Abstract
Probation officers and others who work with young offenders often challenge or confront their clients in relation to pro-criminal comments and criminal behaviour. There is, however, very little research that can inform practitioners about which forms of challenging most effectively engage young people. This study examines the use of challenging by youth justice workers in New South Wales, Australia. Researchers observed and audiotaped 116 interviews between youth justice workers and their clients with a view to examining the nature of challenging used by workers and the response of young people to different forms of challenging. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicate that the clients were more positively engaged by, and responsive to, challenging that was exploratory, non-blaming, and accompanied by positive reinforcement of their strengths. Excerpts taken from the interviews provide examples of high- and low-level use of the skill of challenging.
Introduction
Probation officers and others who work with young offenders use a range of skills in their direct practice work. These skills include, for example, relationship skills including empathy and reflective listening; role clarification skills, whereby workers help clients to understand the purpose of the intervention and the way authority may be used; problem-solving skills including goal setting and various intervention strategies such as cognitive behavioural strategies; and strength focused or pro-social modelling skills to foster the positive or pro-social characteristics of clients (e.g., Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Trotter, 2013).
The literature relating to working with offenders also often refers to the need to use challenging or confrontation skills (e.g., Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Rooney, 2009). Although a number of texts refer to these skills and in some cases provide guidelines for undertaking challenging, there has been little research examining either the nature of challenging used by corrections workers in practice or client responses to different forms of challenging. This article reports on a project that aimed to examine the nature of challenging used by youth justice workers and how youth justice clients respond to the challenging offered to them.
The term challenging is used broadly in this study. Hepworth, Rooney, Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, and Larsen (2010) used the term confrontation to refer to “facing clients with some aspect of their thoughts, feelings or behaviour that is contributing to or maintaining their difficulties” (p. 526). In this study, the term “challenging” is used rather than “confrontation”. The term confrontation may imply some degree of hostility on the part of the worker, as suggested by Serran, Fernandez, Marshall, and Mann (2003), whereas challenging can be viewed as any attempt by supervising workers to caution clients or to help them understand that their comments or actions may be pro-criminal, anti-social, or otherwise un-helpful.
Methods of challenging may range from the worker exploring discrepancies in client comments and behaviour, to direct statements by the worker concerning the self-destructive or illegal nature of the client’s behaviour. Challenges may be directed toward a range of different client comments and behaviours, including criminal acts, comments supporting criminal behaviour, or other comments or behaviours that the worker sees as un-helpful for the client, for example, being unemployed, not keeping appointments with the worker, or associating with criminal peers.
Literature Review
Although research on challenging is limited, particularly in criminal justice settings, there have been some studies in this field which suggest that effective challenging can have an impact on client recidivism. There are also some studies in the welfare and general counselling field which suggest that while challenging or confrontation may not be generally effective in engaging clients, particular types of challenging can be effective in doing this.
Dowden and Andrews (2004) in a meta-analysis of correctional interventions found that the worker skill of effective disapproval was significantly related to reduced offender recidivism. Effective disapproval was defined as the probation officer identifying the specific behaviour and exploring the short- and long-term consequences of that behaviour. They also defined the “use of authority” by workers as “staff members kept the focus of the message on the behaviour and not the client performing it” (Dowden & Andrews, 2004, p. 208). In addition, the use of authority involved that
staff were direct and specific concerning their demands, used his or her normal voice, specified the choices with accompanying consequences, gave encouraging messages, supported words with action, used a firm but fair approach or respectfully guided the offender toward compliance. (Dowden & Andrews, 2004, p. 208)
Although the authors report significant relationships between the use of effective disapproval and authority and recidivism, the frequency of the use of both skills was very low (scored present in 3% and 5%, respectively). This is despite their presence being scored as present when any reference to the characteristics of the skill were identified in the studies. The authors indicate that this may have been because the skills were not used or alternatively that they may not have been described in the studies.
A number of individual studies in community corrections settings have examined the relationship between recidivism and the skills of supervising officers. These studies have found that supervision which includes effective challenging along with other skills such as problem solving is related to low recidivism (e.g., Bonta, Rugge, Sedo, & Coles, 2004; Raynor, Ugwudike, & Vanstone, 2013; Robinson, Vanbenschoten, Alexander, & Lowenkamp, 2011; Trotter, 2012). The studies have used varying terminology but have generally defined effective challenging in similar ways to Dowden and Andrews (2004). In particular, the studies refer to respectful, non-blaming challenging in the context of encouraging messages. These studies have not, however, examined the independent relationship between the use of challenging skills and offender engagement or recidivism.
Some research examining the relationship between challenging skills and client engagement has, however, been undertaken with specific offender groups and in other fields. For example, Marshall et al. (2003) undertook two research studies examining the influence of therapists facilitating sex offender group programs by analysing videotapes of group sessions. The “confrontative” approach, defined by the authors as a harsh approach to challenging clients that seems likely to be perceived by the clients as denigrating, was negatively related to the client attaining their treatment goals. Therapist features that were positively correlated with beneficial change in clients included “empathy, warmth, rewardingness, and directiveness.” Non-confrontation, defined as firm but supportive challenges, was also associated with positive change.
Patterson and Forgatch (1985) undertook a study examining the impact of therapist behaviour on client compliance. Observations were undertaken of six families engaged in counselling for child behavioural issues to ascertain the impact of therapist behaviour on client non-compliance. Analysis of the sessions found that when the therapist “taught” or “confronted” family members, they evidenced higher levels of non-compliance (e.g., interrupting or having a negative attitude).
In an Australian study (Trotter, 2004), research officers asked 282 child protection clients how their workers responded to negative comments or actions from the client—for example, if clients behaved or spoke in angry or negative ways, minimized the seriousness or impact of the problem on their child, or made excuses for anti-social behaviour. Clients indicated six common responses from workers, including (from most to least common)
exploring the reasons underlying the client’s feelings and actions; pointing out the likely ill-effects of client views or behaviours; suggesting more positive ways of viewing the situation; acknowledging that negative feelings may be justified; not responding at all; and (least commonly) criticizing the client. (Trotter, 2004, p. 228)
The workers’ responses were then related to a number of outcome measures, including worker and client satisfaction with the child protection intervention and time to case closure. The most positive outcomes were observed when workers responded to negative client comments or actions by suggesting more positive ways of dealing with the situation, by acknowledging that the clients’ negative feelings were justified, and when workers explored the reasons why the clients felt and acted the way they did. Conversely, outcomes were poor when clients reported that their worker did not respond or react to negative behaviours or comments, when the clients said that their workers pointed out the likely ill effects of their views and behaviour, and if the worker criticized the client.
The principles for challenging or confrontation referred to in these studies are generally consistent with motivational interviewing, an approach that has shown some success with young offenders (Raynor et al., 2013). Rollnick and Allison (2004) highlight the need to point out discrepancies in clients’ thinking but at the same time to keep the client comfortable. They argue that the more the worker focuses on discrepancies, the more the worker should employ the practice of empathic listening.
In summary, the limited research undertaken in corrections and other fields suggests that challenging is likely to be more effective when it is exploratory, non-blaming, empathic, encouraging, respectful, firm but fair, and focused on positive ways of dealing with situations. The limited research also suggests that forceful or critical challenging is likely to be associated with poor client engagement, and negatively correlated with achieving therapeutic goals. Relatively little research has, however, been undertaken in corrections settings and even less seems to have been done on the use of challenging skills in working with young offenders. The study reported on in this article aimed, therefore, to examine the use of challenging skills by youth justice workers.
Method
Research Question
The study aims to answer the following research question:
What is the relationship between the use of challenging skills by youth justice workers and the levels of engagement by clients, both in direct response to the use of challenging skills and in the interview as a whole?
The study also aims to provide examples of challenging that engages and disengages clients.
It is acknowledged that the place of challenging in working with offenders is a vexed one and raises many ethical issues. Is it appropriate, for example, to challenge a young offender concerning his or her failure to look for work if there are limited work opportunities available, or to not mix with a criminal peer group if the young person has no other friends? It is not the purpose of this article, however, to address these broader ethical issues surrounding challenging but rather to consider the nature of challenging used in one setting and to understand how young people respond to being challenged by their workers in that setting. Given that youth justice workers use challenging in their day-to-day work, there are advantages in understanding how this skill can be most effectively applied.
The study investigates the proposition that emerges from the literature that young people will respond positively to what might be described as exploratory challenging. Exploratory challenging is characterised as non-blaming, positive, and considerate of clients’ feelings. In contrast, it is anticipated that young people will respond poorly to challenging that might be described as confronting, involving blame, hostility, and a neglect of consideration for clients’ feelings. In examining this question, the study also aims to provide examples of challenging that engages clients and challenging that disengages clients. In doing this, it aims to provide information that can assist practitioners to use effective challenging skills in practice.
Sample
Consistent with university ethics approvals, the project was dependent on workers and clients volunteering, on workers selecting the worker/client interviews to be observed, and on workers facilitating the observations for the research officers. A total of 116 worker/client interviews were conducted by a total of 46 youth justice workers in New South Wales and were observed by one of three research officers. The research officers were employed on a project grant for the purpose of observing and coding the interviews.
It was initially intended to observe five interviews of each worker; however, the practicalities of accessing interviews meant that in some cases only one or two interviews were observed per worker. Youth justice workers provide direct supervision to young offenders on probation, parole, or other community-based supervision orders, a role that encompasses problem solving and a focus on compliance and practical issues. Workers may have qualifications in social work, psychology, criminology, or other social science disciplines, and in some cases youth justice workers have experience but no tertiary qualifications. The workers were most often aged between 35 and 44, and on average had 10 years of experience working in youth justice. In total, 64 of the interviews were conducted by female officers and 55 by male officers. The organisation provides regular training in effective practice skills.
The average age of the 116 young people was 15.8 years (range = 12-18 years). In total, 82% of the young people (96/116) were male and 23% were Indigenous. Overall, 36% were on supervised bonds, 27% on probation, 16% on suspended sentences, 13% on parole, and the remainder (8%) on other forms of supervision (e.g., bail supervision). The young people had an average of 1.46 prior convictions. The most common offence for which young people had received a current order were assaults (28%), followed by break and enter (20%), robbery (10%), theft (9%), and property damage (9%). The sample was broadly reflective of young people under community-based supervision in New South Wales in terms of gender, although the average age of the sample appears to be slightly younger. Indigenous young people were under-represented in the sample (23% vs. 38% under community-based youth justice supervision in New South Wales; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014).
Each of the young people in the sample was, like other young people under juvenile justice supervision, assessed by juvenile justice workers early in their supervision period for risk levels. The workers use the Youth Level of Supervision/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2003). This instrument has been tested for validity and reliability with youth offenders and allows for workers to determine a risk level by assessing 42 items relating to offender risk (Onifade et al., 2008). The average score for offenders in the study was 18.9, which is classified at the higher end of moderate risk in the samples on which the Inventory has been tested (Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2007).
Observations
The supervision sessions were observed by research officers in the first three months of the young person receiving their community supervision order. Although there would have been advantages in also observing interviews at later stages in the order, it was decided to limit the observations to the early stages because some orders, particularly parole orders, are short, and the researchers were concerned about excluding those on short orders. Also, it was anticipated that a number of young people would breach orders early in the supervision period, and therefore delaying the observations was likely to skew the risk level of the sample. Furthermore, intensive work was conducted for the most part in the early stages of the order when it was anticipated that reporting would be more frequent.
The interviews took place at a number of venues: 31% were undertaken in youth justice offices, 28% in clients’ homes, and 40% in another community setting. It is acknowledged that workers and clients may behave differently when they are observed, and the observers therefore attempted to be as unobtrusive as possible. Research officers also emphasised that the purpose of the observation was to view the interview as it would normally occur and that no one could be identified in the reporting of the study.
Coding of Observations: Workers’ Use of Challenging, Client Response to Challenging, and Client Overall Engagement
A total of three research officers conducted observations of worker/client interviews. In total, 99 of the observations were completed by the first research officer, who was employed continuously on the project for a period of four years. The coders used a general coding manual developed in consultation with investigators on similar research projects conducted in Jersey (the United Kingdom; Raynor et al., 2013) and Canada (Bonta et al., 2011). The manual aimed as far as possible to define the skills used by workers, and assist in the accurate and reliable estimates of the extent to which workers employed a range of skills during interviews. The coding manual included items relating to numerous skills including problem-solving, role clarification, pro-social modelling, and relationship skills. In addition, a number of items rating the workers’ use of various forms of challenging were included.
Workers’ use of challenging
The items relating to challenging, each scored on a 5-point scale by the coders, correlated strongly with each other at statistically significant levels (p < .05). For example, the scores for challenging clients’ pro-criminal or anti-social expressions and actions correlated strongly with scores for challenging rationalisations (r = .819), non-blaming exploration of the clients’ circumstances (r = .539), discussing consequences of the clients’ actions (r = .847), reframing clients’ pro-criminal comments into pro-social ones (r = .772), and sensitive exploration of the clients’ underlying belief system (r = .678). For the purposes of this article, therefore, we have presented the results using only the measure of challenging clients’ pro-criminal and anti-social actions and expressions.
Examples of pro-criminal actions and comments, which were identified and challenged by workers, included non-compliance with the order, for example, failing to keep appointments; failure to comply with special conditions such as attending for drug treatment; reports of further offending; failure to accept responsibility for offences, for example, by blaming the victim or giving other rationalisations for offending; de-valuing pro-social activities such as attending school, seeking work, or having non-criminal relationships; sexist and racist comments; and comments that were generally supportive of a criminal lifestyle. These issues might be raised by the client and responded to by the worker or in some cases the worker might raise an issue such as the value of education or work for discussion with the client. In either instance, the aim of the worker was to challenge the client’s beliefs, comments, or actions.
The skill of challenging was scored by the observer on a 5-point scale of the extent to which the worker used the skills during the interview. The rating was dependent on whether the skill of challenging was
Not present at all (no examples of the skill of challenging in the interview);
Infrequently present (at least one example present through entire duration of the interview);
Sometimes present (several examples are present during the interview);
Often present (numerous examples of this being present during the interview);
Present (worker is clearly using this skill deliberately throughout the entire interview).
For the skills to be scored at 4 or 5, the worker must have regularly identified and responded to pro-criminal or anti-social comments and responded in what could be described as an exploratory rather than a confronting manner—in other words, non-blaming, empathic, exploratory conversation in a positive context that aims to caution the young person in some way regarding their pro-criminal comments or actions. This could also involve reframing pro-criminal comments into pro-social ones. The skill would be scored low if the worker challenged the client in a hostile or blaming way or if the worker simply told the client that they were wrong. It would also be scored low if the worker ignored pro-criminal comments by the client or showed support for the pro-criminal comments either through direct comments or through the use of attentive body language.
Client response to challenging
The response to the challenge was then scored by the observer. The observer would score this as high if the client appeared to be engaged by the challenging used by the worker. The observers scored the response using the following 5-point scale:
Client non-responsive, looking away, monosyllabic responses;
Client partially engaged in conversation, occasional eye contact but responses still limited;
Client is occasionally engaged in the conversation and is responsive to a proportion of what the worker is saying;
Client appears engaged in session although may appear distracted or disinterested at times;
Client is taking notice, listening, responding to the worker, actively learning.
Client overall engagement
The coders also scored the client’s overall engagement with the worker and the interview as a whole (as distinct from the client’s engagement following specific challenges). The client’s overall level of engagement was coded on a 10-point scale using the following guidelines:
1. Client is not engaged in the interview, is non-responsive, giving monosyllabic responses;
3. Client partially engaged in the interview, though responses still limited;
5. Client is occasionally engaged in the interview and is responsive to a proportion of what the worker is saying;
7. Client appears engaged in the interview although may appear distracted or disinterested at times;
10. Client is actively engaged in the interview, evidenced by taking notice of what worker is saying (i.e., listening, responding to the worker, actively learning).
Inter-rater reliability
Ideally, two research officers would have observed a number of interviews together to determine the level of inter-coder reliability, however, this was not practical because of the expense and time involved. In total, 20 of the interviews were, however, coded by the research officer who observed the interview and subsequently cross-coded by another research officer using the audiotapes of the interviews. The research officers using the audiotapes also had access to the non-verbal cues section of the coding undertaken by the research officer who observed the interview in an attempt to overcome the disadvantage of not having observed the interview in person. There was a high degree of consistency in the ratings. For example, the correlation between first and second coders on the use of challenging offenders was .533, and in relation to the way clients responded, the correlation was 1.0; in other words, the coders give the same score in each instance. The correlation between coders on the overall engagement score was .424, a moderate correlation according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria.
Results
To What Extent Was the Skill of Challenging Used by Workers?
In 43% (50/116) of the interviews, the coders did not identify any challenging skills used by workers, as shown in Table 1. Note that the coders provided high scores only when the skill of challenging was present—in other words exploratory challenging as it has been defined in this study. Hostile or blaming challenging or no challenging at all was scored as 1 on the 5-point scale as the skill of challenging was not used. In only 19% of observations was challenging frequently or always present.
Use of Challenging Skills by Workers.
How Did Clients Respond to Different Forms of Challenging?
There was a strong statistically significant (p < .001) correlation between the use of challenging and positive responses from clients (r = .637). In other words, when workers used exploratory challenging skills, clients were observed as taking notice, listening, responding to the worker, and actively learning. There was also a smaller but significant correlation (r = .281, p < .01) between use of challenging skills by the worker and the overall engagement of the client in the interview.
It could be that the positive responses by clients were related to other factors such as their risk levels, gender, or age. The associations between workers’ skills, clients’ responses, and the clients’ overall engagement in the interviews were, however, present regardless of the age, gender, or risk levels of the clients (measured by the YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2003) as shown in the linear regression analyses in Tables 2 and 3.
Linear Regression Analysis of Relationship Between Challenging by Workers (Dependent Variable) and Client Responses, Taking Into Account Gender, Age, and Risk Levels of Clients.
Note. B = unstandardised regression coefficient; β = standardised regression coefficient; YLS/CMI = Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory.
Linear Regression Analysis of Relationship Between Challenging by Workers (Dependent Variable) and Overall Engagement by the Client, Taking Into Account Gender, Age, and Risk Levels of Clients.
Note. B = unstandardised regression coefficient; β = standardised regression coefficient; YLS/CMI = Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory.
The findings suggest that when workers challenged clients in a manner that was exploratory, the clients responded well and were engaged with the worker and the interview. When the workers challenged in a confronting style or did not challenge pro-criminal comments or actions at all, the clients were less responsive and less engaged in the interview as a whole.
Examples of Challenging Which Engaged and Disengaged Clients
The second purpose of this article is to provide some examples of the nature of the challenging which led to client engagement and disengagement. To do this, the following section presents excerpts taken directly from the interviews of conversations between workers and clients.
Example 1. In the following interview, a low score was given by the coders for the skill of challenging and the client response, and overall engagement was also rated low.
Okay, so now with your friend in the hospital, do you have any plans to break the law?
No.
No? Just think about it. Let’s just say if you do, then you’re going to go into custody, and you don’t want to do that. Okay? I mean, was it nice that your friend was beaten up?
Mmm . . .
I mean, do you think that it’s a brave thing? Robbing people, bashing people? Not really, eh? Okay, so it’s quite a coward act, you know? It’s not something courageous. So good, I’m glad you understand that.
The coders assessed this interaction as blaming and failing to take into account the client’s feelings. The client did not appear to be engaged in the conversation or the interview as a whole.
Example 2. In the following example, the worker was scored high for the skill of challenging, and the client was also scored high for engagement with the worker and the interview as a whole. The worker is interviewing the young person following his return to custody.
I like stuffed up. I don’t have any thoughts of getting out right now. I just want to go to rehab or something, just try and go to rehab or at least go to the drug court. Because I heard there’s a lot of things they can help me in rehab—you know, help get me back on track and stuff. Even if I do get out, I still want to get on a program or go to rehab.
Those are good ideas and the thing that I have always been impressed with you is your ability to understand what the issues are, where you have gone wrong, and what needs to be done about it. The problem is following through with things. Remember at the time we talked about how you say all the right things and that’s great. You obviously are an intelligent young man, very intelligent, very good with people and very good at engaging in a conversation and identifying what the problems are. But when it comes time to follow through, nothing happens. So what did you think in your mind? What did you think about our conversation today? What did you think I was going to say to you?
In this example, the worker is using exploratory skills to challenge the client in relation to his criminal behaviour. The worker also acknowledges the client’s strengths and asks the client questions rather than directly challenging or confronting him. The client is clearly engaged in the conversation and able to reflect on his behaviour. Both worker skills and client engagement were rated high.
Example 3. The following example is a clear example of aggressive and judgemental confrontation which disengaged the client.
Did you have a think about the child care and direction you want to go in relation to this. Did you think about that at all? . . . you’ve ended up with a criminal record, you know that, don’t you?
Yeah.
You just regret . . . people are reluctant to give jobs to people who don’t do the right thing like . . . Whether they be a range of various offences and you know yourself—if you ran a business, you’d not want to have somebody in there that’s a criminal. So, is there anything you wanted to ask me? Anything?
No.
In this example, the worker is critical and blaming of the client, and low scores were given on use of the skill, the response, and the overall engagement in the interview.
Example 4. The following example was scored high for the worker’s skills, for the client response, and overall engagement in the interview.
What are the consequences going to be if you keep doing that stuff at school?
Suspension.
And what’s going to happen if you keep getting suspended?
I will just have the biggest holiday of my life.
What would the consequence be in terms of your education goals?
I would learn how to do bad stuff. I don’t want to do good stuff.
OK, and if you are learning how to do the bad stuff, what’s the risk involved with that? Things that I know you want to avoid.
Don’t know—getting caught, police.
Where would you get sent?
Cobham (detention centre).
And how much do you want that to happen?
I don’t know, never.
In this example, the worker asks questions about consequences rather than making direct challenges and ignores the flippant comments by the client.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of challenging skills by youth justice workers and the levels of engagement by clients, both in response to the use of the skills and in the interview as a whole. The findings suggest that when workers were assessed as using exploratory challenging skills, as opposed to confronting skills, the clients were more engaged in the conversation with both the worker and the interview as a whole. Clients were more likely to be engaged when their workers challenged them in non-blaming, empathic, exploratory conversations in a positive context with the aim of cautioning the young person in some way regarding their pro-criminal comments or actions. This could also involve reframing pro-criminal comments into pro-social ones. Clients were less likely to be engaged if the worker challenged the client in a hostile or blaming way, if the worker told the client that they were wrong, or if they ignored pro-criminal comments by the client or showed support for the pro-criminal comments either through direct comments or through the use of attentive body language.
The study has limitations. It was reliant on volunteers, and the 116 interviews that were observed represent only a small proportion of the many thousands of interviews that are conducted every year in the jurisdiction. It has been noted that the sample has an under-representation of Indigenous young people, for example. The requirement for informed consent and the issues associated with accessing subjects in youth justice settings inevitably limits the ability to achieve a representative sample. In addition, most of the interviews were observed by the same research officer, and though the measures of reliability were reasonably strong, there is still potential for bias in the coding of the interviews.
The study is limited to the examination of the relationship between challenging skills and client engagement. It is based on the assumption that client engagement with both the worker and the interview is beneficial. The study did not examine the impact of challenging on compliance with supervision or recidivism—although there is some evidence that engaged clients display better results on outcome measures such as compliance (e.g., Louden, Skeem, Camp, Vidal, & Peterson, 2012; Trotter, 2004). In addition, although the findings indicate an association between the use of challenging skills and client engagement, this does not prove unidirectional causation, as workers may be more inclined to use these skills with clients who are more engaged or with whom they have a better relationship. Alternatively, the use of exploratory challenging may be leading to better engagement over and above the level of alliance between the worker and young person.
Nevertheless, the findings of this study are consistent with the studies referred to in the literature review. A study in child protection found that effective challenging or confrontation is characterised by suggesting more positive ways of dealing with situations (Trotter, 2004). A study with sex offenders found that therapists were most effective when they were warm, empathic, and rewarding and used non-confrontation characterised by a firm but supportive approach (Marshall et al., 2003). Another study with families (Patterson & Forgatch, 1985) found that confrontation was related to client non-compliance. The findings of this study are also broadly consistent with Motivational Interviewing principles (Rollnick & Allison, 2004), which focus on empathy, keeping the client comfortable, and pointing out discrepancies.
The only work on this issue that specifically relates to the use of challenging or confrontation with offenders is the meta-analysis by Dowden and Andrews (2004). They found support for effective disapproval and use of authority characterised by, for example, respect for the client, exploring consequences and choices, giving encouraging messages, focusing on the specific behaviour, and a firm but fair approach. Minimal use of these skills was, however, found in the research, even though the authors adopted a liberal approach to scoring. The authors acknowledge that many of the studies they examined may not have described the skills, and they refer to their meta-analysis as “preliminary evidence” relating to the skills.
What does this study tell us, therefore, that we did not know from previous work in this field? First, it confirms the tentative finding from the Dowden and Andrews (2004) meta-analysis, which suggests that effective challenging is infrequently used in practice. Second, it confirms this in a youth justice setting using direct observation of interviews, something that does not appear to have been done before. Third, the study provides some direct quotations from interviews that illustrate the nature of challenging used in practice—information that is not available elsewhere. Fourth, through the examination of previous literature, the study has developed a definition of, and characteristics of, effective challenging, which in this study have been shown to engage offenders and which can serve as a guide for practitioners.
What are the implications of these findings for practice? Given that effective challenging skills may be used infrequently, that challenging in youth justice is often blaming rather than exploratory, that youth justice clients may be engaged by effective challenging skills, and that engaged clients tend to have better outcomes, this study has implications for policy and practice. Previous studies have indicated that the skills of corrections workers may be enhanced through training supervision, coaching, and direct observation of interviews (Bonta et al., 2011; Raynor et al., 2013). The development of policy and practices to enhance the skill of challenging (along with other effective practice skills) has the potential to lead to improved client outcomes with consequent benefits for youth justice clients and the community.
There remains a need for further research in this area. The relationship between challenging and recidivism might also be examined. Further research might also examine the response of different groups of clients to various challenging styles. Although it is clear from the results that youth justice clients in general are engaged by exploratory challenging and disengaged by confrontational challenging, it may be that young people respond differently to different types of challenging dependent on their age, gender, ethnicity, or the stage of their relationship with the worker.
To sum up, this study has found, consistent with the limited literature, that when youth justice workers use exploratory challenging skills, they are likely to engage young offenders under their supervision, and when they use confrontational challenging skills, they are likely to disengage their clients. Youth justice workers, however, use exploratory challenging skills infrequently, and it has been argued that this has implications for policy and practice in youth justice organisations.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the New South Wales Department of Juvenile Justice in carrying out this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Criminology Research Council.