Desistance from high risk offending

Best Article Award 2014

Control or change? Developing dialogues between desistance research and public protection practices

Beth Weaver, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom

This article aims to scope out some of the implications of desistance research for the community management of high risk offenders. Acknowledging the limited empirical research exploring this interface, this article outlines the evolving evidence base and what this tells us about the process of desistance and what supports it. The evidence as to whether ‘high risk offenders’ desist and what we know about this process is discussed prior to a consideration of the orientation of current practice approaches which can be located in the community/public protection model. Potential dialogues between desistance research and public protection practices are discussed to explore ensuing implications and opportunities for practice

The editorial board of Probation Journal are delighted to announce that the best article published in the Journal in 2014 has been awarded to Beth Weaver for her article Control or change? Developing dialogues between desistance research and public protection practice (Weaver, 2014). Drawing on insights derived from desistance research, the author provides an accomplished and thought-provoking challenge to the contemporary orthodoxy of public protection practices, based upon the imposition of external controls and the inward looking approaches of ever-increasing regulation and defensible processes. These, she argues, are in themselves insufficient to bring about long-term change and can sometimes fail to support the longer-term processes involved, which require the individual’s active engagement in, and ownership of. The alternative approach promoted by Beth Weaver necessitates being sensitive to the individual’s personal priorities, values, aspirations and relationships as they navigate the complex and contingent interaction of the opportunities available to bring about lasting change and the realization of a meaningful life.

Whilst careful not to present those involved in high-risk offending as a homogeneous grouping, the author’s assertion, based on her findings, that the processes underpinning the desistance journeys of both high risk and other types of offending behaviour are remarkably similar also presents a significant and important challenge to the professional silos that have been created by the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda. The report by HM Inspection of Probation into the early implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation (HM Inspection of Probation, 2014) highlights a number of emerging challenges in managing the interface between the national probation service and the community rehabilitation companies. As the authors of the report note, the matching of resources, particularly staff resources to the Transforming Rehabilitation workload has been testing to say the least (p. 5). The unnecessary separation of probation into two organizations was inevitably bound to create new process, communication and information sharing challenges and as the HM Inspection report points out, the lack of staff in some areas is inevitably having a detrimental impact on service delivery. These included instances of information being received from courts after the individual had reported for their first appointment and that:

The fragmentation of the contact with offenders going through the court process and the increasing use of group induction, meant that many offenders had contact with numerous probation staff before meeting the offender manager who would be working with them. This meant that there were delays in starting to form the crucial working relationships with their supervisor. The impact of that fragmentation had the potential to reduce the likelihood of effective work being undertaken. (HM Inspection of Probation 2014: 8)

The current reality of Transforming Rehabilitation appears to be one of ‘more processes, more paperwork, a more intense workload’ (Rutter, 2015) rather than the promised flexibility and innovation. New tools such as the Risk of Serious Recidivism score and the Case Allocation System have been introduced but staff have been hindered by the ongoing failure to provide integrated IT systems that are fit for purpose. Given the indecent haste with which the current reforms are being implemented it is perhaps hardly surprising that the report writers were particularly concerned by what they perceived to be ‘a significant disconnect between senior managers and frontline staff in understanding and perceptions of the reforms’ (p. 5). One would expect that over time many of these issues will be addressed but nevertheless the report paints a salutary picture of staff in both organizations expending considerable time, effort and commitment attempting to resolve artificially constructed problems created by an overly-bureaucratic system that places human behaviour into compartments based on a narrow definition of risk that privileges certain types of risky behaviours.

As Jay-Marie Mackenzie, Tina Cartwright, Amy Beck and Jo Borrill point out in the first article in this edition, Probation staff experiences of managing suicidal and self-harming service users, probation staff are frequently exposed to suicidal service users and take an active role in decisions surrounding their levels of risk. Conducting semi-structured interviews with 13 probation staff in one metropolitan probation area, the authors explored the impact of suicidal behaviours on probation staff based on their experiences of working with individuals who have either attempted suicide or self-harmed? Understandably such events had significant emotional consequences for probation staff who sometimes struggled to make sense of these behaviours in terms of their motivation and seriousness. The author’s findings highlight the need for good support mechanisms and the provision of adequate training in both the NPS and CRCs for probation staff working with ‘at risk’ and potentially vulnerable individuals.

Polygraphs (or lie detectors) for testing high risk sexual offenders are widely used in the United States in the treatment and supervision of those convicted of sexual offences; they are about to be introduced into the United Kingdom for the first time. In Polygraphs and sex offenders: The truth is out there, Daniel Marshall and Terry Thomas consider the ethical and professional issues involved in the application of these technologies. Despite claims to the contrary, the authors contend that there is a lack of either a theoretical or empirical evidential base to warrant its usage on the scale envisaged and that it could further undermine the legal and human rights of an already excluded and vilified group of individuals.

The utilization of new technologies could undoubtedly support the supervision process if appropriately deployed but there is a danger of drifting into a dystopian vision of supervision based upon the replacement of staff by technological surveillance. Some CRC staff have already been told to expect job losses of more than 30 per cent in the coming year. Alongside this there are plans to introduce biometric reporting using fingerprinting technologies. This will enable an individual to report in, access and provide information, and request contact with a probation officer. Kiosks will be available to report in as a reward for good compliance with the early stages supervision or licence requirements (Travis, 2015). This will no doubt be promoted as an example of the new and innovative approaches to supervision which the architects of Transforming Rehabilitation claim to be necessary for such a radical reorganization of the existing arrangements. However, as John Podmore argues, dealing with the multiplicity of complex issues presented by many individuals who come into contact with probation, is challenging enough for highly trained and professional workers and cannot easily be ‘reduced to an algorithm delivered by untrained people or computer terminals’ (Podmore, 2015).

The third article in this edition further highlights the complex nature of what motivates human behaviour. In Inmates’ perspectives on prison drug treatment: A qualitative study from three prisons in Denmark, Vibeke Asmussen Frank, Helle Vibeke Dahl, Karina Ellegaard Holm and Torsten Kolind, discuss the findings from their observations and interviews with inmates undergoing drug treatment in three Danish prisons. The authors found a broad range of reasons why individuals were motivated to enter and stay in treatment during their imprisonment and discuss how the prison setting itself can both influence and constrain the inmates’ experiences. In this respect, drug treatment can be seen as a coping mechanism to deal with the demands of the prison environment. Employing a user-perspective, the authors challenge existing understandings of those factors at play in terms of drug treatment which has benefitted from both institutional and political support in Denmark with the offer of a drug treatment ‘guarantee’ to all prisoners.

The complex nature of the supervisory relationship, and the balance between control and change considered by Beth Weaver, is further highlighted in Managing extremist offenders: The TACT-ics of policing thought? by Chris Jones. In this piece the author provides a thought-provoking discussion of the potential issues involved in working with individuals convicted of extremist and ideologically-related offences. Drawing on his experience as a probation officer in an Extremism and Hate Crime Unit he outlines the dangers of collusion on the one hand, and over-zealous control on the other, in this area of work.

In Then and now: Revisiting policy, tasks, theories, skills and experience of probation work in the seventies, Stuart Collins reflects on a period in probation’s history, before polygraphs, drug treatment programmes and dealing with extremist offenders, when its public protection role was perhaps less explicit. In a balanced account, that acknowledges both the strengths and limitations of probation practice during this era, the author provides a timely reminder that despite the changing political challenges and the increasing controlling and technical aspects of probation work, it is essential that it remains rooted in humanistic values that involve a commitment to collective working and a respect for the individual and a belief in their capacity for change. This is the thread that ties past and present probation practitioners together, which, according to Beth Weaver, involves developing innovative and creative practices that not only promote and support desistance but which also enhance public protection and facilitates community integration among high risk offenders.

As always the journal welcomes letters, comments or articles in response to any of the issues raised in this edition.

Lol Burke