Engagement Strategies Overview
A coaching connection is a vital component of the work we do as correctional professionals. In fact, we can't be effective at delivering any interventions designed to change behavior without a positive relationship with the person on supervision.
When we ask people to change their behavior, it takes a lot of support. Change is not easy; but it is doable with hard work, determination, and the right coach.
Creating a Connection
The criminal justice system is often designed as us versus them, with the supervison officer put in the vicarious position of working for a judge or the state to monitor and enforce the rules, yet are tasked with helping people on supervision be successful. We challenge this perspective and offer a way officers can begin to break down the us/them divide. Using a pride, we, together approach allows officers to build the foundational language that connects people.
Establishing Our Role and Clarifying Expectations
We have been taught that community supervision officers are to remain firm but fair, impartial, trustworthy, and honest. We have learned that officers are asked to wear multiple hats including a law enforcement hat when people need accountability and a social worker hat when they need support. This dichotomy has created a pendulum swing across the field, offices and even officers themselves continuously moving between law enforcement officer and social worker. We offer a new perspective in establishing our role and clarifying expectations in this video. This new perspective shifts us to one of a coach. A coach’s role is to help a person win while staying within the rules of the game. They are invested in the person’s success. In fact, the success of a person on supervision is at least in part due to the skills of a probation or parole officer that was assigned to the person. Here we offer a new way of introducing ourselves (and really thinking about ourselves) that suggests that the officer’s role is different—to help the person on supervision be their best self while learning to live within the law.
Defining the Supervision Process
The purpose of community supervision is different across jurisdictions, across time, and even across officers within the same department. It is important as we bring someone on to supervision that we establish how we plan to work with them. When a person is placed on supervision, we will want to think about how we can best support the person to be successful, building an individualized plan to identify where they currently are and how we can help them be their best self. To best serve people on supervision, we will want to be as flexible with when, how, and where we meet to discuss their progress on supervision, build a success plan to help them grow and develop successful habits, and track their progress while on supervision. This video provides an example of how that conversation could be structured with the person on supervision so they understand the supervision process is fluid and we will adapt our approach as we identify what is needed moving forward.
Reframing Conditions
The conditions of supervision have been part of probation for over 50 years. Initially, they have been established as a contract between the person on supervision and the state. The conditions were designed to be “rules” in which the person on supervision was to live by and that the community supervision officer was expected to enforce as part of their job. At the time, the people placed on supervision had fewer barriers and could live within the rules with little guidance but over the past 20 years the population of people being placed on supervision has shifted. Instead of people who could self-correct and identified as lower risk, those on supervision come with a significant set of barriers leading to greater proportion of people who have been assessed as moderate to higher risk. With the shift in population, we must also shift our perspective of the conditions of supervision. Instead of enforcing the conditions, much like a referee does in a football game, we need to help people on supervision learn to live within them just like a coach does while teaching their players about the game. This video will help you rethink how to present the conditions of supervision so that the person on supervision sees you as a coach, helping them win by staying within the conditions versus a referee whose responsibility is to catch them failing.
Resource List
Engagement Strategies
Nahouli, Zacharia, Jay-Marie Mackenzie, Andreas Aresti, and Coral Dando (2023). "Rapport Building with Offenders in Probation Supervision: The Views of English Probation Practitioners." Probation Journal, 70(2): 104-123.
Abstract: Rapport-based supervision in probation is linked to positive behavioural change and reduced reoffending for probation service users. However, the process of rapport building is not well documented in probation practice. This study conducted focus groups and interviews with London-based probation practitioners to understand their views of rapport when supervising service users. Thematic analysis generated five themes related to how practitioners facilitated rapport building and maintenance, as well as several barriers that exist towards building and maintaining rapport – these were conceptualised as a rapport-building process. We provide recommendations to help alleviate barriers and further facilitate the rapport-building process.
Lewis, Sarah (2014). “Learning from success and failure: Deconstructing the Working Relationship within Probation Practice and Exploring its Impact on Probationers, using a Collaborative Approach” Probation Journal, 61(2): 161-175.
Abstract: Whilst a positive working relationship has been recognized as a ‘powerful vehicle’ for offender change (NOMS, 2010), little is known in respect to how powerful a positive working relationship can be for probationers and the impact it may have upon their lives. From considering the ‘experience’ of a working relationship, this study evaluated ‘what worked’ for probationers by drawing from the successes and failures within a relational context. The study also explored the impact of these relationships upon the probationers, both at the time of the relationship and once it had ceased. Seven probationers were involved in this collaborative study, assisting in the design and analysis of the study, as ‘experts’ in probation relationships. The results tentatively suggested that certain characteristics (acceptance, respect, support, empathy and belief) enable a positive relational climate to exist that has a powerful impact upon the probationer, their beliefs and their behaviour. Conversely, if the probation supervisor (PS) fails to demonstrate these characteristics, a ‘toxic’ environment for change is more probable and could lead to greater risk of offending.
Creating a Connection
Viglione, Jill, Danielle S. Rudes, and Faye S. Taxman (2017). “Probation Officer use of Client-Centered Communication Strategies in Adult Probation Settings” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(1): 38-60
Abstract: Growing research identifies the importance of communication between probation officers and probationers. The current study examines use of motivational, client-centered communication strategies in an adult probation setting. Using surveys and observational data, this work explores: (a) whether probation officers are comfortable using motivational communication strategies and (b) how probation officers communicate with probationers. Findings suggest probation officers attempt to integrate motivational techniques in their interactions, directive, but authoritarian strategies dominate probation officer– probationer interactions. Study implications emphasize the need to enhance implementation of client-centered communication strategies to improve offender outcomes and move away from authoritarian and risk management practices.
Carr, Priyanka B., and Gregory M. Walton (2014). “Cues of Working Together Fuel Intrinsic Motivation” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53: 169-184.
Abstract: What psychological mechanisms facilitate social coordination and cooperation? The present research examined the hypothesis that social cues that signal an invitation to work with others can fuel intrinsic motivation even when people work alone. Holding constant other factors, participants exposed to cues of working together persisted longer on a challenging task (Experiments 1 and 3), expressed greater interest in and enjoyment of the task (Experiments 1, 3, and 5), required less self-regulatory effort to persist on the task (Experiment 2), became more engrossed in and performed better on the task (Experiment 4), and, when encouraged to link this motivation to their values and self-concept, chose to do more related tasks in an unconnected setting 1–2 weeks later (Experiment 5). The results suggest that cues of working together can inspire intrinsic motivation, turning work into play. The discussion addresses the social–relational bases of motivation and implications for the self and application.
Reframing Conditions
Harding, David J., Bruce Western, and Jasmin A. Sandelson (2022). “From Supervision to Opportunity: Reimagining Probation and Parole” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 701(1): 8-25
Abstract: Across a variety of measures of safety and rehabilitation, our current systems of parole and probation are failing. Research shows that community supervision fails to reduce crime; traps its subjects in cycles of criminal justice involvement; is excessively punitive; and creates widespread harm to individuals, families, and communities—all while failing to significantly contribute to the social and economic integration of those under its control. We argue for a wholesale reform of community supervision, including the abandonment of current monitoring and control functions, and the repurposing of resources into systems of support for the hundreds of thousands of people leaving prison and jail every year. We also provide an overview to the articles assembled for this volume, which chart the challenges facing those on community supervision and offer a roadmap of potential policy solutions for improving the life chances of formerly incarcerated and justice-involved people.
Lovins, Brian K., Francis T. Cullen, Edward J. Latessa, and Cheryl Lero Jonson (2018). “Probation Officer as a Coach: Building a New Professional Identity” Federal Probation, 82.
Abstract: In many agencies, probation officers have been encouraged or been permitted to follow the job role of "referee." Because research links supervision effectiveness to officers having quality relationships with offenders, adopting a human service orientation, and using correctional skills, the authors propose that the job role of "coach" aligns more closely with this evidence.
Establishing our Role and Clarifying Expectations
Chamberlain, Alyssa W., Matthew Gricius, Danielle M. Wallace, Diana Borjas, and Vincent M. Ware (2018). “Parolee-Parole Officer Rapport: Does it Impact Recidivism” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11): 3581-3602.
Abstract: Parole officers are an integral part of parolees’ reentry process and success. Few studies, however, have examined whether the quality of the relationship between parolees and their parole officer influences outcomes such as recidivism. This study assesses how recidivism is affected by the quality of the relationship that parolees have with their parole officers. Using the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) dataset, we use parolees’ perceptions of their relationship with their parole officer to determine whether they have established a positive or negative relationship, and whether these types of relationships differentially affect recidivism. Results show that parolees who have a negative relationship with their parole officer have higher rates of recidivism, while a positive relationship lowers parolees’ likelihood of recidivating. An implication of this study emphasizes parole officer training that develops positive, high-quality relationships with parolees. Further implications are discussed below.
Defining the Supervision Process
Dowden, Craig, and Don A. Andrews (2004). “The Importance of Staff Practice in Delivering Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review of Core Correctional Practice” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2): 203-214.
Abstract: Several meta-analyses have rendered strong support for the clinically relevant and psychologically informed principles of human service, risk, need, and general responsivity. However, each of these reviews has focused on specific program components and not on the characteristics of the staff or the specific techniques used to deliver the program. This meta-analytic review examines the role of core correctional practices in reducing recidivism and provides strong preliminary evidence regarding their effectiveness. Staff characteristics and training in core skills must be addressed to ensure the maximum therapeutic impact of correctional treatment programs.
Lovins, Brian K., Francis T. Cullen, Edward J. Latessa, and Cheryl Lero Jonson (2018). “Probation Officer as a Coach: Building a New Professional Identity” Federal Probation, 82.
Abstract: In many agencies, probation officers have been encouraged or been permitted to follow the job role of "referee." Because research links supervision effectiveness to officers having quality relationships with offenders, adopting a human service orientation, and using correctional skills, the authors propose that the job role of "coach" aligns more closely with this evidence.