http://prb.sagepub.com/Probation Journal

http://prb.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/14/0264550513499002The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0264550513499002

published online 14 August 2013Probation JournalSue Rex and Nigel Hosking

effective engagement, development and supervision (SEEDS)A collaborative approach to developing probation practice: Skills for

  

- Oct 4, 2013version of this article was published on more recent A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff

can be found at:Probation JournalAdditional services and information for    

  http://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Aug 14, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>  

- Oct 4, 2013Version of Record

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

A collaborativeapproach to developingprobation practice:Skills for effectiveengagement,development andsupervision (SEEDS)

Sue RexMinistry of Justice

Nigel HoskingLondon Probation trust

AbstractThis article reports our experience of developing a skills-based practice framework foreffective engagement with offenders. The project began with extensive engagementwith probation staff at every level. This was followed by collaborative pilots in 22 pro-bation trusts on effective engagement by practitioners and reflective supervision bymanagers, using the best available international research and insights from researchon desistance. The learning and feedback from these pilots was used to bring togetherthe two complementary elements into a single evidence-based model. Feedback frommanagers and practitioners gathered in external evaluation of the pilots was very pos-itive, with the vast majority seeing the approaches as having a positive impact on theirpractice and seeing it as important that the model continued to be used. Observationof practice and constructive feedback was particularly valued as was positive leader-ship and support by senior managers. The external evaluation of the pilots continues,and we are conducting an internal evaluation of the integrated model, which will look

Corresponding Author:Sue Rex, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ, United Kingdom.Email: Sue.Rex@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Probation Journal1–7

ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0264550513499002

prb.sagepub.com

The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

at practitioners’ and offenders’ experiences in three probation trusts over this year andnext.

Keywordsdesistance, effective offender engagement, evidence based, practice skills, reflectivesupervision

IntroductionThe Offender Engagement Programme (OEP) was set up by NOMS in early 2010with the aim of increasing public confidence in community sentences and devel-oping practice skills in one-to-one work with offenders in order to support reducedreoffending. The emerging research on desistance had highlighted the importanceof effective relationships between practitioner and offender as well as focusing onindividual needs and strengths. The OEP therefore set out to test the proposition thatthe one to one relationship between the practitioner and offender can be a powerfulmeans of changing behaviour and therefore reducing reoffending.

Recent research confirms what practitioners already suspect, that the supervisoryrelationship between the service user and the practitioner is important in rehabili-tating individuals and reducing reoffending. Interventions have been found to bemore effective when delivered by staff deploying core correctional practices,including working through warm, open and enthusiastic relationships (Dowden andAndrews, 2004). Skilled engagement has been related to lower rates of reconvic-tion in studies in Australia, North America and Canada, as described below.

Due to a focus on interventions and programme, however, there had not beena systematic study of supervision in England and Wales, nor was there evidence onthe quality of engagement and its potential impact. The aim of the programme wastherefore to develop evidence-based approaches to the supervision of offenders andtest these in the England and Wales context.

Another aim of the programme was to reduce unnecessary prescription throughprocess-based performance targets and National Standards to enable practitionersto use their professional discretion and skills to reduce reoffending. A pilot on Pro-fessional Judgement (PJP) in Surrey and Sussex Probation Trust, showed that staffhad more purposeful and focused contact with offenders. NOMS issued newNational Standards and a practice framework in April 2011. In order to supportpurposeful and effective engagement, the OEP developed the SEEDS model (Skillsfor Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision), which was piloted in twoparts and evaluated, as we explain below.

Influences on the development of SEEDSThe OEP placed emphasis on a collaborative approach from the start, as we weretrying to support and develop practice skills. During the design phase of SEEDS,practitioners, managers and other stakeholders were invited to a number of

2 Probation Journal

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

regional events to explore the features of effective offender engagement and howmanagers could support and develop that engagement. This collaborativeapproach continued during the project with practitioner, manager and stakeholderreference groups providing an ongoing dialogue with key stakeholders.

The emergence of service user groups in some trusts provided the opportunity towork with two such groups during the design phase and these service users made animportant contribution to the training materials. NOMS was also clear that evidenceand research were at the core of the OEP. Two related developments in internationalresearch influenced the design of the SEEDS model. One was the growing evidenceon community supervision skills, suggesting that a combination of relationshipbuilding and cognitive techniques could be effective in reducing recidivism. The otherwas desistance research, which added insights into the kinds of social processes thatpractitioners should be seeking to support in promoting desistance from offending,and helped to explain why the supervisory relationship was important.

Important work in the area of supervision skills has been undertaken by ChrisTrotter in Australia, starting with studies in the 1990s in which pro-social modelling(acting as a positive role model and encouraging and rewarding pro-social state-ments and actions while challenging pro-criminal actions) was associated withlower rates of breach and reconviction over four years (49% compared with 73%where there was no evidence of pro-social modelling) (Trotter, 1996). Morerecently, studying probation staff working with juveniles, Trotter found evidenceof excellent work by practitioners in developing relationships and reinforcing pro-social activities but less evidence of taking the next step in addressing criminogenicneeds through problem solving and CBT (Trotter and Evans, 2012). This suggeststhat the use of cognitive behavioural techniques requires specific reinforcementthrough training and support.

In the last decade, a number of researchers have studied the use and impact ofsupervision skills, and this work continues. Faye Taxman’s work with correctionalprofessionals in the USA looked at the importance of an enabling organizationalenvironment, with promising results. In Maryland, offenders supervised by officerstrained in Proactive Community Supervision supported by a pro-social organiza-tional environment achieved lower re-arrest rates than comparable offenders(30% versus 42% for the comparison group) (Taxman, 2008). Peter Raynor, withcolleagues, has been investigating observed skills with probation officers in Jersey.While this study is continuing, there is some evidence of a correlation between theconsistent use of certain skills and reductions in risk and reoffending. This alsoinformed our approach. The STICS (Strategic Training Initiative in CommunitySupervision) model in Canada was particularly influential. Here, probation officerstrained in using relationship building, cognitive techniques and a structuredapproach achieved lower reconviction rates than others (25% compared with justover 40% for officers who were not trained) (Bonta et al., 2010). Importantly, prac-titioners were trained with their managers and received ongoing follow up trainingas well as feedback on their tape recorded supervision sessions.

The literature on desistance suggests the reduced criminal activity associatedwith greater maturity comes about through desisters’ personal relationships, social

Rex and Hosking 3

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

networks, and how they see themselves (Maruna, 2001). A review conducted forNOMS (McNeill and Weaver, 2010) concluded that in order to promote desistancepractitioners should:

� accommodate and exploit identity and diversity;� create and maintain hope as well as motivation;� encourage and respect offenders’ own determination to turn their

lives around;� support and develop offenders’ skills and abilities – as well as tackling

risk and need;� build on an understanding of the role of human relations;� strengthen offenders’ social networks.

This research also informed the model: SEEDS is a strengths-based approach thatresponds to individual needs and learning styles while retaining key elements of‘What Works’.

The pilot phaseAs mentioned earlier, SEEDS was initially developed through two separate pilots,which enable us to develop the core components through experience and carefultesting. In this section we outline each pilot.

Skills for Effective, Engagement and Development (SEED)During the evidence gathering stage of the OEP, staff told us they felt de-skilled andnot always able to use the skills in which they were trained. They also felt they hadnot been trained in appropriate engagement skills and that they had becometechnicians and process compliant, at the expense of building relationships withoffenders. The SEED pilot set out to address some of these issues.

Through training, the approach aimed to equip practitioners with skills ofengagement and key practice skills including motivational interviewing, pro-social modelling and cognitive behavioural techniques. In addition to initialthree-day skills training, practitioners receive follow up training and coaching,and participate in peer group learning. Moreover, their practice is observed(by managers). These approaches to continuing professional development aimto ensure that the skills are continually refreshed and built upon. The purposeof this is twofold: to highlight the importance of ‘engagement’ between the prac-titioner and the offender in reducing risk of reoffending; and also to encouragethe consistent use of evidence-based skills and approaches. Although practi-tioners are provided with a range of tools including worksheets, this is not amanualized approach – the emphasis is on developing skills. We were fortu-nate in being able to ask Peter Raynor, Professor of Criminology at SwanseaUniversity, to undertake an independent validation of the training materials,as an additional measure to ensure that they followed the recommendationsof international research.

4 Probation Journal

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

SEED was piloted in eight trusts from March 2011 to March 2012, and SheffieldUniversity are carrying out the external evaluation in three of the larger trusts,London, Thames Valley and Merseyside. The initial three-day training was wellreceived by the majority of practitioners who found it useful to refresh their existingskills and learn new ones. Sheffield University’s Interim Report captures practi-tioners’ reactions to the training:

The majority felt SEED had improved the way supervision sessions had gone; they weredoing more structured, better quality work. Further training was considered importantto keep SEED on the agenda. Trained practitioners identified a number of strengths:that SEED allowed for increased structure without being overly prescriptive; it wasresponsive to offenders’ needs, allowing supervision to be tailored to individuals; itallowed for offender inclusivity, empowering offenders to be involved in makingchange and giving them ownership; it also led to shared clarity of goals and a strongerprofessional relationship. Training had increased and refreshed skills, promoted reflec-tive practice and helped to identify strengths and weaknesses, leading to practicedevelopment. It encouraged team building and the sharing of resources which led topractitioners trying different approaches with offenders.

Further comments by practitioners illustrate the value placed upon SEED training.At the final follow up training session, practitioners thought SEED had a positive (orvery positive) impact on their practice, and 87 per cent thought it very important totheir practice to continue to use the model. Seventy per cent saw their time as morefocussed and three quarters mostly or always had a plan for supervision sessions.One practitioner noted: ‘My sessions are better time managed, more focussed andmore productive. It also promotes thinking about the individual, their learning styleand what materials would be most engaging. More planning time would assist thisfurther.’

The Reflective Supervision Model (RSM)This pilot ran from April 2011 to April 2012 in a further eight trusts with North-umbria, Hampshire and Wales being externally evaluated by the Institute forCriminal Policy and Research (ICPR), Birkbeck College. The starting point for themodel was the recognition that organizational culture can enable or inhibit effectiveengagement with service users. It was seen that culture is in large part determinedby the behaviours and activities of an organization’s managers and senior leaders.At the OEP regional events we looked at what managers and senior leaders coulddo practically to support offender engagement, and continued this collaborativeapproach with practitioner and middle manager reference groups to ensure that ourmodel was practical and likely to be effective.

A number of conclusions provided the principles for the model: firstly, thatenabling culture change would require a whole system approach; secondly, theneed to focus on the middle manager role given its pivotal position linking strategicdirection with the quality of operational practice; and thirdly, we found a wealth of

Rex and Hosking 5

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

high-quality materials already available and saw that our value lay in adaptingthese resources to secure a real and sustainable impact on practice.

The resulting model includes four key themes: pro-social modelling, reflectivesupervision, observed practice and action learning. Implementation included amanager’s workshop, supporting resources and the implementation of a range ofpractice activities including reflective practice sessions for practitioners and middlemanagers, observed practice and feedback, middle manager action learning setsand senior manager practitioner engagement. The workshop involves a blend of dif-ferent learning activities, mirroring the approach that the model itself is intended topromote. Participants are strongly encouraged to take responsibility for their ownlearning and promoting learning as an ongoing process requiring a degree ofletting go of control: ‘we don’t have all the answers’.

Early learning emerged from senior manager feedback that their involvementwas crucial and they needed something tailored for them. This reinforced the needfor a whole system approach, further developed through a senior manager work-shop. Implementation also highlighted the value of transferrable skills and practice:whether working with service users, practitioners or managers, many roles withinthe organization rely on similar skills. In both pilots, the observation of one-to-onepractice has been one of the most successful aspects with a change of perspectiveto ‘how can we justify not observing practice?’ A key finding from the RSM evalua-tion was that the more reflective style of supervision had led to fewer informal super-vision sessions as practitioners became more confident about their role and abilityto make decisions: ‘You come to answers yourself, which helps you to work withoffenders better.’

Amalgamation of the models and the future of SEEDSLearning and feedback from the SEED and RSM pilots confirmed our original intentionto amalgamate these complementary models into a single framework supportingoffender engagement throughout the organization. We named the amalgamatedframework Skills for Effective Engagement, Development and Supervision (SEEDS), topreserve the SEED branding familiar in the probation world. It has two parts: Part 1the Enabling Framework, based on the RSM pilot, is for middle and senior managersand provides the framework to support Part 2 the Engaging Practitioner, based onSEED, which is for teams of practitioners including their team leader (or middlemanager). Due to the positive reactions to the pilots, and reflecting their commitmentto practitioners as professionals, the majority of Probation Trusts in England andWales have decided to implement SEEDS (33 out of 35).

We are continuing to invest in developing the evidence base on offenderengagement. The external evaluation of SEED continues, with analysis of offenders’feedback on their experiences of supervision and investigation of their progress onand compliance with supervision as captured in OASys and case managementsystems. We have also embarked on an internal evaluation of SEEDS to investigatewhat value it adds to SEED and RSM as separate components, and this will look atpractitioners’ and offenders’ experiences in three probation trusts over this year and

6 Probation Journal

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

next. Although SEEDS represents a major change programme for trusts at a time ofconsiderable external change, at the time of writing most trusts have completedSEEDS Part 1 training while Part 2 is well under way and we continue to receivepositive feedback from managers and practitioners. For NOMS, quality of serv-ice delivery and offender engagement remain a high priority in delivering effectiveoutcomes. We will be continuing to share and apply the learning from OEP toensure that our work with future providers of offender services benefits from jointlearning and collaboration. As probation services are opened up to a wider rangeof providers under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, we will be working toensure that services are informed by an evidence base that supports effective qualitydelivery.

References

Bonta J, Bourgon G, Rugge T, Scott T-L, Yessine AK, Gutierrez L and Li J (2010) The StrategicTraining Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World.Corrections Research: User Report, Public Safety Canada. Available at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Dowden C and Andrews DA (2004) The importance of staff practice in delivering effectivecorrectional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. InternationalJournal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48(2): 203�214.

McNeill F and Weaver B (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and OffenderManagement. Available at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk

Maruna S (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Taxman F (2008) No illusions: Offender and organisational change in Maryland’s proactivecommunity supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy 7(2): 275�302.

Trotter C (1996) The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections:Causes for optimism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 29: 29�46.

Trotter CJ and Evans P (2012) Analysis of supervision skills in youth probation. Australian andNew Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2): 255�273.

Rex and Hosking 7

at Maastricht University on June 17, 2014prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from