Process evaluation of an educational programme for preventing recidivism by adult firesetters
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-06-2021-0032 |
| Published date | 20 October 2021 |
| Date | 20 October 2021 |
| Pages | 183-195 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
| Author | Dominic Pearson,Maria Merrick,Amie Dent,Shane Blampied |
Process evaluation of an educational
programme for preventing recidivism
by adult firesetters
Dominic Pearson, Maria Merrick, Amie Dent and Shane Blampied
Abstract
Purpose –Fire-related offences are costlyin human and financial terms. Fire educationis widely used
with juvenilesand with adults in forensic psychiatric settings;however, with prison/probation clientsthere
has been a lack of focus on its potential. This study asked participants of a structured fire education
programmefor adults how they experienced it and its impacton their feelings about firesetting.
Design/methodology/approach –Participants were 15 programme completers, including ten males
and five females. All were adults that had attended the programme during their sentence, either in the
communityor whilst in custody.
Findings –Using an inductivethematic analysis this study interpreted the followingthemes: a supportive
and responsive approach,impactful learning materials and methods, a new way of thinking,and picking
up the pieces. This study proposes that the intervention may activate change through its powerful
methodsincluding fact-based arguments and supportfrom legitimate experts.
Practical implications –Firesetters’ IntegratedResponsive Educational Programme(FIRE-P) is a novel
example of a specialiststructured fire education programmefor adult firesetters. This is the first paperto
outline its structure and content. Understanding how change occurs in FIRE-P has implications for
interventiondesign and delivery with this client group.
Originality/value –To the best of theauthors’ knowledge, this is the first qualitativestudy of a structured
fire education programme for adults and provides researchers and practitioners with insight into the
ingredientsof a successful fire education programme.
Keywords Realistic evaluation, Resettlement, Firesetting, Arson treatment, Treatment delivery,
Fire safety education
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In England, the location of the current study, deliberate firesetting represents nearly one-
half (45%) of all fires attended (Home Office, 2021). Each year in England, there are more
than 1,000 injuries and 50 fatalities owing to deliberate firesetting [1](Home Office, 2021),
and insurance companies pay out up to £450m in arson-related claims (Arson Prevention
Forum, 2017). Given these harms, one function of fire services is to prevent recidivism by
known firesetters, and national surveys have confirmed that with juveniles fire safety
education is the most commonly used agency intervention (Kolko et al.,2008;Palmer et al.,
2007). With adults however, Palmer and her colleagues (2007) reported a general absence
of standardised firesetter interventions or specialist provision in prison and probation
services. Regarding specialist educational provision this situation persists, to our
knowledge, 15 years since that survey. The current study was motivated by the need to
develop interventions for adult firesetting offenders, and to this end, drew on the
experiences of participantsof a structured interventionprogramme for adult firesetters.
Dominic Pearson,
Maria Merrick and
Amie Dent are all based at
the Department of
Psychology, University of
Portsmouth, Portsmouth,
UK. Shane Blampied is
based at the Hampshire &
Isle of Wight Fire & Rescue
Service, Eastleigh, UK.
Received 15 June 2021
Revised 1 September 2021
Accepted 26 September 2021
The authorswould like to thank
the participantsof this research
for sharingtheir thoughts and
feelingsabout FIRE-P. The
authorsalso thank the prison
staffand probation practitioners
that helpedin facilitating the
interviews.Finally, the authors
thankDr LucyAkehurst for her
supportand assistance during
the courseof this process
evaluation.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-06-2021-0032 VOL. 8 NO. 3 2022, pp. 183-195, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE jPAGE 183
To continue reading
Request your trial