In August 2000 the National Probation Service published it’s ‘what works strategy.’ Underpinning this ethos is the belief that interventions must always be based ‘on the best possible evidence of what will reduce the likelihood of that offender re-offending’ (A New Choreography 2001 Pp. 19). The key approach that characterizes the ‘what works’ theory is the cognitive behavioural approach, which is an area covered in the psychology module of the course, and indeed an area I have studied in the past. It is of course a psychological term, and as a sociologist I studied the term with certain skepticism. Its focal point offers the belief that individuals are a product of their environment that has failed to provide them with the necessary cognitive skills to avoid criminal involvement, therefore interventions such as the programmes available embrace such a theory. My initial skepticism has somewhat relinquished as I hear feedback from individuals who are not only on the programmes, but fellow colleagues and even government statistics which suggest success. This of course transcends into the realms of effective practice in that the service administers interventions that ultimately lead lower rates of re-offending, higher rates of rehabilitation and subsequently a greater degree of public protection.
As a trainee I have had three individuals on the accredited programmes of ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) and DID's (Drink Impaired Drivers).
It is a requirement that the case manager will complete pre-motivational sessions before the commencement of that programme, and I have delivered the preliminary work of such an intervention. I feel that the delivery of such sessions are extremely important to the chances and motivations of an offender completing a programme. In the case of WW I carried out the work and felt that in certain instances I was patronising him (“here’s your homework”) due to its inherent simplicity. However after talking to colleagues they enlightened me as to how it can be delivered in a variety of ways, and didn’t have to be patronising. Throughout the intervention I asked to meet with WW at least weekly to discuss other issues he had (i.e. housing) and asked him how ETS was progressing. It is now in the later stages and WW has found the programme to be ‘rewarding,’ and even the ETS staff have relayed positive feedback in terms of WW’s contribution to the sessions. In the case of RR he has been ejected from the course and so I have asked for him to be forwarded to the next ETS programme commencement, with the aim of conducting some more pre-motivational sessions and in particular addressing any barriers that may exist. Certainly in the case of WW I have played an effective role in helping to deliver the intervention of ETS.
I have also carried out 2 creative thinking sessions with an offender who is to commence the IDAP programme, with the aim of getting the individual to think less restrictively and prepare him for his up and coming programme. At this stage of my traineeship I have yet to be trained in the delivery or overall planning of such interventions. However I recognise the importance of programmes, and that the pilot programmes have indicated success (National Choreography Pp. 19). I am fully aware that in my second phase of traineeship I will be trained in delivering such programmes, and I look forward to seeing how they work and why they are successful.
National Standards (2000) replaced those issued in 1995 and apply to all probation services in England and Wales. They….
- apply to the supervision by the
probation service of all offenders aged 18 years or over.
- set the standards to which probation
committees should ensure offenders are supervised and services are
provided.
- inform offenders what is expected of
them and the action that will be taken if they fail to comply.
- provide one set of standards against
which her majesty’s inspectorate will evaluate service’s performance.
(National Standards 2000)
National standards is a tool by which performance is measured as well as a provision of structured guidelines and required minimums for practice.
As a probation officer it is my job to not only adhere with the above statements, but to make sure that I understand what is required of me and the consequences of failing to apply them appropriately. It is expected that reasonable steps are taken to ensure that offenders are supervised in accordance with National Standards. Furthermore, in terms of an offenders supervision it is my job to make sure that records are kept accurately and updated, and that the production of information is completed within the timescale dictated by national standards. Having worked in the service for a time I feel that National Standards are a good way to measure effective practice and offer useful guidelines to the officer, particularly for trainees.
When a case is allocated the induction must be completed (induction stage 1) and is usually done by specific probation officers, although as a trainee I have found myself carrying out my own simply for experience. This includes the explanation and requirements of the order, including the need for the offender to make 12 weekly visits within the first twelve weeks, followed by fortnightly (6 appointments in the next 12 weeks) and eventually monthly visits. The second meeting (Induction stage 2) takes the form primarily of information gathering, which is used to complete the OASys (1, 2, risk assessment and supervision plan). The third meeting (Induction stage 3) consists of going through the supervision plan (ISP) with the offender and subsequently signed by the offender, the assessor and the line manager. The supervision plan must be completed no later than 15 working days after the sentence is imposed, and National Standards (2000) states that supervision plans ‘must specify a structured programme of individual and/or group supervision by the probation area…based on the principles of effective practice.’ At this stage I have a good knowledge of the basic national standards requirement.
Within the first 12 weeks of an order a home visit to the offenders address must also be conducted. My first home visit was an affair that caused me tension and apprehension, which on reflection is a display of discriminatory behaviour. However as I have become more confident and learned the nature of assessing risk the negative thoughts of VV’s have become far less prominent. I now tend to conduct such visits later in the order (in order to assess possible risks) and find them to be extremely beneficial in terms of understanding an offenders situation, particularly in the case of RR whereby the home visit had a specific purpose of assessing possible barriers between RR and his attendance at the office.
In terms of planning effective interventions I have found that the ISP is perhaps the first step. It is effectively designed to cater for an individual, dependant on the factors of the offence, the level of risk posed by an individual and through recognising the needs of such offenders. Since my traineeship I have produced six ISP’s and through the training I received and the experience gained I have been able to effectively match an offenders needs to the resources available to the probation service. My first attempt at a plan proved to be difficult in terms of the language used, that is I was still in essay mode whereas ISP’s need to be simple and to the point. This was pointed out by my PDA when she read my plans.
If the order is not complied with then national standards have procedures that must be followed. If two appointments are missed without reasonable explanations as to an individuals absence then breach proceedings are subsequently enforced, and the offender will have to return to court for re-sentencing on the basis of breaching the order. This happened in the case of AA, who failed to attend on two separate occasions within the first 12 weeks, and offered no reasonable explanation for his absence. After offering him subsequent appointments breach proceedings were enforced, and after discussing the case with my line manager it was decided that I would not offer him any further appointments. At this stage I almost felt like I had failed in my work. As a trainee I came to the job believing that I could make a real difference and change all of those who I would work with, yet three months on I realize that things are not quite so simple. People react differently to supervision and orders, and it is the skill of the officer that affects the overall outcome for an individual offender. However if clients do not adhere to the requirements of the order it is now my belief that the supervising officer should not necessarily blame themselves for the failure, but rather reflect on why the offender may have breached, and what could have been done differently to alter the outcome.
Of course it is my hope that as many of my cases as possible fulfil their orders, and to increase the possibility of that eventuality the type of interventions used within a probation officer/client officer will play a pivotal role on such an outcome. In the case of RR he missed three ETS sessions and was ejected from the course. Theoretically he should have been breached, but I exercised my discretionary powers in the belief that there were barriers for RR that needed to be worked with in overcoming his non-attendance to probation, and possibly utilizing the pre-programme motivational sessions to encourage his attendance for the next ETS programme. My PDA and line manager felt that I had made such a decision by myself, and emphasized the fact that I didn’t have to take sole responsibility for a decision, and that maybe I should have discussed it with an ETS staff member and/or my PDA for support and advice.
In the case of BB he had committed an offence against a family member and subsequently this made things very strained at home with his mother. As a result a major need addressed in his initial supervision plan was that ‘BB would secure alternative accommodation.’ He desperately wanted to leave home so we discussed his possibilities in supervision. I advised him that the first step would be to put his name down on the local authority housing list. I would aid his housing application by writing a letter of support which would aim to prioritize his case. We agreed that this would be achieved by including that BB suffered from depression, had the H.I.V illness and that his mother was threatening to throw him out of the house. I further advised him that there were opportunities within housing, and that I could refer him to a couple of organizations, which he agreed to. I utilized the resources in the office to contact XXXX housing and XXXX housing, and filled out the necessary paperwork. He was subsequently offered an appointment and went along to the interview. At the same time he was offered a house by the council due to him being ‘high priority.’
Essentially both types of intervention, support letters and referrals, were successful and effective, resulting in BB securing alternative accommodation. This made me feel that I had played an integral part of not only delivering such an intervention, but on that intervention being effective and ultimately successful. However I also felt that I should be aware that not all interventions are successful or have positive outcomes for an individual.
Neither is the delivery of such interventions always as logical or straightforward as the example mentioned above. According to the latest strategy of the probation service, ‘A New Choreography’ (Pp. 36)…..
“Valuing and achieving
diversity is synonymous with good practice. It must therefore be integrated
into all aspects of the services work otherwise it will fail in its duty.”
As trainees I feel that the onus is on us to implement such strategies from grassroots level. I have noticed that even though I currently only hold a modest number of cases the diversity between individuals is massive, including age, gender, ethnicity and even class-yet I also acknowledge that regardless of such differences all should be treated equally, fairly and within the guidelines set out by the service. However as trainees mistakes are made, which results in of course reflecting on such mistakes and acting to rectify mistakes, which is epitomized by reflective practice. To explain such a view is to say that sometimes we discriminate without even knowing that we are doing it, and subsequently being aware that one should not impose ones own values and beliefs on an individual. In the case of LL, my first case, I completed the ISP with many presumptions about his needs and objectives. That is instead of in-depth interviewing I took the minimal amount of information and made my own judgments to fill in the blanks. Essentially I held pre conceived ideas as to what a 45 year old man should do with his life at this stage, rather than listening to what he wanted, and how he felt he should go about achieving such goals. As the order progressed I began to realize that LL knew what he wanted to do to address his offending, and how I could assist him in achieving what he wanted, rather than the equation being the other way around.
I have recently completed his 16 week supervision plan review and upon its completion I realized just how much I had imposed my own values and beliefs on LL’s ISP, which is essentially discriminatory behaviour. This is a behaviour that I have progressively learnt to subdue, and realize that although national standards provides the framework to work within, professional judgment and respect for diversity also have a major bearing on the success of an order.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2020. All rights reserved.