145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSEFFECTIVE SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERS

Chris Trotter*

The first part of this paper outlines the sentencing options for adults and young people in Victoria,
Australia. Much of the factual material is taken directly from Correctional Services Victoria website and theDepartment of Human Services Victoria website. The second part of the paper focuses on effective practicein the supervision of offenders, including the practices which both motivate and encourage offenders to be
involved in programmes and which lead to reduced reoffending. Most of the material from the second partof the paper is taken from material in my 2006 book Working with Involuntary Clients (Allen and Unwin,
Sydney, also available in Japanese translation, Akashi Shoten, Tokyo) and from a chapter on ‘Involuntary
Clients in Corrections’ published in Rooney R (2009) Strategies for Work with Involuntary Clients (Columbia
University Press, New York).

I. CORRECTIONS IN VICTORIA
A. Sentencing Options for Adults (18 Years and Over)
Victoria has the following sentencing dispositions in the adult courts. Most Australian states have similar
options although there are variations from state to state.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Imprisonment
Combined Custody and Treatment Order
Drug Treatment Order
Home Detention
Intensive Correction Order
Suspended Sentence
Youth Justice Centre or Youth Residential Centre Orders
Community Based Order
Dismissal, Discharge and Adjournment
Fines

1. Imprisonment
Imprisonment may be for a specific term or may have minimum and maximum terms. If it has minimum
and maximum terms then the prisoner becomes eligible for parole following the completion of the minimum
term. Decisions about release on parole are made by a parole board chaired by a retired judge. If an offenderhas not been paroled in the past he or she will usually receive parole immediately after serving theirminimum term. If they have had previous paroles this may be delayed; however, a prisoner must be able toshow an address to go to following release and have a plan for their parole. Parole may include three months
of intensive supervision including community work, cognitive behavioural programmes or work related
programmes, drug or psychiatric programmes, or other conditions determined by the parole board.
2. Combined Custody and Treatment Order
A Combined Custody and Treatment Order (CCTO) combines an immediate term of imprisonment, ofat least six months, with a period of supervised treatment and urine testing in the community. It is aimed
towards offenders whose drunkenness or drug addiction contributed to the commission of their crime.
3. Drug Treatment Order
A Drug Treatment Order (DTO) combines a term of imprisonment with treatment, except the term of* Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.

27

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

imprisonment is suspended. A DTO can only be imposed by the Victorian Drug Court, a specialist court set
up to deal with offenders with drug addictions. A maximum two year sentence can be imposed as a DTO.
Successful completion of the treatment programme means the offender will not have to serve any time inprison; however, if the offender does not comply with conditions he or she may have to complete the termof the order in prison. There are regular meetings with the magistrate and counsellors as well as urine
tests for offenders subject to a DTO. A multi-disciplinary team consisting of a case manager, clinical adviser,
dedicated police prosecutor, defence lawyer and specialist community correction officers assist the Drug
Court Magistrate in the supervision of offenders placed on a DTO.
4. Home Detention
Home detention is a prison sentence that can be ordered to be served at home for up to one year.
Offenders and any other person who will be living at the house where the sentence will be served must
consent to the home detention order. The offender must agree to comply with any requirements orconditions imposed. Both the courts and the Adult Parole Board may direct offenders to home detention.
Serving prisoners may apply to the Adult Parole Board for consideration of home detention as a pre-parole
option. Home Detention Unit staff provide assessment reports to the courts or the Adult Parole Board
advising of the suitability of the offender for the programme. Violent and sex offenders are not eligible.
Family members and potential co-residents must give permission for the offender to serve home detention.
Offenders may still participate in employment, and maintain family and community ties, but their freedom issignificantly restricted. Offenders are subject to an electronic monitoring system, and must observe a strict
curfew and submit to random breath and urine tests. Offenders may be required to undertake programmes
to address offending-related behaviour, including attendance at education, training, unpaid community work,or counselling. Offenders have regular face-to-face meetings with their supervising officers, and must accept
random home visits from their supervising officer at any time.
5. Intensive Correction Order
An Intensive Correction Order (ICO) is a prison sentence, up to one year, served in the community. It
combines supervision, education and rehabilitative programmes and unpaid community work. Additional
conditions may be included.
6. Suspended Sentence
A suspended sentence is a prison term of up to three years which is suspended and served in thecommunity although part of the sentence may be served in prison.
7. Community Based Order
A Community Based Order (CBO) is a supervised sentence of up to two years, served in the community,with conditions combining treatment and unpaid community work.
8. Dismissal, Discharge and Adjournment(i) A dismissal is when the court finds an offender guilty of an offence, does not record a conviction anddismisses the offender without imposing any other sentencing option.
(ii) A discharge is when the court finds an offender guilty of an offence and records a conviction but thendischarges the offender without imposing any other sentencing option. The difference between a
dismissal and discharge is the recording of a conviction.
(iii) An adjourned undertaking is when the court finds an offender guilty and releases them into thecommunity unsupervised for a period of up to five years. An adjourned undertaking can haveconditions attached, with the most common being to be of good behaviour (i.e. not commit further
offences) for the duration of the undertaking.
9. Fines
Fines are monetary penalties. A person may also apply to have a fine served as a CBO.

B. Sentencing Options for Young People
Victoria has the following sentencing options for young people (under the age of 18).
1. Caution
A formal caution issued to a young offender by a senior police officer in the presence of a parent following

28

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

which no court proceedings are brought.
2. Undertaking
An undertaking is a promise made to the Court to be of good behaviour. It may either be oral or inwriting. It may result in re-sentence if not complied with.
3. Good Behaviour Bond
A good behaviour bond means the charge is adjourned upon a child signing a promise to be of good
behaviour and to comply with any special conditions imposed by the Court. Non-compliance with a bond may
result in re-sentence.
4. FineFine may include costs.
5. Probation
The child or young person is supervised by a probation officer and may be required to comply withspecial conditions imposed by the Court. The probation officer may be either a paid employee of Juvenile
Justice or an honorary probation officer.
6. Group Conference
A group conference is a formal meeting conducted by a mediator and attended by a young offender, his or
her parent or guardian and persons affected by the young person’s offending. The underlying philosophy is‘restorative justice’.
7. Youth Supervision Order
A youth supervision order is a sentencing order by which a child or young person is supervised by aprobation officer and may be required to comply with special conditions imposed by the Court. The level ofsupervision is generally higher than that involved with a probation order for a specified period.
8. Youth Attendance Order
A youth attendance order is a sentencing order by which a child or young person aged between 15 and 17
is required for a specified period to attend a youth attendance project for a maximum of ten hours per week
(a maximum of three attendances) of which no more than four hours may be spent in community service
activities.
9. Youth Residential Centre Order
A youth residential centre order is a sentencing order by which a child or young person aged between 10
and 14 is sentenced to be detained in a youth residential centre for a specified period.

II. TREATMENT AND SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERSTreatment and supervision is offered through most of these sentencing options including prison, treatment
orders and community based orders and for youths, for those on probation, supervision orders and attendanceorders. Offenders are required to attend for supervision and treatment under these sentences either on a
one to one basis or in groups. The treatment may be offered by Community Corrections Officers individuallyor in groups, or it may be offered by community based non-government organizations. In Victoria theseorganizations include, for example, the Victorian Association for the Care and Re-settlement of Offenders,
Salvation Army, Melbourne City Mission, and many others. There has been a great deal of research about
the effective supervision and treatment of offenders, particularly relating to how to reduce reoffending. The
remainder of this paper focuses on this research, including a practical example of how the effective practices
should be applied.

A. Effectiveness in Work with Offenders
In the 1960s and 1970s practitioners and academics in the field of corrections often accepted the‘nothing works’ view in relation to interventions in corrections. An extensive literature review by RobertMartinson and his colleagues (1975) supported the view that casework and other interventions which
aim to rehabilitate offenders seem to have little impact in terms of reducing reoffending rates. This view29

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

was supported by literature reviews about casework in general in the 1970s (e.g. Fischer 1973). During
the 1980s and 1990s the ‘nothing works’ view was increasingly challenged. It was argued that rather thancorrections interventions having no impact they in fact have an impact but this impact can be both positive
and negative. Some approaches or intervention methods lead to reductions in offending and some lead toincreases in offending. More recently it has been argued that the more effective interventions can reduce
reoffending by as much as 80 percent, with the average effective interventions resulting in 40 or 50 percent
reductions in offending (Trotter 1996a, Gendreau 1998, Andrews 2001). Since the early 1990s there havebeen more and more publications which offer literature reviews and meta-analyses of the ‘what works’
research. These reviews have argued on the basis of the research that corrections interventions can be
successful in reducing reoffending (for example, Andrews et al 1990, Izzo and Ross 1990, McIvor 1990, Mc
Guire 1995, Andrews and Bonta 1998, Dowden and Andrews 1999, Trotter 2006, Andrews 2001, Farrell
2002, Hopkinson and Rex 2003, McNeill 2003, Raynor 2003, Wing Hong Chui 2003).
The burgeoning ‘what works’ literature has been accompanied by an increasing willingness in many
places, in both community and residential corrections settings, to embrace rehabilitation alongside a law andorder and punishment agenda. Correctional systems in western countries seem to be increasingly punitive,
with rising numbers in incarceration, yet at the same time ‘what works’ conferences and rehabilitation
programmes are increasingly part of the corrections landscape.
What do the traditional literature reviews and the meta-analyses tell us about what works? In discussing
this I am primarily focusing on what works in the one to one supervision of offenders in community settings.
The principles apply generally however to institutional work and to work with groups of offenders.
1. Pro-social Modelling and Reinforcement
I have conducted two studies in corrections, one with juvenile offenders and another with adultoffenders, each of which found that probation officers and community corrections officers who scored highon the California Personality Inventory (CPI) Socialization Scale had offenders with lower reoffending
rates compared to those who scored low on the inventory (Trotter 1990, 1993, 2000). The Socialization
Scale measures the extent to which people have pro-social or pro-criminal attitudes. My studies suggested
that the more pro-social officers were more inclined than the less pro-social officers to model pro-social
behaviours, to focus on the pro-social behaviours of their clients and to appropriately challenge the procriminal comments of their clients. These practices were directly related to lower offending rates. Similar
outcomes were found in a study undertaken in Canada in the 1970s, although the Canadian study suggested
that it was also important for the probation officer to have high levels of empathy (Andrews et al 1979).
Pro-social modelling and reinforcement has been shown to be effective in a number of other studies
and it is included as one of the key components of ‘what works’ in most of the ‘what works’ reviews (forexample Gendreau 1998, Andrews 2001, Raynor 2003, McNeill 2003). One illustration of the power ofsimple modelling processes is seen in a study I recently completed in child protection (Trotter 2004). Whenchild protection clients indicated that their workers returned their phone calls, kept their appointments
and did the things they said they would do, the outcomes for the clients were much better than when theclients believed that their workers did not do these things. Client satisfaction was greater, worker estimatesof client progress were greater and cases were closed earlier. The results could not be explained by client
risk levels or other factors. It seems that the principles of pro-social modelling may be important not onlywith corrections clients but with involuntary clients in general. The pro-social approach which I have used in
my research and in workshops with probation officers includes four steps: (1) identifying clients’ pro-social
actions and comments; (2) rewarding the pro-social actions and comments; (3) presenting a pro-social model;and (4) challenging pro-criminal actions and comments.

(i) Identify Clients’ Pro-social Comments or Behaviours
Some examples of pro-social actions and comments include those related to compliance with the ordersuch as keeping appointments, being punctual, completing community work, not offending, and complying
with special conditions such as attending for drug treatment. Other client pro-social actions include working
through problem solving processes with the worker, accepting responsibility for offences, comments about
the harm that crime can do to others and oneself, empathy for the victim and comments that crime is wrong.
Other pro-social comments include those which value non-criminal activities and associations including

30

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

family, sport, non-criminal friends, hobbies and attending school or work. And comments which are fair, nonsexist and non-racist and which reflect optimistic attitudes, for example expressing a belief that life without
crime is achievable, that goals can be achieved, that workers can help, and that clients can change.

(ii) How do the Workers Reinforce these?
The first and most obvious method of providing re-inforcement is through body language (e.g. smiling,
attentive listening, leaning forward) and the use of praise. Rewards can also be provided by the worker
giving time to the client, attending court with the client and providing positive evidence, reducing thefrequency of contact, helping the client find a job or accommodation, doing home visits or meeting aclient outside the office, doing a positive report for a court or parole board, speaking to other agencies/
professionals such as social security or the police about the client’s needs or making positive comments infile notes.
The idea of pro-social reinforcement is that the rewards should be contingent on the behaviour. The
reinforcement should be offered clearly in response to the pro-social behaviour. The client needs to clearly
see the link. The clients should understand that the reduction in visits, the praise used by the supervisor
or a visit to court is directly linked to their pro-social behaviour, for example the fact they have kept
appointments, been punctual, been attending job interviews, and not reofffended. One of the most powerfulrewards available to a Probation Officer in his or her day-to-day work is the capacity to reduce the frequency
of contact. It is important in using this model to make the link between reduced frequency of contact andthe pro-social activities of the client. It should not be seen simply as usual procedure, it should be seen as
reward for good progress. In this way the client gains a sense that his or her goals can be achieved throughpro-social behaviour.

(iii) Model Pro-social Values
Pro-social modelling involves the worker keeping appointments, being punctual, honest and reliable,
following up on tasks, respecting other people's feelings, expressing views about the negative effects ofcriminal behaviour, expressing views about the value of social pursuits such a non-criminal friends, goodfamily relations and the value of work. It involves interpreting people’s motives positively e.g. “most police
are people trying to do a job and they have similar needs to most of us” rather than “all police are pigs”.
It involves being open about problems the worker may have had which are similar to the offenders e.g. “Ispent a period of time unemployed at one time and I found it depressing”. It also involves being optimistic
about the rewards which can be obtained by living within the law.
(iv) Challenge Pro-criminal Comments and Actions
How do more effective workers challenge or confront clients? The issue of confrontation in workwith involuntary clients is a complex one. There is little support in the research for aggressive or criticalconfrontation. A small qualitative study (Burns 1994) undertaken with probation officers in Australia
found that the more effective probation officers (those with clients who had low recidivism rates) focusedpretty much exclusively on the positive things that their clients said and did and made little if any use of
confrontation. My child protection study (Trotter 2004) found that confrontation which was most likely tobe related to positive outcomes was confrontation which: suggests more positive ways of dealing with thesituation, acknowledges that negative feelings may be justified and explores the reasons why clients feeland act the way they do. On the other hand, confrontation which gives the client a sense of being criticizedor confrontation which points out the likely ill effects of the clients’ views was related to poorer outcomes inthe view of both the clients and the workers. Ignoring pro-criminal or anti-social comments and actions was
also related to poorer outcomes in the study.
Care needs to be taken therefore in the use of confrontation. A Canadian study suggests a “four to one”
rule (Andrews 1982). For every negative comment give four positive ones. Evidence from my studies(Trotter 1996, 2004) certainly confirms that people are more likely to learn from positive reinforcement
rather than negative reinforcement.
2. Problem Solving
Effective interventions in corrections address the issues which have led offenders to become offenders.
The literature reviews and meta-analyses often refer to the concept of criminogenic needs. Criminogenic

31

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

needs are those needs or problems which are related to offending but which it is possible to change.
Obviously age, gender and prior criminal history relate to offending. They cannot however be changed. On
the other hand, employment, family relationships, drug use, peer group associations, housing, finances,pro-criminal attitudes, may all relate to offending and can be changed. These are criminogenic needs.
Criminogenic needs do not include intra-psychic issues such as anxiety, self esteem or depression, factors
which cannot easily explain offending behaviour (Gendreau et al 1998).
There seems little doubt that effective practice in work with offenders involves addressing the clients’
offence related problems or needs. My research suggests also that the problem solving process will be
more successful in reducing offending if the workers and the clients reach agreement on the problems to beaddressed and what it is hoped to achieve (Trotter 1996a, 2006). The general counselling literature is repletewith research studies which point to the importance of working with the client’s view of their problems (seefor example Hepworth, Rooney and Larson 2002 for more detail on this issue). It may be perfectly clear to
the worker that a particular young male client is persistently offending because of rejection by his family,
because of drug use or because of homelessness. However, until the client acknowledges that these areproblems for him then it is very difficult to work through the issues. Effective work in corrections involves
a collaborative approach which helps the client to acknowledge their offence related problems. It is also
important in work with offenders to canvas a range of potential offence related problems. Don Andrews(2001) suggests that the meta-analyses conducted by himself and his colleagues point to much greater
reductions in reoffence rates when as many as six problems are addressed in the intervention. I have argued
elsewhere that holistic approaches work best with involuntary clients (Trotter 2006) and work in corrections
is no exception to this. The problem solving model I have used in my research and work with probation staff
involves the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Problem survey
Problem ranking
Problem exploration
Setting goals
Developing a contract
Identifying strategies or tasks
Ongoing review.

3. Role Clarification
Much of the work with offenders involves what Ronald Rooney (1992) and Jones and Alcabes (1993)
refer to as client socialization, or what I have referred to as role clarification (Trotter 2006) - in other words
helping the client to accept that the worker can help with the client’s problems even though the worker has
a social control role. This involves exploring the client’s expectations, helping the client to understand whatis negotiable and what isn’t, the limits of confidentiality, and the nature of the worker’s authority. The stage
is set for effective work once the client begins to accept that the worker can help and once the worker andclient begin to reach agreement on the goals of the intervention.
4. A Balanced Approach – Social Control and Problem Solving
The research consistently suggests that interventions which focus exclusively on punishment or scaretactics lead to increased offending (e.g. Gendreau 1998, Andrews 2001). Similarly, interventions which focus
exclusively on developing insight or which focus exclusively on the client/worker relationship are unlikely
to be helpful (Trotter 1990, 1996b, Gendreau 1998). This was also evident in my recent child protection
study – when clients described their workers as helpers and investigators the outcome were substantiallybetter than when they saw them as either a helper or an investigator (Trotter 2004). Again it seems that the
principles of effective practice which apply to offenders may apply to work with other groups of involuntaryclients.
5. Focus on High Risk
Much of the literature talks about the importance of focusing on high risk offenders rather than low risk
offenders. It is argued that there is a relatively large group of offenders who are unlikely to reoffend andare unlikely to benefit from intensive intervention, whereas there is a smaller group of medium to highrisk offenders who are more likely to reoffend and more likely to benefit from supervision (see for example
Gendreau 1998). For this reason it is important to assess risk levels and to focus resources on medium

32145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

to high risk offenders. The issue of risk assessment is a complex one and it has its critics (see Robinson
2003 for a discussion about the issues). The primary criticism is that risk levels are often used as part of asentencing process and as part of a post sentencing method to provide for varying levels of supervision. Thiscan lead to offenders who are already disadvantaged getting harsher penalties. An offender who is homeless,without family support, with a drug or alcohol addiction, and without employment might receive a harsher
sentence or intervention than someone else who does not have these problems but has committed a similar
offence.
Nevertheless, it does seem to make sense to concentrate welfare or human service resources on higher
risk individuals who are likely to reoffend. To this end, a number of risk assessment profiles have beendeveloped for use by corrections services. One of the most popular ones is the LSIR (Level of Supervision
Inventory Revised) developed over many years by Don Andrews and James Bonta (1998). It is in use inmany probation and community corrections services in many English speaking countries, for example
Canada, USA, Australia and the United Kingdom. The LSIR, as well as providing a risk assessment, also
helps to identify criminogenic needs which can inform the problem solving process.
6. Programmes
A recent meta-analysis by Don Andrews and his colleagues suggests that structured learning
programmes may have the most potential for reducing reoffending (Andrews 2001). Community corrections
services around the world offer group and individual programmes based on the ‘what works’ principles.
These programmes, in the words of Peter Raynor (2003:79) “put together a series of planned andsequential learning opportunities into a cumulative sequence covering an appropriate curriculum of skills
and allowing plenty of opportunity to re-inforce learning through structured practice”. Research on one ofthose programmes, for example, the reasoning and rehabilitation programme, has shown promising results(Raynor 1988, Pearson et al 2002).
7. Other Factors
This is not an exhaustive list of ‘what works’ principles. The reviews refer to a number of otherpractices. For example ‘multi-modal’ approaches, which rely on a range of intervention methods, are likely
to be more effective than those which rely on only one method (Gendreau et al 1998). This is supported by
my study in probation which found that probation officers who used a range of skills, including modelling andreinforcing pro-social behaviours, role clarification and problem solving, had lower reoffence rates among
their clients than situations in which the workers made use of only one or two of the skills (Trotter 1996a).
There is also some support for working with families of young offenders (see Corcoran 2000 for a reviewof the evidence), for intervention methods which are implemented as they were intended and for matching
workers and clients according to learning style and personality (Gendreau 1998, Wing Hong Chui 2003).
Relationship skills are also referred to in some of the reviews (e.g. Gendreau 1998). I have not identified thisas a key skill or a key factor in effective practice because the evidence in relation to this area is somewhat
equivocal. Studies I have undertaken in corrections with both juveniles and adults have found that probation
officer empathy levels, for example, do not relate to reoffending rates (Trotter 1990, 1996a). Don Andrews
and his colleagues also found that high empathy workers only did better with their clients if they madeuse of the other skills (Andrews 1979). On the other hand, my study indicated that when workers madejudgmental comments about their clients (e.g lazy, no hoper) those clients were more likely to reoffend evenafter taking into account client risk levels. Certainly workers in corrections need to be able to listen to theirclients and to model appropriate behaviour.

III. TROTTER STUDIES
Outlined below are summaries of two studies I have undertaken in Victoria, Australia, the first in
probation (Trotter 1993, 1996a) and the second in child protection (Trotter 2002, 2004). The corrections
study was based on the hypothesis that probation officers who make use of the skills of role clarification,
pro-social modelling and reinforcement, collaborative problem solving and empathy will have clients who are
more likely to experience reductions in their problems and less likely to reoffend than clients of officers who
don't make use of these principles. A group of 30 probation officers was offered a training course in theseskills. Twelve probation officers agreed to make use of the skills with their next ten clients. The remaining
18 did not continue with the project for a number of practical reasons, for example they left their positions

33

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

or took extended leave. The study sample was selected using a systematic random method. It consistedof 104 clients of those probation officers who undertook the training and agreed to make use of the model.
The sample also included a control group consisting of 157 clients selected from the same offices as theexperimental group but with different probation officers. A sample of clients of those probation officers who
withdrew from the project but continued in the probation service (105) was also followed up; however, theresults for this group were very similar to the control group and are therefore not reported here.
Data was collected through a questionnaire to clients and an analysis of client files and police records.
The study found that:
1. File notes suggested that probation officers who completed the training and agreed to use the model
were significantly more likely to use the skills compared to probation officers in the control group. In
other words, probation officers were more likely to use the principles after training.
2. Clients receiving supervision from those probation officers who did the training and agreed to use
the model (the experimental group) were significantly more likely to report that their problems werereduced during the period of probation than clients in the control group. In fact almost twice as manyclients in this group, in comparison to the control group, reported that their problems relating to drug
use were reduced.
3. The reoffence rates for clients in the experimental group were significantly lower than for clientsin the control group after one and four years. For example, the imprisonment rate after one year forclients in the experimental group was almost 50 per cent lower compared with clients in the control
group. This is illustrated in the Table below.
Trotter (1996a) Offender imprisonment rates after one year and four years
Experimental group

Control group

1 Year (p = 0.04)

13/104 (12%)

33/157 (21%)

4 Years (p = 0.02)

27/104 (26%)

61/157 (39%)

4. The model was most effective with young, high-risk, violent and drug-using offenders.  
5. The use of pro-social modelling and reinforcement as revealed in file notes was consistently, strongly
and significantly correlated with lower reoffence and imprisonment rates.
6. The use of problem solving was related to reduced reoffending, although it was most influential in
improving compliance with the probation order (e.g. keeping appointments and special conditions).
7. The use of role clarification was correlated with lower reoffending but not at significant levels. Thismay be explained by the tendency of probation officers to discuss issues of role after the probation
officer became aware of reoffending.
8. Probation officer empathy, as measured by a psychological test and by comments in file notes, was
not related to client reoffence or imprisonment rates. However, judgmental comments in files (e.g.
no-hoper, lazy, liar) were related to increased reoffending even when client risk levels were taken into
account. Whilst officer empathy was not a factor in client reoffending, the extreme lack of it was.
9. The results of the study could not be explained by intervening variables such as frequency of contact
between workers and clients, client risk levels, or the experience or education of the probation
officers.
The results of this study are, I believe, persuasive, particularly given their consistency with the studies
cited earlier and the replicatory nature of the study. The results confirm the importance of workers
modelling and reinforcing clients’ pro-social comments and actions, and the use of collaborative problem
solving. Whilst the study is less persuasive in relation to role clarification, this seems to have been due to aparticular intervening variable. The study does not support the value of empathy, although it does suggestthat judgmental attitudes are related to poor outcomes. The second study (Trotter 2004) was undertaken
in child protection in the eastern region of Melbourne. The aim of the study was to consider the way inwhich child protection workers use the skills of role clarification, pro-social modelling, collaborative problem
solving and relationship skills of empathy, humour, self disclosure and optimism, and how use of these skills

34

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

relates to outcomes for clients. In order to gather the data, research officers interviewed 50 child protection
workers, 282 clients and observed 13 interviews between clients and workers. The outcome measures
included: (1) child protection workers’ estimates of the progress of the families with whom they worked; (2)the extent to which the clients were satisfied with the outcomes of the child protection intervention; (3) howlong the cases remained open; and (4) whether or not a child or children were placed away from the family
in a departmental facility (e.g. foster care) during the period of contact with the worker. When the workers
used the skills the outcomes were much better than when they did not use the skills. Some of the moreinteresting findings include:(1) The study supported the value of role clarification skills. For example, when clients saw their worker
as both a helper and investigator, those clients had good outcomes. Workers who talked about theirdual role as both helper and investigator and who were clear about their expectations, also hadclients with good outcomes.
(2) The study supported the value of pro-social modelling and reinforcement. For example, workers whomodelled simple courtesies such as keeping appointments, being punctual and doing what they say
they will do, had clients with particularly good outcomes.
(3) The study supported the value of collaborative problem solving. For example, workers who focusedon their clients’ view of their problems, who worked with their clients’ goals, and who carried out
some tasks themselves had clients with good outcomes.
(4) The study also supported the value of relationship skills. Workers who were optimistic, who listened
to their clients and who were not afraid to use humour and self disclosure had clients with goodoutcomes.

IV. AN APPLICATION OF BEST PRACTICE
The following two case studies present alternative ways of using a problem solving approach. The firstinterview focuses on what the worker believes is the primary criminogenic need, the client’s drug use. The
second interview focuses on working with the client’s view of the problem but working towards helping
the client to accept that her drug use is an issue which needs to be addressed. In the second interview the
worker demonstrates the skills of role clarification, pro-social modelling and reinforcement and problem
solving. The transcript is taken from a role played video tape on “Working with Involuntary Clients”
produced at Monash University. The probation officer was one of the probation officers in my corrections
study who had clients with low reoffending rates. In the first interview he is drawing on information about
the client’s problems, which was written in the file at the time of the initial assessment undertaken for the
court. The second interview reflects the way he usually works.
Problem Solving Interview 1
Probation Officer: Jennifer, thank you for coming back. You’ve been to correctional services twice now,the first time when you came in they went through a number of forms, we explained to you what you had
to do and when you have to come. When you saw me last time we talked about what my role will be andwe started to look at implementing some of the conditions on your order. What I want to do today is speak
to you about the problems you’ve got in your life and one of the things that you really need to address as amatter of urgency is the drug use because that will….
Jennifer: Yeah, but I mean I don’t think I’ve got a drug problem, I told you that when I first met you so, I
mean I don’t think it’s necessary to go into that.
Probation Officer: You committed offences and you committed offences in the past and they’re all drug
related so I think you’ve got a problem that you need to deal with.
Jennifer: Well, why do you think they’re drug related? I mean, who told you that?
Probation Officer: Well the information that was provided that you gave to the court was that it was drug
related and we need to deal with that fairly quickly. So, what I want to do today is look at that and startdealing with that in terms of getting the counselling arranged and getting the testing done and so on. Someof the other things that relate to your offending, that you’ve got problems with, are the accommodationdifficulties that you mentioned.
Jennifer: Yeah, that’s right, yeah.
Probation Officer: And the relationship with your boyfriend that you’ve had some difficulties with.

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: The other thing that was causing you difficulties was the relationship with your parents
and you mentioned that you didn’t have enough money to pay rent.
Jennifer: Yeah, well I don’t because I don’t have a job.
Probation Officer: Yeah and employment’s another one that we need to look at. So, what I want to do today
is, maybe I’ll just write those few things down so that we don’t miss any of them and we’ll talk about it inorder of priority. Remember last time we sort of made reference to the problem survey where we look at allof the things that are really causing difficulties in your life.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: And what I want to do today is talk to you about how we’re going to do that and I’ve
mentioned already that one of the more important ones is the drug use so I expect you to go to drug
treatment.
Jennifer: Yeah, I know you keep bringing it up. It seems to me you’re calling me a drug user and you don’teven know me. So, to me personally I think that finding a job is more important to me than what you’resaying.
Probation Officer: Yeah and I think that it’s great that accommodation and finding a job is important for you
but whilst you’re using drugs you’re going to get into more difficulties and if you get into more difficulties….
Jennifer: Well you don’t know I’m using drugs. How do you know that?
Probation Officer: I guess from the information that’s on file at the moment and the order that you’ve got
requires you to do it so you just have to do it. And the testing will then identify whether you’re using or not
and give me an indication anyhow. So once you’ve done a few tests we can see whether you’re still using ornot.
Jennifer: What kinds of drugs do the tests show?
Probation Officer: They’ll show up any drugs that you may be using. Prescribed medications, it might
be cannabis, it can be alcohol, it can be heroin, speed, any of the drugs that are available out there at the
moment. So, we’ll need to deal with that as a matter of priority because I don’t want you to get in further
trouble with the law. And the other thing is the next one we’re going to look at is the money side of it
because you mentioned earlier that you haven’t got enough money to pay for your rent.
Jennifer: Well that’s right. I don’t.
Probation Officer: Yeah. So you mentioned you need to go to community work so you may have difficulties
because you’ve got no money.
Jennifer: Yeah, which will make it hard for me to complete this order anyway.
Probation Officer: What do you think you can do about that?
Jennifer: About what?
Probation Officer: With the money side of it.
Jennifer: Well I don’t know. Hopefully find a job.
Probation Officer: Yeah, how would you go about doing that?
Jennifer: Well, I don’t know. I don’t have much skills.
Probation Officer: Have you looked for jobs before?
Jennifer: I’ve had a few jobs. Yeah. I haven’t worked for a long time though.
Probation Officer: Can you tell me how you went about doing that last time?
Jennifer: How to find a job?
Probation Officer: Yeah.
Jennifer: Usually basically just people that I knew who already work there got me the job.
Probation Officer: Yeah. And I understand you have to go to Centrelink on a regular basis as well and partof that is you need to look for work.
Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: So I expect you to continue that and keep looking for work that way. You might want tolook through the paper as well. We’ve got the local paper at the front in the interview room. You might want

36

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

to grab that and have a look at the employment section in that.
Jennifer: There’s not many jobs there though.
Probation Officer: But if you don’t go out and look though you won’t find any.
Jennifer: I don’t think they’ll hire me anyway.
Probation Officer: Why’s that?
Jennifer: I don’t have any skills. I’m on this order so they’re probably not going to want to hire a criminal
even though I don’t consider myself a criminal anyway. I mean I’ve never harmed anyone before in my lifeand I don’t intend to.
Probation Officer: It would have caused some harm doing the burglaries because there would have beensome victims in the process. You went in to somebody else’s house.
Problem Solving Interview 2
The following interview represents a more collaborative approach to the problem solving process. The
probation officer is talking to the same client. He is making use of at least some of each of the skills ofrole clarification, pro-social modelling, reinforcement and challenging, collaborative problem solving andrelationship-building.
Probation Officer: Jennifer, thank you for coming in today. You actually made it on time. We appreciate that.
Jennifer: I tried to, yeah.
Probation Officer: That’s good to see Jennifer. Just a recap from the last two sessions, the first time youcame to correctional services was when I took you through the induction process, where you filled in a
number of forms and got some clarification on what you need to do. And then you came back and saw me
three days ago and we talked a bit about what my role is in terms of supervising you on your order and wetalked about the two aspects of it. One part was that I supervised your order and made sure that you dothe things you’re expected to do and the other part that we talked about was that I’m also there to help you
identify what issues are in your life and how you want to work through those. Do you remember that?
Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: OK then. Jennifer what do you see are some of the issues that are impacting on your lifeat the moment?
Jennifer: I guess a lot has changed in the last couple of months. My boyfriend’s been put in jail. I think he’ll
be there for the next six or seven years.
Probation Officer: How do you feel about that?
Jennifer: Well, quite upset about that actually. I mean I don’t think he deserves such a harsh penalty forwhat he did.
Probation Officer: It was a serious offence, wasn’t it?
Jennifer: Well, I mean he shot the people whose house we burgled but he didn’t kill them. I mean otherpeople have murdered people and they’ve gone to jail for as long as him. I don’t think that’s the same thing.
Probation Officer: Still it’s a very serious offence, isn’t it?
Jennifer: I don’t think he meant to, you know, I don’t think he wanted to kill them.
Probation Officer: That’s probably reflected in the sentence as well. Because had the person died it would
have been a lot more serious.
Jennifer: Yeah, well it’s just made it hard because I’m on this order and they won’t let me see him at all, andwe’ve been living with these friends of his and ever since he’s gone to jail I just don’t feel comfortable living
there anymore, but I don’t really have much of a chance to leave because I don’t have any money.
Probation Officer: So Jennifer, one of the things you’ve mentioned is not being able to get in touch withyour boyfriend at the moment. Is that OK if I write that down?
Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: Just so that we don’t lose them all. We’ll deal with all of the things that are worrying
you. We’ll write it down and identify what all of the issues are and so we don’t forget any of them. OK what
are some of the other things?
Jennifer: Well, as I was saying I don’t really want to live where I’m living right now but I don’t have any
money to find another place to live because it’s for free, but ever since my boyfriend went to jail I just feel37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

like I’m not wanted any more because they’re actually friends with my boyfriend. I just met them throughhim so I wouldn’t mind finding somewhere else to live.
Probation Officer: Where have you lived in the past Jennifer?
Jennifer: Well, I left home when I was about fourteen.
Probation Officer: OK. That’s about four years ago now.
Jennifer: Yeah and I went to live with a friend of mine and her family for a couple of months after that andthen after that I sort of had an argument with her and I had to leave there and I lived on the streets for awhile, and then I met my boyfriend and he was living with these people and I moved in with them and that’s
where I’ve been ever since.
Probation Officer: And you need to look at some new place to live now, do you?
Jennifer: Yeah, well I’d like to.
Probation Officer: So, we’ll put that accommodation down as an issue that we might need to work on?
Jennifer: Yeah.
Probation Officer: OK. What are some of the other things that are worrying you at the moment?
Jennifer: Well I don’t have a job so I guess that’s the only way I can really get some money to find a place tolive.
Probation Officer: Have you been employed in the past Jennifer?
Jennifer: I have but I haven’t had really good jobs they’ve just been, you know, working in a milk-bar andwaitressing and stuff like that.
Probation Officer: Yeah, but you have been able to get a number of jobs.
Jennifer: Yeah, but they’ve never really lasted very long, only a couple of months.
Probation Officer: Is there any reason for that?
Jennifer: Well, the first job when I was working in the milk-bar, they thought that I was giving away freefood and stuff like that and the second job as a waitress, they thought that I was stealing everyone else’s tips
which is not true but they fired me for that.
Probation Officer: So, we can say that at this point we’ve got three issues. The first one is in relation to
your boyfriend, the other one was the accommodation and then you need to look at employment, finding a
job possibly. Anything else that’s affecting you at the moment Jennifer?
Jennifer: No, not really, no.
Probation Officer: In relation to the court order, there is some suggestions about drug treatment and theoffences seem to have some relationship to drug use. What do you think about that?
Jennifer: Well, when we were arrested apparently they found that I was under the influence of alcohol anddrugs.
Probation Officer: What sort of drugs?
Jennifer: Heroin.
Probation Officer: OK. And the offences were they committed to purchase more drugs? That yourboyfriend was involved in?
Jennifer: Well, yeah. And to buy clothes and food.

38

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Andrews D. (2001) ‘Effective Practice Future Directions’ in Sustaining Effectiveness in Working with
Offenders. Cognitive Centre Foundation, Cardiff.  
Andrews DA, Keissling JJ, Russell RJ, and Grant BA. (1979) Volunteers and the One to One Supervisionof Adult Probationers. Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services, Toronto.  
Andrews DA and Bonta J. (1998) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing Co.,
Cincinnatti.
Andrews DA, Zinger I, Hoge R, Bonta J, Gendreau P and Cullen F. (1990) Does Correctional Treatment
Work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28 3 369-401.  
Cullen F, Skovron S, Scott J, Burton V. (1990) Public support for correctional rehabilitation: The tenacityof the rehabilitation ideal. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 17:6-18.  
Dowden C and Andrews D. (1999) What works for female offenders: a meta-analytic review. Crime andDelinquency 45:438452.
Farrell S. (2002) Rethinking what works with offenders; Probation social context and desistance from
crime. Willon Publishing, Devon.
Fischer J. (1973) Is Casework Effective - A Review. Social Work Jan 1973 199-207.
Gendreau P, Cullen F and Bonta J. (1998) Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation incommunity corrections? Federal Probation , 58, 72-78.
Petersilia J. (1998) Community Corrections: Probation parole and intermediate sanctions. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Hepworth DH, Rooney RR and Larson JA. (2002) Direct Social Work Practice. Brooks Cole, California.  
Hood S. (1997) The purchaser/provider separation in child and family social work: Implications forservice delivery and for the role of the social worker. Child and Family Social Work 2:25-35.  
Hopkinson J Rex S. (2003) ‘Essential skills in working with offenders’ in Wing Hong Chui and Nellis M(2003) Moving Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. Pearson Longman, Essex UK.  
Izzo R and Ross R. (1990) Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents. Criminal
Justice and Behaviour 17:144-142.
Krane J and Davies L. (2000) Mothering and Child Protection Practice: Rethinking Risk Assessment.
Child and Family Social Work 5(1), 35-45.  
McGuire J. (ed) (1995) What works: reducing re-offending - guidelines from research and practice. Wiley,
Chichester.
McIvor G. (1990) Sanctions for serious or persistent offenders. Social Work Research Centre, Universityof Stirling.
McMahon A. (1998) Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t - Working in Child Welfare. Ashgate,
Aldershot.
McNeill F. (2003) ‘Desistance Focused Probation Practice’ in Wing Hong Chui and Nellis M. (2003)
Moving Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. Pearson Longman, Essex UK.  

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

Parton N and O’Byrne P. (2000) Constructive social work: towards a new practice. St Martin’s Press,
New York.
Pearson F, Lipton D, Cleland C, Yee D. (2002) The effects of behavioural/cognitive behavioural programson recidivism. Crime and Delinquency 48:3:476-496.  
Raynor P. (2003) ‘Research in probation; From nothing works to what works’ in Wing Hong Chui and
Nellis M. (2003) Moving Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. Pearson Longman Essex
UK.
Robinson G. (2003) ‘Risk and risk Assessment’ in Wing Hong Chui and Nellis M. (2003) Moving
Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. Pearson Longman, Essex UK  
Trotter C. (1990) Probation Can Work, A Research Study Using Volunteers. Australian Journal Of Social
Work Vol 43, No 2, 13-18   
Trotter C. (1993) “The Effective Supervision of Offenders” Unpublished PhD Thesis, LaTrobe
University, Melbourne
Trotter C. (1996a) The Impact of Different Supervision Practices in Community Corrections. Australianand New Zealand Journal of Criminology 29 1 29-46.  
Trotter C. (1996b) Community Corrections - Punishment or Welfare - A Book Review Essay.
International Criminal Justice Review 6 121-130.   
Trotter C. (2000) Social Work Education, Pro-Social Orientation and Effective Probation Practice.
Probation Journal 47:4:256-261.   
Trotter C. (2002) Worker style and client outcome in child protection. Child Abuse Review Vol 11:38-50.   
Trotter C. (2004) Helping Abused Children and their Families: Towards an Evidence Based Practice
Model. Allen Unwin, Sydney.
Trotter C. (2006) Working with Involuntary Clients. Second Edition, Sage, London, Thousand Oaks.  
Wing Hong Chui (2003) ‘What Works in reducing re-offending: Programs and Principles’ in Wing Hong
Chui and Nellis M. (2003) Moving Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. Pearson Longman,
Essex UK.   
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the work of Michael Scheel, who plays the probation officer, and Anna Tasevska,
who plays the client, in the role played interviews presented in this chapter. The script for the role play wasdeveloped by them.

40