Developing a Voluntary Sector Model for Engaging Offenders
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12284 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12284
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 556–575
Developing a Voluntary Sector Model
for Engaging Offenders
KEVIN WONG , RACHEL KINSELLA
and LINDA MEADOWS
Kevin Wong is Associate Director, and Rachel Kinsella is Lecturer, Policy
Evaluation and Research Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University; Linda
Meadows is a PhD candidate, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent
University
Abstract: This article proposes the development of a distinct offender engagement model
for voluntary and community sector agencies, recognising the contribution of: reciprocity,
reliability,consistency, and emotional pleasure, to effective offender engagement. Drawing
on empirical data from users of a voluntary sector programme in England for young
adults, this article makes an original contribution to the evidence base by: identifying the
key elements (within the programme) of effective engagement with offenders; seeing how
this relates to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) engaging practitioner
model and companion literature reviewand considers the implications for voluntary sector
criminal justice policy and practice.
Keywords: desistance; effective practice; emotional pleasure; offender engage-
ment; reciprocity; voluntary sector; young adults
This article argues for the development of a distinct offender engagement
model for voluntary and community sector (VCS) agencies recognising the
contribution of: reciprocity,reliability, consistency,and emotional pleasure,
to effective offender engagement. It draws on lived experience, reanalysis of
service user interview data collected for the evaluation of the Transition
to Adulthood (T2A) Pathway Programme, which provided a voluntary
opt-in support service for young adults involved in the criminal justice
system (Wong et al. 2017). In making this argument, this article will aim to
identify the key elements (within the programme) of effective engagement
with offenders; how this relates to the National Offender Management
Service (NOMS)1engaging practitioner model (Copsey and Rex 2013)
and the NOMS commissioned literature review which contributed to it
(Shapland et al. 2012); and consider their implications for VCS policy and
practice.
556
C
2018 The Authors. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice published by Howard League
and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The Howard Journal Vol57 No 4. December 2018
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 556–575
Offender Engagement and Probation
The structural changes to probation services2in England and Wales, aris-
ing from the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) changes
(Ministry of Justice 2013a), has heightened interest and attention paid
to the effective engagement of offenders. The motivation for this is un-
surprising. Maintaining the engagement of offenders for the duration of
an order is likely to contribute to desistance and reduce recidivism – an
individual and societal good (Copsey and Rex 2013; Sorsby, Shapland and
Robinson 2017). At a more self-serving level, the delivery element of Com-
munity Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts is based on outputs, for
example, requirements completed by offenders (Ministry of Justice 2013b).
Maintaining effective engagement with offenders is a means to ensure pay-
ment for delivery. In the medium and long term, effective engagement with
an offender may provide a further monetary pay-off for CRCs, reduc-
ing proven reoffending, triggering a bonus under the payment-by-results
mechanism of CRC contracts (Ministry of Justice 2013b).
Interest in the effective engagement of offenders is not new. The 1970s’
social work informed model of probation provision was epitomised by
the mantra, ‘advise, assist and befriend’ (Senior 2009). However, as noted
by Turley et al. (2011), the Offender Management Model (OMM), which
dominated probation practice in England and Wales from 2006, assumed
that the programmes or interventions, within the ‘case-manager/interventions
model’, made the difference to offender outcomes, with the offender man-
ager relegated to a more detached brokerage role. Seemingly, as a riposte
to this and recognising the contribution of skilled engagement by pro-
bation practitioners in reducing re-arrests and reconvictions (Ministry of
Justice 2013b), one of the final initiatives undertaken by NOMS prior to
the government’s TR changes, was the Skills for Effective Engagement
Development and Supervision (SEEDS) project and broader Offender En-
gagement Programme (Copsey 2011; Rex 2012). They were based on the
hypothesis that the relationship between the service user and probation
practitioner was an effective means of changing behaviour (Copsey 2011;
Rex 2012). This reflects the desistance literature, that offenders are most
influenced to change (and not to change) by those whose advice they re-
spect and whose support they value (McNeill and Weaver 2010). Arguably,
this, in itself, is not new and has been tacitly understood by criminal justice
professionals for some time (Senior 2009). More generally, good working
relationships with offenders are viewed as being important to the quality of
probation practice (Robinson et al. 2014) and contributing to rehabilitation
and legitimacy (Phillips 2013).
Developing a VCS Offender Engagement Model
There are good reasons for developing a distinctive VCS offender engage-
ment model. First, the limited level of probation service engagement with
offenders (HM Inspectorate of Probation 2017) appears to have fostered
a greater dependence on VCS provision, to backfill the gap in probation
557
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial