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 (1998) summarise the change in probation ethos:
Improving effectiveness and demonstrating effectiveness is now central to probation work. The demands for greater public accountability have combined with the imperatives … for effective and credible alternatives to imprisonment…If probation services do not perform effectively, they will be unable to justify their public funding and ultimately their existence.
(Chapman and Hough, 1998. p.4-5.)
To continue, these authors consider that effectiveness can be defined by the way that offenders react as a result of community supervision and previous to the implementation of what works, several inconsistencies were noted that required greater uniformity. Supervision plans varied depending upon the officer, rather than the risk and criminogenic needs of the offender and undermining of programme integrity in ways that was not consistent with design concept were some causes for concern, which pronounced the intervention to be a waste of time or ‘positively harmful’. The principles of what works research needed to be integrated into every aspect of the supervision of offenders (Chapman and Hough, 1998. p.3-7.). At policy-making and organisational level, evidence-based practice now runs alongside public protection as one of the fundamental preoccupations of the probation service. (Gorman cites Home Office, 2001).
McGuire was amongst the first to draw together the principles regarding the assembly of effective programmes, which have become incorporated into the what works literature. The key values articulated by McGuire are the risk principle, criminogenic needs, responsivity, community base, treatment methods and programme integrity (Bottoms, Gelthorpe and Rex, 2001. p.7-8). The remainder of this discussion will focus upon the four principles in question.
Effectiveness research indicates that the higher the risk of re-offending, the more intensive and extended supervision programme should be (Chapman and Hough, 1998, p.6). Hollin (2002) writes that ‘to assess risk is to try to predict the future’ and this expectation places enormous demand upon the practitioner. This poses the question over whether risk then, is a less important principle than integrity. Too high a ‘dose’ of intervention aimed at a low-risk offenders has been proven to cause a potential increase in offending. (Ellis and Winstone cite Vennard, Sugg and Hedderman, 2002. p.352) implying that integrity could not be upheld. Assessment usually begins at Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) stage and from the experience of this author, undertaking risk assessment forms an essential component of the PSR process. National Standards (2001) implicitly states that each PSR shall contain ‘an assessment of the offenders likelihood of re-offending… an assessment of the offenders risk of causing serious harm to the public…[and] identify any risks of self harm’. Risk predictions are generated using ‘second generation’ tools, such as the Home Office Offender Group Reconviction Score (OGRS), providing an actuarial estimate of the proportion of offenders with a particular profile who will be reconvicted, relying on static factors (Chui and Nellis, 2003. p. 167). However, Brown and Stephens (2001) ask ‘does it generate reliable predictions?…In practice-it may not’. Third generation assessments have now been developed, such as the Offender Assessment System (OASys). This tool looks at both static and dynamic factors of offending, which enable interventions to be targeted more specifically. However, the tool will not produce a comprehensive assessment itself – assessment of risk of harm and dangerousness is not an exact science (Furniss and Nutley, 2000). It could be stated that this ambiguity in assessment can further damage the argument for risk being more important than integrity. ‘Risk’ is used to mean both probability of reconviction and danger of harmful violent offences. Confusion can set in if the offender has a high probability of one of these risks and low probability of the other (Raynor and Vanstone, 2002. p.97). A possibility of targeting an offender into a programme for which they are not actually suitable could prove possible.
As conceived by Andrews and Bonta, there is a close relationship between risk and need: criminogenic needs are in themselves risk factors for recidivism (Hollin, 2002. p.309). Hollin confirms that if the practitioner can identify the source of risk, the area of need becomes apparent. ‘The Effective Practice Initiative’ discusses need: Programmes that target needs related to offending (criminogenic need) are likely to be more effective’ (Chapman and Hough, 1998, p.6). As effectiveness is a core requirement of the NPS, this then would suppose supplementary importance with regard to this principle. Chui and Nellis (2003. p.63) discuss criminogenic need as the problems of offenders lives that contribute to, supportive of, or directly related to offending. Nevertheless, in the experience of this author, the tool ‘OASys’ exclusively questions criminogenic needs identified to have been directly linked with the offence in question. This would form a strong argument against the ultimate importance of the need principle. An example of this may involve a homeless offender, whose offence is not directly linked to his lack of abode. This factor would not be classified as a dynamic risk, yet could a homeless offender engage with the programme and dynamics fully? Chui and Nellis (2003. p.63) cite the Social Exclusion Unit, who assert that stable accommodation reduces risk by a fifth.
It may be said that if risk and need are intrinsically linked, the two remaining principles are to some extent at odds. The ‘general responsivity’ principle states that programmes that match staff and offenders learning styles and engage the active participation of offenders are likely to be more effective (Chapman and Hough, 1998, p.6). McGuire recognises that most offenders require active, participatory methods of working, rather than a didactic and unstructured mode. (Chui and Nellis, 2003. p.165). This style of learning may be traced back to the now famous dictum of Confucius around 450 BC: "Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand." (Pickles, n.d). David Kolb extended this concept to explore different ways in which we learn. Experiential learning explores the cyclical pattern of learning from Experience through Reflection and Conceptualising to Action and further Experience (Pickles, n.d). Honey and Mumford (2001) defined four styles, based loosely around Kolb's cycle: Activists, Reflectors, Theorists and Pragmatists. As a practitioner, this author has found the learning styles tool beneficial in matching offenders specific intervention and supervising practitioner.
ICJS (2003. p. 43-44) cites Andrews, who considers that a second aspect, that of specific responsivity, exists. Andrews states this is to ‘adapt intervention strategies to accommodate difference and diversity (age, gender, ethnicity/race, language) among participants and recognition of their strengths’. The notion of specific responsivity as an important principle of what works is a valid point. Nevertheless, Durrance and Williams (2003) caution that those needs specific to minority groups do not fit the pattern of the majority. Interventions are mostly based upon offenders who are white and male. This limits the degree to which a programme may respond to diversity, although a one to one setting may overcome this. Considering this, ICJS (2003) state integrity relies upon commitment to premise, assumptions, aims and objectives of learning and to jeopardise any of these aspects introduces bias and threat to reliability and validity of the intervention.
Hollin (1995. p. 196) discloses that integrity ‘simply means that a programme is conducted in practice as intended in theory and design’. The what works ethos considers a ‘programme’ to be the whole process of probation supervision, not simply a group work programme. Issues of integrity place an emphasis on quality – the importance of practice and research, which underpins the modern NPS. Hollin (1995. p.203) succinctly analyses that this is the process of looking to see ‘whether what we are doing is what we set out to do, and whether we are having the desired effect’. Armed with this knowledge, practitioners and managers are in the position to improve the quality of practice. However, such strict adherence to programme manuals causes concern with many practitioners. Considerations may be that integrity is inflexible, rigid and undermines professional autonomy (Chui and Nellis, 2003. p.68). The views expressed threaten to undermine integrity, through the phenomena of programme drift and programme degradation. ‘Think First Programme Outline’ (2000), describes the importance of combating these difficulties by fully training staff, who believe in the theory of what works. Indeed, Furniss and Nutley discuss how programmes are delivered is particularly important. They revel that programmes delivered according to the manual result in reconviction rates of between 21 and 23%, one year later. The same programme delivered badly saw a reconviction rate of 48%. Paradoxically, a matched group that failed to attend the programme reconvicted at a rate of 40%. ‘The message is clear, unless a programme is delivered by trained staff according to the manual, it is likely to be ineffective.’ (Furniss and Nutley, 2000).
This critical debate has focused upon the emergence of the what works era and there can be little doubt that we are seeing the re-emergence of treatment ethos in working with offenders. (Hollin, 1995. p.207). Expectation of evaluation is summarised as an established necessity. In examining each of the four concepts in question, it is possible to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each. Without risk and needs assessment, it would be impossible to discover the correct intervention required for each offender. Responsivity demands that the intervention designed is matched for every offender, to ensure that the learning outcome of the work undertaken is possible and beneficial. Without integrity, programmes would have a lower level of success in reducing criminal behaviour of offenders. On this subject, Chapman and Hough (1998. p.17) exclaim ‘what prevents [what works] disintegrating into anarchy and chaos is integrity’. However, the key facts of the what works initiative is the important understanding that each of the principles has an equal part to play, to combine for effective interventions to be implemented successfully.
References.
Bottoms, A. Gelsthorpe, L & Rex, S. (2001). (Eds.) Community Penalties, Change and Challenges. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Brown, I. and Stephens, K.(2001) OGRS2 In Practice: An Elastic Ruler? In Probation Journal. 48(3). pp.179-186. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Chapman. T. and Hough, M. (1998). (Eds) Evidence Based Practice: A guide to effective practice. London: Home Office Publications Unit.
Chui, W.H and Nellis, M. (2003). (Eds.) Moving Probation forward, evidence, arguments and practice. Essex : Pearson Education Limited.
Durrance, P. and Williams, P. (2003). Broadening The Agenda Around What Works For Black And Asian Offenders. In Probation Journal 50 (3) 2003. pp. 211 – 223. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Ellis, T. and Winstone, J. (2002) The Policy Impact Of A Survey Of Programme Evaluations In England And Wales. In McGuire J (Ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley.
Furniss, J and Nutley, S. (2000). Implementing What Works With Offenders – The Effective Practice Initiative. In Public Money and Management. 20(4) pp.23-28. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Home Office. (2000) Think First Programme Outline. London: HMSO.
Home Office. (2001). National Standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. London: HMSO.
Hollin, C. (1995). The Meaning And Implications Of ‘Programme Integrity’. In McGuire J (Ed.)What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Guidelines From Research And Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. (2002) Risk-Needs Assessment And Allocation To Offender Programmes. In McGuire J (Ed.) Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley.
ICJS. (2003) Research And Effective Practice. Distance Learning Course Unit. Portsmouth: ICJS, Portsmouth University.
Mair, G. (2004). (Ed.). What Matters In Probation. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (2002) Understanding Community Penalties. Probation, Policy and Social Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pickles, T. (n.d). Experiential learning articles and critiques of Kolbs Theory. Retrieved 2 May 2004 from http://reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm
Honey, P. and Mumford, A.. (2001). The learning styles questionnaire. Retrieved 10 June 2004 from http://www.peterhoney.co.uk/product/brochure
Bibliography.
Brownlee, I. (1998). Community punishment. A critical introduction. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (1997). (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Second Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McGuire, J. (2000). What Works In Reducing Crimiinality. Retrieved 10 June 2004 from http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/criminality/mcguire.pdf.
Raynor, P. Smith, D and Vanstone, M. (1994). Effective Probation Practice. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Worral, A. (1997). Punishment In The Community. The Future Of Criminal Justice. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.