1. Jersey Skills Study CREDOS 2010
Brian Heath Chief Probation Officer
Jersey Probation and After Care Service
Professor Peter Raynor Swansea University

2. Jersey 45 Square miles with population of 91,000
Self Governing since 1204, own Parliament
Relative prosperity: GNI = $66K U.S - high expectations – Low Public Expenditure
Parish system - local solutions
Probation Service is a Department of the Court
Political stability – reports to Probation Board (Judges) - sense of shared ownership
5,000 crimes pa 35% - 40% detection rate

3. Evidence Based Practice in Jersey
£1.6 million revenue budget, (decreasing) 86% staff costs
£25,000 budget programmes, grants etc
600 – 700 reports per year
Approx Probation Orders per year
Approx 200 Community Service Orders per year
Automatic prison through care since 2006.
Approx 25% take up of Voluntary After Care
39 employees (27 Full time equivalent)
Caseloads under 40
12 volunteers

5. The Presentation
Overview of the project – including a look at a session
Findings so far
Next steps
Why Jersey?
Service considerations
The risks and rewards of partnership with academia

6. Overview
Swansea University Research – Peter Raynor, Pamela Ugwudike, Maurice Vanstone
Commissioned by JPACS
Chapter 6 of the Offender Supervision book.

7. Overview
Aim: analysis of 100 interviews (10 from each of 10 officers) to identify skills used
Comparison with impact measures: changes in risk/need, and eventual reconviction follow-up
So far: 99 tapes in, 78 reviewed using new instrument. 63 results aggregated for statistical reporting.

8. Overview Version 7c of the instrument
Strong voluntary principle means rebuilding support for study at intervals
Officers need to distinguish the study from management and appraisal
Officers need to remember to record
Previous instrument modified (following CREDOS discussion) to be less judgmental in tone and to include more ‘structuring’ skills in addition to ‘relationship’ skills

9. Overview Version 7c covers presence or absence of: Set up S
Non-verbal communication N
Verbal communication V
Use of authority A
Motivational interviewing M
Pro-social modelling P
Problem solving S
Cognitive restructuring C
Overall interview structure O
Total

10. Influenced by: Andrews and Bonta’s list (2003) of Core Correctional Practices
Relationship skills
Structuring skills
Effective reinforcement
Effective modelling
Effective disapproval
Structured skill learning
Problem solving
Advocacy/brokerage
Effective authority + legitimacy

11. Dowden and Andrews (2004): Effective use of authority
Modelling and reinforcing anti criminal attitudes
Teaching problem solving skills
Effective use of community resources
Relationship factors: open, warm, enthusiastic, mutual respect, therapeutic alliance, + communication skills

12. Preliminary analysis Does 7C distinguish between officers?
Are officers consistent in the skills they use?
Do officers who use more skills do so over a wide range of interviews?
Seven officers with 4-10 interviews in database (at July 2010) – most slides from 6 officers 44 interviews

13. Scatterplot of total scores for six officers (44 interviews):

14. Boxplots for seven officers with four or more interviews in first 63 analysed
Officers fairly consistent in the skills they used across a range of interviews

15. Possible and actual mean score
Mean of six officers on the 9 skill types.

16. Individual officers
Probably sufficient to say the checklist is picking up differences between officers, but also there seem to be higher scores on some skill types than others.

17. Individual officers

18. Individual officers

19. Individual officers

20. Individual officers

21. Individual officers

22. Individual officers

23. Differences between officers are (so far):
Substantial
Consistent across a number of interviews
Consistent across different types of interviews
More evident in ‘structuring’ skills (maybe reflecting social work training of this group)
Next step: impact measures
It appears that version 7C does now show substantial differences from officer to officer, and that these differences are fairly consistent across a number of interviews. Greater differences are evident in ‘structuring’ skills rather than ‘relationship’ skills. This may reflect the social work training received by most Jersey probation officers, which is likely to have concentrated more on the skills needed to establish and maintain a relationship. The next step is to extend these measurements to a larger group, and to see if they are related to any other measures of the impact of probation officers’ work. However, our experience of this study so far does suggest a potentially useful contribution to the development of effective probation practice. Until now the technique of evidence-based analysis of videotaped probation work has been applied mainly to the delivery of accredited group programmes: this study shows that it is feasible to use it in the context of one-to-one interviews

24. Next steps 4 or 5 more tapes Finish the analysis
Cross reference with clients’ before and after LSI-R scores and reconviction data.
Cross reference with Officers’ overall client performance?
Can the checklist then be used for training and development purposes?
Retain tapes for other research purposes

25. Why Jersey - and the benefits and risks of working with academia?
Longstanding belief that research is about informing practice
“Culture of curiosity”
Keeps Officers interested and enthused
Previous research has proved to be cost effective.
There is so much we don’t know

26. Why Jersey and the benefits and risks of working with academia
Taken a long time - busy staff team; client and officer consent needed.
Research can’t be the priority
Initial suspicion from Officers, CPO originally one of checklist reviewers!
Results will be published – reputation risk
My job is to use research findings to help me improve the service we provide

27. Frequently used sentences – High likelihood of Reconviction LSI-R 23 - 50
Number
Mean LSI-R
Recon
1 Year
2 Years
Bind Over 27
30.7
29.6
44.4
Community Service 20
27.8 35
40.0
Probation
119
28.4
26.1
37.0
YOI
29.8
59.3
85.2
Prison 56
32.5
53.6
75.0