ASSESSMENT

Communication on probation
W
hen a defendant is found guilty of a crime, judges and magistrates typically have three sentencing options: a fine, a community sentence or prison. Community sentences allow offenders to undertake rehabilitative programmes and work in the community whilst under the supervision of the probation service. According to the Howard League of Penal Reform, the last ten years have seen an increase in the number of community sentences handed down. Judges and magistrates can select up to twelve different requirements, including unpaid work, participation in specific activities such as literacy or basic skills, and accredited programmes. Contact with the probation service often involves verbally mediated interventions, either in one-to-one meetings with probation officers or group-based programmes aimed at changing offending behaviour and drug / alcohol treatment. Failure to comply can result in the offender being in breach of the court order and possibly being sent to prison. Despite this, little consideration has been given to the possible impact of speech, language and communication difficulties for offenders completing community sentences. In 2010 the Wales Justice Coalition was formed to bring together stakeholders interested in speech and language therapy and criminal justice, including the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the Welsh Assembly Government, academics, and individuals working in courts, prisons and the Wales Probation Trust. The Coalition aims to raise awareness within the Welsh Assembly Government, criminal justice agencies and other organisations about: i. the high numbers of people with speech, language and communication needs in the justice pathway ii. the impact this has on their chances of reoffending and iii. the role of the speech and language therapist and others in addressing these needs. According to Locked Up and Locked Out (Wales Justice Coalition, 2010), speech,

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT UNMET NEED REFLECT ON OUR PROFESSIONAL ROLE IMPROVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Rachel Iredale, Beth Parow and Harriet Pierpoint undertake an exploratory study of speech, language and communication difficulties among offenders completing community sentences, and consider its implications for future studies and speech and language therapy services.

Beth

Rachel

language and communication difficulties are positively associated with low attainment, behavioural problems, mental health issues, poor employment prospects and, importantly, criminal behaviour. Although most research studies have focused on basic skills needs of offenders and conditions such as dyslexia and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, studies by speech and language therapists have found that between 50-90 per cent of offenders may have communication difficulties (Bryan, 2004; Bryan et al., 2007; Snow & Powell, 2005; 2008). However, the majority of this research focuses on convicted offenders - typically male juvenile offenders and the suitability of prison programmes. For example, Bryan et al. (2007) found that up to 67 per cent of 58 young offenders detained at a young offenders institution in England had poor language skills, whilst Moseley et al. (2006) discovered that, when offenders are supported to improve their language and communication skills, recidivism rates fall by as much as 50 per cent.

Speech and language therapists can become registered witness intermediaries, helping witnesses who have communication needs to give their best evidence in criminal investigations and trials. However, there has been very little work done on how they could assist adult offenders moving through the criminal justice system. We carried out an exploratory study to investigate the presence and perceived impact of speech, language and communication difficulties among offenders completing community sentences in South Wales. Ethical approval was obtained from a Faculty Ethics Committee at Glamorgan University and from the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). Access to offenders was arranged via managers at a local probation service, and participants were recruited during one week spent by a speech and language therapy researcher at the probation office. They were recruited either on the recommendation of staff who had concerns about their communication skills, or through observation by the therapist.

14

SPEECH & LANGUAGE THERAPY IN PRACTICE SUMMER 2011

ASSESSMENT
Information about the study, and consent forms, were read aloud to the offenders, and everyone was given the option to opt out at any point without providing a reason. All assessments, observations and interviews were administered by one researcher. The project was explained to 27 people, and 10 agreed to take part. The 17 offenders who did not participate either did not give consent or did not attend their pre-arranged appointment, illustrating how difficult it can be to engage with this population. Seven participants were male and three female. They were aged between 21 and 49 years with a mean of 31. All had English as their first language and none had attended a special school. There were two parts to the study a screen and a semi-structured interview. 1. SCREEN We reviewed a range of tools used by speech and language therapists working with offenders in clinical practice and research, and devised a screening test. We screened the participants for possible communication difficulties using the sections of the Broadmoor tool (Bryan, 1998) most relevant for skills needed in a criminal justice setting. We added the Pool Table Assessment (Gregory, 2008), which involves asking a participant to re-tell a sequence of events Tell me how to set up a table for a game of pool and tell me how you win. Our screening tool covered: a) Direct assessment Comprehension: listening to, and answering questions about, a short story (the auditory comprehension subtest of the Broadmoor tool) and making sense of complex sentences (the logicogrammatical relationships subtest of the Broadmoor tool) Expressive language: creating a sentence with target words (the sentence construction subtest of the Broadmoor tool) and re-telling a sequence of events (the Pool Table Assessment) b) Indirect assessment through observation Social communication skills, conversational skills (including topic maintenance and relevance) and non-verbal communication skills Fluency Speech clarity. Data from the direct assessment was interpreted according to test guidelines. Scoring on the indirect assessment through observation was compared to what the researcher would expect of a member of the general public. To increase reliability, participants were only classed as having possible difficulties with comprehension and expressive language if they scored below the range expected for both subtests within the section. 2. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW This explored offenders perceptions of: a time when they could not understand what people were saying at court / probation

Figure 1 Offenders with different types of communication difficulty 6 Number of offenders 5 4 3 2 1 0 Comprehension Expressive language Social communication Speech Stammer

Types of communication difficulties

a time when they could not explain what they wanted to say at court / probation who and what would have made it easier for them to understand or explain what they wanted to say in court / probation. The researcher also asked participants to define vocabulary items regularly used in the criminal justice system, such as custodial, alleged and remorse (based on Crew & Ellis, 2008). The use of a semi-structured interview schedule meant questions could be asked differently to ensure offenders understood. They could also be adapted to accommodate every offenders particular circumstances. Every interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. All authors analysed the transcripts thematically (Burnard, 1991) to include the nature of the communication difficulty, the impact of the difficulty on the offender and the problems they encountered, and who or what would have helped overcome the difficulty. We anticipated it would be problematic for offenders to attend two pre-arranged appointments, so the screen and the interview took place during the same session. The average time for both was 50 minutes. All screening subtests were completed by nine of the ten participants; one offender did not complete the entire assessment due to another appointment with the probation service. Only one of the ten appeared to have no speech, language or communication needs. Figure 1 shows the type of speech, language and communication difficulty identified. Five people had difficulties with both comprehension subtests and four had difficulties with both expressive language subtests. (One offender did not complete the entire comprehension subtest.) Three participants had difficulties with both comprehension and expressive language. Five people had difficulties with social communication. Two people had speech issues (for our purposes, this included problems with intelligibility, articulation, rate, resonance, intonation and volume) and one had a mild stutter. The main categories of difficulty reported by the participants were:

Not understanding legal terminology Disengaging from the criminal justice process Emotional and behavioural effects. Several affected offenders explained they had not understood the nature of their sentence:
Well, it was actually the security court people like, you know, who said, you know, you're free to go like, you know. I thought they were taking me back down again, you know, for 12 months like. Offender 9, difficulties with comprehension

However, the offender who was deemed not to have any communication difficulties was also unclear about the nature of their sentence:
In court, they said a word and I didnt understand what it meant.asked solicitor what judge meant and he told me and I was getting sentenced to prison. Offender 4, no communication difficulties

The results of the vocabulary definition task also illustrated widespread difficulties understanding terms regularly used in the criminal justice system. Only one of the ten participants attempted to define reparation; seven thought compensation was money they should receive; three could not define remorse; seven did not understand revocation and four could not define custodial, including one who had been in prison before. During the interviews, the researcher asked participants about their communication difficulties. They gave examples of when they perceived these to have impacted on their ability to access programmes in the probation service. Disengaging was one effect of not understanding the language used:
Youre like Like what does that [mean], and you think God, just let it go over your head like. Whats the point like. The quicker you are in here, the quicker youre out. Offender 3, difficulties with all aspects of communication Sometimes its easier to tune in and sometimes its easier to switch off. Offender 7, difficulties with non-verbal communication

SPEECH & LANGUAGE THERAPY IN PRACTICE SUMMER 2011

15

ASSESSMENT
According to participants, disengagement could also occur if they did not ask for clarification during sessions with probation officers. However, they also expressed fear of being in breach of the sentence handed down by the court, and possibly being sent back to prison:
I have got to I have got to ask them like what do you mean and things like that, if Im not sure... because if I dont, they wont tell me and Ill get breached. Offender 7, difficulties with non-verbal communication

Offenders also talked about how they felt when they were experiencing communication difficulties, and some described self-loathing and paranoia:
Terrible, terrible. I feel really terrible. I think what an idiot I am. Im not really good. Im loathe myself, I do. Offender 8, difficulties with expressive language, comprehension, non-verbal communication and a stammer Its just you thinking Oh, did I just said that word right, or?. So youre just paranoid then, then someone might not be able to understand what youve just said. Offender 3, difficulties with all aspects of communication

Other offenders admitted their communication difficulties had a negative impact on their behaviour and their ability to complete the requirements of their community sentence:
If Im too quick with my words, or I get if I cant get something out Ill get nastyish and then Offender 3, difficulties with all aspects of communication Well I would have been stuck behind, stuck behind, know what I mean? . and you just get agitated then do you know what I mean? Thats when you find yourself in trouble then. Offender 6, difficulties with comprehension, conversation and speech sounds.

The results of the screening assessment in this pilot study with adults are consistent with the findings of larger studies into young offenders: communication does seem to be a problem. We found that difficulties with social skills were as common as those with language, so this should be investigated in future studies. Most participants described the worrying effects of their communication difficulties on their experience of the criminal process and probation, including not understanding the requirements of their sentences, disengaging and becoming agitated. Occasionally offenders without comprehension difficulties also gave examples of times they had not understood language used, particularly in relation to their sentence. This illustrates how impenetrable the criminal justice system can seem. A more detailed and refined assessment than our screening tool would fully diagnose the

nature and extent of communication difficulties amongst offenders in the community. There is no published standardisation data for the assessments we used, and no existing standardised assessments were appropriate as a rapid screen. We cannot be sure how or to what extent having to be informed and consent to the study in the same session as the assessment affected communication skills. Our results should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Further research should explore the relationship of speech, language and communication difficulties to the completion of community sentences, including the use of a control group of offenders without these difficulties. Our findings need to be confirmed in larger-scale studies before making any firm recommendations for practice. However, combined with the existing literature, they have implications for the way offenders are identified as having problems and communicated with as they progress through the criminal justice system. Speech and language therapists have a role to play in future service delivery to help offenders complete community sentences. We need to consider whether already stretched community services can simply absorb a role extension, such as working with adult offenders, or whether additional funding is required to properly meet their needs. We know that much of the supervision of offenders by the probation service is predicated on their ability to benefit from verbally mediated interventions, such as enhanced thinking, anger management or drug-related group work. Failure to comply can result in offenders being in breach of these community sentences. Speech and language therapists therefore also have a role in training others working in the criminal justice system, sharing information about individuals communication skills with key members of staff and suggesting how to make programme requirements more accessible. We believe such measures are required urgently to give offenders the fullest chance of understanding and engaging with the criminal justice and rehabilitative system. The Wales Justice Coalition - which we were invited to join on completion of this study - and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Criminal Justice Campaign have an important role. As Lord Ramsbotham, former Chief Inspector of Prisons, once said,
I have to admit that in all the years I have been looking at prisons and the treatment of offenders, I have never found anything so capable of doing so much for so many people at so little cost as the work that speech and language therapists carry out.

CRITICAL FRIENDS With thanks to Jan Mitchell and Jackie Freer, both forensic speech and language therapists in Northumberland, who peer reviewed the first draft of this article for Speech & Language Therapy in Practice.
References Bryan, K. (1998) Broadmoor Hospital Speech and Language Therapy Initial Assessment. Unpublished. Bryan, K. (2004) Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39(3), pp.391-400. Bryan, K., Freer, J., & Furlong, C. (2007) Language and Communication Difficulties in Juvenile Offenders, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 42(5), pp.1-16. Burnard, P. (1991) A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research, Nurse Education Today 11, pp.461-466. Crewe, M. & Ellis, N. (2008) Speech and Language Therapy within Bradford Youth Offending Team. Unpublished Report: Bradford NHS & Bradford & District Youth Offending Team. Gregory, J. (2008) Pool Table Assessment. Unpublished: University of Surrey. Moseley, D., Clark, J., Baumfield, V., Hall, E., Hall, I., Miller, J., Blench, G., Gregson, M., Spedding, T., Soden, R. & Livingston, K. (2006) Developing oral communication and productive thinking skills in HM prisons. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Snow, P.C. & Powell, M.B. (2005) What's the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders, Psychology, Crime and Law 11(3), pp.239-253. Snow, P.C. & Powell, M.B. (2008) Oral language competence, social skills, and high risk boys: What are juvenile offenders trying to tell us?, Children and Society 22, pp.16-28. Wales Justice Coalition (2010) Locked Up and Locked Out Communication is the Key. Available at: http:// www.rcslt.org/news/docs/rcslt_wales_justice_report (Accessed: 26 April 2011). Resources Howard League of Penal Reform, see www. howardleague.org Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists Criminal Justice Campaign, www.rcslt.org/about/ campaigns/Criminal_justice_campaign_briefing

REFLECTIONS DO I ASK CLIENTS ABOUT THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THEIR COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTY? DO I PARTICIPATE IN CAMPAIGNS WHICH LOBBY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICES? DO I WORK WITH RESEARCHERS ON EXPLORATORY STUDIES TO PAVE THE WAY FOR MORE RIGOROUS RESEARCH?
How has this article changed your thinking? Let us know - see information about Speech & Language Therapy in Practices Critical Friends at www.speechmag.com/About/Friends.

Dr Rachel Iredale JP (email riredale@glam.ac.uk) is a Reader in the Faculty of Health, Sport and Science and Dr Harriet Pierpoint a Reader in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Glamorgan. Beth Parow is a speech and language therapist with Cardiff and Vale University Health Board.

16

SPEECH & LANGUAGE THERAPY IN PRACTICE summer 2011