Tuesday 4 January 2011

Lets Do Something Different

The Justice of the Peace Blog highlights the sort of story which really gets me annoyed for a whole variety of reasons. He quotes the recent case of a 54 year old itinerant man from Neath who has 220 previous convictions and was in court for breaching an ASBO given in 2007 and which prohibits his presence in a small part of the town centre. He clearly has a chronic alcohol problem and I'm guessing most of his convictions are drink-related and a good number will be for petty offences such as Drunk and Disorderly. 

I have previously discussed similar cases and described how up until the mid 1980's there was a network of hostels and night shelters for such people run by the likes of the Salvation Army, Church Army the DHSS and Local Authorities. They have virtually all closed and been replaced with a smaller and much more highly regulated and bureaucratic regime of projects for the homeless. The trouble is that hardly any are direct access, ie open 24/7 and virtually all have complicated referral and selection criteria.

Now all this is understandable and commendable at the level of professionalism, health and safety etc etc., but of course people like the chap from Neath never quite fit the criteria. He and I suspect many hundreds of other similar men - and it is mostly men because Local Authorities still have some statutory obligation towards women and young people - simply fall through the net. When they cause a problem, society in the form of the Courts just want them moved on in classic Elizabethan-style to the town boundary, a method enforced nowadays by an ASBO. Alternatively they are just incarcerated for a few days before the whole process repeats itself again. Everyone wrings their hands, says nothing can be done and secretly hope that they turn up on someonelses door, or die. 

Over the years I have taken a close professional and personal interest in such cases as our chap from Neath. Until he had a stroke and was eventually housed in a sheltered housing complex, I regularly supervised a man in his 70's who was the subject of a ten year ASBO which amongst other things, forbade his entry into the town of his birth unless to see me. I still find this approach to dealing with such social problems as nothing short of astonishing and will be glad to see the back of the whole damned concept shortly. 

Anyway, back to Neath man, what do we do with him next time he appears in Court? He will of course within days because it is quite unfair and naive to think he can 'turn his life around'  by himself and motivated by a good telling off.  My answer is simple, but will be unpopular. He's given a Community Order with supervision for 12 months, whatever the probation FDR or SDR says. I say this because invariably either will categorically say 'there is nothing the Probation Service can do'. What that really means is that they don't want to get involved as it will be too difficult, for a new-style officer anyway.

Well I beg to differ and in any event the permission of the Probation Service is not required to make such an order. If it leads to trouble, an interesting dialogue can be opened up as to exactly which agency is responsible for trying to tackle this mans offending, if it is not the Probation Service? Homelessness should not be a bar to such an order either. True it is unusual to give a Community Order to someone who is homeless, but there are precedents and the legislation does not stipulate that an address is required. Care should be taken to question the Probation Service closely should the order be returned to court as 'unworkable'. Do they really mean 'difficult'?

This man will have been on probation before and there will be a very thick file held in the dead file store. My guess is that he will have been very well known and may well have some history of violent offending, so his risk level may not be that low. This might be significant because of the probation mantra 'resources follow risk'. I'm even prepared to go that bit further and help write the supervision plan for the hapless colleague who might get the case.

This chap requires someone to talk to on a regular basis in order to get the full history (if not in the file). This will build a relationship and help to discover the reasons behind his downward spiral. There may well be health issues in addition to the alcohol and my guess is he has no GP. The PO can sort that as it is a statutory obligation to have one allocated. This advocacy function can be extended to discussion with the solicitor in order to prepare a case for lifting the ASBO. He may well have special needs that require involvement from Social Services and it will require all the skills of a PO to get them to agree responsibility, but that will lead to assessments and then appropriate referrals to possible housing providers.

I could go on, but I hope readers get the gist. It is ridiculous, callous and inhumane for society to continue to allow men like this to carry on being ignored when they clearly need help. We have an appropriate agency of the State sitting on the sidelines currently saying it's nothing to do with them. They just need a nudge and a reminder as to how it used to be done. So lets do something different next time.    

5 comments:

  1. Jim :
    I find this post remarkably heartening. Like everyone else, I come across this type in court regularly and regret that the probabtion service has adopted the "beyond our help" mantra. I am encouraged to learn that there are things which might be done. I ssuppose the biggest surprise is that JPs (like me) don't need the permission from the probabtion officer to impose a community order. The weakness in the argument however is that in my area, a supervision order without sspecified programmes means "see me in my office soon and go away forever". I have commented before on the poor service we get. If we are to specify an alcohol treatment programme, this would require the support from the defendant and the service - neither likely to be forthcoming. I agree that banishment from the realm is not a worthwhile approach, but what else is to be done? Impose a lengthy custodial sentence for ASBO breach won't please anyone, least of all Ken Clarke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You will appreciate that in a post like this I'm being deliberately provocative and it will not win me many friends in certain quarters - but the current situation cannot continue in my view - sad to say, but my profession needs a good kicking and sentencers really should be more assertive and ask more questions.

    Yes it's true that the Service has been hijacked in recent times by the whole programmes business - but it does not and cannot suit everyone and Neath man is just but one example. He needs an alcohol condition like a hole in the head - it's completely unsuitable but this is the 'one size fits all' Service we now seem to have and some of us are saying it's simply not good enough.

    A straight Community Order with supervision at the very least means the person has to be seen according to the minimum National Standards. It is perfectly possible for a magistrate to request an update from the Probation Service as to a persons progress on supervision - it just might serve as a bit of a wakeup call. I would be very surprised if management refused. Judges still do it now and then, but it used to be more common in the past.

    I can assure you that 'programmes' are on the way out as a)they have been shown to be too expensive b)they are not that effective and c) they don't suit everyone. None of this is a surprise to us old timers - we said so at the time it all came in and it is coming to pass. So, officers will have to get used to the idea of going back to a bit of old-fashioned casework sooner rather than later. This is what Neath man and his ilk need.

    Thanks very much for commenting.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim, as much as I enjoy and agree with the vast majority of what you post, the bashing of programmes grates a little. As a PO in programmes I did a whole lot more than recite from a manual like robots, and my immediate managers were adamant we didn't adopt the production line approach. Applauding the end of accredited programmes is rather crass when it has contributed to me being out of work and is likely to mean the same for others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for that reminder that we are talking about people's jobs here. It just saddens me so much that everything else seemed to be ditched in the Service in favour of this 'magic bullet' called programmes. As a PO in programmes you would have been quite unusual in my Service and I guess my antipathy stems from some very negative personal experiences, coupled with some brilliant years in our own home grown SOTP groupwork programme that got the chop of course. It's also quite difficult to always be reasonable and balanced when trying to get across some complex arguments. Of course there is room for some programmes, it's just not the answer to everything.

    Thanks for reading and commenting and I hope things go well for you in 2011.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Jim, I guess I was lucky to be in a team with several very competent PO's and managers who used phrases from the treatment management manuals (like integrity and responsivity) as a license to go beyond the manuals. An example; when it was clear one chap wasn't going to be able to progress through the SOTP I was given space and time to adapt and introduce materials and spend time working with his denial on a one to one basis. There was no 'completion', treatment profile, or completion report but the "OM" and I could see the difference and he responded well. Of course this has been eroded since.

    I think there are some extremely useful elements to the existing accredited programmes, all of which may have come to the fore if it weren't for the commencement, completion and attrition targets, estrangement from 'offender managers', and if the training hadn't been eroded.

    ReplyDelete