repairing relationships behind wallsold.jss.org.au/.../publications/repair_relationships.pdf · six...
TRANSCRIPT
1
REPAIRING RELATIONSHIPS
BEHIND WALLS
An Evaluation of the Me and My Family Program within two Victorian Prisons
Report prepared by:
TONY VINSON (Professor Emeritus, University of New
South Wales/The Ignatius Centre) and
MAREE TEHAN (Senior Project Officer, The Ignatius
Centre)
for
The FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS SERVICES PROGRAM,
Commonwealth Dept of Family and Community Services on
behalf of the program providers, Jesuit Social Services and
Caraniche Services, Melbourne
April 2001
2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3-6 The ten sessions 3
Structure of the report 6
CHAPTER ONE
Brief Overview of Pre-Program
Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs 7-11 Confidence that relationships can be
improved/need help to improve most
important relationships 8
Which organizations would you turn to? 9
Things that help a relationship to work 9
Things that help make a relationship not work 10
CHAPTER TWO
Formative Assessment 12-30 Mid-point appraisal of experience and views
of workshop facilitators 12
Participants‟ feedback on workshop sessions 19
Six key characteristics of each session 23
Desired additional learning 28
CHAPTER THREE
Post-Program Evaluation Interviews 31-46 Personal goals and achievements 31
Other outcomes 33
Confidence that relationships can be improved 34
Need for assistance 36
Sources of professional help 37
Confidence in application of relationships needs plan 38
What changes would participants make? 40
Summary and implications 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY 47
3
INTRODUCTION
The Me and My Family program, funded by the Commonwealth Government, was
developed and jointly presented by Jesuit Social Services and Caraniche at two
Victorian prisons, Port Phillip in Melbourne, and Loddon at Castlemaine, in
January and February of 2001. The program, intended to assist male prisoners
to take the preliminary steps towards improving their most important
relationships, was structured in the following way:
Two individual motivational interviews with each prospective
participant to help lay the foundations for effective involvement in the
program (Prochaska, DiClemente and Norcross, 1992; Velicer, Hughes,
Fava, Prochaska, DiClemente, 1995; Miller, 1991),
Ten workshop session facilitated by two members of the project staff,
Two post-program interviews to help tailor the application of the
learning that had transpired in the sessions, to the individual needs of
each participant.
A complete rationale for the Me and My Family program is to be found in the
published manual (Men and Family Relationships Group Manual, 2001). While it
would be inappropriate to reproduce that rationale here the present report on
the evaluation of the program would not make a great deal of sense without
readers having at least a general understanding of the content and purposes of
the workshop sessions. Therefore, a brief overview of the intended content of
the sessions during the trialing of the program in two workshop groups at each
of the two selected institutions, appears below. The other preliminary item of
information that the reader needs to be aware of is that the groups at Loddon
(mean age 34.8 years, standard deviation 10.18), were older than those at Port
Phillip (mean age 26.45 years, standard deviation 7.78).
THE TEN SESSIONS
Session 1: Group members and facilitators introduce themselves. A brief
background of the program and its origins is provided, including the fact that
men who have relationship problems often have difficulties with their physical
and mental health, as well as social, economic and financial matters. However,
men in this situation often have difficulty in getting the help they need. The
program is designed to assist men to obtain information on how to make their
relationships better. Exercises are undertaken to assist in group formation and
some rules and guidelines are negotiated with a view to achieving a comfortable
degree of openness and not bogging down in individual problems. A task titled
Introducing Group Goals is introduced with an acknowledgement that everyone
experiences relationship problems and people handle these in different ways.
An important goal of the workshops is to help men to look at the types of
4
relationships they want and ways of achieving them. This involves the group‟s
consideration of what helps relationships to go well, and not so well, and what
can be done to improve them. The aim is not to „fix‟ relationships within the life
of the workshop groups but for participants to help each other to create
personal plans to do so. It is indicated that a Relationship Action Plan will be
introduced next week. This book will help group members to figure out what
they want from the program, from their relationships, and what to do to achieve
those goals, and where and whom to go to for help in doing so.
Session 2: An important aim of this session is to advance the formation of the
workshop groups as social realities. Involved is the task of commencing the
group‟s work while building an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. The
major themes and experiences of the group members are visually summarised
and members asked whether the relationship difficulties described require
change and are those they wish to change. A consensual view on what
constitutes a relationship is derived and different categories of family
relationships are defined. Constructive parental behaviours are reviewed
including the roles of positive encouragement and purposeful discipline. Group
members are asked to consider their own behaviour in the light of the
aforementioned review and group discussion and whether or not they need help
in developing the parenting skills described. Next the ingredients of a „good‟
relationship are discussed together with what makes a family and a „good‟ family.
Session 3: A primary aim of the session is to establish the basis for accurate
and informed goal creation, for establishing the group‟s relationship goals in a
way that is feasible, practical and achievable as a basis for developing specific
action plans. Exercises help members to develop individual and group goals, and
establish the central importance of the experience of being listened to and
understood in determining satisfying relationships.
Session 4: The emphasis in this session is upon the factors that can lead to
less than optimal relationships or relationship breakdown. The pertinence of the
difficulties discussed to a broad range of relationships and not just couples, is
pursued. Following consideration of the external constraints that keep people
from making their relationships work, the focus changes to self-defeating
strategies resulting in relationships being unpleasant or unworkable.
Session 5:The emphasis in the session is upon completing the process of
identifying and clarifying the factors that typically lead to unsatisfying
relationships. Facilitators respond to disclosed relationship shortcomings by
eliciting suggestions for more positive behaviours and asking whether the latter
might be included in personal action plans. In similar fashion, that is, starting
with the general and impersonal and moving towards the specific and personal,
the reasons why people keep doing counter-productive things in relationships,
are explored.
5
Session 6: An important objective of the session is to invite participants to
consider new options for obtaining their relationship goals, using their own
arguments for the kinds of relationships they want. An associated objective is
to commence the process of establishing the group‟s plans to achieve members‟
relationship goals. Group members are asked to reflect upon what learning might
be necessary in order to achieve previously considered goals and the results of
these exercises are taken as examples of necessary steps in the formulation of
individual action plans.
Session 7: The objectives of this session include continuing the construction
of action plans, determining appropriate actions, and making plans and
commitments for action. The latter includes helping participants to realise that
others, including agencies, can assist as long as those seeking help know how to
approach them with a clear goal in mind. An exercise is designed to help
demonstrate how communications can be thwarted by not acknowledging our own
responsibility and that even a small change by one party may result in a change
in the other person‟s approach, with consequent further beneficial adjustments
of position.
Session 8: The session builds on the action plan development and introduces
what is involved in activating action plans. Included is the provision of
information about services that are appropriate for meeting the group‟s
relationship goals and the skills associated with help seeking. Three main
relationship types form the focus of the session – fatherhood, being a partner
and being in a family. The group is asked to consider the things they could do
better as a parent and the means by which improvements could be effected.
Possible sources of help are reviewed and contact information provided. Ways
of obtaining quality help are discussed.
Session 9: A principal aim of this session is to make action an acceptable, less
threatening and therefore more likely, next step. Further work is done on the
group‟s relationship action/needs plan and service providers are introduced. A
guest facilitator from a family relationship service joins the group to explain
what services are available and how they can be accessed.
Session 10: From determining the practicalities of the group‟s relationship
plan, this session deals with contingency planning for potential difficulties with
the action plan. The plan is finalised and the group encouraged todisengage from
a sense of group dependence to one of personal independence. The intention is
to commence a process of individual relationship plan activation that will be
continued in the two follow-up interviews.
6
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Three chapters follow this brief introduction. The first presents a snapshot of
the participants‟ thinking before the program commenced. The second chapter
outlines the findings of two kinds of assessments made while the program was
underway. The first assessment, made at the mid-point of the trial program,
drew together the ideas and experiences of the women and men steering its
implementation – the facilitators of the four workshop groups. The second
„formative‟ assessment, conducted throughout the course of the ten sessions,
involved the analysis of brief feedback sheets, completed by participants at the
end of each workshop. Finally, Chapter 3 presents another snapshot of the
participants‟ thinking and current actions, taken immediately following the
completion of the workshops. Several of the questions used at this stage were
designed to enable comparisons to be made with the men‟s outlook before they
became involved in the program. Chapter 3 also includes a summary of the main
findings and their apparent implications.
7
CHAPTER 1 – BRIEF OVERVIEW OF PRE-PROGRAM KNOWLEDGE,
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS
Before the Me and My Family program began at Port Phillip and Loddon Prisons
evaluation interviews were conducted with intending participants. The first aim
of the interviews was to explain the independent role of the evaluators and
stress the importance being attached to learning from the experience of
providing the first series of workshops. The frank expression of views by the
participants, via the feedback they would be asked to provide at the completion
of each workshop session, and in an interview at the end of the ten sessions,
would play a vital role in the evaluation. The anonymity of the information
gathered was stressed, together with the separation of the program provision
and evaluation roles.
It was explained that we also needed to gather some „background‟ data prior to
the commencement of the program. This was gathered in the pre-program
interviews at Port Phillip Prison on 16th January, 2001, and at Loddon on 18th
January, 2001. The information sought was as follows:
The participants‟ degree of confidence that their most important
relationships could be improved, and the need they felt to obtain help to
improve those relationships;
The organisations or services that they could turn to in order to obtain
professional help to improve their relationships;
Things that help a relationship to work, or not work.
It was intended that some elements of the questions asked on this occasion
would be repeated at the post-program interviews but this was not discussed
with the participants. Several questions focused on the relationships the men
regarded as being their „most important‟ so that it was necessary to clarify what
was encompassed by this term. The Loddon respondents were, as mentioned in
the Introduction, somewhat older than their Port Phillip counterparts and were
more likely to mention their children as being among their most significant
relationships. The base figures were slightly different (24 at Port Phillip, 21 at
Loddon), and several relationships were usually mentioned by each man:
Pt. Phillip Loddon
Parents 20 mentions 15 Mentions
Siblings 18 “ “ 15 “ “
Partners/girlfriend
s
17 “ “ 17 “ “
Friends 14 “ “ 2 “ “
Children 8 “ “ 16 “ “
Other 4 “ “ 3 “ “
Table 1-1:relationships considered most important by men
8
While repairing or maintaining their relationships with their children appeared
to be a priority for more of the Loddon men than those interviewed at Port
Phillip, relationships with immediate family members and partners/girlfriends
were priority concerns for both groups.
(i) Confidence that relationships can be improved, and (ii) need to
obtain help to improve most important relationships The majority of the Loddon and Port Phillip men were confident that their most
important relationships could be improved. On a ten-point scale ranging from 1- not strongly, to 10 – very strongly confident, only one man scored at the
extreme „low‟ end of the scale (that is, a confidence score of 1). This inmate was
wary because his child‟s mother was drug dependent and he said he was
necessarily uncertain of the outcome of any endeavours to improve their
relationship. On the other hand, there was an urgent need to improve the
relationship and he rated the need to obtain help at 8 (on a ten point scale).
Because of the broad intention of the program to try and engage incarcerated
men in relationship problem solving, the evaluative potential of cases such as the
one under discussion is readily apparent. The prisoner located the determinants
of the future course of his key relationship as lying outside of the sphere of his
own behaviour and influence. In psychological terms, his perceived self efficacy
was low and it will be important to re-visit this case and the other nine men, for
example, who rated their confidence at the outset at below 5 on the ten point
„confidence‟ scale, at the conclusion of the program. Proportionately, there were
slightly more (6/21) of the Loddon men below the mid-point of 5 on the
confidence scale than was the case with the Port Phillip group (4/24):
Confidence score Port Phillip Loddon
1 -- 1
2 -- --
3 3 3
4 1 2
5 3 3
6 8 --
7 3 3
8 6 9
9 -- --
10 -- --
Total 24 21
Table 1-2: confidence scores at the outset of the program
The need to obtain help to improve their most important relationships was
strongly acknowledged by the majority of the Loddon men, 17/21 (81%) of them
rating that need between 7 and 10 on the relevant ten point scale. An almost
equal proportion (14/21, 75%) of the Port Phillip scored in the same 7-10 range.
9
Two people rated their need at „3‟. One said that not too much help was needed
to improve his relationship with his girlfriend because the couple already
“communicate well” (his „confidence‟ rating was consequently very high). The
second man had only a moderate „confidence‟ score in conjunction with his low
„need for help‟ rating.
If you did want professional help to improve your relationships, which
organisations or services could you turn to? The finding here was similar at both institutions. Seven out of ten of the
Loddon men (15/21) could not name an organisation or service to which they
could turn for help; six out of ten (15/24) of the Port Phillip men were in the
same position. One man at Loddon mentioned Windana/Ludbrook House in
Ballarat, another said he could use the services of “Catholic Family Services” or
his local community health service. Four others each referred to one
organisation (The Salvation Army, Odessy House, the Youth Centre in Glenroy,
and Upper Hume Community Services). The nine Port Phillip prisoners who
between them named thirteen potential sources of help relied fairly heavily on
organisations offering a wide range of services. The Salvation Army was
mentioned three times and Lifeline twice. The following were each mentioned
once – Moreland Hall, Department of Family and Community Services, VISY Care
Services, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Community Health, Dromana,
Relationships Australia, a local church, Outreach Grief Services, Open Family,
and Turning Point.
One of the goals of the Me and My Family project is to improve men‟s awareness
of appropriate sources of assistance in improving their key relationships so that
a „before‟ and „after‟ comparison of their knowledge in this regard was intended
to form an important part of the evaluation.
Things that help to make a relationship work While many of the attributes of a workable relationship mentioned by the men
at both institutions could be extended to relationships generally, it seems quite
clear that they were basing their views mainly on intimate relationships. For
example, two-thirds (14/21) of the Loddon men included love/showing affection as requirements of a successful relationship. Not surprisingly at the outset of
the program, they dealt mainly in generalities but occasionally their own
problems and those of fellow prisoners, shone through. This was true of
individual experiences and observations on circumstances that put pressure on a
relationship – like the destructive effects of drug and/or alcohol dependency, or
unsupportive external relationships. There was also evidence that, even when
couching their opinions in terms of an abstract emblem, like „good
communication‟, some of the men had reflected upon the more specific elements
involved. For example, one described good communication as “sitting down and
talking, and writing down what you want to say before saying it.” Another
10
indicated the necessity of “Being straight and saying what‟s on your mind, openly
and honestly:”
ATTRIBUTES Pt.Phillip(N=24) Loddon(N=21)
Trust 14 mentions 10 mentions
Honesty 8 “ “ 8 “ “
Respect 7 “ “ 5 “ “
Understanding other‟s
needs, views
6 “ “ 3 “ “
Commitment 6 “ “ 3 “ “
Love, showing affection 9 “ “ 14 “ “
Effective communication 4 “ “ 12 “ “
Interests in common 3 “ “ 1 “ “
Space to be one‟s self 3 “ “ 3 “ “
Responsibility 3 “ “ ----------
Mutual support ----------- 5 “ “
Table 1-3:Relationships that work -- most frequently mentioned
attributes
In addition, cooperation and fidelity were each mentioned twice at Loddon and
the following were mentioned once: compromise, total sharing, equality, bonding,
shared values, loyalty, financial security, friendship, not being selfish. At Port
Phillip, calmness, sharing responsibilities, and showing that one cares were each
mentioned twice, and the following were each mentioned once: companionship,
good friendship, non-violence, continual personal development, kindness, mutual
liking, „pulling one‟s weight,‟ avoiding drugs, loyalty, having pleasant outings,
listening attentively, a stable income, sense of humour, being willing to
compromise, equality, family support, and avoiding crime.
Things that help make a relationship not work In addition to gaining their ideas on the attributes of a satisfying relationship,
the men at Port Phillip and Loddon were also asked to list the things that help a
relationship to not work. Their comments are summarised in the table that
appears on the following page:
11
Negative attributes Port Phillip (N=24) Loddon (N=21)
Anger/violence 10 mentions 4 mentions
Dishonesty 9 “ “ 8 “ “
Lack of communication 6 “ “ 7 “ “
Lack of commitment 6 “ “ 7 “ “
Alcohol/drug dependence 6 “ “ 5 “ “
Lack of respect 4 “ “ 4 “ “
Infidelity 4 “ “ 4 “ “
Taking, not
giving/selfishness
6 “ “
5 “ “
Absence of stable
income
3 “ “ 2 “ “
Inconsiderate, hurtful
statements
3 “ “
3 “ „
Lack of trust 1 “ “ 5 “ “
Lack of external
supporting relationships
-----------------
3 “ “
Table 1-3:Relationships that do not work -- most frequently
mentioned attributes
In addition, at Loddon, not resolving issues/arguments, and arguments, were
each mentioned twice, and the following were mentioned once: not willing to
compromise, lack of equality, being too analytical, jealousy, being too
materialistic, gambling, emotional distance and separation. At Port Phillip
gambling, not expressing appreciation, laziness, and family pressures, were each
mentioned twice, and the following were mentioned once -- incompatibility,
unacceptable conduct, letting tensions accumulate, unequal power, unwillingness
to compromise, lack of contact (physical and emotional), irresponsibility, absence
of common interests, not listening to the other person, and the partners being
too youthful.
The foregoing benchmark data was established before the Me and My Family program began. Attention will now focus on subsequent evaluations of the
impact of the program made during the course of the workshops and
immediately upon their completion. The mid-stream evaluations are reported in
Chapter 2, and the final overall evaluation in Chapter 3.
12
CHAPTER 2: FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Two elements of the evaluation plan were intended to provide the managers of
the Me and My Family program with the opportunity of making adjustments and
improvements to the program while it was being trialed. To serve this formative assessment function, the two sets of information needed to be gathered and
analysed in a timely fashion. The first, the mid-point appraisal of the
experience and views of the workshop facilitators, met the latter requirement.
The second, participants‟ feedback on each of the workshop sessions, did not.
However, beyond the intended „formative‟ role, both types of data shed light on
larger issues of program design and the achievement of program objectives, and
have made valuable contributions to the overall evaluation of the program.
Mid-Point Appraisal of Experience and Views of Workshop Facilitators
On Monday 12th February, 2001, five of the six co-facilitators of the four
workshop groups providing the Me and My Family program were interviewed.
The sixth member of the team was interviewed by telephone the following day.
In all instances, either the first five or six sessions formed the basis of the
discussion. A primary purpose was to garner insights into the program and
identify possible improvements to it while the experience of conducting the
workshops was still fresh in the minds of the facilitators. The interviews were
approximately of 50 minutes duration and covered the facilitators‟ general
experience of implementing the goals and procedural suggestions outlined in the
program manual, as well as the following specific points contained in the agreed
evaluation plan:
Possible improvements to the manual in order better to meet the needs
of participants and workshop facilitators;
Reflections upon the balance being attained in meeting the needs of the
groups and fulfilling the requirements of the program;
The staff‟s appraisal of the participants‟ degree of commitment to the
program;
The latter‟s involvement in working towards a „Relationship Needs Plan‟
and the likelihood of their seeking help to improve their important
relationships;
The types of relationship experience that formed the basis of the
participants‟ reflections and comments;
The attention paid to improving the men‟s communication skills; and
The major difficulties being encountered, and the most productive parts
of the program, in the opinion of the facilitators.
The outcome of the discussions is most fruitfully expressed in terms of the
program design issues requiring consideration before embarking on a further
series of workshops or promulgating the workshop manual. The issues that are
13
presented below claim no status beyond their due, namely, the more or less
spontaneous reflections of a group of practitioners who left the independent
evaluator in no doubt as to their commitment to the success of the program and
their awareness of the challenging task before it. From the point of view of
providing timely feedback on the program, an initial verbal report was given to
the program managers and several of the facilitators on the day that five of the
six interviews were conducted (12th February, 2001), and the present more
complete analysis was distributed one week later1.
Issue 1: tensions between doing justice to group processes and
program structure and objectives There was agreement among the facilitators that the manual represents a sound
general guide, a valuable resource for sustaining purposefulness throughout the
journey of ten sessions. In fairness too, even in its present form, it invites
creativity on the part of the facilitators. Nevertheless, there was near
consensus that an even more flexible script is required if justice is to be done
to the prisoners‟ stronger than anticipated degree of readiness to engage with
relationship issues, and already formed opinions in that regard2. The latter
characteristics have been expressed in the workshops by participants‟ desire to
play a part in setting the agenda, as well as establishing a participatory climate
which they feel distinguishes the exercise from the majority of authority-
imposed tasks within the prison regime. The facilitators believe that they must
respond sensitively to these wishes, the strength of which may partly reflect
the way the groups were recruited. That is to say, had the men selected been
those originally envisaged, namely, people who had not previously participated in
psych-educational and other programs, then the „tightness‟ of the manual may
have been more appropriate although still probably a little restrictive.
The overall implications of the facilitators‟ experience and comments is that the
manual should be modified to retain the overall aims of the program and
designate blocks of experience that contribute to their attainment, rather than
schedule tightly-bound, sequential sessions. To the extent that a preferred
order of experiences and learning is retained, flexibility of timing on the part of
facilitators should be invited. One staff member put it this way: “The spirit of
the plan and the content provided should be observed, rather than feeling
compelled to follow every detail.”
Issue 2: should the groups be homogeneous in certain critical
respects? Piecing together the experiences of facilitators who are working with groups of
men of varying degrees of maturity, a picture emerges of the importance of a
participant variable – „life stage‟ – that is loosely but not always linked to 1 Only minor editorial changes have been made in preparing this final report. 2 Opinions of a general nature but manifested in the pre-program interview, as well as in the
workshops.
14
chronological age. Some of the men, generally in their thirties and beyond, have
reached a threshold of dissatisfaction with their way of life, wish to „give it
away,‟ and are ready to devote the time and effort to think longer-term about a
different future. This disposition is different from that of many younger men
who have not yet attained the same threshold of dissatisfaction and whose
attention is focused on more immediate problems and issues.
It is either the opinion of most of the facilitators, or implicit in their
observations, that life stage should be a consideration in constituting workshop
groups. Keeping the two above-mentioned orientations apart would make for
more clarity of purpose and maintain the motivation of participants.3
Facilitators also have said that while there are some overlapping elements in
different kinds of relationships, something would be gained from the members
of a group having common concerns about particular forms of relationships. For
example, the facilitators have found that „partnering‟ and „parenting‟ raise
different issues and the feedback from the sessions includes some comments
that indicate motivation is adversely affected by prolonged discussion of forms
of relationship problems unrelated to the concerns of other members.
Issue 3: the special case of young, highly damaged prisoners: is
there a need for a precursor experience (dealing with their own
feelings) before focusing on relationships? A great deal of counselling work with inmates relates to practical concerns, such
as their handling of situations within the institution, or post-release plans and
arrangements, resulting in some camouflaging of the depth of emotional damage
in the early lives of many prisoners. To some extent, then, the present
workshops are unusual in opening up the possibility of deeper reflection upon the
men‟s origins and development. This may not quite be what was anticipated by
the program planners and the manual design actually seeks to slow the
personalising of problems. However, the raising of questions about personal
relationships has triggered intense and often highly revelatory discussion of
hurtful past experiences to an extent that some facilitators question whether
the examination of relationships is an appropriate starting point for these young
people. In the first instance, survival might need to be the focus, with a
particular emphasis on acquiring practical skills and the provision of social
support. In the words of one facilitator, “They need to learn to relate to
themselves before they can start to examine their relationships to others.”
Obviously, this is not a „either/or‟ situation but the observation carries the
possibility of a distinct shift of emphasis.
3 It is noted that the feedback obtained from participants following completion of some of the early
sessions occasionally reflected their perception of clashing orientations of the above-mentioned kinds.
Also, some of the facilitators have mentioned that advanced life-stage prisoners have said they do not
want younger prisoners who have not yet reached the same stage of disaffection with criminal careers,
in their group.
15
Assuming that a significant number of young prisoners fit into the category
described, then the import for the present project would seem to be that these
men need forms of assistance that, at least initially, lie outside the scope of the
Me and My Family program. It is a moot point whether the men in question can
be identified before entering the program but the attempt to do that would be
a logical consequence of the observations that have been made. It would
constitute the worst kind of bureaucratic thinking if that were all that resulted
from the insight gained. Having decided that a particular group is perhaps too
damaged to benefit from the present program, it would be unethical to just
leave them to their fate. Some ethical options might include seeking funding to
develop and refine the form of precursor group experience that some of the
facilitators believe to be necessary. Another might be to make it clear in final
reporting to the correctional authorities that the needs of the group in question
are not addressed by the present program and specify some suggested ways in
which those needs might be met.
Issue 4: the seeming irresistibility of personalising issues Reference already has been made to the very strong inclination for participants
to personalise relationship issues, notwithstanding a number of recommended
measures to at least slow down movement in that direction. Some possible
reasons for this tendency have been canvassed. Over and beyond these
suggestions many facilitators simply believe that no matter how the approach is
framed, many of the men will still move quickly to the discussion of what the
program content means in their lives. It is as though powerful emotional forces
are set to be released by even modest cues. Since the issue listed immediately
hereunder (Issue 5) concerns questions raised by the intensity of the groups,
the present point cannot just be shrugged-off.
The first implication of issue 4 is that there needs to exist a different tone in
the manual. What has actually happened in the groups can be a source of
confusion, even where the recommended steps to „depersonalise‟ have been
attempted. It would be more realistic to acknowledge that many prisoners will
move quickly to personalise the issues and, in the interests of maintaining group
involvement and motivation, it may be prudent to allow the discussion to flow in
this direction. However, on the basis of the experience gained in the present
series of workshops, some cautions also need to be stated:
unless facilitators intervene, a restricted number of people may
monopolise the available „airtime‟ to the frustration and de-motivation of
others;
participants have different degrees of readiness to reveal sensitive
experiences and feelings and may choose non-mainstream times and
places (pre-session chats, encounters with staff in a corridor) to broach
subjects they are not ready to raise in formal session time. They should
not be pressured in any way to reveal publicly the personal implications of
points under discussion but will need to consider their relevance to their
16
personal plan. Spread across the existing groups there is a small number
of men who have said very little in group sessions but have continued to
attend and seem to be getting something useful out of being present.
Issue 5: dealing with the intensity of the groups That the level of intensity of discussions has exceeded expectations raises the
question of whether additional provision needs to be made to deal with that
occurrence. It is understood that there is a waiting period of three weeks to
have an appointment with the psychologist at Loddon so a referral of that kind
may not be a ready solution to any problems that arise. Since the workshops
began some participants have sought individual sessions with facilitators
thereby indicating that they feel the need for some form of counselling.
Extending the duration of the program does not loom in the minds of facilitators
as a significant additional safeguard. Reminding participants at the outset that
there will be ten sessions, preparing them for closure and marking that stage
with a (permissible) small ritual is what they have in mind. The experience of
what has transpired would now suggest that advantage be taken of the planned
two final post-workshop interviews to monitor the emotional ease or otherwise
of participants as part of terminating the program in a controlled way and
considering whether a referral is necessary.
Issue 6: timing of introduction of Action Plan Facilitators think that the early introduction of the Action Plan serves no clear
purpose. One commented that at that stage it would appear to be just another
form in a world of surplus official documentation. All agreed that it would be
better to hold the „plan‟ back until it meant something (in the light of material
covered in the first five or so sessions). The manual should be modified to
specify the tabling of the plan at around the mid-point of the program, at a
moment and in a context that will make talk of its completion meaningful. That,
in fact, is what has more or less happened in the present series. Implemented in
that way, there is facilitator enthusiasm for the idea of the Action Plan.
Issue 7: Willingness to seek help There is a strong sense of the importance of what several phrased “the
practical phase” of the program, involving the introductions to relationship
counselling agencies and encouragement and support to use them. Some of the
facilitators are anticipating more than practical difficulties in making this part
of the program work. They believe there will be attitudinal barriers to the
effective use of these services. Some men already give signs of pessimism
about their prospects, along the lines that “It‟s already too late.” The
implication is that the manual needs to address the negative attitudes that are
anticipated so that the latter will not thwart the practical expression of the
learning that has occurred.
17
Issue 8: Advantages and disadvantages of considering idealised forms
of relationships The facilitators were divided on this point. Some were finding that the
formulation by a process of induction of models of effective relationships, such
as parenting and partnering, were counterproductive in that participants
frequently saw these models as unattainable and irrelevant. They were not only
dismissive of them but the process of compiling the models unsettled the
authentic, group-based search for ways of making practical progress in the
men‟s lives that has been a fundamental strength of the workshops.
An alternative view expressed by other facilitators was that the exercises in
question were accepted as a precursor to examining concrete circumstances,
without the expectation that any individual‟s situation would match exactly the
elements of a model. In other words, the approach envisaged by this group of
facilitators resembled the use in social research of Weber‟s notion of an „ideal
type,‟ a set of ideal elements that constitute a heuristic analytical tool for which
there is no perfectly matching concrete reality. One facilitator commented
that the use of this type of approach was “usefully provocative” in opening up
discussion and reflection on the men‟s experience of different relationships.
If the procedures outlined in Session 2 for ascertaining views on what
constitutes, for example, the perfect father/partner/family, are to be
retained, then a modification to the manual would seem prudent in the light of
the experience of several of the facilitators. Participants should be assisted to
a greater degree than currently appears to be the case, to understand the
intended purpose of the exercise and that models of relating are not being
derived for strict emulation or because they represent the applied norms of the
community. This should help to avoid misunderstandings and associated
emotional blocking, in some cases. On the other hand, might the task be more
productively framed by emphasising relationship elements that the participants
feel are practically attainable in their real worlds? The end results might not be
startlingly different while still serving the same dynamic intent.
Issue 9: the usefulness of the suggested exercises Without exception the facilitators found the incorporation of various exercises
highly advantageous. The way in which the exercises afford a “break from
words” and at the same time generate insights, make them indispensable. The
value of the „jacket‟ exercise was mentioned by almost all of the workshop
leaders. The ability of exercises to “re-energise” a group following a break in
activity, also was mentioned. The only query raised was in relation to the
cultural relevance of some of the exercises and whether that might be
enhanced?
18
Issue 10: preserving focus The attainment of the program‟s objectives requires the commitment and
concentration of participants and workshop leaders. There is much evidence of
the presence of these requirements in the current program. However, the focus
of those involved needs to be supported by the environment in which the group
meets, with minimal distractions and interruptions occurring. Unfortunately,
this does not appear to be the case at Port Phillip. All concerned appreciate
that security will be a paramount consideration in a prison but the many
interruptions and loss of time occurring with at least one group at Port Phillip
appear to be avoidable and not directly related to security. Competing duties,
visits and other professional appointments, resulting in prison staff disrupting
group process, need to be managed if rehabilitation measures are to receive the
degree of attention warranted. This issue needs to be taken up with the
programs staff and, ultimately, with management, in the interests of future
group-based programs.
Issue 11: a role for supplementary resource materials? Several of the facilitators, having witnessed the intensity of many participants‟
involvement and their hunger to deepen their understanding of the topics raised,
question whether supplementary resource materials (books, videos, material on
masculinity, sexuality, relationships, and the like) might be made available.
There exists some uncertainty in their minds about who should take the
initiative in this area. One constructive suggestion was that „Prisoner Listener‟
Groups4 might be formed to help men work their way through such resource
material, in addition to providing opportunities for its further consideration
within the program.
Issue 12: Me and My Family as part of a tiered program? None of the facilitators seemed to believe that the present program should be
extended beyond its planned duration. However, for much the same reasons as
were mentioned in relation to Issue 10, it has been suggested for consideration
that participants in Me and My Family have the opportunity to take part in
follow-up units dealing with topics such as The social construction of male identity, Fathers and children, and parenting courses. These units, presumably,
might be provided under varied auspices, including social agencies and the
programs division of Victorian Corrections. Of course, the feasibility of the
implementation of this suggestion depends on the recruitment of participants
for the Me and My Family program, in particular whether or not they will be in
the final stage of their imprisonment.
4 Some prisoners, selected and trained to play a support role within the institutions, are given the
descriptive title of Prisoner Listener.
19
Participants’ Feedback on Workshop Sessions
Apart from the other opportunities provided for participants to reflect upon
their hopes for the program, and what they actually felt they got out of it, the
men were also asked to take five minutes at the end of each session and fill out
a single page feedback sheet. This simple device focused on the content and
perceived importance of aspects of the particular session including:
An overall rating of the session, using a five point scale that ranged
from „Very helpful‟(1) to „Very unhelpful‟(5),
What they had found most and least helpful about it,
The rating they assigned (on a five point scale) to each of the following
attributes – made me think, clear, relevant, chance to participate, information giving, and putting learning into action. The scale used
ranged across the following possibilities:
(1) very much the case
(2) to some extent
(3) in-between
(4) not to any real extent
(5) definitely not the case
The most important thing they felt they had learned that day, and
The one thing they wanted to learn more about.
The anonymous forms were distributed by the facilitators and the plan had been
that they would then be placed in an addressed envelope and returned promptly
to the evaluator. In fact they appear to have been held for varying periods of
time before being given to the program coordinator and transmitted in batches
to the evaluator. A compact version of the feedback form can be seen on the
following page.
Since a total of forty sessions was conducted across the two institutions, the
data needs to be presented with the degree of compression needed to highlight
trends while avoiding becoming lost in detail. Of course, the usefulness of this
type of information for the purposes of evaluation depends on the
representativeness of the views expressed. If only a handful of people in a
particular group provide feedback in the form requested and they happen to be
the ones who are most positively disposed towards the program, then the
meaning of the results remains, at best, uncertain. Unfortunately, that appears
to be the case with respect to Group A at Port Phillip (see Table 2-A, below).
With an average of 5.1 participants providing feedback over just
seven of the ten weeks of the program,5 it is hard to know what significance to
attach to the generally high „satisfaction‟ scores, particularly when the lowest
5 After the completion of the post-program interviews, and well after the analysis of the data presented
in this section, a further batch of eight feed-back sheets for Group A were posted to the evaluator.
20
average occurred in the week with the highest number of participants providing
feedback. To some extent, the same pattern applied to Group B at Port Phillip
(average of 8.2 feedback returns) and Group C at Loddon (average of 7.4
returns). The number of raters from Group D at Loddon (average of 9.8) was
more stable and the meaning of their responses, therefore, less dependent on
who it was that happened to fill out the forms.
These covered the last three sessions – an average of 2.3 returns per session. They have not been
included in the analysis.
21
‘Me and my family’ project
FEEDBACK FROM WORKSHOP SESSION
1). Did you find today‟s session (please tick one box):
Very helpful Helpful So-so Unhelpful Very unhelpful
2). What did you find most helpful about today‟s session?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3). What did you find least helpful about today‟s session?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4). Could you please rate the aspects of today‟s session that appear below by
putting one of the following numbers in the box alongside each item:
1 = very much the case
2 = to some extent
3 = in-between
4 = not to any real extent
5 = definitely not the case
(a) Made me think (d) Chance to participate
(b) Clear (e) Information given
(c) Relevant (f) Putting learning into action
5). What was the most important thing you learnt today?
….…………………………………………………………………………………..
6). What one thing do you want to learn more about?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Institution in which you attended workshop…………………….. Date:……………
Thank you for your assistance. Please return to the project evaluator,
Professor Tony Vinson, School of Social Work, University of NSW, Sydney
2052.
22
With the foregoing reservations in mind, what can we learn from Table 2-A?
First, there was only one occasion on which less than half of those making the
ratings considered the session that they had attended to be other than „Helpful‟
or „Very helpful.‟ Indeed, for half (19/37) of the sessions for which results are
available, 85% of the participants who provided feedback said they had found
the session „Helpful‟ or „Very helpful.‟ Group A had the highest median score
(1.00) but, as noted, this result is based on comparatively few returns. Other
median scores were Group C (0.86), Group B (0.76), and Group D (0.72). These
are generally positive results and it is possible to look more closely at what lies
behind them, taking one group at a time. But before doing so a final comment
should be made upon the level of returns attained. It may be that the men
looked upon the task of filling out a feedback sheet as symbolically linked to
„paperwork,‟ record keeping and the paraphernalia of prison bureaucracy which
they contrasted with the spirit and purposefulness of the program. However,
the impression is inescapable that this was an aspect of the project to which
the facilitators could, and should, have devoted more energy and attention,
stressing the importance of the exercise to the modification and improvement
of the program.
23
PROG.
GPS
S 1
S 2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
A (PT.P) Rs=1
0
0.60
Rs=5
0.80
Rs=7
0.85
Rs=3
1.00
Rs=5
1.0
Rs=2
1.0
Rs=
4
1.0
--
--
--
B (PT.P) Rs=9
0.92
Rs=1
2
0.50
Rs=1
0
0.70
Rs=8
0.87
Rs=1
0
0.50
Rs=8
0.62
Rs=
8
0.6
2
Rs=
5
1.0
0
Rs=
6
0.8
3
Rs=
6
0.8
3
C (LOD)
Rs=9
0.77
Rs=8
0.87
Rs=8
0.87
Rs=6
1.00
Rs=8
0.75
Rs=8
1.00
Rs=
7
0.8
6
Rs=
7
0.8
6
Rs=
7
0.8
6
Rs=
6
1.0
0
D (LOD) Rs=1
1
0.63
Rs=1
1
0.82
Rs=1
1
1.00
Rs=1
0
0.60
Rs=9
0.55
Rs=1
0
0.90
Rs=
9
0.4
4
Rs=
9
0.6
7
Rs=
9
0.7
7
Rs=
9
0.9
0
Rs = number of participants returning an evaluation sheet Proportions are the number of raters assigning ‘Very helpful’ or ‘Helpful’ ratings to session
Table 2-A: Proportion of raters in each group expressing positive attitude
towards each session of the Me and My Family program
Six Key Characteristics of Each Session
Group A In interpreting the tables that follow summarising each session‟s relative
attainment of six goals6, it should be kept in mind that the five point scale
ranged from a positive extreme of „Very much the case,‟ (scored as 1) to
„Definitely not the case‟ (scored as 5). In other words, a good score is a low one.
Even after taking account of the limited number of ratings provided by Group A,
it seems that some goals were far more fully attained than others (see Table 2-
B). First, the participants felt they had a good chance to participate, average 6 (i) Provoking thought, (ii) clarity, (iii) relevance, (iv) affording participation, (v) providing quality
information and (vi) applying the knowledge acquired.
24
session scores on this goal ranging from 1.0 to 1.7, with a mid-point of 1.1. This
numeric evidence was supported by the comments made across the sessions in
response to questions about what was found most helpful and what participants
regarded as “important learning.” The men commented early on the way their
group was being structured and that they were learning how to communicate
within a group. They referred simply to “group discussion,” “learning to listen
more to other participants,” and “open discussion,” with such remarks
representing an increasing proportion of the comments made as the sessions
progressed.
Being caused to think was another attribute that was widely perceived to
characterise the sessions (range 1.0 to 2.4, with a mid-point of 1.3). This aspect
came up infrequently in the participants‟ open-ended comments, as also was the
case with three other attributes (clarity, relevance and quality of information – median scores respectively of 1.7, 1.7 and 1.8). Perhaps these features were
swept up in the remark of many of the enthusiasts – “It was all excellent”! The
latter thinking did not extend to “Putting learning into action” (median session
score of 2.6). In five of the seven sessions rated, the score for this goal was
higher than for any of the other five goals systematically appraised:
SESSION
ATTRIBUTE
S1
Rs=1
0
S2
Rs=5
S3
Rs=7
S4
Rs=3
S5
Rs=5
S6
Rs=2
S7
Rs=4
S
8
S
9
S1
0
Made me
think
2.4
1.3
1.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
--
--
--
Clear 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 -- -- --
Relevant 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 -- -- --
Chance to
participate
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.5
--
--
--
Information
given
1.8
2.3
1.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.5
--
--
--
Putting
learning into
action
2.9
3.0
2.6
1.7
1.4
3.5
2.2
--
--
--
Rs = number of participants returning an evaluation sheet Cell entries are the average scores based on scale ranging from (1) ‘very much the case’ to (5) ‘definitely not the case.’ TABLE 2-B: Average scores of raters in Group A (Port Phillip) on six
characteristics of each session
25
Group B Scores for Group B on the same set of session attributes considered in the
previous section, were spread across a smaller range (median scores of 1.8 – 2.2)
than had been the case with Group A. Two points of similarity were that chance to participate and caused to think were at he lower (that is, positive) end of the
range, and putting learning into action was at the upper (negative) end. Still, the
differences were not especially marked.
A point of interest is that the results across the six characteristics in session 4
were either the best, or near best, for the entire series. With the hindsight
afforded by the post-program evaluation interviews, it seems that this session
was one of the powerful interludes in which participants developed profound
respect for the courage of many of their fellow prisoners. According to the
later interviews, they were caused to feel that their problems, previously
regarded as being severe, were nothing alongside those experienced by some of
the other men. New feelings developed about the possibilities of developing
self-respect and control and direction in one‟s life. These sentiments were
easier to convey in a personal discussion than via a brief feed-back sheet but
here are some echoes of the themes alluded to. First, it should be noted that
five of the eight men providing ratings described the session as being “Very
helpful.” Among the comments on what had been „most helpful‟ and „important‟
one man said “We were talking about relationships of importance to me
personally.” Another stated: “ I have learnt about relationships and how I‟ve
gone about them.” Other comments included “I‟ve learnt about other‟s more
severe pain;” “I‟ve learned that everyone has a past;” “ I‟ve learnt much about
other members of the group;” “ I‟ve heard about the upbringing of others and
how they have turned out;” “My life is nothing compared to others.”
26
SESSION
ATTRIBUTE
S1
Rs=9
S2
Rs=1
2
S3
Rs=1
0
S4
Rs=8
S5
Rs=1
0
S6
Rs=8
S7
Rs=8
S8
Rs=5
S9
Rs=6
S10
Rs=6
Made me
think
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.2
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.8
Clear 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.4 1.7 2.0
Relevant 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.8
Chance to
participate
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.0
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.0
Information
given
1.3
2.4
2.1
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.8
Putting
learning into
action
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
Rs = number of participants returning an evaluation sheet Cell entries are the average scores based on scale ranging from (1) ‘very much the case’ to (5) ‘definitely not the case.’ TABLE 2-C: Average scores of raters in Group B (Port Phillip) on six
characteristics of each session
Group C With the exception of “Putting learning into action” (median session score of
2.4), there was little difference in the results for the other five
characteristics, all of which rated quite positively (median scores ranging from
1.3 to 1.6). The tenth session stands out as the one that attracted particular
commendation but that praise appears to have been based on a general
appreciation of the merits of the session rather than specific factors. Even
here, however, the perception of the practical application of the learning
acquired was that this aspect was less successfully covered than the other five
dimensions of the session. Since the same pattern applied in respect of Group D
(next section) and the previously reviewed groups, it constitutes probably the
most important element of feedback provided to us by the program participants.
This insight cross-references with some constructive suggestions made by
prisoners and staff in the post-program interviews and will be taken up in the
Summary / Recommendations section of this report:
27
SESSION
ATTRIBUTE
S1
Rs=9
S2
Rs=8
S3
Rs=8
S4
Rs=6
S5
Rs=8
S6
Rs=8
S7
Rs=7
S8
Rs=7
S9
Rs=7
S10
Rs=6
Made me
think
1.9
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.0
Clear 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.0
Relevant 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.0
Chance to
participate
1.7
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.0
Information
given
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.0
Putting
learning into
action
2.5
2.9
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.7
Rs = number of participants returning an evaluation sheet Cell entries are the average scores based on scale ranging from (1) ‘very much the case’ to (5) ‘definitely not the case.’ TABLE 2-D: Average scores of raters in Group C (Loddon) on six
characteristics of each session
Group D The session scores for Group D at Loddon were more dispersed than was the
case with the other three groups with a range of median session scores from 1.7
(provoking thinking), and 1.9 (quality of information), to 2.5 (relevance) and 2.6
(applying learning). What this boils down to is that, compared with the other
groups, the participants did not rate Group D as being especially positive on any
of the six dimensions. They placed Group D third or fourth on the comparative
ratings on each of the six characteristics. They were (comparatively) most
harsh in their judgement of relevance, the median session rating of 2.5
comparing with equivalent results of 1.3, 1.7, and 2.0 in the cases of the other
three groups. To keep these findings in perspective, however, it must be
remembered that the average (median) proportion of Group D members
expressing „satisfaction‟ with each session was 0.72. Their comments on „helpful‟
and „unhelpful‟ aspects of the sessions add little to our understanding with the
possible exception that following each of the last three sessions, two or three
men stated a belief that the group was stuck on the individual stories of some
members:
28
SESSION
ATTRIBUTE
S1
Rs=1
1
S2
Rs=1
1
S3
Rs=1
1
S4
Rs=1
0
S5
Rs=9
S6
Rs=1
0
S7
Rs=9
S8
Rs=9
S9
Rs=9
S10
Rs=9
Made me
think
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.9
Clear 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.0
Relevant 2.5 2.4 1.6 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.5 1.9 2.5 2.1
Chance to
participate
1.8
1.9
1.6
2.2
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.3
1.5
2.1
Information
given
1.9
1.8
1.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.9
2.1
1.7
Putting
learning into
action
2.6
2.2
1.6
3.3
2.9
2.0
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.5
Rs = number of participants returning an evaluation sheet Cell entries are the average scores based on scale ranging from (1) ‘very much the case’ to (5) ‘definitely not the case.’ TABLE 2-E: Average scores of raters in Group D (Loddon) on six
characteristics of each session
Desired Additional Learning
Over the course of the exercise 290 feedback sheets were submitted.
Generally speaking, they were more noteworthy for the diversity of
individualised responses they contained, than their convergence on a limited
number of themes. This comment was true of answers to the question “What
one thing do you want to learn more about”? First, a substantial number of the
men (21/290…7.2%) were happy with the way the program was developing and
their focus simply followed the trajectory of the sessional plans. Another
sixteen of the feedback sheets (5.5%) contained a similar, but even more brief,
comment – “Anything.” Then, in more than a third of cases (37.9%) there
appears to have been no one thing that the men wanted to learn more about for
they did not answer the question.
On 143 occasions, or just under half of the feedback sheets submitted
(143/290…49.3%), respondents did specify a topic about which they wished to
learn more. While a miscellany of ideas were presented, more than a third
converged on the related topics of (i) „family values and how families can operate
29
successfully,‟ and (ii) „how to improve my ability as a parent.‟ The numeric
strength of this theme indicates a desire on the part of some of the men7 for
family-related knowledge, illustrating the merits of the continuing education
proposals made by some of the group facilitators and discussed in an earlier
section of this report. The fact that the requests for further consideration of
family issues came mainly from the Loddon men also illustrates another point
made by facilitators at the mid-point evaluation, namely, that many of the
younger prisoners and detainees at Port Phillip are more concerned to
understand themselves than their relationships with others.
Another of the expressions of interest in additional learning that was relatively
prominent identified really learning how to apply newly acquired knowledge as an
objective. The fact that approximately ten per cent of the comments took this
form is, in itself, significant, particularly when related to the post-program
interviews discussed in the next chapter. An important point was being made
about something as fundamental as being able to practise in a real-world context
what one was taking into one‟s head in a discussion room. However, the method
of summarising what the feedback sheets contained would be misleading if it
were to be thought that comments placed in this category represented the total
concern with the practical application of knowledge. Many of the men, for
example, those who emphasised family-related issues, were similarly seized with
the importance of learning more than theory and benefiting themselves and
their families by the development and application of practical strategies. A ten-
session program can only travel so far in this direction but the fact that „Putting
learning into action‟ received the lowest ratings of the six characteristics
reviewed in all four groups, is a reminder of the men‟s understandable hunger to
learn the skills involved in turning unsatisfactory relationships and
circumstances around:
See table next page ……….
7 Particularly the two groups at Loddon which between them accounted for almost three-quarters of
the expressions of interest in gaining additional parenting and family-related knowledge.
30
TOPICS LEARN MORE ABOUT
No.
mentions
%
Families – values, how operate 35 24.5
How to become a better parent 20 14.0
How to maintain, improve
relationships (generally)
18
12.6
How to really apply new knowledge 14 9.8
How to communicate effectively 12 8.4
Learn more about me 7 4.8
Learn more about each other 6 4.2
Where I went wrong, why? 6 4.2
Human emotions 4 2.8
Other (mentioned
once/twice/three times)
218
14.7
TOTAL 143 100.0
TABLE 2-F: Expressions of interest in further learning across the four
groups
8 Mentioned three times – life, available outside supports, past’s influence on present; mentioned twice
– the basis of the program’s knowledge, dealing with warning signals; mentioned once – patience,
drugs and relationships, personality, coping with police, release preparation, AA, how to enjoy life
again, family trees.
31
CHAPTER 3: POST-PROGRAM EVALUATION INTERVIEWS
Within a week of their completing the ten sessions of the Me and My Family program, participants in the two workshop groups at Port Phillip and the two
groups at Loddon were re-interviewed by the evaluation team. It will be recalled
(Chapter 1) that at the pre-program stage, benchmark data had been gathered
from the 24 men entering the program at Port Phillip and their 21 counterparts
at Loddon. In the course of the program for disciplinary or transfer reasons
and, in one case, the granting of bail, the number of participants had decreased
slightly so that post-program data was gathered from 21 of the original 24 Port
Phillip participants, and 18 of the 21 Loddon inmates9.
The final evaluation interviews covered the following topics:
The two most important things that participants had hoped to achieve by
joining the program and the degree to which they believed they had
achieved their goals;
Other things of importance – possibly unexpected – that had come out of
the program;
The degree of confidence that the men felt that their most important
relationships could be improved;
The degree to which they felt they needed assistance in improving their
relationships;
The men‟s confidence in the likelihood of their using the Relationship
Needs Plan developed in the course of the program;
Knowledge of the organisations or services that participants could turn to
for professional help in improving their relationships; and
Changes that the participants would introduce into the program if they
had responsibility for its future development.
Personal Goals and Achievements
The post-program interviews began with an invitation to the men to reflect upon
the reasons why they had decided to join the Me and My Family program. Given
the title of the program and its promotion as a source of assistance for
strengthening relationships, it was to be expected that the responses of
participants at both institutions would emphasise attempts to improve a range of
close relationships. These have been subsumed in three general categories in
the tables that follow -- (i) learning how to repair an important relationship, (ii) learning how to enhance an important relationship, and (iii) learning how to relate effectively to children. At Port Phillip these goals accounted for two-thirds
(24/36) of the goals of the participants, and at Loddon they represented three
9 Information was gathered from two of the Loddon, and one of the Port Phillip participants subsequent
to the main post-program interviews. The cooperation of the programs staff at both institutions in
helping to arrange these ‘catch-up’ interviews is much appreciated.
32
quarters (23/31) of the intended achievements of those who took part. In the
table that follows, the results for Loddon appear in brackets alongside the
findings at Port Phillip:
TABLE 3-A:Two most important things hoped to achieve by joining program,
Port Phillip and Loddon (results in brackets)
GOAL
Achieved to
great
extent
Some
achievemen
t
Little/no
achievemen
t
Too early
to tell
Repair important
relationship 5
(4)
1 (1)
0 (2)
2 (1)
2 (0)
Enhance important
relationship
16(13)
8 (5)
2 (7)
3 (0)
3 (1)
Assist relationship
with children
3(6)
2 (2)
0 (3)
0 (1)
1 (0)
Improve
communication skills
4(1)
2 (0)
2 (0)
0 (0)
0 (1)
Rediscover self 3(1) 2 (0) 0 (1) 1 (0) 0 (0)
Learn from peers’
experience 1(1)
1 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Personal
development 3(3)
1 (2)
2 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Other*
1(2)
0 (2) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0)
* To discover the basis of a behavioural problem; to participate in a group; learn about sources of help – each mentioned once.
NOTE: Port Phillip – 21 respondents of whom 6 did not state a second goal;
Loddon -- 18 respondents of whom 5 did not name a second goal.
Behind the recall of people‟s intentions in joining the program lies the more
important evaluative question of whether they believe that they accomplished
the goals they had set for themselves. It must be remembered that only a week
had passed since the completion of the workshops and that more time could be
needed to determine whether the men were on course to achieving their goals.
In fact, six of the men at Port Phillip and two at Loddon expressed the opinion
that it was “Too early to tell.” Table 3-1 does, however, show us that 27/31
(87%) of the goals of the Loddon group, and 23/36 (64%) of the goals of the
Port Phillip group, were judged to have been either “Achieved to a great extent”
or “Achieved to some extent.”
33
Other Outcomes
Apart from the anticipated benefits of their participation, the men were also
asked if there had been other things of importance, possibly unexpected or
unplanned, that had come out of the program. Table 3-2 (below) reflects the
high value that participants generally placed on hearing about, and learning from,
the experiences and insights of the other men. Many were surprised by their
own reaction; they said that this was the first time that they had felt safe to
acknowledge the human value and complexity of their fellows and to speak openly
with them about their own aspirations and difficulties. In this regard, great
credit was given to the facilitators for creating an accepting and secure
atmosphere, and allowing the participants to help shape the agenda of the
meetings. Apart from the 21 references to learning from others‟ experiences
and ideas, many of the men at different stages of the interviews commented
upon the altered perspective in which they viewed the hurtfulness of some of
their own life experiences. A prototypical comment was that „Anything that has
happened to me pales into insignificance alongside what some of these men have
experienced.‟ The eight remarks along these lines that were categorised
„Greater understanding of others‟ needs…‟ in Table 3-2 represented just one
point at which the aforementioned theme surfaced in the interviews:
TABLE 3-B: Other things of importance (maybe
unexpected) that have come out of the program
Benefit
Loddon(N=18)
Port
Phillip(N=21)
Combined
Learn from others‟
experience/ideas
9
12
21
Value of family tree 7 -- 7
Greater understanding
others‟ needs (group/in
general)
5
3
8
You can‟t switch off from
family
3
1
4
Other* 2 3 5
No additional/
unplanned benefit
3
6
9
There were 18 Loddon respondents of whom 4 identified only one unexpected or unplanned benefit and 3 could not identify anything of that nature. Of the 21 Port Phillip respondents, 11 identified only one unexpected/unplanned benefit. and 6 could not identify anything of that nature.
34
Confidence That Relationships Can Be Improved
While in most cases the practical value of the learning alluded to in Table 3-1
had yet to be tested, the results do appear to point to some development of
confidence on the part of the participants. One of the aims of the program was
to enhance the men‟s self-efficacy, an important component of which is a belief
in one‟s capacity to achieve personal goals. One of the pre-program measures
that was repeated at the conclusion of the workshops focused specifically on
the participants‟ confidence that their most important relationships could be
improved. A ten-point scale ranging from 1-Not confident, to 10 – Very confident, was used for this purpose. Table 3-3, which follows, is presented in
three parts: the pre- and post-program „confidence‟ scores for (i) Loddon, (ii)
Port Phillip, and (iii) both institutions combined. The scatter diagram
presentation for Loddon clearly depicts the upward movement of scores. In the
pre-program benchmarking exercise, 9 out of 18 respondents scored eight or
more on the ten-point scale; after the program, 17 out of 18 attained that level.
The pre-program mean score was 6.4, the post-program mean was 9.2, a
statistically highly significant difference (p=.001)10. The scatter diagram for
Port Phillip also conveys an upward movement of scores that was only slightly
less marked than in the case of Loddon. At the pre-program stage, 6 of the 21
men had „confidence‟ scores of eight or higher while at the post-program stage,
17 of the 21 men had scores of 8+. The pre-program mean score was 6.3, the
post-program mean was 8.6 – again, a statistically highly significant difference
(p=.001)11.
Given the pattern of results within the separate institutions, it is not surprising
that the comparison of „before‟ and „after‟ results across both institutions
revealed an equally significant increase in the men‟s confidence that their most
important relationships could be improved. A pre-program mean of 6.3
compared with a post-program equivalent of 8.9:
10 Paired samples T-Test (2 tailed) 11
As above
35
TABLE 3-C:Confidence that most important relationships can be improved
(i) LODDON: Pre- and Post-Program (N=18)
Pre-
prog
----
-
----
-
-----
-----
Post-
Prog.
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 *
2
3 **
4
5 * **
6
7 ** *
8 * * *****
**
9
10
Pre-Program Mean = 6.4; Pre-Program Median = 7.5
Post-Program Mean =9.2 Post-Program Median = 9.0
(ii) PORT PHILLIP: Pre- and Post-Program (N=21)
Pre-
prog
---
--
---
--
----
-
----
-
Post-
prog
----
-
----
-
----
-
----
-
-----
CAN’T
ANSWER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
2
3 *
4 *
5 * * *
6 ** ** ** * *
7 **
8 **
**
**
9
10
Pre-program mean = 6.3;Pre-program median = 6.0
Post-program mean = 8.6;Post-program median = 9.0
36
(iii) LODDON/PORT PHILLIP COMBINED: Pre- and Post-Program (N=39)
Pre-
prog
----
-
----
-
-----
-----
Post-
prog
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Can’t
answer
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 *
2
3 ** *
4 *
5 * ** ***
6 ** ** ** * *
7 ** ** *
8 * **
**
*
*****
****
9
10
Pre-program Mean = 6.3 (N=39); Pre-program Median = 6.5
Post-program Mean = 8.9 (N=38); Post-program Median = 9.0
Need for Assistance
The rationale of the Me and My Family program was that in combination with
increasing the knowledge and self-efficacy of the participants, the men would
also grow in their understanding that they require skilled guidance and support
in implementing their Relationship Needs Plan. The cultivation of this insight
was meant to be accompanied by information about potential sources of
assistance of the kind envisaged, the results of that stratagem being the
subject of the next section of this report.
So far as a growth in the participants‟ awareness of the need to obtain
assistance in implementing their relationship plans, it can be reported that the
trend within the Port Phillip and Loddon groups was in the desired direction.
The comparison of the pre- and post-test results for Loddon were the more
impressive: on the identical ten point scale ranging from 1 – Not strongly, to 10 – Very strongly, there was a statistically significant increase in the men‟s rating
of how strongly they felt the need to get help to improve their most important
relationships. The pre-test mean was 5.810 compared with a post-program mean
of 7.222 (significance of difference p=.014).12 In the case of Port Phillip, the
12
Paired samples T-Test (2-tailed)
37
difference in mean scores – pre-program, 6.0; post-program, 6.9 -- was less
pronounced and fell short of statistical significance (p=.251).13
Sources of Professional Help
By the program‟s end, approximately two-thirds14 of the Loddon and Port Phillip
men rated their need of assistance at above 5 on the 10 point Need for help scale. In order to obtain that help they needed practical knowledge of potential
sources of help. Relevant information was provided in the course of the final
sessions of the Me and My Family program, including presentations by agency
representatives. Notwithstanding the already presented evidence of the
program‟s considerable success in gaining the interest of the participants and
motivating them to effect improvements in their most important relationships,
the dissemination of practical information about relevant services did not meet
with equal success.
The following question was asked both prior to, and following, the program: “If
you did want professional help to improve your relationships, which organizations
or services could you turn to?” The proportion of the men at Loddon and Port
Phillip who were unable to nominate an appropriate service before the
commencement of the program (15/21 and 15/24 respectively) improved only
slightly by the program‟s completion. At Loddon, eleven men (rather than the
12.9 that would have resulted from the proportion of the pre-test group
remaining unaltered), and at Port Phillip, eleven (rather than the 13.1 that would
have represented „no change‟), could not answer the question. The responses of
the men who did answer it included some organisations providing generic services
(see table 3-4, below):
TABLE 3-D: Potential sources of professional help (post-program)
ORGANISATION/SERVICE
LODDON
PORT
PHILLIP
Don‟t know 11 11
VACRO 2 4
Moreland Hall -- 3
Salvation Army (specific branch) 1 1
Help Line -- 1
Migrant Resource Centre -- 1
Relationships Australia 2 1
Catholic Family Services 1 1
Brosnan Centre 2 2
13 As above 14
Twelve of the eighteen Loddon participants, and 13 of the 21 at Port Phillip
38
The somewhat disappointing result in relation to the men‟s acquisition of specific
information about relevant relationship counselling services invites questions
about more appropriate methods of providing this information. Several of the
participants commented in passing that they set the distributed printed
material aside for retrieval at a more appropriate time, namely, nearer to their
release. Another made the insightful pedagogic observation that the service
information had not been sufficiently integrated with the more engaging
personal and group reflections on relationship problems but had been „tacked on‟
to the program. According to this participant the service information needed to
be cast more in a problem-solving framework. A straight-forward explanation
offered by several of the Port Phillip men was that the session in which a guest
service representative was to have played a major part had to be all but
cancelled because of a security alert in the prison at the time. However,
everything considered, including the information provided as part of the
preparation for the session with agency representatives, it appears that the
linking of the gains from the workshops with opportunities for follow-up work
with other agencies, was the weak point in the design of the program.
Confidence in Application of Relationships Needs Plan
The foregoing comments reflect the orthodox reasoning of human service
professionals concerning the way the desired outcome of relationship improvements, might be facilitated by encouraging:
dissonance (between attitudes and relational circumstances), motivation to bring about change, knowledge about what has previously impeded change, increased confidence in one‟s ability to bring about improvements in key
relationships by developing a formal personal plan, and linking these
processes to -- sources of support for sustaining and practising the implementation of
the intentions wrought by the preceding steps.
The prisoners participating in the Me and My Family program appear to have
been in sympathy with the early steps of this formulation with the partial
exception of putting more store by the lived experience of their fellows than
had perhaps been anticipated by the program designers and writers of the draft
program manual. Where, however, there occurred a divergence in thinking was
in relation to the formalising of a personal plan and, as we saw in the last
section, the issue of its articulation with potential sources of professional help.
Yet Table 3-5 (below) indicates that regardless of whether a „plan‟ had been
committed to paper or merely existed in participants‟ heads, a significant
proportion of the men who remained in the program long enough for the question
to be meaningful, said they were “Very confident” or “Confident” that they
would use their Relationships Needs Plan. Twelve of the seventeen men at
39
Loddon for whom the question was relevant, displayed such confidence, as also
did 12/15 Port Phillip prisoners.
TABLE 3-E: Degree of confidence that will use Relationships Needs Plan
Response Loddon Port Phillip
Left program before really
considered
1 6
Against grain of thinking to have
formal plan
1
--
Not possible in such a short time -- 1
Don‟t know what it is 1 1
Very confident 6 8
Confident 6 4
Unsure 2 1
Not confident 1 --
Very unconfident -- --
NOTE: several of the men who said they were “Very confident” de-emphasised
the formal commitment of their plan to paper.
Included among the men expressing confidence that their plans would be
implemented were five who gave as their reason the fact that progress was
already evident. One of these was the inmate who was reported upon in the
opening pages of this report, the man who at the pre-program stage had the
lowest „confidence‟ score of 1. He was wary of the outcome to the program
because his child‟s mother was drug dependent and he said he was necessarily
uncertain of the outcome of any endeavours to improve their relationship. As
noted in Chapter 1, the prisoner located the determinants of the future course
of his key relationship as lying outside of the sphere of his own behaviour and
influence. Reminded of his earlier comments (which he had forgotten) the man
attributed his newfound confidence to a change in the direction of his thinking.
Whereas previously he was passively observing his partner‟s behaviour he had
learned that by his own attitudes and behaviour he exerted an influence, for
good or ill, on her situation. In contacts over recent weeks he had begun to try
to be supportive and generally represent a positive force in his relationship with
his partner. The feedback received was sufficiently encouraging for him to
think that something worthwhile was underway:
40
TABLE 3-F: Confidence rating regarding plan -- why do you feel that way?
RESPONSE LODDON PT.PHILLIP
Very Confident
Progress already evident 2 2
Good practical tool 1 2
Because application is vital 1 2
Have learnt to discuss problems 1 --
Because the plan is authentic 1 1
May not actually need plan -- 1
Confident
Because the plan is authentic 2 1
Good practical tool 1 2
Because application is vital 1 --
Progress already evident -- 1
May not need plan 1 --
Unsure
Grounded in unclear program 1 --
May not need plan 1 1
Not confident/very unconfident
Program too removed from
release
1 --
Not applicable 4 8
Table 3-6 also shows an appreciation of two related features of the
Relationships Needs Plan, among the participants who were confident that they
would apply their plans. These were the conviction that the latter were „good
practical tools‟ and that the plans were „authentic,‟ in the sense that the
represented a direct outcome of the reflection and discussion in which the men
had engaged. Between them, these two categories of response accounted for 11
of the 24 men at both institutions who indicated that they were “Very
confident” or “Confident” of implementing their plans.
What Changes Would Participants Make?
The question “If you were responsible for planning he future running of the
program, what two changes, if any, would you make?” drew a wide range of
suggestions. This was not an occasion when the sheer weight of participants‟
opinion favouring a specific course of action lent authority to a particular
recommendation. Nevertheless, the responses constitute an array of thought-
provoking suggestions for the consideration of the program designers. To
balance these suggestions it needs to be kept in mind that five of the Port
Phillip men and four at Loddon said that no changes should be made. Moreover,
some of the participants who did offer suggestions qualified their statements
41
with expressions like “This is just a thought” or “If anything.” For example, one
Loddon prisoner who would like to see “ A little more emphasis on dealing with
problems,” added “I think the way it was, was just fine.” Nevertheless,
significant numbers of the participants invited consideration of the possibility
of (i) having some more sessions (without adding too greatly to the duration of
the program), (ii) the possibility of trying out, under supervision, the ideas and
behaviours they were acquiring, (iii) having more homogeneous groups in the
workshops, and (iv) having a „tighter‟ agenda:
TABLE 3-G: Suggested changes to the program (two suggestions invited)
COMMENTS PT. PHILLIP LODDON
No changes 5 4
(Some) more sessions 1 5
Longer sessions 1 2
More frequent, same no. sessions 2 --
Have eight sessions -- 1
Different time - afternoon 1 --
Homework between sessions 1 --
More specific agenda/focus 3 4
Avoid repetition 2 --
Facilitated, „real life‟ practice 4 1
Smaller, homogeneous groups 4 --
More on relationships w. children 2 --
Use positive role models 1 1
Include some women in groups -- 2
„Time out‟ during upsetting topics 1 --
Take action on feed-back 1 --
Don‟t lose participants 1 1
Emphasise knowledge of group -- 1
Make more introspective -- 1
„Top up‟ nearer release date -- 1
Have a better ending 1 --
Just one suggested change 6 8
Some of the ideas raised in Table 3-7 will now be integrated with other
elements of the overall evaluation in a final Summary and Implications section of
the report.
42
Summary and Implications
While there is much unfinished business with respect to the technical goal of
refining the content and structure of the Me and My Family program, the
results of the evaluation study contain many indications that the men who took
part in it benefited from their participation. The first such indication is that
such a high proportion of the personal goals that the men said they had set
themselves were judged by them to have been either “Achieved to a great
extent” or “Achieved to some extent” – almost nine out of ten in the case of the
Loddon group, and two out of three among the Port Phillip participants. In
addition, for 15 of the 18 Loddon men, and 15 of the 21 Port Phillip group
members, there was at least one other gain of importance to have emerged from
the program. Outstanding among these was the discovery that the men could
learn a great deal from the experience and ideas of their fellow group members,
with the implication that the group experience played a vital part in the personal
changes that frequently accompanied their participation in the program.
Foremost among these was the (statistically highly significant) shift in the men‟s
confidence that their most important relationships could be improved. Thus, one
of the program‟s aims of enhancing the men‟s self-efficacy, including their belief
in their capacity to achieve personal goals, was achieved.
A related program goal of increasing the men‟s understanding that they require
skilled guidance and support in implementing their plans for improving their
relationships, was realised to a statistically significant extent at Loddon but less
so at Port Phillip (although the direction of change was as desired). The linking
of participants‟ motivational change to sources of on-going practical support
occupies a vital place in the rationale for the Me and My Family program. The
limited success in imbuing the participants at Port Phillip with the importance of
that connection may reflect the operation of many things including the stage of
sentence (or pre-sentence) that the men were at, the program‟s unconvincing
coverage of the topic, or, perhaps on the overall evidence before us, the earlier
life-stage and associated outlook of the Port Phillip participants compared with
those at Loddon. This latter theme, introduced in Chapter 2 by way of the
workshop facilitators‟ reflections at the mid-point of the program sessions, will
be elaborated in this section of the report.
The limited success in encouraging a sense of the importance of seeking
professional help needs to be viewed in the context of the single most
disappointing result in the entire evaluation, namely, the virtual lack of
improvement in the men‟s knowledge of services and organisations to which they
could turn for assistance with their relationships. This information was
provided in oral and printed form, and via a guest representative of a relevant
service (although at Port Phillip a security operation cut across the effective
conduct of this particular session). The information was simply not taken in and
43
some other more engaging, problem-solving method should be adopted on future
occasions.
To complete the overview of the „positives‟ to have emerged from the evaluation,
mention should again be made of the men‟s judgement of the likelihood of their
applying the Relationship Needs Plans that they devised in the concluding
sessions of the program. Despite evidence of reluctance on the part of some
men to commit plans to paper, 12 of the 17 men at Loddon for whom the question
was relevant, and 12 of the similarly placed 15 at Port Phillip, said they were
“Very confident” or “Confident” that they would use their Relationships Needs
Plan. Another indication of a generally high degree of satisfaction with the
program was provided by the fact that when invited to say what changes they
would make, just under a quarter of the participants said they would not make
any changes. Moreover, as stated earlier in this chapter, many of those who had
suggestions to make qualified their remarks with expressions like “If any,” and
“If anything.”
The above summary emphasises the main points to have come out of the post-
program interviews. Attention will now be focused upon integrating these
outcomes with the insights gained from the facilitators at the mid-point
assessment and from the participants via the session feed-back forms.
Tensions between doing justice to group processes and program
objectives The facilitators reported that the participants had displayed a stronger than
anticipated degree of readiness to engage with relationship issues. They
displayed a strong wish to play a part in setting their group‟s agenda as well as
establishing a participatory climate to distinguish the exercise from the
majority of authority-imposed tasks within the prison regime. The feed-back received from the prisoners on the workshops also stressed the value they
attached to being able to help shape the course of the workshop sessions. Also
apparent from Chapter 3, is the high degree of satisfaction – sometimes
unanticipated – with the value of being able to exchange life experiences with
their fellow inmates. The combined evidence of the formative and final
assessments carries the implication first outlined in Chapter 2:
The manual should be modified to retain the overall aims of the program
and designate blocks of experience that contribute to their attainment,
rather than scheduled tightly-bound, sequential sessions. To the extent
that a preferred order of experiences and learning is retained, flexibility
on the part of facilitators should be invited.
44
Homogeneity of groups In Chapter 2 the facilitators, especially those who had been working at Port
Phillip Prison, expressed the opinion that life-stage should be a consideration in
constituting workshop groups. Some of the men, generally in their thirties and
beyond, had reached a threshold of dissatisfaction with their way of life, and
were ready to devote the time and effort to think longer-term about a
different future. This disposition contrasted with that of many younger men
who had not yet attained the same stage of dissatisfaction and whose attention
was focused on more immediate problems and issues. These opinions resonate
with some of the feed-back received in the course of the program as well as the
spontaneous remarks made to the evaluators during the pre- and post-program
interviews.
To some extent, also, the difference in outlook of the younger Port Phillip group
and the somewhat older group at Loddon was reflected in their perception of
the need to seek professional help. In both groups there was some increase in
that inclination but it was much more pronounced among the older Loddon men.
The implication here would seem to be that the types of opportunities afforded
by the present program to open up deeper reflection on the men‟s life-course is
more beneficial for those who have passed the aforementioned life-stage
threshold, regardless of chronological age. A more appropriate program for the
younger inmates might emphasise survival and the acquisition of practical skills
and the provision of social support. An attempt to distinguish between the two
groups of men prior to their entering a program would be a logical consequence
of the observations that have been made.
Intensity of the groups The level of intensity of discussions has exceeded expectations. This raises the
question of whether additional provision needs to be made to deal with that
occurrence. As some of the facilitators have argued, professional responsibility
requires that the two final post-workshop interviews be used to monitor the
emotional ease or otherwise of participants as part of terminating the program
in a controlled way and considering whether a referral is necessary.
Timing of introduction of Action Plan The facilitators have expressed concern that the Action Plan could be
interpreted by participants as being just another form in a world of surplus
official documentation. The final evaluation interviews revealed that many of
the prisoners were dismissive of the importance of a written plan. Two
implications might be drawn at this point. First, more explanation concerning
the practical importance of an Action Plan might need to be provided in order
for the completion of the formalities involved to be considered worthwhile.
Second, the manual should be modified to specify the tabling of the plan no
earlier than around the seventh or session, at a moment and in a context that
makes talk of its completion meaningful.
45
Representing the ‘positives’ in human relationships Facilitators were themselves undecided about the advantages of constructing
models of effective relationships, such as parenting and partnering. Several
felt that for some of the men these models were counterproductive in that
participants frequently saw them as unattainable and irrelevant, and the
facilitators thought they cut across the authentic, group-based search for ways
of making practical progress in the men‟s lives. Some of the other facilitators
believed that such exercises were a necessary precursor to examining concrete
circumstances, without the expectation that any individual‟s situation would
match exactly elements of a model. A modification to the manual would seem
prudent in the light of the experience of at least some of the facilitators.
Participants should be assisted to a greater degree than currently is the case to
understand the intended purpose of such exercises, and that models of relating
are not being derived for strict emulation or because they represent the applied
norms of the community.
On the other hand, a theme of some of the feed-back from participants
provided at the end of sessions, and mentioned by several of the men during the
post-program interviews, is a desire to have positive examples, or even role
models, of men who have turned their relationships and lives around. This
general wish is deserving of consideration by the program designers with
possible responses ranging from a video or case record, to the personal
appearance of such an individual at an appropriate point in the sessions.
Preserving focus The attainment of the program‟s objectives requires the commitment and
concentration of participants and staff. The focus of those involved needs to
be supported by the environment in which the group meets with minimal
disturbances and distractions occurring. While recognising the priority of
security considerations, the environmental requirements mentioned need to be
discussed with the authorities in the interests of future group-based programs.
Supplementary resource materials The feed-back received from a high proportion of the participants reflected
their appreciation of what the program offered and their desire to deepen their
knowledge of many of the topics covered. Consideration needs to be given to
the means by which supplementary resource materials (books, videos, material
on masculinity, sexuality, relationships, and the like), might be made available for
discussion in parallel with the workshop sessions. A related outcome of the Me and My Family program is the desirability of designing, for the advice of the
authorities, follow-up units dealing with topics such as the social construction of
male identity, fathers and children, and parenting courses. These units might be
provided under varied auspices, including social agencies and the Programs
Division of the Victorian Corrections.
46
Practical application of what has been learned A good point on which to conclude is one that represented the final word of
some thoughtful participants and institutional staff. It is good educational
practice to provide learners with the chance to apply their newly acquired
knowledge under supportive conditions that afford the opportunity for later
reflection and modification. Why not do the same for inmates confronting a
learning challenge as fundamental as learning how to improve their most
important relationships? The professional staff of the institutions – most
obviously the specialists in human welfare, but also programs officers and,
ultimately, selected custodial staff – could help to facilitate meetings between
program participants and those with whom they are attempting to relate more
effectively. For example, at the request of the inmate and with the permission
of the party or parties concerned, the special visiting facilities at Loddon could
be used for this purpose. Such an exercise would give added meaning to the
Relationship Needs Plan, a tool which, again with permission, could become a
foundational element of after-care planning so that the endeavour is sustained
into the community. Since the institutional climate in which programs like Me and My Family are conducted can have an important bearing on their success or
failure, it is highly desirable that at least a limited and carefully established
experiment, involving the use of a selected custodial officer as a co-facilitator,
should occur in the near future. This strategy should be evaluated in terms of
the its impact on the institutional climate, as well as its benefits or otherwise
for the workshop participants.
47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Men and Family Relationships Group Manual (2001).
Miller, W. R., (1991). Motivational Interviewing, New York, Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., and Norcross, J. C., (1992). “In Search of
How people Change; Applications to addictive behaviours,” The American Psychologist, September, v. 47, n9, 1102-1115.
Velicer, W. F., Hughes, S. L., Fava, J. L., Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. S.,
(1995). “An empirical typology of subjects within stage of change,” Addictive Behaviors, May-June, v.20, n3, 299-321.
Weber, M., (1962). Basic Concepts in Sociology, New York, Philosophical library.