The Role of Needs Assessment in the Effective Engagement of People with Convictions

Abstract

We argue for the potential for needs assessment and sentence planning to transcend their core justice functions and set the tone for effective engagement between probation supervisee and supervisor. We draw on lived experience – analysis of interview and observational data from probation supervisors and supervisees, collected during the testing of a new needs assessment and sentence planning tool which aims to integrate the risk, needs, responsivity (RNR) model with desistance principles. After testing the findings against established models and principles of effective engagement, counter‐intuitively, we found that: disagreement can lead to agreement and more effective engagement. Additionally, that attention should be paid to the potential for the physical case management and supervision environment to positively influence the needs assessment and sentence planning process. These and the other findings have implications for policy and practice in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions where probation is a core criminal justice function.

PROTOCOL: Case management interventions seeking to counter radicalisation to violence: A systematic review of tools and approaches

“… Examine the internal logic of the case management process . Studies examining the relationship between different stages of the case management process, such as whether client assessments inform case planning or intervention delivery (e.g., Viljoen et al, 2019), will be included to understand how the process works in practice. Compare the effectiveness of different tools/approaches based on how they are being delivered in practice : Studies that, for example, compare the effectiveness of RNR, strengths‐based or desistance‐focused case management approaches (see Wong & Horan, 2021); different approaches to risk assessment (see Lloyd, 2019); or specific case management tools (e.g., Herzog‐Evans, 2018) will be included.…”

“…Compare the effectiveness of different tools/approaches based on how they are being delivered in practice : Studies that, for example, compare the effectiveness of RNR, strengths‐based or desistance‐focused case management approaches (see Wong & Horan, 2021); different approaches to risk assessment (see Lloyd, 2019); or specific case management tools (e.g., Herzog‐Evans, 2018) will be included.…”

“…This distinction between risk‐oriented and strengths‐based approaches will make a particularly useful contribution, as it will speak directly to a long‐standing debate about the virtue of using these different approaches to tackling radicalisation and other social harms (Cherney, 2021; Horan et al, 2020; Marsden, 2017). Proponents of strengths‐based or desistance approaches argue that risk‐oriented approaches are too ‘deficit focused’ (Wong & Horan, 2021). Further, that secondary and tertiary interventions would be better served by focusing on developing clients’ internal strengths so that they are able to pursue more pro‐social ways of meeting the needs that might otherwise be served through engagement in violent (extremist) behaviour (Marsden, 2017).…”