Individual Supervision and Reconviction: An Experimental Programme in Pontypridd
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300203 |
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Individual Supervision
and Reconviction:
An Experimental
Programme in
Pontypridd
In recent years research has begun to establish ’what works’ in
probation intervention but effectiveness has largely been measured
from the impact of groupwork initiatives, such as the STEP
programme in Mid Glamorgan Probation Service. John Deering,
Richard Thurston and Maurice Vanstone report an encouraging
small-scale research venture to apply the same methods and insights
to the supervision of individuals on standard probation orders.
mplementation of STOP in Mid-
One exception is an Australian study
Glamorgan Probation Service was
of pro-social modelling (PSM), the
followed by the development of a number
intensive and systematic use of pro-social
of offence-specific groupwork programmes
modelling and reinforcement, problem
which, whilst not wholly based on the
solving, and reflective listening with high
Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programme’,
risk people3. This showed significant
have been greatly influenced by cognitive-
differences in reconviction rates in groups
behavioural models. Whilst no long-term
supervised by officers assessed as pro-
evaluation of these programmes is yet
social or not pro-social. Probationers who
available, the response of both officers and
were supervised by officers who used PSM
probationers to them is encouraging2.
were reconvicted or breached at a rate 15%
However, the growth in groupwork
lower than those supervised by officers not
research, in individual Services such as Mid
using this approach.
Glamorgan and elsewhere, has not been
Against this background, a local field
accompanied by a similar expansion in the
team in Mid Glamorgan, located in
evaluation of one-to-one supervision,
Pontypridd, undertook a study commencing
despite the fact that the majority of
in September 1993. The initial spur for this
probationers are on orders without
was a corporate objective which stated that
additional requirements.
the reconviction rates of those under
70
supervision should be reduced by 5%. This
encompass
s
the
’risk
principle’,
was an arbitrary figure and no training into
’criminogenic need’, the ’responsivity
how this might be achieved was to be
principle’ and include cognitive-
provided! It was therefore decided to
behavioural methods4.
research the possible difference in
The programme of eight plus sessions
reconviction rates achieved by ’traditional’
is outlined below and it will be seen that it
supervision and those achieved by an
is part prescriptive (the initial phase) but
experimental model of supervision.
partly under the control of the supervisor.
’Traditional’ was defined as supervision
Little, if any, of the content was new but,
based on an initial supervision plan which
where supervision differed from that in the
was subject to review and modification.
control group, this was in the systematic
The experimental model was devised after
application of the process. The whole
consultation with Peter Raynor and
programme may be viewed as a framework
Maurice Vanstone of University College,
or structure within which the supervision
Swansea and eventually concentrated on
plan can be undertaken in a systematic or
structure, process and programme integrity
guided manner.
as much as content.
1.
Introduction:
requirements of
probation order, National Standards etc;
explanation of the
_
process to be followed.
2.
Why am I here?: the PSR, patterns of
offending, Life history, relationships.
A model of assessment, review and
intervention was decided upon which
3.
How
I see myselfi investigation of self-
contained nothing which could be
esteem.
considered as new within probation work.
4.
Offence Analysis I: via cartooning or
The initial assessment aimed to be a
5 Ws exercises.
systematic analysis of all aspects of a
5.
person’s life that had influenced their past
Offence Analysis II: conclusions,
decisions
and
taken,
present offending. This would enable
thoughts, feelings,
supervisor and probationer to identify an
consequences.
agreed list of risk factors (in this context,
6.
YctimAwareness: who were they, how
’risk’ relates to the risk of re-offending and
were they affected, have I been a victim?
not to notions of dangerousness). Once
7.
Review: to
these factors had been agreed in
agree a list of risk factors
a review
that contributed to past and present
session, the intervention phase would
offenses.
require the...
To continue reading
Request your trial