Inleiding en context
Beste mensen, het is vandaag dinsdag 23 april 2024. Jullie ontvangen deze mail wat later dan normaal omdat ik gisteravond laat vanuit Schiphol arriveerde. Napels was weer helemaal prima, chaos, drukte, heerlijke geuren, aardige mensen, prachtige gebouwen en een broeierige wetteloze sfeer in bepaalde wijken. Ik begin met een beangstigend vrolijk liedje: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDlZLsJJkVA Maar nu naar de ´kennisparel´ van vandaag, de 700e alweer sinds ik met dit initiatief begon! Die 700e is een prima overzicht rond het zogenaamde ´interventielandschap´ waar de reclassering in haar dagelijkse werkzaamheden gebruik van kan maken maar daarvan ook systematisch de onmogelijkheden beschrijft.
Op basis van de beschikbare onderzoeksgegevens blijkt dat het toepassen van verschillende interventies bij een adequate implementatie en uitvoering recidive kan terug te dringen en het afbreken van een criminele carrière kan bevorderen. Het blijkt echter in de grillige reclasseringspraktijk moeizaam om die interventies daadwerkelijk op een effectieve manier uit te voeren. De geaccrediteerde programma’s werden als positief en effectief beoordeeld, maar er waren obstakels over wachtlijsten en de mogelijkheid om tijdig toegang te krijgen tot die programma’s.
Bron
Ball Kevin, Oliver Kenton & Robin Moore (March 2024). The interventions landscape for probation services: Delivery, challenges, and opportunities. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 45 pp.
Samenvatting
HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing, and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth justice services. Our Research & Analysis Bulletins are aimed at all those with an interest in the quality of these services, presenting key findings to assist with informed debate and help drive improvement where it is required. The findings are used within the Inspectorate to develop our inspection programmes, guidance, and position statements.
The timely provision of a broad range of high-quality interventions is a key component of successful probation delivery, with probation interventions complementing and augmenting the services offered by other agencies to all members of society. Probation leaders need to build effective local partnerships to ensure access to these community services, while frontline probation professionals need to have the skills and capacity to develop trusting relationships with people on probation, building understanding of an individual, including their needs, strengths and motivations, and hence which interventions are most appropriate. Following the demise of Transforming Rehabilitation, June 2021 saw the establishment of the public sector Probation Service, delivered through a regional structure. The Probation Service now provides, directly or through commissioning, interventions in differing formats, including accredited programmes, structured interventions, commissioned rehabilitative services (CRS), and practitioner toolkits. Parts of the landscape are being recommissioned in 2024/2025. Thus, this is a timely moment to consider the merits and weaknesses of the current system, with a consideration of what is working and what is not working, key enablers and barriers, and good practices.
The findings in this bulletin are based upon several sources including: (i) data collected from our probation inspections completed between October 2021 and May 2023, covering 32 Probation Delivery Units across 11 of the 12 probation regions; (ii) interviews with senior probation leaders in central departments and regional offices; (iii) interviews with representatives from third sector organisations (TSOs); (iv) interviews with current and former members of the Correctional Services Advice and Accreditation Panel (CSAAP); and (v) a survey of probation professionals.
Key findings and implications • Research evidence supports the use of various interventions for people on probation, and our analysis of matched inspection and outcomes data clearly demonstrates the potential for high-quality implementation and delivery to reduce reoffending and support desistance. • However, around half of the cases in our recent inspections did not receive sufficient, or sufficient quality, interventions or services, with some notably lower levels of sufficiency for specific needs. Gaps in provision were highlighted by the research participants in relation to specific needs, particularly accessing suitable housing, and in relation to specific subgroups, especially services for ethnic minorities. • The following issues were highlighted in relation to specific types of intervention: o accredited programmes were viewed positively but there were concerns about waiting lists and the ability to access the programmes in a timely manner practitioners had lacked the time to build their understanding of structured interventions and toolkits, and there had been insufficient training regarding their use and delivery the CRS Refer and Monitor system was criticised by both probation staff and TSO workers for requiring data entry duplication, being overly bureaucratic, and failing to provide either side with sufficient information to monitor progress safely and effectively.
Building upon the findings in this bulletin – including positive examples of innovation in local joint commissioning – the following considerations are set out for improving the interventions provided to people on probation: o empowering local probation leaders to engage with local services and communities and match the interventions offer to the needs of the local probation caseload o learning from recent commissioning experiences, breaking down barriers to smaller local organisations applying for and securing funding, and paying attention to developments in other sectors, e.g. alliance commissioning and contracting o improving links with Creating Future Opportunities, making full use of the multi-agency activity hubs o focusing on maximising transparency to increase understanding, assist with informed debate, manage expectations, build trust and confidence, and support the further development of current and new interventions o committing to evaluation and learning, enabling interventions and delivery to be improved over time, maximising positive outcomes for individuals and wider society o reviewing the priority areas for CSAAP consideration, including core practice skills (signalling that, at its core, probation is a relational, collaborative, and person-centred service), and avoiding any unnecessary intervention hierarchies o building the knowledge and skills of staff, developing their confidence in navigating the interventions available for people on probation and in providing the necessary support to complement specific interventions, helping to maximise engagement and impact.
In developing the interventions landscape, an overriding principle should be to support delivery which is aligned to evidence and which is personalised, holistic, engaging, responsive, and inclusive. A balance needs to be struck between not over-complicating the landscape while ensuring that sufficient options and flexibility are in place at the local level to meet the full range of individual needs, maximising access to universal services wherever possible to support longer-term community integration and social inclusion.
As with other areas of the contemporary Probation Service, many recent problems in delivering interventions stem from staff shortages and the resultant workload pressures. Unmanageable workloads have led probation professionals to retreat into risk management at the expense of generative rehabilitative work. This is self-defeating as the best way to reduce risk of harm is to tackle offending-related needs and build upon strengths through evidence-informed and evidence-based interventions
Afsluitend
Bij het ontwikkelen van het interventielandschap binnen het reclasseringswerk zou het ondersteunen van de uitvoering die is afgestemd op wetenschappelijke evidentie en die gepersonaliseerd, holistisch, uitdagend, responsief en inclusief een overheersend principe moeten zijn. Er moet een evenwicht worden gevonden tussen het niet al te ingewikkeld maken van de toepassing van de interventies en tegelijkertijd ervoor zorgen dat er op lokaal niveau voldoende opties en flexibiliteit aanwezig zijn om aan het volledige scala van individuele behoeften van de reclassent te voldoen.
Net als binnen ander justitiediensten kampt de hedendaagse reclassering met problemen bij het uitvoeren van interventies veroorzaakt door personeelstekorten en de daaruit voortvloeiend werkdruk. Die vaak onbeheersbare gepercipieerde werkdruk heeft ertoe geleid dat reclasseringsprofessionals zich vaak concentreren op risicobeheer dat ten koste gaat van het ´echte´ rehabilitatiewerk. Dit is op termijn voor reclasseringsorganisaties een uitholling van de kerntaak van recidive vermindering. De beste manier om het risico op maatschappelijke en persoonlijke schade te verminderen blijft namelijk bestaan uit het aanpakken van aan delicten gerelateerde risico´s en behoeften. Dit kan vooral bereikt worden door het voortbouwen en toepassen van de beschikbare evidentie van op feiten gebaseerde interventies om recidive onder reclassenten te voorkomen. Hoe lastig dat ook is te bewerkstelligen in de grillige reclasseringspraktijk.