The introduction of ETS for me comprised of an academic module which aimed to lay the foundations of knowledge and understanding as to how the programme works and how it came to exist. This proved to be a useful module, particularly the writing of the essay, as I was able to grasp the basics of accredited programmes.

Upon starting the traineeship and being informed of some aspects involved the one feature I was most apprehensive about was the delivery of programmes. Most of my ideas formed from information gathering from cohort 5 trainees, whereby the majority stated that it was the most daunting, nerve wracking part of the course. Further discussion with my PDA and other colleagues informed me that essentially I would be delivering an accredited programme to a group of offenders which would be videoed and analysed by my PDA and the treatment programme manager. Furthermore there would be a two week training programme and an academic module based solely on accredited programmes. My pre-conceived ideas regarding programmes have thus been based on other people’s opinions, experiences and ideas. Furthermore my belief with regard to effective Probation practice tended to focus on one to one work – group work was an approach that ‘treated many individuals who were very different in terms of background, knowledge and opinions as one entity.’

Following on from the academic learning basis of programmes one had to undergo the practical training for ETS. This consisted of a two week intensive programme that aimed to inform, evaluate and practice ETS delivery and requirements. Upon commencing the training I seemed to be very apprehensive and cautious as it was an unknown field of work. Furthermore there were around 20 trainees taking part in the training event, and on a personal level I barely knew half of them. We were given a timetable in the introductory session and informed that we would be split into two groups of 10 and allocated a partner, with whom we would co-present four separate sessions over the two week period. At this point I knew relatively little about the content of ETS, and felt that they (the organisers) expected too much of the group. The introductory session further informed us that when we were not presenting we would form the offender group, and we were expected to act as offenders. When presenting we would be assessed by one of the three trainers – and this was a pass or fail course-something we had not been informed of prior to the training.

Having completed the training my next and most challenging goal for this unit was the actual delivery of the programme. The initial stage of this process was a three way meeting between my PDA, the programmes treatment manager, VV and myself. This was a meeting set up to confirm delivery dates, the sessions I would be covering and any problems or tensions I may have relating to programmes. Further discussion focused on styles of delivery, anti discriminatory practice and how I could resolve possible conflicts. Primarily we discussed a slight discrepancy that arose – according to VV I would commence my delivery from session 2, yet in training we were told that we would not conduct session 1, 2 or 20. The first two sessions in particular could prove to be damaging to the confidence and abilities of a trainee as they were most likely to be sessions at a ‘storming stage.’ VV however remained adamant that I should start at session 2, and stated….

1. Regardless of what sessions trainees start there will be storming to an extent as there is a new face, and the offenders may wish to discover the boundaries of that individual.
2. Due to the large intake of trainees the programmes team could not guarantee that they could fit every trainee into the rota, as head office had requested.

Essentially I agreed with VV’s points, but she did agree that having set myself up to present from session 3 that it would change to fit the work I had produced for specific sessions. Throughout the session I spoke to VV regarding my apprehension and worries – however my main concern fell on the actual content of the course material. Having completed training and looked to apply such sessions to real life groups I felt that the majority of the material was too simplistic, patronising and insulting. VV stated that some of the material was questionable in her view, but that by preparing well for sessions and using our own examples such reservations could be allayed. The meeting closed with VV offering her assistance in any way possible and informing me that she would be observing one of the recorded sessions-not to criticise but to evaluate and attempt to improve any aspect of the delivery that we identified. On reflection I felt that this meeting informed me of the expectations and requirements that the programmes team had of me, how I should conduct myself, what I should expect in terms of the delivery and the support networks available to me.

Having already been informed that I would be delivering session 3-8 I discovered that half of my six sessions were to be delivered with a colleague on the fourth floor, EE, with whom I had done much previous work with. We sat down together and reviewed each of the sessions we would be covering, and with EE’s experienced approach we evaluated how we could break each session down for both of us to cover. As a result of this review we decided to view one of the earlier sessions of our group and assess the dynamics of the group. This would then be followed by sharing our ideas and views on the delivery, stating for example the positives and negatives of the two staff who delivered that session. This was the first insight I had of the delivery of ETS to ‘real’ offenders, and at this point I actually felt nervous, and found me putting myself in the position of those delivering, envisaging how I may feel and what I might do to counter any fears I may have. Having watched the group I would be delivering to I noticed that many of them were unwilling to participate or engage with the tutors. On reflection with EE she stated that we would have to identify strategies to involve those group members more. If the offenders did not respond and failed to engage at all then EE informed me of the procedures to deal with the event – such as contacting their case managers etc…

On reflection the first session I delivered was the most nerve wracking experience of the traineeship, and one that I did not enjoy. The group consisted of 10 males aged 18-25, and being a male of a similar age myself this added to my discomfort. I found the group to be resentful to the programme as a whole and they became easily bored with the material. For my part of the delivery there seemed to be an ongoing battle between my open question and the group responding by closing them. Furthermore I felt that my negative attitude surrounding programmes reflected in the way I presented myself, and although I attempted to hide those feelings I cannot help but think that the group may have picked up on it. My co-tutor for this session, HH, described the group at the end of the session as ‘one of the worst she had delivered to in a long time.’ This culminated in her giving a verbal warning to one of the offenders for comments he made towards her and refusing to participate. This did not make the thought of delivering another five sessions any more appealing.

With the group already running a week behind schedule due to delays the following session did not ease the time situation. Only five members arrived and myself and EE decided that the group would be postponed on the basis that there would be too many people attending catch up sessions. It was at this point that I could understand why the ETS fall out rate is so high.

Over the next three sessions the group did improve, but they were still unwilling to engage to a degree. Furthermore I still felt uncomfortable when delivering certain aspects of the material.

Session 4 (CAF/cost benefits/probabilities) began with me addressing the group with regards to their non-attendance the previous week. I informed them that should so many be absent again the group may be suspended due to a lack of attendees, and that the remainder would have to join another group at a later date. Furthermore I told the group that such a mass absence was unacceptable, and that people would be ejected from the group if they are absent on more than two occasions. Essentially my negativity surrounding programmes remained largely unaltered, and if anything it had actually increased due to the nature of the material and the length of time the deliverer had to capture the imaginations of the group (2.5 hours). What must also be taken into consideration is the fact that the group was an evening one, and that many of these individuals had come straight from work – and so were already agitated and tired before the group commenced. These factors only added to the difficulty of delivering such sessions.

Following the delivery of session 6 (effects of past experiences/group memberships, extreme thinking/emotions), which was the fourth of my six deliveries, I had to have one of my sessions treatment managed by a line manager-VV. Every 5 sessions VV has to observe 45 minutes of a video and score the tutors she is observing in terms of their adherence to the manual, group skills and adherence to treatment styles. According to VV there are 3 types of tutor – the apprentice, the competent and the mindful, and I would be scored under the guise of the apprentice. Throughout this meeting she offered me advice, ways in which I could improve and develop and identified my strengths to build upon. In terms of the latter VV highlighted good group work skills, good challenging techniques and an effective, direct approach to the group. In terms of these strengths I could identify with what VV was suggesting and agreed with ways in which I could build upon them.

However there were also areas whereby VV had to be critical of, and the first of these was in my open questioning techniques. I identified this weakness myself and explained it by the pressure I felt exerted on me by the group – who wanted the questions closed and to move on quickly through the material. VV stated that I handled the pressure well but that I must maintain an open question front and remember that it is the tutor who has control of the group, not the other way around. The second criticism identified was that as a co-tutor I must still be actively involved in the group even when I am not presenting. VV had observed that I was note taking, and although I stated that I had been advised by other tutors to note take VV added that whilst taking notes I was not paying attention to the group or the co-tutor. I agreed with the point she made and decided that I only needed to take a note of a contribution that II may include in the post programme logs. Overall I felt that these criticisms were justified and that they could be adjusted in future sessions.

However further criticisms leveled at me added to my disliking of the whole programmes ethos. The first was on the use of language. I informed VV that I stated to one of the group members that ‘I can understand that you have been at work and that you are tired.’ VV retorted however that instead I should have said ‘I see what you are saying but…’ Now I felt that this example of ‘proper’ language usage to be petty to say the least, and that the programmes ethos read too much into the language used. Essentially different people say different things and use different types of language – but in the eyes of VV, a representative of the programmes team, each tutor is a robot – and when you pull the cord on their back only certain phrases will be spoken out loud. That is not to say that I disagree with a language code – but the extent to which this code is enforced is something I find to be farcical, and I would love to find out if our American friends who invented and implemented the foundations of ETS would agree or disagree with me. The second criticism was that I did not generate enough examples – despite the fact that this was the first time I had laid eyes on the material and my knowledge and comfort in the tutor role were at the time very limited. I stated to her that the more tutoring one does the more knowledgeable and confident one becomes, and thus the easier it is to generate numerous ideas. With regards to this issue I felt that VV was asking too much of me and not taking into account the dynamics of this particular group. The third and final criticism was on my use of praise – not that I didn’t give enough because that was apparent on the video. No, the criticism was that I said ‘good’ too many times, and that I should vary praise given. In all fairness the use of praise comes naturally to me (as opposed to forcing the issue) and I was now being asked to ‘stop and think’ before issuing the type of praise to an individual or group.

The end of this treatment management meeting left me feeling frustrated, angry and eager for my ETS sessions to end. On reflection I feel that VV is an asset to the programmes team and is very good in what she does, and furthermore she believes in what she does – which is important. My criticisms of ETS and the programmes ethos are no reflections on VV or her programmes team, but on the very notion of programmes itself. Prior to training I felt that the idea of programmes was not something I would enjoy, and indeed the delivery of the sessions has endorsed my belief in one to one work to be more effective that group work. The training, the delivery, and the meetings – they have all contributed to my disliking of programmes and at this point in time I have no desire to deliver any accredited programmes in the future.

Despite the negativity I have conveyed having completed session 7 (AGO/people and problems) and 8 (perspective taking) I felt that I actually took on board and executed what TV had told me in out treatment management meeting. However my disliking for ETS was not a simple case of ‘I don’t like delivering to groups,’ ETS for trainees is simply not good enough – it is not just about delivering material, there are numerous other tasks that need to be completed after each session and after each group has been completed.

The first of these tasks is the completion of the register for each session, which needs updating and e-mailing to the administration team on the programmes floor. The second task is to enter the Interim accredited Programme System (IAPS) system and complete a further register which asks the tutor to rate the group members in terms of their participation. Within IAPS there is also an end of session report which asks the tutor how they rated the delivery in terms of…

1. Adherence to the programme manual
2. Adherence to treatment style
3. Group work skills

Thirdly there are the post programme logs (PPL’s) which need to be completed after each session. These ask the tutor to record how each individual participated in relation to the following sections…

1. Interpersonal problem solving
2. Cognitive style
3. Self-control
4. Social perspective taking
5. Moral reasoning
6. Critical reasoning

However the training for the above responsibilities was none existent. At the training event itself none of the administration requirements were mentioned, and so as a result it was not until I had completed my first session that EE happened to mention that I should not forget the completion of my PPL’s. Despite the fact that this was not her responsibility I had to rely on EE to show me what I needed to do and how often I had to carry such tasks out. This is something I find farcical – how can we be trained in the delivery of an ETS programme yet fail to be informed of post programme work, which is an integral part of ETS?

The last part of the ETS experience is the conducting of a post programme interview, which involves one of the tutors who delivered to the group, the offender and their case manager. The aim of the three way is simply to assess how the individual participated on the ETS programme and levels of engagement, how they conducted themselves etc… It also acts as a feedback session and allows the offender to gage what they have learned and what they thought of the programme. Finally it assesses how the offender has used the skills gained in real life situations. Again I was not informed that this was necessary at any point, it was only overheard by myself in an unrelated conversation. Eventually I was told that I would conduct one PPI, which I duly did.

So having completed the NVQ module on accredited programmes how do I feel? In a sense relieved to have completed the sessions. Furthermore my views on the ineffectiveness of programmes have strengthened due to the experience of delivering this programme. In terms of the training itself I can only label it as poor and insufficient – the only positives drawn from that were the people I met from other Probation offices. My experiences with the programmes team were mixed. TV offered good feedback on my performances and EE taught me everything I needed to know regarding administration and delivery style and technique. However this was not her responsibility it was the programmes team at Waterloo House who should have had some organisation around teaching trainees administration. Furthermore the conduct of a few of the tutors left me feeling undervalued as they refused to allocate a little time to prepare for sessions. Instead they simply said ‘you choose your half of the session and I will meet you 5 minutes before we start.’

As an experience this certainly was that, and I will take away the positives and negatives from such an experience. I do feel that overall trainees should deliver programmes, but the allocation of programme types, the training and the delivery with a team needs assessing and restructuring to cover all aspects of group work.

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

   PROBATION HOME