The Enablers of Change assessment and sentence planning tool has been designed to assess the risks, needs, strengths and protective factors of adults with convictions. Developed by Interserve, a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) provider in England, the tool is an innovation. The first of its kind in the United Kingdom (UK) to operationalise the risk needs and responsivity model with the ‘good lives’ model and desistance principles for the general adult population of low to medium risk of harm individuals managed by CRCs. This article reports the development, early testing and formative evaluation of the tool and recommendations for its onward development. Given that such integration is regarded by many as the ‘holy grail’ of probation practice, this article is of international significance and will make an original contribution to the limited evidence base on operationalising desistance in the management of adults with convictions in the UK and other jurisdictions.
BarryM (2013) Desistance by design: Offenders’ reflections on criminal justice theory, policy and practice. European Journal of Probation5(2): 47–65.
4.
BontaJAndrewsDA (2007) Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and treatment. User Report No. 2007-06. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
5.
CantonR (2014) The european probation rules, assessment and risk. EuroVista3(2): 68–80.
CohenRJSwerdlikME (2009) Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Council of Europe (2010) Recommendation CM / Rec (2010)1 of the committee of ministers to member states on the Council of Europe probation rules, (adopted by the Committee of Ministers 20 January 2010). Available at: http://snipurl.com/261zfak (accessed 20 September 2018).
9.
DarchukAWangVWeibelDet al. (2000) Manual for the Working Alliance Inventory—Observer Form, 4th revision. Unpublished manuscript.
10.
FoxCMarshC (2016) Operationalising desistance through personalisation. European Journal of Probation8(3): 185–206.
11.
FoxCGrimmRCaldeiraR (2017) An Introduction to Evaluation. London. SAGE Publications.
12.
Interserve (2016a) Development of research instruments. Interserve 13/05/16.
13.
Interserve (2016b) Guidance on risk and assessment approval criteria. Interserve.
14.
Interserve (2017) Enablers of Change tester tool version 2. Interserve.
15.
KewleySBlandfordM (2017) The development of the active risk management system. Journal of Criminal Psychology7(3): 155–167.
McNeillF (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(1): 39–62.
18.
McNeilF (2009) Towards Effective Practice in Offender Supervision. Glasgow: The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
19.
McNeillF (2016) Desistance and criminal justice in Scotland. In: CroallHMooneyGMunroR (eds) Crime, Justice and Society in Scotland. London: Routledge, pp. 200–216.
MooreR (2015) A compendium of research and analysis on the Offender Assessment System (OASys) 2009–2013. London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series, 2015.
24.
MortonS (2009) Can OASys deliver consistent assessments of offenders? Results from the inter-rater reliability study, Research Summary 1/09. London: Ministry of Justice.
25.
MoxeyLMSanfordAJ (1993) Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
26.
NichollsCMWebsterS (2014) Sex Offender Management and Dynamic Risk: Pilot Evaluation of the Active Risk Management System (ARMS). London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series.
27.
NOMS (2006) The NOMS Offender Management Model. London: NOMS.
28.
NOMS (2014) NOMS Commissioning Intentions from 2014. London: National Offender Management Service.
29.
NOMS (2015) Risk Assessment Tool Approval Criteria and Guidance. Criteria & Guidance document _ V 1.0.
30.
RaynorP (2018) From ‘nothing works’ to ‘post-truth’: The rise and fall of evidence in British probation. European Journal of Probation10(1): 59–75.
31.
RitchieJSpencerL (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: BrymanABurgessRG (eds) Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, pp. 173–194.
32.
RohrmannB (1978) Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen fuer die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Zeitschrift fuer Sozialpsychologie9(3): 222–245.
33.
SavolainenJ (2009) Work, family and criminal desistance. Adult social bonds in a Nordic welfare state. British Journal of Criminology49(3): 285–304.
34.
SeniorP (2013) Probation: Peering through the uncertainty. British Journal of Community Justice11 (2–3): 1–8.
35.
SkardhamarTSavolinenJ (2014) Changes in criminal offending around the time of job entry: A study of employment and desistance. Criminology52(2): 263–291.
36.
StameN (2004) Theory based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation10(1): 58–76.
37.
SteinDValtersC (2012) Understanding theory of change in international development. The Justice and Research Security programme, Paper 1.
38.
Van de VijverF (2001) The evolution of cross-cultural research methods. In: MatsumotoD (eds) The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–97.
39.
VogelI (2012) Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. DFID, April2012.
WeissC (1995) Nothing as practical as good theory, exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: ConnellJPKubischACSchorrLBWeissCH (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute, pp.65–92.
42.
WillisGB (2005) Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
