The journey of developing and applying a one-to-one structured supervision programme aimed at addressing offending behaviour

Introduction

Many probation practitioners would agree that the supervision session is a key element that holds a community-based order or licence together. Supervision is an opportunity to put a package of intervention around probation clients inclusive of advice and support, and underpinned by risk assessment and management. In 2009 whilst employed as a practice development assessor with a Probation Trust, I trained as a local area assessor to be part of a HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) inspection team. Following the inspection there was an increased emphasis for staff to be more thorough in evidencing what was taking place in supervision sessions. As part of my role I was responsible for developing staff practice which included assisting with approaches to supervision. Working as a probation officer previously I had found exercises that utilized cognitive behavioural techniques beneficial as a focus for supervision sessions, and I encouraged use of various supervision tools and resources with the staff and learners I supported.

In 2010 I began creating and developing my own programme of exercises and worksheets for probation practitioners to use in supervision sessions with clients, which will be explained in more detail. This programme of exercises was initially shared with probation learners who were training to become professionally qualified probation practitioners. The aim was to provide a format for practising cognitive behavioural techniques and to assist practitioners in developing meaningful and consistent supervision approaches, and to encourage supervision sessions to be more beneficial to clients and practitioner-led, which could then be evidenced at any future inspections. I later developed this programme of exercises into Engage: A Structured Supervision Approach, ¹ a one-to-one structured supervision general offending behaviour programme, and after piloting the programme with a group of probation practitioners and clients, it was introduced to all practice staff and became a part of the Trust’s practice guidance framework. During much of the period that the Engage programme was being developed and introduced, I was involved in delivering the NOMS Skills for Effective Engagement, and Development (SEED) pilot and the subsequent Skills for Effective Engagement Development and Supervision (SEEDS) training programme, and so used these opportunities to share and promote the Engage programme as a resource for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the supervision session (Ministry of Justice, 2012).

Engage: A Structured Supervision Approach

Engage: A Structured Supervision Approach is a one-to-one structured supervision programme for working with clients. It has been developed from an assembly of skills and experiences gained working in the probation and community rehabilitation sector, and aims to engage clients and form the basis of offence and life-focused discussion. The Engage programme is intended for use as a rehabilitative intervention to enable consistent and pro-social messages to be provided throughout the duration of supervisory contact with clients, to help to ensure continuity in the meaningful provision of supervision provided and to actively assist and engage clients in building a commitment to change (Hylton, 2011). It is recommended for use with clients across risk thresholds, and can form the basis of structured supervision sessions, ideally commenced during the initial stages of the supervisory relationship. The content covers a broad range of offending related factors and aims to be relevant to clients in general, which is in contrast to some of the existing one-to-one programmes available across the probation service. The length of the Engage programme and its sessions has been kept to a minimum for ease of use by practitioners, which is also in contrast to some of the more lengthy existing one-to-one programmes and Specified Activity Requirements. As the Engage programme can be tailored to individual client needs and delivered in a confidential one-to-one setting, its use can avoid some of the possible criticisms of the more rigid and sometimes impersonal and less confidential, accredited general offending behaviour group programmes (Hughes, 2012).

The Engage programme consists of 12 sessions which have been developed and arranged to correlate with the journey many clients may go through, with each session inclusive of exercise worksheets, user instructions, theoretical underpinning and independent (homework) tasks. It also incorporates a supervision guide, a behaviour log and resources for marking successful completion of the programme. Overall, the Engage programme aims to assist practitioners in focusing on the issues most pressing for clients, to increase their confidence and ability in avoiding offending situations, and to provide opportunities to consider and practice use of non-offending methods to improve their circumstances and achieve pro-social goals in order to reduce and eliminate the inclination or perceived need for reoffending (Hughes, 2011; Ward and Maruna, 2007). Although there is a recommended sequence for completing the sessions, practitioners are also encouraged to select exercises and sessions as appropriate, and to individualize sessions to suit clients’ particular needs and risks.

Session 1 uses the cycle of change, a needs assessment and a goal-setting exercise to reinforce the process of change. These initial exercises help to identify where clients place themselves on the cycle of change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982), and how they might maintain their position or reach the next stage.

Session 2 explores life experiences using a life map exercise and Session 3 uses a genogram approach to identify support networks and other positive or problematic associations. The objective of these sessions is underpinned by the supposition that the ability to desist from reoffending can be enhanced by facilitating access to interventions that identify where experiences, behaviours, circumstances, relationships or support networks may be problematic. The aim is then to identify where new opportunities, support networks or solutions may be available, and to recognize the importance of any internal and external support in creating and maintaining opportunities for change (Locke and Latham, 2002; McNeil, 2006, 2009).

Sessions 4−6 focus on exploring thoughts, feelings and behaviours in relation to current and previous offending. Session 7 provides methods for practising problem-solving techniques and generating pro-social alternatives. Sessions 8−10 aim to develop victim empathy in relation to current and previous offending behaviour. These sessions aim to explore why the offending behaviour has occurred, the consequences of the behaviour inclusive of the impact on victims and the wider community, and methods for preventing or avoiding reoffending. Effective practice research has placed substantial emphasis on the value of cognitive behavioural approaches in working with individuals who offend, and the effective delivery of these particular sessions rely heavily on practitioner knowledge and use of these techniques (Chapman and Hough, 2001; McGuire, 1995).

Session 11 assists with relapse prevention by identifying risky situations and encourages an enhanced commitment to law abiding behaviour. The session also relies on practitioner use of effective cognitive behavioural techniques in collectively practising relapse prevention methods and strategies for avoiding risky behaviours and situations, and in motivating clients to commit to leading offence free lives.

Session 12 is an opportunity to consider the progress made over the course of the programme, both during and outside of supervision, and to identify future goals and objectives. The programme ends with a significant focus on the future because the ability to desist from reoffending can be enhanced by focusing on achieving self identified pro-social goals and ambitions (Locke and Latham, 2002; McNeil, 2006, 2009).

The theory and motivations behind the programme

The ultimate aim of the criminal justice system is to create a state of non-offending. This has so far proven hard to achieve, and will likely remain hard to achieve given that offending behaviour can be unpredictable and a result of individuals lacking the internal and external resources to change their behaviour and thereby meet their needs and achieve their goals in pro-social and legitimate ways. There are many factors that are thought to influence why individuals may or may not desist from crime (Farrington,1997), which highlights the important role of the probation service and other various groups in assisting these individuals to improve problematic circumstances and to make rational choices in favour of the associated processes of change. In developing the Engage programme the aim was to provide a format for positively influencing desistance following conviction, and for identifying, exploring and reinforcing the internal and external factors relevant to each participant to help them to build, strengthen and sustain their decisions and propensity for change. The value-base underpinning the Engage programme is that an individual is only an offender at the point of committing the offending act, and as the gate to rehabilitation and change remains open to them the supervision setting provides a vital opportunity to increase their confidence and ability to change for the better. It was envisaged the Engage programme would assist clients in using non-offending methods to improve their circumstances and achieve their goals, with the overall objective of reducing and even eliminating the perceived need for reoffending (Ward and Maruna, 2007).

Probation practitioners are in a somewhat unique position in coming into contact with individuals at a point where they can be helped to change problematic behaviour, to rectify deteriorating circumstances and to reverse downward life cycles. For this reason it is important that probation practitioners are provided with appropriate skills and resources to aid clients in dealing with sometimes complex problems and circumstances. Changing behaviour is rarely (if ever) a straightforward development, where negative behaviours suddenly stop and positive behaviour will instantaneously follow. Usually change is a process which takes place over a period of time and motivation can sometimes slowly develop and waver, and can often lapse into previous behaviour. It is unlikely that any single method, practice or resource will automatically lead to success, and ultimately enacting and maintaining change is affected by the skills, efforts and commitment of the practitioner, while being wholly dependent on the choices, motivations and circumstances of the client. Therefore, as supervision appointments may be the only time in any given period that a client is challenged or supported to reduce the factors related to their reoffending, it is important to effectively use supervision to identify where particular behaviours, circumstances, relationships or support networks may be problematic, to identify where new pro-social opportunities, support networks or solutions may be available, and to focus on achieving pro-social goals and ambitions (Locke and Latham, 2002; McNeil, 2006). It is difficult to ignore that supervision is a key opportunity to consider and review a individual’s well-being, circumstances and progress, while having the format to plan, deliver and review the required support, interventions and risk management relevant to their needs, risks and goals. The Engage programme was created and developed with these objectives, and was found to be effective in the engagement, rehabilitation and supervision of offenders.

Prior to the introduction of the Engage programme there was no existing one-to-one structured supervision programme in use. Many practitioners tended to use extracts from Targets for Effective Change (Marshall, 1998), offending behaviour group programmes, the Victim Empathy Pack and a variety of other resources generally obtained elsewhere. When training as a probation officer I was taught that the effective supervision of offenders involves probation practitioners achieving an intricate balance between managing risk, addressing need, being responsive and engaging active participation (Chapman and Hough, 2001; McGuire and Priestly, 1995). I found this to be true in practice and identified that clients were responsive to activities or strategies that started with a concrete experience, particularly those which used a variety of learning methods and opportunities for participation (Chapman and Hough, 2001). As a member of the training team I emphasized at appropriate training events that effective practice involved challenging offending behaviour by effectively applying the methods that are regarded as most effective, and with focus on enabling clients to achieve positive change and improve their lives (McNeill, 2000). As interventions should aim to reduce offending behaviour and assist clients in addressing their needs and resolving their problems, the supervision setting provides an important opportunity to deliver tailored interventions that incorporate the findings of need and risk assessments (Aubrey and Hough, 1997; Carter, 2003; Chapman and Hough, 2001). It was these ideas that influenced the development of the Engage programme in the way it incorporated methods to target offending behaviour, with its structured approach and cognitive behavioural focus, which are valuable techniques in working with individuals who offend (Chapman and Hough, 2001; McGuire, 1995, 2001). There is focus on exploring the relationships between thoughts, feelings and behaviour, which is to enable the factors and thinking patterns underpinning negative behaviour to be identified and challenged (Beck, 1991). There are also exercises included aimed at enabling non-offending identities to be established, as this is a method for encouraging clients to recognize and develop more positive aspects of their characters (Maruna, 2001). Overall, the expectation is that on completion of the Engage programme, the factors related to each client’s need and risks will have been focused on in supervision with a view to changing their behaviour and improving their quality of life (Barry, 2000; Holt, 2000; Rex 1999).

Despite the findings of the HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection in 2009, there were many practitioners that were effective in addressing areas of need and risk in supervision, although there was no agreed method or process to make this consistent across the offender management staff group. Rectifying this gap in provision was an important aim to achieve, because working with clients requires that messages given are consistent and pro-social throughout the duration of contact and there needs to be continuity in the meaningful provision of supervision provided, in all cases (Holt, 2000). The Engage programme was therefore welcomed by practitioners not only because it provided a complete programme for structuring one-to-one supervision sessions, but because it provided a format for actively motivating clients, and also a format to deliver problem solving strategies and guidance while developing an open, enthusiastic and caring supervisory relationship (McGuire and Priestly, 1995). Delivery of the programme in the one-to-one setting was therefore acknowledged as an opportunity for building a good relationship between supervisor and supervisee, a factor which has been described as being a powerful vehicle for changing behaviour and reducing reoffending (Barry, 2000; Ministry of Justice, 2012; Rex, 1999).

The Engage programme: Methods, feedback and findings

The initial version of the Engage programme was developed with the input of the training team. Although it was initially shared with new staff and those undergoing various forms of training, it was recommended that it be developed for use by the entire practitioner group. The Engage programme was later introduced at a management team meeting and it was agreed it would be piloted by a small number of staff in each probation office to gain feedback from staff and clients, and to test whether it was fit for purpose. The respective senior probation officers from each of the offices later provided names of 3−4 practice staff that had volunteered to be part of the pilot phase. I opted to lead the pilot and received the full support of my line manager, a long-standing practitioner, training manager and advocate of best practice, who granted me the necessary workload relief.

In 2011 the Engage programme was piloted as a project in the four offices of the Probation Trust, and this took place over a period of six months by 15 probation staff. These were a mix of probation officers and probation service officers who were based in Offender Management and Integrated Offender Management teams. They were briefed in groups at their respective offices about the purpose of the pilot, and hard and electronic copies of Engage were provided. Each practitioner was asked to complete the Engage programme with a minimum of three clients, and to provide feedback on their experiences and observations at least once a month for the duration of the pilot, and to ask these clients to complete a feedback questionnaire on completion of the programme. There was no set format for practitioner feedback so as not to be prescriptive or restrictive, but it was recommended their feedback would include views on the use and sequencing of the exercises and sessions, and provide feedback and observations from clients. The feedback questionnaire for clients asked whether the programme had been useful, whether they thought it helped them in addressing their offending behaviour or assisting any positive change in their thinking and behaviour, and whether they felt it enhanced their experience of supervision.

At the end of the pilot period a scheduled consultation phase was commenced and the pilot staff were interviewed on their experiences of using the Engage programme. This included discussion of their ongoing feedback and their observed feedback and experiences of their clients. During the pilot phase the Engage programme had been fully completed by five pilot staff with two to three clients each. It was only from these five pilot staff that completed client questionnaires were received. These questionnaires were mostly comprehensively completed either directly by clients or in some cases on their behalf by their supervising officers. Of the remaining 10 pilot staff, seven had commenced the programme with between one and 20 clients, and a number of these staff reported using the programme widely within their caseload and sharing it with colleagues. Of the remaining three pilot staff, two had not used the programme as reported to have not had sufficient time, and the third had moved into a different role.

Based on the feedback received, there was a general consensus that the Engage programme was a useful resource and that its sessions and exercises were participatory and relevant in assisting clients in moving away from offending behaviour and towards a lifestyle where offending has no place. The use of Engage was described by practitioners as providing a vital structure to the supervision journey and that the exercises not only enabled clients to engage by using a mix of visual, audio and kinaesthetic techniques for participation, but as it was delivered on a one-to-one basis and could be individualized to each client, prompted valuable further discussion which delved into other areas of their lives which were not as accessible previously in the supervision session time frame. The practitioners involved reported that it was useful to have access to such a programme that assisted them in consistently promoting pro-social messages in addressing offending behaviour, raising victim empathy, achieving goals and ambitions, and engaged clients in positive collaborative activities in supervision. The exercises and sessions were found to encourage and support clients to reflect on their behaviour, learning and progress, within a supportive environment which built a relationship of openness and commitment of both supervisor and supervisee. A number of clients had reported to their supervising officers when asked, that working through the programme had provided a worthwhile expectation of the structure and format that each supervision session would take, which in many cases was stated to have previously been unclear as to what to expect in supervision. Of the feedback questionnaires received, five of the clients had stated that they felt their supervision sessions had become more concise, consistent and focused on helping them to stop reoffending by supporting them with their needs and goals. A number of these services users also stated that as a result of regularly completing exercises at each session, the related discussion tended to throw up different ideas, suggestions and solutions to help them to address their problems and improve their lives. At least two client questionnaires referred to previous experiences of attending general offending behaviour programmes in group settings, and although they stated these to be useful, they found it easier to engage with a one-to-one programme in the supervision setting which they felt was more personal to them, more confidential, and helped build the relationship with their supervising officer.

Overall there was a lower than expected response from practitioners involved in the research, and this was partly attributed to the absence of any agreed workload remuneration to assist their participation. The reason for not negotiating workload remuneration on their behalf was because it was generally considered amongst the management group that workload allocation already accounted for similar supervisory tasks that would have been instead completed with an existing caseload. However, this did prove to be an oversight as the practitioners involved were expected to understand, deliver and feedback on a new programme which included concepts that would not have been entirely familiar to all involved, and to also set time aside to ensure the client questionnaires were completed and returned. In hindsight, it would have been a rich source of data if I had arranged to directly interview a sample of the clients involved in the pilot, and would have also been an opportunity to complete the questionnaires and discuss responses.

Following the Engage programme pilot phase which lasted approximately six months, the findings and feedback was presented to the management team. There were valid suggestions that a longer pilot phase would have provided the opportunity for statistical data on reoffending rates to be analysed, and there was a suggestion that as clients had not been interviewed directly and as their questionnaires were instead delivered via supervising officers, they may not have felt they were in a safe position to provide their true opinions about the programme. However, there remained a positive opinion towards the programme within the management group as many of the pilot staff had also been feeding back their experiences to their line managers. It was therefore agreed I would amend the Engage programme based on the findings of the staff and client feedback, and to then present Engage to the entire practitioner staff group as part of a course of workshops on effective supervision practices. The amendments included improving exercise instructions, providing a more in-depth theoretical underpinning and incorporating a supervision guide. These amendments were to better explain how to deliver the exercises and sessions, and this was particularly in relation to some of the more complex exercises, such as the genogram, which some staff found difficult to understand. The sequencing of the sessions and exercises were reworked and updated based on user feedback, and a need assessment was incorporated into the initial session. A professional looking certificate of completion and an improved feedback questionnaire were also added, as the original formats were thought to be too simplistic. Additionally, based on the feedback received, the intended objectives for each session were included and independent tasks were attached to each session in order to help the intended learning to be reinforced. A behaviour log and independent log were included to encourage clients to record risky incidents and complete independent tasks, which could then be discussed in supervision. Practitioner feedback was that the availability of these logs was a reminder to ask about potential or actual offending since the last contact, and encouraged clients to be more forthcoming in disclosing risky situations that had been experienced or avoided, an important area to be explored in supervision sessions.

Over the course of the next few months I worked closely with the media manager who diligently focused on preparing the Engage programme manual for publication. With the support of a Director for Offender Management, who was an advocate for new initiatives and developing best practice, it had been decided that the programme manual would be professionally printed and provided to each practitioner in a hard folder, as well as an electronic copy stored centrally on the organization’s intranet. In 2012 the Engage programme was completed, and the manual was provided to all practitioners, with pilot findings and delivery methods explained in mandatory practice workshops. The Engage programme and the associated practice workshops also gave an opportunity to suggest the value-base to underpin supervision sessions, as an individual is only an offender at the point of committing the offending act, and immediately thereafter is where the opportunity for rehabilitation and change begins (Hylton, 2011). There was a consensus that effective structured supervision sessions individualized to each client, including those that incorporated the techniques associated with Engage and related materials, should enable clients to construct new attitudes, thinking-patterns and life-skills which can be consolidated into a pro-social self-identities that seek to achieve and maintain positive change (Maruna, 2001). To the credit of the management team and the practitioners that participated, it was positive that the general view was that used efficiently with a consistent structure, and with appropriate practitioner time, skills, methods and resources available, such as the Engage programme, supervision is a key opportunity to support clients to move away from offending behaviour and towards a lifestyle where offending has no place.

The Engage programme: Review, more feedback and conclusions

The Engage programme progressed to become actively used in the Probation Trust and part of its practice guidance framework. The use of the programme was actively encouraged, and as the delivery of the SEEDS training programme was ongoing, this was an opportunity to recommend the use of Engage as a relevant resource in facilitating the structured element for supervision, particularly for practitioners that previously tended not to use exercises-based techniques. In 2013, approximately one year after its publication and implementation, the use of Engage was reviewed and feedback gathered from practitioners. This was achieved by asking the entire offender management staff group to return completed client feedback questionnaires to a central point, and also to respond by email with their own feedback and experiences of their use of the programme. Over 30 completed questionnaires were received and also significant feedback by email and through unplanned meetings and conversations with staff. The findings were that Engage was successfully in use by practitioners and with clients of all risk thresholds. A widespread view was that the Engage programme assisted practitioners in delivering a consistent and structured approach in supervision, and was successful in its approach in building the supervisory relationship and providing intervention in the various areas it sought to reach, particularly during the initial stages of a community-based order or licence. Of the client feedback received via practitioners and through feedback questionnaires, the use of Engage in facilitating structured supervision sessions provided added meaning to attending probation appointments. It also assisted in prompting practitioner provision of help and support to clients in their journeys to become offence free and to improve their quality of life. As with the pilot stage, some staff stated they had not used the programme as they did not have the time, while others reported to prefer use of their own exercise-based resources. As such not all offender management staff responded, but only one practitioner provided a negative response and reported to find the programme exercises patronizing to clients, but unfortunately also did not have the time to meet and elaborate on this.

Overall, the findings from the Engage programme suggested that it is important for practitioners to use skills and methods which clients are able to respond to so that their risks and needs can be targeted within a wider package of support. This is in line with the research evidence that has shown that the success of rehabilitation interventions can be enhanced if delivered in ways that seek to engage active participation in enabling and assisting clients in building a commitment to change (Farrall, 2002; McNeil, 2006). It was unfortunate that some practitioners did not previously have access to the various forms of training available in relation to engaging, motivating and supporting clients, although the SEEDS programme had been making headway into this area as it was directed at all staff and was aimed at developing practitioner skills and their use of cognitive behavioural techniques. The Engage programme therefore highlighted the importance of practitioner skills, training and development in engaging, motivating and rehabilitating services-users, and was an important initiative which enabled practitioners to more effectively use the supervision setting to enable clients to understand and change their problematic behaviours (Wright et al., 2005). This was not the first time the importance of professional practitioner skills had been highlighted, as a previous study into sentence planning and offender engagement in Hertfordshire recommended the increase of staff training and development in motivational interviewing skills and counselling skills, and to recognize the therapeutic elements of the probation workers role (Hughes, 2012). There are other forms of training that would also improve the supervisory and professional skills of probation practitioners, including courses in family work, clinical assessment, advisory skills, counselling techniques, and methods for teaching life skills to adults.

Reflection: The importance of practitioner-led initiatives

In reflecting on my journey of developing and applying the Engage programme and taking into account my knowledge of numerous other successful probation practitioner-led initiatives, I have found that effective supervision resources of this nature are extremely important when working with offenders and vulnerable groups, as is the maintenance and development of practitioner skills, methods and initiatives. The Engage programme was achieved with significant time spent on its development and required immense support from colleagues, and is just one example of the methods and initiatives that exist because of the passion, commitment and expertise of probation staff. Given the recent success of the probation service in reducing reoffending, meeting performance targets and its quality of service (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2013; Ministry of Justice, 2011, 2013), investing in the development of practitioner skills and initiatives is a key area that will seek to further its accomplishments, and this should include new approaches that seek to enhance the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation, supervision and public protection. As we move into a new era of probation and community rehabilitation, it’s important that we remind ourselves that the efforts of probation practitioners, managers, directors of services, policy makers and academics in reducing reoffending, changing lives and protecting victims and the public have influenced the development of best practice skills, methods and initiatives, which I hope will not be lost.