Cognitive Behaviourism And The Holy Grail
| Published date | 01 March 2001 |
| Date | 01 March 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050104800102 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cognitive Behaviourism
And
The Holy Grail:
The Quest For A
Universal Means Of
Managing Offender Risk
Kevin Gorman critiques the growth of cognitive behavioural
interventions in the Probation Service, arguing for a more
"complex, dynamic and holistic" approach towards the
development of effective practice.
robation officers are not renowned
for
what even fervent enthusiasts concede,
systematic
evaluation
of
namely that &dquo;... at this time there is no
practice or the routine application of
evidence
that
the
empirically-based
research principles and findings to
practitioner is more effective than the non-
everyday work. Various explanations have
empincally based practitioner&dquo; (Fischer,
been suggested for this phenomenon,
1993, p.54).
includmg the historical development of
At a pohcy-makmg and orgamsational
practice and research as essentially distinct
level, however, evidence-based practice
activities
(Vanstone, 1999), or the
ranks alongside public protection as one of
resistance of practitioners towards research
the fundamental preoccupations of the
which they perceive to be a partial,
Probation Service of the 21st century. For
exploitatme transaction (Raynor, 1984)
example, the 1996-99 Home Office
and/or off-putting because of its frequently
Three-Year Plan for the Probation Service
posltmst, experimental approach (Smith,
identifies seven areas of responsibility, one
1987). It is also possible that expenenced
of which is to &dquo;... design, provide, and
probation officers, disillusioned that so
promote
effective
programmes
for
little of our own best or preferred practice
supervising offenders safely in the
has been subjected to the potentially
commumty&dquo; (Home Office, 1996, p.l, my
validating scrutmy of independent research,
itahcs).
now instinctively share the scepticism of
The twin-emphasis of this requirement
Ian Shaw (1996) about the expansion of
on effectiveness and public safety neatly
empirical practice within the Probation
encapsulates the crucial nsk management
Service,. Perhaps we intuitively recogmse
function of an agency which, since the mid-
3
1980s,
has
become
mcreasmgly
methodological orthodoxy of externally
accountable,
resource-conscious
and
validated and accredited programmes.
managenal. It is an emphasis that is echoed
What is more certain is that the
throughout Evidence Based Practice: A
Probation Service and its paymasters have
Guide to Effective Practice recently
been far less eqmvocal and cautious in their
commissioned by HM Inspectorate of
response to the findings of meta-analysis
Probation (Chapman and Hough, 1998).
than its original exponents and advocates
Interestingly, its operationalisation has
(see, for example, Lipsey, 1995; Losel,
produced programmes of mtervention
1995).
remarkably similar in character for
This article will briefly explore the
managing the very different risks posed by
short history of what has accurately been
probationers across a broad spectrum of
dubbed &dquo;the ’what works’ campaign&dquo;
offendmg. Thus, it is evermore likely that
(Kazi, 1998, p.135, my emphasis). It will
shoplifters, joy-riders, burglars, DSS
also examine the sometimes selective
fraudsters, sex offenders, and violent
subscription to its principles by a Probation
offenders, including the perpetrators of
Service whose over-enthusiastic and
domestic violence, will be obliged to
largely uncritical application of cognitive
participate in cognitive behavioural
behavioural interventions to a wide range
programmes. Usually delivered in groups
of offenders is further exacerbated by its
and sometimes, but by no means always,
continuing ’fuzzy thinking’ (Kemshall,
segregated according to offence-type
1996) about the distinction between risk of
and/or race and gender, these initiatives
re-offending and risk of harm.
are
almost invariably derivatives of
programmes devised by the likes of Ross
and Fabiano (1985, 1986, 1990). They are
From ’Nothing Works’ to
typically based on the premise that
offending is largely attributable to the
’What Works’
failure of offenders to think through their
actions, and
An article based
to their unawareness of the
upon the research of
impact of their offending behaviour
Robert Martinson (1974) and
on
published in a
others. There does not seem to be
relatively obscure American journal is
any
single obvious reason for the popularity of
commonly acknowledged to have been a
such
seminal influence in undermining the
programmes with Home Office
officials, Probation Service
perceived credibility and efficacy of
managers and
rehabilitative
some, though far from all, practitioners.
programmes for offenders in
Possible explanations include:
this country. It is probable that considerably
fewer people have actually ever read this
(a) a genuine, if unfortunate, mis-
article, than can quote its pithy, if inexact,
interpretation of the research data and a
synopsis, ‘nothmg works’. Certainly,
tendency to erroneously equate &dquo;... ’logical
having been a probation officer during the
thinkmg’ with being...
To continue reading
Request your trial