‘“It’s relentless”: The impact of working with primarily high-risk offenders’: A practitioner response

Introduction

I am a probation officer case manager within the National Probation Service (NPS) with my main responsibility as women’s concentrator within the Local Delivery Unit (LDU). This involves case management of women under NPS supervision in partnership with other women’s services across the local area. As outlined in Phillips et al.’s (2016) research, Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) has impacted on the nature of my caseload where the vast majority of the women I supervise are those assessed as ‘high risk’. Phillips et al. (2016) explore the impact of this change in terms of the increased stress felt by practitioners in regards to practice issues of assessment and management of a wholly high-risk caseload. Their research suggests practitioners may experience difficulties in terms of prioritizing their workloads and highlights organizational failures to accurately support prioritization of imminent risk of serious harm and greatest need due to a flawed tiering model.

Phillips et al. (2016) argue case managers are experiencing the ‘relentless’ nature of the changes brought by TR in that there is ‘nothing that isn’t really risky to dilute the intensity of what we do’ (p. 186). Whilst their research touches on the emotional changes brought through TR in terms of the stress felt by practitioners, I would suggest it is not only operational factors of public protection but also the individual emotional experiences of practitioners exposed to such a client group that need to be considered in terms of the enhanced intensity in the work.

Emotional labour

Within their research Phillips et al. (2016) touch on the notion of emotional labour and its relationship to the need for practitioners to take more responsibility for protecting the public and to handle scrutiny should things go wrong. Emotional labour refers to the ‘effort, planning and control required to display organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions’ (Morris and Feldman, 1996: 987). As such it is the requirement of staff to balance the organizational expectations of appropriate emotional displays against their own personal feelings about a situation (Kinman, 2009).

Here ‘feeling rules’ of emotional labour refer to the types of emotions a person should express in accordance with their organization’s culture (Studsrod, 2013). For instance, case managers may be exposed to both the trauma inflicted by and to a client through direct work. As an example, NOMS data indicate that 67 per cent of women managed in the NPS report being victims of domestic violence (NOMS, 2015: 8). When managing clients who have experienced domestic violence case managers are expected to both suppress emotions deemed undesirable during face-to-face interactions and introduce emotions that are expected (Studsrod, 2013). As such, when a client is describing a personal experience of being assaulted or sexually abused, whilst as case manager I am expected to show empathy, it is required I prioritize how this experience relates to risk of reoffending and to implement strategies to reduce these risks. The organizational culture expects me to suppress or manage emotions deemed undesirable, such as sympathy, shock, anger or distress, whatever the nature of the disclosure made by the client.

As Philips et al. (2016) highlight in respect to emotions that are expected from case managers, TR has increased pressure on staff to prioritize both public protection duties and to handle personal scrutiny if ‘things go wrong’. In reference to the emotional labour involved in managing clients who may also be victims of domestic violence, case managers may therefore find their personal feelings towards a client to be at odds with the NPS ‘feeling rules’ regarding public protection and scrutiny of potential outcomes. My personal experience of working with female clients is that these ‘feelings rules’ often are at odds with my personal feelings of anger, sadness and concern as to a client’s individual situation when they are describing their experiences of trauma and victimization.

I would further suggest such organizational requirements of ‘feelings rules’ are at odds with effective risk management of women. My own personal experience corresponds to research indicating women’s experience of domestic violence is a key predictor of violent offending (NOMS, 2015: 8). I would suggest that addressing dynamic risk factors therefore requires recognition of these trauma experiences and an integrative approach which allows women to discuss their experiences and work through them in a safe and understanding environment. For me, this is where the intensity of the work, as discussed by Phillips et al. (2016), becomes apparent as case management requires exploration of women’s personal experiences of victimization, which is often at odds with the public protection aspects of supervising ‘high-risk’ females.

Change in manager-practitioner supervisory practices

Research across various fields highlights the emotional toll that can be caused to any practitioner completing direct work around a client’s trauma experience. This includes the risk of developing secondary traumatic stress (Steed and Bicknell, 2001; Severson and Pettus-Davis, 2013) and experiencing negative changes to personal sense of self, worldview and interpersonal relationships (Way et al., 2004). In the context of child protection work, Leeson (2010) further highlights that organizational ‘feelings rules’ which are at odds with personal values or beliefs can be specifically detrimental to practitioners where there is little support within an organization in respect of the emotional labour work being undertaken by staff.

Within the NPS the lack of appropriate support available to staff is highlighted as a consequence of TR within Phillips et al.’s (2016) research. Participants discussed the impact of inadequate and managerially focused line management in terms of their ability to cope with the demands of a high-risk caseload. Sporadic and formulaic manager-practitioner supervision is something I have experienced myself. In my own experience the demands of TR in terms of the focus on establishing effective public protection procedures within a reduced and at times over-stretched NPS has resulted in supervision becoming a discussion of processes. Supervision at times feels like a tick-box exercise – has an approved premise referral been made, have OASys targets been met, has contact been made with police? Whilst these aspects are important in terms of the aims of the NPS to ensure public protection and an appropriate level of supervision for each client, reflection on the actual direct work undertaken with clients, and the emotional impact of this on myself as a case manager, has in my experience almost evaporated. Phillips et al. (2016) conclude that there is clearly scope for more effective supervision of practitioners and my personal experience corresponds with this.

Providing effective support to case managers

The research also highlights where some NPS colleagues are receiving enhanced supervisory support, for instance the participant working within the personality disorder pathway training programme. This participant is in receipt of clinical supervision, which allowed them to offload anxieties from working with high-risk cases. Reflective supervisory practices are also well established alongside sex-offender treatment programmes (SOTP). Here recognition of the impact of personal engagement with harmful and serious offending is recognized in the overall approach to the work, with practitioners able to access de-briefs following each session, line manager and clinical supervision (Mann, 2009). Leicht (2008) highlights negative emotional responses such as stress, burnout and vicarious traumatization can be experienced by practitioners completing any kind of intensive intervention with sexual offenders. As recent changes have passed increased responsibility for treatment of low- and medium-risk sex offenders, who may previously have been suitable for SOTP, to individual practitioners, I would question why such supervisory practices have not been extended to case managers.

Phillips et al.’s (2016) research suggests that, in the absence of reflective manager-practitioner supervision, many practitioners expressed reliance on colleagues as a support system to manage the emotional demands of the role. They argue that ‘there is the risk that colleagues provide inappropriate forms of emotional and practical support that could, in theory, lead to poor decisions’ (p. 189). I would agree that yes, there is always potentially a risk you may receive poor advice or support from colleagues. However, I feel Phillips et al. (2016) are too quick to ignore the potential benefits of providing time and space for case managers to discuss, reflect on and interpret the emotional responses to the work they complete. From my personal experience it is often colleagues who have encountered similar situations who are the best positioned to provide both empathetic and practical support.

Research across many fields of client-focused work has shown the benefit of the ability to debrief and off-load with colleagues for the emotional wellbeing of those working with both the traumatized individual and those who may be inflicting abuse on others. Here Rourke (2007) highlights the benefits of promoting conversations around the impact of direct work to reducing the risk of negative emotional responses within the practitioner. This is replicated in the research of Treadwell (2006), who highlights the importance of being able to share with those who can empathize to process the emotional response to the experience. Within my own LDU case managers are able to attend a monthly practice development group with a focus on the direct work they are undertaking with clients. These groups are delivered in conjunction with staff from psychological services and offer case managers the chance to support each other to reflect on practice and process the impact of the work on self. From my experience they are well attended and case managers welcome the ability to discuss their cases in-depth, seek reassurance and understanding from colleagues and support colleagues to work through the emotional demands of their role.

Conclusion

Phillips et al. (2016) have highlighted some of the impacts of the changing nature of the workload for many case managers since the implementation of TR. I would suggest, however, it is not solely the intensity of increased public protection responsibilities that need to be considered but also the intensity related to direct work completed with individuals who have inflicted serious harm and who have experienced trauma and serious harm themselves. In my experience TR has altered the ability to express and reflect on the emotional impact of direct work with a high-risk caseload, most notably in the reduced frequency and quality of line management supervision. I would agree then with Phillips et al. (2016) that poor manager-practitioner supervisory practice is something that needs to be addressed when considering the impact of managing a high-risk caseload. This is especially important within an organizational culture which focuses on public protection, given the emotional labour demands of the role.

There are clear examples already within the NPS where reflective supervision is viewed as key to ensuring the emotional wellbeing of practitioners, and I believe more needs to be done to extend this to all case managers within the NPS. Further, whilst Phillips et al. (2016) question the ability of colleagues to provide appropriate support systems, from my own experience, engagement with practitioner-led practice development groups provides a valuable support system for case managers in the absence of reflective, manager-practitioner supervision. I would argue then that consideration needs to be given not just to how to improve manager-practitioner supervision but also to ensure time and space is given to case managers to discuss the impact of direct work and to support each other to deal with the emotional labour demands of a changing case load within the NPS.