Towards a desistance-focused approach to probation supervision for people who have committed Intimate Partner Violence: A digital toolkit pilot study

Abstract

We analyse practitioner and service user reflections on a digitally enabled toolkit designed to enable desistance-focused conversations within routine probation supervision of men with convictions for Intimate Partner Violence in England and Wales. We explore how to embed inclusive therapeutic service provision within the role of public sector National Probation Service practitioners through the testimony of case managers (N = 9) and people on probation (N = 7). We discuss the strengths and challenges of the approach and its implementation. The findings are discussed in the context of: the forthcoming Domestic Abuse Bill; the renationalisation of probation; the recovery of probation services following the COVID-19 pandemic; and the emergence of technology that supports desistance.

Keywords

intimate partner violence (IPV)digital media probation supervision desistance-focused practice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Bushman

(2002) Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 27–51.

Bloomfield

Dixon

(2015) An outcome evaluation of the integrated domestic abuse programme (IDAP) and community domestic violence programme (CDVP). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449008/outcome-evaluation-idap-cdvp.pdf (accessed 10 July 2020).

Bowen

Mackay

(2019) Towards evidence-based treatment of female perpetrated intimate partner violence and abuse. In: Bates

Taylor

(eds) Intimate Partner Violence: New Perspectives in Research and Practice. 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 123–139.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Chadwick

Dewolf

Serin

(2015) Effectively training community supervision officers: a meta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42(10): 977–989.

Charmaz

(2008) Grounded theory. In: Smith

(ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp. 81–110.

Daly

Mallinckrodt

(2009) Experience therapists’ approach to psychotherapy for adults with attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology 56: 549–563.

Durrance

Hosking

Throburn

(2010) Can structured programmes improve one-to-one supervision? In: McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 193–214.

Fox

Marsh

(2016) Personalisation: Is social innovation possible under transforming rehabilitation? Probation Journal 63(2): 169–181.

10.

Gibbs

(2018) Love, fear and control – Does the criminal justice system reduce domestic abuse? Available at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Transform-Justice-Love-Fear-and-Control.pdf (accessed 15 July 2020).

11.

HM Government (2019) Transforming the response to domestic abuse: consultation response and draft bill. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/772202/CCS1218158068-Web_Accessible.pdf (accessed 15 August 2020).

12.

HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) (2018) Probation Supply Chains: A Thematic Inspection. Manchester: HMIP.

13.

HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) (2019) The Availability and Delivery of Interventions (Probation Services) The availability and delivery of interventions (probation services). HM Inspectorate of Probation – Research & Analysis Bulletin 2019/01. Manchester: HMIP.

14.

Hughes

(2017) Lessons from the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme, for the implementation of Building Better Relationships. Probation Journal 64(2): 129–145.

15.

Kropp

Hart

(2015) The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide Version 3 (SARA-V3). Vancouver, Canada: ProActive ReSolutions Inc.

16.

Lipsey

Cullen

(2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 297–320.

17.

Looman

Abracen

(2013) The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy 8(3): 30–36.

18.

Maguire

Grubin

Lösel

, et al. (2010) ‘What works’ and the correctional services accreditation panel: taking stock from an inside perspective. Criminology and Criminal Justice 10(1): 37–58.

19.

Maruna

(2017) Desistance as a social movement. Irish Probation Journal 14: 5–20.

20.

McNeill

Farrall

Lightowler

, et al. (2012) How and Why People Stop Offending: Discovering Desistance. Research Reports or Papers. London: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services. Available at: https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/insights/how-why-people-stop-offending-discovering-desistance (accessed 19 November 2020).

21.

Morgan

(1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

22.

Morris

Graham

(2019) Using technology and digitally enhanced approaches to support desistance. In: Ugwudike

Graham

McNeill

Taxman

Trotter

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 179–192.

23.

Morris

Gibbs

Jonah

, et al. (2019) Developing content to promote desistance in men who have committed intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships. European Journal of Probation 11(2): 96–113.

24.

Morris

Knight

(2018) Co-producing digitally-enabled courses that promote desistance in prison and probation setting. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice 4(4): 269–279.

25.

Nellis

(2017) Setting the parameters of ‘digital (criminal) justice’ in Scotland. Probation Journal 64(3): 191–208.

26.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2019) Domestic abuse in England and Wales: year ending November 2019. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2019 (accessed 15 August 2020).

27.

Pence

Paymar

(1993) Education Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer.

28.

Rabiee

(2004) Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63(4): 655–660.

29.

Raynor

(2019) Supervision Skills for Probation Practitioners. HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights. August 2019/05.

30.

Ritchie

Spencer

O’Connor

(2003) Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie

Lewis

(eds) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage, pp. 219–262.

31.

Robinson

Dominey

(2019) Probation reform, the RAR and the forgotten ingredient of supervision. Probation Journal 66(4): 451–455.

32.

Ross

Polaschek

DLL

Ward

(2008) The therapeutic alliance: a theoretical revision for offender rehabilitation. Aggression and Violent Behavior 13(6): 462–480.

33.

Ross

(2018) Policy, practice and regulatory issues in mobile technology treatment for forensic clients. European Journal of Probation 10(1): 44–58.

34.

Shapland

Bottoms

Stephen

, et al. (2012) The quality of probation supervision – A literature review: summary of key messages. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/quality-of-probation-supervision-a-literature-review-summary-of-key-messages (accessed 10 July 2020).

35.

Simmons

Patton

Sutter

, et al. (2009) Application of strengths-based approaches. In: Lehmann

Simmons

(eds) Strengths-based Batterer Intervention: A New Paradigm in Ending Family Violence. New York: Springer, pp. 239–284.

36.

World Health Organization (2005). Violence against women by intimate partners. In: WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

37.

Worrall

Mawby

(2014) Probation worker cultures and relationships with offenders. Probation Journal 61(4): 346–357.