Posts

Offender/Offender Manager Relationships - image of paper people holding hands

Positive Relationships in Offender Management

We are delighted to welcome Prof Darrick Jolliffe, Professor of Criminology at the University of Greenwich as a guest blogger. Prof Jolliffe has worked with GtD on our offender management work and here he discusses the role of relationships in that work.

Positive relationships have the power to change us. This is not just the catchy slogan of the International Coaching Federation, but something that resonates with all of us.  The constructive relationships that we have, or have had with our parents, teachers, friends and colleagues not only define our interactions with them, but our interactions with all others, while defining who we see ourselves to be. Translating this ‘common sense fact’ into the management of those who have committed offences has an extensive history, and some would argue is the bedrock on which the probation service was founded. However, like many things that are common sense, such as we only use 10% of our brains, and carrots provide good eyesight, the suggestion that if ‘offenders’ have a positive relationship with those providing their supervision they will have more positive outcomes, the actual relationship might actually be a bit more complicated. 

I was invited by Get the Data Director Jack Catell to speak their event, Transforming Rehabilitation – Learning from the PbR results, about my experience of attempting to capture the evidence that positive relationships between offenders and offender managers results in definable benefits. This was something that I first worked on over a decade ago, having first been commissioned by the Home Office to develop an Offender Management Feedback Questionnaire, which was a series of questions that asked offenders about their engagement with their named offender manager. I was subsequently commissioned to work on revised versions, and also helped develop a mirror version which asked about how offender managers viewed the relationship that offenders had with probation.

Some findings fit with expectation, for example, female offenders consistently had more positive relationships with offender managers than males, and the longer that an offender had spent on probation the more they felt they had developed positive relationships and acquired useful skills.  However, some findings were very far from expected, for example, those who reported greater engagement with probation were not less likely to reoffend, and even more concerning, or at least confusing, those who reported greater acquisition of skills while on probation were significantly more likely to reoffend.

How do we reconcile these findings with what we know about the power of positive relationships?  Well, I don’t think there is an easy answer here.  I suspect that positive relationships with offender managers are important for offenders, but they may not be important enough to have an impact on a blunt measure such as reoffending over and above the other issues that many of these people are facing in their lives.  We put the finding, that those who reported greater acquisition of skills were more likely to reoffend, down to offender’s overly optimistic view of how easy it would be to continue to stay crime free.  When we looked more closely at the scores of the questionnaires, it was the items which referred specifically to acquiring skills which would reduce later reoffending that those who reoffended tended to endorse more strongly – almost as though they were trying to convince themselves of their ability to stay on the straight and narrow.

Reflecting back on this work, I am really proud of what we did achieve, despite not getting the common sense result we all expected.  I think there would be a lot of mileage in revisiting the offender/offender manager relationship as a potential desistence tool, and if I was going to do this again I would be looking to measure changes in relationships (so administering items more than once) and see how these changes might relate to more short-term outcomes (e.g., offender’s motivation), as well as longer-term outcomes (e.g., reconviction). 

Join our LinkedIn Transforming Rehabilitation Group

Join Our Transforming Rehabilitation LinkedIn Group

We have created a LinkedIn group dedicated to the topic of Transforming Rehabilitation. It is a forum for discussion, for individuals who work or have an interest in, the fields of probation, offender rehabilitation and Transforming Rehabilitation.

Our idea to set up the Transforming Rehabilitation LinkedIn group follows our recent Transforming Rehabilitation: Learning from the PbR results event, which was attended by professionals working across all aspects of the probation service. At the event, attendees were able to network, and share their experiences and learnings, which was highly beneficial. We wanted the discussions and new connections made, to continue beyond the event and the group is the ideal way to help facilitate this. Everyone working in this sector has valuable insights and their contributions to shared learning will ultimately help us all to improve the outcomes for those entering the justice system.

The first discussion topic is The importance of the worker-service user relationship

Establishing a good relationship between the offender managers and their clients/service users is an important part of quality offender management. Putting this into practice might be more difficult. Can you share some of your experiences of good practice in involving offenders in their sentencing planning, and what obstacles were in your way and how they were overcome?

Please do take a look at the conversation and comment if this is a topic on which you’re able to share some knowledge. We will regularly post questions, but also invite members to post your own questions for discussion. You can request to join via this link – Transforming Rehabilitation

Hallmarks of a Good Evaluation Plan

Hallmarks of a Good Evaluation Plan Part 1 – Introduction & Relevance

When a potential funder glances at your application for a grant will they see reassuring signs of quality or something that immediately makes them wary?

When an antique collector finds what they suspect is a piece of fine English silverware they flip it over and look for a set of hallmarks – simple indicators that certify the metal, identify the maker, the place of production, and the year of manufacture. It can help them distinguish quickly between, say, an item of 17th-century sterling silver produced in London by a famous craftsman, and a mass-produced reproduction with only a thin plating of the real thing.

Similarly, it strikes me that there are three hallmarks of a good evaluation plan. First, it should be relevant. Secondly, it ought to promote adaptive change. And, finally, it must be technically competent. Get this right and you will certainly have a funder’s attention.

What has got me thinking about all this lately is a presentation I’ll be giving at the National Grant Conference which takes place in Atlanta, Georgia, between 25 and 27 July 2017, sponsored by the American Grant Writers’ Association.

My presentation complements the work Get the Data does in the UK where our social impact analytics practice provides organisations, including non-profits with the expertise they need to measure, improve and prove their impact. Our social impact analytics are often used to convince careful funding bodies to fund or invest in programs which ultimately assist the most vulnerable in society.

Demonstrating Relevance

So, going back to the first of those hallmarks mentioned above – what sells an evaluation plan as relevant? You have to know, first, what your organisation needs and what type of evaluation you are looking to conduct. Practitioners, board members and those responsible for awarding funding all think constantly about what impact they are seeking to achieve, how to measure it, and how they can achieve it with the resources at their disposal. You need to convey to them that you understand their priorities and mission and tie your work into theirs.

Of course, that’s easier said than done: stakeholders very often value different impact information so there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution. This is an area where Get the Data can help. Our impact management services can assist in defining the needs of an organisation, and through smart reporting and analysis systems will ensure individual stakeholders can find the information that matters to them.

In the next post in this series, I will consider how we can help deliver an evaluation plan that promotes adaptive change and is technically competent.

In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from you if you would like to learn more about how our social impact analytics can support your application for grant funding email me to get the conversation started.

Please also visit our website where you can sign up for a free one-hour Strategic Impact Assessment in which we’ll take the time to evaluate your current impact management success and will identify key areas to develop in order to help your organisation maximise your social impact.

 

Social Impact Analytics: Putting the Value into Evaluation

Evaluation is often divorced from an organisation’s day-to-day operation, seen simply as a retrospective assessment of the impact of an intervention or the measurement of a client group’s outcomes. While there remains a place for that traditional approach, my colleagues and I at GtD believe that evaluation should be integral to shaping an organisation’s operations, by both looking back over past performance as well as predicting how to achieve real impact in the future.

In developing cutting edge social impact analytics, GtD’s novel approach to evaluation is being delivered to governments, non-profits and commercial organisations in the U.K. and the U.S. Typically, our clients are working to reduce reoffending, resettle refugees, provide shelter to the homeless and help disengaged young people achieve improved education outcomes. By providing definitive analyses we are enabling our clients to monitor what they are now doing; learn how they can improve their future performance and – ultimately – prove that they had an impact on a client group or wider society.

So, what are our social impact analytics, and what’s the value in our approach to evaluation?

First our Impact Management is helping managers and board members think about what they are seeking to achieve and how they will do that with the resources at their disposal. In our experience, managers, board members and funders should be concerned that their service is well run. By monitoring resources, inputs and outputs, our Impact Management can produce measures of a service’s economy and efficiency.

Second, our Predictive Analyses are helping organisations to deliver more effective services. Our analyses are helping practitioners to identify what will work best for their clients, and managers are using the information to improve interventions and predict future impact, and in the case of social impact bonds, future income.

Finally, organisations that commission GtD are working with some of the most vulnerable people in society. We value their work and are committed to using quantitative methods of evaluation to determine their impact. We are proud that our Impact Evaluations are not only delivering definitive reports on the impact of their work, but can also be used to provide a highly persuasive case to funders or a press-release as part of a media or funding campaign.

To find out how your GtD’s Social Impact Analytics can help your organisation make a difference contact me at alan.mackie@getthedata.co.uk

Prison Reform and Outcome Measurement

Pomp and pageantry came to Westminster this week, with the Queen’s Speech setting out the British government’s legislative agenda for the coming Parliamentary session. But amid the ermine and jewels was a call for hard, empirical data.

The centre piece of the ‘Gracious Address’ was a major shake-up of the prison system in England. Legislation will be brought forward to give governors of six “reform prisons” unprecedented autonomy over education and work in prisons, family visits, and rehabilitation services. With this autonomy will come accountability and the publication of comparable statistics on reoffending, employment rates on release, and violence and self-harm for each prison.

Further details of the government’s prison reforms were contained “Unlocking Potential”, Dame Sally Coates’ review of prison education in England that was published this week. The review includes recommendations to improve basic skills and the quality of vocational training and employability, and also greater personal social development.  Echoing the government’s move to devolve greater autonomy to prison governors, Dame Sally’s review also endorsed the need for governors to be held to account for the educational progress of all prisoners in their jails, and for the outcomes achieved by their commissioning decisions for education.

Improved education outcomes for individual prisoners will be supported by improved assessment of prisoners’ needs and the creation of Personal Learning Plans. However, Dame Sally’s review also made a call for greater performance measurement not only for the sake of accountability, but also for the planning and prioritisation of education services.

As noted before, this is an exciting time for prison reform on both sides of the Atlantic. However, reform must be made on evidence and supported by the hard data. Devolving decision making to those who know best is a bold move but with autonomy comes accountability and transparency. As Dame Sally’s report recommends, accountability and transparency are well served by,

Developing a suite of outcome measures to enable meaningful comparisons to be made between prisons (particularly between those with similar cohorts of offenders) is vital to drive improved performance”.

As the pace of reform continues, GtD looks forward to supporting those reforms with our expertise of outcome measurement and social impact analytics.