Evaluation of offending behaviour programme selection: the PNA
| Pages | 264-277 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-04-2019-0015 |
| Date | 11 November 2019 |
| Published date | 11 November 2019 |
| Author | Laura Ramsay,Jamie S. Walton,Gavin Frost,Chloe Rewaj,Gemma Westley,Helen Tucker,Sarah Millington,Aparna Dhar,Gemma Martin,Caitriona Gill |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Evaluation of offending behaviour
programme selection: the PNA
Laura Ramsay, Jamie S. Walton, Gavin Frost, Chloe Rewaj, Gemma Westley, Helen Tucker,
Sarah Millington, Aparna Dhar, Gemma Martin and Caitriona Gill
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to outline the qualitative research findings of the effectiveness of Her
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service Programme Needs Assessment (PNA) in supporting decision making
regarding selection onto high-intensity offending behaviour programmes.
Design/methodology/approach –Qualitative data analysis was used through the application of thematic
analysis. Results were pooled using principles from meta-synthesis in order to draw conclusions as to
whether the PNA was operating as designed.
Findings –Four overarching themes were identified, which have meaning in guiding decision making into, or
out of high-intensity programmes. These were risk, need and responsivity, the importance of attitudes,
motivation and formulation and planning.
Research limitations/implications –The majority of data were collected from category C prisons.
Generalisability of findings to high-intensity programmes delivered in maximum security prisons and prisons
for younger people aged 18–21 years is limited. The research team had prior knowledge of the PNA, whether
through design or application. Procedures were put in place to minimise researcher biases.
Practical implications –Findings suggest that the PNA is effective in guiding clinical decision making.
Practitioners and policy makers can be assured that the processes in place to select into high-intensity
programmes are effective, and aligned with the What Works in reducing re-offending.
Originality/value –This is the first evaluation into the effectiveness of the PNA designed to support clinical
decision making regarding participant selection onto accredited offending behaviour programmes.
Implications for practice have been discussed.
Keywords Offending behaviour, Needs assessment, Rehabilitation, Evaluation, Programme assessment,
RNR
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Offending behaviour programmes offer rehabilitative opportunities within Her Majesty’s Prison
and Probation Service (HMPPS). It would appear, under certain conditions, programme
participation may contribute to successes in offence-free living (e.g. Schmucker and Losel, 2017;
Gannon et al., 2019). Reducing re-offending and public protection has been a key focus for
those involved in designing programmes, and the assessments required for selection onto them.
Risk, need and responsivity
Central to informing programme selection decisions is the application of assessment tools which
have been underpinned by the risk, need and responsivity principles (Andrews et al., 1990).
Adhering to RNR means that individuals are offered programmes which are proportionate to their
assessed risk of re-offending, targeted to their criminogenic needs (changeable characteristics
which are associated with re-offending, for example self-regulation and attitudes which support
crime) and are delivered in a way which best supports an individual’s personal circumstances,
such as the way in which they learn and any health-related issues. When these principles are
Received 27 April 2019
Revised 14 August 2019
30 September 2019
Accepted 30 September 2019
Laura Ramsay, Jamie S.
Walton, Gavin Frost, Chloe
Rewaj, Gemma Westley, Helen
Tucker, Sarah Millington,
Aparna Dhar, Gemma Martin
and Caitriona Gill are all based
at the Department of Forensic
Psychology, Her Majesty’s
Prison and Probation Service,
London, UK.
PAGE264
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 21 NO. 4 2019, pp. 264-277, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794 DOI 10.1108/JFP-04-2019-0015
To continue reading
Request your trial