The Effectiveness of Challenging Skills in Work With Young Offenders

Abstract

Probation officers and others who work with young offenders often challenge or confront their clients in relation to pro-criminal comments and criminal behaviour. There is, however, very little research that can inform practitioners about which forms of challenging most effectively engage young people. This study examines the use of challenging by youth justice workers in New South Wales, Australia. Researchers observed and audiotaped 116 interviews between youth justice workers and their clients with a view to examining the nature of challenging used by workers and the response of young people to different forms of challenging. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicate that the clients were more positively engaged by, and responsive to, challenging that was exploratory, non-blaming, and accompanied by positive reinforcement of their strengths. Excerpts taken from the interviews provide examples of high- and low-level use of the skill of challenging.

From ‘nothing works’ to ‘post-truth’: The rise and fall of evidence in British probation

“…Among the best known of these have been Bonta’s STICS study in Canada, which used a random allocation design to compare reconviction rates after supervision by officers who had received additional training in evidence-based practice skills with reconvictions after supervision by officers who had not received the training (Bonta et al, 2011); Trotter’s continuing series of studies of the impact of particular practice skills (e.g. Trotter 2013, 2017); Taxman’s (2008) study of the effects of training in ‘proactive community supervision’, and the STARR study (Robinson et al, 2012) that looked at the impact of skills on re-arrest rates. The quasi-experimental Jersey Supervision Skills Study (JS3) identified a range of skills used by probation staff in videotaped interviews and found significantly lower reconviction rates among people supervised by more skilled staff (Raynor et al, 2014).…”

Supporting incarcerated fathers: An exploration of research and practice in Victoria, Australia

“…On a practical level, educational fathering programs (used here as a differentiation from other supported/visiting services) differ in length, number of participants and content (for more, see Block et al, 2014;Meek, 2007). Relationships and facilitator skills are pivotal in the delivery of these programs (LaRosa and Rank, 2001;Meek, 2007), a factor acknowledged in broader research into effective practice with involuntary clients (see Trotter et al, 2017). Results from several UK evaluations of prison fathering programs indicate that content worked when participants were given the opportunity to suggest topics (Meek, 2007;Meek and Baumer, 2016); content was thus tailored to the needs of each group.…”

What matters is what you do: The rediscovery of skills in probation practice

“…As well as England, Scotland and Wales there were participants from Australia, Canada and the island of Jersey. We were aware of Trotter’s well established and continuing work in this field (see, for example, Trotter, 1996; Trotter and Evans, 2012; Trotter et al, 2017), and of the beginning of the STICS study in Canada (‘Strategic Training Initiative in Correctional Supervision’: Bonta et al, 2011); we also discussed the early stages of the Jersey Supervision Skills Study (JS3; Raynor et al, 2014b; Ugwudike et al, 2014) and we tried also to incorporate insights from desistance theories (Maruna and LeBel, 2010) and ‘good lives’ models (Ward, 2010).…”