If you work with young people in custody, you already appreciate how difficult they can find engagement with correctional services. Often chaotic, frequently mistrustful of services, they carry more history than they are able to articulate. Many have never sat in a room where someone asked “what happened.” The ‘Building Identity Programme’ in the Irish Prison Service (IPS) grew out of this gap. It is not a new “intervention model” in the traditional sense, but a structured way of slowing things down enough for young people to understand how they got here and what might come next.
Background
Young adults (18–24) are a distinct group in custody. High rates of impulsivity, peer influence, and short-term decision making are not just behavioural, they are developmental. Many are still forming an identity. Alongside that, the clinical picture is familiar:
- Histories of trauma and instability
- Substance misuse
- Mental health difficulties
- Disrupted education and attachment
- Vulnerable to peer influence
- Impulsiveness
Despite this, once they enter custody, they are managed within adult systems. The result of all this tends to be low engagement and high reoffending rates. In Ireland, like many other countries, reoffending rates for younger cohorts are significantly higher than older groups (Central Statistics Office, 2022).
Developmentally, this is not surprising. Psychosocial maturity, particularly around impulse control, perspective-taking and future orientation—continues to develop into the mid-twenties (Monahan et al., 2013). What we often see as “non-compliance” is, at least in part, immaturity interacting with environment.
The Building Identity Programme started from a challenge set by Frank Porporino PhD, who in 2014 reviewed the Psychology Service in Irish Prisons. His concern was the lack of interventions available for people who presented as undermotivated and find it difficult to engage with services.
The Programme
The programme is delivered by Assistant Psychologists (APs), working under the close supervision of qualified psychologists. Referrals are generated proactively, not dependent on help-seeking. Eligible young people include those who are serving a sentence of one year or more, and are not subject to Probation Supervision. This criteria was implemented because of the ‘cliff-edge’ young people experience when they don’t have the support of Probation Supervision on release. Invitations to attend the first appointment are adapted to participants’ literacy level, providing a clear and accessible introduction to the programme. This ensures people understand why they have been invited, can make an informed decision about attending, and have the opportunity to generate any questions in advance of the first session.
The first session focuses on clarity, consent, and expectations. The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is used at entry and completion to capture outcomes.
Session structure (typically 6–8 sessions)
- Rapport building
- Psychosocial assessment
- Timeline development
- Psychological formulation (The 5 P’s)
- Sentence planning based on the needs and risks highlighted within the formulation (with Integrated Sentence Management Officer coordination)
Follow-up includes monthly support sessions offered post-completion; these are discussed and agreed in supervision and provided on the basis of individual need.
The Relationship
Without a working relationship, nothing else matters. Young people often arrive expecting to be assessed, judged, or processed. They test the interaction early, testing whether the practitioner is genuine, whether they are listening, and whether they follow through. What makes the difference is consistency, honesty and allowing the young person to have some control of sessions including:
- Appointment times agreed collaboratively to support clients maintaining personal goals including participation in work or education.
- Following up missed sessions
- Being transparent about the purpose of the intervention, the expectation of both clinician and client, and the impact of the system on engagement.
- Letting the young person set the pace and not over-directing early conversations by encouraging participants to ask questions and share information which feels safe to explore.
Participants repeatedly describe the shift when they feel treated as a person rather than a case.
“Joining the Dots”
Once engagement is established, work becomes more structured. The clinical assessment consists of open-ended questions that cover standard developmental domains, but the development of a timeline is central. This exercise is completed in a visual format to support engagement and accessibility. Built collaboratively, it maps life experiences from early childhood to the present day, helping organise and make sense of fragmented and complex histories.
For many participants, this is the first time their life is seen as a connected narrative rather than isolated events. Participants begin to recognise patterns; how early experiences, relationships and circumstances link to later behaviour. Exploration of both risk and protective factors not only supports insight into unhealthy coping mechanisms, offending risk, and presenting difficulties but also highlights individual strengths and the importance of supportive relationships and adaptive skills in promoting healthier coping strategies.
As described in the research which supports the programme, this process allows participants move from a single-cause explanation (“it’s just me”) to a more complex and accurate understanding of how multiple factors interact over time (Creavin et al., 2022).
Formulation, Not Labelling
The formulation is typically structured around the 5 P’s:
- Presenting needs
- Predisposing factors
- Precipitating factors
- Perpetuating factors
- Protective factors
The emphasis is not on diagnosis, but on meaning-making. When done well, the formulation can:
- Reduce shame
- Build insight
- Increase openness to further psychological work
- Promote continuous progression toward short- and long-term goals.
- Create a platform for change by promoting continuous progression of short- and long-term goals and increasing openness to further psychological work”.
This aligns with broader desistance-based approaches, where developing a coherent and more prosocial sense of self is central to behavioural change (Ward & Maruna, 2007). Participants describe this formulation as finally understanding how things “add up” and that there isn’t a single cause, but a pattern that can be understood and, importantly, changed.
Turning insight into a plan
The formulation feeds directly into sentence planning. This requires coordination with ISM Officers including:
- Identifying needs
- Matching services
- Sequencing interventions
- Planning for release
The plan may include:
- Psychology or mental health support
- Addiction services
- Education and training
- Employment preparation
The challenge is alignment. The plan must be:
- Created collaboratively with both services and the participant (our experience is this is the most important element)
- Clinically meaningful
- Operationally realistic
- Actually available
What Changes in Practice?
Changes are usually observable in two areas.
Behavioural
- Increased engagement in education/work
- Improved routine
- More consistent service attendance
Psychological
- Greater self-awareness
- Increased confidence in ability to support oneself
- Reduced shame and anger
- Increased future orientation
Participants report feeling understood, often for the first time, and beginning to think differently about themselves, their future, and their ability to reach important personal goals. Whilst these are not end outcomes, they are necessary precursors to them.
Implementation Challenges
The model is straightforward, but delivery is complex and includes:
- Engagement variability: Not all young people engage. Mistrust, stigma and peer dynamics remain barriers.
- Regime constraints: Lockdowns, staffing issues and competing priorities disrupt continuity.
- Transfers between prisons: Assessments are interrupted. Continuity depends on effective handover systems between prisons and Aps.
- Complex need: Some individuals require more intensive or specialist input than the programme can provide.
- Staff capability: The AP model has allowed for scale, but requires strong supervision and consistency.
- Limited availability of services: Low staff-to-person in custody ratio in some prisons can impact access to psychological services.
- System alignment: Plans depend on actual service availability.
Time limitations: Six to eight sessions are sufficient for engagement and formulation—but not for deeper intervention. Follow-on pathways are critical. Further interventions at primary or secondary care level of intensity can enhance rapport building due to longer duration, allowing for more in-depth exploration of formulation.
Conclusion
What the Building Identity Programme reinforces is that when hard to reach young people are given a structured opportunity to share and understand their own story, in a relationship that is non-judgmental and stable enough to hold that story, they engage. From that point, change is not guaranteed. But it becomes realistic.
Dr Emma Regan
Director of Care and Rehabilitation
Irish Prison Service
Ms Teigan Walsh
Assistant Psychologist
Irish Prison Service
Questions? Contact exregan@irishprisons.ie
References
Creavin, A., Murphy, N., & Regan, E. (2022). Young men’s experiences of psychological formulation as part of a care planning initiative in the Irish Prison Service. Advancing Corrections: Journal of the International Corrections and Prisons Association, Edition 14, 81–91.
Central Statistics Office. (2022). Prison re-offending statistics 2019 cohort. Dublin: CSO.
Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. (2013). Psychosocial (im)maturity from adolescence to early adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1093–1105.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London: Routledge
