The Language of Supervision
Ó Carl Reddick
Many people engage in supervision as normal part of their day to day lives. The type supervision we will be talking about is that between a person holding what is perceived to be the legally superior position over another person. In other words...we are talking about professionals within the criminal justice system. A good example of this type of a relationship is the interaction between a probation officer and his or her client. A prison guard can also be said to be supervising inmates. Social workers, child welfare workers, mental health counselors, teachers, and parents are also supervising others. The important criterion for this type of supervision is that the person being supervised is at the relative legal mercy of the person supervising them. Naturally there are civil rights issues, appeals, and interventions built into all of these types of relationships, but we will be looking at this type of interaction from the perspective of the person purporting to be ‘in charge’. In this case, a Parole or Probation Officer.
Ø
We will
focus as narrowly as possible on how we speak to those we are charged
with supervising.
If you hold this type of a job you usually experience, in the normal
course of events, the telephone ringing,
tasks piling up, and pressures competing for your attention. But your principle
function is to speak to people as they approach you during the day. These types
of ‘conversations’ fall into distinctive categories.
Giving advice
Listening
Teaching
Interrogations
Questions
Counseling
Giving Orders
These activities were usually first learned in social situations. The
problem is, our days are spent attempting to apply these social skills to our
duties as Parole and Probation officers. First and foremost, we must ‘unlearn’
these social conventions as they apply to our jobs. What we are attempting to
do with offenders is far removed from social conversation, educational
dialogue, anecdotal information, and comments. Generally speaking, those of us in
the ”helping professions” (and here I include policemen, doctors, health and
welfare workers, corrections employees, parents, teachers, and many many
others) have been given bits and pieces of training about how to speak to those
with whom we have daily interactions. Or we mix and match our responses based
on the level of intensity exhibited by our clientele. In other words, if they
shout, we shout louder. If they want to discuss their personal problems, we
assume an air of concern. If they want to lie and manipulate, we launch an
interrogation to ‘get to the bottom’ of the situation at hand.
Consider this...when we are in the roles demanded by our jobs, we are
literally ‘on stage’. And we better have a very good ‘act’ or the resulting
burnout, inefficiency, and despair will not be a pretty sight.
Think about your last day at work. If it was a typical day you spoke to
many people. You spoke to your clients/offenders, various therapists,
attorneys, your colleagues, the general public, and your boss. Each of these
conversations were, ostensibly, engaged in for a particular reason. Lets take a
look at some of the one’s we’ve all had with offenders in greater detail.
The routine client:
“Mr. Jones is in the lobby” You have a person who has come to see you. Actually
traveled to your office because he was ordered to by what he perceives as a
‘higher authority’. All to often the conversation goes something like this:
You: ‘How’s it going”?
They: Fine
You: Still living at the same address?
They: Yup
You: Still attending your treatment?
They Sure am.
You: How do you like it?
They: It’s OK
You: Let’s see...you see me on the first Tuesday of each month, right?
They: Uh huh
You: OK. See you then
Look at this conversation. A one minute exchange that elicited
verification of a residence, participation in treatment, and a future reporting
schedule. Or did it?
42 words were spoken. 7 by the client and 35 by the PO. The
‘information’ provided by the client was ‘Fine...Yup...Sure am...It’s OK...and
Uh huh.
When asked, the PO will usually defend this type of conversation in one
of two ways.
#1 “I’m too busy to do anything more in depth”
The logical question here is why did the PO have any conversation at
all? The answer is that the offender is required to check in with his officer
on a certain schedule. It’s part of the PO’s job duties to have regular contact
with his offenders, even if no data was gathered. This interview technique,
then, appears to be a waste of everyone’s time. However, in two minutes the PO
could perform an ‘act’ that could have quite a bit more substance. And, oddly
enough, this ‘role’ would all revolve around how he listens, rather than the
questions he asks, as we shall soon see.
#2 “I have to ask these questions or he’ll never tell me anything. You
don’t know these people”.
Every question the PO asked contained the answer. Look at the above
conversation. The PO picks the subject and, when the offender agrees with him,
moves on to the next subject. The only issues that surface are the ones that
are of interest to the PO. If the PO thinks he is conducting an interrogation,
he is doing a remarkably poor job of it.
Many of our clients are resistive. It’s extremely difficult to get
truthful information from them and, after a few years, we come to disbelieve
most, if not all, of what comes out of an offender’s mouth. So we develop
certain ‘skills’ to cut to the chase and ask questions in a manner the PO has
specifically learned will yield information about problem areas.
You: Hi. You’re supposed to be in treatment. Are you still attending
They: No
You: Why not?
They: I don’t have any money and besides, it’s stupid.
You: You know that it’s a condition of your probation don’t you.
They: Yes. But you can’t get blood out of a turnip.
You: But I can notify the court, they can put out a warrant and they
can arrest you.
They: So?
You: The bottom line is, if you don’t complete the conditions of your
probation you may very well may end up back in jail. Is that what you want?
They: No
You: Then be sure to keep your next appointment with your therapist
before you see me again.
103 words were spoken in this exchange. 81 by the officer and 22 by the
offender.
The officer elicited these statements. “No...I don’t have any
money...treatment is stupid...one rather tired cliché’...and ’no’ ”.
When asked, the PO usually defends this line of questioning by claiming
he needs this information to document future violation reports and any
noncompliance with the conditions of supervision. Often the PO is consciously
defending himself from any liability
precipitated by future actions of the offender.
The ‘No’ statement by the offender raises red flags in the interview
room. “Ah ha’, the PO thinks, ‘here’s one of ‘them’ ”.’I know how to deal with
these people.’ And the reaction is to
patiently explain the ramifications of this action to the offender. In the
normal world this is called a ‘threat’.
Questioning techniques when the answer is a
lie
Parole and probation officers have access to an incredible amount of
information. Aliases, tattoos, addresses, psychiatric and discipline reports,
and other raw information constantly pour into her office from the community.
Often the PO will know precisely when the offenders is lying before the
interview even begins.
You: Are you still living at 123 Pine St?
They: Yeah
You: Are you sure?
They: Yeah
You: Do you have another place you stay?
They: No
You: Will you read condition #3 to me. The ones that says you must
respond truthfully to an agent of the Corrections Department.
They: Yeah, I know it.
You: I’ll ask you again, do you have another address?
They: Sometimes I stay at my girlfriend’s at 222 Fir St
You: That’s better. As I’ve told you before, I want to know all
of your addresses.
The PO emerges satisfied that carefully worded questions about inside
information have achieved the desired result. 81 words were spoken. 16 by the
offender and 65 by the PO. What was the result? An admission of an unauthorized
address. For what purpose ?
At the risk of stating the obvious, all information about the offender
is held by the offender. His fellow gang members, his mother, his girlfriend,
and certainly the PO only hold certain, carefully released, portions of his
puzzle. But isn’t this true of all of us ? We have our hands on the control
valve that allows information about ourselves out into the world. We open and
close it when we think we need to achieve certain results. So does the
offender. The techniques discussed in this paper will be uncomfortable for the
PO to add to his or her work skills because they break all ‘the rules’ we have
learned about gathering information.
Let’s go back to the first example. The PO’s attitude is that this
conversation is only happening because ‘they’ want me to see ‘him’ one time per
month. There is really little or no purpose to this interaction other than to
says that ‘he’ was seen in the last 30 days.
A citizen may ask “Why, then, don’t you put this case in the case bank
and stop requiring these monthly, useless, meetings? A fair question. The PO’s
response would most likely be ‘Mr. citizen, you don’t understand...this is a
dangerous person, a convicted felon. He’s a burglar and a car thief.” A good
response, as far as it goes but take another look at the first sample
conversation. Where did it address the issue of thievery; how did the
interaction put the community at less risk? What exactly was going on?
If it is true that the offender holds the information, then doesn’t it
make sense to update our information at every possible opportunity? As PO’s we
simply need to design, develop, and deliver a modern and relevant ‘language’
that may serves us better as law enforcement officers.
Twelve Things Not To Do
1.
Warn
2.
Threaten
3.
Promise
4.
Give
advice
5.
Praise
6.
Sympathize
7.
Moralize
8.
Make
suggestions
9.
Console
10. Command
11. Chastise
12. Or say ‘I told you so’
* there are exceptions to every rule
After about five years of working as a PO you’ve probably heard every
possible combination of every possible story an offender has to tell. Now
you’re ready to start listening. Naturally, it is very difficult to listen when
you are talking, so the first and foremost skill to develop is the ability to
stop talking. In our job, whoever talks the most is in the weakest position. Some
people go so far as to say that it is impossible to not speak when the second
person in a conversation stops talking for a period of five slow full breaths.
Try it. Next time an offender makes a particularly absurd or false statement
just look at him for a count of five breaths. It is the rare offender indeed
that won’t leap into the conversation with more information or a clarification
of a previous statement. This is a five second technique that will change
forever the dynamics of the way you collect information.
The reason for this, remember, is that the offender holds all the
information. All of it. The trick is to get him to release it.
You: “I went to the movies this weekend”
They: I went to the movies this weekend too.
You: I saw an Outer Space movie.
They: I saw a comedy.
You: Oh yeah ? What was your movie about ?
This is how most of us speak to our friends. It very interesting and
very common type of social discussion. It is more of a greeting actually. Your
friend had an opportunity to hear about your experience at the movies. He or
she could have learned a little about you tastes, style, whereabouts, and
friends. But, quite unconsciously, they destroyed that opportunity in their
attempt to be engaged in the conversation..
“I saw the game
on TV”
“Oh yeah? I missed it
Again, a missed opportunity to receive information. But this is
perfectly OK in a social setting. It is when we use this style in a
professional setting that we are really making more work for ourselves.
The Israeli Secret Police have
refined the art of listening to some very bare and cold techniques. They will interrogate a prisoner
by putting him in a room with only a pencil and a piece of paper until the
prisoner has written a document. They will then analyze the document. It is
their experience that even asking questions or remaining in the room with the
prisoner poisons the interrogation.
For us, as PO’s, it must be
understood that as soon as we use the word ‘I’, the offender has
complete dominance of the conversation.
‘I told you this could happen’
‘I don’t want to do this but...’
‘I think you should consider...’
‘I think that’s pretty rotten of them...
‘I’m glad they arrested you’
You have moved the focus from the offender onto yourself. The offender
can watch your values, cognition, and expectations unfold until he’s cast back
into the spotlight.
Over the last ten or twenty years we have trained offenders in the
culture of parole and probation. Has an offender ever said to you ‘that’s not
how they do probation in ***
He says that because he has certain expectations about how the
supervision will unfold. We are responsible, as a profession, for this state of
affairs.
The moment you ask a specific question the offender settles back and
thinks ‘Oh, that’s what he wants to talk about.’. He then busies himself
with thinking of possible responses to the subject broached by the PO. “Oh,
this is going to be about drugs’ or ‘OK, this is going to be about where I
live’ (not about the car I stole last night, or the forged food stamps in my
apartment) By asking the first question we shape the amount and type of
information we can possibly receive from the offender during each particular
interaction.
Criminals have well known and documented thinking patterns. The need
for relatively instant gratification keeps them focused on the most recent
sequence of events in their lives. Remember, they hold all of that information.
So when we ask them about the past, we’re missing the opportunity to reach them
where they live...in the present.
In the book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, author
Stephen Covey, admonishes “First seek to understand, then seek to be
understood”. In your position as a PO there is really very little need to be understood
by the offender. The offender mainly needs to understand the conditions of
probation. He needs to understand where his therapy will be held. He needs to
understand his reporting schedule. He does not need to understand
his PO: he does need to understand his probation or parole.
You see, the effort to have the other person understand us is a social
convention. When we are being paid to perform our jobs, we are not in a
particularly social situation. Using the same ‘language’ we use with our
family, friends, and co-workers is actually counter-productive to our function
as PO’s.
But even in social situations, as Ann Landers says, “there is a great
deal of difference between people that enter a room and say ‘here I am’ as
opposed to those that enter a room and say ‘there you are’.
Learn to listen, because as soon as you speak, you start giving the plot away.
In a book titled ‘ Motivational Interviewing’, authors William Miller
and Stephen Rollnick discuss the concept of reflective listening.
Perhaps the most challenging skill in (what Miller&Rollnick term)
motivational interviewing is that of reflective listening. In popular conceptions, listening just involves keeping
quiet and hearing what some one has to
say. The crucial element in reflective listening, however, is how the counselor responds to what the
client says...(the wrong message for a
PO to give) is ‘listen to me, I know best.’ Instead of continuing to explore the path,
the client has to deal with a roadblock.
Usually, a PO has been trained in a ‘Command Voice’ to defuse and
intervene in emergency situations. She certainly knows how to direct offenders
to complete their mandated court conditions. Giving advice to troubled people
becomes second nature. Brokering services and analyzing offender needs is
usually a skill that most PO’s have perfected. Reflective listening, however,
is a new skill for most of us.
This is difficult work because most of us are acculturated to be
concerned about what the other thinks of us. We need to develop a skill
to really and truly be concerned what the other thinks of himself.
This is the key to reflective listening as we shall see. This skill involves a
great deal of patience and a great deal of curiosity about the other. Author
Steven Covey calls this skill ‘empathetic listening.’
“ ‘Seek first to understand’ involves a very deep shift in paradigm.
We typically seek first to be
understood. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they
listen with the intent to reply. They are either speaking or preparing to
speak. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their
autobiography into other people’s
lives.”
As PO’s, we probably have never been trained to listen. It’s harder
than it sounds. Most of our training has come either from other PO’s or by
trying to apply our own social communication skills to on-the-job situations.
This does not work on two different levels.
(1) The ‘concerned/caring/helping type of PO is not usually quiet long
enough to even understand the problem as the offender understands it. A
great deal of damage can be done by prescribing solutions for offender’s problem, as you would prescribe them for yourself.
This can cause despair, failure, and even a high level of danger for the
victims of certain crimes, such as domestic assault. Sometimes this approach can be very dangerous
for the PO as well.
(2) The second type of PO, historically, is the
investigate/track/incarcerate type. She, too, puts herself at a disadvantage by
suggesting answers in the formulation of her questions, and not having the
patience to really figure out who she is dealing with before springing into
action. She will keep reformulating questions ever more cleverly (in her mind)
until she gets an admission or an agreement from the offender.
Again, let’s listen to Steven Covey:
‘Emphatic listening is so powerful because it gives you accurate data
to work with. Instead of projecting your
own autobiography and assuming thoughts, feelings, motives and interpretations,
you’re dealing with the reality inside
another person’s head and heart. You’re listening to understand.’
This author, I’m sure, did not have Parole and Probation officers in
mind when he wrote this book. But unless you can turn you own office, cubicle,
or desk into a stage where you ‘perform’ this type of listening, you will
eventually arrive at some very disconcerting beliefs about offenders and, by
extension, yourself. Have any of you
fellow officers ever made these kinds of statements ?
‘I really hate this job’
‘I really don’t like these people’
‘You can’t believe a thing these guys say’
‘I can’t believe they ever let this offender out of custody’
‘This system is really collapsing’
‘I can’t deal with these people anymore’
When you arrive at this point in your career as a PO, the stress of
simply driving to work becomes tremendous. It is our hope that the ‘language’
we are about to discuss will go a long way towards relieving some of this
stress.
Listening means more than sitting passively while the ‘other’ speaks.
You must engage the other with non-verbal cues such as an occasional nod, a
squinting of the eyes, and hand movements. Above all, however, is the need for
you, as the listener, to blink. In our culture blinking signifies engagement in
the conversation and a level of understanding. Some students of this language
become so engrossed in the technique that they forget to blink and put the
‘other’ very ill at ease. Our goal here is to get the offender to tell his or
her story. They want very much to tell this story to the ‘authorities’ and this
authority means you. The skill level needed to engage the ‘other’ in a
monologue about himself requires constant practice. As PO’s we have unlimited
opportunities to practice with our offenders. Also, we recommend you don’t
practice this technique on friends or you may soon not have any friends.
Offenders usually want to
discuss certain events in their immediate experience. These ‘events’ are
usually the crime of conviction or the most recent allegation of a parole or
probation violation. Try this:
They: ‘I know what I did was wrong’.
You: (silence)
They: You know...being positive for speed.’
You: You used drugs.’ (A simple statement)
They: ‘Yeah, everybody does it all the time
The offender is probably thinking of the specific event wherein he used
the drug on the particular occasion that resulted in a positive urine test. Our
silence forces him to say the word
speed. If the offender doesn’t say it, they usually don’t think it
applies to them. After the admission of the actual topic (in this case drug
usage) our next goal is not to let the offender’s statements lag at this point.
So we pick out the word or words that are key for us. In this case, the
words ‘used drugs’ and reflect them back to the offender. Do not say
these words with a questioning inflection.
Say them as simply and as ‘matter of a factly’ as possible. The offender will usually verify
your statement and present you with a belief. (Yeah, everybody does it all the
time).
The next thing that comes out of the PO’s mouth is critical. If you say
‘I told you it was a violation’ you are putting the spotlight back on you and
merely stating the obvious. If you say, ‘at least you admitted it to me’ you
are putting the spotlight back on you and denying the seriousness of the event
.If you say ‘ didn’t you know it was a violation?’ you are discussing his
intelligence instead of his drug usage.
The opportunity presented here is one to reinforce both your concern
for the person as an individual and steer the conversation towards
‘patterns’ in the offender’s life.
They: (continuing) ‘Yeah, everybody does it all the time’
You: ‘And you’re like everybody (simple, humble, statement of fact)
They: Yeah...well no; I guess I just got caught up in hangin’ around
the wrong people.
You: ‘This bothers you’ (simple
statement of fact)
They: ‘No...well yes...if I overdo it’
You: ‘Overdo it’ (simple statement of fact...not a questioning
tone)
They: Yeah. Sometimes I guess I overdo it; like the last time I...
The offender is now talking about himself. This was the reason for the
office visit or home call in the first place, wasn’t it? The data will usually come pouring out as
fast as the offender can speak. A skillful PO will determine the type and
extent of drug usage, the location of use, and the true treatment needs of the
offender. All situations are unique and one becomes more proficient using this
‘language’ the more one practices it.
Also, the offender feels validated by someone actually taking the time
to spend a few minutes discussing his needs instead of the specific
expectations of the Department of Corrections. For those of you reading this
material, we cannot stress too strongly that one of the primary fears and
greatest needs of the offender is the need to feel important. Anyone with a
history of expulsion, exclusion,
incarceration, and failed criminal behavior is probably trying to fill a
huge need for recognition. This may be part of the explanation for
boisterousness, aggression, gang affiliation, and substance abuse and its’
ultimate consequence...addiction.
Think about it.
Less talking + less questioning = More information about conformance.
Less suggesting + less prescribing = More information about treatment
needs.
Less skepticism + more belief = More offenders in treatment
This runs contrary to what we see on television and what we hear coming
from the office of the PO down the hall.
In fact, this type ‘supervision language’ may have never before been
presented to Parole and Probation Officers. It is contrary to the ‘just ask
questions until we get to the truth’ format. It also runs contrary to the
‘defusing techniques’ many us have been taught for use with high risk
offenders. Think of the technique as a sort of mental judo where the offender
is allowed to bring up subjects of interest to him (his innocence, his lack of
significant drug usage etc.) And then ‘flipped’ into information pertinent to
the PO. This initially takes some
patience to master, but the results will be less work and less stress for the
PO..
What are we, as Corrections professionals, trying to do with these
offenders over the long term ? Certainly community protection is a priority.
Likewise, we need to investigate and report violations to the various courts
and boards of parole. But these are simply ‘events’. This is much like the
offender focusing on his last positive urine test and not coming to grips with
the damage done, over the long term, to his health, his family, his freedom,
and his community but his continued drug use.
Our communities demand incarceration, treatment, education, and
rehabilitation (however it is defined). But in order to arrive at these goals
with any type of success we must first seek to understand the individual we are
working with. And before we can understand the offender, we must first
understand ourselves. Noted criminal educator, Gordon Graham, advises offenders
to take a good hard look at their own personal reality.
“Current reality may be that you are using drugs...but only a little.
Current reality may be that you don’t have a job...yeah, but you have a lot of
prospects. In order for change to occur it is absolutely necessary to look at
current reality and develop an
action plan to get us from where we are to where we want to be. This creates personal accountability for the
vision and the drive and energy to make it happen.
This can be a fairly overwhelming challenge for an uneducated,
unskilled, substance abuser with a criminal record. How much more important it
becomes for us to show the offender the minefield they are traveling through.
To show the offender how to see the big picture. To show the offender that his
PO is someone who can sanction quickly and fairly, but only after he
understands the issues, as the offender sees them.
These skills allow the PO to become more consistent in imposing
sanctions and rewards. Allows the PO to better control the flow of information
from the offender. Allows the PO to relieve the stress of trying to change the
unchangeable and ‘fix’ situations that cannot necessarily be impacted by the
government. These techniques will change the way you do business and are
unlimited in the scope of their applicability in our society.
Exercises
#1 SHE’S ALWAYS ON MY BACK
!!
Scenario: The
offender enters the PO’s office with the nature of the problem very well
verbalized. His girlfriend is ‘driving me crazy’. As PO’s, try to determine a
danger level, if any, to the community and then help the offender understand
the underlying problem. During the session he will probably express the desire
to engage in solutions that are inappropriate or illegal.
Goal: Try to
determine if this offender could be a drug user or a domestic violence
perpetrator. Understand exactly who is living in the house he occupies. Review
the conditions of probation. When he reaches the underlying problem (usually
employment/money) discuss his current expenses (drugs?) And method of job
search. If he is employed and not using drugs, discuss the his willingness to
be subject to possible repercussion of any illegal behavior. Determine the
nature of the relationship with the girlfriend and her current location.
Explore options.
#2 WILL THIS TEST FOR COUGH
SYRUP ??
Scenario: As you get
ready to take a drug test the offender mentions that he has been taking cold
medication.
Goal: Try to determine
the nature and extent of the offender’s drug usage. Assess his associates.
Verify his current living arrangement. Deflect irrelevant subject matter.
Determine the method of drug usage. Review treatment mandates and/or needs.
Determine past attempts at treatment. Explore options.
# 3 I CAN NEVER PASS A
POLYGRAPH
Scenario: The sex
offender is quite agitated about his first scheduled disclosure polygraph. He
is quite clear that he has never yet been able to pass a polygraph.
Goal: Try to
determine the subject’s actual residence. Obtain information about who lives in
and visits this residence. See if there are other locations where the offender
stays. Learn where, when, and why the
other polygraphs were given. Review the conditions of supervision. Determine
precisely where the offender is in his treatment. Explore options.
#4 YOU’RE REALLY STARTING TO PISS ME OFF
Scenario: The
offender quietly smoldering in your office. His anger is visible and his
expression is extremely hostile. You learn that he is ‘fed up with the system’.
Goal: Try to
determine if the offender is under the influence of a substance. Evaluate
danger to yourself and other staff. Determine nature of the offender’s problem
with the system. Review supervision conditions, as appropriate. Verify
residence and determine any threat to other occupants. Check employment status.
Review conditions. Explore options
#5 IT’S HOPELESS
Scenario: The
offender looks like they have been crying. They are very uncommunicative. When
you ask them if there is a problem they say no. They indicate to you that it
really doesn’t matter because ‘no one cares’.
Goal: Determine what
is upsetting the offender. Use silences to elicit information. Explore options.
#6 I WAS REALLY HIGH WHEN IT
HAPPENED
Scenario: The
offender was cited for shoplifting and the police report indicates that a
substance was involved. The offender admits alcohol use during the commission
of the instant offense.
Goal: Try to
determine the nature and extent of the offender’s substance abuse. Determine
his drugs of choice. Advise him that you will be taking a urine sample. Verify
his place of residence and employment. Determine his whereabouts, precisely,
for the last two weeks. Review his treatment conditions.
#7 THERE’S NO WAY I’M GOING TO
BE ABLE TO DO THIS PAROLE. I’VE ALWAYS
FAILED BEFORE
Scenario: This is
your first meeting with the offender. They are particularly agitated about
several conditions of their new supervision. In particular, they object to the
weapons condition and the prohibition from leaving the state.
Goal: Try to defuse
the situation for several minutes so the Offender can describe her
frustration. Determine the number and
type of weapons in her possession or
control. Understand the reasoning about their her to leave the state. Review
offender’s employment and residence. Probe domestic situation.
Ø When working with a hostile offender or citizen, interject your name as soon as possible. This makes it harder on them to continue the verbal abuse.
Ø Practice the ‘5 breaths’ technique...it really works
Ø Be ready, really ready, for negative people. Try to understand what makes them this way
Ø Take all threats seriously
Ø The government is not the offender’s mother or father
Ø
When all
else fails, don’t hesitate to
incarcerate