particular features could be incorporated within an intervention, which are capable of
delivering a confident outcome in terms of reducing offending behaviour. Such
features construct the major principles of the ‘What Works’ approach, which will be
incorporated within my programme of intervention for Mary Tudor throughout my
essay.
Firstly it is necessary to deliver an assessment on Mary Tudor, which is a
continual and dynamic process, comprising of the collection and interpretation of
Mary’s criminogenic needs, in order to determine the level and type of risk she poses.
“It is essential to distinguish between criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs, i.e.
we should separate client’s problems or features that contribute to or are supportive of
offending, from those which are more distantly related or unrelated, to it” (McGuire,
1995, P.14-15). An assessment tool, (OASYS), the offender Assessment System, will
be incorporated within this stage of analysis, which is central to the principles of
‘What Works’, as the intention of an assessment tool is to coincide the right offender
to the right intervention programme of which will have the most promising effect in
terms of reducing the risk of re-offending. Mary’s static factors, which are factors that
have already occurred and cannot be modified consist of age, 21 years, age at first
conviction, 16 years. Her criminal offending began when she left school and criminal
record, which consist of two offences of theft from a shop in 1998 and 2001, theft
from a car in 1999, two offences of deception in 2001 and 2002 and in 2000 Mary
was convicted of being present in a stolen car. As it stands Mary is also convicted of
three further offences of theft from a shop in 2003. Considering these factors alone
cannot gauge Mary’s likelihood of re-offending, thus it is necessary to contemplate
the dynamic factors, factors, which are potentially, subject to change. Mary’s dynamic
factors entail her education and employment, of which her education comprise of
several qualifications but employment wise she is unable to hold a job down and has
not worked since her partner was sent to prison. Financial management and income
suggests that Mary encounters raising two children financially problematic, as Mary is
currently living on benefits and is in debt. She speculates that her offences to
shoplifting were motivated by the burden of being in debt. Mary’s family and
associates consist mainly of her mother, as her father passed away when she was
young, but the relationship between Mary and her mother has deteriorated since has
she become involved with Phillip and recently Mary’s mother has been unable to look
after her grandchildren as a result of a stroke. Mary’s associates comprise of her
partner Phillip, who is presently in prison serving a two-year prison sentence for car
crime, and Phillips friends who got her involved in shoplifting. Mary’s emotional
well-being and thinking patterns unveil that she is quite depressed, she currently
insists that she is no longer involved with alcohol but acknowledges that she uses
amphetamines on a daily basis.
Initially Mary is not at risk of re-offending, as many external factors
contribute to her offending behaviour thus in order to reduce Mary’s risk of re-
offending it is necessary that a programme of intervention is introduced to encourage
her to modify her criminogenic need factors. Designing a programme of intervention
refers to the embodiment of knowledge, which reflects a theoretical framework of
evidence depicting what works for whom and in what circumstances. Underdown
(1998), proposes a model of service design which accommodates five layers of
services and programmes, ranging form the offender to the community. The first three
layers incorporate cognitive-behavioural training and personal development, depicting
work “on the underlying processes of cognition, patterns of behaviour or process of
individual development” (Underdown, 1998, P.33). The second layer incorporates
challenging offending choices which advocates offenders to castigate past and present
day offending choices which will seek to construct appropriate future behaviour, and
social and moral education. This technique seeks to cultivate and inform offenders of
the applicable social and moral issues appropriate for life in society. The lower layers
of the model comprise of the resolving of problems, meeting needs in family and
community, which seeks to equip the offender with skills to administer their own
initiative to progress in such areas as accommodation, money and employment, and
community opportunities and reintegration which transgress the application of the
new skills developed in the higher layers to consolidate the offenders potential to
aspire the development of further opportunities. The crux of this model is that whilst
some layers of the model may depict more priority over others, depending on the
offender targeted, the model demonstrates how each layer reciprocates on another,
effectively embracing a wide range of offending-related needs.
In contrast to the above discussion the essay will now turn its attention to the
programme design of intervention for Mary’s re-offending. Research evidence
indicates that “amongst the range of intervention methods included in meta-
analyses, those which emerge as offering the most promising outcomes are based on
the cognitive-behavioural approach” (McGuire, 1995, P.16), which will be
incorporated into such programme to change Mary’s thinking processes. The
theoretical framework of the cognitive-behavioural approach is entailed on the
perspective that our thoughts exert influence on our emotions and behaviour which
structure the way we interpret the world. Thus if ones thoughts are irrational and
dysfunctional, these thoughts collaborate initiating an adverse effect on ones
behaviour. As the philosopher Epictetus quoted, “men are not disturbed by things but
by the views they take on them” (Westermeyer, 1995, P.16). By selecting a range of
cognitive-behavioural techniques the central focus is to modify the maladaptive
thoughts and beliefs. Although research evidence strongly supports a presumption in
sustaining the deliverance of a cognitive-behavioural approach, amalgamating multi-
a modal programme is perceived to formulate conclusive evidence. “Multi-modal
programmes would be that supervision should target several offending-related needs
and not rely on a single intervention method. It does not imply that all of that
supervision needs to be provided in a single structured programme” (Underdown,
1998, P.25). Adopting a ‘multi-modal’ approach would consist of prioritising Mary’s
problems thus being her depression first, which would be treated using cognitive
therapy. The core proposal underpinning such therapy is embedded within such
statement, proposed by Beck, that being “that the primary pathology or dysfunction
during a depression or an anxiety disorder is in the cognitive apparatus” (McGuire,
2000, P.62). The known repertoire of techniques embodied within this therapy gyrate
around the identification and modification of dysfunctional thoughts, derived from
self-observational diaries and interviews, thus infiltrating through a therapeutic
process dysfunctional thoughts are reconstructed with functional, well established
cognitions. Mary’s daily dependence on amphetamines would be the following
dilemma to treat, which is very much linked to her depression and re-offending, as
“drug users rely heavily on the income they derive from crime to finance their drug
habits” (Hough, 1996 cited in Vennard + Hedderman, 1998, P.107). Such an approach
which will be incorporated within the programme and administered to treat Mary’s
drug dependency is motivational interviewing, it’s key exponents being Miller and
Rollnick. Motivation is a fundamental augury in changing behaviour but for many
individuals motivation can be considered as a state of balance or imbalance between a
set of conflicting factors. Identifying what the factors are can exert influence on the
Individual’s motivation to change. As identified in the assessment stage Mary clearly
has a problem with holding a job down and finance management. Although
identifying a causative link between unemployment and offending is disputable,
“there is evidence that ex-prisoners and probationers are more likely to re-offend if
they are unemployed” (Crowl, 1989 cited in Vennard + Hedderman, 1998, P.108).
Thus it is necessary to integrate the Employability pathfinder programme within the
devised programme of intervention. The Employment pathfinder addresses the
offenders deficits regarding employability and secures motivation to gain employment
by means of a group work programme, the Integrated Employability programme
(IEP). In relation to Mary’s debt management it is evident from assessing Mary that
her offences to shoplifting were motivated by the burden of being in debt, so the
issues related to being in debt need to be resolved first than her shoplifting. Skills
including self-management should be reinforced through the programme and
problem-solving training to tackle the problem of shoplifting, centralising on the skill
consequential thinking, where the positive and negative factors of offending are
identified which exposes the short tern gains and enhances the long term acquisitions
of departing from such offending behaviour.
Leading on from the discussion above, although selecting an appropriate
programme of intervention is essential, ensuring the effectiveness and quality of such
programme is just a fundamental, with such role very much strategically located
within case management. The “term ‘case management’ is used to describe the
responsibilities involved in planning and review, arranging and coordinating each
element of supervision, monitoring process and deciding on required enforcement
action. The case managers role is therefore crucial to effective practice” (Underdown,
1998, P.65), and to the success of the ‘What Works’ model. As with every other
agency evaluation is of crucial importance in the development of effective methods of
intervention in reducing offending behaviour, without such administration of
evaluations research would not be in the position it is in now, identifying the types of
approaches, which are best compatible to offenders, in reducing offending behaviour.
However occupying an evaluative prerequisite is fundamental to the devised
programme for Mary Tudor as it seeks to establish whether the programme is
obtaining the required outcomes in comparison to the stated objectives. The required
outcomes of the programme of intervention consist of a change in Mary’s attitude or
behaviour, a change in her social circumstances and a high level of completion and
compliance of the programme. Such goals can be measured by an offender feedback
evaluation or by the cycle of change. This model comprises of six stages, pre-
contemplation, where the offender does not identify offending as a problem,
contemplation, offender recognises a problem but is ambivalent about change,
determination, where there exists motivation to change, action, the offender attempts
to change, maintenance, change is maintained but relapse is a likely and relapse,
where a setback can occur. Situated within the stages of this model are gains but
setbacks and relapses are to be expected and managed but the emphasis is on
gradual gains towards the intended outcome.
In conclusion to this essay, the essay has proposed a programme of
intervention integrated through which are the principles of ‘what works’. The initial
driving force behind the ‘What Works’ agenda was that various forms of approaches
demonstrated to be more effective than other methods pointing those agencies who
work in the field with offenders in the right direction towards constructing effective
programmes. The introduction of the ‘What Works’ agenda
and National Standards has comprehensively led to structural and organisational
changes to the Probation Service but it is essential that the imposition of these
changes does not undermine the mere essence of ‘What Works’ and that the
provisions of such programmes are systematically evaluated for the continuity of
successful programmes for the foreseeable future.
Bibliography:
Davies, W. (1999). A Cognitive Approach To Working With Offenders, 2ND edn. Leicester: ATP Press.
Home Office, (1999). What Works Reducing Re-offending: Evidence Based Practice, London: Home Office.
McGuire, J. (1995). What Works Reducing re-offending, Great Britain: John Wiley Publishing.
McGuire, J. (2000). An Introduction To Theory And Research, Cognitive-Behavioural Approaches, London: HM Inspectorate Of Probation.
Raynor, P + Vanstone, M. (2002). Understanding community Penalties, Probation, Policy And Social Change, Great Britain: Open University Press.
Vennard, J + Hedderman, C. (1998). Reducing Offending: An Assessment Of Research Evidence On ways of dealing With Offending Behaviour. Research Study 187, London: Home Office.
27TH January 2004
20TH January 2004
20TH January 2004
22ND January 2004.
