Working with Gypsy and Traveller offenders

Introduction: Working With Gypsies and Travellers

There are a number of distinct groups of culturally nomadic communities in the UK. ‘Gypsies’ are people of Romani heritage; a population originating in Northern India who arrived in Britain from Eastern Europe in the 1500s. The term ‘Gypsy’ derives from the Middle English ‘gypcian’ due to early misconceptions that Romani people originated from Egypt, though many people of Romani heritage now self-identify as Gypsies. As well as people of Romani heritage, there are also indigenous Scottish and Irish Travellers in the UK. Recent genetic research has shown that Irish Travellers are a distinct ethnic group, who separated from the settled Irish community between 1000 and 2000 years ago (Hough, 2011). Gypsies and Travellers traditionally worked as specialized craftspeople, seasonal labourers, traders and entertainers. However with mechanisation and industrialisation many traditional occupations have become unsustainable.

Gypsy and Traveller communities have a marginalized status in the UK, facing specific problems such as low levels of literacy, poor health outcomes and high levels of homelessness. As with other marginalized communities, Travellers also are overrepresented within the justice system; making up 5 per cent of prisoners in male category B Prisons and 7 per cent of prisoners in local female prisons (HMI Prisons, 2011: 111; HMI Prisons, 2010: 117).

There has been very little research into Traveller offenders’ experiences of probation, or, for that matter, of their experiences in the criminal justice system generally. ¹ Lack of monitoring, coupled with the fact that many Travellers are wary of disclosing their ethnic identity due to past experiences of discrimination (Pizani Williams, 1994: 18), has meant that Travellers have often constituted a ‘forgotten minority’ (Pizani Williams, 1994; Morran, 2001). Significantly, neither the 2000 HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) report, Towards Race Equality (HMI Probation, 2000), the 2004 progress review of this report (HMI Probation, 2004) nor the 2011 HM Inspectorate of Probation equality action plan (HMI Probation, 2011) make any mention of Gypsy or Traveller offenders.

The Thames Valley Probation case study

In 2012 Thames Valley Probation commissioned the Working with Gypsies and Travellers study, to explore the needs of Gypsy and Traveller offenders subject to probation supervision (Cottrell-Boyce, 2014). Management and officers in Thames Valley were aware that they worked with significant numbers of Traveller offenders, but were conscious that up until then, little thought had been given to the specific needs of these offenders as a group. The case study was conducted in partnership with the ICB Traveller Equality Project – a charity which works with Gypsies and Travellers in the justice system – and involved an examination of available ICMS and OASys data on Gypsies and Traveller offenders, a staff focus group and offender interviews. This article highlights some of the core findings from this research, drawing on the suggestions and insights of officers and of Travellers themselves to make constructive recommendations for best practice.

Probation officers’ experiences of Gypsy and Traveller offenders

A group of five probation officers from the Thames Valley Probation area took part in a discussion, relating their experiences of working with Traveller offenders. Given that the focus of the study was on developing good practice as opposed to surveying staff perceptions, all officers who volunteered to take part had prior experience of working with Traveller offenders. It is likely that the group had more insight and interest in the topic than a randomly chosen group of officers, and the discussion should not therefore be read as representing the attitudes of all probation staff. From the outset, the probation officers who participated agreed that Travellers’ attitudes towards probation supervision were no better or worse than other offenders. They had had good working relationships with some Traveller offenders and difficult relationships with others; it was ‘down to the individual’. That said, the officers did feel there were some common areas of need for many Traveller offenders.

Poor literacy was cited as the most frequently encountered difficulty when working with Gypsy and Traveller offenders. The feeling in the group was that the ‘majority’ of Travellers they had worked with had literacy needs, an assertion supported by OASys data which showed that 59 per cent of Traveller offenders in the probation area had problems with numeracy compared to 9 per cent of non-Traveller offenders; 65 per cent had problems with reading compared to 14 per cent of non-Traveller offenders; and 65 per cent had problems with writing compared to 16 per cent of non-Traveller offenders. While 57 per cent of non-Traveller offenders had some form of educational or professional qualification, only 12 per cent of Traveller offenders possessed any qualifications. ² Low literacy was said to ‘narrow your options of what you can do with offenders’, most significantly excluding offenders from accredited programmes which contained a written element. Travellers with low literacy were unable to complete accredited courses such as the Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP) and Thames Valley Sex Offender Group Programme (TVSOGP); programmes which have high success rates. Although officers did suggest that material could be adapted for offenders with low literacy, this was said to be ‘no substitute’ for a structured course, particularly because participants missed out on the group dynamic offered by such programmes. Not being able to complete worksheets also meant that there was less recorded evidence, making it harder to demonstrate the impact of an intervention. For sex offenders in particular, one probation officer suggested that not having the required literacy to participate in the accredited course (TVSOGP) would leave an offender ‘stuffed’ and that ‘you would probably have to look at custody’ in pre-sentence recommendations. Overall it was felt that probation interventions were likely to be less successful with people with low literacy with one officer stating simply, ‘the more literacy problems you have, the less we can do with you’.

Another concern that emerged from the focus group was the difficulty of conducting unannounced home visits to Traveller sites. One officer had recently encountered aggression and hostility from other residents on a site and had been forced to ‘leg it’ before being able to meet her client. The officer described it as a ‘horrific experience’. Enquiries with the police and local authority as to the best way to approach the site had not produced any useful feedback. In particular, the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller liaison officer with the local authority had been unwilling to assist probation officers visiting the site, as it would ‘ruin their rapport with the community’. In the subsequent discussion, officers felt that although they had good relations with Travellers on some sites it was difficult to find a ‘way in’ to other sites and would appreciate more guidance on the best way to ‘approach’ Traveller communities. There was also a consensus that more work was needed to ‘link up’ better with local authorities to find out who was responsible for individual sites and who to contact. Although officers had encountered difficulties visiting specific sites, they were also aware of prejudice relating to Traveller sites generally, both within the probation service and partner agencies. This prejudice resulted in blanket assumptions by some staff that sites were unsafe to visit and unsuitable addresses for release on licence or home detention curfew (HDC). In relation to HDC, police frequently recommended against release to a site on the basis of thin evidence, with the subtext being that Traveller sites generally were ‘full of criminals’. One officer stated that she had just managed to get a Traveller offender released to a local authority site on HDC, but that it been a ‘huge ordeal’ to convince other agencies that the site was a suitable address for release. While sites were unsuitable for release in certain cases, due to the presence of known criminal associates, for example, in other cases there was no reasonable basis for refusing release to a site. Several officers recounted occasions where they had disputed the assumptions of colleagues in relation to Traveller sites.

Particular difficulties were reported when working with female Traveller offenders. Female offenders were often extremely wary of disclosing information to their probation officer for fear that what they said would be relayed to their husband or other relations. Generally speaking, the officers in the meeting felt that it was far harder to build up trust with female Traveller offenders than male. Domestic violence was also raised as a key concern when working with female Traveller offenders. Several officers said they had dealt with Traveller women who were being victimized by their partners, but were unwilling to report it due to a cultural acceptance of domestic violence. Women might claim to have ‘deserved’ the violence inflicted, or state that it was part of ‘our way of life’. Officers had also experienced Traveller women retracting statements in court due to family pressure in domestic violence cases. As a consequence, very few Travellers were actually subject to probation supervision for domestic violence offences.

In the weeks preceding the research, probation officers had been asked to go over an ethnic monitoring form with their clients, in order to gain an accurate picture of the number of offenders who categorized themselves as ‘W3 Gypsy or Irish Traveller’. At the end of this process, the number of self-declared Traveller offenders in the probation area had risen from 3 to 37. The responses to this audit were enlightening; one offender openly identified as a Traveller but told his probation officer he was unwilling to be formally recorded as ‘W3’, saying:

I’m not doing that for people to class me as a Pikey.

Several officers commented on the limits of the OASys risk assessment system in regard to Traveller offenders. One officer commented that as OASys was based on research which focused on white majority, 18−25 year old males, it was less accurate at predicting the behaviour of women and ethnic minority offenders. In particular, questions on OASys relating to accommodation and employment assumed the cultural norms of the settled community, and could unfairly classify Travellers as higher risk. The officer did qualify this by saying that a probation officer should be able to use their discretion and judgement when completing OASys to counteract this effect. Some officers stated that they had consciously removed the fact that an offender was a Traveller from pre-sentence reports, being mindful of prejudice towards Travellers in society at large and fearing that this could influence court proceedings. Officers noted that they were trained in non-discriminatory practice and utilized gatekeeping; ensuring each other’s reports only contained material that was fair and relevant. Officers also pointed out that information recorded on OASys reports, which might be useful and relevant to probation officers, should not necessarily be transferred to pre-sentence reports if it had no bearing on the case and could be misused. At the same time, the officers pointed out that it was hard for Travellers to disguise their ethnic identity in court proceedings. One officer explained that Traveller families were often known to local magistrates, and defendants often arrived in court with large family entourages. This meant that the possibility of anti-Traveller prejudice in sentencing remained, even if no explicit reference to a defendant’s ethnicity was made in court proceedings.

While violent offences were not felt to be any more common amongst Travellers than other offenders, some officers said that Traveller offenders’ attitudes towards violence had proved problematic in certain cases they had dealt with. For some Traveller offenders, organized and community regulated fights were seen as a legitimate way to resolve disputes. This prevented them progressing with accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes such as Aggression Replacement Training, as they did not agree with the basic premise that violence was an illegitimate means to resolve a disagreement.

In terms of provision to help probation engage better with Traveller offenders, the officers felt that having contact details for other professionals working with the Travelling community – staff from local authorities or third sector organizations for example – would be useful. Generally the officers felt they would like to learn more about Traveller culture and history, to help them bridge the cultural gap between Travelling and settled communities.

The views of Gypsy and Traveller offenders in the Thames Valley area

In depth interviews were conducted with three Traveller offenders in the Thames Valley Probation area, randomly selected out of those offenders identifying as ‘W3 Gypsy or Irish Traveller’:

‘John’ ³ (male, 20s); an English Traveller recently released from prison on licence, grew up on a site in Oxfordshire but currently lives in a flat with his partner and child.

A further four interviews had been scheduled with Traveller offenders but unfortunately in all four cases the offender either cancelled or failed to show up.

Both John and Frank stated that they had had good experiences of the probation service and had been treated fairly by their probation officers. John felt he was getting a lot of support from probation to ‘stay on the right track’, and was appreciative of the help he had received towards getting his CSCS card. Neither John nor Frank reported any specific difficulties, or felt they had been treated any differently by probation because they were Travellers, with Frank concluding:

It’s been absolutely fine really. I’ve been treated with nothing but respect.

When the issue of probation officers experiencing difficulties while conducting home visits to sites was raised, John pointed out that not all sites were the same:

You wouldn’t have problems visiting our site. It’s a proper council site. But it’s different with some Travellers; they don’t let strangers on the site. All Travellers are different.

Meeting the needs of Traveller offenders

In itself, the audit of Traveller offenders that preceded the data collection highlighted the importance of having effective strategies for monitoring of Gypsy and Traveller offenders. The fact that the number of identified Travellers jumped from three to 37 in the course of the study demonstrates the difference a pro-active approach to monitoring can make, beyond the existence of a tick box on a form. Officers need to be aware of the sensitivities around Traveller identity and the reluctance of some offenders to declare their ethnicity unless specifically prompted and reassured.

That literacy, numeracy and poor engagement with education should have figured heavily in the needs of Traveller offenders in Thames Valley is not surprising; these findings reflect the situation of Gypsies and Travellers in society generally. A survey in Dorset in 2007 for example, found that 62 per cent of adult Gypsies and Travellers in the region were illiterate (Friends, Families and Travellers, 2007). Twenty five per cent of Gypsy and Traveller children in Britain are not enrolled in education and in 2007 only 14 per cent of Gypsy children achieved five GCSE grades A−C, compared to 59 per cent of the general population (Barclay, 2011: 9). Up to 20 per cent of community service hours can be used for engaging in literacy work and several officers said that this had proved useful when working with Traveller offenders. However, all agreed that the probation service lacked the resources to adequately engage with offenders literacy needs, with the only support available being a ‘Bridge to Employment’ adviser who worked one day a week. This in turn meant that progress was too slow for offenders to be able to ‘catch up’ over the course of an order and be able to participate in an offender behaviour programme. Travellers are not the only offenders to have difficulties around literacy; a 2004 Home Office study found that there was a ‘a marked discrepancy between the literacy demands of the programmes and the literacy levels of offenders required to attend them’ (Davies et al., 2004: 3). The study found that the most effective support for offenders with low literacy, to ensure they did not miss out on offending behaviour courses, included ‘the use of a literacy support worker within sessions, dedicated and linked literacy support outside sessions and peer support’ (Davies et al., 2004: 4). Given the significant impact that low literacy has on reoffending (see for example Parsons, 2002), there is a case to be made for dedicating more resources for literacy support. This could be by increasing the capacity of existing provision (the ‘Bridge to Employment’ adviser in the case of Thames Valley), or making more use of volunteer and mentor support specifically around literacy. There is also a need for officers carrying out initial assessments to pay more attention to the educational needs of Traveller offenders. Traveller offenders may feel embarrassed by their lack of literacy and numeracy in an increasingly educated society and daunted at the prospect of engaging in education at a later stage in life. Persuasion and negotiating skills are particularly important for engaging with Traveller offenders who refuse to consider educational interventions. Officers might spend more time explaining how such interventions could be useful to the individual; exploring the reasons behind their reluctance to engage and attempting to allay any concerns they might have.

It was clear that release to a Traveller site was not as straightforward for Traveller offenders as release to bricks and mortar accommodation. Consistent with previous studies (NOMS, 2009; MacGabhann, 2011), the officers interviewed had encountered automatic assumptions from colleagues and partner agencies that Traveller sites were unsuitable for release on HDC or licence. It was encouraging to see that the officers involved in the study had advocated on behalf of Traveller offenders wishing to be released to sites, challenging assumptions and going to considerable lengths to convince other parties that sites should not be ruled out as suitable accommodation unless specific security concerns existed. This advocacy represents best practice and demonstrates the role that the probation service can play in promoting race equality in relation to Gypsy and Traveller communities.

A key point raised by one officer was the unmet need that exists, in terms of offender behaviour programmes specifically dealing with instrumental violence, to address the pre-meditated violence that some Traveller offenders engaged in. Key offender behaviour programs such as CALM (Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it) and ART (Aggression Replacement Training) focus on reactive, impulsive violent behaviour, helping participants to manage aggression and develop rational thinking and problem solving skills. Some Travellers however, engage in violence that is not impulsive but pre-meditated and community sanctioned. Evidence based programmes to address this kind of instrumental violence could be explored by NOMS, and may prove effective with other offender groups. Attitudes towards domestic violence were also said to present difficulties with Traveller offenders; consistent with a Welsh study which found that 61 per cent of married English Gypsy women and 81 per cent of married Irish Traveller women had experienced domestic abuse (South East Wales Regional Women’s Aid Consortium, 2010: 4). In dealing with offenders from the Travelling community it is important that practitioners understand the cultural context, which can present additional barriers to women escaping domestic violence. As the charity Friends, Families and Travellers points out:

Most Gypsies and Travellers will have a social life that is mainly based around their extended family and community. Leaving because of domestic abuse means a woman not only losing her home and partner, but also her community, her culture and way of life. It also leaves her open to prejudice of the settled population, without the security and protection that living with her own community brings. (Friends, Families and Travellers, 2009: 1)

The alienation of many Traveller communities from wider society was demonstrated by the difficulty experienced by officers being forced to ‘leg it’ from a specific site by residents, as well as by the strongly held ‘us and them’ sentiments of John and Mark. Historical discrimination, cultural difference and punitive legislation have put huge strain relations between Travellers and the state, a situation best summed up by Mark:

The damage has been done and it will take a lot to repair that damage.

The difficulties some officers faced finding a ‘way in’ to sites highlighted a problem of engagement at the local authority level; in particular it was highly concerning that a local authority Gypsy, Roma, Traveller liaison officer refused to assist another statutory agency. As a law enforcement agency, the probation service may very well be met with suspicion by residents on sites; it would therefore be desirable to ‘link up’ with other services who have already built a rapport and can advise on the best approach. This may involve research, and thinking outside the usual frameworks; both Mark and John for example referred to Traveller education workers as the only people from the local authority they trusted and with whom they had good relations.

In cases where no statutory agencies have links to a site the probation service might consider raising this as an issue with the local authority or at interagency forums. Given that the probation service only engages with people at ‘crisis points’ once individuals are already inside the justice system, the onus should be placed on other agencies to build relations and trust with Gypsy and Traveller communities in their jurisdiction.

John’s account of his ethnicity being brought up as a risk factor at a bail hearing corresponds with Power’s (2003) study of the treatment of Travellers in the criminal justice system. The suggestion that Travellers pose more of a flight risk than other offenders is out of date in a context where the vast majority of Travellers live at a fixed location – be it a site or house – and travel only for a short period in the summer months, if at all. It was encouraging to hear that officers pro-actively edited pre-sentence reports to remove non-relevant information about an offender’s background, in an attempt to reduce opportunities for discrimination. This is good practice, as is the utilization of gatekeeping to ensure reports only contain material that is fair and relevant. The officers involved in the focus groups shared concerns about the inflexibility of OASys, raised in NOMS good practice guide for working with Gypsy and Traveller offenders (NOMS, 2009: 19). A glance at an OASys assessment form immediately reveals questions which are heavily biased towards settled modes of living. In section three, accommodation for example, OASys presents questions regarding:

…quality of residence, appropriateness of living arrangements.

Conclusion and key recommendations for working with Gypsy and Traveller offenders

As was stated at the outset, Travellers are not a homogenous group and there can be no standard ‘rules’ for probation officers working with Traveller offenders. That said, evidence from the Thames Valley probation area suggests that Traveller offenders are more likely to present needs in a number of key areas including education, training and employment, accommodation and attitudes towards violence. Addressing the specific needs of Gypsy and Traveller offenders does not require large scale expenditure by the probation service. However, improved socio-cultural awareness combined with a number of modest adaptations in provision could lead to improved outcomes for this vulnerable client group. Key recommendations for working with Gypsy and Traveller offenders emerging from this study are as follows: