The impact of engaging with clients’ trauma stories

Introduction

The practitioner as an agent of change has historically been central to the whole concept of probation work (Raynor et al., 2014). As Giddens (1990) argues, opening out of oneself is important to the development of interpersonal trust between clients and practitioners. As agents of change, practitioners may therefore seek to encourage self-disclosure of crimes, life histories, relationships, attitudes and emotions as a central component of client supervision (Digard, 2014). Research literature repeatedly highlights the importance of a positive working relationship between practitioner and client in providing a secure base from which clients may address issues related to their risk of reoffending (Ansbro, 2008; Ryals, 2011). A key aspect of this positive relationship is practitioner use of empathy towards clients’ feelings and experiences (Bonta et al., 2008). In order to support the process of desistance, practitioners may therefore strive to employ empathy to develop a positive relationship with the client (Burnett and McNeill, 2005).

Research shows a clear link between childhood abuse and trauma and subsequent aggressive and criminal behaviour (Widom and Mazfield, 2001; Skowyra and Cocozza, 2006). As such, exploration of trauma is one means through which probation practitioners may attempt to both employ empathy and contribute to clients’ self-transformation (Lewis, 2014; Ryals, 2011). The probation client group is one in which trauma stories are prevalent. Here research suggests 70 per cent of female offenders have experienced severe physical violence in childhood (Browne et al., 1999), and 67 per cent of women managed in the National Probation Service (NPS) report being victims of domestic violence (NOMS, 2015: 8). Amongst adult offenders, research indicates 24 per cent had been placed under local authority care as children (Ministry of Justice, 2012: 8). A further 29 per cent report having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child (Ministry of Justice, 2012: 9). Family history of substance misuse and experience of the loss of a parent are also significantly reported by both young and adult offenders in custody (Beyond Youth Custody, 2014; Ministry of Justice, 2012). Entering custody in itself may also inflict trauma on clients due to both their experiences within custodial establishments and their separation from children and families (Prison Reform Trust, 2016; Ministry of Justice, 2012).

Little empirical research has, however, focused on the impact of such engagement with clients’ trauma stories in relation to the role of probation practitioners as agents of change. This article will therefore discuss some of the potential risks associated with practitioners’ direct engagement with clients’ trauma stories. Focusing specifically on the concept of vicarious traumatization, this will be explored in the context of research on this topic. The article will go on to consider how the current probation climate may be contributing to practitioners’ risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization and subsequent negative effects to their emotional well-being. Finally, organizational and self-care practices will be considered in terms of reducing the emotional impact of exposure to clients’ trauma stories on probation practitioners.

The impact of trauma work

A wide body of empirical research has explored the psychological impact of trauma work within traditional psychotherapeutic relationships. As a result of there being ‘no routinely used term to designate exposure to another’s traumatic material by virtue of one’s own role as a helper’ (Stamm, 1997: 1), various conceptualizations are used to describe its impact. Focusing specifically on victim and trauma therapist relationships, McCann and Pearlman (1990a: 133) highlight the: ‘profound psychological effects…that can be disruptive and painful for the helper and can persist for months or years after the work with traumatized persons’.

They labelled this long-term, persistent effect ‘vicarious traumatization’. McCann and Pearlman (1990a) distinguish vicarious traumatization as a concept, suggesting it has a pervasive impact affecting various aspects of an individual’s life. Further, there is a cumulative effect with each exposure, increasing disruption to the individual’s cognitive schemas. This results in long-term effects on cognitive schemas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs and assumptions about the world (Moulden and Firestone, 2007). As such, it is not simply an experience of emotional stress but instead a long-term cognitive disruption to self-identity, ability to experience optimism, feeling of personal agency and disillusionment about one’s own and others’ experience of the world (Williams et al., 2012).

Research into empathy processes within therapeutic relationships suggests empathetic practices may leave practitioners vulnerable to such secondary traumatization (Figley, 1995). As such, in exploring trauma stories within supervisory relationships probation practitioners may find themselves at risk of experiencing negative consequences to their own emotional well-being, such as vicarious traumatization.

The Constructivist Self-Development Theory framework

Vicarious traumatization is understood within the Constructivist Self-Development Theory (CSDT). CSDT proposes individuals ‘construct their own personal realities as they interact with the environment’ (McCann and Pearlman, 1990b: 6). CSDT is therefore an integrative personality theory positioning the impact of trauma work within the individual’s development of self (Saakvitne et al., 1998). Here the self is formed of five inter-related aspects: self-capacities, ego-resources, frame of reference, psychological needs and cognitive schemas (Pearlman and Saakvitne, 1995).

Interaction with trauma stories can disrupt individual beliefs and cognitive schemas which give meaning to and shape perceptions of the world (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a; Saakvitne et al., 1998). Self-capacities refer then to an individual’s ability to maintain self-esteem (Pearlman, 1997). Ego-resources are the mechanisms through which a person relates to their external world (Saakvitne et al., 1998). Seven psychological needs of safety, trust, power, esteem, intimacy, independence and frame of reference are the means through which individual behaviour is motivated (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a). Finally, cognitive schemas are the beliefs and assumptions about self and the world through which individuals organize their experiences (Piaget, 1971).

CSDT suggests probation practitioners exposed to clients’ traumatic accounts may be vulnerable to changes in self view. For example, a practitioner who is repeatedly exposed to client trauma stories of childhood abuse or neglect may find they begin to become suspicious of others’ motives as their trust schemas are challenged (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a; Pearlman and Saakvitne, 1995). This may further apply to having knowledge of a client’s offending history. For instance, a practitioner completing intervention with men who have used grooming behaviours in sexual offences towards children may start to believe people cannot be trusted to act appropriately, and openness within relationships may decline as a result (Saakvitne, 2002).

Exposure to clients’ accounts of violent victimization could also impact on practitioners’ schemas in respect to personal agency. For example, a practitioner working with perpetrators or victims of domestic abuse or other violent offences may start to consider how they themselves would respond to violence towards self or others (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a, 1990b; Pearlman and MacIan, 1995; Morran, 2008 ). This may include intrusive thoughts around being a victim of crime, family members being hurt and alterations in behaviour such as reluctance to enter relationships

Individuals may also find their esteem schemas disrupted through exposure to others’ trauma experiences. For instance, practitioners working with the victims of crime may find their cumulative exposure to victims’ accounts results in their own expression of pessimistic and bitter views of the state of human nature (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a; Way et al., 2007).

Through engagement with others’ trauma practitioners may also develop feelings of alienation in personal and professional spheres of life, resulting in withdrawal from intimate relationships (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a). Practitioners may find it difficult to explain to friends or family the nature of their role and the reality of the trauma or offence stories they are exposed to. The nature of the role and the requirement for confidentiality can result in practitioners feeling isolated, misunderstood and alienated from those around them (Saakvitne, 2002; Morran, 2008). Frames of reference schemas may also be disrupted through attempting to understand why harm has occurred (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a). For practitioners working with both victims and perpetrators of sexual and violent abuse, a need to understand this behaviour can result in disruption to personal frames of reference. Ongoing difficulties in attempting to comprehend the behaviour can result in a sense of uneasiness and, in some cases, victim-blaming, as knowledge cannot be assimilated into personal beliefs and values (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a, 1990b; Chapple et al., 2004).

Additionally, exposure to others’ trauma may result in imagery disruptions. This refers to experiencing effects such as flashbacks, dreams and intrusive thoughts (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a). For instance, a practitioner may find themselves replaying an interaction they have had with a client’s trauma story. They may find that they struggle to separate this from their personal life and find their thoughts outside of work repeatedly return to the trauma account to which they have been exposed. As a result of imagery disruption, practitioners may express emotional responses of anger, bitterness, fear, numbness and decreased empathy for others both in professional and personal spheres of life (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a; Morran, 2008).

Prevalence of vicarious traumatization

Little research has been undertaken to measure the prevalence of vicarious traumatization amongst probation practitioners. Crawley’s (2002) research into the impact of a prison officer’s role on their home and family life does, however, suggest those working as frontline staff within the criminal justice system may be at risk of experiencing negative changes to their cognitive schemas. For example, Crawley’s (2002) research highlights how interaction with those who have committed sexual offences can have a significant impact on the way practitioners view their own and others’ behaviour. Here respondents discussed reduced libidos, marital difficulties and changes in the way they relate to their own children due to intrusive thoughts about the offences ‘popping into [their] head’ (Crawley, 2002: 4). Crawley’s (2002) research also suggests exposure to those who have both suffered and inflicted trauma alters the way prison officers relate to the world around them. For example, she demonstrates that prison officers create social defence systems of humour, detachment and depersonalization which negatively impact on their ability to sustain positive intimate relationships with others. For example, prison officers’ wives complained that their husbands had become hardened and desensitized to the suffering of others, suggesting respondents had experienced changes to both intimacy and empathy schemas (Crawley, 2002).

Whilst there is a lack of research into experiences of vicarious traumatization amongst probation practitioners in the criminal justice system, research across related fields of counselling, psychotherapy and social work may be applicable to the experiences of probation practitioners given that similar client groups are engaged with. Key studies such as that by Schauben and Frazier (1995) have found significant correlations between the percentage of sexual abuse survivors on counsellors’ caseloads, post-traumatic stress symptoms, self-reported vicarious traumatization and disruption in beliefs. Consistent with this research Way et al.’s. (2004) comparison of rates of vicarious traumatization between clinicians who treat survivors of sexual abuse and those who work with the perpetrators of sexual abuse reported 52 per cent of both samples scored within the clinical range on the Impact of Events Scale (IES) (Weiss, 2007). ¹ Exploring the impact on counsellors of working with domestic abuse clients, Iliffe and Steed (2000) found themes relating to strong visual imagery, strong affect responses, dissociation and somatic symptoms. Similarly, Jankoski’s (2010) exploration of vicarious traumatization amongst child welfare workers found participants acknowledged changes across all aspects of self, relating to the CSDT framework for vicarious traumatization.

Factors contributing to vicarious traumatization

Since 2014 probation practitioners in England and Wales have experienced large-scale structural changes to their roles, responsibilities and organizational governance. Following implementation of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) agenda, 21 privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) were established to manage low- and medium-risk clients, with high-risk clients being managed through a public National Probation Service (NPS). These structural changes have arguably increased an already present risk of practitioners developing vicarious traumatization.

It is suggested that those working with traumatized clients need:

…supportive, confidential, professional relationships within which they can process the horrific stories, graphic imagery and destructive re-enactments that are an inevitable part of the work. (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995: 564)

In respect of the current supervisory support available for probation practitioners, research indicates it may be inadequate in terms of addressing the impact of practitioners’ exposure to clients’ trauma stories. For instance, Phillips, Westaby and Fowler (2016) found probation officers within the NPS reported varying quality and frequency of reflective supervision, with most respondents suggesting a managerial focus did not help them to process the emotional impact of the role. Given the scale of structural changes experienced by probation practitioners within the CRCs, it is concerning that similar research has not been undertaken into their own experiences of supervisory support within the new organizations. Anecdotal evidence published in the Guardian (2016) indicates inappropriate supervisory support is being experienced by those working in the CRCs. Further, the recent HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP, 2017: 22) report into the quality and impact of probation work in Greater Manchester suggests the majority of CRC practitioners in the locality are experiencing low morale and do not feel listened to by their senior leaders.

Some areas of current probation practice perhaps do provide a more enhanced reflective and person-focused supervisory alliance to help support practitioners to process the direct work completed with clients. For instance, a recent evaluation of the Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Partnership initiative and the role of Semi-Specialist Offender Manager (SSOM) highlights benefits to practitioners’ emotional well-being through partnership work that is psychologically informed (Ramsden et al., 2016). Here Ramsden et al. (2016) argue that ‘working in partnership with a psychologist has enabled both professionals to provide a more holistic service’ (p. 65), enhancing shared knowledge and providing practitioners a safe place to discuss conflicts they experience when working with clients with personality disorders. Significantly, Ramsden et al. (2016) highlight how the nature of the project places exploration of past histories and trauma at the centre of probation work with the client group. As such, increased recognition of the need for practitioners to engage with trauma stories corresponds with the enhanced support and supervision that is available to the SSOMs.

Similar to Phillips et al.’s (2016) research, evaluation of the SSOM role in the current TR climate raises concerns as to the lack of availability of resources and whether ‘practice is being promoted which the organization is less able than ever to support’ (Ramsden et al., 2016: 68). This is a concern in respect to SSOMs’ risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization as practitioners are, on the one hand, being encouraged to engage with clients’ trauma stories but potentially not being provided with the necessary supervisory alliance to process the emotional impact of this on the self (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995).

An additional factor to consider in respect to probation practitioners’ risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization in the current climate is length of time in role. Shorter length of time in role has consistently been found to contribute to the likelihood of experiencing vicarious traumatization (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995; Way et al., 2004; Iliffe and Steed, 2000). Considering probation officer training arrangements may therefore be pertinent in respect to Trainee Probation Officers’ (TPO) potential risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization. Research by Collins, Coffey and Cowe (2009) assessed the well-being of 110 TPOs completing the Diploma in Probation Studies (DiPS). Results suggested TPOs were experiencing effects corresponding to those within the CSDT framework of vicarious traumatization such as stress, low self-esteem, emotional exhaustion and somatic symptoms such as tiredness. The research highlighted TPOs’ feelings that increased individual support would be beneficial alongside improved stress management technique training (Collins et al., 2009).

It may be argued that the change in training arrangements since TR have failed to address these concerns and perhaps increased the risk of TPOs experiencing vicarious traumatization. Currently, TPOs are required to undertake a 15-month Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP), reduced from 24 months under the DiPS arrangements. Training involves a blended approach with an emphasis on distance learning and support accessed through a personal tutor and line manager. Those on the PQiP are employed on Probation Service Officer (PSO) grades and are expected to take on additional PSO tasks and responsibilities throughout the course of the qualification (National Probation Service, 2016). As stated previously, research suggests that elements of this approach may increase the risk of TPOs experiencing vicarious traumatization. One key area is the removal of the Personal Development Assessor (PDA) role. The removal of PDA support provision is in contrast to the conclusions drawn by Collins et al. (2009) and the expressed desire from TPOs to have more individualized support. As Davies and Durrance’s (2009) research indicates, TPOs under previous arrangements valued the contribution of their PDA as they provided protection from inappropriate work, helped to sequence learning, embedded reflective practices and offered support at times of stress or distress.

Further critique has been placed on the move towards distance learning. Both Davies (2011) and Madoc-Jones et al. (2003) highlight the potentially isolating effects of reduced face-to-face learning time in the context of probation officer training. As Davies argues:

learning is hard work, feedback can be difficult to accept and assimilate, intellectual confidence tends to fluctuate, new concepts can be disturbing and life events constantly throw up obstacles both minor and profound. (Davies, 2011: 71)

Organizational and personal self-care practices

Research indicates there are a number of factors both personal and organizational that can manage and reduce the risk of probation practitioners experiencing vicarious traumatization. In their research with trauma therapists Pearlman and MacIan (1995: 564) suggested that practitioners need to ‘pay attention to their own self-care to protect themselves and their non-professional lives’. This is supported by Dunkley and Whelan (2006), who found participants using non-productive coping strategies, such as withdrawing from personal relationships, had higher rates of vicarious traumatization in comparison to those using adaptive strategies. An active coping style is therefore found to protect against the development of vicarious traumatization. Active coping refers to having an awareness of the stressor followed by making attempts to reduce its negative outcome (Zeidner and Endler, 1996). In regards to vicarious traumatization, to actively cope practitioners need to be aware that engaging with clients’ trauma stories could produce a negative emotional change within the self and need to take subsequent self-care steps to reduce the likelihood of such changes.

Mackenzie et al.’s (2015) research provides an example of such processes. Here their research focused on the ways probation practitioners cope when working with clients who self-harm, express suicidal ideation or go on to die by suicide. Respondents reported they coped best when actively engaging in the management of their negative feelings, anxiety, self-doubt and distress around the events. The research found those engaging in frequent discussion with co-workers to off-load feelings were able to cope better with any potential outcome

Arguably the importance of strong and consistent colleague-led support systems has been ignored within the organizational changes brought through TR. For instance, the implementation of TR resulted in staff ‘shifting’ into either NPS or CRC teams. Subsequently many staff have experienced one or more moves both within and between organizations, localities and teams. The fluidity of staff movement since the implementation of TR has undoubtedly altered established support systems and made it difficult for both CRC and NPS staff to depend on consistent support from known and trusted colleagues. Where consideration is given to staff well-being, organizational culture can, however, be used to support probation practitioners to actively cope when working with client trauma (Harrison and Westwood, 2009; Jankoski, 2010). As highlighted by Pearlman and MacIan (1995), to be able to employ active coping strategies practitioners first need to be aware of the stressor they are facing. Pearlman and MacIan (1995) argue that therapists should therefore be supported by organizations to develop a theoretical understanding of trauma and vicarious traumatization to reduce the impact of trauma work.

Additional specialist training in some fields of probation work is highlighted as already successful in improving both the practice and well-being of practitioners. For instance, within the NPS OPD Pathway initiative, SSOMs are given enhanced training in understanding personality disorders and strategies to address challenges faced when engaging with personality disordered clients (Ramsden et al., 2016). As such, it may be useful to consider whether there is scope for specialist training for probation practitioners around developing their understanding of trauma, vicarious trauma and self-care strategies as a means of promoting and protecting practitioners’ emotional well-being.

The use of mindfulness techniques has also been found to be particularly effective in reducing the impact of engagement with client trauma stories (Harrison and Westwood, 2009; Williams et al., 2012). Mindfulness refers to the practice of focusing on the present moment and acknowledging and accepting thoughts and feelings in a non-judgmental way, usually through the use of meditation (BeMindful, 2017). Such processes allow individuals to sit with their difficulties and create a space to make choices and decisions. Mindfulness techniques have also been shown to improve emotional self-management and regulate physical, mental and emotional responses to stressors (Himelstein et al., 2012). Organizational culture may therefore be able to enhance practitioners’ ability to manage the demands of engaging with clients’ trauma stories through both a recognition of the impact of such work and implementation of mindfulness techniques and training within ongoing professional development processes (Rourke, 2007; Harrison and Westwood, 2009).

Further organizational issues are apparent in terms of the impact of TR on practitioner workloads. HMIP (2017) assessment of workloads across the CRC and NPS in Greater Manchester indicates significant problems in terms of staff workloads and subsequent impact on staff well-being. Whilst the CRC figures suggests case managers are meeting targets in terms of caseload limits, as the report highlights, this position has only recently been achieved with caseloads being much higher on average in the period leading up to the inspection (HMIP, 2017: 21). Within the NPS the report further indicates probation officers’ feelings that workloads are unmanageable. Additionally, the resource-intensive training and supervision needs of a high number of newly qualified POs and unqualified PSOs employed prior to the inspection were providing little work relief to ease this pressure (HMIP, 2017).

Despite these concerns, review of the research literature into the impact of high workloads on probation practitioners’ risk of developing vicarious traumatization paints an unclear picture as to how these increases in workload could impact on practitioner susceptibility. For instance, focusing on trauma therapists Pearlman and MacIan (1995) found the number of trauma clients being worked with was a key variable in rates of vicarious traumatization. These findings are supported by research of Iliffe and Steed (2000) and Brady et al. (1999), whose results show numbers on a caseload is a factor in the development of vicarious traumatization. However, more recent research by Trippany et al. (2003) and Williams et al. (2012) suggest no significant difference between caseload and rates of vicarious traumatization amongst trauma therapists. Whilst number of clients on a caseload does not appear to necessarily correlate with experience of vicarious traumatization, individual differences amongst practitioners does appear associated with increased negative emotional effects of trauma-focused work. One such difference may be practitioners’ personal trauma histories. This has been found to increase the risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization amongst both trauma therapists (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995) and physicians (Nimmo and Huggard, 2013).

In their research into the impact of facilitating domestic violence programmes, Morran (2008) further found clear differences in the impact on male and female practitioners in their responses to the work. Here Morran’s (2008) findings suggest female practitioners experienced increased negative changes in their cognitive schemas around personal safety, esteem for others, perception of powerlessness and views on the nature of men in general. In terms of workload management probation practitioners’ risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization could therefore be managed more effectively through increased awareness of practitioners’ personal differences. Specialisms within probation practice may be a contentious issue with some commenters highlighting criticism that it can lead to an abdication of responsibility of working with a specific client group (Bhui, 1999). However, as evidenced in Ramsden et al.’s, (2016) findings, specialism with a specific client group can ensure staff have the required level of theoretical knowledge and personal support in order to practise effectively and maintain emotional well-being. In regards to vicarious traumatization, whilst complete role specification is unachievable in respect to practitioners’ individual differences and backgrounds, there is evidence that improved communication between practitioners and managers regarding the impact of work completed would be beneficial. Both Morran (2008) and MacKenzie et al. (2015) highlight where those practitioners facing specific issues with a client group have felt unsupported by management to manage the emotional demands of their role. This suggests organizationally mechanisms should be implemented to ensure protections are in place so staff feel able to discuss issues relating to their personal histories that are triggered through trauma-focused work.

Conclusion

To answer the question as to whether probation practitioners experience vicarious traumatization is difficult. This is due to a lack of empirical research which explores the impact of engagement with client trauma stories within probation supervision practices. This is despite the prevalence of trauma experiences of the client group (Browne et al., 1999; NOMS, 2015), the need for practitioners to engage with these trauma accounts (Digard, 2014) and the employment of empathy as a tool in desistance-focused work (Bonta et al., 2008). Due to a lack of probation-focused research into vicarious traumatization, this article has largely drawn on related client-focused fields to determine whether probation practitioners may be at risk. Here it is evident that engagement with client trauma stories can have a profound impact on practitioners across client-focused fields in regards to their view of self. Practitioners working with traumatized clients can experience negative changes in their views of the world, optimism, trust, sense of personal safety, views of the opposite sex, intrusive thoughts, emotional exhaustion and detachment from intimate relationships (McCann and Pearlman, 1990a; Pearlman and MacIan, 1995).

This research, alongside the limited research available within the probation field, does indicate probation practitioners may be at risk of experiencing vicarious traumatization. Research has already highlighted negative changes in self-view of those facilitating domestic violence programmes (Morran, 2008), those new in their probation careers (Collins et al., 2009) and those completing direct work with males who have sexually offended (Crawley, 2002). Extrapolating from wider research into vicarious traumatization, it is apparent that changes brought about due to TR may be increasing the risk of practitioners in both the NPS and CRC developing vicarious trauma. For instance, both NPS and CRC staff report a lack of effective supervisory alliance impacting on the quality and depth of line-manager supervision. Whilst some good practice is in place, for instance within the OPD Pathway services, it is apparent that many practitioners feel they are provided with insufficient support in terms of processing the accounts of client trauma they are exposed to.

It is evident that both personally and organizationally practitioners would benefit from an enhanced focus on their emotional well-being in specific reference to the direct work undertaken with clients who have experienced or inflicted trauma. Specialist training has already been shown to be effective in improving the emotional well-being of SSOMs working with personality disordered clients (Ramsden et al., 2016). It may therefore be beneficial to increase training around trauma and vicarious traumatization (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995). This would both enhance practitioners’ knowledge of the effects of trauma on clients and on exposure of this trauma to self. This increased knowledge would help practitioners to actively cope with the impact of such exposure (Dunkley and Whelan, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2015). Further self-care strategies may be promoted through active coping training. For example, there is clear evidence that mindfulness techniques can help to reduce the impact of exposure to client trauma stories across various fields of client-focused work (Harrison and Westwood, 2009; Williams et al., 2012).

Research has also repeatedly shown the ability to de-brief and ‘off-load’ concerns with colleagues are a key tool in managing the risk of developing vicarious trauma (Mackenzie et al., 2015). As such, when evaluating the impact of TR on practitioners’ well-being, disruption to colleague support networks and the ongoing ability for practitioners to maintain support networks is of significance. Research across both probation and related fields also evidences the need for practitioners to be aware of their own personal responses to client trauma histories (Pearlman and MacIan, 1995; Morran, 2008) – for example, whether their own experiences trigger negative emotional reactions when engaging with certain types of trauma such as domestic violence (Morran, 2008), suicide or self-harm (Mackenzie et al., 2015). Both NPS and CRCs need to be structured in a way which enables and empowers practitioners to respond to such issues. Further, when such issues are disclosed, practitioners should feel confident their individual differences will be respected and responded to appropriately by line-managers.

In conclusion, probation providers would enhance practitioner well-being by showing an increased duty of care towards staff who may, for individual reasons, experience negative emotional effects through engagement with specific trauma work. Evidence further shows the need for managers and supervisory support systems to be more attuned to the effects of probation work on the individual by developing affective supervisory alliances for staff. Finally, enhanced training around a theoretical understanding of trauma and vicarious traumatization and active-coping strategies such as mindfulness, would further help to reduce the risk of probation practitioners experiencing vicarious traumatization.