The Problems and Promise of Evaluating Practice: A Groupwork Example

Abstract

The development of innovative approaches to probation practice requires the implementation of carefully planned evaluation studies. Here the authors report on the impact of probation induction groups and outline the difficulties of evaluating practice.Though we would reject the adoption of a thoroughly scientific approach to social work practice, we do believe that the formal assessment of programmes that practitioners offer their clients has a pay-off for professional and consumer alike. Thus we jumped at the chance, offered by the Senior of a local Probation Service team, to evaluate the 'induction groups' used as the first stage of that team's involvement with clients. As it turned out, our study had its problems but the signs of promise were clear enough to make us feel that something of value had been achieved. It also seemed to us that our experiences-both the encouraging and the difficult parts of it--could provide some useful pointers for others thinking about carrying out an evaluation study. In what follows we describe the outcome of our own study and discuss some of the problems encountered, with suggestions for minimizing the latter.The team whose programme we studied began using induction groups in 1979 and, at the time of our contact, were running about 8-10 groups a year. The groups were closed, co-led, had a membership of 6-10 clients and ran for six weekly sessions of about an hour and a half each. Most of the team's new clients entered the groups so that they tended to include members with a mixture of ages, offences and number of previous convictions, and were either all-male or malefemale groupings. ClarificationOur initial meeting with the team was to discuss its evaluation interests and to indicate what we could offer. It soon became clear, however, that open-ness and trust needed to be established first of all, and that the discussion could not be hurried. The team naturally wanted to know what our commitment and motivations were and we ourselves wanted to determine whether there was full support for taking a potentially critical look at the induction group programme. We also wanted to know whether any limits would be placed on the publication of any interesting results or findings. These and other matters were later recorded as part of an evaluation contract.

A History of the Use of Groups in Probation Work: Part Two – From Negotiated Treatment to Evidence‐Based Practice in an Accountable Service

“…22 For an example of an induction system being used to resolve the care versus control dilemma see Lanigan (1982). On their evaluation see Caddick and Brown (1982) and Caddick and Dorey (1987). 23 Not to be confused with intake projects in which teams adopted exclusive responsibility for social inquiry reports.…”

Social Work Effectiveness Research: Implications for Probation and Juvenile Justice Services

“…0 A British study (N = 36) of adult male offenders on the receiving end of a community based rehabilitation programme conducted by probation officers, wherein clients moved from hostel accommodation with roundthe-clock supervision to semi-independent accommodation, then to independent living, showing significantly reduced offence rates at 18 month follow-up. However, the study does suffer from high attrition (Caddick and Brown 1982). 0 An American study of sex offenders, (N = 38), (Weaver and Fox 1984) treated in groups assessing the circumstances of previous offences and aiming to reduce feelings of isolation and irredeemable abnormality.…”