Abstract
This article reports our experience of developing a skills-based practice framework for effective engagement with offenders. The project began with extensive engagement with probation staff at every level. This was followed by collaborative pilots in 22 probation trusts on effective engagement by practitioners and reflective supervision by managers, using the best available international research and insights from research on desistance. The learning and feedback from these pilots was used to bring together the two complementary elements into a single evidence-based model. Feedback from managers and practitioners gathered in external evaluation of the pilots was very positive, with the vast majority seeing the approaches as having a positive impact on their practice and seeing it as important that the model continued to be used. Observation of practice and constructive feedback was particularly valued as was positive leadership and support by senior managers. The external evaluation of the pilots continues, and we are conducting an internal evaluation of the integrated model, which will look at practitioners’ and offenders’ experiences in three probation trusts over this year and next.
Introduction
The Offender Engagement Programme (OEP) was set up by NOMS in early 2010 with the aim of increasing public confidence in community sentences and developing practice skills in one-to-one work with offenders in order to support reduced reoffending. The emerging research on desistance had highlighted the importance of effective relationships between practitioner and offender as well as focusing on individual needs and strengths. The OEP therefore set out to test the proposition that the one to one relationship between the practitioner and offender can be a powerful means of changing behaviour and therefore reducing reoffending.
Recent research confirms what practitioners already suspect, that the supervisory relationship between the service user and the practitioner is important in rehabilitating individuals and reducing reoffending. Interventions have been found to be more effective when delivered by staff deploying core correctional practices, including working through warm, open and enthusiastic relationships (Dowden and Andrews, 2004). Skilled engagement has been related to lower rates of reconviction in studies in Australia, North America and Canada, as described below.
Due to a focus on interventions and programme, however, there had not been a systematic study of supervision in England and Wales, nor was there evidence on the quality of engagement and its potential impact. The aim of the programme was therefore to develop evidence-based approaches to the supervision of offenders and test these in the England and Wales context.
Another aim of the programme was to reduce unnecessary prescription through process-based performance targets and National Standards to enable practitioners to use their professional discretion and skills to reduce reoffending. A pilot on Professional Judgement (PJP) in Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust, showed that staff had more purposeful and focused contact with offenders. NOMS issued new National Standards and a practice framework in April 2011. In order to support purposeful and effective engagement, the OEP developed the SEEDS model (Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision), which was piloted in two parts and evaluated, as we explain below.
Influences on the development of SEEDS
The OEP placed emphasis on a collaborative approach from the start, as we were trying to support and develop practice skills. During the design phase of SEEDS, practitioners, managers and other stakeholders were invited to a number of regional events to explore the features of effective offender engagement and how managers could support and develop that engagement. This collaborative approach continued during the project with practitioner, manager and stakeholder reference groups providing an ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders.
The emergence of service user groups in some trusts provided the opportunity to work with two such groups during the design phase and these service users made an important contribution to the training materials. NOMS was also clear that evidence and research were at the core of the OEP. Two related developments in international research influenced the design of the SEEDS model. One was the growing evidence on community supervision skills, suggesting that a combination of relationship building and cognitive techniques could be effective in reducing recidivism. The other was desistance research, which added insights into the kinds of social processes that practitioners should be seeking to support in promoting desistance from offending, and helped to explain why the supervisory relationship was important.
Important work in the area of supervision skills has been undertaken by Chris Trotter in Australia, starting with studies in the 1990s in which pro-social modelling (acting as a positive role model and encouraging and rewarding pro-social statements and actions while challenging pro-criminal actions) was associated with lower rates of breach and reconviction over four years (49% compared with 73% where there was no evidence of pro-social modelling) (Trotter, 1996). More recently, studying probation staff working with juveniles, Trotter found evidence of excellent work by practitioners in developing relationships and reinforcing pro-social activities but less evidence of taking the next step in addressing criminogenic needs through problem solving and CBT (Trotter and Evans, 2012). This suggests that the use of cognitive behavioural techniques requires specific reinforcement through training and support.
In the last decade, a number of researchers have studied the use and impact of supervision skills, and this work continues. Faye Taxman’s work with correctional professionals in the USA looked at the importance of an enabling organizational environment, with promising results. In Maryland, offenders supervised by officers trained in Proactive Community Supervision supported by a pro-social organizational environment achieved lower re-arrest rates than comparable offenders (30% versus 42% for the comparison group) (Taxman, 2008). Peter Raynor, with colleagues, has been investigating observed skills with probation officers in Jersey. While this study is continuing, there is some evidence of a correlation between the consistent use of certain skills and reductions in risk and reoffending. This also informed our approach. The STICS (Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision) model in Canada was particularly influential. Here, probation officers trained in using relationship building, cognitive techniques and a structured approach achieved lower reconviction rates than others (25% compared with just over 40% for officers who were not trained) (Bonta et al., 2010). Importantly, practitioners were trained with their managers and received ongoing follow up training as well as feedback on their tape recorded supervision sessions.
The literature on desistance suggests the reduced criminal activity associated with greater maturity comes about through desisters’ personal relationships, social networks, and how they see themselves (Maruna, 2001). A review conducted for NOMS (McNeill and Weaver, 2010) concluded that in order to promote desistance practitioners should: accommodate and exploit create and maintain encourage and respect offenders’ support and develop offenders’ build on an understanding of the role of strengthen offenders’
This research also informed the model: SEEDS is a strengths-based approach that responds to individual needs and learning styles while retaining key elements of ‘What Works’.
The pilot phase
As mentioned earlier, SEEDS was initially developed through two separate pilots, which enable us to develop the core components through experience and careful testing. In this section we outline each pilot.
Skills for Effective, Engagement and Development (SEED)
During the evidence gathering stage of the OEP, staff told us they felt de-skilled and not always able to use the skills in which they were trained. They also felt they had not been trained in appropriate engagement skills and that they had become technicians and process compliant, at the expense of building relationships with offenders. The SEED pilot set out to address some of these issues.
Through training, the approach aimed to equip practitioners with skills of engagement and key practice skills including motivational interviewing, pro-social modelling and cognitive behavioural techniques. In addition to initial three-day skills training, practitioners receive follow up training and coaching, and participate in peer group learning. Moreover, their practice is observed (by managers). These approaches to continuing professional development aim to ensure that the skills are continually refreshed and built upon. The purpose of this is twofold: to highlight the importance of ‘engagement’ between the practitioner and the offender in reducing risk of reoffending; and also to encourage the consistent use of evidence-based skills and approaches. Although practitioners are provided with a range of tools including worksheets, this is not a manualized approach – the emphasis is on developing skills. We were fortunate in being able to ask Peter Raynor, Professor of Criminology at Swansea University, to undertake an independent validation of the training materials, as an additional measure to ensure that they followed the recommendations of international research.
SEED was piloted in eight trusts from March 2011 to March 2012, and Sheffield University are carrying out the external evaluation in three of the larger trusts, London, Thames Valley and Merseyside. The initial three-day training was well received by the majority of practitioners who found it useful to refresh their existing skills and learn new ones. Sheffield University’s Interim Report captures practitioners’ reactions to the training: The majority felt SEED had improved the way supervision sessions had gone; they were doing more structured, better quality work. Further training was considered important to keep SEED on the agenda. Trained practitioners identified a number of strengths: that SEED allowed for increased structure without being overly prescriptive; it was responsive to offenders’ needs, allowing supervision to be tailored to individuals; it allowed for offender inclusivity, empowering offenders to be involved in making change and giving them ownership; it also led to shared clarity of goals and a stronger professional relationship. Training had increased and refreshed skills, promoted reflective practice and helped to identify strengths and weaknesses, leading to practice development. It encouraged team building and the sharing of resources which led to practitioners trying different approaches with offenders.
Further comments by practitioners illustrate the value placed upon SEED training. At the final follow up training session, practitioners thought SEED had a positive (or very positive) impact on their practice, and 87 per cent thought it very important to their practice to continue to use the model. Seventy per cent saw their time as more focussed and three quarters mostly or always had a plan for supervision sessions. One practitioner noted: ‘My sessions are better time managed, more focussed and more productive. It also promotes thinking about the individual, their learning style and what materials would be most engaging. More planning time would assist this further.’
The Reflective Supervision Model (RSM)
This pilot ran from April 2011 to April 2012 in a further eight trusts with Northumbria, Hampshire and Wales being externally evaluated by the Institute for Criminal Policy and Research (ICPR), Birkbeck College. The starting point for the model was the recognition that organizational culture can enable or inhibit effective engagement with service users. It was seen that culture is in large part determined by the behaviours and activities of an organization’s managers and senior leaders. At the OEP regional events we looked at what managers and senior leaders could do practically to support offender engagement, and continued this collaborative approach with practitioner and middle manager reference groups to ensure that our model was practical and likely to be effective.
A number of conclusions provided the principles for the model: firstly, that enabling culture change would require a whole system approach; secondly, the need to focus on the middle manager role given its pivotal position linking strategic direction with the quality of operational practice; and thirdly, we found a wealth of high-quality materials already available and saw that our value lay in adapting these resources to secure a real and sustainable impact on practice.
The resulting model includes four key themes: pro-social modelling, reflective supervision, observed practice and action learning. Implementation included a manager’s workshop, supporting resources and the implementation of a range of practice activities including reflective practice sessions for practitioners and middle managers, observed practice and feedback, middle manager action learning sets and senior manager practitioner engagement. The workshop involves a blend of different learning activities, mirroring the approach that the model itself is intended to promote. Participants are strongly encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning and promoting learning as an ongoing process requiring a degree of letting go of control: ‘we don’t have all the answers’.
Early learning emerged from senior manager feedback that their involvement was crucial and they needed something tailored for them. This reinforced the need for a whole system approach, further developed through a senior manager workshop. Implementation also highlighted the value of transferrable skills and practice: whether working with service users, practitioners or managers, many roles within the organization rely on similar skills. In both pilots, the observation of one-to-one practice has been one of the most successful aspects with a change of perspective to ‘how can we justify not observing practice?’ A key finding from the RSM evaluation was that the more reflective style of supervision had led to fewer informal supervision sessions as practitioners became more confident about their role and ability to make decisions: ‘You come to answers yourself, which helps you to work with offenders better.’
Amalgamation of the models and the future of SEEDS
Learning and feedback from the SEED and RSM pilots confirmed our original intention to amalgamate these complementary models into a single framework supporting offender engagement throughout the organization. We named the amalgamated framework Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDS), to preserve the SEED branding familiar in the probation world. It has two parts: Part 1 the Enabling Framework, based on the RSM pilot, is for middle and senior managers and provides the framework to support Part 2 the Engaging Practitioner, based on SEED, which is for teams of practitioners including their team leader (or middle manager). Due to the positive reactions to the pilots, and reflecting their commitment to practitioners as professionals, the majority of Probation Trusts in England and Wales have decided to implement SEEDS (33 out of 35).
We are continuing to invest in developing the evidence base on offender engagement. The external evaluation of SEED continues, with analysis of offenders’ feedback on their experiences of supervision and investigation of their progress on and compliance with supervision as captured in OASys and case management systems. We have also embarked on an internal evaluation of SEEDS to investigate what value it adds to SEED and RSM as separate components, and this will look at practitioners’ and offenders’ experiences in three probation trusts over this year and next. Although SEEDS represents a major change programme for trusts at a time of considerable external change, at the time of writing most trusts have completed SEEDS Part 1 training while Part 2 is well under way and we continue to receive positive feedback from managers and practitioners. For NOMS, quality of service delivery and offender engagement remain a high priority in delivering effective outcomes. We will be continuing to share and apply the learning from OEP to ensure that our work with future providers of offender services benefits from joint learning and collaboration. As probation services are opened up to a wider range of providers under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, we will be working to ensure that services are informed by an evidence base that supports effective quality delivery.