Once started, it can be difficult keeping a blog going, so once again I'm grateful to regular reader Mike for pointing me in the direction of something useful to read. Many will be aware that Andrew Bridges recently retired as HM Chief Inspector of Probation and as a consequence he was invited to give a valedictory lecture at Oxford University last week. Entitled 'Probation and Youth Offending work : A tribute to those who do it well' it is a fascinating and illuminating reflection on a lifetimes work that will cheer practitioners and inform outsiders in equal measure.
It's really good to hear that he remains in awe of colleagues "who've got what it takes to influence other people for the better by the way they talk with and listen to them."
Mr Bridges is most critical of what he describes as a 'greedy and lazy' press for perpetuating a two-dimensional debate about an essentially three-dimensional issue - namely offending. The argument has never been as straightforward as 'hawks verses doves.' On the topic of prison working or not, he makes the point that age is the critical factor. The longer a person can be kept out of prison, the more likely it is that their offending will stop. On the other hand if they go to prison early, they are more likely to offend for longer.
The nature of our work means that we are in the business of explaining often reprehensible behaviour, whilst at the same time constantly reminding people that this is not the same as excusing it. It's refreshing to hear Mr Bridges explaining that probation work is simply "doing the Right Thing with the Right Individual in the Right Way at the Right Time." Easy to say, but difficult to do of course, he goes on to explain the three key purposes of the work as seen from an Inspectors point of view:-
Firstly, through compliance and enforcement, ensuring that the individual serves their sentence.
Secondly, engage them with a range of constructive work that enables the individual to become measurably less likely to offend again in the future.
Thirdly, by monitoring the behaviour of the individual, take reasonable action in order to minimise that persons Risk of Harm to others.
He goes on to confirm that the relationship between practitioner and client is key and that a degree of discretion is important. He feels there has been far too much proscription over recent years. In discussing various initiatives in practice, interestingly he feels these are more to do with the enthusiasm of the staff than the nature of the work. He felt that although new initiatives might deliver improvements in early years, this then tails off as staff enthusiasm wanes. This may be part of the answer, but I suspect it's also something to do with appropriateness of referrals. In the early days of an initiative the referrals are probably right for the individuals concerned, but as the project becomes more mainstream, the temptation of management is that it might work for ever larger groups of people.
On the subjest of management, it's really heartening to hear the former Chief Inspector pondering aloud that there were probably too many managers and rather than helping to deliver improved practice, they too often spent most of their time conferring with other managers. He went on to say that his inpectors often reported that officers being interviewed as part of the inspection process frequently stated that the experience had been 'the closest to proper supervision in years.' Oh dear.
This has only been a brief canter through some highlights of what is a fascinating reflective piece and is well worth reading in full.
No comments:
Post a Comment