The aim of this unit is to demonstrate the ability of the practitioner to effect a change in behaviour with the individuals they work with. Offenders are not a ‘homogenous group’ of people that can be subjected to uniform interventions and expected to change at certain stages of the specified intervention. The process of initialising and effecting change varies between the individual, and whilst successfully achieving changes in individuals can prove to be rewarding, the process can also prove to be ineffective, challenging, demanding and frustrating. This RPJ will aim to demonstrate the various interventions implemented by the practitioner, and highlight the successes and failures that have resulted from them.

Current thinking within the National Probation Service focuses on the concept of ‘effective practice,’ this relates to interventions which are proven to reduce re-offending. According to Chapman and Hough (1997 Pp.vii)…..

“Evaluating the impact of work with offenders is at the heart of effective practice. For practitioners it can bring confirmation of the impact of their work with individuals, moving away from gut feelings to hard evidence.”

Accredited programmes are a prime example of the concept of effective practice, afterall evidence states that the programme as an intervention produces positive results in relation to figures of re-offending. Programmes adopt a cognitive behavioural approach as its core and works on the ethos that….

“ the individual is not so much a victim of psychological distress but a product of an environment that has failed to equip them with the necessary cognitive skills to lead law abiding lives. As a result they lean towards egocentrism and impulsivity, behave inappropriately and have attitudes, values and beliefs that may support this behaviour.” (S.W.A.T Pp.1)

Cognitive behavioural approaches combine cognitive and behavioural techniques, and work around the idea that individual’s current difficulties are intensified by faulty patterns of thinking and behaviour. The aim of the intervention therefore is to enable the individual to identify, understand and change those patterns. The programmes based on this ideal include Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS), Addressing Substance Related Offending (ASRO) and Drink Impaired Drivers programme (DID’s).

Having already undergone training and presenting group work through the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme (RPJ 04) I have a basic knowledge with regards to how one element of Probation work aims to instill change in individuals. Indeed the whole of the programme base is enshrined in the aim of changing individual’s behaviour through improving their thinking skills, and consequently a more effective way of problem solving. My experiences of training, preparing and delivering programmes have been mixed. However as an accredited programme the success of ETS as an intervention is evident. Of course as a trainee I have delivered only six sessions of ETS, and so evaluating it as a complete intervention was something not made possible through the requirements of training. However as a case manager I have referred (HH – PSR) and overseen (AA) individuals who have participated in this type of intervention.

In the case of AA I received him on licence and he had completed 8 sessions of his ASRO condition. However the programmes tutors were not happy with his input into the programme and contacted me regarding their concerns. On discussion with AA he felt that the intervention was not suited to his needs – he was an ex drug user who did offend whereas a large majority of the group he mixed with were still using illicit drugs. Using techniques of motivational interviewing and positive reinforcement I engaged AA with the facts that he had attended all of the sessions thus far and that the latter half of the programme dealt with relapse prevention, which he would find useful. These one to one sessions, which I considered to be a secondary intervention (the programme itself being the primary intervention), resulted in AA completing the programme, and receiving some positive feedback during his three way session with myself and a programmes tutor.

Throughout this traineeship I have found that programme interventions can effect changes in an individual’s behaviour. However the use of programmes is not the only type of intervention adopted by the Probation Service – one to one programmes and systematic interventions are also successful in inducing changes in an individual’s behaviour.

Environmental factors, that is external influences that may shape individuals activities, play a vital part in inducing behavioural changes. In the case of LL he was due to be released on HDC, and upon visiting him whilst in custody he informed me that the address he wished to reside was with his sister. After visiting the property and discussing HDC with his sister and brother, who also lived at the property, I discovered that both of them were one day into a methadone programme and had used heroin over a number of years. LL is a recovering heroin addict himself, and after informing me that he had been clean for five months I felt that the suggested address was inappropriate due to increased risk factors associated with possible relapse and consequent re-offending. Having met LL and reviewed his proposals I felt that, given his present abstinence from drug use and the need for additional support, a hostel environment would be his most suitable option. The hostel would provide the relevant support and monitor his progress at the same time. This could be described as a planned intervention that would not only enable change, but aim to maintain it.

When writing the HDC report I felt that I had essentially gone against the wishes of LL. He was keen to reside with his brother and sister and felt that they could help each other to abstain from drug use. Although in theory the idea of three ex heroin addicts supporting each other may sound a positive step, in reality and as a Probation Officer I knew that the risks associated with the set-up far outweighed any practicalities. Accommodation is a key element in contributing to inducing change in individuals through environmental factors, something that was made clear to me through my recent training event which dealt specifically with accommodation. By providing LL with the hostel environment I feel that as an intervention it offers him the best chance of changing his offending behaviour.

As Probation Officers we are there to facilitate interventions that enable change, yet sometimes planning these interventions becomes impossible. In terms of accommodation I have had a variety of experiences, most notable with PP. Upon his release from prison (I discovered he was to be released early, two hours before) the council would not help him as they stated he had made himself ‘intentionally homeless.’ Even a visit to the offices by myself to plead his case resulted in a blank. Hostels were refusing to take him due to his previous behaviour in hostel settings and foundation housing never secured him accommodation despite numerous calls from myself. I have found that the intervention of housing agencies are wholly inadequate, yet as many fellow officers say to me ‘we are not housing officers.’ PP was homeless for over a week before I secured him accommodation, and yet the risks he posed substantially increased due to his homelessness. In my assessment any change in behaviour that may have been established whilst in custody or throughout his previous CRO was in danger of being undone due to PP’s homelessness – that is how important I rate accommodation as an intervention.

As well as introducing interventions that deal with environmental factors (housing, finance, employment) there are also interventions that slide towards a more cognitive based approach. As I have already discussed there are accredited programmes (ETS) and additional programmes that are not recognized by the accreditation panel (i.e. the Racially Motivated Offender Programme proposed for MM in a PSR). However much of the programme based material can be utilized in one to one sessions, which I have undertaken on a number of occasions. By directing this type of intervention towards the development of strategies that enable an individual to change their offending behaviour there is an opportunity to use a number of techniques.

A prime example of this type of approach is that of CC. Her offending behaviour amounted to continual shop thefts, triggered by her alcohol use and relationship problems. Throughout the initial supervision sessions I felt that I had to engage CC in a manner that encouraged openness about her thoughts and feelings, whilst at the same time making sure that I did not come across as patronising, discriminatory or oppressive. I am now fully aware that issues of ADP run concurrent with any type of intervention used, and that should discriminatory behaviour be displayed then the effectiveness of the intervention could be severely reduced.

CC revealed a persistent chain of events that lead to her offending behaviour. The triggers were identified as arguments with her partner, with whom the relationship can best be described as ‘stormy.’ There was no indication of violence or aggressive behaviour, yet they would result in CC consuming large amounts of alcohol. This in turn would lead her to shop lift simply out of frustration and distress. The proposed one to one intervention, included in her supervision plan, aimed to develop methods of coping strategies, victim awareness, consequential thinking and problem solving. It was my firm belief that by utilizing this material through a specific intervention would enable CC to change her offending behaviour. The execution of the work itself was slow and time consuming, yet results were noticeable over a period of time. CC was able to identify the triggers to her behaviour and create strategies to deal with distress and anger other than consuming alcohol and stealing. There were of course interventions dealing with external factors at the same time (employment, accommodation) but the key to changing her behaviour involved the creation of strategies. This was of particular importance not only to CC herself, but to the risks she posed in relation to re-offending, risks to others and even risks to herself through alcohol consumption. By employing these strategies within the community these risks would significantly diminish.

As previously mentioned within this RPJ sustaining the change in an individuals behaviour is just as difficult as establishing a change. The cases of LL and his drug abstinence, or CC and her continual thefts have witnessed the planning and implementation of interventions to change the behaviours identified.

Throughout the traineeship I have learned a great deal about maintaining changes once they have been established. As a supervising officer I have overseen individuals who have maintained that change and people who have not. One of the key mechanisms for maintaining change in my limited experience is that of additional support networks. In the case of CC I utilized a number of these networks in the aim of securing her employment. The first type of intervention was that of an agency located within the organisation, DISC. After attending the first two appointments CC felt that they could no longer assist her in her search for employment. I then decided that CC would benefit from some computer based work, and so continued the employment intervention through the library and its resources. This is something CC found to be most beneficial, and combined with motivational work and the completion of SMART worksheets (effective practice manual) with her supervising officer she managed to gain employment. Again as I have mentioned previously the strategies adopted for CC played a significant role in effecting change in CC’s behaviour, yet the gaining of employment was vital in maintaining this change in behaviour.

Hostels are another type of useful intervention in maintaining behaviour change, yet sometimes they can prove to be ineffective. In the case of PP he has been ejected from four hostel settings whilst I have supervised him throughout his CRO and current licence. On each occasion rules have been broken and on one occasion this resulted in violence for which PP received a custodial sentence. What this highlights is that the motivation of the offender in relation to inducing change is vital – if the individual does not want to change then the practitioner has a much more difficult task in effecting and subsequently maintaining it.

Reviewing the effectiveness of intervention is extremely important not only for the individual at that time, but as a future tool that can be utilized by the practitioner in similar circumstances or situations. Whether the intervention is a programme, an external agency or through one to one work its success can be measured against the level of change induced in an individual’s behaviour both in the short and long term.

Reviewing the progress of an individual and consequently evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention can take many forms. In the case of AA the intervention, ASRO, was initially reviewed through a 3 way meeting. However its overall success can be measured by AA’s attitude and behaviour throughout the remained of his licence, and subsequently the rest of his adult life. Essentially the point is that reviewing the effectiveness of interventions is not only measured through numerous channels, but reviews are continuously ongoing throughout that individual’s life.

Essentially interventions play an extremely important role within the NPS, and are the catalyst to effecting change in individual’s behaviour. This RPJ highlights but a few of these interventions and highlights the various successes and failures encountered. What I have learned throughout the traineeship is the importance of using such interventions efficiently and effectively, whilst at the same time not feeling a failure should an intervention be unsuccessful.

Despite having a section of NVQ purely devoted to effecting changes within the individual I feel that when working in an organisation that is described as a law enforcement agency the practitioners attempts to induce such changes are hampered by policies (Enforcement, National Standards), Legislation (Court Services Act 2000, the new Criminal Justice Act 2004) and procedures. I believe that should I have worked in the Service at the height of the rehabilitative ideal (1970s) then effecting change would be a central focus for the service, yet the contemporary service sees enforcement as its primary goal. This for me results in a tension – we are not simply here to assist offenders, but as National Standards 2002 states, to….

“Address and reduce offending behaviour, challenge the offender to accept responsibility for the crimes committed and their consequences, contribute to the protection of the public, motivate and assist the offender towards a greater sense of personal responsibility and discipline, aid reintegration and be arranged so as not to prevent the offender from being available from work.”

As the service moves towards NOMS and away from its traditional ethos of advise, assist and befriend the NVQ unit itself is in danger of becoming obsolete for future trainees.

Copyright(C) 2007 - 2020. All rights reserved.

PROBATION HOME