By Sarah Le Gros November – March 2011/12

Background: Work Based Action Research As part of the third year Social Science Degree, we were asked to work within an organisation to solve a problem or undertake research that was asked of us by that particular organisation. At the Jersey Probation Service I was asked to collate and analyse client feedback questionnaires in order to look at the ways (if any) the aftercare services could be improved here in Jersey and to also make some recommendations.

Introduction: Aims The presentation aims to give an overview of the results of the client feedback questionnaires that were collated at the Probation Service from November through to March. I will look at some information in relation to national feedback methods. I will give a brief overview of general findings and also some more detailed results.

National context Probation services that I have contacted: Staffordshire and West Midlands London Probation Trust States of Guernsey Northern Ireland Devon and Cornwall

Distribution of Questionnaires The questionnaires were handed out by the Probation Officers to their clients who were due to finish their order within 3 months (from November 2011). Due to low levels of returns, some questionnaires were also handed to those completing a course while on probation as part of an ‘inspection into the supervision of probation orders’ (total of 27 questionnaires were then returned).

The Questionnaire The questionnaire comprised of five different sections: 1. Introductory questions 2. Your order 3. Programmes 4. Basic skills 5. Some final questions The questionnaire contained both open and closed questions

Demographics of the clients recorded Gender: 4 (15%) Female and 23 (85%) Male Ages: 5 (U18) 7 (18-25) 10 (26-45) 4 (45+) Place of birth: 6 (UK) 4 (Portugal/ Madeira) 16 (Jersey) 1 (Other - Mozambique) Total clients: 27

General findings Nearly all (24) of the clients said they had either a ‘Very satisfactory’ or ‘Fairly satisfactory’ relationship with their Probation Officers. Majority of clients thought that ‘nothing needed to be improved’ within the Probation Service. All (except 2 clients) said that the supervision they had received reduced the risk of them reoffending.

Comments – could the probation service be improved? 18 of the 21 clients who answered this question said that ‘nothing needs to be improved’. However, one suggestion was that there should be tea and coffee in the waiting room! Four people did not put forward any comments and there was only one negative comment saying ‘the SMART course should be stopped’.

Overall Satisfaction with the Probation Service

Chart showing the levels of satisfaction with Probation Officers

Issues relating to support and respect 75% (20) of the clients said they were ‘always listened to’. Only 15% (5) said they were listened to ‘most of the time’. Four of the clients said English wasn’t their first language although all of the four clients said they were given a large amount of support by their Probation Officers. When asked about whether their Probation Officer gave them positive encouragement only 1 (3.25%) said ‘very little’ 22 (82.5%) said ‘great extent’ and 4 (15%) said ‘to some extent’.

Pie chart showing those who feel they were treated with Respect

Help from a Tutor? The results show that only five had help from a tutor, with four saying that they found this help ‘very useful’ and one saying ‘fairly useful’. 17 said they didn’t have help from a tutor and 5 didn’t answer the question.

Leaflets It seems that many of the clients either didn’t remember to read the leaflets that were handed out to them at the beginning of their order or forgot that they were given them! The results therefore showed that 8 of the 25 said that they found the leaflets ‘quite useful’, 7 said they found them ‘very useful’ 3 found them ‘not very useful’ and 5 people didn’t answer the question.

SMART 5 (19.25%) Alcohol Study Group 2 (6.50%) ACT 3 (10.50%) Emotional Skills Programme 1 (3.25%) ADAPT 4 (13%) OINTOC 7 (25.75%) Programmes: How many of the clients took part and were they useful?

Supervision plans Five were unaware that there was a supervision plan in place for them. One couldn’t remember! 21 felt that their plan was followed well.

Effects of their crimes and the impact it has had 18 said that the effect of their offence on the victim was discussed with them, 1 said ‘no’ it hadn’t been discussed with them, 4 said it had to ‘some extent’ and 4 said ‘not applicable’. Of the 22 that it was discussed with 20 said it had impacted their behaviour since their crime was committed, 1 said ‘not applicable’, 3 didn’t answer the question.

Issues and Criticisms of research Two main issues: 1. Small sample size (27) 2. ‘Hard to reach group’ – more difficult to contact = low returns.

Concluding remarks: Suggestions It was discovered that:- 1. Leaflets that were handed out at the start of their order made little impact. 2. All were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ with the relationship with their Probation Officers. 3. Hard to get questionnaires returned to me. 4. Although many took part in programmes while on probation, some comments included that they should ‘focus more on individual needs’. 5. It seems that those few who had help from a tutor found it useful. 6. Very positive feedback and overall they feel that ‘nothing needs to be improved’ at the Probation Service.

References Staffordshire and West midlands Probation Trust, Available at: accessed on London Probation Trust, Available at: accessed on States of Guernsey, Available at: accessed on Northern Ireland Probation Service, Available at: Accessed on