Embedding psychological thinking: an evaluation of a regional training model for probation staff

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline the qualitative evaluation of a training package delivered to offender managers (OMs) working to support the implementation of the national Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) pathway and to examine qualitative changes in the way participants approach case material pre- and post-training. Design/methodology/approach In total, 21 pre- and 21 post-training responses to a case vignette were recorded and used in the analysis. OMs were asked what they would like to know more about and what would they focus on with the individual in the vignette. The responses were matched and the vignettes pre- and post-training were identical except for the name of the (fictional) offender. Findings The responses were subjected to a thematic analysis and, whilst themes were similar both between questions and within each question over time, post-training responses focussed more on the offender’s relationship with the OM and showed a greater appreciation for the relevance of internal motivations (not just what but why). This tendency was less evident in all responses regarding risk/offending. Originality/value The OPD pathway is focussed on learning. The work is innovative and this paper adds to the body of early evidence which will hopefully inform future developments. In particular, the importance of involvement of probation stakeholders in the design and delivery of training is highlighted. In addition, it is expected that future research will focus on the impact of continued supervision for the participants in this study and, as such, this paper forms the beginning of a process of evaluating how and when various workforce development interventions are effective.

Examining the Evidence Base for Forensic Case Formulation: An Integrative Review of Recent Research

“…The majority of these findings were positive (Brown et al, 2018;Mapplebeck et al, 2017;Radcliffe et al, 2018), suggesting that training over several days, possibly with a subsequent period of application, can improve the FCF skills of OMs. This may resolve some of the concerns raised within the opinion research described earlier (Brown & Völlm, 2013;Völlm, 2014).…”

“…Four of the identified studies aimed to understand whether the FCF skills of OMs working within the OPDP could be improved through training. Two of these studies (Brown, Beeley, Patel, & Völlm, 2018;Mapplebeck, Ramsden, Lowton, Short, & Burn, 2017) did this by assessing OM formulation skills both before and immediately after training. Minoudis et al (2013) instead assessed OM formulation skills before and after they had attended both a period of training and a number of formulation-focused consultation meetings in practice.…”

“…The FCF research conducted since 2011 reveals a number of promising findings, suggesting that formulation-focused consultation meetings are beneficial to forensic staff (Knauer, Walker, & Roberts, 2017;McMullan, Ramsden, & Lowton, 2014;Ramsden, Lowton, & Joyes, 2014;Whitton, Small, Lyon, Barker, & Akiboh, 2016), that training alone or training plus ongoing supervision in practice can improve the FCF skills of OMs (Brown, Beeley, Patel, & Völlm, 2018;Mapplebeck, Ramsden, Lowton, Short, & Burn, 2017;Radcliffe, McMullan, & Ramsden, 2018), that clinicians find the CFQC to be a useful and appropriate measure of formulation quality (McMurran & Bruford, 2016), and that carrying out collaborative FCFs within the OPDP can positively impact OM-offender relationships (Shaw, Higgins, & Quartey, 2017). Less positive findings of this research however include that there is some skepticism about OMs carrying out FCF within the OPDP (Brown & Völlm, 2013;Völlm, 2014), that experts cannot reach consensus on some fundamental issues within FCF (Völlm, 2014), that OM training and development may not always be associated with improvements in FCF skills (Minoudis et al, 2013), and that RFs constructed by psychologists may be of poor to intermediate quality (Hopton et al, 2018).…”

“…Although some progress has been made in the FCF field since the call to action by a number of academics in 2011 (i.e., Hart, Sturmey, Logan, & McMurran, 2011;Sturmey & McMurran, 2011a) as highlighted above, our understanding of the value, impact and outcomes of FCF remains limited. This is likely due to the narrow scope of the research, with 12 of the 14 reviewed studies aiming to investigate the skills, understanding, knowledge or opinions of forensic staff members in relation to consultation meetings or FCF (Brown, Beeley, Patel, & Völlm, 2018;Brown & Völlm, 2013;Hopton, Cree, Thompson, Jones, & Jones, 2018;Knauer, Walker, & Roberts, 2017;Mapplebeck, Ramsden, Lowton, Short, & Burn, 2017;McMullan, Ramsden, & Lowton, 2014;McMurran & Bruford, 2016;Minoudis et al, 2013;Radcliffe, McMullan, & Ramsden, 2018;Ramsden, Lowton, & Joyes, 2014;Völlm, 2014;Whitton, Small, Lyon, Barker, & Akiboh, 2016), rather than exploring the impact of these processes on other populations of interest such as offenders.…”

If you want to change the world you have to start with yourself: The impact of staff reflective practice within the Offender Personality Disorder pathway

“…Research following the implementation of the OPD pathway has demonstrated a beneficial impact for both probation service staff and service users, however, this has mainly focused on consultation, training and formulation, rather than the impact specifically of reflective practice (Brown et al, 2018; Clark and Chuan, 2016; Davies and O’Meara, 2018; Mapplebeck et al, 2017; McMullan et al, 2014; Ramsden et al, 2014; Shaw et al, 2012). This study aims to explore NPS and NHS staff experience and perception of reflective practice sessions, in the North and South of Tyne clusters and to consider the future allocation of resources within the OPD pathway in this area.…”