknowledged and applied to various situations. However the concept of pro-social modeling is also a technique I have applied to such situations in order to reinforce values and anti-oppressive practice. According to Trotter (1993) pro-social modeling….
“involves the practice
of offering praise and reward for clients….the Probationer becomes a positive
role model acting to reinforce pro-social or non-criminal behaviour.”
This approach to engaging the officer/client relationship emphasises the importance of demonstrating respect for individuals, by being punctual, reliable, courteous, friendly, honest and open. It is my belief that by using techniques such as pro-social modeling any situation which might be deemed to present a risk of ‘problem behaviour’ could be diffused if used in the appropriate manner, and on occasions where I have felt this may be the case I have thus far found it to be effective. In the case of WW he is a male convicted of provoking violence and on a 6 month CRO order. In our first meeting (whereby information was gathered for the production of OASys 1 & 2) he informed me that he lost his temper quickly and became aggressive as a consequence. As well as commencing the ETS programme I decided to engage the ‘problem behaviour’ by ‘rewarding’ his actions that were deemed pro-social and offered a safe, cathartic release of aggression as opposed to violence against others. Furthermore I praised such activities (i.e. he plays rugby) and actively encouraged him to use such activities to release aggressive energy, rather than against other individuals in a social environment. Further work on victim issues involving violence and his role model responsibilities to his young daughter produced a change in the thinking of WW, who instead of rigidly channeling aggression towards any target he acknowledged the advantages of releasing his ‘energy’ safely and legally. This was put to the test when I had to inform him that contact needed to be made with the social services and CAFCASS in order to identify any risks WW’s behaviour might pose to his child. However WW acknowledged that it was part of my job and offered no sign of aggression in the supervision session.
Essentially problem behaviour is something that runs consistently throughout the clients I come into contact with, afterall they are all attending supervision as their previous behaviour is labeled ‘criminal’ and they have been convicted of that behaviour. However the degree of individual actions varies considerably and different skills are required to counter different types of behaviour, as has been demonstrated in this KLO. Furthermore the extreme behaviours of aggression and abuse require a more refined, skilled and informed approach to diffuse the situation and deal with it effectively, efficiently, and within the guidelines of the procedures laid out by the National Probation Service. Setting goals to achieve the reduction of aggressive/abusive behaviour, and subsequently dealing with is however only half of the story. Aiming to understand the triggers of such behaviours and addressing it are also considerations that must be attended to by the Probation Officer.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2020. All rights reserved.