One worth supporting

When I recently finished reading Erwin James blisteringly honest and compelling memoir, I was reminded of when I supervised Des (not his real name) whose background in many ways replicated the early traumas recounted so well in the book Redeemable. The signs were far from promising when Des first entered the probation office, saying that 'he was not going to listen to anyone who had not been through what he had'. This meant just completing the pre-sentence report that had been requested by the local court was a challenge. 

 

My initial impression was that his demeanour and attitude were suggestive of someone who had lived a very precarious lifestyle, and was emotionally unsettled and untrusting. In the report, I tried to convey something of his unhappy background in a way that also acknowledged that his persistent offences of dishonesty and public nuisance (he was particularly prone to empty phone boxes of their contents!) needed to be addressed within the framework of a suitably measured and individualised supervisory intervention. 

 

To my mild surprise, Des reported from court without demur, but hinted that he planned to be 'away' and I might have to 'search around' for his whereabouts. This itinerant existence mirrored the pattern that had developed over many years when his estranged father (his mother was a shadowy presence) moved addresses, often due to broken relationships and casual employment. 

 

That Des managed to secure a place in a night shelter, although one only offering temporary and time-limited accommodation, was a positive starting point. His sense of connectedness was strengthened when I arranged to meet him in an adjoining café that provided a perfect counterpoint to the transient contacts with other service users at the centre. 

 

This 'home visit' appeared to break down the fragile communication barriers that had been evident from our first meeting. I was able to make these meetings (covered administratively in my case notes - at a point in time where the 'tyrannical hold' of the target culture in probation was assuming prominence), as marking the importance of outreach to someone like Des who felt more at ease outside the often sterile environment of the probation office, and whose expressed negativity at being in such a place was more of an obstacle than I had recognised. 

 

After some further meetings, steps were put in place to work collaboratively with a resolute outreach worker to ensure that a referral was made to a project that dealt exclusively with compulsive gamblers. Des had deftly sidestepped my attempts to unpick the triggers to his bouts of prolific offending (often comprising multiple offences committed over a short time span), but was underlined by an addictive compulsion that made sense once Des 'owned' up to his losing 'thousands on gaming machines' after the referral was underway. 

 

Steering him towards a project that was prepared to accept him and aiding him to retain his motivational drive was a welcome development, but this was always edged with his ambivalence and that he was still precariously housed. 

 

I arranged to visit Des when he entered the project while of course being mindful that this programme was very much a bespoke intervention for compulsive gamblers and was, at the time, the only one publicly funded in the capital. I encouraged his compliance such that the supervisory oversight (now reinforced by a specific court mandated condition - a requirement of residence in fact) which the sentencing judge noted as 'something that the defendant will need to use well if he is not to fall back on his old ways'. The graduated progress that was fed back to me via the project showed that the hard graft that Des had expended to 'kick his habit', as the judge noted, appeared to bolster his own recovered esteem that he was doing something for himself. 

 

I appreciated that having the opportunity to work with Des, often outside the confines of an office-centred supervision, made my professional advocacy role more rewarding. Des once quipped about this free ranging supervisory style, ‘Mike, do they know where to find you?' 

 

This approach worked insofar as the practical obstacles that prevented Des to take up support for his addictive behaviour were removed. This was allied to more tailored psychological strategies which succeeded in working towards reducing the destructive gambling habits which underpinned his offending, which resulted in his order being completed. I believe this would not have been feasible if not for a caring, flexible, problem solving approach with the added al fresco ingredient matched to Des personal needs and social circumstances. 

 

The disturbing conclusions on probation staff morale and occupational well-being due to the organisational changes imposed on the Probation Service are contained in Gill Kirton's recent commissioned report.

 

This made me ponder how this community-oriented approach to working with Des, was viewed by the creeping managerial carapace re-shaping the models of probation practice I (and others) favoured! Des passed by the office some while after the end of his order to let me know how things were going - 'bet you never thought you would see me again Mike?'. This bet was one that was worth supporting!

 

---

Mike Guilfoyle is a retired probation officer