Introduction to engagement in case supervision

Content

Engagement in case supervision
Evidence summary
What we expect and what our inspections tell us about engagement practice
What ex-service users tell us about engagement practice

Back to engagement in case supervision Next chapter: Assessing for engagement

Engagement in case supervision

Probation providers should seek to motivate service users to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. This includes:

helping service users to recognise the positive changes and benefits from desistance
taking full account of any personal circumstances that might make compliance more difficult
working with the service user to overcome such difficulties.

At the same time, practitioners should take appropriate enforcement action where required, dealing with instances of non-compliance and relapse in a proportionate, fair and transparent manner. Responsible officers need to take account of what is going on in people’s lives, what their strengths and protective factors are, and any barriers to compliance and completion.

In this section of the guide we explain more about what we mean by engagement and outline what we consider good practice to look like in this area, across assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing. We also consider service users’ views and what they say works for them in the supervision process.

Evidence summary

Evidence on good practice in engaging service users can be found across a number of research areas, including research on desistance, supervision skills and procedural justice.

The following are consistently found to be important:

The establishment of a positive, respectful and trusting relationship between individual practitioner and service user. For some service users, this is felt to be the cornerstone of a successful probation period. These relationships are most beneficial when they are characterised by empathy, enthusiasm, a belief in the capacity to change, and appropriate disclosure. Genuine relationships demonstrate ‘care’ about the person being supervised, their desistance and their future.
Collaboration with the service user in establishing goals and finding solutions. Service users have reported that they value being listened to, having the chance to ‘tell their story’, and their probation officer taking the time to recognise them as an individual, understanding their diversity and their specific needs and expectations.
Structured supervision, applying approaches such as prosocial modelling, effective reinforcement, cognitive restructuring, and problem-solving. Building and maintaining motivation is often vital, with attention being paid to any practical obstacles. Service users have stressed that any initial decision to change their lives has to be theirs, but individual practitioners can help motivate them to keep working on issues and to seek out solutions and suitable help through advice on problem-solving.
Service users have reported appreciating ‘critical advice’, provided that it is based on a demonstrated understanding of themselves and their situation. Officers who are ‘pushy’, demanding real effort and change, can be seen as showing genuine interest and concern, which can help create and maintain motivation. The task for the practitioner is to achieve a balance between encouragement and ‘pushing’, while maintaining due regard for service user autonomy. Service users have stated that they value practitioners who are respectful, non-judgemental, consistent, fair and accountable. It is particularly important for service users that instances of non-compliance and relapse are dealt with in a proportionate, fair and transparent manner – procedural justice indicates that the perceived fairness of processes affects how people view those in authority and subsequently respond.
Service users have highlighted the need for continuity of support – they benefit from the establishment of trusting relationships and have reported disliking ‘pass-the-parcel’ case management or having to repeat the same information to a succession of ‘strangers’.

What we expect and what our inspections tell us about engagement practice

When we inspect a case, we assess the quality of work delivered in relation to engagement, desistance and keeping people safe. In doing this we do not focus on the quality of specific documents, work products or tools. Instead we look at practice holistically. For example, when examining planning practice, we inspect the quality of the whole process, not just the quality of the written plan.

We expect to see:

assessment practice that focuses sufficiently on engaging the service user, analysing the service user’s motivation and readiness to change and meaningfully involving the service user in the process
planning that is clearly focused on enabling the service user to engage positively with their sentence
implementation and delivery of interventions where there is a focus on enabling the individual to comply but with non-compliance responded to and enforced appropriately
service users being meaningfully involved in the process of review to evaluate compliance levels and remove barriers to engagement.

What follows relates to our domain two standards for: assessment, planning, implementation and delivery, and reviewing. It sets out our expectations for practice relating to engagement. Against each element of practice, we use a good practice example to show where we have seen things done well and from which we believe other practitioners can learn.

Between June 2018 and March 2020 (pre-Covid-19), we inspected 4,548 cases in total against our domain two standards for case supervision. Highlighted below are the strengths and challenges to effective practice that we found in relation to engagement work from these case inspections:

Key strengths:

in relevant cases, assessments usually analyse the service user’s diversity and personal circumstances and consider how these impact on engagement and compliance
service users are meaningfully involved in their assessment and their views are taken into account most of the time
planning usually takes sufficient account of the service user’s readiness and motivation to change
there is sufficient focus on maintaining an effective working relationship with the service user in the majority of cases
responsible officers make a good effort to take account of employment and family responsibilities when organising appointments
where reviews are needed, they consider compliance and engagement levels and any relevant barriers in the majority of cases.

Challenges to effective practice:

service users are often not meaningfully involved in planning their supervision
pre-release planning occurs in too few instances and needs to be prioritised
in cases where reviews are required, the service user is involved in reviewing their progress and engagement in too few cases
adjustments are rarely made to ongoing plans of work when there are concerns about compliance and engagement levels.

What ex-service users tell us about engagement practice

In developing this guide, we consulted with a number of individuals who had been subject to probation supervision in the past. We wanted to acknowledge and understand their perspective on effective engagement practice, and it was encouraging to find that the case examples contained in the guide support their experience of what ‘good’ looks like. Here is some of what they told us:

“It is good to see the importance of good communication between the officer and client included within the guide. This is central to everything”.

“A stable relationship with the worker is vital. You can get passed from pillar to post and this is not good for building trust. I had 14 months on licence and had four probation officers during that time. It was frustrating to have to explain things over and over again”.

“Meeting my probation officer in prison before my release was brilliant and this should happen more often. The day of release is often the first meeting between the client and officer these days and so you’re immediately on the back foot. Starting the relationship before you come out really helps”.

“Getting practical help from probation helps. Service users don’t often see the work that goes on behind the scenes and so completing practical tasks together (such as housing applications, arranging and accompanying service users to appointments) can help the relationship. Without this service users don’t always appreciate what the worker is doing or recognise the benefits of probation”.

“My officer said to me once ‘probation is not just about punishment, let us help you change your life for the better’. This made me think differently about probation”.