Throughout the traineeship I have worked in two different teams that cater for the supervision of offenders. The Community rehabilitation team (CRO) and Resettlement team have offered two very different experiences of supervising offenders. The former specializes in the supervision of offenders that have been given a community sentence by the courts, whereas the latter manage offenders that have been released from the prison system on a licence. The transition from the CRO team in the first year to the Resettlement team in the second was to say the least difficult at times. Whilst the fundamental aspect of the work remains the same; to plan, supervise, enforce and review sentences the content and requirements of that work alters significantly. Typical examples of this point would be the breach/recall process within each team, or the requirements of contact through National Standards.
Despite the subtle differences which I have highlighted and subsequently adhered too the Probation Officer essentially recognizes four aspects of their work with offenders. This can be viewed within a basic model for supervision known as the Effective Practice Cycle…(Sutton 1997 Pp. 67-68)
ASSESS
(Incorporate Tools)
REVIEW AND PLANNING
EVALUATE (Objective setting)
IMPLEMENTATION
(Including Referral)
I have discovered that regardless of the team I have worked in the basis of this plan has formed my own practice. However to highlight each of the four elements to my work as a trainee I will use case examples.
For the purposes of reflecting upon the planning stage of a community intervention I will use the case of RR. Who is a male currently serving a sentence for the offences of burglary and breaching a previous licence. Although I was not his supervising officer I was allocated his Parole Report application and was therefore responsible for the planning of this individual’s possible release into the community. The Parole Report, whose statutory basis has emerged from the 1991 C.J.A, section 32, makes an ‘extremely important contribution to the Parole Board’s decision whether to release a determinate sentenced prisoner’ (Good Practice Guidance. Pp.1). It is therefore the responsibility of the National Probation Service (NPS) to produce such reports with regard to the planning and subsequent supervision of offenders released on parole licence. Upon moving to the resettlement team I was aware that we may have to produce a parole report, but was unsure as to their purpose and content until I began to read around the guidelines set out by the NPS. When preparing a Parole Report the guidelines state that there are key requirements for Probation staff preparing such reports… (Good Practice Guidance. Pp.1)
“First and foremost to
consider whether the prisoner will commit a further offence between the date of
release on Parole and the non parole date…and to balance that shorter term risk
against the potential reduction in longer term risk accruing from a longer
period of supervision.”
When producing a Parole Report it is important to be aware that public protection is the key consideration for the Parole board. Essentially when planning an individuals release into the community the practitioner must facilitate public protection issues alongside the needs and requirements of the offender.
The first step taken was that of formulating the necessary information and assessing the direction and content of the planned supervision of RR. This comprised of the following steps….
- Interview RR at the prison and gather information relevant to the Parole report.
- Discuss the case with RR’s case manager and look into the assessment on Parole given by MM.
- Discuss the Parole report with the seconded Probation Officer.
- Identify any areas that may need to be further investigated and write the report.
Prior to attending the prison I made sure that I re-read the CPS documents and witness statements, and familiarised myself with the case. On discussing the differences between PSR and Parole type interviews I formulated a set of guidelines which I would follow in order to gain the relevant type of information for the report. Throughout the interview I noticed that I questioned him more about his future plans, the risks he felt he may present, the effect of his release on the victims of his offence, the plans he had upon release and the direction his life would take upon release. The interview went very well and I felt that I conducted it in a professional, anti-discriminatory and appropriate manner. This was important given the context of the offence (burglary) in that I did not let any personal feeling preside over the facts of the case. Issues of ADP, stereotyping and equality all come to the forefront of experiences such as these. However as a professional being aware of these principles and their potential impact, and subsequently reducing possible impacts, is extremely important.
Having completed the interview with RR I felt it was then necessary to...
- Discuss the type of proposal and the direction of the report with RR’s case manager (MM) and the seconded Probation Officer at the prison (II). This is essentially the following of the format for the production of a parole report.
- Investigate any areas of concern or related to his release into the community, which in this instance was his release address and the possibility that he may have guaranteed employment upon his release.
MM proved to be quite familiar with the case given the fact that he had only inherited it a few months ago. With MM we discussed all aspects of the case, including victim issues, the attitude of RR and the goals and objectives we would set him should he be given parole. MM and myself went into great detail about the issue of the victims within his offences, although RR claimed he did not target his victims the pattern of his offending suggests that there was a strong element of targeting as the victims were all elderly, vulnerable people. This is a major concern in weighing up the pros and cons of recommending parole. Following our conversation it was my assessment that MM was largely against the idea of parole, citing the possible targeting of his victims and his previous convictions as two areas that could increase his risk of re-offending/risk to others when released into the community.
Having discussed various issues with his home Probation Officer my next step in the information gathering process was to discuss related issues and explore the views and assessment of the seconded Probation Officer located at the prison.
Throughout the interview RR provided me with two key pieces of information that needed to be followed up on my return to the office. The first was his proposed release address, which is where he said he would reside upon release. The address was the home of his current partner and I had to assess his suitability in terms of his partner’s accommodation, her attitude towards his release, the location of any victims to the address and whether there were any potential problems. After telephoning her I decided that a home visit would be conducted for such an assessment, and I invited MM (the case manager) along as he would be able to gather any information he felt to be relevant to his case.
The second part of the investigation involved contact being made between myself and MM, whom RR identified as being a potential employer upon his release. After failing to make contact via telephone I decided to write to the employer, which was a building contractor.
After the process of gathering information, reviewing case files and discussing the case with parties whom were heavily involved I had to bring this information together and formulate my assessments on the risk issues he presents and his suitability for being released on parole. Furthermore the report includes a resettlement Plan, which comprises of a risk management Plan and a Supervision Plan. These two aspects of the report included the following points….
- the Supervision Plan should include the following; Employment, Accommodation and Drug/relapse prevention
- RR will engage with supervising officer and hostel key worker to meet goals of Supervision Plan.
- RR will attend appointments made with partnership agencies.
I found writing this report to be much more straightforward and to an extent more enjoyable in that the writer has more of a licence to include information that he or she felt to be relevant to the parole application. Perhaps what was less rewarding was that the production of the report, that is a plan for RR’s supervision within the community, would not be overseen by myself.
Planning the supervision of offenders within the community is important in constructing objectives for the individual. Although I was unable to produce a supervision plan for RR at the start of his licence period I have produced numerous supervision plan for offenders that I have supervised whilst on licence and on CRO’s.
Effective practice guidelines identify criminogenic factors that should be addressed within supervision (Chapman & Hough 1998). The research they have used to present such guidelines indicates that offending is associated with accommodation, poverty, unemployment, low educational attainment, unstable family backgrounds and mixing with individuals who offend. Furthermore the areas of reasoning, thinking, self control and poor problem solving skills can also be linked to anti-social behaviour. They go on to identify triggers such as drugs and alcohol that may be linked to offending. However although these factors are backed up by research it is important to guard against stereotyping an individual as having a ‘problem’ simply because they drink alcohol or have poor thinking skills. One must always be aware of ADP issues and how a ‘criminogenic need’ identified by the practitioner may not be the priority or problematic for the offender.
A natural progression therefore from the planning stage is the addressing of the criminogenic factors that are linked to an individuals offending behaviour. The first case to be used is that of RR, a white male who was convicted of interfering with a motor vehicle. He has a history of mental health issues and problematic alcohol use and his management of anger has been a central link to his offending behaviour. He received a 12 month Community Rehabilitation Order. Whilst on the order he re-offended in a hostel setting (Racially aggravated violence) and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Having supervised RR through the CRO team, and then maintaining my status as case manager upon his release from prison I have identified numerous criminogenic factors that have been address throughout his supervision.
The two key elements addressed in his current supervision plan were that of alcohol use (which acted as a catalyst for his offending behaviour) and accommodation. The latter had to be prioritised as extensive work with hostels, Foundation Housing and the local Housing Authority yielded no accommodation places for him. PP remained homeless for over 10 days (see contact sheet) despite my best efforts, and I knew that the risks of re-offending posed by him were raised whilst he was homeless and living on the streets. Eventually I found a hostel to accommodate him but the process was long, at times frustrating and very tiring. The second key element identified, that of alcohol use, was to be supervised within the context of a programme attachment, which I made a condition of his licence. This supervision plan incorporated these and other criminogenic factors (thinking skills, employment) and was produced within 15 working days of his release (National Standards 2000).
The supervision of offenders can be a long successful and rewarding process, and in the case of CC I supervised the order from its inception to its completion, 12 months later. Upon completing the order and reviewing her progress and subsequent change I felt that I had achieved something that was measurable and visible. I have also supervised the completion of further orders (JJ, HH, PP, SS) which I have found to be equally rewarding. However there are also occasions where the order does not lead a natural progression to completion and other steps need to be taken by the practitioner.
Upon joining the Probation Service I presumed that the notion of enforcement would play a minor role in the work of the practitioner. After studying the service and its history as part of my Criminology degree I believed that its advise, assist and befriend notion still survived as the core philosophy of the service. However this traineeship has highlighted the massive shift in the very ethos of the Probation Service, and a much used Paul Boeteng quote (“We are a law enforcement agency, its what we are, its what we do”) has changed the way it operates in modern day law enforcement. This principle facilitated a raised tension within myself as to whether I wanted to work within what is effectively a law enforcement agency. Having admired the origins and history of the Probation Service, and previously worked in a voluntary sector which still adheres to the ‘AAB’ ethos I had to decide whether I wanted to be part of a Service who ranked enforcement alongside, if not above, the idea of rehabilitation. However questions surrounding the loss of discretion through enforcement procedures and National Standards were answered when I discovered that elements of discretion still existed within the modern day NPS. This is highlighted by the case of HH, a male who received a 12 month Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) with a programmes attachment of ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) for driving whilst disqualified.
National Standards then, sets guidelines for the practitioner, managers and the Service as a whole to follow and facilitate. For myself the immediate implications of these standards was the number of appointments offered to HH from the beginning of his CRO, the requirement of home visits and furthermore to….
“Inform…what is expected of them and the action that will be taken if they fail to comply.”
(National standards 2000 Pp.1)
The first obstacle met for this case was the ejection of HH from ETS after he failed to attend the programmes course on three separate occasions. According to the guidelines of the programme an individual can be ejected if he fails to attend two sessions and the subsequent catch-ups offered. He was offered a double catch up and failed to attend this. Implications for the case manager is that he has missed two NS appointments and breach proceedings should be initiated. However I found one of his reasons to be acceptable and so did not count that as an unacceptable absence, and upon communicating with the ETS team they stated that they would not reinstate him.
On this occasion discretion was used on the basis that the order was barely 2 months old, the ETS standards were extremely rigid (allowing no use of discretion) and that I could put HH forward to a later ETS programme. At this stage of the order common sense, as well as discretion, was exercised. If followed rigidly, National Standards would require HH to be breached, yet even as a trainee I did not see the benefit of sending HH back to court. The argument here is that on one hand numerous training events, circulars and policies inform the worker that if “community sentences are to be credible they must be enforced stringently” (Probation Circular: Enforcement 2000). However the practice of fellow Probation Officers and the current culture suggests otherwise and consequently a great deal of discretion can still be exercised within the boundaries of NS. However the result of this contradiction, highlighted in the very same circular (Enforcement 2000) is that there still exists considerable variation ‘within and between areas in ensuring compliance and dealing with breach.’
These issues could again be raised when breach was initiated for HH due to a failure later in the order to keep two further appointments with myself. However an explanation offered by him within the time allowed (2 working days – PC7/2002) for not attending one of the supervision sessions was again deemed to be acceptable by myself, and the breach proceedings were withdrawn. The question raised at this point of the order was what practitioners found to be reasonable reasons for absences. According to a further Circular (Guidance on Enforcement 2000)….
“Staff are accountable for the use of
their Judgement and in departing from the standards ….not
taking breach action as required discretion
can
only be exercised only with the
authority of a manager.” (Pp.2)
On this basis I became accountable to my line manager, and upon explanation my actions to withdraw the breach were deemed acceptable. On this evidence rigorous enforcement of NS is neither a necessity nor a requirement.
Thus far the case of HH has identified the fact that levels of discretion can still be used within casework, yet the level and frequency it is used is accountable to management, who in turn are responsible to senior management and so on. HH was breached two months later due to his failure to attend further appointments, and thus three unacceptable absences, yet upon appearing in court the order was allowed to continue. Therefore despite my application of NS and use of ‘professional discretion,’ the breach itself incurred a cost of £30.00 to HH and his order was to continue. The question which results from the outcome is whether the further use of increased discretion by myself would have saved the court time, money and effort to arrange and execute a breach hearing, of which the outcome was simply for the o.t.c.
This case highlights the steps that can be taken through enforcement when working within the CRO team. Within the Resettlement team the steps taken vary for the recall process and as yet this is something I have yet to experience.
The reviewing of an offenders progress is important in assessing whether objectives have been met, whether the behaviour of the offender has altered and whether or not interventions have been successful/made an impact upon the attitudes/behaviour/actions of an offender. Furthermore it allows other goals to be set and work towards as the supervision of any given offender progresses. One tool used to measure the progress of the offender is that of the review Plan, which is produced at the 16 week stage of a supervision period, and then every 16 week progression from that initial review plan National Standards 2000). In the case of CC review plans allowed us to assess the previous 16 weeks of supervision, assessing how successful we were at working towards the targets within the initial supervision plan and identifying new objectives to work towards in the next 16 week period of supervision.
In my continued experience reviewing an offender’s progress is an ongoing process, and the contact sheet is a tool that I use to record any progress made with that individual. I feel that measuring progress through evaluation and reviews is extremely important in measuring the effectiveness of the practitioners work.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2020. All rights reserved.