"Critically debate whether the principle of integrity of professional delivery is more important than the principles of responsivity, risk and criminogenic need?"

Authors Avatar

Research and Effective Practice – level two.                                                             -  -

        

“Critically debate whether the principle of integrity of professional delivery is more important than the principles of responsivity, risk and criminogenic need?”

The pessimism of a nothing works epoch caused an increase in political pressure upon the probation service to demonstrate their effectiveness at reducing recidivism of offenders; a practice the service had hitherto been resistant to execute. From research emerged the governmental effective practice initiative, ‘what works’, demonstrating a reflection of such a political expectation. This discussion will enlarge upon the background to these developments, before moving on to investigate the significant features that form the what works ethos. This will pay particular attention to the four principles of responsivity, risk, criminogenic need and integrity. The contribution of each of the concepts within the National Probation Service, predominantly in relation to accredited programmes and professional practice will be examined. The author will investigate possible clashes between the principles This debate will serve to critically question whether integrity holds a more substantial importance to the paradigm than the others.

During the 1970’s, evaluation of probation interventions commenced, which led to the now famous rhetoric, attributed to Robert Martinson, that ‘nothing works’ in producing an appreciative effect on reducing offenders’ criminal behaviour. Chui (2003, p.58-59) states that the outcome of this statement weakened rehabilitation as a theory and devastatingly, academics and policy-makers lost faith in offender treatment. Emphasis shifted to more punitive ideals of punishment and retribution. Martinson later recanted on the findings of his initial evaluation studies, acknowledging that the review had not made use of approximately ninety percent of the research available, as it had not been evaluation based. This inference however did little in overturning the negativity which had settled upon the probation service and the nothing works opinion (Crow, 2001. p.60).

Mair (2004.) states that the neat simplicity of the nothing works idea became difficult to combat and although a few commentators attempted to grapple with the meanings, nothing was sustained, except in Canada. There a group of academics and practitioners, Don Andrews, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau and Frank Porporino developed cognitive behavioural programmes that indeed seemed to be successful in reducing reconviction rates. They subsequently published the results of their studies to prove that ‘what works’ is cognitive behaviouralism (Mair, 2004. p.15). Chapman and Hough (1998), describe this method as ‘a technique…designed to assist someone to modify their thinking and actions’ (p.39).

Research carried out upon this theme through the eighties and nineties was founded upon meta-analysis. Mair (2004) cites Glass, who defines this technique as ‘the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings’. The conclusion of the studies summarised that ‘some things work’. However, the reviews do not suggest any single, outstanding approach in reducing recidivism, but identifies a number of principles which combine to create effective intervention with offenders; the ‘what works’ philosophy.

Join now!

 The what works movement became the new mission of the probation service (Chui and Nellis, 2003, p. 70) and Mair (2004. p.20) considers that it was intimately related in the project to modernise the service . Until this time, there were 54 autonomous probation services that dealt with offenders as they saw fit. Measuring effectiveness was not simple. The 1984 statement of national objectives and priorities (SNOP) called for proof of effectiveness and demonstrate accountability. Resulting in stringent National Standards being introduced. These developments pointed to the creation of the National Probation Service in 2001 (Mair 2004.p. 20-21). Chapman and Hough ...

This is a preview of the whole essay