Revising manualised treatment programmes: incorporating practitioners' feedback

Abstract

PurposeImplementing treatment programmes with integrity requires a clear statement of what is to be done in treatment, and treatment manuals do this to a greater or lesser degree. In correctional work, many treatment programmes are formally accredited, yet changes may need to be made after accreditation. Updating accredited programmes is important, but there is little formal guidance on post‐accreditation revision. This paper aims to report on practitioner feedback on one accredited programme – Control of Violence for Angry Impulsive Drinkers (COVAID) – with the aim of illustrating how practitioner feedback might be interpreted and used in revising treatment programmes.Design/methodology/approachThe authors surveyed 20 treatment managers in prison and probation services, of whom 11 (55 per cent) responded. Responses were analysed thematically.FindingsRespondents indicated that COVAID met a need for offenders, met the responsivity principle, and was well supported by documentation and post‐training support audit. Respondents offered suggestions for improvement. Some changes to the manual were clearly required; however, many of the suggestions need to be addressed in training. While initial training can be amended for future use, developmental support is another means of maintaining treatment integrity.Research limitations/implicationsThe number of treatment managers approached was small and responses were obtained from only 55 per cent of those contacted. Therefore, the views of respondents may not be representative of all treatment managers.Originality/valueThis report addresses the issue of programme re‐accreditation and the basis for revising treatments and treatment manuals.