Monday 10 January 2011

Professional Dilemma 3

The following happened several years ago when probation officers still enjoyed a mixed bag of cases to supervise, by which I mean we were not restricted to just high risk cases, but some that might have a significant 'welfare' dimension as well. It was also a time when typically you would have written the PSR, decided what the key issues were, what the recommendation would be, how the supervision plan would look and would have taken the case when sentence was passed. All this was regarded as completely normal and in fact was extremely good practice for the time. The ground work had been done, building a relationship had started and the person wasn't passed around like a parcel. Sadly it is most unusual nowadays if the author of a report subsequently ends up supervising the case. But that's another story.

The client in question was a young woman of about nineteen years of age. She had lost touch with her family, been in care, suffered sexual abuse, had a string of unsuitable boyfriends who introduced her to heroin and had already accumulated an offending history that had led to several periods in custody. This is a scenario that will still be very familiar to probation officers nationwide and usually signals a rapidly descending spiral of decline. If I remember correctly I interviewed her on remand for a whole string of shoplifting offences whilst on licence.  

The young woman was homeless and in a sense the report was fairly easy to write because the disposal appeared so obvious to me. She clearly needed help and a Probation Order seemed the most appropriate way to try and give her a fresh start, as long as a hostel place could be arranged. I felt it appropriate to attend court on this occasion so as to be able to convey her to the hostel if an Order was made. It duly was about 3pm, but unfortunately no provision had been made by the prison to supply a methadone script so that her treatment could continue straight away when released. This is not that unusual, even though prisoners attending court are routinely 'discharged' with their belongings. It represents but one of those very irritating lack of joined-up parts of the Criminal Justice System.

We arrived at the hostel at about 4pm and I stayed to chat with the staff and make sure she settled in ok. I remember we were in the middle of a conversation in her room when she suddenly announced 'Look Jim you're a nice bloke, but if I you don't give me a lift into town now so I can graft it'll be too late.'  It's one of those absolutely classic defining moments in your career. What the hell do you do? There was no hope of getting any methodone legitimately at that time of day. This woman is going to be 'rattling' shortly and could only think about how to avoid it. She had told me too much information and was effectively inviting me, her probation officer, to assist in the commission of criminal activity by giving her a lift into town. My career could be ending with a headline in the local paper. I could refuse, give her a lecture or worse in my view, money. Of course parents of drug-using children are often faced with a similar dilemma. Throw them out, or give them money for drugs.

This is a difficult job at the best of times and sometimes decisions are just not clearcut. I had to carry on working with this person and help her turn her life around. In order to try and fulfill that longer term aim, my decision was to reluctantly give her that lift on this occasion.  

15 comments:

  1. You gave her a lift to town, to shoplift. Are you serious?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wish I could remember what happened in the case, that it had a happy ending, but in reality it is only memorable for the dilemma it posed. A lot of probation work is messy, because we're struggling to try and help sort out damaged peoples lives and the sad fact is it doesn't often end happily.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No doubt you made a choice unpopular to many but I can completely see the quandary you were in.

    If you hadn't taken her into town what were the consequences you were hoping to avoid? Please don't take as criticism since I ask in the interest of reflective practice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How would you explain your actions to the people who lost money when she stole from them to fund her addiction ?

    If you felt that strongly why did you assist her in breaking the law rather than give her your money ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, I should have put that better: you weighed up a set of pros and cons to make your decision, aside from the detrimental effect to your working relationship with the client what other risks did you consider there would be if you refused her request?

    ReplyDelete
  6. betteroffout - It's a good question and I don't take it as criticism! As you know the cornerstone of our work is the relationship between officer and client. Here I was, having made a good start with this client, but faced with having to refuse the request basically because she was too honest - she told me too much.

    Honesty is what we're really looking for in a relationship and it seemed I would be just ducking the issue, being hypocritical and dishonest by in effect saying in reply "tell me you just want a lift into town to do some shopping and I'll take you". Lie to me and you'll get a lift - tell the truth and you're on your own.

    I think that is as best as I can explain it. Of course some may wish to contradict, but I'm not at all sure the public really know what we do, how we do it or even why we do it.

    Of course it begs a much bigger question - a dilemma I've prepared for, but has never happened to me. The client that confesses to a specific crime in interview and one they have not been charged on. I would halt the interview immeadiately and say I was duty bound to inform the police. Of course a confession not witnessed, not given under caution and reported third hand might well be of very limited value, but I've always been clear in my mind about that particular boundary.

    A subsequent retraction would not suffice in my view and if it meant allocating a different officer, so be it. The fact it has never happened I think says clients generally know where we are coming from, even if no one else does.

    Thanks,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  7. HPB - I think basically the same argument applies had I given her money. I would never under any circumstances give money knowingly for drugs - I would have been inviting her to lie - "tell me the money is for food, and I'll give it to you".

    ReplyDelete
  8. HPB - Sorry I forgot to reply to the other bit of your question. Clients sometimes say to their probation officers 'if you don't do X or Y you are making me commit a crime.' The answer is 'no we are not - in the end the decision to commit a crime is yours alone'. This client had sole responsibility for any decision she made - understanding why she might have made the decision is what probation is all about.

    I have no idea what she did when she got into town, but I had no other options for her at that moment in terms of her being able to get hold of methodone legitimately.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim, your point about the client's honesty certainly rings true and I doubt there are many in this line of work who haven't heard a little too much at times.

    As regards the female client, on reflection, (and I'm still pushing the reflective angle, having asked the same question of myself in the past), to what extent is your ego likely to have played a part in your decision?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now, would we be getting the same reactions if, rather than shop theft, her "graft" had been to go soliciting, which was my initial interpretation of the word on first reading.

    ReplyDelete
  11. betteroffout - I'm not sure I understand your question about ego. Sorry to be dense, but rather than get the wrong end of the stick, could you expand a little? Are you referring to the gender and age difference? I think my response would have been the same for anyone.
    Cheers,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry not to be clear Jim.

    To summarise crudely, there appears to have been a clash between the competing demands of your professional credibility as a PO and the working relationship (I draw these out only because you've not detailed the welfare concerns you had and which also contributed to the decision), a situation not unlike that of a trusted professional to whom a child discloses abuse. You wanted to maintain both and yet your response would significantly impact on one or the other, your choice implies which was more important to you at that time.

    If your working relationship with the client was harmed, at worst the case could have been reallocated to a colleague who presumably would have had the same potential for successful engagement?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well I feel professional integrity comes above everything - I have always tried to act in a manner that I would be prepared to stand by at a disciplinary hearing, in a court of law or at an enquiry. In this instance, so early on and when she was in crisis, I feel it would have sent all the wrong signals to have simply ducked the issue and walked. In a sense we were both between a rock and a hard place, but for different reasons.

    It is true that I have a very strong antipathy towards the re-allocation of cases. It smacks of passing a parcel and of course ignores the fact that the client has to start all over again with possibly difficult self-disclosure to yet another person. I just don't think it's fair and it doesn't pass my own test of 'how would I feel if I was in the other persons shoes?

    If truth be known I probably acted instinctively and only subsequently have I tried to analyse/rationalise my actions. But I wanted to see what other peoples reactions would be and encourage them to think about the issues that are thrown up on a daily basis in this line of work and it seems to have done that.

    Thanks,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Congratulations Jim for being human.

    It's not your responsibility to provide money for her "medication" and of course there's the issue of whether she would repay you. But offering a ride so she can find a way to continue her course of opiate maintenance was a considered and humane decision - especially since there was no access to methadone.

    Whether she took methadone or heroin is irrelevant because some countries do provide heroin as part of a treatment program. The evidence is very clear about the effectiveness of prescribing heroin for treatment. It's only ignorant or agenda driven politicians who determine what drug policy a country abides to.

    If you had a decent drug policy, she wouldn't have to resort to shoplifting in the first place which was why she was originally jailed. It was a means to pay for her drug of addiction.

    Most people do not understand how excruciating the pain can be from heroin/opiate withdrawal. It is such an agonising experience and compares with being physically tortured.

    For you to take this into consideration, consider her long term welfare more important than any short term issues and risk your job just shows your depth of humanity and how rational you are.

    Society needs more people like you Jim.

    ReplyDelete