The Probation Service work with a wide range of clients, many of whom are reluctant to be part of the law enforcement system. Inevitably this leads to a proportion of them becoming verbally abusive and on occasions even violent. It is therefore extremely important that practitioners, and perhaps more specifically trainees, are given the appropriate training to increase the awareness, prevention methods and strategies to deal with these types of situations should they occur. This began with a training session which introduced me to the concepts of abusive and aggressive behaviours, and the strategies that could be employed in dealing with such offenders. Upon completing the course I felt that I had been introduced to an aspect of probation work that I had really not given much consideration to prior to taking up the post. However having worked in public bars and undertaken a qualification in first aid I felt that I was certainly aware in the potential threats of violence and abuse towards myself, colleagues, the public and other offenders. However dealing and managing this type of behaviour is something I was not competent or aware of at the start of the traineeship.

Before highlighting my development in this field it is important to demonstrate my knowledge and application of the existing probation policies. The first is the Domestic Violence Policy (P2004/12). This policy has three main aims….

1. To assist staff to identify and assess perpetrators of domestic violence.
2. To reduce the risk of further offending.
3. To protect current victims and potential victims from harm.

In the case of ZZ he committed a domestic violence offence whilst on a 12 month Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO) supervised by myself. It was agreed that I would produce the PSR under the supervision of a qualified PO as ZZ was my case. However I felt that I needed guidance on producing a report of this nature, and so after discussing the case with the supervising PO I decided to review the existing domestic violence policy. This allowed me to develop an understanding as to how reports were produced, the services available for abused women and the role of the cognitive programme IDAP (Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme).

When dealing with offences of this nature one must put aside any personal feelings that may be invoked. In cases of domestic violence my initial response is to frown upon people who commit these types of offending, particularly as a male within a society where men who are violent towards women is seen to be unacceptable. Having witnessed incidents of domestic violence myself and being subjected to constant media representations of domestic violence I do have my own values and opinions on the issue. However as a professional I am fully aware that personal feelings should not, and do not, intervene on my treatment or assessment of offenders. All interactions with ZZ were conducted in an anti-discriminatory manner and devoid of any pre-conceptions or stereotypical images I may have had.

The second is the Assessment and Management of the risk of harm policy (P2002/14). This is important in highlighting the need to produce management action plans in risk assessments and initialising MAPPP proceedings when appropriate. In the case of PP I found this policy to be hugely important in providing guidelines in managing the case.

The risks PP posed to others was through threatening behaviour and potential violence. This individual was convicted of racially aggravated threats to kill which occurred within a probation hostel environment. PP admitted frequently in supervision that when he consumed alcohol he became aggressive and subsequently violent towards others if they upset him. Upon his arrest for this offence it was decided that I would complete an additional risk assessment based on the nature of the offence. PP was imprisoned for the offence and upon his release on licence work was conducted in the areas of anger management and alcohol use to counteract the risks he posed.

Despite the plans formulated for PP’s licence he re-offended, committing a similar offence to that of his original conviction, threatening behaviour whilst intoxicated with alcohol. He appeared before Magistrates and was sentenced to four months imprisonment within the space of 24 hours. My first priority was to gather information on the offence as it occurred in a different area to the one I was working in. I contacted their local court and they faxed me the relevant information. Due to this new offence it was good practice to complete a new risk assessment, and after including the new offence I assessed PP to have progressed from a medium to high risk. Given the fact that upon his release from prison accommodation would again be a big problem. I discussed this with my line manager and looked at his risk assessment, and we both agreed that a MAPPP (Multi Agency Public Protection Panel) meeting would have to be called. My first step was to speak to the public protection team at XXXX XXXX. They forwarded me a pack to complete and send back. This would be screened and assessed as to whether it should indeed progress to a MAPPP, and whether the level of intervention (level 2 in the case of PP) was appropriate. A week later I was contacted by the public protection team and informed that the meeting would go ahead. On discussion with my PDA I identified accommodation as the critical issue to managing his risk within the community (which I entered into a report), and that Housing and a hostel would be invited to the MAPPP.

Prior to the meeting I was full of hope, that it I was sure the panel would be able to solidify specific plans for PP upon release, particularly with regards to accommodation. I felt that an interim plan of accommodating PP temporarily within a hostel and more permanently with foundation housing would significantly decrease the risks he posed and offer him the chance to pursue other goals, which included employment. At the same time both he and myself would work to address the issues of alcohol use and anger management. For me the priority was accommodation, particularly in managing the future risks he posed.

The meeting did not go according to plan. The panel were of the opinion that PP was in fact a medium risk case, and that rather than being high risk he was simply difficult to manage. Furthermore they decided that the best plan of action was to transfer the case to his hometown, on the premise that the prison had arranged two nights of accommodation in that area upon his release. As a consequence we could transfer the case on the basis that PP had a home address. I felt that the decisions made were not appropriate, and saw such actions to simply be giving the responsibility to another probation area. On reflection I was disappointed with the conclusion of the meeting, yet as it was my first I was unaware as to the extent to which I could argue my case. This is something that will come with experience.

Abusive and aggressive behaviour cannot simply be defined as physical violence. In the case of DD I encountered a different type of aggression, that of verbal abuse. This actually occurred over the telephone with the offender’s mother. Upon telephoning her to introduce myself as his supervising officer she immediately started to shout and complain about the PSR produced for her son, claiming it to be inaccurate and racist. My first reaction was to immediately defuse the situation; and so I informed her that I had not read the PSR and that although she was entitled to her opinion the National Probation Service works within an anti-discriminatory framework. I went on to inform her of the complaints procedure and told her that I would speak with DD to gage his opinion on the report. At this point her level of aggression decreased, but she still maintained that the report was biased. I found that managing aggression on this level is a lot more straightforward than doing so face to face and that by allowing the person to speak and conversing in calm, yet non patronising manner, facilitated the calming effect on the complainant. Of course it must be acknowledged that had I received such a telephone call in my more youthful days I may have responded in the same manner, that is with aggression. The effect of using an aggressive tone with someone can severely influence the outcome of a conversation. The use of aggression by both parties would inevitably lead to a shouting match and nothing would be achieved at the close.

Thus far this RPJ has highlighted potential violence, aggression and abuse on verbal/non-verbal levels. It has also demonstrated the steps took to prevent and manage such behaviours within a probation setting. The next type of abuse to be covered is that of sexual abuse. SS was a female in her 30s charged with cruelty and neglect towards her children. This was a case that I co-worked with a colleague, and it was my role to complete a full and accurate risk assessment based on the multitude of information available. Having discussed the case in depth with my colleague and accessed the numerous doctors, probation and social services reports I felt that I had enough information to complete a risk assessment. The offence itself was based around the mistreatment of two children by SS and her partner.

Upon reviewing this information I found such actions to be disturbing and upsetting – questioning why individuals felt the need to behave in such ways. Of course I am aware that offences like this are a worldwide phenomenon, but to be involved in a case such as this is something that really ‘hits home’ the magnitude of probation work. Of course ultimately I am a professional and I will be involved regularly in such cases upon qualification. As mentioned earlier I bring my own values to the service and my own personal views about sex offenders are that these are very serious offences that must be dealt with stringently. However it is not for me to decide how they are punished, that is for the courts, my role is to exercise their punishments within a probation setting. Pre-judicial attitudes can lead to inaccurate risk assessments, and so it is important that I deal with each case on its own merits and within the boundaries of the NPS framework. I found the completion of the risk assessment to be fairly difficult, afterall I wanted to make sure all of the information entered was accurate and valid. Having previously been through a MAPPP which assessed her as being a high risk to her children but low risk of harm to others  - I found it difficult to assess her overall risk. Upon discussion with the case manager it was decided that she posed a medium risk of harm to children ‘at present.’ The risk assessment was influenced by the fact that she no longer had contact with her children, no contact with her ex-partner and no longer exhibits total denial of the abuse.

To conclude one would say that dealing with abusive and aggressive behaviour within a probation setting is perhaps more prominent that I first envisaged. The majority of this type of behaviour is evident through the analysis of offences, yet I have also highlighted examples of how I have dealt with abuse and aggression directed towards myself. As a trainee I feel I have received adequate training and guidance through policies and procedures to deal with such instances. Through interaction with fellow trainees I am aware that some have had experiences whereby offenders have threatened them within supervision, both verbally and non-verbally. Fortunately I have yet to experience this myself, and have been able to empathise with the fear felt by many such trainees. I have also been able to put myself in their position and ascertain how I might have dealt with such situations.

A further thought is that although I am responsible for my own actions, particularly in the management and prevention of abusive and aggressive behaviour, the NPS also has a responsibility towards its employees. Under the Health and Safety at work Act (1974) there is a requirement placed upon the Probation Service that in order to address potential risk , prevent and respond to such ‘It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of all its employees.’ (WW Act 1974 Ch 37 2.1).

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

   PROBATION HOME