U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

A Guide for Probation and Parole


O F F E N D E R S T O C H A N G E 
U.S. Department of Justice


National Institute of Corrections


320 First Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20534 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director 

Thomas J. Beauclair 

Deputy Director 

George M. Keiser 

Chief, Community Corrections/Prisons Division 

Michael Guevara 

Project Manager 

National Institute of Corrections 

http://www.nicic.org 
A Guide for Probation and Parole


O F F E N D E R S T O C H A N G E 

S C O T T T. WA lT E R S , P H . D .


M i C H A E l D . C l A R k , M . S . W.


R Ay G i N G E R i C H , B . A .


M E l i S S A l . M E lT z E R , M . A . , M . P. H .


J u N E 2 0 0 7


NiC Accession Number 022253

This publication was developed through funding from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department 

of Justice. Points of view stated in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the National Institute of Corrections. 
C O N T E N T S 

Message From the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii


Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix


Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi


Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii


Chapter 1. How Motivational Interviewing Fits In 


With Evidence-Based Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


What Is the Goal of Supervision?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


What Is Evidence-Based Practice? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


Where Did Evidence-Based Practice Come From? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


Why Does Evidence-Based Practice Matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


What Are the Principles of Effective Interventions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


Criminogenic Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6


Responsivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


How Does Motivational Interviewing Fit in With Evidence-Based Practice? . . . . . 9


Chapter 2. How and Why People Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Old Assumptions About Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


New Findings on Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 


How People Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Why People Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Chapter 3. The Motivational Interviewing Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


What Is Motivational Interviewing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


What Are the Basic Assumptions of Motivational Interviewing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


How Does Motivational Interviewing Facilitate Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


It Reduces Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


It Raises Discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


It Elicits Change Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


For Whom Is Motivational Interviewing Best Suited? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


| iii 
C O N T E N T S 

Chapter 4. Preparing for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Ask Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Affirm Positive Talk and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


Reflect What You Are Hearing or Seeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Summarize What Has Been Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


An Example: Good Things and Not-So-Good Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


Exercise: Rolling with Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


Useful Questions for Motivational Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48


Useful Statements for Motivational Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49


Chapter 5. Building Motivation for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51


Pick a Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51


Look For and Emphasize Things That Motivate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


Ask Questions That Raise Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


Follow Up on Productive Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


Use Forward-Focused Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56


Ask Scaled (Rather Than Yes/No) Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Strengthen Commitment To Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60


Ask an Action Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


Give Advice Without Telling What To Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


Help Connect Talk to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64


Exercise: Asking Good Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


Communication Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68


Chapter 6. Navigating Tough Times: Working With Deception, 


Violations, and Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


Lying and Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


Why Do People Lie? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


What Can Be Done About It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


Addressing Violations and Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


Explain the Dual Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71


Be Clear About the Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72


Address Behavior With an “Even Keel” Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72


When the Offender Denies the Initial Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74


Chapter 7. From Start to Finish: Putting Motivational 


Interviewing Into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


Moving From Motivation to Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


Adapting Motivational Interviewing to Different Kinds of Interviews . . . . . . . . . 80


iv | 
C O N T E N T S 

The First Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


Motivational Interviewing and the Case-Planning Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82


Motivational Interviewing and Routine Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84


Motivational Interviewing and the Postviolation Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88


Managing Time Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89


References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99


List of Exhibits


Exhibit 1–1. Pendulum Swings in Correctional Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Exhibit 2–1. Short-Term Markers of Long-Term Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13


Exhibit 2–2. The Stages of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Exhibit 2–3. Issues and Strategies in the Stages of Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15


Exhibit 2–4. Motivational Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


Exhibit 3–1. Probability of Behavior Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


Exhibit 3–2. Agent Confrontation and Offender Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Exhibit 3–3. Movement Along the Motivational Continuum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


Exhibit 3–4. Flow of Change Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Exhibit 4–1. Closed Versus Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


Exhibit 4–2. Rolling With Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


Exhibit 5–1. Transforming Backward-Focused to Forward-Focused Questions . . 56


Exhibit 5–2. Transforming Yes/No Questions to Scaled Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Exhibit 5–3. Importance and Confidence Rulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58


Exhibit 5–4. Two Phases of Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61


Exhibit 5–5. Responses That Facilitate Rather Than Dictate Solutions. . . . . . . . . 63


| v 
M E S S A G E F R O M 

T H E D i R E C T O R 

The corrections field, and community corrections in particular, has long experienced 

tensions between its two main missions, protecting public safety and rehabilitating 

offenders. Treatment-oriented strategies that had as their goal the reintegration of 

offenders into society have contended with deterrence-oriented strategies based on 

apparent findings that “nothing works” in treating offenders. In recent years, the development and application of evidence-based practices (EBP)—practices informed 

by the results of scientific research and shown to increase public safety and reduce 

recidivism—have had a profound and positive impact on the corrections field. More 

thorough scientific analysis of both treatment- and deterrence-oriented programs 

has shown that many programs that emphasized motivation and behavior change 

over punishment have been successful in reducing crime rates among offenders. The 

National Institute of Corrections (NIC), through its sponsorship of studies and its 

training programs, has been a leader in the movement toward EBP in the corrections 

field and an advocate of more rigorous scientific analysis of programs for offenders. 

One promising evidence-based practice for motivating offenders and fostering 

positive behavioral changes is motivational interviewing (MI). MI, which was first 

developed in the addiction treatment field, is now being applied widely and with 

positive results in corrections, particularly in probation and parole. The principle 

behind MI is that by listening to offenders and following up on the positive aspects 

of their speech and thinking, corrections professionals can help increase offenders’ 

motivation to make positive changes in their lives that will reduce their likelihood of 

reoffending. 

This publication, Motivating Offenders To Change: A Guide for Probation and 

Parole, provides probation and parole officers and other correctional professionals 

with both a solid grounding in the principles behind MI and a practical guide for applying these principles in their everyday dealings with offenders. Through numerous 

examples of questions, sample dialogues, and exercises, it presents techniques for 

interacting with offenders at all stages of supervision and at varying levels of commitment to positive change. In addition, it recognizes that deception, resistance to 

change, and relapse into criminal behaviors are realities for many offenders, and sets 

forth strategies for dealing with those issues that avoid unproductive confrontation 

with the offender. 

| vii 
M E S S A G E F R O M T H E D i R E C T O R 

Motivating Offenders To Change is intended as an orientation tool for new probation and parole professionals, a classroom aid for supervisors and trainers, and a 

self-study resource for individual officers. Our hope is that the guide will not only 

promote the use of MI, but also will help empower probation and parole officers and 

other correctional professionals to act as positive influences for change in the lives 

of the offenders they supervise. 

Morris L. Thigpen, Sr. 

Director 

National Institute of Corrections 

viii | 
F O R E W O R D 

Motivating Offenders To Change: A Guide for Probation and Parole provides 

the reader with a valuable primer on the tenets of motivational interviewing. The 

authors lay out the foundations of motivational interviewing and give examples of 

how it can be implemented. The authors have taken care to present information in an 

easily digestible and commonsense style. They provide guidance while remaining 

cognizant of the resource and time challenges faced by probation and parole staff. 

The book serves as a valuable prerequisite and aid to training in the use of this effective technique for facilitating positive offender change. 

Although some probation and parole staff may be unfamiliar with motivational 

interviewing, it is not a new approach. Motivational interviewing grew out of the 

substance abuse and addiction treatment fields in the 1980s. At that time, research 

began to show that the widely accepted confrontational approaches to dealing with 

addicts simply were not successful. As a result, treatment professionals began to 

implement strategies that recognized and encouraged autonomy, self-determination, 

and positive reinforcement. Their success rates began to climb. In the past 25 years, 

motivational interviewing has been adapted to the medical and social service fields 

and has now proven to be a significant tool for facilitating positive behavior change 

in persons with a range of addictions and others seeking to make positive changes in 

their lives. 

This guide reminds officers that their interactions with offenders have a pivotal role 

in determining subsequent behavior. If criminal justice professionals rely solely on 

punishment and incarceration—or the threat of punishment and incarceration—they 

neglect the greater part of their contribution. The social and financial costs associated with repeat offender incarceration are simply too high to ignore evidence-based 

strategies like motivational interviewing. Treating offenders in a harsh, rigid manner 

may look good politically, but it does not net the results that society deserves. Deterrence may work in the short term, but empowering offenders to change will work in 

the long term. 

The audience of the guide is intentionally broad: probation and parole officers and 

supervisors, juvenile officers, training directors, counselors, and others who work 

in adult and youth justice settings. Departments might distribute all or portions of 

the book as part of an orientation for new officers or before or after training in motivational interviewing, or they may simply make the guide available as a resource 

to those who want to improve their skills. Supervisors, in particular, may want to 

| ix 
F O R E W O R D 

use this guide to become familiar with the techniques of motivational interviewing, 

instruct staff in specific interviewing skills, and provide ongoing supervision and 

quality control. 

For readers who entered the field of criminal or juvenile justice believing that 

people can change and wanting to have a positive impact, this book should provide 

hope and confidence. For those who came into the field believing that behavior 

change is unlikely and that the primary role of an officer is to enforce conditions of 

supervision through rigid monitoring and punishment, this book may offer an alternative approach to supervision. Probation and parole staff can indeed have a larger 

role than simply enforcing conditions; they can be the impetus for positive change 

that increases long-term public safety. 

Carl R. Wicklund 

American Probation and 

Parole Association 

x | 
A C k N O W l E D G M E N T S 

A number of individuals helped form this book. First, the authors owe a great debt, 

both personally and professionally, to William Miller and Stephen Rollnick, the 

developers of the motivational interviewing (MI) approach. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers, 

who have generously shared ideas about how best to present training material. 

There were also a number of individuals who provided feedback on earlier sections 

of the monograph. In particular, Francis Cullen and Patricia Harris provided feedback on evidence-based practice; Melissa Cahill, Mike Donoho, Robert Rhode, and 

Pam Smithstan provided feedback on theories of motivation and behavior change; 

Cathy Cole, Joel Ginsberg, and Kathyleen Tomlin provided feedback on MI theory; 

Stephen Brazill, Grant Corbett, Stephen Emslie, Tad Gorske, Byron McIntyre, and 

Lyn Williams provided feedback on MI practice; and Brad Bogue, Glenn Homolka, 

Dee Dee Stout, Chuck Sweetman, and Dub Wright provided feedback on adapting 

MI to probation settings. Amanda Vader provided assistance with editing and referencing. These professionals read and commented on large portions of the original 

draft, and their comments contributed greatly to the final product. 

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) provided funding for the guide, and the 

University of Texas School of Public Health supported Dr. Walters’s time while he 

worked on it. Dot Faust, Michael Guevara, and Georgette Walsh with NIC guided 

the draft into a final product, and were a pleasure to work with. 

Finally, I would like to thank the Communications staff at Lockheed Martin for their 

work in editing, designing, and producing the printed publication. Brian Higgins 

and Janet McNaughton provided clear editing that enhanced the readability of the 

guide. Denise Collins and Rita Harding created an open design that kept to the overall spirit of the product, and Misae Walko and Huey Chang ably executed the layout. 

Scott Walters, Ph.D. 

University of Texas School of Public Health 

| xi 
C O M M E N T A R y 

Pros and Cons: Reflections on Motivational 

Interviewing in Correctional Settings 

William Miller, Ph.D. 

More than a decade ago, applications of motivational interviewing broke out of the 

addiction field and have been spreading into new and interesting areas: cardiovascular rehabilitation, diabetes management, family preservation, pain management, 

public health interventions, and the prevention of HIV infection. The most recent 

surge of interest, in North America at least, is coming from a field where I least 

expected it: the criminal justice system. We are receiving calls for training from 

jails and prisons, courts, probation and parole departments, community corrections, 

diversion and pre-release programs. 

At first I was curious as to why this is happening. Now my sense is, “Why not?” 

I realize, too, that my own initial surprise and reluctance were based on inaccurate stereotypes. “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” is rather opposite to the 

perspective that we seek to promote in MI. Yet the limitations of punishment and 

imprisonment are apparent to no one more than to those who work in correctional 

systems every day. More than the vast majority, who never set foot behind bars, they 

know first-hand that what American society is doing is simply not working. They 

understand well the passionate plea made in Karl Menninger’s The Crime of Punishment. In training probation officers this year I met a group of profoundly patient 

and compassionate professionals who were doing their best, not to exact society’s 

revenge, but to change behavior. Far from media fantasies of good guys versus 

bad guys, they work daily with the real people who are sentenced to temporarily 

restricted freedom. 

I am, on reflection, particularly thankful that there seems to be interest and openness 

to a personally respectful MI approach within criminal justice settings. “Prisoners” and “criminals” are among society’s most despised and rejected members. In 

the name of justice, they are routinely subjected in prisons to isolation, crowding, 

dehumanization, humiliation, terror, drug abuse, privation, and physical and sexual 

violence. These conditions are widely known (even as a subject of TV comedian 

Reprinted with permission from the Motivational Interviewing Newsletter: Updates, Education and Training 

(MINUET) (6)1: 2–3, 1999. 

| xiii 
C O M M E N T A R Y 

monologues) and are tolerated, as if they were “good for” offenders and for society. 

Among nations, America has one of the world’s highest rates of incarcerated citizens, ranking with the most oppressive societies; yet the building of new prisons 

remains a growth industry. 

It reminds me of how things once were in the addiction treatment field in the United 

States. The boot camp atmosphere of Synanon. The in-your-face screaming of 

insults and obscenities. Denial busting. The hot seat, “tearing them down to build 

them up.” The surprise confrontational meetings that could feature on the front page 

of the Wall Street Journal, as exemplary practice, a physician shouting at an executive, “Shut up and listen! Alcoholics are liars, and we don’t want to hear what you 

have to say!” The “family week” where people were told they had the fatal disease 

of co-dependency by virtue of being related to an alcoholic, and that they were 

thereby out of touch with reality and required treatment. It seems like a bad dream 

now, but it was very common just two decades ago. There are far too many places 

where these things still occur. 

Something happened in the addiction field. A punitive, moralistic, and arrogant 

stance that was common in U.S. treatment twenty years ago has given way to a 

much more respectful and collaborative approach. I’m not sure that motivational 

interviewing had anything to do with it, but the field’s amazing receptiveness to 

MI is at least a reflection of this profound change. In the 1970s it was acceptable, 

even laudable, to abuse “alcoholics” and “drug addicts” because it was good for 

them, it was what they needed, the only way to get through to them. It’s no surprise, 

given this treatment, that there arose the impression that defensiveness is a natural 

concomitant of substance use disorders. Something happened. In a relatively short 

period of time, treatment has changed. 

Is it too much to hope, then, that the field of corrections could see a similarly major 

change in the next twenty years? Offenders are the last major group in our society 

whom it is generally acceptable to abuse because they “need” and “deserve” it— 

because it is good for them and for society, and is “the only language they can 

understand.” All evidence to the contrary, we collectively imagine somehow that it 

makes them better, and makes us a safer and more just society. 

What would happen if motivational interviewing became a routine part of the training of correctional workers? What if large numbers of volunteers were trained to go 

into prisons and listen to offenders in this way? How would it affect outcomes if offenders were generally seen as preparing for change (like those entering treatment), 

rather than as less-than-human cons? What if we assumed that the central purpose 

of correctional systems is not to enact vengeance, but to change behavior? I know it 

is possible. Remarkable changes sometimes happen, in people and in systems, in a 

relatively short period of time. There are so many points in societal justice systems 

where motivational interviewing could be tried. Ed Bernstein, Morris Chafetz, 

Damaris Rohsenow and others have offered brief empathic interventions to people 

in hospital emergency rooms, in the midst of crisis. What if, upon arrest, someone 

xiv | 
C O M M E N T A R Y 

besides a lawyer met with people at the police station, just to listen in an MI style? 

Follow them through the system: in the jail, meeting with their lawyer, pre-trial, 

pre-sentencing, post-sentencing, on probation, beginning and during incarceration, 

on work release, pre-parole, post-release, before and after the end of a term of 

sentence. There are so many points in the system where motivational interviewing 

could be done. One can imagine many obstacles and objections. Yet it is possible. 

Motivational interviewers belong behind bars. 

Perhaps, just perhaps, in twenty years’ time we will look back on today’s criminal 

justice practices and ask in disbelief, “How could it ever have been so?” Who in the 

addiction field imagined, twenty years ago, that we would be looking back disapprovingly, even shamefully at the confrontational models of the 1970s? These days 

when I begin talks with my old slides on the confrontation-of-denial model, even 

U.S. audiences sometimes refuse to believe that these things would ever actually 

be done in practice, and they accuse me of manufacturing a straw man. Who would 

have believed it? The straw man is dancing! 

| xv 
i N T R O D u C T i O N 

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based practice that corrections 

professionals are now using to encourage positive behavior change in offenders. 

The push toward evidence-based practices is partially in response to research suggesting that effective correctional programs share similar characteristics as well as 

evidence from other areas that brief interactions can significantly influence offender 

outcomes. In this effort, MI offers an empirically supported approach for communicating with offenders about compliance and behavior change. 

Whom the Guide Is For 

This guide is designed to serve as an MI primer and coaching tool for probation and 

parole officers and supervisors. It includes background information on evidencebased practices and behavior change theory and instructions and examples for using 

MI in correctional settings. Most of the examples focus on probation and parole officer interactions with offenders, though many of the interviewing skills will also be 

useful for counselors, social workers, court officers, and others who work in youth 

and adult correctional settings. The guide is designed to be used as part of the initial 

orientation for new officers, as part of continuing education for more seasoned officers, and as a resource for any who are interested in the topic. 

How the Guide Is Organized 

The guide has seven chapters. Early chapters provide background on evidence-based 

practices and behavior change theory; later chapters give the rationale and specific 

instructions and examples for implementing MI as part of different interactions with 

probationers and parolees. 

Chapter 1, “How Motivational Interviewing Fits In With Evidence-Based Practice,” 

explains the logic of evidence-based practice, offers a brief history of the tension 

between the punitive and rehabilitative approaches to interacting with offenders, and 

explores MI’s role in evidence-based practice. 

Chapter 2, “How and Why People Change,” illustrates the processes individuals go 

through before, during, and after making behavior changes. The chapter introduces 

the Stages of Change model and suggests factors that make change more likely. 

| xvii 
I N T R O D U C T I O N 

Chapter 3, “The Motivational Interviewing Style,” gives the rationale for the MI approach. It talks about the roles of empathy, resistance, discrepancy, and self-efficacy, 

and shows why these elements are pivotal to encouraging change. 

Chapter 4, “Preparing for Change,” talks about techniques that are used during the 

initial stages of change. The chapter shows how open and closed questions, reflections, affirmations, and summaries help establish rapport, gather information, and 

engage the offender in the change process. 

Chapter 5, “Building Motivation for Change,” suggests ways to use questions and 

statements strategically to build motivation for change and connect talk to action. 

Chapter 6, “Navigating Tough Times: Working With Deception, Violations, and 

Sanctions,” talks about ways to handle situations that involve deception. The chapter 

explains why people may lie, how to address these issues, and how to address violations and sanctions without leaving a motivational style. 

Chapter 7, “From Start to Finish: Putting Motivational Interviewing Into Practice,” 

describes strategies for using MI throughout the supervision period. The chapter 

details the most effective ways to incorporate MI into the initial interview, case 

planning, routine visits, and postviolation interviews. 

Two final notes about language: In referring to persons on probation, this guide 

alternates between “person” and “offender.” The authors recognize that these terms 

may fall short; “person” may not be descriptive enough while “offender” captures 

only the aspect of how the person entered the system. However, the authors could 

not identify another term that captured what we were looking for—someone who is 

unfolding or changing over time, while still under correctional supervision. 

This guide also uses the masculine pronoun “he” to refer to offenders. The authors 

are, of course, aware that there are many female probationers, but because most 

probationers are male, early readers said that it improved readability to use a single 

pronoun. When referring to the probation or parole officer, or agent, the guide uses 

“he or she.” Again for readability, the guide refers to “agents” when discussing the 

professionals who deal with offenders on a day-to-day basis. This term allows for 

easy distinction from “offender” in the many dialogue excerpts that illustrate MI 

techniques. The term “agent” also reflects that in addition to probation and parole 

officers, many of the skills are applicable to counselors, social workers, and others 

who work in the adult and youth justice systems. Where the context specifically relates to probation and parole officers, however, the term officer is used. The authors 

encourage readers to adapt the skills as is appropriate to the setting. 

xviii | 
C H A P T E R 

How Motivational Interviewing 

Fits In With Evidence-Based 

Practice 

A probation officer receives two new cases this week. The first case, Anna, is a 27­

year-old mother of two. She received a 6-month supervision period for passing bad 

checks. She was in trouble with the law once before. One year ago, the neighbors at 

her apartment complex called the police to report a domestic disturbance. When the 

police arrived, they found a small amount of methamphetamines. Anna’s boyfriend 

brandished a weapon at police officers and was subsequently sentenced to 6 months 

in the county jail. The court dismissed Anna’s case after she successfully completed 

a 60-day inpatient drug treatment. She currently receives public assistance and her 

living and employment situations are unstable. There is no evidence of recent drug 

use. Anna is seen as a low- to medium-risk offender. 

The second case, Bill, is a 43-year-old man with a substantial history of drug use 

and violence. He is under supervision for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and 

recently served a short jail sentence for assaulting a bartender who refused to serve 

him. The bar and bartender have also filed a civil case against Bill for injuries and 

damages sustained during the assault. Bill has been in and out of various electrician 

jobs over the past few years and his current employment status is unclear. With the 

exception of a brother who lives in another state, Bill is estranged from his family. 

Results of a urinalysis show that he used cocaine and marijuana as recently as 

1 week ago. Although Bill has been referred to several drug treatment programs, 

he has not had a significant period of sobriety in several years. Bill is seen as a 

medium- to high-risk offender because of his personal and family history of criminal behavior. 

To some extent, departmental policy and assessment results will guide the supervision process. However, the probation officer will also make a number of decisions 

based on his or her personal beliefs about what approach will be most effective 

with these offenders. How will the probation officer speak to these offenders? How 

similarly should the two be treated? How much time will be spent on monitoring 

progress versus talking about rehabilitation? 

|  
C H A P T E R 1 

What Is the Goal of Supervision? 

The mission statements of most corrections agencies emphasize two main tasks: 

holding offenders accountable to conditions (compliance), and encouraging positive 

behavior change (rehabilitation). Though these two tasks may seem self-evident, a 

quick look at the history of corrections shows that the field has emphasized different 

goals at different times. These two tasks have frequently been at odds with one another, and even today, the tension between them can be hard to manage. This chapter begins with a look at the history of community corrections. It then talks about 

why evidence-based practice might matter to supervision staff. Finally, it explains 

how motivational interviewing (MI) fits in with the current goals of supervision. 

What Is Evidence-Based Practice? 

Criminal justice systems engage in a wide range of activities to stop offenders from 

committing crimes, but not all those activities are equally successful. Programs 

can make behavior better, worse, or have no effect. For a treatment or program 

to be called evidence based, its effectiveness must be substantiated by a measurable outcome (e.g., decreased recidivism, increased public safety). In corrections, 

evidence-based practice (EBP) refers to programs that have been shown to reduce 

recidivism (Andrews and Bonta, 2003; Miller, Zweben, and Johnson, 2005). EBP 

moves beyond the older “best practices” models that were based on the collective 

experience of the field in that it emphasizes the results of scientific research. 

Where Did Evidence-Based Practice Come From? 

Scientific evidence has not always guided correctional practices (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). In fact, until recently, community corrections practice was most often 

guided by whatever approach an agent was trained in or preferred. Two issues have 

discouraged agents from looking closely at their interactions with offenders. First, 

most agents simply assumed that what they did worked, and so had little incentive to 

look further. Second, performance measures for correctional officers have traditionally been linked to the technical aspects of the job (e.g., writing reports, court/board 

appearances, collection of fees) rather than to offender outcomes. Practice results 

could evade attention because the agent could always blame the offender for a poor 

outcome. 

Historically, the corrections field has taken two basic approaches to changing 

offender behavior (McGuire, 2002): 

■ Deterrence strategies use negative consequences to reduce undesirable 

behaviors. Methods include incarceration, punitive sanctions (e.g., fines, 

community restraints, electronic surveillance), and “get tough” programs 

that teach offenders structure and discipline (e.g., boot camps, wilderness 

programs). 

 | 
M I A n d E v I d E n C E - B A s E d P R A C T I C E 

■ Constructional strategies emphasize reducing undesirable behavior through 

teaching new skills and providing opportunities to use the new skills. Methods include increasing a person’s opportunities and capacity for positive 

actions (e.g., skills training, education, employment) or helping the person 

succeed at some new behavior (e.g., drug treatment). 

Three major shifts in correctional philosophy have occurred over the last 100 years. 

During some periods, corrections professionals have emphasized deterrence strategies; during others, they have relied more on treatment and constructional strategies. 

No period has emphasized one strategy alone; the difference has been in the degree 

to which they relied on one or the other. Exhibit 1–1 summarizes the major pendulum swings in corrections (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). 

Exhibit –. Pendulum Swings in Correctional Policy 

Early 20th Century, 

1900s–1950s: 

Punishment and 

Deterrence 

Strategies 

1950s–Early 1970s: 

Treatment and 

Constructional 

Strategies 

Mid-1970s–1990s: 

Punishment and 

Deterrence 

Strategies 

1990s–Present: 

Treatment and 

Constructional 

Strategies 

Present and Beyond: 

Change-Focused 

Constructional 

Strategies Through 

Evidence-Based 

Practice 

Dehumanizing and brutal prison conditions gave 

way to “correctional institutions” and a 

treatment-oriented philosophy. 

A 1974 article suggested “nothing works” 

in offender treatment, which brought harsh 

measures back to crime control. Focus was 

solely on penalties and punishment. 

“What Works” research found— 

(1) Sole focus on punishment actually made 

recidivism worse. 

(2) Meta-analysis research identified treatment 

principles that offered reliable reductions in 

recidivism. 

Correctional professionals are 

learning and using strategies 

and methods for probation 

supervision that are studied 

and empirically validated 

through rigorous science. 

|  
C H A P T E R 1 

In the early 1900s, the corrections field began to use treatment principles after many 

years of dehumanizing and brutal prison conditions. A rehabilitation approach 

flourished in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, constructional strategies were so common 

that it was taken for granted that the purpose of state intervention was to rehabilitate 

offenders. A second pendulum swing in the mid-1970s back to punishment happened 

because of prisoner complaints about arbitrary probation and parole decisions and 

a public outcry against large increases in crime. Rehabilitation-oriented policies 

were blamed for much of the trouble. This position was reflected in a 1974 literature review (Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks, 1975; Martinson, 1974) that suggested 

“nothing worked” in offender treatment. This pessimistic view began to reverberate 

across the field of criminology until treatment was considered synonymous with 

coddling offenders. The new belief was that criminals needed to be held strictly 

accountable for their crimes and that treatment only served to undermine personal 

accountability (Hollin, 2001). The sentencing landscape changed to “get tough” 

laws, and community corrections followed suit by moving back to surveillance and 

punishment models. 

The third pendulum swing happened in the 1990s in response to new research findings (McGuire, 1995). A new way of summarizing studies, a meta-analysis, gave 

researchers a better look at rehabilitation outcomes (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). 

Unlike the old-style research review, in which individual studies were basically 

counted up as evidence for or against a theory, a meta-analysis takes into account 

evidence across all studies.1 The new analyses showed what the 1970s studies 

had missed. When studies were lumped together, it may have appeared that nothing worked, but it became apparent from the meta-analysis that some approaches 

worked while other approaches clearly did not. Outcomes were mixed, depending 

on the approach. In fact, many treatments reduced recidivism, some by as much as 

25 to 30 percent. Most punishment-oriented programs (e.g., boot camps, wilderness 

programs, electronic monitoring, home incarceration), however, were not effective, 

and some punishment-oriented programs that lacked a treatment component actually 

increased recidivism (Gendreau et al., 2002; Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, 1996; 

Gibbs, 1986; Taxman, 1999). 

Why Does Evidence-Based Practice Matter? 

The new findings on effectiveness have challenged some older ideas of what people 

think should work. One well-publicized example is the rise and fall of correctional 

boot camps. Modeled after military-style boot camps, these punitive programs 

enjoyed a wide popularity in the 1980s and were heralded in numerous articles and 

press releases. Correctional boot camps were first opened for adults in 1983 and 

were subsequently applied to juveniles as well. The evidence for this approach was 

based on the belief that a disciplined military experience can change youth for the 

1 A baseball analogy is sometimes used to illustrate the difference between the two review styles. Older reviews that 

simply count studies are like keeping a score of the number of baseball games during a season where a batter hit or 

did not hit a ball. The meta-analytic format is more like a batting average, in that it takes into account how many 

times a batter hit a ball relative to the number of times up per game. Thus, it is a more sophisticated way to look at 

information because it takes into account the treatment impact across all studies. 

 | 
M I A n d E v I d E n C E - B A s E d P R A C T I C E 

better. Despite the enormous popularity of these “get tough” programs, the bulk of 

the research has shown that they have no effect on recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990; 

Gendreau et al., 2002; Gibbs, 1986; Taxman, 1999). 

Boot camps are a good example of why intuitive beliefs can be hard to resist. Their 

instinctive appeal may lead to the investment of huge amounts of resources without 

much theory or research to back it up. Says one reviewer, “These ideas could certainly not have come out of the 25,000 or so studies published in the last 25 years in 

the learning and behavior modification literatures. . . . Even a casual reading of these 

literatures would clearly indicate that the ‘get-tough’ strategies . . . have no hope of 

reducing recidivism” (Gendreau et al., 2002). Without outcome research to indicate 

which programs have an impact, corrections professionals are stuck with their own 

intuition and “commonsense” beliefs. Few other fields would allow this. It would 

be unthinkable for modern doctors to discount research studies and instead rely on 

a commonsense approach to treating cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. In medicine, 

there is simply too much at stake for a doctor not to rely on current research evidence. Unfortunately, as a group of prominent criminologists notes, criminal justice 

is one of the few fields that still tolerates quackery and “what is done in corrections 

would be grounds for malpractice in medicine” (Latessa, Cullen, and Gendreau, 

2002). Evidence-based practice allows agents to move beyond commonsense or 

“seat-of-the pants” approaches and to rely instead on empirically proven methods. 

Corrections still retains some of the assumptions it inherited from the last swing of 

the pendulum toward punishment. Many agents were trained during the “get-tough 

’80s.” Even those hired in the 1990s were coached and mentored by those who 

honed their skills in the punishment era. Because of their training, some agents 

have come to believe that confrontational tactics are necessary because they are the 

only language offenders understand. Some agents adopt an abrasive style so that 

offenders will know how serious their offending behavior is and to make it clear that 

they (the agents) cannot be taken advantage of. However, new literature that speaks 

directly to probation and parole officers urges agents to suspend the belief that 

confrontational approaches are necessary. An alternative is to take a “firm, fair, and 

consistent” stance where agents work to form a positive, collaborative relationship 

with offenders while holding them accountable for their actions (Clark, 2006). 

What Are the Principles of Effective Interventions? 

Research points to three main principles of effective interventions:2 

1. Risk—Directing programs toward higher risk offenders. 

2. Needs—Targeting behaviors that reduce crime. 

3. Responsivity—Being responsive to offender style. 

2 Treatment integrity is sometimes talked about as a fourth evidence-based principle. This means that, beyond the 

three principles discussed in this guide, programs should be of sufficient length, have appropriate content, and be 

delivered by adequately trained staff so that they can achieve their aims (Taxman and Bouffard, 2000). 

|  
C H A P T E R 1 

These principles suggest what agents can do now to change the probability of future 

criminal behavior (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen, 2002; National Institute of Corrections, 2003; Taxman, Shepardson, and Byrne, 2004). 

Risk 

Supervision and treatment resources should be targeted at offenders who are at a 

higher risk of reoffending. High-risk offenders have a greater need for positive skills 

and thinking strategies and thus have more room to show improvement. It is also 

more cost effective to invest resources in this population because high-risk offenders 

are more likely to commit new crimes. When supervision resources are focused on 

lower risk offenders, they tend to produce little or no improvement (Cullen, 2002). 

Pouring resources into this group may even make things worse. Assigning low-risk 

offenders to greater external controls and elevated treatment interventions actually 

increases recidivism for some offenders (Cullen, 2002). Systems that target highrisk populations with intensive supervision, smaller caseloads, and focused interventions will reap a greater “bang for the buck.” 

Criminogenic Needs 

Interventions should target factors that predict crime and that can be changed. Some 

predictors of crime, such as history of criminal behavior, are “static,” which means 

that they cannot be changed. Others, like self-control, are “dynamic,” which means 

that they can be changed. Dynamic needs are promising targets for reducing crime 

and helping offenders make other positive changes. Research identifies six dynamic 

risk factors that have a direct link to criminal behavior and thus are ways to reduce 

future criminal behavior (Andrews and Bonta, 2003):3 

1. Improved self-control. 

2. Increased circle of caring. 

3. Engagement in prosocial values. 

4. Increased contact with prosocial “faces and places.” 

5. Substance abuse treatment. 

6. Reconnection to primary/healthy relationships. 

Improved Self-Control 

People with low self-control are more likely to commit crimes. Agents can help 

offenders improve self-control by encouraging natural talents and interests, talking 

about what things worked for them in the past, and identifying and role-playing 

difficult situations. New brain research helps explain why these strategies work 

(Lipchik et al., 2005). The regions of the brain that are activated when someone 

3

 For the purposes of this guide, the authors chose to rephrase the six criminogenic needs in terms of the goal rather 

than the deficit. Hence, “low self-control” becomes “improved self-control” and “antisocial personality” becomes 

“increased circle of caring.” 

 | 
M I A n d E v I d E n C E - B A s E d P R A C T I C E 

becomes fearful or angry override logical decisionmaking capacities. People seem 

to be wired to give either rational responses or upset responses, but not both at the 

same time. Correctional agents should not expect thoughtful decisions from angry, 

frustrated, or fearful persons. Instead, by listening and focusing on positive aspects 

of the offender’s life, an agent can create an atmosphere that improves self-control 

and promotes rational decisionmaking. 

Increased Circle of Caring 

People who hold antisocial attitudes are less concerned about how their actions 

affect others. However, most offenders do have a small circle of people who are 

important to them. It is not that most offenders are totally unconcerned about others, 

but that their circle of caring is too small. Although an offender may care deeply 

about family members or gang friends, the circle of caring does not extend outside 

this small group. One way to address this is through connecting the offender to other 

parts of the community through employment, faith communities, and other types of 

civic participation. Another method, the “helper principle,” works to identify ways 

an offender can give to others, such as through volunteering or mentoring (Maruna 

and LeBel, 2003; Toch, 2000). 

Engagement in Prosocial Values 

A small circle of caring affects personal values. An offender may disassociate himself from the larger community and instead take on the antisocial values of a small 

group. Programs for engaging prosocial values include those that focus on increasing empathy and concern for others. An offender may also have ideas about people 

who have been positive influences in the past. As discussed in the next chapter, the 

focus should be on modeling prosocial behaviors and drawing out the offender’s 

own resources and strengths whenever possible. 

Changing Peer Groups To Include Prosocial Faces and Places 

Peer groups affect behavior; thus, criminal friends increase the likelihood of further 

criminal behavior. Borrowing from alcohol and drug recovery programs, agents encourage offenders to change “playgrounds and playmates” and advise alcoholics to 

stay away from “wet faces and wet places.” Many of the strategies for increasing the 

circle of caring and engaging prosocial values are also helpful for increasing contact 

with prosocial faces and places. 

Substance Abuse Treatment 

The relationship between substance abuse and criminal behavior is complex. Offenders may commit crimes while under the influence or to support a drug habit, 

and many forms of substance use are themselves illegal. The good news is that 

mandated alcohol and drug treatment is effective for a large percentage of clients 

(Brecht, Anglin, and Jung-Chi, 1993; Miller and Flaherty, 2000). However, one factor that influences treatment success is the extent to which offenders are prepared 

by agents to enter a program. For instance, a brief motivational interview before an 

|  
C H A P T E R 1 

outpatient or inpatient program significantly improves treatment outcome (Bien, 

Miller, and Boroughs, 1993; Brown and Miller, 1993). Thus, an agent potentially 

has a large role in improving an offender’s success in substance abuse treatment 

(Taxman, 1999). 

Reconnection to Primary/Healthy Relationships 

Family history has a strong impact on criminal behavior. Family members may have 

had substance abuse problems, encouraged antisocial values, or modeled criminal 

behavior. Many offenders have had few positive role models. Ruptures in primary 

relationships also may have eliminated potential helpers from offenders’ lives. 

Agents can help identify positive friends and family members and encourage offenders to reconnect with these positive influences. Though corrections has not often 

included families in the rehabilitation process, engaging family and friends who can 

act as positive influences in the process can have a number of benefits (see www. 

familyjustice.org for one example). 

Responsivity 

General responsivity means being responsive to or targeting the known predictors of 

recidivism (i.e., the six criminogenic needs listed in the previous section). General 

responsivity suggests that agents use cognitive behavioral, social learning, and other 

evidence-based strategies to address dynamic criminogenic needs (Andrews and 

Bonta, 2003). Several large research studies have shown that approaches that use 

techniques such as modeling and practice of positive behaviors, providing resources 

and referrals, and giving feedback on performance tend to address these needs better. For optimal learning, positive feedback should outweigh negative feedback by 

a 4 to 1 ratio (Cullen, 2002). Most of the suggestions in this guide also fit into the 

category of general responsivity. 

Specific responsivity means that interventions will be more effective if they are 

tailored to the needs of the individual (Taxman, Shepardson, and Byrne, 2004). The 

adage, “Different strokes for different folks,” applies here. The following three questions can guide an agent in tailoring an interaction to the needs of a given offender: 

■ How ready is this person to change this behavior? 

■ Why might this person want to change this behavior? 

■ What kind of interaction will be most effective with this person? 

How Ready Is This Person To Change This Behavior? 

One way to tailor interactions is to consider the offender’s readiness for change 

at the intake or case planning stage. Offenders in the earlier stages of change (see 

chapter 2) do not yet see the behavior as a problem. Thus, agents may need to gear 

interactions and referrals to raise awareness and build motivation for change. In 

contrast, offenders who have progressed in their motivation may need help increasing their cognitive and behavioral skills to help translate desire into action. It is also 

 | 
M I A n d E v I d E n C E - B A s E d P R A C T I C E 

important to understand that an offender may vary significantly in his motivational 

attitude, depending on the behavior to be modified. Thus, an offender may want 

help with job training while believing that his drug use is not a problem. This motivational profile may complicate interactions, but the basic principle remains that in 

the offender’s mind, the two issues are separate. For this reason, chapter 5 suggests 

ways to meet offenders where they are in their thinking about different behaviors. 

Why Might This Person Want To Change This Behavior? 

A second way to tailor interactions is to consider the person’s interests and priorities. For instance, one offender might be motivated to seek drug treatment because 

of the effect of drugs on his family, another might be motivated because of the 

financial or health consequences, and yet another might be motivated because of 

legal pressure. Chapter 2 suggests some properties of change that are generally 

more attractive, such as beliefs about personal control, competence, and relatedness, 

but individuals may have their own ideas about what benefits are most attractive to 

them. Many times, simply listening to what an offender talks about first or most 

often can give a clue as to what he finds important. In other instances, a simple 

question like “If you decided to do this, how would that make things better for 

you?” can help determine what reasons this person might have for taking action. 

What Kind of Interaction Will Be Most Effective With This Person? 

A final way to tailor interactions with offenders is to consider capabilities such as 

learning style and intelligence. Some individuals learn well from written material, 

whereas others need a more hands-on approach. Offenders with co-occurring 

disorders might benefit from visual aids, more frequent meetings, tangible rewards, 

or a reminder phone call.4 Taxman, Shepardson, and Byrne’s Tools of the Trade: A 

Guide to Incorporating Science Into Practice 2004; (available at www.nicic.org/ 

Library/020095) offers a number of additional suggestions for matching services to 

offender responsivity. With a base of general responsivity, specific responsivity is a 

way to fine-tune meetings to the individual. 

How Does Motivational Interviewing Fit In With 

Evidence-Based Practice? 

Evidence-based practice highlights the important role that agents have in offender 

outcome. In the past, rehabilitation was primarily the domain of mental health 

professionals, but EBP emphasizes that frontline staff, such as probation and parole 

officers, also have the opportunity to influence the change process. For example, 

officers conduct assessments, meet regularly with offenders, determine to which 

programs offenders are referred, and can speak with offenders in ways that motivate 

change. EBP elevates the officer’s role from that of a mere observer and reporter of 

4

 In treatment planning, it may also be important to take into account individual demographic factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, and history of trauma, although less information is available on exactly how to match interventions to clients based on these variables. 

|  
C H A P T E R 1 

compliance to that of a professional—someone who has specialized skills to influence positive behavior change. 

Much has been written about the first two principles of effective practice—risks 

and needs—but much less information is available about ways to access offender 

responsivity (National Institute of Corrections, 2003). Discussions of responsivity 

have focused mainly on matching programs to offender learning styles and intelligence. However, even if an agent does a good job matching an offender’s learning 

style and intelligence to specific programs, the offender may not be ready to engage 

in these programs. Because the system requires participation from the start, agents 

need to be able to motivate offenders to take action. Motivational interviewing provides a basis for carrying out the principle of responsivity by suggesting a style of 

communication that makes it more likely that offenders will listen, will be engaged 

in the process, and will be more ready to make changes. 

K E y P o i N T S 

■ Build collaborative relationships that both motivate and hold offenders 


accountable for their actions. 


■ Target supervision and treatment resources to offenders who are at a higher 

risk of reoffending. 

■ Target factors that predict crime and that can be changed. 

■ Help improve the offender’s self-control by encouraging natural talents 


and interests, talking about what worked for an offender in the past, and 


identifying and role-playing difficult situations. 


■ Enlarge the offender’s connections to other parts of the community through 

employment, faith communities, and other types of civic participation. 

■ Encourage an offender to change “playgrounds and playmates”—that is, 

to stay away from criminal friends and criminal behaviors. 

■ Tailor interactions and interventions to offender characteristics such as 


motivation, learning style, and intelligence. 


■ MI is the foundation for working with offender responsivity. It suggests 

questions and statements that make it more likely that offenders will think, 

talk, and act in a positive direction. 

0 | 
CHAPTER 2

How and Why People Change 

Chapter 1 talked about some principles of good correctional practice. This chapter 

talks about how and why people change and shows how correctional agents can use 

this knowledge to engage offenders in the change process. 

Old Assumptions About Motivation 

Historically, motivation has been treated as a fixed personal characteristic. That 

is, an offender showed a certain amount of motivation and if that amount was too 

low—or until he was ready to change—the agent could do little to infl uence the 

offender’s outcomes. Under this model, the supervising agent acted as an enforcer 

of a legal contract but not necessarily as an active participant in the change process. 

One agent describes his role as follows: 

The defendant receives supervision in lieu of jail. In our initial meeting, 

and throughout our work together, I tell the defendant what is expected of 

him and make it clear what the penalties will be should he fail to comply. 

We have regular meetings to verify that he is making progress on his conditions and I answer any questions he might have. If he breaks the law or 

shows poor progress on his conditions, I see to it that appropriate sanctions 

are assessed. Throughout the process, he is well aware of the behavior that 

might send him to jail, and if he ends up there, it’s his own behavior that 

gets him there. 

Reflected in this statement is an agent who believes he or she is essentially cut 

out of the change process, except as an observer. Further, agents often judged an 

offender’s potential to change according to the following criteria: 

■ Agreement with the agent’s views. It is better if an offender agrees with 

the official views of why he has become involved with the criminal justice 

system, including the arrest report and the court’s/board’s judgment. The 

agent also hopes the offender will recognize the “wrongness” of his offending behavior and express an early desire to reform. 

■ Acceptance of a diagnosis. It is better if the offender accepts a mental 

health diagnosis given to him by a formal assessment, such as “alcoholism,” 

“major depression,” or “problems with anger management.” 

| 11 
CHAPTER 2 

■ Showing distress. It is better if the offender regrets having to go through the 

legal process of arrest, detention, court/board appearance(s), and supervision. 

Distress is a sign that the offender is taking the process seriously. 

Based on early indicators like these, agents sometimes decided who was likely 

to succeed while under supervision. Agents were willing to work with those who 

seemed ready to commit to a program of change, but tended to dismiss those who 

were uncooperative as destined to fail. 

Even though many agents claim to have a kind of “radar” about forecasting future 

behavior, research shows that guesses about who will succeed under supervision 

based on the offender’s initial presentation are rarely reliable. In general, assumptions like the ones above have only a small effect on eventual outcomes (Miller, 

1985). The larger determinants of outcome are yet to come. Agents do not have to 

wait around for an offender to “get motivated.” They have many ways to raise motivation, even if an offender seems very unmotivated to begin with. 

New Findings on Motivation 

Although compliance is one marker of success, the larger goal of supervision 

involves more than just having offenders “do what they’re told.” Compliance does 

not equal change. Consider two offenders who agree to complete an anger management class: One agrees because he wants to avoid jail; the other agrees because he 

is concerned that his angry outbursts are affecting his marriage. Both offenders may 

be compliant, but the second is more likely to make changes that reduce the probability of future criminal behavior. Offenders make choices that affect the safety of 

their families and communities. Thus, it is important not only that they successfully 

complete supervision, but also that they make changes that will help them integrate 

into mainstream society after supervision. 

Short-term compliance is, of course, one part of corrections. But the drawback of 

using punishment to gain compliance is that it may take the focus off long-term 

change. In fact, the threat of punishment mostly teaches people how to avoid being 

punished in the future (Skinner, 1953). Change can occur for external reasons, but 

it is often weak and short lived (Ryan and Deci, 2000). If the goal is to encourage 

long-term behavior change, agents need to be able to use techniques that access internal motivation for change, rather than those that rely solely on external pressure. 

Exhibit 2–1 illustrates some of the markers that help determine whether an interaction moves the offender toward change. Offenders who are more ready for change 

are thinking about, talking about, and exploring the possibility of change. 

Motivation is a good predictor of outcome (DiClemente, Bellino, and Neavins, 

1999), and its role in criminal justice is becoming increasingly emphasized in 

research and practice (Clark et al., 2006; Mann, Ginsburg, and Weekes, 2002). We 

know, for instance, that: 

12 | 
H O W AND WHY PEOPLE CHANGE 

Exhibit 2–1. Short-Term Markers of Long-Term Change 

Less Decreased Raised Increased 

receptive desire to awareness desire to 

to future Decides change No Problem change 

attempts it’s not a awareness, recognition 

problem interest 

AGAINST CHANGE TOWARD CHANGE 

Increases Makes verbal Makes verbal Changes 

offending commitments arguments in behavior 

behavior against support of 

change change 

■ Motivation predicts action. Motivation predicts how likely a person is to 

initiate and carry through with an action. Motivation is not a guarantee, but it 

does increase the likelihood of an action. 

■ Motivation is behavior specifi c. To talk about offenders as “unmotivated” 

in a global sense misses the point that people have different responses to 

different behaviors. For instance, an offender may be ready to attend marital 

counseling (because he thinks it would help his relationship) and pay fees 

(because it seems easy), but not be ready at all to attend a substance abuse 

evaluation (because he thinks he does not have a problem). Because people 

feel different about different behaviors, each behavior may need to be addressed separately. 

■ Motivation is changeable. Motivation is not a fixed trait like height or eye 

color; it can be increased or decreased. People frequently make changes after 

a significant event like a birth, marriage, or death of a loved one. Many young 

offenders simply mature out of criminal behavior. For others, even small 

events like a conversation with a friend or counselor can have an impact. 

■ Motivation is interactive. Talking with the agent can raise or lower the 

offender’s motivation and guide what the offender talks and thinks about. 

■ Motivation can be affected by both internal and external factors, but 

internally motivated change usually lasts longer. Internal factors include 

how actions fit with personal values or goals (“How important is this change 

to me?”) and beliefs about competence (“Am I going to be able to make this 

change?”). 

| 13 
Action 

CHAPTER 2 

In corrections, internal and external forces work together to facilitate change. 

Because correctional agents work with a mandated population, change might begin 

because of external pressure (e.g., conditions of supervision), but later might be 

continued for internal reasons (e.g., the offender sees personal benefi ts). Agents can 

choose to emphasize short-term compliance as the primary goal, or they can choose 

to use strategies that help offenders make long-term progress. 

How People Change 

The “Stages of Change” model, originally developed to explain how people quit 

smoking, is one way to think about behavior change (Prochaska, DiClemente, and 

Norcross, 1992; Prochaska and Levesque, 2002). According to this model, for most 

people, change is a process that unfolds over time. People can range from having no 

interest in making changes (precontemplation), to having some awareness or mixed 

feelings about change (contemplation), to preparing for change (preparation), to 

having recently begun to make changes (action), to maintaining changes over time 

(maintenance). Offenders in the earlier stages are less interested in change and may 

feel more coerced into acting, whereas offenders in the later stages are more interested in change for their own reasons. Exhibit 2–2 illustrates the stages of change, 

and exhibit 2–3 describes the stages in more detail. 

In criminal justice, three major forces move people through the stages (Prochaska 

and Levesque, 2002). The first force is developmental. Criminality tends to 

decline with age. Most young people mature out of criminality, and so, to some 

extent, time is on the side of prosocial behavior change. The second force is environmental. Many times a personal event, such as the birth of a child, an illness, or 

a new friendship, will change a 

Exhibit 2–2. The Stages of Change person’s thinking about a behavior 

and motivate him or her to take 

action. The third force involves Precontemplation system efforts like legal sanctions, 

rehabilitation efforts, and interactions with agents. When considering the agent’s role in the process, 

some principles of communication 

(which are discussed in chapters 

3 and beyond) seem to work well 

throughout the process. 

Exhibit 2–3 lists strategies that 

tend to be helpful at each of these 

three stages. The Stages of Change 

model can make interactions 

more efficient because it suggests 

Contemplation 

Prep

arat oi n 

Ma

ni et nan

ce 

Relapse 

Source: Velasquez et al., 2001; adapted from Miller and 

Rollnick, 1991, 2002. 

14 | 
H O W AND WHY PEOPLE CHANGE 

Exhibit 2–3. Issues and Strategies in the Stages of Change 

Stage Issues Strategies 

Precontemplation “Nothing needs to change.” 

Not considering change. Either avoids 

thinking about change or has decided that 

benefits of current behavior outweigh costs. 

May appear as denial or rationalization. 

Build rapport and trust. 

Increase problem awareness; raise sense of 

importance of change. 

■

■

Contemplation “I am considering change.” 

Thinks there may be a problem, but has not 

decided what to do about it. May appear as 

ambivalence or mixed feelings. 

Acknowledge ambivalence (mixed feelings) 

about change. 

Explore discrepancy between present behavior 

and personal values or goals. 

Discuss pros and cons of change. 

Talk about ways to “experiment” with change. 

■

■

■

■

Preparation “I am figuring out how to change.” 

Preparing to change by making small initial 

steps. Attitude may improve with a plan of 

action. May begin to ask questions about 

planning or how others have done it. 

Build confidence. 

Talk about timing of change. 

Present information, options, and advice. 

Resist the urge to push; stay at the offender’s 

pace. 

■

■

■

■

Action “I’m working on reaching my goals.” 

Actively making changes. May have found 

ways to manage urges or triggers that 

would lead back into problem behavior(s). 

Offer planning assistance. 

Support and encourage efforts to change. 

Develop reachable goals and monitor progress. 

Help develop plans to maintain behavior over 

time. 

■

■

■

■

Maintenance “I’ve made my changes. Now I have to keep 

it up.” 

Maintaining changes over time. Developing 

ways to manage problems and stressors. 

Momentary slips are followed by remorse 

and renewed efforts. 

Support and encourage behavior change. 

Talk about possible trouble spots and develop 

plans to manage relapse triggers. 

■

■

Relapse “I’ve fallen back. Now all is lost.” 

Has a slip and revisits the problem behavior. 

May appear as anger, demoralization, or 

denial of the behavior. Most reenter an earlier stage having learned something from 

the relapse. 

Address relapse, but do not add to feelings of 

shame. 

Assess and discuss what went wrong. 

Raise importance or confidence for another 

attempt. 

■

■

■

| 15

CHAPTER 2 

material to concentrate on and material to avoid. For instance, if a person is already 

making changes, the agent can lose ground by going over what has already been 

covered. On the other hand, if a person is not yet interested in change, the agent can 

waste time by giving advice and suggestions to someone who is not yet convinced 

that he needs or wants to change. 

Looking at change in this way leads to four insights: 

1. Change tends to be a process. Some people change quickly after a specifi c 

event (e.g., sudden insight, epiphany), but for most people, change is more 

complex. People may need to get information, weigh the pros and cons, and 

experiment with change before making a serious attempt to change. 

2. The stages suggest what kind of approach is most likely to help a person 

become more motivated. When dealing with someone who is not ready 

to take action, the main goal may be to prepare that person for change. In 

the earlier stages, the goal is to raise the offender’s awareness of the need 

for change. Someone in the middle stages of change may need help with 

planning or the timing of the change. In the later stages, suggestions and 

assistance with problem solving can be more helpful. 

3. Relapse is part of the cycle for many people. In areas like dieting or quitting smoking or drinking, most people make several attempts before the 

change seems to stick. The same may be true for people under supervision. 

Change is a trial-and-error process for most people. 

4. Although the agent would like to see an offender move through all of the 

stages of change, a more practical goal during an individual reporting 

session may only be to raise motivation a little. For instance, the goal of 

an early reporting session might be to inform the offender about the expectations of supervision and help him weigh the pros and cons of compliance, 

whereas the goal of a later session might be to encourage and assist in longrange planning. 

Why People Change 

The Stages of Change model describes how people change, but it does not tell us 

why people change. We tend to assume that people weigh the pros and cons of their 

actions in a more or less rational manner before acting and that this pushes them 

through the stages. This logic was behind many of the “rational choice” approaches 

of the 1980s. If penalties were stiffer (e.g., longer jail terms, three-strikes laws), 

people would be less likely to commit crimes. Unfortunately, this logic does not 

always hold; people don’t always consider the consequences before they act. For 

example, someone might decide that the immediate benefits of feeling good outweigh the future possibility of jail time. 

A second idea that has been revised in recent years is the belief that in correctional 

settings, change must be externally imposed. After all, the logic goes, if an offender 

16 | 
H O W AND WHY PEOPLE CHANGE 

wanted to change on his own, he would have done it already. However, behavior 

change, even in corrections, arises from a mix of influences both from within the 

person (e.g., values, goals, sense of accomplishment) and from outside the person 

(e.g., threats, incentives, interpersonal pressure). In a study of clients entering alcohol treatment, 35 percent of court-mandated clients said that they did not feel they 

were being coerced into treatment; they felt they were doing it for their own reasons 

(Wild, Newton-Taylor, and Alletto, 1998). Conversely, among a group of selfreferred clients, 37 percent felt that they were being coerced into treatment. These 

findings show that a considerable range of interests and goals exists even within 

groups of people who “have to” and people who “volunteer to” enter into treatment. 

Why do some people make changes gladly, while others drag their feet and put in 

only the minimum amount of work? Self Determination Theory (SDT) gives us 

some insight into the conditions under which people make changes that stick over 

time (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ginsburg et al., 2002; Markland et al., 2005; Ryan and 

Deci, 2000). SDT first assumes a motivational continuum (exhibit 2–4). As with 

the Stages of Change, people can range from having no interest in change to being 

very interested in change. People on the lower end of the continuum may have only 

external reasons for change, such as the threat of legal sanctions, whereas people on 

the upper end may also have internal reasons such as family, health, or a feeling of 

accomplishment. 

Exhibit 2–4. Motivational Continuum 

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

Not Ready Unsure Very Ready 

When people make changes for internal reasons, they try harder, are more satisfied, and stick with the changes longer than when they make changes for external 

reasons. In a treatment study that measured perceptions about internal and external 

motivation, the clients with the best outcomes were those who reported both a high 

degree of external pressure and significant internal reasons for wanting to succeed 

(Ryan, Plant, and O’Malley, 1995). Success was associated with both a high degree 

of internal motivation and a high degree of legal pressure, but externally motivated 

subjects had positive long-term outcomes only when they also had high levels of internal motivation. This suggests that people’s perceptions about what is driving the 

change play a big part in the outcome. All changes are not created equally; the more 

a person owns the reasons for change, the more likely he or she is to succeed. 

Of course, external coercion is a part of the criminal justice system. Studies have 

shown, however, that a person’s perception of what is prompting the change is more 

important than what is actually prompting the change. According to SDT, agents can 

increase internal motivation for change by addressing three basic factors: autonomy, 

competence, and relatedness. 

| 17 
CHAPTER 2 

■ Autonomy. Autonomy is an individual’s perception of himself or herself as 

the determining agent of an action (“I chose to do this”). When people think 

that they are making changes for their own reasons, they work harder and are 

more likely to stick with the new behaviors. In fact, too much coercion can 

undermine internal motivation because it makes people feel they are being 

manipulated, which in turn makes them less likely to change (Deci and 

Ryan, 1985). Agents can help offenders build autonomy by acknowledging 

reluctance, providing options, and emphasizing personal choice. The agent 

may not be able to negotiate whether or not an offender complies with the 

supervision conditions, but he or she can frequently negotiate how and when 

the offender complies. This makes the offender feel that the decision to comply is under his control. 

■ Competence. Competence involves beliefs about confidence (“I can do 

this”). To change, a person needs to believe that change is both important 

and possible. Consider an offender who has been stealing to support his 

family. Even if the offender wants to change his behavior, he might have 

doubts about whether he would be able to hold a job or support his family 

on a lesser income. Many offenders come from backgrounds where expectations are low and examples of prosocial behavior are hard to fi nd. Helping 

the offender set realistic goals, talking about personal strengths, and giving 

positive feedback on small successes (rather than focusing only on what the 

offender has not accomplished) can increase his sense of competence. In 

fact, encouragement from the agent may be the only positive feedback some 

offenders receive. 

■ Relatedness. Change is more likely when people are available to support 

the offender. This condition of relatedness gives a powerful explanation of 

why people sometimes act against their own self-interest (Deci and Ryan, 

1985). For better or worse, people tend to behave like those with whom 

they associate. For instance, a youth offender might violate a curfew or rob 

a liquor store because it fits with the values of his peer group. Conversely, 

someone else might work two jobs, save money, or give up drinking because 

it is meaningful to his mother. These individuals engage in these behaviors 

because they are meaningful to others to whom they feel connected. 

Relatedness also includes the relationship between an agent and offender. Agents 

can clarify their roles, model prosocial behavior, and help offenders develop 

problem-solving skills. A good working relationship will make interactions more 

efficient and effective (Ward and Brown, 2004). Meta-analyses show that the 

provider-client relationship plays a large role in client outcome (Hubble, Duncan, 

and Miller, 1999; Wampold et al., 1997). A critical finding drawn from more than 

1,000 research studies concludes: “Putting this all into perspective, the amount of 

change attributable to the relationship is about seven times that of the amount attributable to a specific model or technique” (Hubble, Duncan, and Miller, 1999). 

18 | 
H O W AND WHY PEOPLE CHANGE 

Although SDT does not totally explain why people change behavior, it provides 

certain clues as to when change is more likely to occur. Offenders who have internal 

reasons to change, who feel confident about the new behaviors, and who have others 

to support and encourage them are more likely to make positive, lasting changes. 

Conversely, offenders who feel coerced, manipulated, or unsupported may make 

superficial changes, but more often than not, their old behaviors reappear quickly 

after the external contingencies are removed. 

KEY POINTS 

■ Motivation predicts behavior and is changeable. An agent can do a lot to 


increase (or decrease) an offender’s motivation to change. 


■ Both internal and external factors can affect motivation, but internally 


motivated change usually lasts longer.


■ The Stages of Change model describes the process people go through in 


thinking about change. 


■ People change when a new action or behavior is more in line with their 


personal beliefs or values. Each person is motivated to change by unique 


factors. 


■ Agents can support an offender’s internal motivation to change by 


highlighting autonomy, competence, and relatedness. 


| 19 
CHAPTER 3

The Motivational Interviewing 

Style 

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a way of talking with offenders to build their 

internal motivation for change. MI suggests ways to use questions and statements 

strategically to make it more likely offenders will talk in a positive direction. This 

chapter covers the logic behind the MI approach, including its basic principles, 

assumptions, and thoughts about how MI facilitates change. 

What Is Motivational Interviewing? 

MI arose during the 1980s from alcohol counseling research. This research began 

to suggest that certain types of brief counseling interactions could be as effective 

as more lengthy interventions and that a certain kind of provider style was better at 

eliciting change. Two recent reviews of more than 70 MI outcome studies in different areas strongly support the effectiveness of the MI approach (Hettema, Steele, 

and Miller, 2005; Rubak et al., 2005). MI performed significantly better than other 

approaches in three out of four published research studies, and outperformed traditional advice-giving 80 percent of the time. Even when looking at single encounters 

of 15 minutes or less, 64 percent of studies showed a lasting effect using this 

method. 

MI is a person-centered method of fostering change by helping a person explore 

and resolve ambivalence (Miller and Rollnick, 2002). Rather than using external 

pressure, MI looks for ways to access internal motivation for change. It borrows 

from client-centered counseling in its emphasis on empathy, optimism, and respect 

for client choice (Rogers, 1961). MI also draws from self-perception theory, which 

says that a person becomes more or less committed to an action based on the verbal 

stance he or she takes (Bem, 1972). Thus, an offender who talks about the benefi ts 

of change is more likely to make that change, whereas an offender who argues and 

defends the status quo is more likely to continue his present behavior. Finally, MI 

is logically connected to the Stages of Change model discussed in chapter 2 (Prochaska, DiClemente, and Norcross, 1992). For most people, ambivalence—mixed 

feelings, hesitancy, arguments against change—is a normal part of the change 

process. Most offenders will have mixed feelings about quitting drugs, finding a job, 

| 21 
CHAPTER 3 

participating in treatment, and attending supervision meetings. Although MI appears 

to work throughout the change process, it is particularly suited to individuals who 

are resistant, reluctant, or in an early stage of their thinking about change.1 

Although MI suggests some tangible strategies, it is better thought of as a style of 

interaction that follows these basic principles: 

■ Express empathy. Empathy is about good rapport and a positive working 

environment. It is an attempt to understand the offender’s mindset, even 

though the agent may not agree with the offender’s point of view. Empathy 

also involves an effort to draw out concerns and reasons for change from the 

offender, instead of relying on the agent’s (or court’s/board’s) agenda as the 

sole persuasion strategy. 

■ Roll with resistance. It is normal to have mixed feelings when thinking 

about change. Therefore, the agent does not argue with the offender. As one 

writer put it, “Do not argue or debate with the client. You are not likely to 

change her mind through reasoning. If this approach was going to work, it 

would have worked by now” (Berg, 1994). Rolling with resistance means 

finding other ways to respond when the offender challenges the need for 

change. 

■ Develop discrepancy. Discrepancy is the feeling that one’s current behavior 

is out of line with one’s goals or values. Rather than telling the offender why 

he should change, the agent asks questions and makes statements to help the 

offender identify his own reasons for change. 

■ Support self-effi cacy. A person is more likely to follow through with behavior he believes he has freely chosen and believes he can accomplish. Therefore, the agent remains optimistic, reminds the offender of personal strengths 

and past successes, and affirms all efforts toward change. 

In emphasizing respect, optimism, and choice, MI clearly differs from confrontational approaches. It also differs somewhat from the helper approaches that are more 

prevalent in social work and counseling. MI emphasizes listening while looking for 

ways to guide the interaction toward positive talk. 

Initially, some agents might view MI as a slow and passive process, especially as 

compared with the drama of direct confrontation. Some agents may worry that a 

quieter approach may signal to the offender that his reluctance to change his behavior is acceptable. However, the outcomes of more than 70 studies show that this 

is not the case. Aggressive confrontation usually pushes offenders backward in the 

change process. 

1

 Because they are often talked about together, MI is sometimes confused with the Stages of Change model. However, the two are not necessarily connected. Stages of Change is a theory of behavior change. MI is an intervention 

strategy for building motivation for change. 

22 | 
THE MO TIV A TIONAL INTER VIEWING STYLE 

In the MI model, agents interact with offenders to produce positive change. Because 

people are more likely to make changes that they believe are personally important 

and that they have talked about (see exhibit 3–1), agents use questions and refl ections strategically to elicit positive talk from the offender (Kear-Colwell and 

Pollock, 1997; Moyers, Miller, and Hendrickson, 2005). 

Exhibit 3–1. Probability of Behavior Change 

Officer talks about why change is 


important. Probationer nods head.


Probationer thinks about why change is 


personally important.


Probationer talks about why change is 


personally important.


Probationer makes verbal commitment to change.

 Low High


Probability of Behavior Change 


What Are the Basic Assumptions of Motivational 

Interviewing? 

An agent’s view of the nature of offenders can determine whether he or she will be 

able to embrace the MI style. There are three basic views of human morality. One 

view is that all people are basically good and will commit harmful acts only if they 

cannot achieve their goals through acceptable means. A second view is that most 

offenders are born bad and that antisocial acts are part of their basic nature. This 

view can lead to aggressive confrontation, a failure to recognize an offender’s positive efforts, and negative interpretations of otherwise normal behavior. A third, balanced view assumes that offenders, like other people, are equally capable of good 

and bad actions and that both sides are already present in each person (Ward and 

Brown, 2004). Thus, working with offenders is more like “drawing out” preferred 

behaviors than “putting in” something offenders lack. MI assumes that all offenders 

are entitled to be treated with respect because of their essential worth as human 

beings. This is consistent with a strengths-based perspective, which holds that 

offenders already possess a range of talents, abilities, skills, and resources (Rapp, 

| 23 
CHAPTER 3 

1998; Saleebey, 1992) . The goal is to draw out these positive resources to help 

people exit the criminal justice system and improve their lives. Agents can detest the 

illegal behaviors but at the same time believe that every person is worthy of their 

best efforts. 

How Does Motivational Interviewing Facilitate Change? 

Given its excellent track record, interest in how MI works has increased. Research 

suggests that MI facilitates change by promoting three conditions (Amrhein et al., 

2003; Moyers and Martin, 2006; Moyers, Miller, and Hendrickson, 2005): 

■ It reduces resistance. 

■ It raises discrepancy. 

■ It elicits change talk. 

It Reduces Resistance 

Because they view motivation as a fixed offender trait, some agents feel the best 

strategy is to confront denial, rationalization, and excuses directly: 

■ You’ve got a problem. 

■ You have to change. 

■ If you violate, you’ll go back to jail. Is that what you want? 

Other officers shy away from a heavy-handed approach, relying instead on suggestions or logical persuasion. 

■ Can’t you see how this behavior is affecting your kids? 

■ Why don’t you just . . . ? 

■ Here’s how you should go about this. 

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that both of these strategies tend to make 

things worse, especially early on in the interaction. When confronted with external 

pressure, the typical response is to defend the status quo. The agent confronts and 

the offender resists, as shown in exhibit 3–2. 

Exhibit 3–2. Agent Confrontation and Offender Resistance 

Agent Confronts Offender Resists 

You’ve got a problem because . . . No, I don’t because . . . 

Why don’t you . . . That won’t work for me because . . . 

If you don’t you’ll . . . My friend did and he . . . 

24 | 
THE MO TIV A TIONAL INTER VIEWING STYLE 

Agents can and should enforce the appropriate sanctions, but confrontation between 

the offender and his own issues (discrepancy) is more conducive to long-term change 

than confrontation between the offender and the agent (coercion). An alternative to 

confronting resistance directly is to reflect what the offender has said and emphasize 

personal responsibility. The section “Reflect What You Are Hearing or Seeing” in 

chapter 4 provides a number of examples of ways to respond to resistance. 

It Raises Discrepancy 

Some probationers enter supervision in the precontemplation stage, not thinking that 

they have any reason to change. Others enter supervision in the preparation or action 

stage, having already acknowledged the problem and needing minimal assistance 

to begin to change. Throughout supervision, mixed feelings are a normal part of the 

change process. (See “How People Change” in chapter 2.) 

Officers have long been taught to see ambivalence as a classic form of denial, yet 

to the motivationally inclined officer, it demonstrates a reason for optimism. Rather 

than being a sign that a person is moving away from change, ambivalence signals 

that change may be on the horizon. The person is thinking about change. Ambivalence makes change possible; it is a precursor to positive behavior change. 

The best interaction is one in which the probationer voices the arguments for 

change. First, the officer works to establish a positive and collaborative relationship 

with the probationer. A positive relationship creates a place in which probationers 

can feel comfortable talking about change. Second, the offi cer identifies and calls 

attention to the probationer’s ambivalence about change. The gap between the 

probationer’s goals or values and his current behavior creates discrepancy. This gap 

becomes the ground for amplifying the probationer’s own reasons for change. 

Everyone is motivated for something, but movement from harmful behaviors to 

more healthy behaviors requires the resolution of ambivalence. The balance tips to 

one side or the other. A small percentage of probationers have no ambivalence about 

their current behavior. However, the large majority of probationers will enter the 

supervision system with some concerns about their behavior (if only about the legal 

consequences). Where this discrepancy leads depends on whether an offi cer recognizes the discrepancy and uses it to elicit talk that leads to change. 

It Elicits Change Talk 

People can literally talk themselves in and out of change; hence, agents can learn to 

recognize the kind of talk that leads to change. The agent’s speech sets the tone for 

the offender’s speech, which, in turn, influences the ultimate outcome. An offender 

may come in with a certain range of readiness for change, but what the agent says 

makes a difference in where the offender ends up on the motivational continuum, as 

illustrated in exhibit 3–3. 

| 25 
?

CHAPTER 3 

Exhibit 3–3. Movement Along the Motivational Continuum 

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

? ? ? 

Not Ready Unsure 	 Very Ready


People come in within a certain range of motivation.


What you say influences where they end up.


Linguists have studied the speech content of motivational interviews—the actual 

words spoken between an agent and a client—looking for clues to predict behavior 

change (Amrhein et al., 2003). They divided motivational speech into fi ve categories: desire, ability, reasons, need, and commitment language (sometimes referred to 

by the acronym DARN–C). 

■ Desire. Desire expresses a wish to attain or succeed: 

“I wish I could get off supervision.” “I really want to get a job.” 

■ Ability. Ability talks about confi dence: 

“I could quit smoking pot.” “I believe I could get back with my spouse. I’ve 

done it before, and it’s possible.” 

■ Reasons. Reasons involve a tangible incentive, motive, or rationale for 

change. For instance, reasons might focus on how change would make things 

better or how continued behavior would make things worse: 

“At least my wife would quit bugging me if I found a job.” “Smoking crack 

really flares up my asthma.” 

■ Need. Need, at least initially, may overlap with reasons. After a while, need 

may involve more emotion: “I’ve got to. I must.” Need moves beyond logical 

reasons into urgency. Where reason says, “I should,” need says, “I must.” 

■ Commitment. Commitment expresses a readiness or agreement to change: 

“Five job applications? Yeah, I’ll do that.” 

Within this model, it was not so much the frequency of the speech, but rather the 

quality and strength of the language that predicted who was and was not successful. 

The first four kinds of speech (i.e., “DARN”) moved people toward change, but 

commitment speech sealed the deal. Exhibit 3–4 shows the flow of talk that best 

predicts later change. Speech about desire, ability, reasons, and need lead to commitment talk, which leads to change in behavior. “I’ll try” is a weak statement as 

compared to “I will,” which conveys much more strength of commitment. A wise 

trade would exchange five “I’ll try”s for one “I will.” 

26 | 
THE MO TIV A TIONAL INTER VIEWING STYLE 

Exhibit 3–4. Flow of Change Talk 

Desire 

Ability Commitment Change Reasons 

Need 

Although chapters 5 and 6 talk more directly about ways to draw out the kind of talk 

that leads to change, this chapter has hinted at three principles: 

1. Because offender speech is a predictor of outcome, agents should 

encourage offenders to talk about why and how they might change. Ideally, the agent should talk only as much as is necessary to keep the offender 

talking in a positive direction. Offender speech is a good predictor of later 

change. 

2. Agents should avoid arguing with offenders. Aggressive persuasion and 

confrontation tend to make a person more resistant, thereby decreasing 

DARN–C talk. If confronted in a heavy-handed style, an offender is more 

likely to argue with the agent and defend his current behavior. 

3. Agents should ask questions that elicit the kind of talk they want to hear. 

The offender speaks about his interests and motivation, and the agent keeps 

track of what might motivate this person in order to direct the conversation 

better. 

For Whom Is Motivational Interviewing Best Suited? 

MI is an evidence-based practice: that is, good evidence exists that MI works well 

as the preferred style for talking about change. However, less information is available about who is more or less likely to benefit from MI. The approach has a good 

track record in studies with schizophrenic, depressed, and antisocial clients and 

others with relatively low cognitive functioning (Hettema, Steele, and Miller, 2005; 

Project MATCH Research Group, 1998; Rubak et al., 2005). Recent fi ndings from 

large alcohol and drug treatment studies suggest that MI may work particularly well 

with people who are early in the change process and those who are angrier or more 

resistant to change (Project MATCH Research Group, 1997, 1998). It may seem obvious that for people in the early stages of change, the goal is to increase motivation. 

For those in the later stages of change, the goal is not to motivate, but to encourage 

and support continued efforts. The finding about resistance may make less intuitive 

sense. However, research has shown clearly that the more resistant the client, the 

better MI seems to work as compared with other approaches. 

The available research on the use of MI both in criminal justice settings and in other 

contexts suggests that MI can work for a wide range of offenders. MI has been 

shown to be useful for increasing motivation for some observable behaviors, such 

| 27 
CHAPTER 3 

as paying fees, finding a job, or engaging in alcohol or drug treatment (Ginsburg et 

al., 2002; Harper and Hardy, 2000; Vivian-Byrne, 2004), MI also has an excellent 

track record in preparing people to engage in alcohol and drug treatment programs 

(Baker et al., 2002; Daley et al, 1998; Miller, Meyers, and Tonigan, 1999). It also 

has been well validated with adolescent substance abusers (Dunn et al., 2004; Erickson, Gerstle, and Feldstein, 2005; Monti et al., 1999; Monti, Colby, and O’Leary, 

2001; Tevyaw and Monti, 2004). Although there are published accounts of the use 

of MI with sex offenders and other character-disordered persons (Berk, Berk, and 

Castle, 2004; Easton, Swan, and Sinha, 2000; Mann and Rollnick, 1996; Marques et 

al., 1999), less information is available about whether or how MI might need to be 

modified for use with these populations. 

Because MI relies on cognition and communication, the interviewee must be 

reasonably verbal and capable of abstract thinking for this approach to work effectively. Using MI with persons with co-occurring mental illness or more limited 

cognitive functioning may require modifications to the basic MI skill set, such as 

simplifying questions, refi ning reflective listening skills, heightening affi rmations, 

and integrating psychiatric issues into discussions (Martino et al., 2000, 2002). 

Taxman, Shepardson, and Byrne’s Tools of the Trade: A Guide to Incorporating 

Science Into Practice (2004; available at www.nicic.org/Library/020095) provides 

other examples of issues that might be relevant to different offender types. 

KEY POINTS 

■ MI is a client-centered, directive approach that emphasizes listening and 


looking for ways to direct the interaction toward positive talk.


■ Mixed feelings, hesitancy, and even arguments against change are a normal 

part of the change process. 

■ Aggressive confrontation pushes offenders backward in the change process. 

■ MI facilitates change by reducing levels of resistance, raising discrepancy, 

and increasing positive change talk. 

■ The best interaction is one in which the offender gives the reasons for 


change. 


■ Identifying and calling attention to an offender’s ambivalence can help him 

determine whether his behavior is in conflict with other personal values. 

■ Talk about desire, ability, reasons, and need leads to commitment talk, 


which, in turn, predicts behavior change. 


28 | 
C H A P T E R 4

Preparing for Change 

The old adage, “You can’t make a person change if they don’t want to,” is only 

partially true. In fact, agents may be able to do a lot to prepare an offender to find a 

job, address chaotic family life, or give up substance abuse. The art lies in getting 

the person to want to make changes in these areas. Frequently, agents want to jump 

straight to problem solving. However, this ignores the fact that most people need 

to be prepared for change. For this reason, this chapter outlines basic strategies to 

prepare a person to think about change. 

Four main techniques (sometimes referred to as “OARS,” for open-ended questions, 

affirm, reflect, and summarize) help agents guide the conversation toward change. 

These techniques are a gas pedal for the conversation. Chapter 6 talks about ways 

to use these techniques strategically to steer conversations, but steering in itself is 

worthless unless the car is in gear and moving forward. 

Ask Open-Ended Questions 

Closed questions ask for yes or no responses; open-ended questions ask for longer 

answers or elaboration. Both kinds of questions may be useful during an interview, 

depending on the purpose of the question. For instance, agents may ask closed questions to gather information or document compliance: 

■ Have you had any contact with the victim? 

■ Are you making a payment today? 

■ Has there been any change in your residence? 

Because the interactions between agents and offenders are often brief, the agent 

may need to move through some aspects of the interview quickly. However, if the 

purpose of the question is to gather detailed information or to encourage the offender to think about the answer, open-ended questions are usually better. Exhibit 

4-1 illustrates the difference between the two types of questions. 

Closed questions are less good at pulling out more detailed information because 

they merely confirm or disconfirm the interviewer’s opinion. They tell the agent 

whether his or her guess was right or wrong, but they do not get the offender talking 

| 29 
C H A P T E R 4 

Exhibit 4–1. Closed Versus Open-Ended Questions 

Closed Question Open-Ended Question 

Do you feel you have a problem with 

alcohol? 

Is it important to you to complete 

supervision successfully? 

Anything else? 

What problems has your alcohol use 

caused for you? 

How important is it for you to complete 

supervision successfully? 

What else? 

or thinking about the answer. In contrast, open-ended questions ask for a longer, 

more considered response. 

Consider the difference between two basic questions: “Anything else?” and “What 

else?” Changing a single word dramatically increases the quality of the response. 

The first question calls for a simple yes or no. If the question is intended to encourage the person to talk, it falls flat. In contrast, the second question sets the stage for 

a more detailed and thoughtful answer. 

One place for open-ended questions is in the assessment portion of an interview. 

The following dialogue illustrates the use of open-ended questions to gather information about job history. 

Agent: Tell me a little about your job history. [Open-ended question.] 

Offender: I’m a certified pipe welder, mostly commercial stuff. 

A:	 How long have you been doing that? [Closed question.] 

O:	 I guess about 5 years. 

A:	 What other skills do you have? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 Sometimes they call me out to operate some of the heavy equipment 

when people are out. 

A:	 So that might be a possibility again at some point. What other things 

have you done? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 Well, I was a checker at a supermarket when I was younger, but you 

can’t really support a family on that. 

A:	 OK, so you might be able to do supermarket work as a last resort, but 

it doesn’t really look like a long-term solution. What are some of the 

things you think might get in the way of you finding the kind of job you 

want? [Reflection; open-ended question.] 

30 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

O:	 Well, I’d probably have to pass a drug screen. 

A:	 So if you weren’t using, that would make things easier for you. What 

other things would you need to do to make yourself more marketable? 

[Reflection; open-ended question.] 

In addition to gathering some basic information about vocational skills, the agent 

inserts a key question (“What things might get in the way?”) to gather information 

and get the offender thinking about potential solutions. Open-ended questions such 

as the following keep a person talking—they pull out speech: 

■ Tell me about your drug use. 

■ What’s that like for you? 

■ What was your life like before you started drinking? 

■ How do you want things to end up when you’re done with supervision? 

Where do you want to be? 

■ What other ideas do you have? What else might work for you? 

Another advantage of open-ended questions is that they encourage a person to think 

about what he or she is saying. The following interaction shows an agent using 

closed questions to try to motivate an offender to seek drug treatment. The agent 

uses questions to try to raise awareness of and interest in change, but phrases them 

in such a way that the offender instead becomes defensive. Closed questions are 

unlikely to produce the kind of talk the agent is looking for. 

Agent: You don’t think your drug use is a problem? 

Offender: not really. When I used to use, I would just do it every once in 

a while, and I can’t see how it really hurt anything. 

A:	 How about your kids? Don’t you think that your drug use has a 


negative impact on them?


O:	 no, because they didn’t see me use. 

A:	 Even if you don’t use in front of them, aren’t you afraid that it might put 

them at risk? I mean, how can you care for your kids if you’re high? 

O:	 It doesn’t really affect them. Because when I used to use a neighbor 

always took care of them. She just kept them overnight. 

This dialogue stalls because the offender feels that the agent is using questions to 

trick him into entering drug treatment. He counters each question with an excuse 

to avoid being logically ambushed by the agent. He is thinking more about how to 

counter the agent’s point and less about what his responses actually mean. 

| 31 
C H A P T E R 4 

Open-ended questions, on the other hand, are usually better for increasing 

motivation—especially internal motivation—to change. Here are some examples: 

■ What concerns do you (does your wife, girlfriend, etc.) have about your 

drinking? 

■ How has this caused trouble for you? 

■ What do you think might happen if you got another positive urinalysis? 

■ If you did go ahead and finish the class, how would that make things better 

for you? 

Questions like these encourage the offender to think about how his present behavior 

creates difficulties for him and how things would look if he changed that behavior. 

They help shift the balance toward action. Open-ended questions can also help a 

person arrive at a specific plan of action: 

■ There are a few things that might work for you (provide a short list). Which of 

these would you like to try? 

■ What would you like to work on first? 

■ Who would (or will) help you to . . . ? 

■ What worked for you in the past? 

None of these questions is a magic bullet—a person can always shut down or refuse 

to answer—but they increase the probability that a person will speak and think more 

productively. The following example illustrates how the previous dialogue regarding 

drug treatment might have been different if the agent had used open-ended questions 

to target the offender’s interest in change: 

Agent: What effect do you think your drug use has on your kids? 

[Open-ended question.] 

Offender: I don’t really think it affects them. They’re never around when 

I’m using. 

A:	 You’re careful to make sure that it doesn’t affect them. [Reflection, 


affirmation.]


O:	 Well yeah, I don’t want them to have to deal with what I went through 

as a kid. 

A:	 What was that like? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 I had a bad time of it, with no father and a drug-using mother. 

A:	 . . . and you want something better for your kids. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Absolutely. That’s no way to be raised. 

32 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

A:	 What are you afraid might happen to the kids? I mean, what things are 

you worried about? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 When Joe comes over, there’s always pressure to use. Even if I don’t 

take a hit, he might. He doesn’t care whether the kids are there or not, 

and I think it could get ugly. 

A:	 How so? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 He gets mean and loud and somebody usually ends up calling the 

cops. 

A:	 You want to make sure your kids have a better time of it than you did, 

and you’re afraid that situations like that might place them at risk. 

[Reflection.] 

The agent uses open-ended questions to help the offender think about the effects of 

his drug use on his children. Although the offender has not yet agreed to enter drug 

treatment, this conversation has been productive. The offender has provided 

information about what is important to him (having a safe environment for his 

children to grow up in), a situation he thinks is particularly risky (when Joe comes 

over), and more general thoughts about change (how being around drug-using 

friends affects his children). From here, the agent might ask about the possible benefits of entering treatment or perhaps even leave the topic for the next visit. Either 

way, the offender leaves the appointment with something to think about. 

Unlike the agent in the first dialogue, this agent does not use heavy-handed persuasion. The offender clearly has mixed feelings about his drug use, and the agent uses 

questions and statements to pull out these thoughts. Also notice that the offender is 

doing most of the talking—another indicator of a successful interaction. Finally, the 

tone of the conversation leaves the door open to future conversations. In contrast to 

the first dialogue, the offender probably feels that the agent is looking out for his 

best interest and the best interests of his children. 

Affirm Positive Talk and Behavior 

The classic book on business management How to Win Friends and Influence People 

talks about Andrew Carnegie’s reasons for picking Charles Schwab as the first president of U.S. Steel. Schwab had a remarkable way of getting things done that made 

him well worth his million-dollar-a-year salary. At the heart of Schwab’s genius 

was his ability to motivate through encouragement. Schwab said, “I am anxious to 

praise. . . . If I like anything, I am hearty in my approbation and lavish in my praise” 

(Carnegie, 1998). Schwab went out of his way to recognize positive efforts. 

Unfortunately, many people do just the opposite—they criticize what bothers them 

and stay quiet when they see something they like. Some probation and parole 

officers avoid praise because they believe that offenders should not be rewarded for 

doing what they are ordered to do. Others are reluctant to tell an offender that he is 

| 33 
C H A P T E R 4 

doing well because of the chance that the offender has been lying all along. The best 

approach for an agent who wants to avoid being wrong is to stick with the “tough as 

nails” approach. However, if an agent believes that his or her role involves helping 

the offender change his behavior, then incentives, and especially verbal recognition, 

must be part of the equation. Positive statements build rapport, provide feedback, 

and make positive behaviors more likely (Farbring, 2002). 

One kind of affirmation reinforces something the person has done or intended to do: 

■ Thanks for coming in on time. It helps me to keep things on track. 

■ You’re doing nice work on your community service requirement. 

■ Thanks for telling me about that. 

■ It’s clear that you have thought a lot about this. 

■ It seems like that will really work for you. 

Another kind of affirmation calls attention to something admirable or interesting 

about the person: 

■ You care a lot about your kids and want to make sure they’re safe. 

■ Your willingness to respond to the hard questions shows that you’re really 

thinking about this. 

■ You’re the kind of person who speaks up when something bothers you, and 

that’s a real strength. 

■ You have a lot of leadership qualities. It’s clear that people listen to you. 

Some psychologists have suggested that the optimal ratio for positive behavior 

change is about four affirmations for every critical comment (Cullen, 2002). A 

less rigid rule of thumb is to use as many affirmations as possible and affirm any 

behavior that you want to see again. Some agents look for ways to praise things 

that an offender has done or intended to do, while others take time to learn about an 

offender’s family, hobbies, and strengths so that they can show a genuine interest in 

his personal life. 

Another affirmation strategy is to “blame” people for their successes (Clark, 1998). 

Rather than dwelling on failures, this involves paying special attention to personal 

successes. A few “how” questions can reinforce positive efforts and build confidence: 

■ How did you do this? 

■ How did you know that would work? 

■ You know, a lot of people under supervision never seem to get it together, 

but you have really found a way to make this happen.You found a job in spite 

of the difficulties with childcare, and are even ahead on your fees. How did 

you manage to do all that? 

34 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Agents may also tie affirmations to other incentives. For instance, the system may 

provide incentives for offenders who complete tasks on time, find jobs, pay fees, or 

stay out of trouble. Each time agents provide an incentive for good behavior, they 

increase the probability that the offender will behave that way again. Because of 

this, agents (and systems) should develop specific incentives for positive behavior 

and look for ways to reward people who are doing well. A list of incentives might 

include the following: 

■ Verbal affirmations. 

■ Community service credit for a general equivalency diploma (GED) or 

treatment. 

■ Travel permits. 

■ Fax or mail-in reporting. 

■ A more flexible reporting schedule, such as late-night/early-morning or 

front-desk reporting. 

■ Counting class attendance as an office visit. 

■ Decreasing meeting or urinalysis frequency. 

■ Certificates of completion or reference letters. 

■ Extended time to complete specific requirements. 

■ Early termination of supervision. 

The following examples show agents commending offenders for meeting supervision conditions and suggesting ways of relaxing those conditions as appropriate: 

■ Person arrives on time: 

Thanks for showing up on time. I know it’s hard for you to get here this early, 

and it shows that you’re sticking with this. 

■ Clean urinalysis (UA): 

You have another negative UA, so I think we can go back to monthly UAs. 

You are doing really good work staying clean and I’m making sure to document that in my case notes. Obviously you’re working hard at this, and I’m 

wondering what you’ve been doing to make sure that you stay clean. How is 

this different than last time? 

■ Prompt payment of fees: 

Payment? good, I think that brings you almost up to what you owe.You 

always make some kind of payment, and I think that’s really helping you out. 

In fact, you’re doing well enough that it might be possible to submit a petition 

to reduce your community service requirement for on-time payment of fees. 

Is that something you’d like to look into? 

| 35 
C H A P T E R 4 

Reflect What You Are Hearing or Seeing 

New agents often underestimate the power of an aptly placed statement. Reflections disarm; reflections affirm; reflections guide. For these reasons, reflections are 

frequently a core part of counseling, negotiation, and sales techniques. For instance, 

in William Ury’s book on business negotiation, the chief task in the opening minutes 

of a negotiation is to reflect and summarize what the other person is saying: “It 

is not enough for you to listen to the other side. They need to know that you have 

heard what they have said. So reflect back what you hear” (Ury, 1993). Likewise, in 

his bestselling book on crisis negotiation, Frederick Lanceley writes, “The negotiator works with the subject’s feelings, values, lifestyles and opinions to resolve the 

incident. . . . It is far more effective for the negotiator to demonstrate understanding 

through active listening” (Lanceley, 2003). 

At their core, reflections are guesses as to what an offender is saying or thinking. 

Reflections do not indicate agreement with the offender; rather, they tell the offender 

that the agent has been listening and help the offender hear what he has been saying. 

They may repeat or rephrase what an offender has said, summarize an emotion, or 

point out mixed feelings. More advanced reflections may direct the conversation by 

emphasizing part of what an offender has said or pointing out a connection between 

two statements (see chapter 5). 

Two basic principles help raise the quality of reflections: 

1. Strip the statement down. State only the most important elements of what 

the person has said. Avoid starting reflections with stems like, “So, what I’m 

hearing you say is that . . . .” or “What you’re telling me is that . . . .” If the 

offender sounds angry, say, “It makes you angry,” or simply, “You’re angry.” 

In fact, the best reflections may only be a word or two. 

O	 It’s surprising. (You’re surprised.) 

O	 It feels like this might be a waste of your time, and so it frustrates you. 

O	 It almost feels like someone is out to get you, because every time you 

come in, there are these new surprises. 

2. Continue the paragraph. The best reflections do not parrot back what the 

offender has said. They either paraphrase what has been said or guess what 

would come next if the offender continued to talk. In this way, good reflections give momentum to a conversation. 

O	 . . . and that makes you angry. 

O	 It feels pretty overwhelming when you think about how you’re going to get 

the money to pay all these fees. 

O	 It feels to you like there are no good options here. 

36 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

The following dialogues give several examples of response strategies that incorporate different types of reflections. In the first example, the offender minimizes the 

issue of his drinking and does not seem motivated to change: 

Offender: I don’t know why this is such a big deal for everyone else. All 

my friends drink like I do. 

Agent 1: It doesn’t seem like Agent 2: Others have some concerns, but it hasn’t been an issue for 

you. [Rephrase—allows the offender 

to hear what he has said; rolls with 

resistance.] 

that big a deal, when what you see 

is people basically drinking like you 

do. [Repeat—allows the offender 

to hear what he has said; rolls with 

resistance.] 

In the next example, the offender expresses frustration with the lack of success in 

his job search: 

Offender: Everyone should just relax. I’m doing the best I can with trying 

to find a job. 

Agent: It makes you angry because it feels like others aren’t recognizing 

all the efforts you’ve made. [Emotive—allows the offender to hear what he 

has said; rolls with resistance.] 

In this example, the offender expresses skepticism about his job search: 

Offender: I guess it would probably help me get a job, but . . . 

Agent: Part of you knows that finding a job would really help you out 

here, but at the same time, it’s hard to think about how you’re going to get 

the kind of job you want. [Double-sided—points out mixed feelings or a 

contradiction in what the offender has said.] 

In a final example, the offender discusses drinking at family get-togethers: 

Offender: You don’t know my family. It’s basically impossible not to drink 

when we get together. 

Agent: It would be difficult to be around your family and not drink. It might 

even mean planning ahead to see how you might be able to manage that 

situation. [Agreement with a twist—calls attention to one aspect of what 

the offender has said, and makes it more likely that the offender will continue to talk about that element.] 

Reflections help agents avoid two common problems. First, when there is a disagreement, the agent can be tempted to debate the issue with the offender. This 

persuasion strategy can create a situation where the agent gives the arguments for 

change, while the offender gives the arguments against change. Each leaves the 

| 37 
C H A P T E R 4 

interaction more convinced that he or she is right. The offender becomes convinced 

that change is unnecessary, and the agent becomes convinced that the offender is 

dragging his feet. To avoid these pitfalls, agents use reflections in two ways. The 

first is to roll with resistant comments instead of arguing with the offender. The second is to keep offenders talking in a particular direction to raise interest in change. 

The rest of this chapter talks about the first use; chapter 5 talks more about the 

second use. 

Offenders may have conflicting feelings surrounding their behavior. An offender 

may recognize the negative effects of drug use on his family but, at the same time, 

enjoy getting high. It should not come as a surprise that an offender may feel two 

ways about supervision or may even be openly hostile to the idea of change. Allowing the offender to be resistant may require considerable patience on the part of 

the agent. Resistance is not necessarily a sign that things are going badly. Instead 

of confronting resistance, a more effective response is usually to reflect what the 

offender is saying and redirect the conversation with an open-ended question or a 

statement emphasizing personal responsibility. 

Offender: It’s impossible to find a good job. nobody wants to hire a guy 

with a record. 

Agent 1: There are lots of jobs 

out there, even for people on supervision. In fact, most offenders are 

able to find jobs. [Confrontational— 

less effective.] 

Agent 2: It can be much more difficult for someone on supervision to 

find a job, sure. How do you think you 

might go about that? [Reflective—more 

effective.] 

Offender: This is bullshit. nobody told me I’d have to take those stupid 

classes. I got screwed by my lawyer. 

Agent 1: You’re the one on supervision! These classes are designed 

to help you with your anger— 

especially the kind of anger I’m 

seeing now. [Confrontational—less 

effective.] 

Agent 2: You weren’t expecting that 

you would have to attend these classes, and at this point it seems like a real 

waste of time. So maybe we can leave 

that for later. Here are the other things 

we’ve got to talk about . . . . Which one 

would you like to talk about? 

[Reflective—more effective.] 

Reflections are also a good response when the agent does not know what to say. 

The agent is unlikely to do harm, and often can do much good, by reflecting what 

the offender is saying. The following dialogues present two examples of an agent 

restating what the offender has said and using reflections to avoid arguments over 

the offender’s resistance to supervision conditions. In each case, the agent puts the 

burden for meeting those conditions back on the offender by giving him options and 

emphasizing his personal responsibility. In the first dialogue, the offender is surprised 

to learn that his supervision involves a significant amount of community service: 

38 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Offender: Community service? My lawyer didn’t tell me I’d have to do that. 

Agent: It’s a bit of a surprise. [Reflection—restatement.] 

O:	 Yeah, I don’t think I should have to do that. 

A:	 I understand that it’s a surprise to you. We could certainly leave that for 

now, and talk about it at another meeting, and that would give you time 

to talk to your lawyer if you like. Would that be OK? [Reflection— 

restatement; redirects conversation and gives option.] 

In the next dialogue, the offender resists making a change in his marijuana use. The 

agent avoids an argument by restating what the offender has said and emphasizing 

personal responsibility. 

Offender: This whole thing is stupid. Sure, I smoke a little weed, but 

you’re treating me like I’m some sort of addict or something. 

Agent: It seems to you people might be blowing this out of proportion. 

[Reflection—restatement.] 

O:	 Yeah, pot’s not even a drug. It’s all natural, it’s an herb, so how can it 

be dangerous? 

A:	 . . . and it doesn’t seem to you like it’s causing many problems. 

[Reflection—continues the thought.] 

O:	 Yeah, everybody I know smokes. I’ll be clean while I’m on supervision, 

but as soon as my 12 months is over, I’m going right back to smoking. 

They can’t tell me what to do once I finish. 

A:	 Well, of course, you have to decide what is right for you. I certainly 

can’t tell you what to do after your supervision ends, but I do appreciate your willingness to stay clean while you’re on supervision, even 

though it doesn’t seem to you that it’s a problem. [Reflection— 

emphasizes personal responsibility.] 

O:	 Yeah, that’s right. The judge is the one with the problem. 

The agent does not allow the offender’s irritating comments to put the agent on the 

defensive. The offender is already well aware of the court’s/board’s position, so 

the agent emphasizes the offender’s personal responsibility given the conditions of 

supervision. At this moment, the offender may agree to complete a drug assessment, 

while still not admitting that he has a problem. Motivating the offender to complete 

this assessment may be a perfectly reasonable goal in a brief space of time, but at 

this point, a quick attitude shift is unlikely. The offender may need time to think 

about it. 

| 39 
C H A P T E R 4 

Exhibit 4–2 presents examples of offenders’ resistant comments and a few possible 

reflections for each. In each case, the reflections “roll with resistance” by restating 

the content or emotion of the comment. Reflections in these instances let the offender 

know that the agent has been listening. They allow the offender to save face and 

ultimately decrease the probability that he will continue to make similar statements. 

In some instances, an agent may feel the need to confront an offender on some 

statement. However, the risk in using this harder approach is that it can increase resistance and close the door to more productive future conversations. Confrontational 

styles rarely engage people in thinking about behavior change. When offenders 

resist, it is usually better to back off, reflect, or try a different approach. 

Although there is no hard and fast rule on what to reflect, the general principle is 

this: Reflect ambivalence in early interactions and emphasize change talk in later 

interactions. Similarly, reflect ambivalence early in an interview and emphasize 

change talk as the interview progresses. When in doubt, reflect what the offender 

is saying. (An exercise in rolling with resistance is provided at the end of this 

chapter.) 

Exhibit 4–2. Rolling With Resistance 

Offender Agent 

This whole thing is about 

money! All you guys want 

is my money. 

It seems like maybe we care more about the money than 

we do your success on supervision. [Restates offender’s 

statement.] 

The whole money thing seems pretty overwhelming. 

[Reflects emotion.] 

■

■

You’ve probably never 

even used drugs. How 

old are you anyway? 

I want a new officer. 

You feel like maybe I can’t understand where you’re 

coming from. [Reflects emotion.] 

We can certainly look into that if that continues to be 

important to you. We definitely don’t want to put up 

any barriers to successfully completing supervision. 

[Gives option.] 

■

■

I wouldn’t even have 

to do this community 

service if I had a different 

lawyer. 

It seems to you that things would have been different 

if you had had a different lawyer. [Restates offender’s 

statement.] 

given that it is a condition of your probation, what do 

you what to do about that? [Emphasizes personal 

responsibility.] 

■

■

40 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Summarize What Has Been Said 

A summary is a special form of reflection. Summaries remind the offender about 

major discussion points, the plan of action, and the offender’s own reasons for 

taking action. Summaries are useful in two ways. If the offender slows or stops 

talking, summaries can act as a bridge to help him continue. Summaries may also 

help remind the offender what he has said or point out a connection between his 

statements. 

In addition, summaries may allow for direction or commentary by the agent to 

emphasize elements or themes in what the offender has said. Summaries are also 

appropriate as transitions between major sections of an interview and at the end of 

an interview. 

For instance, the following summaries make the transition between talking about 

payment of fees and the results of a recent urinalysis: 

Agent: Okay, it sounds like that will work for you.You said that you would 

be able to work an extra couple of hours a week, and your mom said she 

would be willing to set the money aside so you can get caught up on fees. 

I’d be glad to speak with her about that. That sounds like a good plan, 

and I really think it will help you out. One other thing we need to cover is 

the issue of the last UA. The lab results show that it came up diluted. This 

means that . . . . 

Agent: So at this point, it sounds like there’s nothing we need to solve. 

The UA did come up dilute, but you’re not reporting any use. This is the 

first time it’s appeared this way, and I guess it’s something to watch. We 

will definitely have to revisit this if it occurs again in the future. Since we 

haven’t talked about this in a while, I wonder if it would be okay to spend a 

couple minutes talking about your past drug use, and maybe some of your 

reasons for wanting to stay clean now. Would that be okay? 

Summaries often include such basic elements as: 

■ The specific problems or behaviors that were discussed. 

■ The offender’s most important reasons for wanting to take action. 

■ What the plan of action will look like, including measures of success in 

completing the action and incentives or sanctions for completing or not 

completing the action. 

■ The date and time of the next contact. 

Summaries may also help agents formulate their chronological records. A good 

summary shares many elements with a good chronological account. Both summarize what was said, include the offender’s thoughts about motivation, and conclude 

with a plan of action. The following example summarizes and closes an early meeting focused on completing conditions related to anger management: 

| 41 
C H A P T E R 4 

Agent: OK, so it looks like we’re about out of time. We’ve been covering 

some of the conditions of your supervision.You thought that the fees would 

not be a problem, and we’ve agreed on a fee schedule.You thought it 

would just be easier to get the drug assessment out of the way, but at this 

point, you have some real mixed feelings about completing the batterer 

intervention class.You’re aware that it’s one of your conditions, but it’s kind 

of costly, will take several weeks, and seems like it might be a waste of 

your time. That’s certainly understandable, since it’s a supervision order. 

We can revisit that next session if you want to take some time to think 

about it, and we can also talk about your community service options. I 

know this is a lot to cover in 20 minutes, but it I do appreciate your willingness to work with me. Is there anything else I need to know? 

The next example summarizes a meeting focused on job placement: 

Agent: We’ve talked about a couple of things today. One is catching up 

on your community service hours, and you thought that the parks and 

recreation option would work for you. Because they give double hours for 

weekend work, it’s a way for you to get caught up quickly. As far as the 

employment situation, we talked about some of your other options.You 

thought that you would be able to put in five applications in the next 2 

weeks, we talked about some options, and you have the verification forms 

for those. I don’t want to be on your case about this—you have enough 

people lecturing you—except to remind you that you’re approaching the 

end of your 90 days. If we can’t verify employment, we move to weekly reporting, so that will mean that instead of reporting every month, you would 

report in every week. So where does this leave you? 

How agents talk makes a difference in the way offenders react to the conditions of 

their supervision. The OARS techniques discussed above—open-ended questions, 

affirmations, reflections, and summaries—help gather information and set the stage 

for change. Although this chapter emphasizes these four techniques, the style of the 

interaction determines whether the techniques will work. In particular, the principles 

emphasized in earlier chapters—expressing empathy, rolling with resistance, developing discrepancy, and supporting self-efficacy—set the stage for a more productive 

interaction. Lists of questions and statements that may help in initiating and maintaining a motivational style are provided at the end of this chapter. 

An Example: Good Things and Not-So-Good Things 

One way to broach the subject of change is to ask an offender about the benefits and 

drawbacks of a behavior. The two questions can be asked of almost anyone, no matter what his or her interest in change. They are also useful when an agent does not 

know what to say to an offender who has taken a very strong stance against change. 

42 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

■ What are some of the good things about . . . ? 

■ What are some of the not-so-good things about . . . ? 

In this example, the questions focus on drinking: 

Agent: In your experience, what have been some of the good things 

about drinking? 

Offender: I don’t know, I just like it. I guess it helps me to get along with 

people. 

A:	 You enjoy the social part. What else do you like about it? 

O:	 I guess I can forget about all the bad stuff in my life. It’s like I can relax 

and just enjoy life. 

A:	 So, for dealing with problems. Let me write that down. What else? 

O:	 When my wife says something that pisses me off, and the kids are 

screaming, it just helps to calm me. 

A:	 It’s a way to deal with angry feelings. Okay. So if those are some of the 

good things, how about the other side. What have been some of the 

not-so-good things about drinking? 

O:	 Well, it sucks to have a DWI [driving while intoxicated] on your record. 

A:	 The DWI is definitely an example of one of the not-so-good things. 

What else? 

First, the agent begins with an open-ended question (usually asking about the good 

things first) and immediately follows with a reflection. The agent continues to ask 

open-ended questions (e.g., “What else?”) until the offender has listed several items. 

Most offenders can list several items on both sides, so the agent does not stop after 

the first or second item. Second, the agent does not shy away from asking about the 

good things about drinking. This agent is comfortable with the fact that drinking, 

like all problem behaviors, has some positive aspects. The agent is not condoning 

illegal or unhealthy behavior, but rather trying to understand the dilemma from the 

offender’s perspective. The offender remains ambivalent about drinking, seeing both 

pros and cons, even though not drinking may be a condition of his supervision. Similarly, a sex offender may have mixed feelings about registering as a sex offender, 

even though it is a condition of his supervision. Third, the agent avoids labeling the 

behavior or using this exercise as a way to bully the offender into change. The questions invite the offender to talk on both sides of the issue; the offender gives both 

sides of the argument. The list resulting from this exchange might look something 

like this: 

| 43 
C H A P T E R 4 

Good Things About Drinking Not-So-Good Things About Drinking 

■ Get along with friends. ■ Legal trouble from DWI. 

■ Get away from problems. ■ Trouble in marriage, wife nags me. 

■ Helps to deal with anger. ■ Bad memories persist, increase.

■ Health, danger. 

■ Possibility of another DWI. 

■ Hangovers, blackouts. 

■ Trouble at work. 

■ Financial cost.

■ Bad role model for sons.

The questions can also focus on the pros and cons of change itself. For instance, an 

agent might ask: 

■ What would be some of the benefits of quitting drug use? 

■ How about some of the drawbacks about quitting drug use? What would you 

have to give up? 

Discussing the benefits and drawbacks of change gives the offender an opportunity 

to think about both sides of an issue. Many offenders remain stuck in destructive 

behavioral patterns simply because they have never taken the time to weigh the pros 

and cons of their behavior. At the same time, the agent gains information with which 

to tailor future conversations. The benefits of change tell the agent why the offender 

might want to make a change, and the drawbacks tell the agent the things the 

offender might have to give up or find substitutes for if he did decide to change. For 

instance, in the example given above, the offender recognizes that quitting drinking 

would save him from future legal difficulties, but at the same time, he wonders how 

he would deal with his anger or with whom he would spend time if he did not drink. 

Although this exercise is designed to prepare the offender to begin thinking about 

change, the agent may immediately follow up on such a conversation in one of 

several ways. For instance, if the list of not-so-good things is longer than the list 

of good things, the agent might point this out and ask the offender what he makes 

of this discrepancy or what the next step is: 

■ It’s interesting that your not-so-good thing list is longer than the good thing 

list. What do you make of that? 

■ What’s the next step here? 

Another followup technique is to ask about change hypothetically (see also chapter 

5). If the offender chose not to drink, how might he still get some of the perceived 

benefits of drinking? 

44 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Agent: So, in thinking about the anger, if you decided not to drink, how 

else could you deal with these feelings of anger that keep coming up? 

What would that look like? 

For an offender who has not yet decided to take action, this kind of question allows 

him to think about change without having to agree that he needs or wants to change. 

It is a safe but still productive question. Both of these followup techniques provide a 

bridge for connecting these questions to a discussion centered on changing a target 

behavior. A conversation about the good and not-so-good things might focus on the 

following: 

■ Continued drug or alcohol use. 

■ Obtaining GED or stable employment. 

■ Obtaining counseling for a chaotic family relationship. 

■ Continuing to associate with drug-using peers. 

■ Participating in a treatment group. 

■ Completing a drug or alcohol evaluation (whether or not the offender feels 

that drugs or alcohol are a problem). 

■ Attending anger management classes (whether or not the offender sees anger 

as a problem). 

■ Successfully completing supervision. 

Focusing questions on future behavior sidesteps the issue of innocence or guilt, 

which can be particularly useful when an offender denies the offending behavior 

(see chapter 6). For instance, if an offender denies recent drug use, he may still be 

willing to discuss the pros and cons of drug use when he was using. Similarly, if 

a sex offender denies committing the offense, talking about the pros and cons of 

admitting to the offense or participating in treatment may still be productive. In both 

of these instances, talking about the pros and cons of a behavior given the conditions of supervision creates an alternative to debating innocence or guilt. 

| 45 
C H A P T E R 4 

K E y P O i n T s 

■ Open-ended questions are better for increasing motivation—especially 

internal motivation—to change. 

■ Positive statements build rapport, provide feedback, and make positive 

behaviors more likely. Agents should use as many affirmations as possible 

and affirm any behavior that they want to see again. 

■ Reflections may repeat or rephrase what an offender has said, summarize 

an emotion, or point out mixed feelings. Reflections can also be used to 

respond when an agent does not know what to say. 

■ When reflecting, state only the most important elements of what the person 

has said. 

■ When offenders are resistant, it is usually better to back off, reflect, or try 

a different approach. 

■ How the agent talks with offenders makes a difference in the way they 

react to the agent and to the conditions of their supervision. Confrontational statements that defend the court’s/board’s position are unlikely to 

persuade the offender. 

■ An MI-inclined agent understands that all problem behaviors have some 

positive aspects and allows the offender to talk about both sides of the issue. 

46 | 
____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Exercise: Rolling With Resistance 

All of the following are things a client might say. Think of two things you might say 

in response if you want to roll with the resistance. 

You might try— 

■ Simple reflection (restating content in similar words). 

■ Paraphrased reflection (restating content in other words or inferring 


meaning).


■ Emotive reflection (stating the emotion). 

■ Double-sided reflection (highlighting mixed feelings). 

■ Asking a hypothetical question (If you wanted to, how...?). 

1. I’m not the one with the problem. If I drink, it’s because my wife is always 

nagging me. 

2. You'd drink, too, if you had a family like mine. 

3. I know you’re sitting there thinking that I’m an addict, but it’s not like that. 

I just like getting high sometimes. 

4. My wife is always exaggerating! I never hurt anybody when I was drinking! 

5. The job isn’t my problem. What I want to talk about is my son—now he’s 

the one with the problem! 

| 47 
C H A P T E R 4 

Useful Questions for Motivational Interviews 

What concerns do you (does your wife, girlfriend, etc.) have?


How has . . . caused trouble for you?


What are some good things about . . . ? What are some not-so-good things 


about . . . ?


How would things be better for you if you made that change?


What thoughts have you had about change?


What do you think will happen if you don’t . . . ?


If there were no more drugs or alcohol in the world, what do you think 


would replace how drugs make you feel?


If you look forward to, say, a year from now, how would you want your life 


to be different?


How do you want things to end up when you’re done with probation? 


Where do you want to be?


How would that pay off for you, if you went ahead and made this change?


In what situations is it hardest for you to stay sober?


There are a few things that might work for you (provide a short list). Which 


of these would you like to try?


Here are some things that we need to talk about (provide a short list).


Which of these would you like to talk about first?


On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to change your . . . ?


On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you could change if you 


wanted to?


If you wanted to change, how would you go about it?


Who would (or will) help you to . . . ?


What worked for you in the past? 


What would you like to work on first?


When would be a good time to start?


How could (or will) you do that?


How can you make that happen?


What can I do to help you succeed at . . .?


What else?


48 | 
P R E P A R I n g f O R C H A n g E 

Useful Statements for Motivational Interviews 

Thanks for coming in on time. 

It feels to you that people might be blowing this out of proportion. 

You don’t feel like I can understand where you’re coming from. 

At this point, it doesn’t seem that big a deal to you. 

Drinking has some positive aspects for you. 

It’s frustrating. (You’re frustrated with having to be here.) 

It’s difficult. (I know this must be difficult for you.) 

It’s hard for you. (It might be hard for you.) 

I can see why you might think that. 

So the thing that most concerns you is . . . . 

You want to do the right thing. 

That’s a good idea. 

I think you could do it if you really wanted to. 

I think that will work for you. 

Thanks for talking with me. 

I appreciate your honesty. 

Restatement of anything that indicates concerns about present behavior or interest in 

change. 

| 49 
C H A P T E R 5

Building Motivation for Change 

Whereas the last chapter focused on listening skills, this chapter talks about ways to 

tip the motivational balance toward change. The chapter begins by presenting strategies for guiding a conversation to focus on behavior change. It then suggests ways 

to encourage positive talk and engage the offender in thinking about change. Finally, 

the chapter suggests ways to help connect talk to action. 

Pick a Focus 

Conversations about change are most effective when they address one or two areas 

at a time. Thus, it is important for the agent to decide which behaviors deserve consideration at this moment and which can be left for later. Agents must weigh issues 

based on their importance to the court/board as well as to the offender. 

Early on, assessment results or a case plan may suggest areas of focus. For instance, 

a risk/needs assessment helps determine the kinds of services provided to an offender, including monitoring, placement, and specific areas of change. The following example illustrates focusing the discussion of the results of the risk/needs assessment: 

Agent: What we have here are the results from one of your assessments. 

It shows different areas that might make it easier or harder for you to successfully complete supervision. Some areas you don’t have any control 

over. For instance, we can’t change the fact that you’ve been convicted 

before or that you’ve had a previous probation revoked. On the other hand, 

some things you do have control over. Three areas that we’ll be revisiting 

are your living situation, your marital relationship, and your circle of friends. 

All three of these seem to have gotten you in trouble in the past, or at least 

made it difficult for you to keep out of trouble. I wonder if you could tell me 

a little about each of these areas. For instance, I’m interested to know how 

your circle of friends might have caused trouble for you in the past. 

Chapter 7 talks more about ways to integrate assessment and case planning into 

subsequent interactions. Later on, supervision progress or continued problem 

may determine areas of focus. In this example, the agent transitions from asking 

questions to talking about a substance abuse evaluation: 

| 51 
C H A P T E R 5 

Agent: OK, I think I have what I need for my case notes. Thanks for answering those questions. There’s a couple of things I’d like to talk about 

today. One of your conditions requires that you complete a substance 

abuse evaluation in the first 90 days, and I’m concerned that you have 

about a month left to get that done to avoid a sanction. Would it be OK if 

we talked about that for a minute? Tell me this, on a scale of 1 to 10, how 

important is it for you to make this happen in the next week or so? [See 

“question on a scale” technique later in this chapter.] 

Another way to focus is to ask the offender to set the agenda. Supervising agents 

cannot always negotiate “if” a person will comply with the terms of his supervision, 

but they can usually negotiate “how” and “why” the person will comply. In transitioning from asking questions to talking about a substance abuse evaluation, giving 

the offender a choice in what to talk about can be a good strategy for encouraging 

him to become more involved in his own plan of action: 

Agent: We’ve been working on a couple of things. One is your community 

service, and the second is completing this anger management class. We 

also need to make sure you are staying current with your fees, which will 

probably mean talking about how the job search is going. Which of those 

would you like to talk about? 

Look For and Emphasize Things That Motivate 

Legal sanctions may motivate some people, but in general, the power of external 

punishment as a motivator is overestimated. The most powerful motivators are 

intrinsic: family, children, friends, keeping a job, gaining the respect of others, or 

feeling a measure of control over life. For most people, change is an inside job. 

Ask Questions That Raise Interest 

Chapter 4 talked about using open-ended questions to encourage an offender to 

think and talk about change. The following questions, based on the DARN–C 

(desire, ability, reasons, needs, commitment) model discussed in chapter 3, address 

the offender’s reasons for change: 

■ Drawbacks of current behavior: 

O What concerns do you have about your drug use? 

O What concerns does your wife have about your drug use? 

O What has your drug use cost you? 

52 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

■ Benefits of change: 

O	 If you went ahead and took care of that class, how would that make things 

better for you? 

O	 You talk a lot about your family. How would finding a job benefit your 

family? 

O	 How would that make things better for your kids? 

■ Desire to change: 

O	 How badly do you want that? 

O	 How does that make you feel? 

O	 How would that make you feel different? 

■ Ability to change: 

O	 How would you do that if you wanted to? 

O	 What would that take? 

O	 If you did decide to change, what makes you think you could do it? 

■ Specific commitments the offender will make to change: 

O	 How are you going to do that? 

O	 What will that look like? 

O	 How are you going to make sure that happens? 

Because questions partially determine the offender’s responses, the agent asks 

questions that try to elicit increased motivation and commitment to change. When 

talking about matters of fact, this might be considered leading, but when talking 

about motivation, the agent can assume that every offender has some mixed feelings regarding the desired behavior changes. The outcome is not fixed, so the agent 

provides every opportunity for the offender to talk and think about positive behavior 

change. 

In guiding a conversation toward change, it is usually better to start by exploring the 

offender’s mixed feelings. Later, it is usually better to follow up on elements that 

express desire to change, ability to change, or reasons for change. Once an offender 

has decided to take action, it can be appropriate to ask questions about commitment 

to change. 

Follow Up on Productive Talk 

A second way to keep the conversation focused on change is to emphasize productive offender statements, ignoring less productive statements unless there is a good 

reason to address them. Consider the following statement from a domestic violence 

offender: 

| 53 
C H A P T E R 5 

Offender: Sure, counseling would probably help us a lot. But there’s no 

way my wife would go for it. And anyway, we can’t afford it. 

In this statement, the offender is saying at least three things: first, counseling might 

help improve their relationship; second, his wife is reluctant to participate; and 

third, it might be too expensive. What the officer says next determines which of 

these three elements the offender talks about. Of the three, the first is probably the 

most likely to be productive. Following up on either of the other two elements, 

which are negative, encourages the person to talk about barriers to change and probably will not make change more likely. 

At least two options for following up on the first element are available. One option 

is to begin raising the offender’s interest or readiness to engage in treatment; another 

is to talk about planning independent of desire. For instance, a question or reflection 

might highlight the person’s desire to obtain help: 

■ It sounds like there are some barriers there, but it also sounds like part of 

you thinks that counseling would really help. 

■ In what ways do you think it would help? 

■ What problems would that solve? 

Another type of question might ask about why or how he might obtain help: 

Agent: Let’s say for a moment your wife was on board. How would you go 

about getting some help here? What would work for you? 

Here is an example of an offender who expresses a desire for change but comes up 

with excuses for not changing his behavior: 

Offender: I want to stay clean and sober, but I can’t get a job because 

of this court thing and so I have to live with my brother who drinks all the 

time. 

The temptation for the agent is to answer the part that is most irritating—the suggestion that the court has ruined the probationer’s job prospects and placed him at risk 

for relapse. However, the most productive element for increasing the probationer’s 

interest in change is his stated desire to remain clean and sober. The agent might 

respond with a reflection or question that focuses on this element: 

■ You do want to stay clean and sober. 

■ How are you going to manage that? 

■ You really do want to do the right thing here. But given that you’ve been 

placed in a difficult position, how are you going to make sure you stay clean? 

The following two dialogues present examples of how an agent can use questions 

and statements to draw out more productive elements in talking with offenders who 

are in different stages of motivation to change. In both dialogues, the agent uses 

54 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

reflections and questions to shift the conversation toward change. In the first dialogue, the offender minimizes the issue of his drug use and shows little motivation 

to change. 

Offender: Sure, I smoke pot every once in a while. Everyone else is all 

concerned, but I don’t think it’s that big a deal. I mean, don’t a lot of people 

smoke? 

Agent: So, some other people are concerned, but it doesn’t seem like a 

big issue to you.You think that maybe they’re blowing the whole thing out 

of proportion. [Reflection—simple restatement of concerns.] 

O:	 Yeah, I’m old enough to make my own decisions. It’s not like I’m stealing or anything to buy drugs. 

A:	 So, who is concerned about the use? [Open question—asks about 

others’ concerns.] 

O:	 My mom for one. But it’s no big deal. She doesn’t know what’s going 

on with me anyway. And she smokes too. She’s such a hypocrite. 

A:	 What do you think she’s afraid of? [Open question—asks for elaboration on concerns.] 

In the second dialogue, the offender has relapsed into drug use but demonstrates 

some interest in changing his behavior. 

Offender: I don’t know what happened. It’s just like the last time. Things 

are going well, and then I’m using again. 

Agent: It’s almost like it sneaks up on you when you least expect it. We 

talked about how much you wanted to remain clean, because you recognize the negative effect on your kids.You see it. [Reflection—restates 

drawbacks of use, desire to remain abstinent.] 

O:	 Yeah, they see it too. It’s never long before I’m using in front of them, 

and that’s not right. 

A:	 You want to do right by your kids.You don’t want them to have 


that same environment which has caused you all this trouble.


[Reflection—restates reasons for abstinence.] 

O:	 There’s got to be something better than this. Maybe some more of 

those classes or something. 

A:	 Maybe getting some formal treatment would help. [Reflection—restates 

desire to change, adds treatment element.] 

| 55 
C H A P T E R 5 

Use Forward-Focused Questions 

When talking about action, it can be more efficient to concentrate on forwardfocused questions. Forward-focused questions ask what the offender could do or 

will do or what things will work for him. This is in contrast to backward-focused 

questions that ask about why the offender can’t, won’t, or didn’t do something. 

The following example presents contrasting responses to backward- and forwardfocused questions in following up with a domestic violence offender who must 

attend a drug and alcohol assessment, even though the incident did not involve 

alcohol. 

Offender: Alcohol assessment? I don’t even drink! I don’t have time to 

do that. 

Agent 1: Why can’t you do that? 

[Backward-focused question.] 

O: I wasn’t even drinking when it 

happened. Plus, it’s just going 

to create more trouble if my wife 

thinks I have a drinking problem. 

Agent 2: How could you do that? 

[Forward-focused question.] 

O: Well, I guess I could go this 

weekend when I’m off work, but 

I still think the thing is a waste of 

time. 

The first agent’s question sets up the offender to give a list of barriers; the second 

agent’s question encourages the offender to think of solutions. The second agent’s 

question also sidesteps a debate about whether the offender has a “problem” with 

alcohol. This offender may agree to complete the assessment even though he still 

does not admit he has an alcohol problem. Motivating the offender toward this 

action may be a reasonable goal, given a brief space of time. Exhibit 5–1 presents a 

series of backward-focused questions transformed into forward-focused questions. 

Exhibit 5–1. Transforming Backward-Focused to Forward-Focused 

Questions 

You’re late with that receipt for your You’re late with a receipt for your payment, 

payment. Why didn’t you bring that in? and I’m wondering if there’s something that 

we can problem-solve here. How can we 

make sure that you get it to me this week? 

56 | 

Avoid Backward-Focused 

Questions 

Try Forward-Focused Questions 

I thought we agreed that you would get 

information on that AA group. What was 

the problem? 

AA will probably be an important part of 

successfully completing supervision, so 

I’m wondering how we can make sure that 

will happen this week. 

Why couldn’t you get a copy of that job 

application? 

How can we make sure that I can get a 

copy of that application by the time we 

meet next week? 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

Although identifying obstacles is an important aspect of planning, the downside is 

that this tack tends to draw out excuses. This approach also increases the interaction 

time because the agent must revisit the issue of how the offender can or will accomplish the task. Problem solving also assumes a motivated subject; given a short 

amount of time, it is usually better to put the effort into building motivation and to 

leave the primary responsibility for problem solving with the offender. 

Ask Scaled (Rather Than Yes/No) Questions 

One way to structure a brief discussion about change is to ask scaled questions 

about different aspects of motivation—being “ready, willing, and able” (Rollnick 

1998). The following questions show how these aspects relate back to specific 

DARN–C elements: 

■ Desire (will) to change. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to make a change in . . . ? 

■ Ability (confidence) to change. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you could make a change 

in . . . ? 

■ Readiness (specific commitment) to change. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how ready are you to make a change in . . . ? 

There are two advantages to asking questions in this way. First, a scaled question 

captures ambivalence better than a yes/no question. A person who says, “I don’t 

need to do anything about that” might give a two or three in response to a scaled 

question. Second, a scaled response is more useful for initiating a conversation 

about change; it assumes at least a minimal willingness to change, whereas a 

“yes/no” question may appear to close off the possibility of change entirely (see 

exhibit 5–2). To aid in case planning, use the separate importance and confidence 

rulers shown in exhibit 5–3 to talk about readiness to complete different mandated 

conditions. 

Exhibit 5–2. Transforming Yes/No Questions to Scaled Questions 

Avoid Yes/No (Closed) Questions Try Scaled (Open-Ended) Questions 

If you want to keep custody of your kids, 

you need to find a job. Isn’t that what you 

want? 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to 

keep custody of your kids? Why is that? 

Do you want to complete supervision?
 On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to 


you to complete supervision? Why is that? 


Why not a lower number?


Don’t you want to do something about your 

drug use? Can’t you see what it’s doing to 

your family? 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how ready are you 

to do something about the drug use? Why 

is that? Why not a lower number? 

| 57 
C H A P T E R 5 

Exhibit 5–3. Importance and Confidence Rulers 

Importance Ruler 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to make a change? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Not at all important Extremely important 

Confidence Ruler 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you could make a change if you 

wanted to? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Not at all important Extremely important 

Beyond the assessment question, some subtlety in followup questions can be helpful. If the goal is to raise interest or confidence, concentrate followup questions in a 

certain direction (e.g., “Why not a lower number?”). This encourages the offender to 

elaborate on why change is important and why he is confident that he can do it. Followup questions also provide a springboard for talking about a plan of action. If it is 

important to the offender, what is he willing to do to make it happen? 

The steps in using importance and confidence questions look like this: 

Importance questions: 

■ Ask how important it is to make a change in an area. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, how important is it for you to make a change in 

your . . . ? 

■ Reflect the response. 

It’s pretty important (somewhat important) for you . . . . 

■ Ask for elaboration. 

Why is that? What things make it important? 

■ Ask why not a lower number. 

Why did you pick a five and not a one? 

■ Ask for elaboration. 

Tell me more about that. What else? . . . What else? 

58 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

Confidence questions: 

■ Ask how confident the offender is in his ability to change. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, how confident are you that you could make a 

change if you wanted to? 

■ Reflect the response. 

You’re pretty confident (somewhat confident, not very confident) that you 

could . . . . 

■ Ask for elaboration. 

Why is that? What things make you confident? 

■ Ask why not a lower number. 

Why did you pick a five and not a one? 

■ Ask for elaboration. 

Tell me more about that. What else? . . . What else? 

The next dialogues present examples of followup questions to three different 

offender responses to scaled importance and confidence questions directed to building motivation to avoid drug use. The first dialogue presents responses to a scaled 

importance question: 

Agent: On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it for you to stay clean? 

Offender 1: A one. Offender 2: About a four. Offender 3: Maybe a nine. 

A: OK, so it’s not that important to 

you at this time. Let me remind 

you though, that it is one of 

your conditions of supervision. 

Maybe we can visit that later. 

A: So, about in the middle. But I’m 

wondering, why did you say a 

four and not a one? So, one 

reason it’s important is . . . . 

What else? 

A: So it’s very important for you 

to avoid using drugs. Why is 

that? What else? 

The second dialogue presents responses to a scaled confidence question: 

Agent: Using the same scale, how confident are you that you could stay 

clean if you wanted to? 

Offender 1: A one. Offender 2: About a four. Offender 3: A ten. 

A: Hmmm . . . Pretty low. What 

would it take to raise that estimate a little bit? Tell me about 

a change you made in the 

past. How did you go about it? 

Who might help you to . . .? 

A: So, about in the middle. But 

why a four and not a one? What 

else? What would it take to 

raise your confidence to, say, an 

eight? How would you go about 

it? How can I help you to make 

that happen? 

A: Very confident. How would you 

go about it? What would it look 

like? What else? How can I 

help you make that happen? 

| 59 
C H A P T E R 5 

Scaled questions can be used to talk about any current behavior or area in need of 

change. For instance: 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to— 

■ Complete community service hours? 

■ Get caught up on fees? 

■ Avoid contact with the victim? 

■ Complete a batterer intervention course? 

■ Complete a substance abuse evaluation? 

Scaled questions can also be used to capture more general motivation to complete 

supervision successfully: 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to complete all of your conditions 

of supervision successfully? 

As with the other interviewing techniques presented in this guide, this technique 

is not meant to be used to bully offenders. (An agent was once heard to say to an 

offender, “On a scale of 1 to 10, would you rather spend 6 months in jail or 12 

months?”) These questions are designed to access internal motivation for change. In 

general, bullying offenders with external threats makes it less likely that they will 

take on new, more prosocial behaviors. An exercise in asking good questions and 

additional examples of good communication are provided at the end of this chapter. 

Strengthen Commitment To Change 

The agent hopes that at some point, the balance of motivation will shift. He/she 

spends time exploring the offender’s ambivalence and building motivation to 

help the offender decide what he would like to do about his situation. Exhibit 5–4 

shows these two phases of motivation. Phase 1 corresponds to the early stages of 

change, when the agent works to elicit talk about desire, ability, reasons, and need 

for change. (“Why is change important?”) Phase 2 occurs when the agent works to 

elicit specific commitments from an offender who is motivated to change. (“What 

do you want to do about it?”) 

A domestic violence offender might begin supervision not believing that his anger 

issues are important. In exploring the issue with his supervising agent, he may become more aware of the way his behavior affects himself or others. The agent looks 

for statements like the following from the offender to show that the balance is ready 

to shift from Phase 1 to Phase 2: 

■ The cops keep showing up, and it’s embarrassing. 

■ Things have gotten really bad between us. I don’t know what’s going to 

happen. 

60 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

Exhibit 5–4. Two Phases of Motivation 

Phase 1	 Phase 2 

Building Motivation	 Strengthening Commitment 

■ She really gets onto me about coming home late, and I guess I don’t handle 

it that well. 

■ I guess I should just take that anger management class, even though I don’t 

think I really need it. 

In these statements, the offender is expressing desire, ability, reasons, or need to 

change (Phase 1). Given these signals, an agent can move the conversation toward 

commitment (Phase 2) by asking an action question, giving advice or information, 

or asking about change without obtaining a specific commitment. 

Ask an Action Question 

One way to move the conversation toward commitment is to ask an action question: 

■ Where do we go from here? 

■ What’s the next step? 

■ What do you want to do about that? 

■ What’s one thing you would be willing to do this week to make that happen, 

or is this something you need more time to think about? 

An action question not only moves the conversation toward change, but it also 

gauges the respondent’s level of commitment. If the respondent answers with weak 

commitment language, the agent can either proceed with this weak commitment 

or continue to elicit change talk until the respondent is ready to make a stronger 

commitment. 

Give Advice Without Telling What To Do 

Another way to move the interaction toward commitment is to provide information 

or advice without obtaining a specific commitment from the offender. Because most 

supervision interactions are relatively brief, many agents suggest how the offender 

might go about securing transportation, finding a job, or completing community service hours. However, a person is much more likely to act on a solution he comes up 

| 61 
C H A P T E R 5 

with himself. Suggestions are sometimes helpful in changing behavior, but the danger is that an offender may be less likely to consider them if he feels that he is being 

told what to do. Therefore, agents should be careful to avoid rushing to provide too 

many suggestions. 

In the following interaction, the offender has not been able to complete his community service referral because of transportation difficulties. Each suggestion by the 

agent for resolving those difficulties meets with objections from the offender: 

Offender: I’m trying to get there, but I don’t have a car. 

Agent: What about borrowing a car from your mother? 

O:	 My mother doesn’t even know I’m on supervision. There’s no way I 

could ask her. She’d totally freak out! 

A:	 How about the bus line? 

O:	 Yeah, I thought about that, but there’s no bus line near my house. 

A:	 Well, how did you get here today? 

O:	 My buddy dropped me off, but he doesn’t live anywhere near the place 

you told me to go. 

This agent has fallen into a classic trap. The agent gives a suggestion, and the offender tells why it will not work for him. The interaction frustrates both parties. The 

agent feels like the offender must be dragging his feet, and the offender feels like 

the agent does not understand his situation. Certainly, transportation is a real barrier 

for many people. And yet, most people seem to figure out how to accomplish things 

that are important to them. One simple tool is to ask the offender what ideas he has 

for accomplishing that task or what things have worked for him in the past. 

Agents sometimes do decide to provide advice. In such instances, the following 

strategies will make it more likely that the person will seriously listen to and act on 

that advice: 

■ Ask for permission before providing advice. 

Would it be okay if I gave you some information about . . . ? 

■ Preface advice with permission to disagree. 

This may or may not work for you, but one thing you might think 

about is . . . . 

■ Give more than one option. 

There are a couple of things that might work for you here. 

■ Emphasize personal responsibility. 

Ultimately, you’re the one who has to decide how this goes.You’ll have to 

decide what’s right for you—whether it’s easier to make this happen, even 

though it’s not convenient, or whether it’s just easier to take the sanction. 

62 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

The following example using these strategies demonstrates how the previous 

dialogue might have gone differently: 

Offender: I’m trying to get there, but I don’t have a car. 

Agent: It sounds like it might be difficult for you. 

O:	 Yeah, how am I supposed to get all the way over there without a car? 

I mean, are you going to come pick me up? 

A:	 It sounds like it is something you want to do, but at the same time 

you’re frustrated in thinking about how you’re going to get there without 

a car. It does make things more difficult. 

O:	 Yeah, I want to. I just don’t know how. 

A:	 I wonder if you would be interested in working together to come up 

with a solution. Is that something you would be interested in? 

O:	 Yeah, I guess. 

A:	 There are a couple of things that might work for you here . . . . 

The second dialogue will take more time because the agent is listening to the offender and encouraging him to work out his own solution. Exhibit 5–5 illustrates the 

difference between less effective responses that dictate a solution and more effective 

responses that help an offender to come up with his own solution. 

Exhibit 5–5. Responses That Facilitate Rather Than Dictate Solutions 

Dictating Solutions Facilitating Solutions 

Couldn’t you borrow your mother’s car? So it’s going to be very important for you to 

keep your meetings. How are you going to 

make that happen? 

What about that job at McDonald’s? McDonald’s might be one option, but I’m 

wondering what else you’ve thought of? 

The next time you get angry, make sure 

you count to 10 before acting. 

When you think about times when you’ve 

been able to manage your anger, what 

things have worked for you? 

| 63 
C H A P T E R 5 

A menu of options is another way to provide suggestions. If the agent provides several options instead of just one, it is more likely that the offender will find an option 

that works for him: 

■ What are your options here? 

■ You have a couple of options here . . . . 

■ I know transportation has been a problem for you, so here are a few things 

that might work. (Provides a short list.) Which would you like to check into? 

■ We have a few things we need to talk about: the job situation, taking care of 

the drug education class, and getting caught up on fees. Which would you 

like to talk about first? 

The three previous sections have talked about ways to move the conversation from 

motivation (Phase 1) to commitment (Phase 2). However, it is important to recognize that individuals may go back and forth between the phases. They may express 

interest in change while talking about the barriers to change. Ambivalence is a 

normal part of the change process, even after someone has decided to act. The next 

set of dialogues illustrate some ways that an agent can respond to an offender who 

continues to have mixed feelings about change. 

Offender 1: Yeah, I want to find 

a job, but who’s going to take care 

of my kids while I’m working? 

Agent 1: It might be hard for 

you. [Reflects offender’s 

ambivalence about change.] 

Offender 2: I’ll go to the class, 

but I still think my wife’s the one 

with the problem. 

Agent 2: Ultimately, I guess you’ll 

have to decide whether you’re 

willing to take action here. [Emphasizes personal responsibility.] 

Offender 3: I just don’t know 

how I can afford to make the 

restitution payments. 

Agent 3: I know it seems pretty 

overwhelming. I’m wondering 

whether it would be helpful to 

spend a minute looking over this 

finance worksheet. I’d be glad 

to talk with you to see if we can 

come up with a plan. [Offers 

assistance.] 

Help Connect Talk to Action 

The final step is to talk about the specifics of the plan for changing the offender’s 

behavior and meeting the supervision requirements. The more specifically an offender talks about this plan, the more likely he is to follow through with it. If an 

offender agrees to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, what kind of group will he attend? 

When is the meeting? With whom will he go? How will attendance be monitored? 

Because of time constraints, the tendency is to give the offender the plan. However, 

offender speech is a much better predictor of action than agent speech. For this 

reason, agents go out of their way to encourage an offender to develop and talk 

about his own plan, addressing the following issues: 

■ What specifically will the behavior look like? 

■ When will the behavior occur? 

64 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

■ Where will the behavior will occur? 

■ Why is the behavior personally important to the offender? 

■ How can the behavior be achieved? How can the agent verify action? How 

can the agent assist in carrying out the plan? 

Using written or visual cues, such as handouts or worksheets, can be helpful. Some 

people work well with a simple plan of action. In the following example, the behavior is job seeking: 

■ What? 

Submit five job applications before next meeting. 

■ When? 

I can go any day, but Tuesday mornings after the drug class are best. 

■ Where? 

Mostly fast food applications, but I might also try supermarket checker 

positions. 

■ Why? 

I would have my own income, and maybe be able to move out on my own. I 

might be able to be dismissed from supervision early. 

■ How? 

My mom can take me to get the applications. I can bring the job applications 

and copy them at the department office. Officer can assist me by calling on 

Tuesday morning to remind me. 

The better the foundation the agent has laid for change, the easier the solution will 

appear. In fact, some of the best interactions are those where an agent has spent a 

good deal of time helping the offender to explore why it is personally important to 

complete a condition. If the offender decides it is important, the agent can then ask 

for a commitment: “How are you going to make that happen?” It is amazing to see 

barriers disappear when an offender is well prepared for change. 

| 65 
C H A P T E R 5 

K E Y P o I N T S 

■ Prioritize issues based on importance. Use assessment results or a case plan 

to guide the focus, or let the offender pick from a list. 

■ Threats of punishment rarely produce lasting behavior change. Raising 

internal motivation involves recognizing and encouraging the kind of talk 

that increases that motivation. 

■ Follow up on productive statements and ignore less productive statements. 

■ Ask scaled questions rather than yes/no questions. 

■ Spend time building motivation and then ask an action question about what 

the offender will do. 

■ A person is more likely to act on a solution he feels he came up with. 

Involve the offender in planning, use a menu of options, and give advice 

without bullying. 

■ The more specifically a person talks about the plan, the more likely he is to 

follow through with it. 

66 | 
B U I L D I N G M O T I V A T I O N F O R C H A N G E 

Exercise: Asking Good Questions 

Not-so-good questions increase resistance and decrease the likelihood that the 

offender will talk about changes in his behavior. Many not-so-good questions are 

suggestions (or accusations) in disguise. For each of the not-so-good questions 

below, rephrase the question to reduce resistance and encourage talk about change. 

Not-So-Good Question Better Question 

You don’t have a drinking problem, do you? 

What about the job training program. Could 

you do that? 

If you got a job, wouldn’t that make things 

better at home? 

Aren’t you worried about how your drug use 

affects your kids? 

Every time you see Larry, it seems like you 

get in trouble. What about driving home 

another way so that you can avoid running 

into him? 

Why can’t you just get a ride to the AA 

meeting with your brother? 

You use again, you go to jail. Is that what 

you want? 

Is your wife concerned about you being on 

probation? 

| 67 
Communication Examples 

Some statements and questions are better than others because they increase the 

chance that the offender will talk more productively about change. 

Trap What NOT To Say What TO Say 

Playing the Expert You don’t have a job because 

you’re not putting in enough 

applications. 

What ideas do you have as to how 

you might get a job? 

Giving Unsolicited 

Advice 

You need to get up first thing 

in the morning, get a cup of 

coffee, and go in to fill out 

that application. 

If you decided you wanted to put in 

a job application, how would you 

go about that? 

Arguing the 


Positive Side


Premature Focus 

on Change 

You need to stop making 

excuses and find a job. 

We’ve been talking a lot 

about how important it is to 

get a job, and this week I’d 

like you to submit five job 

applications. 

How would things be better for you 

if you found a job? 

Ultimately you’re the one who has 

to decide whether you want to put 

in the hard work to finding a job. 

What do you think is a reasonable 

number of applications to put in 

this week? 

Asking BackwardFocused 

Questions 

Why did you go to that party 

when you knew it was going 

to get you in trouble? 

Why haven’t you been able to 

get a job? 

It sounds like that situation really 

got you in trouble. 

What can you do this week to 

move this thing forward? 

C H A P T E R 5 

68 | 
CHAPTER 6

Navigating Tough Times: Working 

With Deception, Violations, and 

Sanctions 

In dealing with offenders, probation and parole officers must play two confl icting 

roles—counselor and mentor to the offender and representative of the justice system 

who has the power to return the offender to confinement. Probation and parole officers help the offender plan to meet supervision conditions, but dispense sanctions 

if he fails; they ask the offender to be honest, but also report violations to a court 

or board (Trotter 1999). This chapter suggests ways to navigate this dual role—to 

address violations and supervise for compliance while maintaining a motivational 

style. 

Lying and Deception 

Deception is commonplace in criminal justice, whether by deliberate lies, halftruths, or omission of information. In response to being charged with a violation or 

significant lack of progress, offenders sometimes lie (“I didn’t do it!”) or make excuses for their behavior (“I did it but it’s not so bad”). The range of assertions seems 

endless: “Everybody does it” (consensus); “It’s not that bad” (minimization); “I 

needed the money” (justification); “I didn’t mean to” (intention). With the coercion 

inherent in corrections, it is reasonable for probation and parole officers to expect 

deception from a certain percentage of the offenders whom they supervise. At the 

same time, it is important to understand that most offenders bend the truth for pretty 

ordinary reasons. To some extent, lying and deception—hiding our inner selves or 

our outer behavior—are simply part of our social world. Lying is one more natural 

continuum of human behavior. It is not so much its presence or absence, but the 

degree of deception that becomes a problem. 

Why Do People Lie? 

This chapter talks about two types of deception: Intentional, self-aware deception 

toward others and deception toward others that also involves some degree of selfdeception. 

| 69 
CHAPTER 6 

People tend to make two assumptions about their own actions (Sigmon and Snyder 

1993): “I’m a good person” and “I am in control most of the time.” These assumptions protect and enhance mental health. These beliefs also mean that people may 

speak in a way that protects these assumptions. For instance: 

■ A person will lie to save face. To save face is to protect a positive


self-image—“I am a good person” and “I am in control.”


■ A person will lie to save face for someone he or she cares about. Relationships are powerful motivators. This explains why abused children may lie 

to a protective services worker to protect their parent(s) and why one spouse 

cannot be compelled to testify against the other in a court of law. It creates a 

conflict to have to provide damaging information about someone with whom 

one has a close relationship. 

■ A person will lie to prevent a perceived loss of freedom or resources. 

There are penalties for admitting lawbreaking behavior, and an offender must 

weigh the immediate penalties resulting from telling the truth against the 

possibly worse, but less certain, penalties that might occur if he told a lie. In 

fact, a lie can be a good gamble if the immediate penalties are more certain 

and possibly just as bad. 

Any or all of these influences might be present as an offender progresses through the 

system. Like all people, offenders have obligations—to personal pride, important 

relationships, or the threat of a loss of freedom—that they must weigh against what 

the system is asking of them. 

There are also deceptive tendencies that operate partially outside the offender’s 

awareness—ways that people bend information to make it more consistent with how 

they feel or what they believe (Saarni and Lewis, 1993): 

■ A person will reinterpret information so that it fits with his basic 

assumptions about his goodness or competency. Nowhere is this more 

evident than in making excuses. For instance, if I believe that I am generally competent, but I am not able to follow through with a referral, I tend 

to believe that circumstances must have made it too diffi cult. Taking full 

responsibility for poor outcomes can conflict with perceptions of oneself as 

good and in control. 

■ A person will bend information in response to who is asking the question 

and how the question is phrased. How an agent asks a question partially 

determines what answer the offender gives. In fact, some agents inadvertently encourage lies through their use of questions. In an attempt to trick 

an offender into admitting something, they will ask the offender to elaborate 

on an obviously concocted story. In listening to himself, the offender comes 

to defend, justify, or perhaps even believe elements of that story. It becomes 

more difficult for him to extricate himself once he has created details—new 

lies—to support his initial story. Other agents push offenders to justify past 

70 | 
N A VIGA TING T OUGH TIMES 

or present behavior by asking backwards-focused questions such as, “Why 

didn’t you do that?” or “Why can’t you do that?” In response to questions 

like these, the agent essentially gets what he or she has asked for—a list of 

excuses for why the offender was not able to complete some task, interpreted 

in a way that fits with the offender’s basic beliefs about his own goodness 

and autonomy. 

What Can Be Done About It? 

First, the adage “Don’t take it personally” is appropriate here. Taking full responsibility for poor outcomes can conflict with a person’s perceptions of himself or 

herself as good and in control. Many offenders deceive not so much to con the 

agent as to defend these assumptions within themselves—it may be a product of 

self-deception. 

Fortunately, a positive relationship between the agent and the offender makes lies 

less likely. Some agents believe that a confrontational style sends the offender a 

message that the agent cannot be taken in, but research suggests it is more the 

opposite: a harsh, coercive style can prompt an offender to lie to save face and 

allows the offender to justify his lies to himself. Agents who have positive, collaborative relationships with offenders are less likely to be lied to. A mutual working 

style makes honesty more likely. A motivational approach handles deception, not by 

ignoring it or getting agitated by it, but rather by taking a step back from the debate. 

Addressing Violations and Sanctions 

When faced with difficult situations, the temptation for the agent is to move to one 

side or the other—to become too harsh or too friendly—when a more middle-ofthe-road approach is called for. Agents are like facilitators or consultants in that they 

manage the relationship between court/board and offender. Agents make decisions 

neither for the offender nor for the court/board. If agents look at their position from 

the perspective of a facilitator, they can avoid some of the pitfalls inherent in this 

dual role. Adopting a middle-of-the-road stance provides the best balance between 

being an effective advocate for the court/board and encouraging the offender to 

make positive changes. 

Explain the Dual Role 

Agents should be up front with offenders about conditions, incentives, and sanctions. They should also be honest with the offender about their dual role as representatives of and advocates for both the offender and the supervising court/board. For 

instance: 

Agent: I want to make you aware that I have a couple of roles here. 

One of them is to be the agency’s representative and to report on your 

progress on the conditions that have been set. At the same time, I act as a 

representative for you, to help keep the system off your back and manage 

| 71 
CHAPTER 6 

these conditions, while possibly making some other positive steps along 

the way. I’ll act as a “go-between”—that is, between you and the system— 

but ultimately you’re the one who makes the choices. Tell me how that 

sounds to you right now. Is there anything you think I need to know before 

proceeding? 

Be Clear About the Sanctions 

Agents should make sure offenders are aware of what sanctions are likely to occur 

as a result of a violation. This is perhaps most evident when the offender is getting 

close to receiving a sanction. In this example, the offender has shown a signifi cant 

lack of progress. 

Agent: We’ve been talking this meeting about getting you up to speed 

on employment. We’ve been working together for 6 months on this, but it 

looks like things have been difficult for you. What happens at this point is 

that if you can’t produce verification of employment by our next meeting, 

we will then move to weekly reporting. That means that instead of meeting 

once a month, we would meet every week. I know that would obviously 

make things more difficult for you, so I guess the ball’s in your court.You’ll 

have to decide whether it’s easier to make time to do this or whether it’s 

easier to take the sanction. What do you want to do about this? 

Informing offenders of the sanctions can make compliance more likely, but it is by 

no means a magic bullet. When delivered, sanctions should be clear, immediate, and 

proportional to the violation. When systems adopt a progressive sanctions model, 

the incentives and penalties become apparent to both agents and offenders. An agent 

should work to ensure that an offender is never surprised by a sanction. 

Address Behavior With an “Even Keel” Attitude 

Bluster, especially when addressing violations, tends to make diffi cult situations 

worse. An offender may already be on the defensive about his lack of progress, and 

an agitated agent can make the offender’s attitude worse. For this reason, approach 

violations with an “even keel” attitude, addressing the behavior and dispensing the 

appropriate sanction, but not getting agitated or taking the violation personally. This 

section provides two examples of an even-keel attitude. Chapter 7 provides another 

example in which a violation of supervision conditions has led to revocation of the 

offender’s probation. 

The following dialogue presents a situation in which an offender is getting close to a 

violation of supervision orders. The agent informs him what will happen as a result 

of the violation, but does not get upset by the offender’s attitude. 

Agent: We’ve talked about this before. In another 2 weeks, you will be in 

violation of this order. We have also talked about how it is up to you.You 

can certainly ignore this order but sanctions will be assessed. 

72 | 
N A VIGA TING T OUGH TIMES 

Offender: Darn right, I can ignore it—this is so stupid! 

A:	 It seems unfair that you’re required to complete this condition. It feels 

like it might be a waste of your time. 

O:	 Yeah, I can’t believe I have to do this! 

A:	 Even though it’s hard to swallow, I want to make you aware of what will 

happen if you don’t complete this. If it’s not done in the next 2 weeks, 

you will have to start reporting to me weekly instead of monthly. I 

guess you have to decide whether it’s easier to do it even though it 

seems like it might be a waste of your time, or whether it’s just easier 

report to me more often. 

O:	 You don’t have to report this. 

A:	 Unfortunately, that’s part of my job. 

O:	 You mean you can’t just let it go? 

A:	 No, I don’t have a choice. But you have a choice, even if I don’t. I’m 

wondering what we can do to help you succeed here? 

O:	 I’ll think about it; it just seems unfair. 

In this example, the agent refuses to leave the middle, neither defending the order 

nor siding with the offender to stop the sanction. A confrontational approach is an 

option, but at this point, it is probably more appropriate simply to recognize the 

offender’s reluctance and tell him what is likely to happen. Regarding the specifi c 

sanction, the agent defers to the system and emphasizes the collaborative relationship between the agent and the offender: “How do we (you, significant others, and I) 

keep them (the judge, the board, the agency) off your back?” This neutral stance improves the likelihood that a positive decision will eventually overtake the emotions 

of the moment. Finally, the agent emphasizes the offender’s personal responsibility. 

A probationer on supervision does not have to complete the supervision conditions; 

he always has the option of taking the sanction. 

The following dialogue illustrates another difficult situation—a positive urinalysis 

(UA) when the probationer denies use. In this example, the agent presents the 

results, refuses to defend the lab results, and immediately emphasizes the probationer’s personal responsibility. 

Agent: We got the results of your last UA and it came up positive for 

cocaine. Tell me what happened. 

Offender: Positive? Are you sure? It must have been from that last use . . . 

what was it . . . 3 months ago? 

A:	 Sort of a mystery as to how it came up dirty. 

| 73 
CHAPTER 6 

O:	 Yeah, I haven’t used, so your lab must have made a mistake. 

A:	 Unfortunately, the system goes strictly off the results of the UA, so 

there’s nothing we can do about that, but you do have a couple of 

options at this point. It looks like there will be some jail time, but you 

also have the option of signing a voluntary admittance. It’s a good-faith 

gesture, and sometimes they will go a little more leniently if they feel 

that the person is taking this seriously. It might mean that you could 

do some sort of drug treatment in lieu of jail time. On the other hand, 

if you decide that’s not something you want, the decision will be based 

on the results of the UA, which will probably mean serving time in jail. 

But again, it’s up to you. 

The agent bases his or her decision on the physical evidence, rather than on the 

offender’s admission or refusal to admit to the drug use. A dirty UA is a dirty UA. 

This is also the approach to take when offenders exhibit “pseudocompliance”— 

talking about change but showing a significant lack of progress. Agents can provide opportunities for offenders to talk and think about change, but they judge the 

offender’s progress whether or not the offender meets the conditions of supervision. 

Adopting a new approach like motivational interviewing is clearly a process. Even 

after initial training, many officers tend to abandon a motivational style when violations occur. If the offender shows lack of progress, a common mistake is to switch 

to more demanding strategies to relieve the agent’s frustration. However, enforcing 

sanctions based on lack of progress does not mean switching to a more heavyhanded style. An agent can enforce orders and assess sanctions without leaving 

motivational strategies behind. 

The goal is to avoid both the hard and soft approaches. The hard approach is overly 

directive, defending the court’s/board’s authority (“Don’t blame the court; you’re 

the one who broke the law.”). Less examined is the “soft” approach when an offi cer 

refuses to bring violations to the court’s/board’s attention to save the relationship 

(“I won’t tell this time—but don’t do it again”). A positive alliance with the offender 

is not the same as ignoring violations. Agents can collaborate with the offender 

while still being true to their agency roles. They can respect personal choice yet 

disapprove of the behavior. 

When the Offender Denies the Initial Offense 

Another difficult situation can occur when the offender denies committing the initial 

offense. This differs from the case when an offender denies a violation of supervision conditions in that he claims the charge was wrong from the beginning and 

hence he has no need to change. In working with this kind of person, some agents 

assume that no progress can be made unless the offender first admits the offense. 

Sex offenses sometimes require the offender to meet a number of supervision 

74 | 
N A VIGA TING T OUGH TIMES 

conditions for which admission of guilt seems to be a prerequisite—including 

registry, participation in a treatment group, polygraph testing, and letters expressing 

remorse. 

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the first strategy is to avoid defending the court/ 

board, the police report, or the test results. If the agent sees his or her role as less 

an interrogator and more a facilitator of certain behaviors, a middle way appears. 

Agents work with an offender given the conditions of supervision. The system 

expects certain behaviors if the offender wants to complete supervision successfully. 

Thus, in interacting with offenders, agents should concentrate on the observable 

conditions of supervision without debating the validity of the charge. Agents emphasize responsibility for future actions; the offender always has the option of taking the sanction. (Of course, it may be that the denial of the offense is accurate. The 

agent does not know, and so has to take the facts as presented.) Although it is best 

that the offender take responsibility for his past actions, admission of guilt need not 

always be a prerequisite of a change-focused conversation. 

Agent: So, because it was your car, even though you didn’t know your 

friend stashed it under the seat, you pled “no contest” because you didn’t 

think you could beat it, and it would cost you a lot to go to trial. So now, 

you’re stuck with a year’s supervision and all of these conditions and that’s 

pretty frustrating to you. 

Offender: Couldn’t you just put me on write-in or something? 

A:	 I’d be glad to work with you on that. To do that, we first need something 

like 6 months of good progress, so it’s just a matter of navigating these 

first 6 months. It depends on you. 

O:	 But why do I have to do all these things when I’m not guilty? It’s going 

to take a lot of time I don’t have, and this substance abuse class is 

a joke. Sure, I’ve used a little weed in the past, but it’s never been a 

problem. 

A:	 Kind of a rough spot to be in. Since neither of us has any control over 

that, what can I do to help you through the process? 

The agent does not allow himself or herself to be drawn into an argument. By listening and emphasizing the offender’s personal responsibility, the agent works with the 

offender without taking sides on the issue of innocence or guilt. 

| 75 
CHAPTER 6 

KEY POINTS


■ A person may lie to protect himself or herself or a loved one, or to protect 

against a perceived loss of resources. 

■ A respondent will bend information according to who is asking the 

question and how the question is phrased. 

■ Agents who form positive, collaborative alliances are less likely to be 

lied to. 

■ Agents should be up front with offenders as someone who represents both 

the offender and the criminal justice system. 

■ Informing offenders of the sanctions for failure to meet supervision conditions can make compliance more likely. When an offender is surprised by a 

sanction, this creates more resistance and less motivation to change. 

■ Agents should approach violations with a neutral attitude, addressing the 

behavior, but not taking the violation personally. 

■ Agents should focus on observable behavior change without being caught 

up in debates about innocence or guilt. 

76 | 
C H A P T E R 7

From Start to Finish: Putting 

Motivational Interviewing Into 

Practice 

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 presented some of the details of motivational interviewing 

(MI). This chapter talks about ways to put MI skills into practice. The first part 

covers how to apply MI to three motivational targets: importance, confidence, and 

commitment. The second part talks about ways to use MI in different kinds of interactions: those near the beginning (assessment and planning stage), middle (progress 

stage), and end (completion stage) of supervision. 

Moving From Motivation to Commitment 

Chapter 2 introduced the Stages of Change model as a way to think about how 

people change. People who are in the early stages are low in motivation, so the task 

is to explore ambivalence and build motivation for change. The agent uses openended questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries (OARS) to encourage 

talk about desire, ability, reasons, and need. At some point, the agent hopes the 

motivational balance will tip, and the offender will decide to make a commitment to 

change (DARN–C). 

In the following dialogue, an agent is working with a domestic violence offender 

to motivate him to complete an anger management class. To structure the conversation, the agent uses the importance and confidence rulers discussed in chapter 5 and 

finishes with an action question. 

The offender begins by defending his choices and implying that change is unnecessary. The agent ignores this less productive talk and keeps the conversation focused 

on change. The agent spends little time asking for details about the circumstances 

of the offense. In some instances, it might be helpful to understand the person’s 

point of view, but because this offender is too angry to give a valid account of the 

incident, probing would probably yield little useful information. The agent acknowledges the offender’s reluctance to change, but does not reinforce it. The agent uses 

open-ended questions, affirmations, and reflections to emphasize those parts of the 

offender’s speech that support his motivation to change. When the offender makes 

| 77 
C H A P T E R 7 

statements about wanting to change, the agent asks an action question to steer the 

conversation to commitment talk. The use of importance and confidence rulers helps 

the offender progress from importance to confidence and finally to commitment. 

Agent: So, one of your supervision conditions is to attend anger management classes. [Choice of focus.] 

Offender: Yeah, well, my wife should be in jail for provoking me into 


things.


A:	 It seems to you like she shares some of the blame. [Reflection of 


ambivalence.]


O:	 And the stupid judge blew up at me for no reason. It made me so mad, 

when he doesn’t know what really happened. 

A:	 I’m glad you were able to control your temper with the judge. It shows 

that you are really trying. [Affirmation.] 

O:	 If I had done what I felt like doing, he would have thrown me in jail. 

A:	 So, it sounds like you have the ability to control your behavior even 

when you are provoked. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Oh, I can control it when I have to. Or want to. 

A:	 And with your wife, you . . . ? (Pause) [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 To be honest with you, she just makes me so mad. Why should I be 

the one who always has to remain calm? 

A:	 Still, with your wife’s behavior, part of you wishes you had acted 


differently. [Reflection of desire.]


O:	 (Pause) I guess that’s true. Like, right now, I am still so mad at her 


because she got me into all of this, but I guess it wasn’t the best 


decision to slap her.


A:	 It’s like part of you is still angry with her but the other part feels bad for 

hitting her. [Reflection of ambivalence.] 

O:	 I guess so. 

A:	 There’s a part of you that wishes you could handle her behavior 


without losing control of your own. [Reflection of desire.]


O:	 (Thinking) That’s right. It sounds like I don’t love her, but I do. She 

already told the attorney that she was sorry she called the cops on me. 

I could tell she was sorry in court and that’s why I just pled guilty. If she 

testified, she probably would have lied for me and I didn’t want that. 

78 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

The reason I was so mad when I came in here is because the D.A. 

was making me out to be some kind of monster and the judge went 

out of his way to humiliate me in front of all of those people. 

A:	 The whole process has been bad for you. It’s embarrassing to be on 

supervision. And now you are thinking that in spite of her behavior last 

night, that your love for your wife is stronger than your anger toward 

her. [Reflection of reasons and desire.] 

O:	 Yeah. 

A:	 There’s a lot of regret there. [Reflection of reasons.] 

O:	 Yeah. 

A:	 What else has it cost you? [Open-ended question about reasons.] 

O:	 (Pause) my kids. We told them to go upstairs, but they know what’s 

going on. my parents fought like this, and it’s the scariest thing you can 

imagine. 

A:	 And you don’t want your kids to have to go through what you went 

through. [Reflection of desire.] 

O:	 (Thinking) And it’s self-respect. It’s not just my wife, but the people I 

know, my friends and coworkers—I would die if they knew what 

happened. 

A:	 So, let me see if I’ve got this right: You and your wife were having a 

verbal altercation where you got so angry, you hit her. She called the 

cops. Even though you are still a little angry with her, part of you knows 

that your behavior was wrong. And now, you wish you had a way of 

behaving better in this situation. So, where does that leave you? 

[Summary, open-ended question about commitment.] 

O:	 Well, I wish we both knew a better way of handling things. 

A:	 Let me ask you this. How important is it to you to have a better 

way—let’s say on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not important and 10 

being very important—how important is it to you that you handle future 

conflicts with your wife better? [Open-ended question about desire.] 

O:	 Definitely, a 10. 

A:	 It’s at the very top. Why a 10 and not a lower number? [Reflection 

of desire, open-ended question.] 

O:	 Well, I want us to be happy and to be there for each other. I hate all 

of this. 

| 79 
C H A P T E R 7 

A:	 So, changing this behavior couldn’t be more important. [Reflection 

of desire.] 

O:	 That’s right. 

A:	 On the same scale, how confident are you that you could change your 

behavior if you wanted to? [Open-ended question about ability.] 

O:	 Right now, I want to say a 10, but I don’t really know. maybe about a 5. 

A:	 You’re pretty confident. [Reflection of ability.] 

O:	 Yeah, there’s a couple of things I can do. 

A:	 What would it take to get that number up a little, say to a 6 or 7? 

[Open-ended question.] 

O:	 (Thinking) I don’t know. I’m just not sure just these anger management classes will help. I think we both should get some counseling or 

something. I know we are going to forgive each other when I get home, 

but, tomorrow, all of the same problems—the bills, the kids, time for 

ourselves—it’s all still going to be there. 

A:	 So, maybe getting some help for the both of you would bring that to a 6 

or 7. [Reflection of commitment.] 

O:	 We can’t afford it. Our financial situation is one of the biggest stresses. 

A:	 So, if there were a place that took into consideration your financial 

situation, you would be more willing to go there. [Reflection of 

commitment.] 

O:	 Oh, I would definitely go. I think my wife would too, since she has 


brought it up before.


A:	 So, what would you like to do about that? [Action question about 


commitment.]


Adapting Motivational Interviewing to Different Kinds 

of Interviews 

This section talks about using MI during three stages of the supervision process: 

near (or before) the start of the term of supervision, in the middle of the term of 

supervision, and closer to discharge or revocation. 

The First Meeting 

An offender may already have formed a number of impressions even before the first 

interview with his probation or parole officer. He may have been ordered to appear 

at the probation or parole office at an inconvenient time, had his fingernail clippers 

80 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

confiscated at security, seen a host of signs prohibiting some things and ordering 

others, and had to wait in a cold, unfriendly waiting room. Given these conditions, 

an agent can gain or lose influence by how he or she greets the offender. 

Early meetings lay the foundation for how offenders and agents will interact in later 

meetings. In departments with separate intake staff, the intake interview heavily 

influences the ease or difficulty of the initial meeting between the offender and the 

agent. In fact, some officers say that they can predict whether an offender will show 

up for his initial appointment based on which intake officer he sees. One officer 

reports, “If I see one name, I know the person will be reluctant to come in and I’ll 

spend a portion of my time trying to undo all the damage that the intake officer 

caused. If I see the other name, not only do I know the client will show, I know I 

will have a hard time living up to the positive image that this officer created. It’s like 

night and day.” 

Discussing the conditions of supervision is the first task in most initial meetings. 

Even though it is routine for the agent, it may be intimidating and overwhelming for 

the offender. One way to address this anxiety is to spend a moment talking about 

how the person feels about being on supervision: 

Agent: mr. Campbell, I see you’ve been placed on probation for theft. As 

you are aware, there are a number of conditions that we’ll have to cover. 

But I’m wondering if we can spend a minute talking about what it’s like for 

you to be on supervision. 

The conversation might also touch on how the person feels about the activities that 

have caused him to be on supervision: 

Agent: I have the police report and know something about why you’re on 

supervision, but I’m more interested in hearing how you see things. From 

your perspective, what happened to bring you here? 

Other agents use the initial conversations to talk about the offender’s key values, 

interests, or significant relationships. These moments are a way to gather information and set the tone for subsequent meetings. The following exchange shows how 

one agent handles the first few seconds of an early routine interview: 

Agent: Hi mark, thanks for coming in. How are you? 

Offender: Pretty good. 

A:	 How was your weekend? 

O:	 It was okay. Pretty busy with all the overtime. 

A:	 How’s the family? I think your daughter was sick the last time we 


talked.


| 81 
C H A P T E R 7 

O:	 Oh yeah, it was no big deal. We did have to spend last Saturday in the 

ER, but it turned out to be just a cold. 

A:	 Boy, those ER visits can be brutal.You sit there for hours with a sick 

kid, not knowing when they will see you. I’m glad she’s all right. So 

anyway, let me explain what I want to do today. I have a few questions 

about how things are going with your supervision up to this point, and 

I’d also like to hear about any concerns you have that I might be able to 

assist you with so that we can keep you in compliance with your conditions. So what’s been going on that might affect your supervision? 

The agent spends the first 30 seconds of the interview chatting with the offender 

and then moves to the business at hand. Rather than having a stern or prepackaged 

attitude, this agent is honest, empathetic, and collaborative. Notice also that the 

agent remembers and asks about an issue the offender mentioned during their previous meeting. This inquiry shows that the agent is interested enough to remember 

something that is important to the offender. 

Motivational Interviewing and the Case-Planning Interview 

Case management helps connect assessment, planning, and supervision. This section talks about ways to use assessment results to guide the case-planning process. 

There are four basic steps to case planning: 

1. Consult the assessment results for information on risk, needs, and 


responsivity. 


2. Ask the offender what problem(s) he thinks are most closely related to his 

crime. 

3. Factor in any relevant court- or board-ordered conditions. 

4. Given the information from all three areas, use MI strategies to help resolve 

ambivalence and motivate positive behavior. 

In the following interview, the agent uses the results of a risk/needs assessment to 

initiate a conversation about change. The agent presents the results of the assessment 

and discusses the first of three dynamic risk factors. Because the offender seems 

committed to action but has only a vague plan, the agent asks permission to assist 

him in developing a more specific plan. At this point, the agent might continue to 

focus on anger management or proceed to another issue that puts the offender at risk 

of committing another crime or otherwise violating the conditions of supervision. 

Agent: Last time we talked, I asked you some questions about areas that 

might place you at risk. I’d like to explain a little about the results. [Request 

for permission.] 

Offender: Sure. 

82 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

A:	 OK, let’s look this over together. Over here is a risk scale. It indicates 

that you are at the high end of medium risk. According to the scale, the 

factors that put you there are that you have been in trouble before, that 

most of your friends have been in trouble before, and that you have 

had some problems in the past managing your anger. What do you 

think? [Information, open-ended question.] 

O:	 Well, I know I’m not going to get in trouble again—I’m sure of it. 

A:	 Great.You’re really confident. [Affirmation, reflection.] 

O:	 I am. 

A:	 Good. maybe we can talk about some things you’d be willing to do 

right now to reduce your risk. [Information.] 

O:	 Well, I have already decided not to do stuff without thinking about it. 

my brother Jake is already doing time for this, so I won’t be hanging 

out with him. And I know I told you I used to blow up and stuff, but I’m 

not going to do that any more. 

A:	 Good for you. It’s important to you to look at some of these behaviors 

because you don’t want this kind of trouble again. Tell me a little about 

how you decided this. [Affirmation, reflection, open-ended question.] 

O:	 Well, for one thing, Jake’s in jail. Then my girlfriend broke up with me 

for a couple of months, and I lost a lot of time at work because of all of 

this. All of my vacation and sick time are used up, and I’ve got all of the 

court costs to pay. 

A:	 I remember you saying that your anger and some of your friends were 

factors in the last two offenses. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Yeah, I’ll just have to watch those things this time. I’ll stay away from 

those people that get me worked up. 

A:	 Good for you.You already have some ideas about ways to manage 

your anger. [Affirmation, reflection.] 

O:	 Well, I just know I have to. 

A:	 Tell me about a time when you got angry but were able to calm yourself down. How did you manage those angry feelings? [Open-ended 

question.] 

O:	 (Pause) Well, that counting to 10 stuff doesn’t work. I can tell you that. 

(Pause) 

A:	 OK, it’s helpful to be aware of things that don’t work for you. But I’m 

wondering what does work for you. [Open-ended question.] 

| 83 
C H A P T E R 7 

O:	 I don’t know. I guess I just don’t get angry. 

A:	 I wonder if you’d be interested in some suggestions about maybe getting some help in this area. [Request for permission.] 

O:	 Do you mean a headshrinker? I can’t afford that. 

A:	 That may be one solution, but there are also other options. We have 

some classes here where regular guys like you learn some ways of 

dealing better with their anger. Or, we have some counselors—not 

headshrinkers, but just ordinary counselors that talk to people one on 

one. I could also refer you to a counselor not connected to our agency, 

or you may have other things you’ve thought of. [Menu of options.] 

O:	 Are any of them free? 

A:	 not quite, but the group meetings are the lowest priced. [Information.] 

O:	 Could I just try it out and if it doesn’t help me try something else? 

A:	 Sure.You want a program that really helps you. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Yeah, when would I have to start and how often would I have to go? 

What are they like? 

A:	 (Provides information about the classes.) So, I’m wondering what you’d 

like to get out of the class. How would you like things to be different 

when you finish? [Information, open-ended question.] 

Motivational Interviewing and Routine Meetings 

As the offender moves through the supervision process, the agent might be tempted 

to relax and concentrate his or her attention elsewhere. The agent expects that the 

meetings will become shorter and more routine. However, it is important for the 

agent to stay alert to the offender’s change process. The action stage may be marked 

by awkward attempts, difficult situations, and slips. Thus, some of the major tasks 

for meetings during the middle of the supervision process include encouraging and 

reinforcing progress, solving problems, and preventing relapses. 

Agents not only work with offenders to change their behavior but must also document compliance with the conditions of supervision. This is a lot to manage in a 

short amount of time. Fortunately, the two tasks frequently overlap. For instance, a 

condition to pay fees may overlap with the agent’s desire to increase the offender’s 

motivation to get a job. The tasks are logically connected and both involve behavior 

change. True, the case plan is more about long-term changes in behavior and seeks 

the offender’s input, whereas conditions are usually more short-term and dictated 

by the court or board. Nevertheless, because both seek to change behavior, the skills 

and techniques of MI are relevant in both instances. 

84 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

Two documents guide the interview process: the case plan and the conditions of 

supervision. To structure an interview, some agents prefer to address compliance 

first, others prefer to address the case plan first, and still others allow the offender 

to choose. The following dialogue presents a routine interview from start to finish. The agent begins with a few casual comments and then allows the offender to 

decide which issue they will cover first. The agent uses open-ended questions and 

reflections to gather information and document compliance with the conditions of 

supervision. The agent also asks questions about and encourages the offender to use 

class material. The interview ends with other documentation questions, a summary, 

and an affirmation. 

Agent: mr. Peterson, thanks for coming in today. I know you had some 

difficulty with the original time. [Greeting.] 

Offender: Well, you being willing to change the appointment time really 

helped a lot. 

A:	 Good, I’m glad it helped. Things do sometimes come up, and I appreciate you letting me know in advance. Go ahead, have a chair. (Both 

take seats.) So how have you been? [Affirmation, open-ended 

question.] 

O: Oh, pretty good, mostly. 

A:	 Good, glad to hear that. Well, as usual, I want to check in today and 

see how things are going with your supervision. So how are things 

progressing? [Setting agenda, open-ended question.] 

O:	 I’m halfway done with my community service. I’m putting in 8 hours a 

week at the homeless shelter. I brought in a payment for restitution and 

costs. I’m up to date on both of those things. And I’ve been going to my 

anger management classes. As far as I know I’m doing everything I am 

supposed to. 

A:	 Good.You’re making your supervision a priority. [Affirmation, reflection.] 

O:	 Yeah, and that’s not easy.You know money is tight, and my wife really 

gets on me about having to pay $120 a month that we really could 

use for other things. But I think if it wasn’t for my anger management 

classes, I may have blown up again and done something stupid, so 

maybe they are doing me some good. I was able to use OPV this week 

to help me not blow up at her. 

A:	 OPV? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 You don’t know what OPV is? 

A:	 Tell me about it. [Open-ended question.] 

| 85 
C H A P T E R 7 

O:	 It stands for “other people’s point of view.” It means we’ve got to listen 

to other people and try to see things from their point of view. 

A:	 Good principle. So, how do you use that when your wife gets on you 

about the money? [Affirmation, open-ended question.] 

O:	 Well, part of it is a thinking thing. I have to think to myself, “Why is she 

doing this?” Then I think, “Well, it isn’t her fault I got in that argument 

and busted out the guy’s windshield.” So I guess seeing it from her 

point of view helps calm me down a little. 

A:	 Wow, it’s nice to see that it’s paying off for you. Even though you had 

mixed feelings about going, you’re using it to your advantage. Let me 

also ask you a question about fees.You said you are up to date on 

your payments, but my records show you are $150 in arrears. 

[Affirmation, reflection, open-ended question, second agenda item.] 

O:	 Well, I’m up to date on my restitution and fees. On my money order, I 

always put, “for supervision fees and restitution only,” because I am not 

making payments on the attorney fees. 

A:	 So you’re behind on those. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Well, I’ve been practicing in my class for this. I really think that the 

court tricked me on attorney fees. 

A:	 Tricked you? [Open-ended question.] 

O:	 Yeah, when I went to court, we were really behind in our bills and were 

thinking of declaring bankruptcy. So the judge says that if I can’t afford 

an attorney, he would appoint one. So I told him my situation and he 

appointed one. Well, then I found out I would probably have gotten 

the same sentence if I didn’t have an attorney, but now I got charged 

$1,500 for the attorney to go in there and plead me guilty. I never even 

got a chance to tell my side of the story. The judge didn’t tell me I was 

going to end up having to pay for this attorney until after I got supervision. So I don’t think that’s fair. 

A:	 That part of the fees was a surprise to you. [Reflection.] 

O:	 Well, yeah. I guess I should have figured it out, but still, $1,500 for 

paperwork? Come on! 

A:	 So, at this point, it’s part of your supervision, but you have mixed feelings about it. So what do you want to do about it? [Reflection, openended question.] 

O:	 Well, we did this exercise in class where I decided that I would like to 

stand up to the judge and not pay the fees, even if I end up having to 

sit in jail for it. 

86 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

A:	 That is your decision. But I want you to be aware that if that happens, 

that would be a violation and you would have to answer to the judge. 

[Affirmation of choice, information.] 

O:	 Yeah, I know. But I don’t know what’s going to happen, because I 

haven’t talked to my wife about this yet. Who knows, in the end I might 

chicken out and just pay the fees. 

A:	 OK, so you are behind on the payment of the attorney fees. If you 

like, we can leave that discussion until the next meeting to give you 

a chance to talk with your wife. So, what else is going on that might 

affect your supervision? [Reflection, provision of choice, open-ended 

question.] 

O:	 That’s about all I can think of. Oh, I might need a travel permit to go to 

my wife’s parents for Thanksgiving. 

A:	 Okay, let me give you this request for travel permit form to fill out if you 

decide to go. What else? [Information, open-ended question.] 

O:	 I think that’s it. 

A:	 Okay. As always, I need to know whether you have violated any conditions of your supervision since I last saw you. [Closed question.] 

O:	 nope. 

A:	 And the last thing is the verification of your community service hours 

from the homeless shelter. [Closed question.] 

O:	 Oh, yeah, here it is. 

A:	 It sounds like things are going reasonably well for you.You’ve been 

using the material from the classes and really working hard to manage 

that anger and stay out of trouble.You’ve been diligent about most of 

your obligations, which you plan on continuing, but you’re not sure yet 

what you want to do about the attorney fees. Did I miss anything? How 

about I see you 2 weeks from today at the same time? [Summary, 

affirmation.] 

O:	 Yeah, that’s fine. 

A:	 What you’re doing in your class is pretty interesting. I look forward to 

the next meeting. [Affirmation.] 

O:	 Sure. See you in 2 weeks. 

| 87 
C H A P T E R 7 

Motivational Interviewing and the Postviolation Interview 

Based on its track record, MI can be expected to reduce violations. However, it is 

certainly not a panacea; it only increases the probability of change. Supervision 

orders are sometimes given with an idealized expectation of behavior. The court 

or board expects the offender to comply with all conditions without any failures or 

setbacks, but for most people, slips are a normal part of the change process. This 

more realistic view of change allows agents to take violations in stride. Agents can 

address lapses and violations without leaving a motivational style. 

Chapter 6 gave two examples of ways to maintain this even-keel attitude when addressing different violations. The next dialogue provides an additional example, in 

which a serious violation has placed the offender in jail. This postviolation interview 

focuses on providing information, while leaving the door open to future interactions. This agent demonstrates most of the style measures of MI, including empathy, 

acceptance, and support for autonomy. The agent’s goal is to provide information 

while not taking sides on the issue of guilt or innocence. In this instance, values are 

irrelevant; the focus is, and must be, on the here and now. 

Agent: Hello mr. Juarez. It’s disappointing to be visiting you in jail. 

[Empathetic opening.] 

Offender: I hope you don’t believe that I did anything to that little girl. 

A:	 What I believe isn’t really important here, so maybe I should define my 

role.You have been accused of a serious violation, one that requires 

me to file for a revocation hearing.You started by telling me that you 

didn’t do anything, but unfortunately I’m not in a position to decide 

whether you did or didn’t. As your probation officer, I have to take the 

allegations at face value. So I need to explain the revocation process 

to you and let you know about your due process rights. I want you to 

be treated fairly and I’ll do what I can to make sure that happens. So, 

while I am explaining the procedures, if there is anything you don’t 

understand, please let me know. On the other hand, if there are things 

you don’t agree with, you should know that I don’t have any control 

over these procedures at this point. It’s back in the court’s hands. Is 

that clear? [Definition of role, maintenance of a neutral stance with 

regard to the facts.] 

O:	 Yeah, I guess, but it doesn’t seem fair.You’re supposed to be innocent 

until proven guilty. 

A:	 So, you see the process as unfair, but I do want to be fair with you. 

[Reflection, avoidance of argument.] 

O:	 (Silence) 

A:	 (Explains all of the procedures one at a time and after each one asks:) 

What questions do you have? [Information.] 

88 | 
F R O m S T A R T T O F I n I S H 

O:	 Are you going to testify against me? 

A:	 If you contest, I will probably be called as a witness. I will give a summary of your progress using the reports I am required to file. If you do 

decide to contest, I’d be glad to go over it with you before the hearing 

so that you have a chance to correct anything in the report that you 

don’t think is factual. If we end up disagreeing about anything, you can 

point that out to your attorney and he can cross-examine me about 

those things. [Information.] 

O:	 Can’t you help me? 

A:	 Unfortunately, there’s nothing I can do at this point. I can say that I 

care about you getting your life together and I would be glad to continue to work with you if the court allows you to continue your supervision. [Indication of concern for offender’s welfare, information.] 

O:	 So, you’re not hoping I go down? 

A:	 mr. Juarez, I don’t know whether you did or didn’t commit the violation 

because I wasn’t there. I do wish that things had turned out differently 

for you, but I’m not the one to judge you on the violation. [Maintenance 

of a neutral stance.] 

O:	 Thanks, I guess. 

A:	 I’ll check with you before your revocation hearing starts if you decide to 

contest. What other questions do you have for me right now? [Indication of concern for offender’s welfare, open-ended question.] 

Managing Time Constraints 

High caseloads and limited resources are real problems in corrections. For years, 

agents have had to do more and more with less and less. Thus, MI may seem like 

another imposition on the already limited time that agents have—one more thing to 

add to the already considerable demands of the job. Certainly, learning MI strategies 

requires an investment of time. However, if MI delivers on its promises, this investment has a payoff. MI does not require performing new tasks, but rather adopting a 

new set of strategies for performing old tasks more effectively and efficiently. 

Time management requires an additional set of strategies that are beyond the scope 

of this guide. Effective agents use MI principles to guide their interactions and are 

efficient in conducting interviews. An efficient interview involves— 

1. Setting the agenda at the start. 

2. Covering topics one at a time. 

| 89 
C H A P T E R 7 

3. Keeping the interview progressing in a linear fashion without moving backward or jumping from topic to topic. 

4. Ending with a summary of what was discussed, what the offender agrees to 

do (or what the penalty will be for noncompliance), and the offender’s most 

important reasons for action. 

Along the way, effective agents tailor their interactions based on the stage of change. 

If the offender is ambivalent, the agent uses strategies that target motivation for 

change. On the other hand, if the offender is ready to take action, an effective agent 

moves toward action-oriented strategies and only occasionally revisits motivation. 

Careful listening takes time, but the effective interviewer saves time by more 

efficiently steering the conversation toward change. The offender becomes less 

defensive and more cooperative. The motivationally inclined agent does not spend 

time debating conditions, arguing, or threatening. This active role relieves the agent 

of the ultimate responsibility for solving the offender’s problems; the offender 

becomes responsible for his own actions. Finally, as the offender improves his behavior and compliance with the conditions of his supervision, the agent can expect 

to spend less time on investigations, documenting violations, and writing revocation 

reports. Offenders who are well prepared for change require less supervision time 

and use fewer scarce resources. People who are changing for the better are likely 

to see improvements in their lives, the lives of their families, and lives of their 

communities. 

K E y P o I n T s 

■ Consider structuring a conversation using the importance and confidence 

rulers and questions discussed in chapter 5. 

■ Use open-ended questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries 


(OARS) to gather information and keep the conversation focused on 


change.


■ Use the first few minutes of an interaction to build rapport with the 


offender and lay the foundation for what comes later.


■ Focus on mandated conditions and other areas of positive behavior change. 

Consider using the results of a risk/needs assessment to initiate a conversation about specific areas of change. 

■ Address lapses and violations without leaving a motivational style. Leave 

the door open to subsequent interactions. 

90 | 
REFERENCES 

Amrhein, P.C., Miller, W.R., Yahne, C.E., Palmer, M., and Fulcher, L. 2003. Client 

commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(5): 862–878. 

Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3d ed. 

Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. 

Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., and Cullen, F.T. 

1990. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically 

informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28(3): 369–404. 

Baker, A., Lewin, T., Reichler, H., Clancy, R., Carr, V., Garrett, R., Sly, K., Devir, 

H., and Terry, M. 2002. Evaluation of a motivational interview for substance use 

within psychiatric in-patient services. Addiction 97(10): 1329–1337. 

Bem, D.J. 1972. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, pp. 1–62. New York: Academic Press. 

Berg, I.K. 1994. Family Based Services: A Solution-Focused Approach. New York: 

Norton. 

Berk, M., Berk, L., and Castle, D. 2004. A collaborative approach to the treatment 

alliance in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders 6(6): 504–518. 

Bien, T.H., Miller, W.R., and Boroughs, J.M. 1993. Motivational interviewing with 

alcohol outpatients. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 21(4): 347–356. 

Brecht, M.L., Anglin, M.D., and Jung-Chi, W. 1993. Treatment effectiveness for 

legally coerced versus voluntary methadone maintenance clients. American Journal 

of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 19(1): 89–107. 

Brown, J.M., and Miller, W.R. 1993. Impact of motivational interviewing on participation and outcome in residential alcoholism treatment. Psychology of Addictive 

Behaviors 7: 211–218. 

Carnegie, D. 1998. How to Win Friends and Infl uence People. New York: Pocket 

Books. 

| 91
REFERENCES

Clark, M., Walters, S.T., Gingerich, R., and Meltzer, M. 2006. Motivational interviewing for probation officers: Tipping the balance towards change. Federal 

Probation 70(1): 38–44. 

Clark, M.D. 1998. Strength-based practice: The ABC’s of working with adolescents 

who don’t want to work with you. Federal Probation 62(1): 46–53. 

Clark, M.D. 2006. Entering the business of behavior change: Motivational interviewing for probation staff. Perspectives 30(1): 38–45. 

Cullen, F.T. 2002. Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J.Q. Wilson and J. 

Petersilia (eds.), Crime: Public Policy for Crime Control, 2d ed., pp. 253–289. 

Oakland, CA: ICS Press. 

Cullen, F.T., and Gendreau, P. 2000. Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, 

practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3: 

Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, pp. 109–175. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 182410. 

Cullen, F.T, and Gendreau, P. 2001. From nothing works to what works: Changing 

professional ideology in the 21st century. Prison Journal 81(3): 313–338. 

Daley, D.C., Salloum, I.M., Zuckoff, A., Kirisci, L., and Thase, M.E. 1998. 

Increasing treatment adherence among outpatients with depression and cocaine 

dependence: Results of a pilot study. The American Journal of Psychiatry 155(11): 

1611–1613. 

Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in 

Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. 

DiClemente, C.C., Bellino, L.E., and Neavins, T.M. 1999. Motivation for change 

and alcoholism treatment. Alcohol Research and Health 23(2): 86–92. 

Dunn, C., Droesch, R.M., Johnston, B.D., and Rivara, F.P. 2004. Motivational interviewing with injured adolescents in the emergency department: In-session predictors of change. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 32(1): 113–116. 

Easton, C., Swan, S., and Sinha, R. 2000. Motivation to change substance use 

among offenders of domestic violence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 19(1): 

1–5. 

Erickson, S.J., Gerstle, M., and Feldstein, S.W. 2005. Brief interventions and motivational interviewing with children, adolescents, and their parents in pediatric health 

care settings: A review. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 159(12): 

1173–1180. 

92 | 
REFERENCES

Farbring, C.A. 2002. Short refl ections on Affirm: The least emphasized method in 

MI. Motivational Interviewing Newsletter: Updates, Education and Training 9(2): 

4–6. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F., and Paparozzi, M. 2002. The common-sense 

revolution and correctional policy. In J. McGuire (ed.), Offender Rehabilitation 

and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies To Reduce Re-offending, pp. 

359–386. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 

Gendreau, P., Little, T., and Goggin, C. 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of 

adult offender rehabilitation: What works. Criminology 34(4): 575–608. 

Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Deterrence theory and research. In G.B. Melton (ed.), The Law as 

a Behavioral Instrument: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 33, pp. 87–130. 

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Ginsburg, J.I.D., Mann, R.E., Rotgers, F., and Weekes, J.R. 2002. Motivational interviewing with criminal justice populations. In W.R. Miller and S. Rollnick (eds.), 

Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People To Change, 2d ed., pp. 333–346. New 

York: Guilford Press. 

Harper, R., and Hardy, S. 2000. An evaluation of motivational interviewing as a 

method of intervention with clients in a probation setting. British Journal of Social 

Work 30(3): 393–400. 

Hettema, J., Steele, J., and Miller, W.R. 2005. Motivational interviewing. Annual 

Review of Clinical Psychology 1(1): 91–111. 

Hollin, C. 2001. To treat or not to treat? An historical perspective. In C. Hollin (ed.), 

Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment, pp. 3–15. Chichester, England: 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Hubble, M., Duncan, B., and Miller, S. 1999. The Heart and Soul of Change: What 

Works in Therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Kear-Colwell, J., and Pollock, P. 1997. Motivation or confrontation: Which approach to the child sex offender? Criminal Justice and Behavior 24(1): 20–33. 

Lanceley, F.J. 2003. On-Scene Guide for Crisis Negotiators, 2d ed. Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press. 

Latessa, E.J., Cullen, F.T., and Gendreau, P. 2002. Beyond correctional quackery: 

Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation 66(2): 

43–49. 

Lipchik, E., Becker, M., Brasher, B., Derks, J., and Volkmann, J. 2005. Neuroscience: A new direction for solution-focused thinkers? Journal of Systemic 

Therapies 24(3): 49–69. 

| 93
REFERENCES

Lipton, D., Martinson, R., and Wilks, J. 1975. The Effectiveness of Correctional 

Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Strategies. New York: Praeger. 

Mann, R.E., Ginsburg, J.I.D., and Weekes, J.R. 2002. Motivational interviewing 

with offenders. In M. McMurran (ed.), Motivating Offenders To Change: A Guide to 

Enhancing Engagement in Therapy, pp. 87–102. West Sussex, England: John Wiley 

and Sons. 

Mann, R.E., and Rollnick, S. 1996. Motivational interviewing with a sex offender 

who believed he was innocent. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 24: 

127–134. 

Markland, D., Ryan, R.M., Tobin, V.J., and Rollnick, S. 2005. Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 

24(6): 811–831. 

Marques, P.R., Voas, R.B., Tippetts, A.S., and Beirness, D.J. 1999. Behavioral monitoring of DUI offenders with the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Recorder. Addiction 

94(12): 1861–1870. 

Martino, S., Carroll, K., Kostas, D., Perkins, J., and Rounsaville, B. 2002. Dual 

diagnosis motivational interviewing: A modification of motivational interviewing 

for substance-abusing patients with psychotic disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse 

Treatment 23(4): 297–308. 

Martino, S., Carroll, K.M., O’Malley, S.S., and Rounsaville, B.J. 2000. Motivational 

interviewing with psychiatrically ill substance-abusing patients. American Journal 

on Addictions 9(1): 88–91. 

Martinson, R. 1974. What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The 

Public Interest 35: 22–54. 

Maruna, S., and LeBel, T. 2003. Welcome home? Examining the “Reentry Court” 

concept from a strengths perspective. Western Criminology Review 4(2): 91–107. 

McGuire, J. 1995. What Works: Reducing Reoffending—Guidelines From Research 

and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

McGuire, J. 2002. Integrating findings from research reviews. In J. McGuire (ed.), 

Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies To Reduce Re-Offending, pp. 3–38. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 

Miller, N.S., and Flaherty, J.A. 2000. Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment 

(alternative consequences): A review of the clinical research. Journal of Substance 

Abuse Treatment 18(1): 9–16. 

Miller, W.R. 1985. Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis on 

alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin 98(1): 84–107. 

94 | 
REFERENCES

Miller, W.R., Meyers, R.J., and Tonigan, J.S. 1999. Engaging the unmotivated in 

treatment for alcohol problems: A comparison of three strategies for intervention 

through family members. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(5): 

688–697. 

Miller, W.R., and Rollnick, S. 2002. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People 

for Change, 2d ed. New York: Guilford Press. 

Miller, W.R., Zweben, J., and Johnson, W.R. 2005. Evidence-based treatment: 

Why, what, where, when, and how? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 29(4): 

267–276. 

Monti, P.M., Colby, S.M., Barnett, N.P., Spirito, A., Rohsenow, D.J., Myers, M., 

Woolard, R., and Lewander, W. 1999. Brief intervention for harm reduction with 

alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital emergency department. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(6): 989–994. 

Monti, P.M., Colby, S.M., and O’Leary, T.A. 2001. Adolescents, Alcohol, and 

Substance Abuse: Reaching Teens Through Brief Interventions. New York: Guilford 

Press. 

Moyers, T.B., and Martin, T. 2006. Therapist influence on client language during 

motivational interviewing sessions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 30: 

245–251. 

Moyers, T.B., Miller, W.R., and Hendrickson, S.M.L. 2005. How does motivational 

interviewing work? Therapist interpersonal skill as a predictor of client behavior 

within motivational interviewing sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 73(4): 590–598. 

National Institute of Corrections. 2003. Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in 

Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention. Washington DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. NIC Accession 

Number 019342. 

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., and Norcross, J.C. 1992. In search of how 

people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist 47(9): 

1102–1114. 

Prochaska, J.O., and Levesque, D.A. 2002. Enhancing motivation of offenders at 

each stage of change and phase of therapy. In M. McMurran (ed.), Motivating 

Offenders To Change: A Guide to Enhancing Engagement in Therapy, pp. 57–73. 

West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons. 

Project MATCH Research Group. 1997. Matching alcoholism treatments to client 

heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies 

on Alcohol 58: 7–29. 

| 95
REFERENCES

Project MATCH Research Group. 1998. Matching alcoholism treatments to client 

heterogeneity: Project MATCH three-year drinking outcomes. Alcoholism, Clinical 

and Experimental Research 22(6): 1300–1311. 

Rapp, C. 1998. The Strengths Model: Case Management With People Suffering 

From Severe and Persistent Mental Illness. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Rogers, C.R. 1961. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. 

Boston: Houghton Miffl in. 

Rollnick, S. 1998. Readiness, importance, and confidence: Critical conditions of 

change in treatment. In W.R. Miller and N. Heather (eds.), Treating Addictive 

Behaviors, 2d ed., pp. 49–60. New York: Plenum. 

Rubak, S., Sandboek, A., Lauritzen, T., and Christensen, B. 2005. Motivational 

interviewing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of General 

Practice 55(513): 305–312. 

Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of 

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1): 68–78. 

Ryan, R.M., Plant, R.W., and O’Malley, S. 1995. Initial motivations for alcohol 

treatment: Relations with patient characteristics, treatment involvement, and 

dropout. Addictive Behaviors 20(3): 279–297. 

Saarni, C., and Lewis, M. 1993. Deceit and illusion in human affairs. In M. Lewis 

and C. Saarni (eds.), Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. New York: Guilford 

Press. 

Saleebey, D. (ed.). 1992. The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. New 

York: Longman. 

Sigmon, S., and Snyder, C.R. 1993. Looking at oneself in a rose-colored mirror: 

The role of excuses in the negotiation of personal reality. In M. Lewis and C. Saarni 

(eds.), Lying and Deception in Everyday Life. New York: Guilford Press. 

Skinner, B.F. 1953. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press. 

Taxman, F.S. 1999. Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment. National Drug Court Institute Review 2(2): 93–134. 

Taxman, F.S., and Bouffard, J. 2000. The importance of systems in improving 

offender outcomes: Critical elements of treatment integrity. Justice Research and 

Policy 2(2): 9–30. 

Taxman, F.S., Shepardson, E.S., and Byrne, J.M. 2004. Tools of the Trade: A Guide 

to Incorporating Science Into Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, and Maryland Department of Public Safety 

and Correctional Services. NIC Accession Number 020095. 

96 | 
REFERENCES

Tevyaw, T.O., and Monti, P.M. 2004. Motivational enhancement and other brief 

interventions for adolescent substance abuse: Foundations, applications and evaluations. Addiction 99: 63–75. 

Toch, H. 2000. Altruistic activity as correctional treatment. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44: 270–278. 

Trotter, C. 1999. Working With Involuntary Clients: A Guide to Practice. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Ury, W. 1993. Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way From Confrontation to 

Cooperation. New York, NY: Bantam Books. 

Vivian-Byrne, S. 2004. Changing people’s minds. Journal of Social Aggression 

10(2): 181–192. 

Wampold, B.E., Mondin, G.W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., and Ahn, H.N. 

1997. A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fi de psychotherapies: 

Empirically, “all must have prizes.” Psychological Bulletin 122(3): 203–215. 

Ward, T., and Brown, M. 2004. The good lives model and conceptual issues in 

offender rehabilitation. Psychology Crime and Law 10(3): 243–257. 

Wild, T.C., Newton-Taylor, B., and Alletto, R. 1998. Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: Structural and psychological determinants. 

Addictive Behaviors 23(1): 81–95. 

| 97
ABOUT THE

 A U THORS 

Scott T. Walters, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Health Promotion and Behavioral 

Sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health. He is the author 

of more than 30 journal articles and 4 books, including, most recently, Talking with 

College Students about Alcohol: Motivational Strategies for Reducing Abuse (Guilford Press, 2006). Using the evidence-based approach of motivational interviewing, 

Dr. Walters has trained providers to implement behavior change strategies in medical, counseling, social work, and criminal justice contexts. Dr. Walters has received 

national and international awards for his efforts to bridge research and practice, 

including the 2006 University of Cincinnati Award from the American Probation 

and Parole Association. Web site: http://myprofi le.cos.com/swalters. 

Michael D. Clark, M.S.W., L.M.S.W., is a consultant, trainer, and addictions therapist. After 18 years of direct practice as a probation officer and court magistrate, he 

is currently director of the Center for Strength-Based Strategies in Michigan. This 

organization emphasizes skill building for direct practice and building the capacity 

for strength-based and motivational approaches within justice organizations. With 

more than 25 articles and book chapters to his credit, Mr. Clark specializes in training probation and parole staff and has presented to groups throughout the United 

States and in Europe, Canada, the Caribbean, and the Pacific rim. Web site: 

http://www.buildmotivation.com. 

Ray Gingerich is semiretired from 35 years of state service in probation and parole 

in Wisconsin, where he served as an agent and in various other direct-service positions, and Texas, where he was a full-time trainer of probation offi cers. Throughout 

his training career, Mr. Gingerich maintained contact with offenders as a cognitive 

skills coach and victim/offender mediator. He has been conducting training in 

evidence-based practices for many years throughout the United States (42 states), 

Canada, and abroad. Mr. Gingerich currently limits his training practice to motivational interviewing. 

Melissa L. Meltzer, M.A., M.P.H., is a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of several journal articles and, most notably, “Going to the 

Other Side: An Analysis of Resilience Among Institutionalized Delinquent Youth,” 

in Child Victimization (Civic Research Institute, 2005). Ms. Meltzer is presently 

working on a longitudinal study investigating the resilience of maltreated and incarcerated youth and serves as a member of the board of directors of the Harris County 

(Texas) STAR Drug Courts. 

| 99
____________________________________________________________________________ 

✄

User Feedback Form


Please complete and return this form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing the value and 

utility of its publications. Detach from the document and mail to: 

Publications Feedback


National Institute of Corrections


320 First Street, NW


Washington, DC 20534


1. What is your general reaction to this document? 

______Excellent ______Good ______Average ______Poor ______Useless 

2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of: 

Useful Of some use Not useful 

Providing new or important information 

Developing or implementing new programs 

Modifying existing programs 

Administering ongoing programs 

Providing appropriate liaisons 

3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of assistance 

needed. ____________________________________________________________________________ 

4. In what ways could this document be improved? ________________________________________________ 

5. How did this document come to your attention? ____________________________________________ 

6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document?__________________________ 

7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice. If a governmental program, please also indicate the level of government. 

_____ Citizen group _____ Legislative body 

_____ College/university _____ Parole 

_____ Community corrections _____ Police 

_____ Court _____ Probation 

_____ Department of corrections or prison _____ Professional organization 

_____ Jail _____ Other government agency 

_____ Juvenile justice _____ Other (please specify) 

8. Optional: 

Name: 

Agency: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

Address: __________________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone:__________________________________________________________________________ 

Motivating Offenders To Change:


A Guide for Probation and Parole


National Institute of Corrections


Advisory Board


Collene Thompson Campbell 

San Juan Capistrano, CA 

Norman A. Carlson 

Chisago City, MN 

Michael S. Carona 

Sheriff, Orange County 

Santa Ana, CA 

Jack Cowley 

Alpha for Prison and Reentry 

Tulsa, OK 

J. Robert Flores 

Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Stanley Glanz 

Sheriff, Tulsa County 

Tulsa, OK 

Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Washington, DC 

Byron Johnson, Ph.D. 

Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

Baylor University 

Waco, TX 

Harley G. Lappin 

Director 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Colonel David M. Parrish 

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office 

Tampa, FL 

Judge Sheryl A. Ramstad 

Minnesota Tax Court 

St. Paul, MN 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr. 

Chairman 

U.S. Parole Commission 

Chevy Chase, MD 

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein 

Director 

Federal Judicial Center 

Washington, DC 

Regina B. Schofield 

Assistant Attorney General 

Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D. 

Director 

Ohio Business Alliance 

Columbus, OH 

B. Diane Williams 

President 

The Safer Foundation 

Chicago, IL 
–

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

Washington, DC 20534 

MEDIA MAIL


POSTAGE & FEES PAID


U.S. Department of Justice


Permit No. G 231


Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Address Service Requested 

www.nicic.org