Details

Published: 10 September 2011

Following the disturbances seen across the country last month, there was much talk about the severity of sentencing and the level of the use of prison both for remand purposes as well as for punishment. While these issues need to be addressed, it’s also important not to loose sight of the soft skills that are required when developing a working relationship with offenders, whether as a prison or a probation officer or in any other capacity.

Heather Munro, the new head of the London Probation Service recently highlighted this when she expressed a ‘new’ approach to managing offenders: respect. Over a lifetime of probation work, she has come to believe that listening to offenders when they express needs and treating them with the same respect businesses show their customers can help to change behaviour and reduce reoffending.

“If we want to cut crime, then vengeance and punishment, disguised as public protection, can no longer remain the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. We should stop reinforcing the loveless and disrespectful world offenders know so well and instead subject them to the tough love that has been denied them at home. We need individual, person-centred programmes to help them change because change is possible in anyone who has the capacity to be honest.”

When respect is at the heart of the relationship, this can be the catalyst to motivate an individual to enter into an alliance with the officer and participate in a process, even if not convinced or its effectiveness. Often, the client will be starting supervision in a state of personal crisis using phrases such as being ‘at absolute rock-bottom,’ ‘I was so depressed,’ ‘I didn’t think I would pull through.’ Problems relating to drugs, alcohol, depression, mental health and relationships would feature heavily in their lives. From this starting point, the offender would have low expectations of the process benefitting them. This entry-point highlights the importance for the officer to develop and sustain a respectful attitude and vision towards the client. (See blog entry: Emotional Proximity, 29/7/11)

When this occurs, the client group will describe the most important qualities in their officers as ‘listening, understanding, approachability, and empathy. Trust is also a dominant quality, inspiring confidence, honesty and truthfulness. When such a relationship develops between the two parties, this underpins each stage in the course of offender supervision: a full assessment, delivering meaningful messages, persuasion of active engagement in methodology, supporting the offender through lapse or relapse (which frequently resembles an act of friendship), and final disengagement from supervision.

However, change doesn’t occur in a vacuum: it is a complex interaction between the offender, the officer, and the range of interventions deployed. At the heart of the relationship lies the trust that offenders speak of which allows them to engage with the work required of them. Offenders will describe such a relationship as one of friendship and trust: ‘someone I could talk to,’ ‘a safe geezer,’ ‘she treated me like an equal.’

If evidence-based practice is to continue to be the key to effective supervision, more and more we need to hear about the successes that are out there. We need to hear about these anecdotes within the Criminal Justice Service, within the community, within the local media, and within the national media. These stories must not be overlooked when devising new structures for service delivery.

An old Romany saying is that, ‘Stories have wings. They fly from mountain-top to mountain-top.’ It’s you and I that give them flight.

Details

Published: 20 August 2011

Language, or more specifically the use of words within different contexts, fascinates me. Take, for instance, a report in the newspapers last week.

I was particularly struck by an expression used within the body of the text for an article headlining ‘Some England Riot Sentences 'Too Severe'’, The statement read: ‘Following the rioting that swept through the capital, the Metropolitan Police announced that it has charged 1,005 people after 1,733 arrests. The force has a target of 3,000 convictions.’

What a strange statement: ‘a target of 3000 convictions’. The dictionary defines target as ‘a desired goal.’

Surely, to the layman such as myself, if arrests have been made, one would assume that they had been done so on the basis that there was a body of evidence sufficient to indict the person. Of course, when that evidence is presented and challenged within the court, and circumstances considered, not all cases will result in prosecution - here the Met have achieved a successful prosecution rate of 58%, to date.

Naturally, there must be many, many more arrests to come to achieve a target of 3000 convictions as there has only been 1733 at the time of print. But, I repeat, why use the word ‘target’ here.

Had the police suggested that they wished to see a ‘higher level of prosecution success’ or intended to ‘do all they can to see justice is done’ or ‘aimed to bring as many of the perpetrators of the violence as possible to face the consequences’ then I could have understood their intentions.

However, these outcomes are against a backcloth of open criticism towards both the police for the manner in which they handled the disturbances and towards the courts for the severity of sentencing (as well as a level of support for the sentencing.) We hear that, of the arrests in connection with the riots, 64% of suspects had been remanded in custody. In 2010 the remand rate at magistrates for serious offences was 10%.

Against such a backcloth, the language of ‘target’ would imply, to me, a determination in the attitude of the police to be seen to be strong, suggesting an aspect of retribution rather than justice. Could this be construed as a subliminal signal to suggest that, if the courts don’t achieve this level of conviction, that the police are not to blame?

Lord McNally, Liberal Democrat Justice Minister, said the courts must operate independently and warned, "it's dangerous when (others) try to do the sentencing". He said politicians make the laws, police do the arresting and judges do the judging and sentencing.

Details

Published: 28 August 2011

Following on from the disturbances experienced in several cities in England, it can be very easy to exhibit a knee-jerk reaction to such an unprecedented level of violence. However, I do feel that we each need to check our responses and the underlying intention, on the basis of our core values. These will then act as a mirror for me to consider what are both the short and long term consequences of my actions? I must be cautious of becoming myopic.

As has been mentioned before in this blog, a prison governor colleague, when debriefing his staff in relation to any punishment to be imposed for misdeeds within the prison, will always encourage his staff to ask themselves, ‘Is this punishment for the benefit of the offender or is it to benefit the officer, i.e. ones ego?’

The violence is, without question, wrong. Appropriate punishment is a necessity.

So what is the way forward? There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. There are already many approaches that are out there that, while perhaps not at a national level, nevertheless contribute significantly towards a 'healing' of the individual and the community. While they tackle/address a wide variety of issues, it is the underlying attitudes that are perhaps the key to their success. While not specifically stated, I suggest that those who work within these organisations demonstrate one or more of the key qualities of (i) respect and equality within diversity, (ii) leadership through example and (iii) the practice of humility.

If you believe the statement that 'if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem' then that would suggest that not to personally embrace any one of these core approaches, will contribute to the breakdown of our communities and society.

That sounds to be a very strong statement! However, the future begins not with the politicians or the authorities. The future begins with .... my self.

Details

Published: 13 August 2011

The violence we have seen in the past week in our cities has created an atmosphere of anger and fear.  In itself, this can spread like fire.  How are we to respond?  Will more anger and frustration help?

There are many causes for the unrest, but this is a crisis that goes very deep - to the very foundation of our society.  We appreciate more than ever the value of the police force that provides security and applaud the thousands of Londoners who showed their community spirit by organising a street clean up, but in the long term profound healing needs to take place.  The rioting is also an indication of a deeper sickness in our society.  Greed, inhumanity, and lack of integrity in the pursuit of financial or political gain are hardly the preserve of the young rioters.  Young people are particularly susceptible to the myth peddled to them by society that happiness lies in material gain; this has left a huge vacuum inside with nothing to fill it.

Over the coming days it is important that instead of thoughts of condemnation, anger and blame we contribute to society with our humanity.  The father of one of the three young men who were killed in Birmingham showed no bitterness but asked for our youths to remain calm and for the community to stand united.

By accepting collective responsibility we can strengthen our own capacity to live by positive values and to embody the behaviour that we wish to see in our children and young people.  This will lead to much greater effectiveness in finding the answers and solutions over the coming weeks, months and years.

Om Shanti - an affirmation of peace to you all