Creative Ways of Building Safer Communities Using The Intensive Probation Scheme as a Case Study Ger Phillips

Key Questions Is it possible to successfully work with persistent and serious offenders in the Community? What interventions work and have lasting effects? How is success measured and who defines success? Are Community based sanctions cost effective and value for money?

Methodology Evidence Based Sound Scientific Empirical Research Base Randomised Controled Trial Longitudinal analysis of offending patterns over a period of at least ten years Quantatitive and Qualitative Outcome Indicators Structured Interviews with Staff Management and Participants

Study Design The Study adopted the design advocated by Everitt and Hardiker (1996) of having a ‘Mosaic of Performance Indicators’ Five Year evaluation inclusive of all of the major stakeholders. Control group; major factor in adding veracity and credibility to findings

Context IPS set up to work with ‘Persistent and Serious Offenders’ Aged Between years Geographic location of Cork City and its environs Offence Category excluded Sex Offences, Serious Assault Included Burglary, RTA,UTMPV, Robbery, Larceny Average Sentence Length of 18 months

Programme Content Programme lasted Weeks duration in the assessed period Programme highly structured 4 days per week Content included Group Work (Offence Related) Individual/Family Work, Activities, Cooking and Catering

Main Research Findings Family and Educational Background Majority lived in the family home Family size well above the national norm 5.26 (excluding parents) Mean age 20yrs Majority left school without qualifications School leaving age yrs One person had completed a Leaving Certificate

Main Research Findings Longitudinal Analysis Five Years After the IPS Course found Significant and Definite Reduction in Rates of Offending 51.5% of the Treatment Group received no subsequent reconviction or a community based sanction in the five years following the IPS Course 96.8% of the Control Group were Convicted of a Prison Sentence subsequent to their release 71% of this group were convicted 2 or more Prison Sentences subsequently

Messages From Research Clear That Significant Change Had Taken Place But how could it be explained, and could it be expanded and applied to other settings Generalizing from the Particular can be difficult. However International & National research supported the general findings of the study..

Why Did it Work The ‘Facilitating Environment’ Interviews with Participants, Staff and Management of the Project consistently pointed to something assisting change in the Environment of the Project Winnicott’s (1990), ‘Facilitating-Good Enough Environment’ leading to Maturation Processes This helped explain how the environment initially broke down and how it could be repaired Could the elements be transferable and adaptable

Why Did it Work Main Elements of the ‘Holding Environment’ Initially the bars and the cells of the Prison had to be replaced Boundaries need to be clear and firm to promote safety and containment Need to be uniform and transparent applying to all Negotiated Settlement and Dialogue Recognised two Competing and Contrasting World Views

Why Did it Work Main Elements of the Holding Environment World View of the Professional with its own Language (Jargon) Culture and Rules and Regulations World View of the Participant A Different Language with Different Meanings (Story/Narrative) Negotiated Settlement involved the Professionals providing the ‘Holding Environment’ in which negotiation, compromise and agreement took place

Why Did it Work Main Elements of the Holding Environment This goes against ideas of Professional ‘Experts’ who help their Clients to think better and make better choices Something Happens in the recognition Winnicott referred to as ‘Identification’ and in the Holding and Containment Respect a key Feature The Environment goes beyond the Individual expert to a team approach

Why Did it Work Main Elements of the Holding Environment Team Approach to decision making and conflict resolution needs to be supported by a Clear Ethos and Philosophy This Research suggests that this Philosophy needs to encompass the foregoing Concepts --- A Switch to Environmental Thinking-- Holding Environment-- Boundaries --Negotiated Engagement and Settlement and-- Identification Leading To Safe ‘Play or Maturational Space’ in which to explore new options and Mature

Transferability and Adaptability How Transferable are these concepts, and the lessons learned from this research? Good Grounds for optimism Longitudinal Period is significant and evidence of change has been conclusive Older age group and Male ---sometimes harder to effect change in both categories Concepts themselves are transferable

Transferability and Adaptability Community Based thinking (Jordan and Jordan 2000) strong advocates Environment is important in all interventions and settings Constituents of Environment as outlined here are transferable and arise in the earliest Phase of Human Development as demonstrated by Winnicott (1990)

Transferability and Adaptability When operated successfully and respectfully these concepts have proved they can deliver positive outcomes for Communities as this research has shown These are not naïve or bland concepts proved in this difficult setting they can be effective

Future Directions Where to from here? Open to the Floor What are your suggestions on creating safer communities?