2021/4/21

Keynote Presentation

Frank J. Porporino Ph.D.
Keynote Presentation
World Congress for Community Volunteers
Supporting Offender Reintegration

A Future for
Volunteers in
Probation Practice

Kyoto, 7 March 2021

Why Recognize Volunteers?
• Historically, volunteers originated the notion of community-based
support and supervision for offenders- In the US, 1841 … John Augustus; Father of probation- In the UK, 1887 … Police Court Missionaries• A driving force for reform of our institutionally developed approaches
for dealing with offending• Have stood steady in keeping the original spirit of understanding andsupport for offenders alive and well

Belief that the wayward
could be assisted“throughunderstanding,kindness, andsustained moral
suasion”’.

• But their contribution has not been recognized typically as either

essential or as evidence-based

World Congress for Community Volunteers

12021/4/21

Probation Practice … Limits and Constraints In the Western World• Efforts to Transform Probations Staff into ‘Agents of Change’ … have struggled to show clear impact
STICS; EPICS; STARR; Citizenship; PGI …etc.
•

What Happens … when we try to structure Probation Practice?
Some staff are able to learn new skills, others not so much;
Level of commitment varies considerably;
Some change in key ‘relational’ skills … but doesn’t last
Not much improvement in ‘therapeutic alliance’
When facing resistance … easily revert to surveillance/control•

Most recent evaluation studies have shown little impact on re-offending … especially when ‘going to scale’
E.G., Krimstics, Sweden

World Congress for Community Volunteers

Probation Practice … Limits and Constraints In the Western WorldKRIMSTICS Evaluation 24 Month Follow-Up• Efforts to Transform Probations Staff into ‘Agents of Change’… have struggled to show clear impact
120
STICS; EPICS; STARR; Citizenship; PGI …etc.
•

100

What Happens … when we try to structure Probation Practice?
100
Some staff are able to learn new skills, others not so much;
80
Level of commitment varies considerably;
Some change in key ‘relational’ skills … but doesn’t last
49.4
60
Not much improvement in ‘therapeutic alliance’
When facing resistance … easily revert to surveillance/control
40•

STICS PO's

Control

48.8

Most recent evaluation studies have shown little impact on re-offending … especially when ‘going to scale’
E.G., Krimstics, Sweden
200% RECIDIVISMWorld Congress for Community Volunteers22021/4/21

Probation Practice … in the Real World• ’Mass Probation‘ … unmanageable caseloads• The new ‘managerialism’ … focus on documenting vs. relating• Can we expect mastery of an array of ‘core correctional skills’ that have to be applied
judiciously and consistently?
• We may be demanding too much of PO’s in the real world context• And besides … steering offenders towards desistance requires more than a focus on‘personal change’

World Congress for Community Volunteers

Probation Practice … in the Real WorldA core message of the desistance paradigm is that there is more than one
type of ‘rehabilitation’ … not just the personal but the:• Social … about acceptance, belonging and new opportunities

Change In Identity• Legal … eliminating the stigmatizing and exclusionary effects of

A slow and evolving
process we can’t rushor force!

conviction• Moral … reparation and earning redemption as a citizen of goodcharacterVolunteers can serve as impartial ‘role models’ … catalysts andreinforcers for this identity change to emerge and strengthen

World Congress for Community Volunteers

32021/4/21

A Core Role for Volunteers in Probation Practice

Can Volunteers Do What
Probation Practice Strives To Do?

• Poorly coordinated, add-on Volunteer Schemes that are too short-term & under-resourced
tend to make little difference• But the VPO Model in Japan … serves as the ‘backbone’ for community support• Capitalizes on the energy, dedication and creativity of a mini-army of volunteers• Human spirit of wanting to ‘give back’• My exposure to VPOs in Japan led me to reflect on what may be the key elements

for success?

Time forConnection
SelfSustaining

Relational
Style

Service
CultureVPO Scheme as
Evidence-Based
Practice
Coaching &Mentoring

Community
Advocates

Practical
Assistance42021/4/21

Time forConnection

Benefit of only a few clients to deal with at a time
VPOs are at a satisfied and relatively relaxed stage of their life …
Time to listen to offenders … get to know them before beginning to give
advice or counsel
Motivational engagement attended to flexibly
At a ‘time’ and ‘place’ convenient to the individual offender …

World Congress for Community Volunteers

Time forConnection

Not forced engagement but a naturally evoked relationship between two
people, with different sets of experiences and backgrounds, where each
can learn from the other
Time allows trust to develop and trust becomes the fuel that powers prosocial influence
Offenders may experience a genuine and caring other, perhaps for the
first time in their lives
VPOs in turn receive an uplifting sense of having had a positive influenceon another … an uplift that may also infect the offenders they work with!

World Congress for Community Volunteers

52021/4/21

Relational
Style

Blending of a particular relational style emerges as key in mostethnographic studies of probation practice
Five dimensions (Lewis, 2016) … Acceptance, Respect, Support, Empathy
and Belief
Offenders need to be heard with respectful and genuine interest
The VPOs I met in Japan, perhaps in part because of their maturity andrange of life experience, seemed to me to exude a calm and responsive
relational style, effortlessly and naturally
Genuinely credible ‘message givers’
Able to create safety and encourage self-disclosure of meaningful andsensitive information

World Congress for Community Volunteers

Coaching
andMentoring

Coach = task or performance focused and present-oriented; helps you
cope with the challenges you are facing in the present
Mentor = person focused and future oriented ; cares about you, yourfuture and your long-term development
Mentor is able to ‘listen and understood me’; ‘build my confidence’ whileproviding advice, sharing knowledge and experiences, and gently
teaching to encourage self-discovery
Coach can be more directive in pointing someone to some desired end
resultWorld Congress for Community Volunteers

62021/4/21

Coaching
andMentoring

Offenders need coaching to deal with issues in the short-term that cancreate ‘clear and present danger’ …
But they also require mentoring over the longer haul since desistance isreinforced by the positive qualities of sustaining hope, maintaining astrong sense of self-efficacy, and re-defining one’s identity
The offender has to achieve at least some of their personal aspirations,both for new meaning and for gaining pro-social legitimacy
VPOs I met were clearly attuned to this dual role of Coach and Mentor …
able to easily oscillate from one role to the other

World Congress for Community Volunteers

Providing
Practical
AssistanceGood probation practice requires attention to timely, concrete andmeaningful practical assistance
VPO’s are well positioned to offer this …
Desistance is fueled by a sense of ‘agency’ … personally surmounting ones
obstacles or concerns … which then fuels further resolve
Probation Practice tends to ‘lead’ with standard solutions … rather thanoffering contextualised and individualized options
VPO’s are able to use their contacts, connections, and influence in thecommunity to give the right support, at the right time in the right way
VPO’s as ‘practical helpers’ perhaps one of their most important roles

World Congress for Community Volunteers

72021/4/21

Community
Engagers &Advocates

Community involvement is essential for full reintegration … yet
communities often reject and stigmatize offenders … wishing to keep themapart rather than to become a part of the community
More correctional services advocate … more communities tend to pushback
As respected community citizens & leaders … with status andconnectedness in their communities … VPO’s can counter these sentiments
and promote ‘joint responsibility’
VPO’s have entrenched themselves as local ambassadors, reaching out tothe community in a myriad of ways …
Momentum as ambassadors for a community-responsive reintegration
philosophy … locally and nationallyWorld Congress for Community Volunteers

SelfSustaining
Service
CultureProbation services often struggle in establishing and then sustaining aculture of committed service to clients; staff recruitment is an ongoingchallenge
Significant informal function of VPO’s in Japan is to recruit other VPOs …
VPO system effectively becomes self-sustaining …
VPO’s remain recognized, both locally and nationally, as members of a
dynamic National Association of VPO’s
With the full support of the much fewer Professional Probation staff, thecontinued networking of VPOs themselves becomes the glue keeping the
VPO scheme sustainable into the future

World Congress for Community Volunteers

82021/4/21

CONCLUSIONCan Volunteers Do What
Probation Practice Strives To Do?

• In the last few years, the offender-focused approach that developed so naturally with thetradition of the VPO scheme has been challenged as perhaps ‘too soft’• Difficulties in recruitment of new VPOs owing to the urbanization of Japanese society, thefracturing of community relations, and growing financial hardship among the elderly• Japanese society is changing and the VPO scheme will have to adapt and adjust to thosechanges

World Congress for Community Volunteers

CONCLUSION
Criminal justicepractice should not be
But the VPO model in Japan has been embedded as an seen as either soft or
hard …
innovative and evidence-based component ofcommunity corrections that should be applauded andemulated as much as possible … EVERYWHERE!
It is either smart,evidence-informed
and community
responsive … or NOT.
World Congress for Community Volunteers

92021/4/21

Keynote Presentation

THANK
YOU!

10

Frank J. Porporino Ph.D.
Keynote Presentation
World Congress for Community Volunteers
Supporting Offender Reintegration

A Future for
Volunteers in
Probation Practice

Kyoto, 7 March 2021

A Future for Volunteers in Probation PracticeIntroduction
In this short article I want to develop a core argument … that we should recognize not just thevalue but the evidence-base for a well-organized Volunteer Scheme that is fully integrated withProfessional Probation Practice and not just loosely appended as a ‘nice-to-do-if-we-can’approach. Of course, I will use the template of the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) scheme inJapan as an example which I believe shows us the way.
So here is my argument … which is based at least in part on my personal exposure to the Japanese
VPO scheme over the last number of years.
Community-based support for individuals who have fallen into criminal conduct was essentiallyoriginated by volunteers. In America, for example, John Augustus, a Massachusetts boot-makerby trade, is credited with being the ‘Father of Probation’. Augustus believed that abusers of
alcohol, and other unfortunates, could be rehabilitated ‘through understanding, kindness, andsustained moral suasion’. In 1841, Augustus attended a police court hearing to bail out a‘common drunkard’. The offender became the first probationer. He was ordered to appear incourt three weeks later for sentencing. He returned to court a sober man, accompanied byAugustus, and to the astonishment of the judge and all in attendance.

1

In the UK, the notion of Police Court Missionaries was created under the Probation of First
Offenders Act of 1887 enabling magistrates to refer offenders to a volunteer who would try ‘bypersonal influence, with material help, if necessary, to persuade those who had found their way
into the dock to lead a sober and steady life in the future’.1
Volunteers have made a long-standing and significant contribution in reforming ourinstitutionally developed approaches for dealing with offending, whether prisons or community
supervision practices. Importantly, volunteers have also stood steady in keeping the original
spirit of understanding and support for offenders alive and well. In many respects, volunteers
have always implored corrections to do more, and to do better in treating offenders with decency
and humanity. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the contribution of volunteers has not beenrecognized typically as either essential or as evidence-based. It has been seen, and continues tobe seen, more as a ‘nice to do’ adjunct to professional correctional practice rather than as acentral requirement for having true impact. I want to challenge that view in this presentation
and argue that what Professional Probation Practice struggles to do, Volunteers may be able todo – and indeed able to do well!
Probation Practice Can Make a Difference … But There Are Limits and Constraints
Probation practice has struggled to show any clear or consistent impact on re-offending. One
explanation arising out of the predominant RNR paradigm has been to argue that probation staff
don’t always work effectively as ‘agents of change’. Numerous efforts have been made over thelast several decades to structure and focus probation practice more deliberately towards
targeting what are commonly referred to as ‘criminogenic needs’ … for example, challenging
anti-social attitudes or relying on various CBT techniques to improve offender problem-solving,self-management skills … etc. Notable among these RNR-based training initiatives are theStrategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS) developed in Canada (Bonta et al.,2010; 2011; Bourgon et al., 2010), the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS)
developed by the University of Cincinnati (Smith et al., 2012), the Strategies Aimed at Reducing
Re-arrest (STARR) developed by the U.S. Federal Probation and Pretrial Services (Robinson et al.,2011), the Citizenship program developed in the United Kingdom (Pearson et al., 2011,) and thePractice Guide for Intervention (PGI) developed by Corrective Services New South Wales (Howard
et al., 2019). All of these initiatives have aimed to strengthen probation officers’ skills to more
effectively interact with clients in adherence to RNR principles. Major effort has been made toproperly design, implement and evaluate these quite intensive approaches to re-direct probation
practice. And so, in the end, what have we learned from these efforts?

1

British Social Work in the Nineteenth Century. By A. F. Young and E. T. Ashton. New York: The Humanities
Press, Inc., 1956.

2

As might be expected, there is considerable variation in how well probation staff can learn new
skills or become committed to applying them. It’s clear that some change in how staff relate withoffenders begins to be observed, but unfortunately it doesn’t always last (there is drift back topreferred ways). Though supervision sessions become more structured, there continues to be
only limited attention paid to establishing any kind of initial or lasting therapeutic alliance withclients. Despite training that points probation staff clearly to intervene more particularly withhigher-risk clients, when encountering resistance, intervention with these offenders is often
abandoned in favor of a surveillance/control mode of supervision. Perhaps most strikingly,
however, is the fact that despite numerous evaluation studies, evidence for any serious impact
in reducing re-offending has been sparse, especially when attempts are made in ‘going to scale’in an entire jurisdiction.
In a recent attempt to replicate their initial efficacy evaluation, Bonta et al. (2019) failed to finddifferences in recidivism rates as a result of STICS training. And a major replication of STICS in
Sweden, referred to as Krimstics, pilot tested and subsequently implemented nation-wide withmore than 700 probation officers over a 4-year period (2014–2017), was shown in a recent pilot
evaluation (Starfelt-Sutton et al., 2020) as having no measurable impact on reoffending (withreoffending of 48.8% for the experimental group and 49.4% for clients supervised by probation
staff in the control group).
Probation staff are typically resistant to imposed change in practice (Viglione, 2019; Viglione &Blasko, 2018)). Implementation is difficult and usually strains organizational capacity to monitor,
support and correct. Of course, a host of other real-world factors limit and constrain to what
extent probation staff can become primary ‘agents of change’ in community corrections. The
run-away train towards ‘mass probation’ has created unmanageable caseloads in mostjurisdictions around the world (McNeill & Beyens, 2013; Porporino, 2018), where supervision
often becomes a matter of simply requiring a periodic ‘check-in’, increasingly not even in person
but through a mobile app or at a kiosk. The growing managerial emphasis on efficiency andaccountability has steadily forced probation staff, quite grudgingly, to emphasize process andpaperwork, spending their time more on recording and documenting rather than relating andintervening (Norman & Ricciardelli, 2021). Welcoming probation staff to participate in codesigning incremental change in practice may be more successful (O’Connor et al., 2018), but afundamental question that remains is whether there are limits to how much probation practice,on its own, can contribute to reducing re-offending. The demands we make on our professional
probation services to steer offenders towards desistance are considerable. These staff have topossess and/or master an array of personal qualities and skills, and then learn to apply them
judiciously and effortlessly.
− They have to be able to clarify and get offenders to accept the duality of their role (to bothsupport and enforce compliance to supervision);− Serve as strong pro-social models and learn to consistently reinforce the emergence of prosocial thinking and behaving;3

− Learn to apply a variety of CBT techniques to teach problem-solving, decision-making andways of challenging maladaptive thinking and beliefs;− And they have to do all of this within a respectful and empathic ‘relational’ style that shows
sensitivity and understanding but while negotiating active participation, offering
encouragement that is perceived as genuine, and steadily promoting self-determination andchange in the offender’s self-identity.
We may need to accept that while some probation staff can rise to this mastery, others may
remain competent in what they do but not able do it masterfully. Added to this reality is the factthat true rehabilitation and reintegration requires more than just a focus on the ‘personal’
change in offenders that may or may not be realized.
The core message of the desistance paradigm, expressed most ably by Professor Fergus McNeil,highlights four distinct types of ‘rehabilitation’ – not just the personal – but the social, legal andmoral dimensions that have to work in the same direction (McNeill, 2006; 2012). The social
dimension is about acceptance, belonging and access to opportunities in one’s community.
Without enhancing the community’s ability to assimilate (and support) offenders towards
reintegration – perhaps no real rehabilitation is possible – no matter what we can do withprobation supervision. The legal dimension requires that we aim to eliminate the stigmatizing
and exclusionary effects of conviction. And the moral dimension speaks to the need forreparation in earning some form of redemption as a citizen of good character. In many respects,
I believe volunteers are better placed to help offenders realize these other forms of‘rehabilitation’.
Offenders ultimately can’t remain rehabilitated through sheer force of will – they need to see
movement towards successful social integration, citizenship and participation. The ‘desistance’
framework acknowledges that this fundamental change in identity is a slow and evolving processthat we can’t rush or force. Attitude change follows identity change, not the other way around.
But professional practice often is characterized by an urgency to request attitude change, tomonitor and overly emphasize (and even penalize) lapses, rather than accept and help re-aligneffort. Probation officers, moreover, are not attributed automatic pro-social legitimacy. They are
inevitably seen as working for the ‘system’, and having to enforce the rules of the system.
Volunteers, on the other hand, can serve as impartial role models, as the catalysts and thereinforcers for this crucial identity change to emerge and strengthen.
Can probation practice somehow incorporate the ‘force and influence’ of volunteers moredeliberately in order to legitimize their role in helping offenders move towards desistance? I wantto elaborate on why I believe a Volunteer Probation Officer scheme such as the one that Japan
has sustained for more than 60 years may offer a truly transformative, alternative model for
supporting probation practice.

4Can Volunteers Do What Probation Practice Strives to Do?
Japan has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world (45 per 1000,000) and it hasentrenched an approach to community supervision that is nothing short of bold and allencompassing. Now being emulated increasingly both in the Asean region and beyond, the wellestablished Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) scheme is not just considered an adjunct or minor
component of community corrections; it serves as its very backbone. The VPO model is uniquein capitalizing on the efforts and the energy of a mini-army of VPOs (more than 40,000) and it has
been referred to by some probation scholars as a ‘third sector template’ for probation practiceand delivery of community corrections services (Ellis, Lewis & Sato, 2011). Similar VPO schemes
have now been adopted in a number of countries (e.g., Thailand, Philippines, Kenya, Korea,
Singapore and China), but the Japanese VPO scheme remains the most impressive in both scale
and breadth of involvement of VPOs.
I first became aware of the Japanese VPO scheme a number of years ago when I had the privilegeof lecturing for UNAFEI at the one of their International Training Courses in Fuchu, Tokyo.
Fortuitously, I had the double privilege of meeting a group of Japan’s VPOs (‘hogoshi’) and wasable to visit a number of Japan’s Offender Rehabilitation Support Centers that are manned by
VPOs. A few years later, I was also invited to attend the Second Annual VPOs Meeting that washeld in conjunction with the Third World Congress on Probation where hundreds of VPOs werein attendance from both Japan and internationally.
As I interacted with these VPOs and listened to their stories about why they had become involvedin this work, I was touched by the repeated theme of wanting to give back to their communities
and assisting others who had been less advantaged in their lives. In their recounting of a numberof case histories of clients they had worked with, I was left awestruck by the warmth andcompassion that was expressed, the level of commitment to help re-direct individuals who were
stuck in living often lonely and chaotic lives, the intuitive understanding of what might have ledthese individuals into pathways of crime, and the patience and optimism to stick with it despite
the usual setbacks. What could account for this kind of very human spirit and dedicatedenthusiasm in spite of the fact that they were working with difficult individuals who faced very
difficult circumstances with multiple issues and needs and a history of failure that could be
expected to have crippled their resilience to bounce back and try to improve their lives? Why
were VPOs in Japan able to engage so well with offenders, and why in turn did they seem to get
so engaged by this work, receive satisfaction and remain so personally committed over time. My
reflections led me to ask whether this kind of reliance on volunteers could have implications forthe transformation of probation practice more broadly.
We know what doesn’t work with volunteer schemes in criminal justice. Schemes that are too
short-term, under-resourced, not well coordinated or supervised, where volunteers are
inadequately trained, and where there is inconsistent and/or lack of any intensive contact with5

offenders tend to make little difference. But reverse all of these conditions and impact begins toappear in clear and measurable ways (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007). 2
I’m going to argue that the VPO model in Japan give us some insight into at least six essential
elements of successful volunteer support initiatives … and argue further that these elements are
fully consistent with the evidence-base we have about ‘what works’ in community supervision.
DEVOTING TIME FOR CONNECTION
You can’t help if you don’t connect …
In contrast to professional community justice workers who have to deal with ever growing
caseloads where they are bombarded every day with some client crisis or problem and where
they have to squeeze in time on their schedules to have some personal contact with theiroffenders, in between the paperwork they have to negotiate, and the meetings they have toattend, VPOs have the luxury of only a few clients they deal with at a time. The majority of VPOs
in Japan are in their elder years (averaging about 65 years old). They are recruited with theunderstanding that they will have the time and energy to devote to their VPO duties. Most ofthese VPOs are retired, are both financially and emotionally stable, in good health, undistracted
by the usual stresses of earlier stages in life, having left behind productive careers, not needing
to worry about earning further income, and looking for some meaningful way to still ‘make adifference’. With relative peace and clarity of mind, they have the time to listen to offenders,
get to know them, and get to connect with them before beginning to give advice or counsel.
The initial motivational engagement phase of working with offenders, considered so crucial in allof the literature on effective practice in corrections, does not have to be rushed. It can beattended to flexibly, and it can begin to occur both at a ‘time’ and ‘place’ convenient to theindividual offender – not just in the probation office at a given time on a given day, but in a coffee
shop, a park, or even in the VPOs own home over a cup of tea. This is not forced engagement
following some structured motivational technique but rather naturally evoked engagement
between two people with different sets of experiences and backgrounds where each can learn
from the other.
Though the notion of ‘respect for the elderly’ in Japan may enter the dynamic, more likely is thefact that the absence of any power imbalance, as in the classic probation officer dilemma of being
both enforcer and supporter, allows for a more human connection to take place. Time allows
trust to develop and trust becomes the fuel that powers pro-social influence. From theoffender’s perspective, as trust unfolds, there is no ambiguity or suspicion about the VPOs
2 Another good example of a well-coordinated volunteer effort that originated in Canada and is now spreadinginternationally is the Circles of Support and Accountability (C.O.S.A.) framework where a group of well trained andcarefully screened volunteers (up to 5 or 7) become a ‘circle’ of 24/7 support for a given offender, and where theoffender meets with the circle as a group and then again individually with each circle member as often as once aweek (Wilson et al., 2009).

6

motives. The VPO becomes seen as a steadfast and non-judgmental ‘helper’ pure and simple, inan uncomplicated relationship-building process, where the offender may genuinely experience a
caring other, perhaps for the first time in their lives. VPOs in turn receive an uplifting sense of
having had a positive influence on someone else’s life. The literature on aging is clear on theimportance of social networks as a protective factor for the elderly. The relationships VPOs
nurture with their offenders, and with their fellow VPOs, undoubtedly contribute to a zest forliving a continued and worthwhile life … a zest that may also infect the offenders they work with.
A SUPPORTIVE AND RESPECTFUL ‘RELATIONAL’ STYLE
How you relate determines how others will respond …
In a number of early ethnographic studies of probation practice (Bailey & Ward, 1992; Ditton &Ford, 1994; Rex, 1999), a particular blending of style and skills emerged as core in importance inworking effectively with offenders. More recent research looking at variation in the ‘relational’
skills of probation staff shows clearly that more ‘relationally’ skilled supervision is more effective(Chadwick et al., 2015). Contemporary notions of ‘motivational’ practice point to the same
qualities (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; McMurran, 2002; Porporino & Fabiano, 2007; Prochaska &Levesque, 2002; Stinson & Clark, 2017). A recent qualitative study of probation practice (Lewis,
2014; 2016), that is fully consistent with other studies looking at probation officer qualities
influencing desistance (Robinson et al., 2014), has narrowed in on 5 key dimensions --acceptance, respect, support, empathy and belief. It is this adroitness in enabling a positive
relational climate with the offender that in turn can effect a significant change in beliefs andbehavior. The conclusions from all this research are strikingly consistent … a ‘relational
revolution’ is needed in criminal justice where offenders are given opportunities to project their
voice and be heard with respectful and genuine interest so as ‘to alleviate feelings of social
exclusion and reconsider their identity’ (Lewis, 2016, p. 163). This is fully in accord with theprinciples of the ‘desistance’ paradigm that calls for far more attention on the factors that canhelp offenders find their way ‘out of crime’ rather than the just the risk factors that havepropelled their lives ‘into crime’ (Porporino, 2010; Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004; McNeil, Raynor& Trotter, 2010). The VPOs I met in Japan, perhaps in part because of their maturity and rangeof life experience, seemed to me to adopt a calm and responsive relational style, effortlessly andnaturally, that could help offenders navigate through their struggles. To breakthrough crediblywith offenders, the message giver may have to display certain characteristics, and be able todeliver the message in a trusting interpersonal relationship, where it may be seen as safe to selfdisclose meaningful and sensitive information. The VPOs I met impressed me as these kinds of
genuinely credible ‘message givers.’

COACHING TO SUPPORT AND MENTORING TO INSPIRE
Coach me to deal with the NOW; Mentor me to imagine my FUTURE …
In the business management literature, a distinction is made between the focus of ‘coaching’ and7‘mentoring’ (McCarthy, 2014). The terms are often confused in criminal justice. In summary,the mentor in the leadership development literature is seen generally as person-focused andfuture-oriented; the coach, on the other hand, is seen as task or performance-focused and mostly
present-oriented. The mentor is someone who is personally involved and displays an obvious
personal interest – in a sense a respected ‘friend’ who cares about you, your future and yourlong-term development. On the other hand, the coach concentrates on helping you develop
specific skills for the task, and coping with the challenges and performance expectations that you
are facing in the present.
The most distinguishing features of the mentor is how they are able to ‘listen and understoodme’ and how they can ‘build my confidence and trust in myself, and empower me to see what I
can do.’ The mentor serves as a sounding board, creating a two-way mutually beneficial learning
experience where the mentor provides advice, shares knowledge and experiences, and gently
teaches in a Socratic questioning style to encourage self-discovery. A coach can be more directivein pointing someone to some end result. Though the other may choose how to get there, thecoach should be strategically assessing and monitoring progress and giving advice for
effectiveness and efficiency.
One has to stretch very little to appreciate the fact that one of the essential skills that VPOs
should master is the ability to oscillate between being both ‘coach’ and ‘mentor’ to the offenders
under their care. Again, in my interactions with the VPOs I met, I saw evidence that theyremained attuned to both of these aspects of their work. Offenders need coaching to deal withthe many facets of their lives, in the short-term, that can create ‘clear and present danger’ – areturn to substance abuse, managing their emotions and especially their anger and depression,
dealing with conflict with loved ones, boredom, the discouragement of continued unemployment…etc. Coaching offenders with realistic options and strategies they can use to cope with (andhopefully resolve) their issues can be clearly invaluable. The coaching is unlikely to take hold asa one-shot intervention. But repeating and reinforcing, clarifying and adjusting, and helping theoffender remain positive even in the face of inevitable setbacks, is the kind of supportive ‘stickto-itiveness’ that I noticed in the case histories that VPOs presented on that afternoon in Tokyo.
Beyond the coaching effort, where the need to do it becomes almost immediately apparent in
beginning to work with offenders, mentoring begins to take center stage as the relationshipunfolds and offenders begin to find some semblance of stability in their lives. Once again owing
to a combination of their age, their life accomplishments, their experience and their intimate
knowledge of the community context and the opportunities it can present, VPOs in my viewillustrated the potential to serve as powerful and empowering role-models. They could nudge
and influence offenders in realizing they can achieve not just basic adjustment – but their fullpotential. A consistent finding in positive psychology is that ‘implementation planning’ (the how,when, and where of goal pursuits) works only when there is strong autonomous motivation to
strive for the goal, and when consistent approach-oriented strategies are applied. In working
with offenders, it means that we should be helping them with their planning skills for the future,practically and concretely, and that we should remain by-their-side as their approach-goals
emerge, and not just be there to admonish and call out what they should avoid.
8

One of the essential tenants of the ‘desistance’ paradigm is that over the longer haul what will
support desistance are the positive qualities of sustaining hope, maintaining a strong sense of
self-efficacy, and re-defining one’s sense of self and identity. This necessitates that the individual
achieves at least some of their personal aspirations, both for new meaning and for gaining prosocial legitimacy (Porporino, 2010). The VPOs I met seemed to be acutely aware of this basic
tenet of the Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002).
PROVIDING MEANINGFUL PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE
Give me food and shelter before you give me INSIGHT …
In the case histories that the VPOs presented that afternoon in Tokyo, there was repeatedemphasis on efforts made to give offenders some level of ‘practical assistance’ (e.g., a suggestion
or referral for possible employment, a place to sleep for the evening, a warm meal,transportation, help in acquiring some official document, support in entering a substance abuseprogram … etc.). We know that desistance seems to be accompanied by active, offender-led,agentic resolution of social obstacles (Farrall, 2002; 2004). It is this sense of ‘agency’ experienced
by the offender -- where they feel they have been able to personally surmount some significant
concern or obstacle in their lives -- that in turn seems to strengthen motivation and resolve evenfurther (Burnett & Maruna, 2004). Curiously, much of our standard community supervision often
fails to recognize (or is unable to respond to) the often indirect or vague requests for practicalassistance received from offenders. Instead, supervision tends to lead with standard options
rather than compliment emerging offender ‘agency’ motives with timely and contextualizedpractical support (McNeill, 2006). To paraphrase a dictum regarding what works generally inintervention, for support to make a difference, it has to be the right support, offered at the righttime, and in the right way. In the end, the individual should believe that though the support was
helpful, it was their own efforts that made the greatest difference.
As I listened to my group of VPOs, I began to appreciate how they fully accepted their role as‘practical helpers’ – who should use their contacts, their connections, and their influence in thecommunity to help offenders surmount some of their key obstacles and deal with some of theirmost immediate concerns. These VPOs moreover seemed to understand the importance of‘agency’ and how it can ‘lift the individual up’ -- perhaps because ‘agency’ had been so importantin their own lives. Even in their elder years, these were individuals who took control of their lives
and agreed to take on a significant new challenge as VPOs. A good deal of ethnographic researchon probation practice points to the fact that ‘good’ practice should remain attuned to giving
timely, concrete and meaningful ‘practical support’ that can begin to improve the quality of life
for offenders, even if only in small ways (Farrall, 2004; Mair, 2004; Robinson et al., 2014). VPOs
seemed to me to be ready, willing and able to play this role.
VPOS AS COMMUNITY ENGAGERS AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATES
You can’t engage your community if you don’t know your community …
9

There is clear and unambiguous evidence to support the buttressing of active community
involvement for successful offender reintegration. For example, over a period of more than adecade, the well-respected Urban Institute in America conducted perhaps one of the mostcomprehensive evaluations ever of prisoner reintegration initiatives across the nation. They
explored the pathways for successful reintegration and concluded that when key elements are
addressed – in the areas of employment, housing, substance use, physical and mental health,family, and community supports – success is consistently improved.3
Most communities in most parts of the world are still restrained by the attitude that offenders’
well-being and adjustment is a correctional services responsibility and not a community
responsibility. Because of their status and their interconnectedness in their local communities,
VPOs in Japan are ideally positioned to counter this sentiment and to promote instead the
proposition that the responsibility is joint. When the community gets involved and the offender
succeeds, it is both the community and the offender that benefit. VPOs in Japan have entrenchedthemselves as local ambassadors, reaching out to the community in a myriad of ways – in all of
the various community events they participate in, social gatherings they attend, discussions they
have with their neighbors, presentations they make to other association meetings, contacts they
have with employers and business people, the exposure they may get in the local media … etc.
There is an unleashing of energy and creativity needed to engage communities and help themsee that offenders, with the right support, can indeed become an asset instead of a liability.
Government institutions have a difficult time to orchestrate this kind of momentum. Though it
may perhaps be difficult to measure how and how much, I am convinced that VPOs in Japan are
creating this momentum, as ambassadors for a community-responsive, reintegration philosophy
for corrections, both at the local and national level.
A SELF-SUSTAINING CULTURE OF SERVICE: VPOS AS RECRUITERS OF OTHER VPO’S
We reap what we sow …
The last stage in implementing effective practice is often the most difficult. Once good practicehas been entrenched, it has to be sustained. Too often in corrections we fail to sustain effective
practice and it ends up becoming fragmented, spotty in quality and generally truer ‘on paper’
than in reality (e.g., outlined only in policy). Establishing and preserving continuity for an
overarching culture of committed service to clients is especially difficult.
One of the most significant informal functions of VPO’s in Japan is to look for, identify and recruitother VPOs. In most correctional jurisdictions, recruitment of volunteers (not to mention theright kinds of staff) is an up-hill struggle. Recruiting the kinds of volunteers is even more difficult.
The public has a stereotyped view of offenders, often assuming them to be dangerous,
unpredictable and uncooperative. Some volunteers may be attracted more because they are
3 For a summary listing of research reports, see: http://www.urban.org/center/jpc/returning-home/publications.cfm

10

curious or intrigued – and not because of any particular dedication to support and assist others
who are troubled and disadvantaged. Because they have done the work, VPOs are more likely tohave a deep appreciation of the characteristics and qualities that are needed. They can remainalert in looking for, identifying, educating, informing, and encouraging others to take on the role
of VPO. From personal experience and real examples, they can point to what makes the work
both rewarding and meaningful. The VPO system becomes self-sustaining, with one generationof VPO’s recruiting and then guiding and advising the next generation in order to preserve aculture of service.
Noteworthy is the fact that being appointed as a VPO in Japan also carries some level of prestige.
For example, individuals who apply to become VPO’s are screened and then officially appointed
by the Ministry of Justice. They became part of a ‘community of VPO’s’ both locally and nationallyas members of a recognized, structured and rather dynamic National Association of VPO’s. The
system, in essence, is effectively and easily sustainable because it feeds and nourishes itself. Of
course, Professional Probation staff also play an active role in continuing to engage VPOs throughvarious training seminars, encouraging the sharing of practice-based experience in treatment
meetings held at Rehabilitation Support Centers, and in recognizing the work of outstanding
VPOs with recommendations for particular commendations. But it is the continued networking
of VPOs themselves that seems to be the glue keeping the VPO scheme dynamic in the present
and sustainable for the future.

CONCLUSIONA VPO who wanted to share her experiences presented a short case study at the Third World
Congress on Probation that perfectly illustrates the potential force and influence of these
dimensions of practice that I have just outlined. The case was about a young offender who had
a very difficult and rebellious early adolescence and fell into drug use. The VPO worked with theyoung man for a lengthy period seeing him regularly every week and thinking she had establisheda good relationship. The young man was working and going to school. However, in time herelapsed back into drugs and one day assaulted a peer. He was sent to training school. The VPO
was disappointed but thought there was nothing more she could do. But the young man’smother visited the VPO at her home and asked that she not abandon her son. So, she didn’t. She
visited the young man every week once again while he was in training school. As the young man’s
release approached, she advocated with the young man’s previous employer to re-hire him. The
employer obliged. The young man did exceptionally well this time around, completed his
probation period, and he continues to visit the VPO to give her the occasional update concerning
his life. The VPO concluded that she learned to not give up and that everyone can change if
someone ‘stays by their side’.
In the last few years, the relatively informal, supportive, offender-focused approach thatdeveloped so naturally with the tradition of the VPO scheme in Japan has been challenged asperhaps ‘too soft’. It has also been noted that recruitment of new VPOs is becoming increasingly
difficult owing to the steady urbanization of Japanese society, the fracturing of community
11

relations, and a situation of growing financial hardship among the elderly. Japan is among themost quickly aging countries in the world. Japanese society is changing and the recruitment of
VPOs will have to adapt and adjust to those changes. Whether VPOs will be able to counteract
public perception and remain dedicated to their original goals and aims will remain to be seen.
Whether government, in concert, will be able to work to support these original goals and aims,
and see them for the ‘evidence-informed’ practice that they really are, will also remain to be
seen. Criminal justice practice should not be categorized as either soft or hard. It should be seen
as either smart, evidence-informed and community responsive – or NOT.
When we cut through to the core of all the research and all the theorizing about ‘What Works’with offenders, one conclusion comes to the forefront. Corrections is fundamentally about how
to influence change in others through the building and leveraging of relationships. When we getthis right, whether in prisons or in community contexts, we can help transform lives. This is whatmakes corrections a noble profession and this is what makes the VPO model in Japan an
innovative, far-reaching and important component of community corrections that should bepreserved, applauded and emulated wherever and however possible.

References
Bailey, R. and Ward, D. (1992) Probation Supervision: Attitudes to Formalised Helping. Belfast:
Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
Bonta, J., Gourgon, G., & Rugge, T., Scott, T-L., Yessine, A.K., Guitierrez, L. & Li, J. (2010): The
Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the RealWorld. Public Service Canada.
Bonta, J., Gourgon, G., & Rugge, T., Scott, T-L., Yessine, A.K., Guitierrez, L. & Li, J. (2011) An
experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community
supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 38. 1127-1148
Bonta, J., Rugge, T., Bourgon, G., & Wanamaker, K. A. (2019). A conceptual replication of theStrategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS). Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 15, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292019-09371-4
Bourgon, G., Bonta, J, Rugge, T. and Gutierrez, L. (2010). ‘Thechnology transfer: the importanceof ongoing clinical supervision in translating ‘what works’ to everyday community supervision’ in
McNeill, F., Raynor, R. and Trotter, C. (Edts). Offender Supervision. New directions in theory
research and practice. Willan, 91-112.

12

Burnett, R. and Maruna, S. (2004) So ‘prison works’, does it? The criminal careers of 130 men
released from prison under Home Secretary Michael Howard. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,43, 390-404.
Chadwick N., Dewolf A. & Serin R. (2015) Effectively training community supervision officers: ameta-analytic review of the impact on offender outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(10):977-989.
Ditton, J. and Ford, R. (1994) The Reality of Probation: A Formal Ethnography of Process andPractice. Aldershot: Avebury.
Ellis, T., Lewis, C., and Sato, M. (2011) The Japanese Probation Service: A third sector template?
Probation Journal, 58(4):333-344.
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context andDesistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan.
Farrall, S. (2004) Supervision, motivation and social context: what matters most when
probationers desist. In G. Mair (Ed.) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan.
Howard, M., Chong, C.S., Thaler, O. & Tran, N.L. (2019) Innovations in a model for enhancing the
behavior change content of supervision with community-based offenders. Advancing Corrections
Journal, Edition # 7, 71-83.
Jolliffe, D. and Farrington, D. (2007) A Rapid Evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on
re-offending a summary. London: Home Office RDS.
Labrecque, R. M., Smith, P., & Luther, J. D. (2015) A quasi-experimental evaluation of a model ofcommunity supervision. Federal Probation, 79(3), 14–19.
Lewis, S. (2014) Learning from success and failure: Deconstructing the working relationshipwithin probation practice and exploring its impact on probationers, using a collaborative
approach. Probation Journal, vol. 61 no. 2, 161-175.
Lewis, S. (2016) Therapeutic Correctional Relationships: Theory, Research and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Mair, G. (Ed.) (2004) What Matters in Probation. Cullompton: Willan.
Maruna, S & Immarigeon, R. (2004) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender
Reintegration. Cullompton: Willan.
Miller, W.R., and Rollnick, S. (2002) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change
Addictive Behaviours, Second Edition. New York: Guilford Press

13

McCarthy, G. (2014) Coaching and Mentoring for Business. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.
McNeill, F. (2012) Four forms of 'offender' rehabilitation: towards an interdisciplinary
perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17 (1). pp. 18-36.
McNeill, F. (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 6, 39-62.
McNeill, F., & Beyens, K. (2013) Introduction: Studying mass supervision. In F. McNeill & K.
Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan.
McNeill F., Raynor P., & Trotter C. (eds.) (2010) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory,
Research and Practice. Abingdon: Willan.
McMurran, M. (Ed.) (2002) Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide to Enhancing Engagement in
Therapy. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Norman M., & Ricciardelli R. (2021) Operational and organisational stressors in community
correctional work: Insights from probation and parole officers in Ontario, Canada. Probation
Journal. February, 2021. doi:10.1177/0264550520984253
O’Connor, T., Bogue, B., Collins, S., & O’Connor, S. (2019) Staff development and practicemodels: When we get better our clients get better. Advancing Corrections Journal, Edition # 8,
8-27.
Pearson, D.A.S., McDougall, C., Kanaan, M., Bowles, R.A., & Torgerson, D.J. (2011) Reducing
criminal recidivism: Evaluation of Citizenship, an evidence-based probation supervision process.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 73-102.
Porporino FJ. Developments and challenges in probation practice: Is there a way forward forestablishing effective and sustainable probation systems? European Journal of Probation.
2018;10(1):76-95.
Porporino, F. (2010) Bringing Sense & Sensitivity to Corrections: From Programs to ‘Fix’ Offenders
to Services to Support Desistance. In Brayford,J., Cowe F., & Deering,J. (Eds.) What Else Works?
Creative Work with Offenders. London: Willan Publishing
Porporino, F. & Fabiano, E. (2007) Case Managing Offenders Within a Motivational Framework.
In G. McIvor & P. Raynor (Eds.) Developments in Social Work with Offenders. London: Jessica
Kingsley.

14

Prochaska, J.O. and Levesque, D.A. (2002) Enhancing motivation of offenders at each stage ofchange and phase of therapy. In M. McMurran (Ed.) Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide to
Enhancing Engagement in Therapy. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Rex, S. (1999) Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. The Howard Journal, 38(4),366-383.
Robinson, C. R., Vanbenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). A random(almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrests (STARR): Reducing recidivism
through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2), 57–63.
Robinson, G, Priede, C., Farrall, S. Shapland, J. and Fergus McNeill, F. (2014).Understanding‘quality’ in probation practice: Frontline perspectives in England & Wales. Criminology andCriminal Justice, 14: 123-142.
Starfelt Sutton LC, Dynevall M, Wennerholm J, et al. Evaluation of the Implementation of a RiskNeed-Responsivity Service in Community Supervision in Sweden. Criminal Justice and Behavior.
September 2020. doi:10.1177/0093854820958744
Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation
officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(2),189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/07356
48X.2012.674826
Stinson, J.D. and Clark, M.D. (2017) Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: Engagement,
Rehabilitation and Re-entry. New York: Guilford Press.
Viglione, J. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the
principles of effective intervention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655–673.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818807505
Viglione, J., & Blasko, B. L. (2018). The differential impacts of probation staff attitudes on use ofevidence-based practices. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(4), 449–458.
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000180
Ward, T. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises and problems.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(5), 513-528.

15