Cognitive-Behavioural Methods in Probation Practice
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300302 |
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cognitive-Behavioural
Methods in
Probation Practice
Hindpal Singh Bhui, Probation Officer in Inner London, weighs the
optimistic claims and the sceptical doubts which cognitive-
behavioural methods attract and argues that, if skilfully and
sensitively applied, the positives far outweigh the negatives.
n
recent years the employment of
seems
to be setting in amongst more sceptical
cognitive-behavioural methods to tackle
practitioners as a result. My admittedly
offending behaviour has enjoyed a steadily
subjective observation is that these attitudes
increasing popularity a~d credibility. The
are already only too evident, with an
reasons for this are not hard to fathom. Recent
increasing polarisation of officers in ’for’ or
meta-analyses of probation programmes
‘agamst’ camps.
including a cognitive-behavioural element
This article explores the political,
have led to a reasonable degree of confidence
theoretical and practice issues which seem
in their capacity to produce measurable
essential to a balanced understanding of the
behavioural change when skilfully delivered
cognitive-behavioural approach and
as part of well-managed, structured and
addresses in particular the tension between
targeted programmes’. Indeed, some studies
its individual focus and the socio-economic
show that certain programmes enjoy a 20%-
and environmental influences which also
40% reduction m
levels of reconviction of
impact on the lives of our clients. It presents
’treated’ subjects over ’untreated’ control
a necessarily idiosyncratic view of the
groupsz. In addition, and perhaps just as
limitations and problems of implementation
importantly, the apparent success of
which have up to now been given only
cognitive-behavioural methods has also
cursory attention in the literature. The central
helped to bring a sense of optimism back
contention is that, when skilfully applied by
into a probation profession not only under
competent and trained practitioners, the
severe external political attack, but also
positives of cognitive-behavioural methods
undermined from within by the ’nothing
far outweigh the negatives.
works’ doctrine of the 1970s.
This process seems to have spawned its
Offender Motivation
own
problems, however. One outcome is an
apparent emergence amongst probation
and Worker Skills
officers of an enthusiasm for cognitive-
behavioural methods which may obscure the
Skilled assessment of whether the client is
very real difficulties which exist in applying
motivated and has reached the stage at which
them. Just as worrying is the backlash which
s/he is willing to invest a considerable degree
127
of effort into change is crucial to successful
discipline and commitment from thepractitioner.
cognitive-behavioural work. Motivation may
It is to be hoped that the training of officers
be more critical for success than in traditional
in cognitive-behavioural methods, which is
psychodynamic methods, mainly because the
proceeding in a number of Services, will allow
greater structure and task-orientated nature
them to be applied consistently, not only in
of cognitive-behavioural work often demands
groupwork where the cognitive-behavioural
uncommonly hard thinking, albeit hopefully
approach is now well established, but also
mitigated by the context of the creatively
within the individual sessions which
delivered programme and an encouraging
constitute the bulk of our client contact. There
worker.
is, incidentally, no reason why a competently
Skilful delivery seems particularly
managed cognitive-behavioural interview
important because while some clients may
should take longer than any other session,
relish the challenges of a cognitive-
and it does not make sense to argue that there
behavioural programme, many others will
is not enough time to use the approach.
have had...
To continue reading
Request your trial