Rethinking What Works with Offenders Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime (Stephen Farrall) (z-lib.org)

Rethinking What Works with Offenders
When it was published twenty years ago, Rethinking What Works with
Offenders made a major contribution to criminological knowledge on
why people stopped offending, and the impact the probation service
had on the desistance process. Unlike other studies that had relied on
official conviction data, it was the first to make use of self-reported data,
including interviews with men and women on probation, and their
supervising Probation Officers. It reconceptualised probation outcomes
in terms of degrees of success rather than as ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’
and offered important policy implications of these conclusions.
The Twentieth Anniversary edition contains the original text along
with a new Foreword by Shadd Maruna and Fergus McNeill, locating
the book historically and assessing its continued importance to
Criminology. It also includes a new chapter by the author reporting
on the key findings of the follow-up interviews in 2004 and 2010–12,
reflecting on key developments in the field and developing a theory of
assisted desistance. Furthermore, it features four new commentaries
from Mark Halsey, Isabelle F.-Dufour, Martine Herzog-Evans and José
Cid reflecting on the importance and legacy of the book.
This book presents an important and challenging range of findings
on ‘what works’ in probation and with offenders and remains essential
reading for anybody professionally concerned with the present and
future of probation.
Stephen Farrall is Professor of Criminology at the University of Derby,
having previously been Professor of Criminology at the University of
Sheffield (2010–2018). As well as his research on desistance from crime,
he is well known for his work on the fear of crime and his studies on the
long term impacts of Thatcherite social and economic policies on crime.
International Series on Desistance and Rehabilitation
The International Series on Desistance and Rehabilitation aims to provide a
forum for critical debate and discussion surrounding the topics of why
people stop offending and how they can be more effectively reintegrated
into the communities and societies from which they came. The books
published in the series will be international in outlook, but tightly focused
on the unique, specific contexts and processes associated with desistance,
rehabilitation and reform. Each book in the series will stand as an attempt
to advance knowledge or theorising about the topics at hand, rather than
being merely an extended report of specific a research project. As such, it is
anticipated that some of the books included in the series will be primarily
theoretical, whilst others will be more tightly focused on the sorts of
initiatives which could be employed to encourage desistance. It is not our
intention that books published in the series be limited to the contemporary
period, as good studies of desistance, rehabilitation and reform undertaken
by historians of crime are also welcome. In terms of authorship, we
would welcome excellent PhD work, as well as contributions from more
established academics and research teams. Most books are expected to be
monographs, but edited collections are also encouraged.
General Editor
Stephen Farrall, University of Derby
Editorial Board
Ros Burnett, University of Oxford
Thomas LeBel, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
Mark Halsey, Flinders University, Australia
Fergus McNeill, Glasgow University
Shadd Maruna, Queens University, Belfast
Gwen Robinson, Sheffield University
Barry Godfrey, University of Liverpool
Prison Education and Desistance
Changing Perspectives
Geraldine Cleere
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime
Stephen Farrall
Transitions Out of Crime
New Approaches on Desistance in Late Adolescence
Catalina Droppelmann
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/
criminology/series/ISODR
Rethinking What Works
with Offenders
Probation, Social Context and Desistance
from Crime
Twentieth Anniversary Edition
Stephen Farrall
Second edition published 2022
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Stephen Farrall
The right of Stephen Farrall to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by
him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Willan 2002
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-69896-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-69900-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-14378-9 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789
Typeset in Palatino
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
In memory of Roger Hood
(12 June 1936–17 November 2020).
Contents
Contents
List of tables and figures
ix
Acknowledgements
xiii
Acknowledgements for the twentieth anniversary edition
xvii
Foreword
xix
Foreword to the twentieth anniversary edition
xxi
Part 1 Introduction
1
1
Probation, social context and desistance from crime:
introducing the agenda
2
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
31
3
The study
45
Part 2 Probation, motivation and social contexts
3
61
4
Defining ‘success’
63
5
The focus of probation
71
6
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
85
7
Motivation and probation
99
8
Probation work: content and context
116
9
Motivation, changing contexts and probation
supervision
145
vii
Contents
Part 3 Persistence and desistance
171
10
Desistance, change and probation supervision
173
11
The factors associated with offending
193
Part 4 Conclusions
205
12
Probation, social context and desistance from crime:
developing the agenda
207
13
Rethinking . . . 20 years later: what happened next?
231
Commentaries
Reflections on Rethinking What Works with Offenders
by Mark Halsey
259
A commentary on Rethinking What Works with Offenders
by Isabelle F.-Dufour
264
A commentary on Rethinking What Works with Offenders
by Martine Herzog-Evans
274
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation?
A commentary by José Cid
282
Appendix
288
References
291
Index
303
Case index
306
viii
Tables and figures
Tables
3.1 Problematic circumstances at the time of the offence:
probationers’ reports
3.2 Sample characteristics: gender
3.3 Sample characteristics: age
3.4 Sample characteristics: ethnicity
3.5 Sample characteristics: length of order
3.6 Sample characteristics: main offence
3.7 Sample characteristics: previous convictions and custody
3.8 Sample characteristics: age and gender
3.9 Attrition rates: offence type (%)
3.10 Attrition rates: age and gender
4.1 Offending whilst on probation (those seen to the end of
their orders)
4.2 Amount of offending whilst on probation (those seen to
the end of their orders)
4.3 Desistance (those seen to the end of their orders)
4.4 Desistance (all)
5.1 Obstacles to desistance
5.2 Officer–probationer pairs: obstacles to desistance
5.3 Proposed methods for tackling the obstacle: officers’
reports
6.1 The extent to which obstacles were successfully resolved
6.2 Desistance by obstacles: probationers’ reports
6.3 Methods used to tackle sweep-one obstacles: officers’
reports
46
49
49
49
49
50
50
51
52
52
64
64
66
66
74
75
78
85
87
88
ix
Tables and figures
6.4 Resolving obstacles: officers’ reports
6.5 Intervention styles sweep-one obstacles: officers’ reports
(numbers, with percentages in parentheses)
6.6 Resolving obstacles: probationers’ reports
6.7 Intervention styles sweep-one obstacles: probationers’
reports (numbers, with percentages in parentheses)
7.1 Motivation and expectation to desist
7.2 Changes in motivation throughout the order
7.3 Motivation groups’ criminal histories at start of order
7.4 ‘Problematic’ circumstances at the time of the offence:
probationers’ reports (%)
7.5 Obstacles identified by officers and probationers
7.6 Was the obstacle resolved?
7.7 Working styles used to tackle obstacles identified at
sweep one
9.1 Probationer’s ‘biggest single’ life change since the previous
interview
9.2 Resolving employment and family obstacles: main
instigator of solution and amount of help given by officer
9.3 Main actor in overcoming obstacles by motivation
10.1 Desistance (all)
10.2 Desistance by motivation
11.1 Offending by motivation
11.2 Concordance of offending
11.3 Factors associated with offending: final models
11.4 Type of offending by motivation
11.5 Amount of offending by motivation
11.6 Factors associated with the amount of offending:
summary
11.7 Factors associated with the amount of offending:
final models
A1 Variables associated with desistance from logistic
regression analyses
89
91
92
94
100
101
103
104
106
107
108
146
161
163
173
174
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
288
Figures
7.1 Motivation, obstacles and desistance:
probationers’ reports
7.2 Motivation, obstacles and desistance: officers’ reports
9.1 Motivation, obstacles and social contexts:
probationers’ reports
x
110
111
165
Tables and figures
9.2 Motivation, obstacles and social contexts: officers’
reports
12.1 Motivation, obstacles and desistance: probationers’
reports
12.2 Motivation, obstacles and social contexts: probationer’s
reports
13.1 Assumed model of impact
13.2 Possible model of impact?
13.3 Structural and Individual Level Processes and
Criminal Careers
13.4 Model of Impact of Assisted Desistance in
Formal Settings
166
209
210
233
234
236
242
xi
Acknowledgements
Numerous people assisted in the lumbering development of both the
fieldwork and the analysis. In helping to smooth the transition from
‘research design’ to a ‘workable project’, management staff in each of
the probation services from which the cases were recruited played an
essential part. I would like to express my immense thanks to all the
following for their invaluable assistance in helping to set up the project:
Mike Frost, Rachel Murphy and Ros Harper (Middlesex Probation
Service); Chris Wheeler (Wiltshire Probation Service); Imogen Brown
(West Yorkshire Probation Service); Gerry Marshall, Steve Stanley and
Pauline Durrance (Inner London Probation Service); John Budd and
Martin Wargeant (Essex Probation Service); and Christine Knott,
Andrew Underdown and Linsey Poole (Greater Manchester Probation
Service).
Senior and main-grade probation officers played an especially
important part in enabling the research to be completed: not only were
they interviewed themselves, but they recruited probationers into the
study and often went to extraordinary lengths to assist the efforts made
to trace and secure interviews with probationers. The fieldwork could
not have been completed without the assistance of all those working in
field offices and it is a testament to the work of probation services that,
in addition to their already burdensome workload, staff found time to
return calls, arrange interviews and deal with the day-to-day running
of a project of this size and nature. Those working in other sectors of
the criminal justice system – most notably in prisons and hostels – must
also be thanked for their efforts in helping to secure interviews with
probationers.
At the Probation Studies Unit (PSU) and the Centre for Criminological Research (CCR) at Oxford University, Ros Burnett and Roger Hood
xiii
ix
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Acknowledgements
assisted greatly in the design of the project and very much influenced
the ‘tone’ of the research. Roger also had the thankless task of
supervising me – a task which he completed with both good grace and
humour despite my tendency to focus on the wrong thing or to miss
the point completely. If Roger can ever bring himself to read this book
again – and it would be entirely understandable if he cannot – he will
notice much which is in no small part due to his own insights and
approach to the topic. Similarly, Ros Burnett, Colin Roberts and
Richard Young were kind enough, or felt sorry enough, to read drafts
of entire chapters along the way. The thesis upon which this book is
based was examined by George Mair and Carolyn Hoyle, and I thank
them both for the interest with which they discussed the work and
their helpful and supportive comments.
Conversations with successive generations of PSU and CCR staff
were also insightful, and accordingly I thank Gwen Robinson, Kerry
Baker, Giok Ong, Ilona Haslewood-Pocsik, Louise Harsent, Colin
Roberts and David Faulkner for their observations on probation
supervision, and Richard Young, Carolyn Hoyle, Kimmett Edgar, Ian
O’Donnell, Ben Goold, Catherine Appleton, Aidan Wilcox and Carol
Martin for their observations on a number of topics ranging from
current trends in penology to the latest developments in the football
transfer market and the EU. Colleagues associated with the PSU,
namely, Lady Stephanie North, Simon Merrington and Chris May,
provided further comments and encouragement as a final draft was
produced. Anne Worrall (at Keele University) also deserves a mention
of thanks for taking the time to discuss the emergence of the National
Probation Service with me. Thanks are also due to Michael Spence (at
Saint Catherine’s College) for arranging for the college to pay for my
attendance at the British Criminology Conference in 1999 and a further
conference on analysing reconviction data held at Cambridge University in the spring of 2000.
The project employed a large number of part-time research interviewers to assist with the fieldwork and I thank, in no particular order,
all of the following for their efforts during the fieldwork: Jan Appleton,
Tony Bullock, Angela Coster, Carol Dowling, Venetia Evergeti, Susan
Hill, Amy Horwell, Jamie Kinniburgh, Stuart Lister, Sarah Maltby,
Ilona Haslewood-Pocsik, Anne Reuss, Paul Andell, Ejaz Ahmed, Celia
Witney, Krishna Kaur, Tom Letchner, Gareth Rees, Kathryn Smith,
Rachel Condry, Dawn Gordon, Janet Lee, Lucy Spurling, Ros Harper,
Pauline Durrance and Pauline Wilson.
The interviews were transcribed by a number of people. Margit Kail,
Hannah Bichard and Christine Holder made excellent work of transcrixxiv
Acknowledgements
bing all those taped interviews I either could not find the time to do
myself or simply could no longer face. Similarly, Sylvia Littlejohns and
Steve Ballinger – as administrators at the Centre for Criminological
Research – have provided fantastic support in dealing with the
payment and travel claims generated by the fieldwork. Hannah
Bichard deserves an additional special mention of thanks for getting
me out of numerous computer-assisted disasters. Away from Oxford,
conversations with Ben Bowling, Shadd Maruna, Sue Rex, Paul
Crosland and Simon Merrington helped me to ‘think about’ desistance,
probation supervision and – in the end – desistance and probation
supervision.
My final thanks must naturally be to the two hundred men and
women who took the time and effort to explain in detail how their time
on probation and the changes in their lives had either helped or
prevented them from staying out of trouble. Without their insights this
book would not exist.
Stephen Farrall
xv
xi
Acknowledgements for the Twentieth
Anniversary Edition
Acknowledgements
The thanks and acknowledgements I gave at the outset remain, of
course. However, over time I have come to recognise, perhaps in keeping with those whose lives I have studied, just how much I owe to my
former and current colleagues, friends and the wider criminological
community. Adam Calverley did the bulk of the interviews during
the fourth sweep, and was involved in some of those during the fifth
sweep too, as were Gilly Sharpe and Ben Hunter (who did the Lion’s
share of the fifth sweep interviews) – and I would like to thank them
for the superb interviews which they completed. I would especially like
to thank Fergus and Shadd for their Foreword, and moreover for their
enthusiasm for the project and some of the ideas which I have tried to
extract from it. I owe a lot to their insights into the topics of probation
and desistance. Isabelle, Mark, Martine and Pepe were kind enough to
produce very thoughtful reflections on the original book, and I thank
them all for re-reading the original book. All of commentaries, I think,
help to locate the book and what it tried to achieve far better than I ever
could. As well as conversations with them over the years, I have enjoyed
and learnt much from conversations and writing projects with Joanna
Shapland, Tony Bottoms, David Gadd, David Best, Gwen Robinson and
Susan McVie.
I dedicate this edition to the late Roger Hood, who served as my
D.Phil. supervisor, boss and general mentor, and who shaped the project and the analyses in numerous ways. His kind, gentle and generous
approach to both academic life and supervision will be sorely missed by
all who had the privilege of working with him.
Stephen Farrall
xvii
Foreword
Foreword
By By
Christine
Christine
Knott
Knott
(Chief
(Chief
Officer,
Officer,
Greater
Greater
Manchester
Manchester
Probation
Probation
Area)
Area)
In this
In this
important
important
new
new
book
book
Stephen
Stephen
Farrall
Farrall
explains
explains
thethe
reasons
reasons
why
why
offenders
offenders
desist
desist
from
from
offending,
offending,
using
using
their
their
own
own
perspectives
perspectives
andand
accounts.
accounts.
In his
In his
own
own
words,
words,
he he
aims
aims
to‘open
to‘open
probation’s
probation’s
black
black
boxbox
andand
to discover
to discover
what
what
it isitabout
is about
probation
probation
thatthat
works’.
works’.
In its
In its
useuse
of outcome
of outcome
measures,
measures,
thethe
book
book
goes
goes
well
well
beyond
beyond
thethe
‘blunt
‘blunt
instrument’
instrument’
of of
reconviction
reconviction
andand
attempts
attempts
to to
understand
understand
reoffending,
reoffending,
rather
rather
than
than
simply
simply
record
record
whether
whether
it has
it has
occurred
occurred
or not.
or not.
Farrall
Farrall
contributes
contributes
both
both
to to
what
what
wewe
know
know
about
about
thethe
outcomes
outcomes
of of
probation
probation
supervision
supervision
andand
why
why
people
people
stop
stop
offending.
offending.
TheThe
book
book
describes
describes
research
research
thatthat
began
began
in in
1997
1997
andand
which
which
waswas
jointly
jointly
commissioned
commissioned
by by
six six
Probation
Probation
Areas.
Areas.
TheThe
research
research
waswas
undertaken
undertaken
andand
published
published
at aattime
a time
of unprecedented
of unprecedented
change
change
forfor
thethe
Probation
Probation
Service
Service
both
both
nationally
nationally
andand
locally.
locally.
It deals
It deals
with
with
offenders
offenders
who
who
livelive
in some
in some
of the
of the
most
most
deprived
deprived
inner
inner
citycity
areas
areas
in the
in the
country,
country,
to some
to some
of the
of the
more
more
rural
rural
areas.
areas.
TheThe
research
research
identifies
identifies
thethe
common
common
factors
factors
of poverty,
of poverty,
unemployment,
unemployment,
andand
unstable
unstable
housing
housing
which
which
areare
all all
tootoo
familiar
familiar
to to
those
those
of of
us us
who
who
have
have
spent
spent
ourour
lives
lives
working
working
with
with
offenders
offenders
to reduce
to reduce
their
their
criminality.
criminality.
Towards
Towards
thethe
endend
of of
thethe
book,
book,
Stephen
Stephen
Farrall
Farrall
introduces
introduces
thethe
aimaim
of of
‘increasing
‘increasing
offenders’
offenders’
personal
personal
andand
social
social
capital’
capital’
as as
a a
measure
measure
of of
successful
successful
supervision,
supervision,
which
which
in in
mymy
view
view
is is
exactly
exactly
what
what
cognitive
cognitive
behavioural
behavioural
programmes,
programmes,
basic
basic
skills
skills
courses,
courses,
res-resolution
olution
of of
family
family
conflict
conflict
andand
improved
improved
social
social
conditions
conditions
– all
– all
of ofwhich
whicharearecomponents
componentsof ofthethemodern
moderncommunity
communitysentence
sentence
– are
– are
seeking
seeking
to to
achieve.
achieve.
TheThe
author’s
author’s
observation
observation
andand
description
description
of of
thethe
processes
processes
of of
desistance
desistance
makes
makes
an an
important
important
contribution
contribution
to to
thethe
current
current
debates
debates
about
about
reducing
reducing
reoffending,
reoffending,
with
with
its its
heavy
heavy
emphasis
emphasis
on on
targets
targets
andand
‘instant
‘instant
success’.
success’.
It also
It also
emphasises
emphasises
thethe
xix
xiii xiii
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Foreword
uniqueness of the contract between the probationer and the supervisor(s) in the drive to reduce and prevent reoffending.
Since the research began, inevitably, some practices have changed.
There is far greater availability of groupwork programmes, now
externally accredited, than when Stephen’s field work commenced.
However, the story behind the practice, in the way described in the
book, has not changed. Note also the offenders’ views that as the more
involved they become in the criminal Justice system, the more
pessimistic they are about their likelihood of reducing offending. It
must be the aim of all of us who practice with the Criminal justice
system to reverse these trends.
Practitioners will not be surprised by the findings of this research. I
believe it will help all of us to improve our understanding of offenders
and their interaction with probation supervision. The research highlights the importance of motivation in ensuring desistance and as such
emphasises the need for Probation supervision to nurture this. There
is also a coherent argument for the importance of dealing with
community issues to prevent further offending – this must surely beg
the question of the effectiveness of short prison sentences in reducing
reoffending.
As a practitioner, rather than an academic, to me the true test of good
research is its ability to inform the future as much as its ability to
describe the past. In my view, Stephen Farrall has ably achieved both
and the value of the findings seem even more relevant at the time of
publication than when we originally identified the need for the
research.
This book provides some interesting challenges to both practitioners
and policy makers in the world of probation and community sentencing. I hope it serves to open up further research opportunities into
some of these very important arenas. It certainly extends our evidence
base, from which we draw, to make important decisions about the likes
of offenders, and which could have an even greater impact on the lives
of potential victims.
Christine Knott,
July 2002
xx
xiv
Foreword to the Twentieth Anniversary
Edition
Fergus McNeill and Shadd Maruna
In the 1975 song ‘Dignified and Old’, Jonathan Richman, the 23-yearold frontman for the proto-punk band, the Modern Lovers, made an
unlikely sounding prediction to his youthful followers: ‘Hey kids,
someday we’ll be dignified . . . and old’. Remarkably, decades later, the
lyric proved prophetic with both Richman and the ‘kids’ of 1975 sliding
into the mainstream of middle-aged respectability and, frankly, old age.
Despite this story playing itself out thousands of times over, it never
seems to fail to surprise each new generation of awkward, young rebels.
They, too, will one day be ‘dignified and old’ – for better and for worse.
This is the story of desistance from crime, of course, but it is also the
story of desistance research, which is entering its third decade with this
Twentieth Anniversary Edition of Rethinking What Works. It may be difficult to appreciate this from the current vantage point, but two decades
ago, when Rethinking What Works and the wider desistance ‘movement’
burst onto the criminological scene, it too was a scrappy, young rebel
taking on the bigger, older establishment.
Of course, Stephen Farrall was already establishing himself with
research on the ‘fear’ of crime in journals like the British Journal of Criminology with the late Jason Ditton and other colleagues, but he was very
much still a junior researcher fresh out of a sort of apprenticeship in
desistance research with Ben Bowling and John Graham. As a reworking of his 2001 Oxford D.Phil. published by what was then a fledging,
independent publisher (Willan Books, now incorporated into Routledge), Rethinking What Works might have been expected to suffer the
fate of so many PhD projects converted into books and collecting dust
in a warehouse somewhere in rural Devon.
xxi
Foreword to the anniversary edition
After all, as it declared in its audacious title, this upstart book was
completely and confidently out-of-step with the then-reigning model of
probation work in the UK and internationally. Having suffered its infamous crisis in the 1970s and ’80s, rehabilitative work had only recently
acquired the rather immodest label of ‘what works’. Of course, as the
upstart pointed out, rehabilitation’s redemption had come at quite a
price. Critical thinkers in probation and criminal justice had already
begun to question the all-too-convenient narrowness of ‘what works’.
Its insistence that those then labelled ‘offenders’ possessed ‘deficits’ that
could be corrected via cognitive behavioural treatment was convenient
in two senses.
Firstly, it was convenient for probation leaders who were struggling
to preserve something of probation’s rehabilitative tradition from the
onslaught of populist punitiveness and the associated rebranding of
probation as a ‘law enforcement’ agency delivering punishment in the
community. For them, ‘what works’ seemed to offer a scientific foundation for probation’s newfound promise: to protect the public not just by
managing risk but by reducing it.
Secondly, ‘what works’ was convenient for governments committed to neo-liberalism. Even if, on a close reading, it was rooted in a
social-psychological understanding of both crime and rehabilitation, the
carelessness of the discourse of deficits, distortions and dosage, played
into what Wacquant (2009) calls the trope of individual responsibility.
If crime was a product of cognitive deficits and criminogenic attitudes,
then governments need look no further. In particular, they could ignore
their own complicity in creating criminogenic social inequalities and
in fuelling criminogenic carceral expansion. Like Faust, probation’s
response to being confronted with its own mortality, at times, seemed
to imply a willingness to sell its soul. Certainly, The New Choreography
(2001) looked very much like dancing with the Devil.
What made desistance research, and Farrall’s book in particular, so
radical in 2002 was that it burst this convenient bubble by listening carefully to probationers. Of course, good practitioners had never stopped
listening to service users. Yet, from the present vantage point – in a
moment when the value of ‘lived experience’ is much better recognised –
it is too easy to forget that, two decades ago, listening to probationers
as experts on their own change process was a brave and unusual step
in a climate dominated by outcome evaluations and meta-analyses. The
sense that randomised controlled trials were steps away from definitively proving ‘what works’ – or indeed had already found it in the
form of cognitive behavioural therapy – was ascendant, and the phrase
‘experts by experience’ had yet to be invented.
xxii
Foreword to the anniversary edition
One of desistance research’s most famous and most quoted experts,
recorded by Farrall, was Mickey. When Farrall asked him what more
could be done in the probation process, this is what Mickey told him:
Something to do with self-progression. Something to show people
what they are capable of doing. I thought that was what [my Officer] should be about. It’s finding people’s abilities and nourishing
and making them work for those things. Not very consistent with
going back on what they have done wrong and trying to work out
why – ’cause it’s all going around on what’s happened – what you’ve
already been punished for – why not go forward into something. . . .
For instance, you might be good at writing – push that forward,
progress that, rather than saying ‘well look, why did you kick that
bloke’s head in? Do you think we should go back into anger management courses?’ when all you want to do is be a writer. Does that
make any sense to you at all? Yeah, yeah. To sum it up, you’re saying
you should look forwards not back. Yeah. I know that you have to look
back to a certain extent to make sure that you don’t end up like that
[again]. The whole order seems to be about going back and back
and back. There doesn’t seem to be much ‘forward’.
(p. 227)
There are good reasons why Mickey is so often quoted. His account
here exemplifies a disconnect between how he and his probation officer understood his needs, his situation and how to respond. This was
a key recurring finding in Farrall’s book: probation officers, it seemed,
had indeed been drawn towards responsibilising practices that focused
on offending behaviours and on that narrow group of criminogenic
factors associated with addictions, attitudes and associates. But many
probationers – like Mickey – wanted and needed something else. They
wanted to find a way forward; and often that path was blocked by structural and relational obstacles (e.g. problems finding work or in family
life) in which probation seemed to have lost interest.
To put this a different way, probation officers and probationers had
quite different implicit criminologies. The officers, doubtless managing
new or heightened anxieties and pre-occupations around risk, had narrowed their focus to immediate and individual psychological factors.
But the probationers had already learned the hard way that their future
prospects depended at least as much on removing the many obstacles to
desistance that they faced. Those obstacles weren’t all inside them; they
were all around them.
xxiii
Foreword to the anniversary edition
Having done what good researchers do – listened carefully – Farrall
clearly recognised and appreciated the significance of Mickey’s (and his
other respondents’) pleas; in what was the concluding chapter of the
previous edition, he started to rise to the challenge of rethinking probation (and ‘what works’) both in terms of going ‘forward into something’
and in terms of obstacle demolition. For some of us that followed, much
of the last twenty years has been spent asking and trying to answer
questions like: ‘Forward into what, exactly?’ and ‘What are the obstacles
that matter most and how do we demolish them?’ It is from questions
like these, triggered by Farrall’s precocious book, that new practice paradigms were born.
Indeed, having started the ‘Tracking Progress on Probation’ study by
listening to 199 probationers (and many of their supervising officers)
Farrall has just kept on listening ever since. For years and then decades,
Farrall (and his colleagues and collaborators in various sweeps of the
study) worked tirelessly to sustain contact with as many of the study
participants as possible and to revisit both them and their stories – of
desistance and of probation – across a series of later books. In these later
sweeps of the study, Farrall and his colleagues were prepared to revisit
and revise their earlier analyses; if that is what the participants’ stories
required them to; so the story of desistance has continued to evolve with
the research.
Likewise, the field of desistance research has also continued to grow
and has moved well beyond the initial forays into the field in the 1990s
and early 2000s. As new scholars – many of them inspired by Farrall’s
work – began to research and debate desistance, the limitations of early
desistance research soon emerged. Like so much of criminological work,
for all of its radical aspirations, much early desistance work reproduced
criminology’s failure to take diversity seriously enough; only more
recently have we come to understand how pathways out of offending
differ for women and men, and for people of different ethnicities, sexualities, and so on. Desistance research, again like criminology in general,
has been slow to move from the streets to the suites and, as far as we
know, the framework has not yet contributed to our understanding of
state crime (although in his research on the legacy of the Thatcher era,
perhaps Farrall will lead us there too). Indeed, today’s generation of
desistance researchers are far less interested in the behaviour change
of individuals on probation than they are the behaviours of the justice
system itself, which needs to desist from criminalising and labelling
disadvantaged young people. Ironically, particularly given the careful argumentation in books like Rethinking What Works, by allowing
xxiv
Foreword to the anniversary edition
for a central role for human agency, desistance research has even been
accused of individualising or responsibilising the desistance process (in
echoes of the critique desistance scholars used against the ‘what works’
movement!).
Undoubtedly, as ‘desistance thinking’ has become increasingly mainstream in criminal justice circles, its radical potential has been blunted.
Indeed, there is a real risk that ‘desistance talk’ has been used to legitimate the status quo of a criminal justice system in perennial crisis. In
short, desistance research has become “dignified . . . and old” in the way
that Richman promised (and warned) in 1975.
Yet, to revisit Farrall’s original Rethinking What Works is to travel back
in time and remember when desistance was still young – not even the
‘next big thing’ but rather a work that was ahead of its time in imagining
a future. The central tenets of Rethinking What Works may indeed have
entered the mainstream in 2022, but they remain as radical now as they
were twenty years ago. The secret to this longevity is surely related to
the author’s methodology – his willingness and ability to listen to the
expertise of Mickey and others along the journey of desistance. That
approach to social science will always be evergreen.
Reference
National Probation Service (2001) The New Choreography. London: National Probation Service.
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Governance of Insecurity.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
xxv
Part 1
Introduction
Chapter 1
Probation, social context and
desistance from crime:
introducing the agenda
The purpose of this book is to explore and throw further light on the
processes that occur during probation supervision which are either
conducive to desistance or which contribute to further offending.
Whilst it is true that the correlates of recidivism and desistance are well
known, the mechanisms by which these correlates are produced and
the role that criminal justice sanctions play in this remain less well
understood. In order to understand better the role of probation
supervision in encouraging the processes associated with desistance,
the criminal careers and behaviour of 199 people made subject to
probation and combination orders 1 were examined in detail. This book
reports on that four-year examination.
Many of those who embark on offending careers would appear to
stop at around the same time that they gain stable employment,
embark upon stable life-partnerships and disengage from a delinquent
peer group. On the other hand, for those convicted and sentenced, their
age and gender are better predictors of their likelihood of a further
conviction than the type of sentence they received. Indeed, no study
has yet demonstrated conclusively that sentences have markedly
different outcomes from one another in terms of rates of reconviction.
There are, however, numerous disadvantages with the research
methodologies employed to investigate desistance and recidivism.
Studies of sentence outcomes have generally been based on official
statistics, have not considered in depth the nature of the interventions
undertaken, have tended to be retrospective and have not collected the
views and experiences of those made subject to such disposals. Thus
these studies suffer from what Shadd Maruna (2000a: 12, emphasis in
original) has referred to as the ‘black box’ syndrome – the outcomes
are known, but the precise sequence of events and processes involved
in their production has been left largely unexamined: ‘by concentrating
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-2
3
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
almost exclusively on the question of ‘‘what works’’, offender rehabilitation research has largely ignored questions of how rehabilitation
works, why it works with some clients or why it fails with others.’
This chapter provides the background to a project which has
attempted to open this ‘black box’ so as to investigate the role that
probation supervision, individual motivation and wider social and
personal circumstances play in helping some people to stop offending.
Unlike previous investigations of the impact of probation supervision,
it has aimed to bring to the evaluation some of the techniques and
styles of research developed by those investigating the progression of
criminal careers. Thus, the research has departed from the conventional sources of data, types of variables collected and styles of
analyses. It has
! not therefore relied predominantly on data derived from official
sources but has collected data directly from probationers and
probation officers by way of face-to-face interviews;
! examined the impact of changes in the social and personal circumstances of the probationer on their offending career; and
! employed a prospective longitudinal methodology.
Its origins, therefore, lay in two key areas of criminological research:
the evaluation of criminal justice interventions and the study of the
course of criminal careers, their persistence and desistance. Both these
paradigms offer insights and set the agenda for many of the issues
investigated, but a review of each suggests that there are areas of both
where current knowledge is deficient. By addressing these deficiencies,
the project throws new light on the impact of probation supervision on
probationers’ lives and on the factors conducive to their desistance
from crime.
The background
Some of the most commonly observed regularities in criminology
concern rates of offending over the course of a person’s life. For
example, by the time that they had reached their thirtieth birthday,
approximately a third of the males in England and Wales born in 1953
had received a conviction for a non-motoring offence (Home Office
1995). However, only around 7 per cent had received six or more
convictions and most of those convicted had an officially recognised
4
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
criminal
By asking
career
officers
which
and
spanned
probationers
no more
to discuss
than four
probation
years (Home
supervision
Office
1995:
in theTable
context
8). of
The
thepeak
probationer’s
age of conviction
personal2 for
andmales
socialincircumstances,
England and
and byis tracking
progress
of probationers
over1990;
timeNewburn
through
Wales
currentlythe
around
18 years
of age (Barclay
repeated
interviews,
such
a project
illuminate
howupon
officers
and
1997; Flood-Page
et al.
2000).
This would
broad picture,
based
official
probationers
and perceive:
statistics,
has understand
been supported
by numerous other studies (e.g. Farrington 1992a) and by researchers collecting data in different countries
(e.g.
Blumstein
et al. 1988) and during different historical eras (Got! probation
supervision;
tfredson and Hirschi 1990). Taken together, the evidence suggests that
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
whilst many people are caught offending at least once, few go on to
persistent between
offenders.these
Suchtwo;
is the
uniformity of the relationship
!become
the relationship
and
between age and crime that it has become one of the ‘laws’ of
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
criminology, and is commonly referred to as the ‘age–crime curve’. For
behaviour.
males, the line which describes the ‘age–crime curve’ starts around 10
years of age (until that age, for UK males, those under 10 are below the
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
age of criminal responsibility). The line then starts to climb rapidly
until it reaches a peak around the ages of 17–19. The curve then starts
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
to decline – steeply at first, but becoming less steep as the years
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
progress. For females the ‘curve’ is different. First of all, far fewer
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
females would appear to embark upon offending careers. However,
to such obstacles.
following a climb almost as steep as the male curve, the female ‘curve’
flattens
something
approaching
a plateau
between
14 and
!quickly
Identify
those to
aspects
of probation
supervision
and the
probationers’
18,own
before
declining
gradually.
circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
Given
the salience
of this issue
for policy-makers
and its role
as a
key
factors
in motivating
and assisting
the probationer
to avoid
source
of much
debate in criminology, it is little wonder that the 1980s
further
offending.
and 1990s have witnessed a continuation of the efforts of criminologists
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
to chart the extent, contours and correlates of patterns of offending
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motiwith greater sophistication and in greater detail. In particular, interest
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
in the reasons why some people stop offending and others persist has
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
increased rapidly since the early 1980s. This same period has also
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
witnessed a renewed interest in the investigation of the outcomes of
various
court
– both
disposals
custodial
! Contrast
the disposals
views of the
officercommunity
and probationer
with and
regards
to the
sentences
(see
Lloyd
et al. 1994;during
McGuire
Lloyd et
probation
work
undertaken
the 1995).
order For
andexample,
the probationer’s
al.response
(1994) reported
that whilst 43 per cent of probationers were
to this work.
reconvicted within two years of the start of their orders, the proportion
of thosethere
reconvicted
afternumerous
community
service orders
was even
Whilst
have been
investigations
which
have higher
relied
(49
peraccounts
cent), and
higher stillpractice
for those
given
orders
with
upon
of probation
from
the probation
perspectives
of either
conditions
(63 per cent).11 or which have relied upon recorded informaofficers or probationers
These
two bodies
of work
work undertaken
represent closely
but nevertheless
tion
pertaining
to the
with related,
probationers
(e.g. Lloyd
subtly
different
Onewas
– referred
here would
as the compare
criminal
et al. 1994),
whatparadigms.
was required
a projecttowhich
career paradigm
– has charted
the incidence
and patterns
offending
officers’
and probationers’
accounts
of their work
together.ofData
were
across
the
life
spans
of
numerous
cohorts
of
members
of
the
general
collected so as to enable the comparison of their accounts of the
population. Such
cohortsthe
are
followed
a young
several
probationer’s
offending,
obstacles
to from
desisting
whichage
he for
or she
was
17
5
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
years, often decades, and the data collected are usually based on
interviews with cohort members or others involved in their lives (such
as parents, teachers, social workers or peers). Official data relating to
offending are frequently used to supplement and validate such reports.
Although this paradigm has relied on quantitative research methods,
it has not precluded the use of qualitative data sets.
The second paradigm – measuring the effectiveness of attempts by
the criminal justice system to reduce such behaviour – has followed up
those persons found guilty and sentenced to some form of punishment.
These follow-ups often last no longer than two years, although in some
instances follow-up periods of five or seven years have been recorded.
This paradigm has relied – to the virtual exclusion of all other
methodologies – on official records which have been analysed quantitatively (e.g. Lloyd et al. 1994).
The criminal career paradigm
Research by criminologists such as Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Alfred
Blumstein, Marvin Wolfgang and Thorsten Sellin in the USA and
David Farrington in the UK has suggested that whether or not an
individual participates in offending is closely associated with his or her
age and a number of social and psychological variables. For example,
Farrington (1992b: 129) listed some of the variables found to be most
strongly related to offending in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development – a follow-up study of over four hundred boys originally
living in London. Included were ‘problematic’ behaviours between 8
and 14-years-old (e.g. bullying, lying and aggressiveness), teenage
anti-social behaviours (e.g. heavy alcohol, tobacco use, gambling and
frequent sexual activity), impulsiveness, school problems (e.g. low
school attainment, frequent truancy and failure to take examinations),
family factors (e.g. poor child rearing and supervision, and poor
relationship with parents), anti-social factors (e.g. convictions of other
family members and friends) and socioeconomic factors (low family
income, poor housing and poor employment record). Several of these
influences have also been found by other researchers to be associated
with the onset of offending behaviours (see, for example, Graham and
Bowling 1995: 33–43; also Wolfgang et al. 1972; Sampson and Laub
1993; Elliott and Menard 1996). The data employed in studies of this
nature have usually been derived from repeated interviews with
members of cohorts, often followed from school age to adulthood.
During these interviews, self-reported data on offending and various
6
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
other
By asking
topics officers
have been
andcollected
probationers
fromtothe
discuss
cohortprobation
members.supervision
As noted,
these
in the data
context
areofoften
the probationer’s
supplemented
personal
by official
and social
records
circumstances,
and further
and
interviews
by tracking
with partners,
the progress
peers of
andprobationers
teachers in order
over time
to gain
through
these
3
repeated
perspectives
interviews,
as well as
such
to validate
a projectresponses.
would illuminate how officers and
probationers
understand
perceive:
A number of
researchersand
have
focused their attention specifically upon
the later stages of offending careers, and in particular on the factors
conducive
to supervision;
desistance from offending. Drawing on the insights of earlier
! probation
work on criminal careers, they have pointed to a number of correlates of
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
desistance. The literature on desistance is commonly based on criminal
career
data sets (e.g.
Knight these
and West
! the relationship
between
two;1975;
and Loeber et al. 1991; Sampson
and Laub 1993), or on one-off retrospective research (e.g. Shover 1983;
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
Cusson and Pinsonneault 1986; Graham and Bowling 1995). In a few cases
behaviour.
(e.g. Burnett 1992; Leibrich 1993) data have been collected by following
the careers of persons after they have been made subject to criminal justice
More specifically,
the aims of the research were to:
interventions. 4 The research undertaken so far has shed light on the role
of social and personal factors in desistance (see Adams 1997; Farrall 2000;
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
Laub and Sampson 2001, for outlines of this body of work).
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
such obstacles.
Thetofactors
associated with desistance
! Identify
aspects of(e.g.
probation
and the
probationers’
A
number those
of researchers
Uggensupervision
and Kruttschnitt
1998:
356) have
own circumstances
which
officersis and
probationers
perceived
to be
provided
evidence that
desistance
associated
with gaining
employkey although
factors inthemotivating
and links
assisting
the engaging
probationer
to avoid
ment,
precise causal
between
in legitimate
further offending.
employment
and desistance from offending have yet to be satisfactorily
established. Mischkowitz (1994: 313) reported that ‘erratic work pat! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
terns were substituted by more stable and reliable behaviour’ amongst
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motihis sample of desisters. Meisenhelder (1977) noted that the acquisition
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
of a good job provided the men in his sample with important social
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
and economic resources, whilst Shover (1983: 214) reported how a job
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
generated ‘. . . a pattern of routine activities – a daily agenda – which
! Contrastwith
the views
oflittle
the officer
and
withassociated
regards towith
the
conflicted
and left
time for
theprobationer
daily activities
probation work undertaken during the order and the probationer’s
crime’.
response
to this work.
Similar sentiments
were expressed by Sampson and Laub (1993:
220–22) when they wrote that desisters were characterised as having
Whilst
therework
havehabits
been numerous
which have
relied
‘. . . good
and were investigations
frequently described
as ‘‘hard
upon
accounts
of probation
practice
from
the perspectives
of either
workers’’
’. Farrington
et al. (1986:
351),
reporting
on the Cambridge
11
officers
or Delinquent
probationersDevelopment,
Study in
wrote
that
‘proportionally
more
or which have
relied
upon
recorded informacrimes
were committed
by . . undertaken
. youths during
of unemployment
tion
pertaining
to the work
withperiods
probationers
(e.g. Lloyd
than
periods
of required
employment’,
finding which
supported
by compare
the later
et
al. during
1994), what
was
was aa project
would
work of and
Horney
et al. (1995).
However,
as researchers
suchData
as Ditton
officers’
probationers’
accounts
of their
work together.
were
(1977) andsoHenry
full-time
employment
collected
as to(1978)
enablehave
the shown,
comparison
of their
accountsdoes
of not
the
preclude either
the opportunities
nor
actual
offending.
probationer’s
offending,
the obstaclestoto offend
desisting
which
he or
she was
17
7
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Graham and Bowling (1995: 56, Table 5.2) found that for young males
employment was not related to desistance, as did Rand (1987) when
she investigated the impact of vocational training on criminal careers.
Another of the most common findings in the literature on desistance
is that individuals cease to offend at about the same time that they start
to form significant life-partnerships (e.g. Chylicki 1992). One of the
clearest statements in support of this line of reasoning came from
Shover (1983: 213), who wrote that ‘The establishment of a mutually
satisfying relationship with a woman was a common pattern [and] an
important factor in the transformation of their career line’. Cusson and
Pinsonneault (1986: 79–80) and Mischkowitz (1994: 319) followed West
(1982: 101–104) in arguing that what was important (in terms of
facilitating desistance) was not marriage per se, but rather the quality of
the relationship and the offending career of the person whom the
would-be desister married. The recent work of Laub et al. (1998)
supports this contention – as marriages became stronger amongst the
men in their sample, so these men’s offending began to be curtailed. A
number of studies have suggested that the experience of becoming a
parent is also associated with desistance from offending (see, for
example, Irwin 1970: 203; Parker 1976: 41; Trasler 1979: 315; Caddle
1991: 37; Leibrich 1993: 59; Sampson and Laub 1993: 218; Hughes 1997,
1998: 146; Uggen and Kruttschnitt 1998: 355; Jamieson et al. 1999: 130).
Despite the evidence suggesting that forming a life-partnership may
result in desistance, some researchers have questioned this rather
simple cause-and-effect model. 5 Rand (1987: 137) tested the hypothesis
that ‘. . . young men who marry are less criminal than those who never
marry’ and found no support for this in her data. Knight et al. (1977:
359) found no significant differences (in terms of the number of
subsequent convictions) between the married and unmarried groups
from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Similarly,
Mulvey and Aber (1988) reported finding no connection between
partnership and desistance, nor were they able to find any firm link
between parenthood and desistance. Rand (1987: 143) also found no
support for the idea that men who became fathers were less criminal
than those who did not.
However, at least some of these negative findings can be reassessed
following the findings of Uggen (2000) and Ouimet and Le Blanc
(1996), which suggest that the impact of various life events upon an
individual’s offending is age-graded. For example, Ouimet and Le
Blanc (1996: 92) suggest that it is only from around the mid-20s that
cohabitation with a woman was associated with desistance for the
males in their sample. In a similar vein, Uggen (2000: 542) suggests that
8
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
work
By asking
appears
officers
to be and
a turning
probationers
point in
to discuss
the criminal
probation
careers
supervision
of those
offenders
in the context
aged of
over
the26,
probationer’s
whilst it haspersonal
a marginal
andeffect
socialoncircumstances,
the offending
of
and
younger
by tracking
offenders.
theWhen
progress
findings
of probationers
like these are over
taken time
into considerthrough
repeated
ation, theinterviews,
importance
such
of astructuring
project would
theilluminate
inquiry by
howage
officers
is made
and
probationers
apparent. However,
understand
manyand
of the
perceive:
earlier studies concerning the factors
associated with desistance were unaware of this caveat and, as such,
findingssupervision;
that there was no impact of employment or partnership
!their
probation
on desistance must be treated accordingly. 6
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
Various other factors have been identified which appear to be related
to
desistance.
Amongst
members
of the
! the
relationship
between
these two;
andCambridge Study in Delinquent Development cohort, Osborn (1980) found that leaving London
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
(where they had grown up) was associated with reductions in
behaviour.
subsequent offending (both self-reported and official). Similar findings
using alternative data sets have been made by Sampson and Laub
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
(1993: 217) and Jamieson et al. (1999: 133). The break-up of the peer
group has been another, and more commonly, cited factor. Knight and
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
West (1975: 49) and Cromwell et al. (1991: 83) both referred to cases in
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
which peer group disintegration was related to subsequent desistance
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
(as did Warr 1998). Experiencing a shift in identity (Meisenhelder 1982;
to such obstacles.
Shover 1983: 210; Burnett 1992; Maruna 1997, 2000b) and feeling shame
one’s past
behaviours
(Leibrich supervision
1993: 204, 1996)
have
also been
!at Identify
those
aspects of probation
and the
probationers’
posited
as
processes
associated
with
desistance.
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
An individual’s
motivation to
avoid
furtherthe
offending
is another
key
key
factors in motivating
and
assisting
probationer
to avoid
factor
in accounting
further
offending. for desistance. West (1978), Shover (1983), Shover
and Thompson (1992), Moffitt (1993), Sommers et al. (1994) and Pezzin
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
(1995) have all pointed to a range of factors which motivated the
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motidesisters in their samples. Burnett (1992: 66, 1994: 55–56) has suggested
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
that those ex-prisoners who reported that they wanted to stop
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
offending and, importantly, felt they were able to stop offending, were
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
more likely to desist than those who said they were unsure if they
to stop
offending.
!wanted
Contrast
the views
of the officer and probationer with regards to the
Others have
pointed
to the influence
the criminal
system
probation
work
undertaken
during theoforder
and thejustice
probationer’s
onresponse
those repeatedly
incarcerated. Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986),
to this work.
employing data drawn from in-depth interviews with ex-robbers,
identified
the have
following
influentialinvestigations
factors in desisting:
(such
Whilst
there
been asnumerous
which shock
have relied
as being
wounded
in a bankpractice
raid); growing
of doingoftime
in
upon
accounts
of probation
from thetired
perspectives
either
prison; becoming
aware11 of
possibility
of longer
prison terms;
and
officers
or probationers
or the
which
have relied
upon recorded
informaa reassessment
what
was
importantwith
to probationers
the individual.
tion
pertaining toofthe
work
undertaken
(e.g.Similar
Lloyd
findings
have
been
made
by other
Shover
(1983:
213),
et
al. 1994),
what
was
required
was aresearchers.
project which
would
compare
Cromwell
et probationers’
al. (1991: 83)accounts
and Leibrich
reported
that
officers’
and
of their(1993:
work 56–7)
together.
Data were
desisters
experienced
a
period
of
re-evaluation
before
coming
to
their
collected so as to enable the comparison of their accounts of the
decision to desist.
Withinthe
a perspective
rational
probationer’s
offending,
obstacles to heavily
desistinginfluenced
which he by
or she
was
17
9
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
choice models, Shover and Thompson (1992: 97) wrote that ‘. . . the
probability of desistance from criminal participation increases as
expectations for achieving friends, money, autonomy and happiness
via crime decrease’. Hughes’ (1998) study of ethnic minority desisters
living in the USA reported how fear of serious physical harm and/or
death was cited by 16 of her 20 respondents. Similar fears were
reported by those interviewed by Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986) and
Sommers et al. (1994), and amongst Maruna’s (1997) study of published
autobiographies of desistance.
Work by Meisenhelder (1977: 323) and others (e.g. Shover 1983: 212;
Burnett 1992; Hughes 1998: 147) has revealed that some of those
repeatedly incarcerated say that they have become tired of prison and
feel that they can no longer cope physically and emotionally with the
experiences of prison life. In effect, some offenders reach a point in
their lives when they can ‘take no more’ from the criminal justice
system ‘burn out’.
Very few of the investigations undertaken so far have considered
female desisters. Graham and Bowling’s (1995) was one study which
did. They found that the processes leading to desistance for men and
women appeared to be quite different. For women, becoming ‘an adult’
(e.g. leaving home, finishing schooling and starting a family) was
related to desistance. Yet, the same was not true for men. As this study
was not longitudinal and as all respondents were aged 15–25 years old,
it is hard to assess the significance of this finding. It could be due to
males needing longer to mature – so that if older males had been
included in the sample, the gender differences in the processes of
desistance may have been less pronounced – or it could be that the
processes of desistance for males and females actually are quite
different. A similar study by the Home Office which extended the
upper age limit to 30 (Flood-Page et al. 2000) has since suggested that
males do need longer to desist, but it did not comment on the processes
of desistance for older males and females. However, the factors
associated with female desistance from ‘street crime’ (as reported by
Sommers et al. 1994) were very similar to those reported in studies of
male ‘street offenders’ (e.g. Shover 1983; Cusson and Pinsonneault
1986; Cromwell et al. 1989). This could, however, be due to the
similarities in desistance from such crimes, rather than gender similarities. Similarly, there are few studies which have sought to investigate
the relationship between desistance and race (however, see Rand 1987;
Elliott 1994; Hughes 1997, 1998). 7
Whilst the effects of prison on the processes of desistance have been
well documented, this body of literature has had little to say about the
10
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
impact
By asking
of probation
officers on
andcriminal
probationers
careerstoand
discuss
desistance.
probation
To this
supervision
end, the
in
roletheofcontext
probation
of the
supervision
probationer’s
in helping
personalprobationers
and social circumstances,
to desist has
and
barelybybeen
tracking
touched
theupon
progress
by those
of probationers
interested in the
overdevelopment
time through
of
repeated
criminal careers.
interviews,
Thissuch
booka now
project
‘plugs’
would
that
illuminate
gap.
how officers and
probationers
In summary,
understand
the desistance
and perceive:
literature has pointed to a range of
factors associated with the ending of active involvement in offending.
of these
factors are related to acquiring ‘something’ (most
!Most
probation
supervision;
commonly employment, a life partner or a family) which the desister
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
values in some way and which initiates a re-evaluation of his or her
for some abetween
sense ofthese
who they
!life,
theand
relationship
two; ‘are’.
and Others have pointed to the
criminal justice system (in most cases, imprisonment) as eventually
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
exerting an influence on those repeatedly incarcerated. This body of
behaviour.
work suggests that any attempts to investigate the impact of probation
on offending careers needs also to consider the role of various social
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
processes, namely, employment, marriage, ageing and so on. However,
the literature on desistance has often not paid sufficient attention to
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
criminal justice interventions, and in an attempt to redress this
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
imbalance, this study has tried to chart the processes of desistance
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
following one of the commonest criminal justice interventions –
to such obstacles.
probation. 8
! Identify those aspects of probation supervision and the probationers’
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
keycontribution
factors in motivating
and
assisting the
the outcomes
probationerofto avoid
The
of research
concerning
furthercriminal
offending.
specific
justice interventions
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
The second research paradigm relates to the effects of specific criminal
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motijustice interventions on subsequent offending. Whilst the work of
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
Cusson and Pinsonneault, Shover, Meisenhelder and Cromwell et al.
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
has elucidated the phenomenon of ‘burn out’ following repeated
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
incarceration, these investigations have relied upon small samples and
! Contrast
theable
views
of the officer
and probationer
with
regards
to the
have
not been
to control
for several
key variables,
such
as previous
probation
work or
undertaken
during theliterature
order and
criminal
histories
age. The published
onthe
theprobationer’s
outcomes of
response
to this work.
prison,
probation,
parole and so on is vast, and accordingly only the
most salient findings will be reviewed here, in particular those which
Whilsttothere
have been numerous investigations which have relied
relate
probation.
upon
accounts
of probation
fromchiefly
the perspectives
of either
Initial
investigations
werepractice
concerned
with outlining
the
officers or
probationers
general
patterns
in the 11usage
of probation,
and
devoted
considerable
or which
have relied
upon
recorded
informaattention
to describing
whichundertaken
offenders (in
terms
of their age,
tion pertaining
to the work
with
probationers
(e.g.gender
Lloyd
and
history)
were made
to which
probation
supervision
et al. criminal
1994), what
was required
wassubject
a project
would
compare
(e.g.
Radzinowicz
1958: 12–13;
Barrofand
1966: 9).
As were
part
officers’
and probationers’
accounts
theirO’Leary
work together.
Data
of
this initial
period
of investigation,
trendsofintheir
the rates
of ‘success’
collected
so as
to enable
the comparison
accounts
of the
and
‘failure’ offending,
started tothe
emerge.
Forto example,
Radzinowicz
(1958:
probationer’s
obstacles
desisting which
he or she
was
17
11
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
2) reported that 79 per cent of adults, but slightly fewer juveniles (73
per cent), successfully completed their orders. As few of the studies
during this initial period considered probationers outside the 17–21year-old age range, the impact of age on rates of success and failure
was rarely commented upon. However, later studies have found age to
be one of the best predictors of reconviction, especially for males
(Phillpotts and Lancucki 1979).
The gender of the probationer was, however, more commonly noted
to be associated with probation outcomes. For example, Radzinowicz
(1958: 23) reported that 19 per cent of males placed on probation, but
only 8 per cent of women, had their orders terminated following a
further offence whilst still on probation. This finding was supported by
the work of Folkard et al. (1966: 56) and Barr and O’Leary (1966: 14)
and remains as salient today (Lloyd et al. 1994: 26; Oldfield 1996: 41;
May 1999). Another commonly observed factor associated with failure
was the number of previous convictions. As early as Radzinowicz’s
pioneering study (1958: 7), the relationship between failure on probation and the number of previous convictions an individual had
received had been observed. Like Radzinowicz, Phillpotts and Lancucki (1979: 18, Table 3.4) and later Lloyd et al. (1994: 27–32) found that
those with more previous convictions, a higher number of previous
guilty appearances at court, a faster rate of guilty court appearances
and a higher number of previous custodial experiences were all more
likely to be reconvicted regardless of the penalty imposed.
However, whilst the correlates of reconviction had been identified,
there appeared to be little evidence that probation-based interventions
could do very much to lower the possibility of offending once these
variables had been taken into account. Folkard et al. (1974, 1976)
reported on one of the most ambitious research projects on probation
outcomes ever undertaken. Using experimental and control groups
they attempted to study the relative effectiveness of different treatment
methods (chiefly, ‘control’ or ‘support’) for different types of probationers (neurotics and extraverts) who were in different situations
(delinquent or stressful). Despite the rigour with which the study was
designed and the theoretical support for such an approach, they found
no statistically significant differences between the experimental or
control groups in terms of their rates of reconviction. This finding
appeared to hold across different probation areas, over time, gender,
officer assessments and probationer’s degree of neuroticism (Folkard et
al. 1976: 14–19).
Some indications of the processes involved in mediating probation
outcomes were uncovered, however. For example, Folkard et al. (1966)
12
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
found
By asking
statistically
officerssignificant
and probationers
differences
to discuss
for the
probation
following
supervision
variables
when
in the outcomes
context of were
the probationer’s
compared: good
personal
rapport
and social
between
circumstances,
officer and
probationer
and by tracking
and keeping
the progress
the same
of officer
probationers
were related
over time
to successful
through
outcomes,
repeated interviews,
whilst a high
such
level
a project
of control
would
exercised
illuminate
overhow
the officers
probationer
and
was
probationers
related understand
to failure (ibid.:
and perceive:
56). Similarly, Davies (1969) found a
number of variables, such as high job turnover, peer group influence
and
general supervision;
hostility towards probation work, to be related to failure.
! probation
More recently May (1999) investigated the role played by social factors
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
in reconviction amongst a sample of probationers. He found that those
living
in unstable accommodation,
without
! the relationship
between these two;
and employment, with a drug
problem, and with literacy and learning problems were more likely to
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
be reconvicted (ibid.: 16–20). However, May could find no relationship
behaviour.
between alcohol use or financial problems and reconviction (ibid.:
18–19). The number of problems experienced by probationers also
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
increased their chances of reconviction (ibid.: 21). In more complex
analyses, May reported that probationers who had experienced all the
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
following problems – accommodation, alcohol, drugs and employment
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
– were more likely to be reconvicted (ibid.: 32–34).
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
Two features distinguish the recent and ongoing work in this field
to such obstacles.
from the earlier studies. First, there is a greater emphasis on assessing
outcome
ofaspects
cognitive-behavioural
interventions.
the
!theIdentify
those
of probation supervision
and theSecondly,
probationers’
development
of
day
centres,
group
work
programmes
and
other
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
specified
activities
has meant that
upon assessing
key factors
in motivating
and research
assistinghas
thefocused
probationer
to avoid
thefurther
outcomes
of these particular probation interventions rather than
offending.
‘generic’ probation (for example, see Mair and Nee 1992 who studied
! Explore the role of events (such
as changes in home life, employment
day centre reconviction rates, 9 Brownlee 1995 on intensive probation 10
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motiin Leeds, and Wilkinson 1997 on the Idlerton motor car project run by
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
Inner London Probation Service). These interventions were ‘timethese were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
limited’ and often did not cover the whole period of probation and, as
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
such, did not develop a picture of the whole probation order from
beginning
! Contrastto
theend.
views of the officer and probationer with regards to the
McGuire
(1995:
16) the
have
argued
thatprobationer’s
models of
probation and
work Priestly
undertaken
during
order
and the
intervention
on cognitive and behavioural psychology have
response tobased
this work.
emerged as ‘offering the most encouraging approaches’. They have
suggested
thathave
teaching
new styles of thinking
and acting
Whilst there
beenprobationers
numerous investigations
which have
relied
will
them of
to probation
avoid thepractice
situations
andthetemptations
which
had
uponhelp
accounts
from
perspectives
of either
previously
led them to11offend.
These
techniques
officers
or probationers
or which
haveapproaches
relied uponinclude
recorded
informasuch pertaining
as reinforcement
(Lawson
1983); with
covert
punishment
(Guidry
tion
to the work
undertaken
probationers
(e.g.
Lloyd
1975);
mentoring
(O’Donnell
al. a1979,
seewhich
also would
Hughes
1997);
et
al. 1994),
what was
requiredetwas
project
compare
behaviour
(Bank
et al.of1987);
(Hazaleus
and
officers’ andmodification
probationers’
accounts
their relaxation
work together.
Data were
Deffenbacher
1986);
social
skills
training
(Priestly
et
al.
1984);
collected so as to enable the comparison of their accounts of and
the
training
in moral
reasoning
et al. 1987).
probationer’s
offending,
the (McDougall
obstacles to desisting
which he or she was
17
13
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Lipsey (1995), employing a meta-analysis of interventions aimed
specifically at juvenile delinquents, suggested that treatments which
focused on employment, behaviour modification, gaining skills or
which were multi-modal (that is to say, interventions which attempt to
address a range of issues) produced the greatest effects on the future
conduct of juveniles (ibid.: 75). This line of thinking was echoed by Lsel
(1995: 91) when he wrote that ‘it is mostly cognitive-behavioural,
skilled orientated and multi-modal programmes that yield the best
effects’.
Palmer (1996: 139) concluded that vocational training and other
interventions aimed at providing probationers with employment were
found to have some impact on rates of recidivism. Educational training
was also reported to have had positive effects (ibid.: 140), as were
behavioural interventions; cognitive-behavioural approaches; life skills
(which included outdoor activities as well as education and social skills
development); and – again – multi-modal approaches (ibid.: 141–43).
Thus, to sum up: the investigation of the outcomes of criminal justice
interventions has found that, in general, younger males have been the
group most likely to be reconvicted. Their chances of reconviction are
increased still further the greater their previous criminal history.
Various other factors, such as poor employment history, being easily
influenced by a peer group or being hostile to probation, serve only to
increase reconviction and failure rates. The more recent literature – of
which more presently – has repeatedly pointed to cognitive-behavioural techniques, skills training, moral reasoning, employment
schemes and multi-modal interventions as being those methods of
intervention that are most likely to be associated with reduced rates of
reconviction.
Opening the ‘black box’ of probation supervision
However, few of the studies have attempted to unpack the ‘black box’
of criminal justice interventions. It is therefore very hard to say
definitively why any of these observed relationships exist or how they
operated. Notable exceptions exist, however. Burnett’s (1992) study
investigated the processes by which a group of property offenders
recently released from prison managed either to desist or continued to
offend. When compared to those who persisted, desisters in Burnett’s
study were found to have been more motivated to avoid further
offending, to have secured better post-release employment careers,
more of them were in stable accommodation and more of them rated
their personal relationships as good (ibid.: 71–81). Leibrich (1993)
14
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
undertook
By askingaofficers
follow-up
and probationers
of those sentenced
to discusstoprobation
probation
supervision
and not
reconvicted
in the context
within
of thethree
probationer’s
years and
personal
found and
that social
responding
circumstances,
to new
family
and bycommitments,
tracking the desires
progress
for of
a better
probationers
future and
over
thetime
development
through
of
repeated
self-respect
interviews,
were cited
such aasproject
the reasons
would for
illuminate
wishinghow
to desist
officers
(ibid.:
and
56–60).
probationers
Theseunderstand
studies haveand
shown
perceive:
the important roles played by social
and individual processes as former prisoners and probationers attempt
to
avoid further
offending.
! probation
supervision;
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
! the relationship
between
these
two;the
andcorrelates of
Summarising
what
is known
about
crime cessation
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
behaviour.
From these two bodies of work it is possible to sketch an outline of
what is known about the factors associated with the later stages of
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
criminal careers. Despite differences in the data sets which they have
employed and the variables on which they have focused, some uniform
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
findings have emerged. For example, older people have been consistperceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
ently found to be less likely to reoffend, as are those who start to offend
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
later in life and those with less extensive criminal careers. Another
to such obstacles.
commonly observed finding concerns employment. Gaining ‘good’ or
!stable
Identify
those aspects
of probation
and
the probationers’
employment
has been
found tosupervision
be related to
stopping
offending.
own circumstances
which
officers employment
and probationers
perceived
to be
Similarly,
unemployment,
irregular
or poor
employment
key factors
in motivating
and assisting
the probationer
to avoid
records
are associated
with higher
rates of persistence.
The break-up
of further
the peeroffending.
group has also been cited as being related to desistance by
both those researching criminal careers and the outcomes of criminal
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
justice interventions.
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motiHowever, there remain some findings which are unique to each
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
paradigm. For example, family formation, the break-up of the peer
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
group and feeling ‘worn out’ by the criminal justice system have all
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
been cited by criminal career researchers but have not been subject to
! Contrastinvestigations
the views of the
probationer
with regards
to the
thorough
by officer
those and
studying
the outcomes
of criminal
probation
work(although
undertaken
order
and the as
probationer’s
justice
sentences
seeduring
Burnettthe
1992).
Similarly,
previously
response
to this
work.
stated,
criminal
career
research has yet fully to develop an understanding of the impact of community penalties on criminal careers.
Whilst
there
numerous
investigations
haveDespite
relied
Perhaps
thishave
lack been
of uniformity
in findings
is to bewhich
expected.
upon
accounts
ofareas
probation
practice
from
either
their very
similar
of concern
(how
andthe
whyperspectives
people avoidoffurther
officers
or probationers
offending),
the criminal11 or
career
and
intervention-outcome
paradigms
which
have
relied upon recorded
informaare very
different
in work
severalundertaken
respects. Criminal
career research
has
tion
pertaining
to the
with probationers
(e.g. Lloyd
employed
different
the main
selfet
al. 1994),a what
was methodology
required was (relying
a projectinwhich
wouldupon
compare
reportedand
dataprobationers’
rather than solely
on data
fromwork
official
sources)
andwere
has
officers’
accounts
of their
together.
Data
focused upon
a different
setthe
of variables
(for of
example,
those related
to
collected
so as
to enable
comparison
their accounts
of the
school leaving,offending,
marriage the
andobstacles
child-rearing).
Research
on he
theoroutcomes
probationer’s
to desisting
which
she was
17
15
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
of particular sentences has relied almost entirely on officially recorded
convictions and focused upon a much narrower range of variables
(such as age at first conviction, previous disposals and type of
intervention by the criminal justice system).
These, then, are the two bodies of literature from which our
knowledge in this field is derived. On one hand is the criminal career
research and in particular, that which focuses upon the cessation of
offending – a relatively small corpus of work and thus far with little to
say on the topic of probation supervision. On the other hand is the
much larger literature which deals with the outcomes of criminal
sentences. This literature is hampered by its reliance upon official data
and – not totally unrelated to this – its concentration upon criminal
history variables. This reliance upon official data sources has prevented
this body of work from unpacking the ‘black box’ of probation
supervision.
A research agenda
What was required, therefore, was a project which would focus upon
patterns of persistence and desistance and which would specifically
take account of the impact on these of probation supervision and the
role of social circumstances, attitudes, personal relationships and the
motivation and behaviour of the probationer concerned. Such a
research project would need to bring to probation research some of the
methods of research, styles of analysis and theoretical perspectives
employed by those interested in criminal careers. By seeking to locate
probation supervision in the context of the probationer’s own personal
and social circumstances, such a research project would illuminate the
extent to which the aims, work and practices of probation intervention
were mediated, reinforced or negated by the wider lives of those on
probation and their attitude to their supervision. It would also serve to
introduce to criminal career research the role played by community
penalties in shaping patterns of offending in the short term, a subject
which has hitherto been rarely examined by criminal career researchers. Since the original inception of the project in 1996, others
have echoed the need for research of this nature:
‘The shortcomings of both [the criminal career and ‘‘what works’’]
research literatures might be addressed by combining the methodological and substantive insights of desistance research of those of
the rehabilitation literature’ (Maruna 2000a: 13).
16
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
By asking officers and probationers to discuss probation supervision
in the context of the probationer’s personal and social circumstances,
and by tracking the progress of probationers over time through
repeated interviews, such a project would illuminate how officers and
probationers understand and perceive:
! probation supervision;
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
! the relationship between these two; and
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
behaviour.
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
to such obstacles.
! Identify those aspects of probation supervision and the probationers’
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
key factors in motivating and assisting the probationer to avoid
further offending.
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motivation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
! Contrast the views of the officer and probationer with regards to the
probation work undertaken during the order and the probationer’s
response to this work.
Whilst there have been numerous investigations which have relied
upon accounts of probation practice from the perspectives of either
officers or probationers 11 or which have relied upon recorded information pertaining to the work undertaken with probationers (e.g. Lloyd
et al. 1994), what was required was a project which would compare
officers’ and probationers’ accounts of their work together. Data were
collected so as to enable the comparison of their accounts of the
probationer’s offending, the obstacles to desisting which he or she was
17
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
believed to face, how these were addressed during the order, the extent
to which supervision was believed to have helped the probationer
overcome such obstacles and how this was related to desistance or
persistence in offending careers. The extent to which officers and
probationers agreed over these matters was also investigated. By
incorporating a longitudinal element into the project, shifts over time
in perceptions and awareness were recorded and, in this respect, the
project represented another departure from the probation studies
referred to – most of which were ‘static’ investigations of probation
supervision. 12
‘Tracking progress on probation’
In order to understand the role of probation supervision in helping
people to stop offending and to locate these efforts within wider social
and personal contexts, an innovative project, aimed at tracking changes
in probationers’ social circumstances, motivation to desist, and experience of supervision over the period of their probation order, was
undertaken. The project recruited 199 probationers in six different
probation services and followed them and their supervising officers
through the course of their probation orders. 13 The remainder of this
chapter outlines the way in which the project, which became known as
‘Tracking Progress on Probation’, sought to achieve these objectives.
The rationale behind the data collection process, the manner and style
of analysis, and general tenor of the research are outlined and
discussed. This, then, was the ‘mind-set’ with which the project was
approached.
A critique of current data sources
Officially collected data sets have formed a very large part of the
materials used to evaluate probation outcomes (e.g. Barr and O’Leary
1966; Simon 1971; Oldfield 1996). These records have usually been
based on officers’ case notes or other official records of reconviction
(such as the Home Office’s Offenders Index). As such, these data tend
to be concerned chiefly with the sorts of information that large
administrative bodies routinely collate. For example, Radzinowicz
(1958) related outcomes to the age and gender of the probationer,
previous court disposals, requirements of the current probation order
and the reasons for the termination of the order. Reliance upon official
data sources has dominated probation research ever since. For
18
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
example,
By asking
in officers
1994 Lloyd
and probationers
et al. published
to discuss
their critical
probation
analysis
supervision
which
in
compared
the context
the of
officially
the probationer’s
recorded convictions
personal andofsocial
over circumstances,
18,000 people
sentenced
and by tracking
to probation
the progress
or prison.of
Following
probationers
the Lloyd
overettime
al. study
through
and
in
repeated
part inspired
interviews,
by it,such
Oldfield
a project
published
would his
illuminate
analysishow
of probation
officers and
in
Kent
probationers
(1996). understand
Like the study
and perceive:
he wished to emulate, Oldfield relied
exclusively upon official data sources (in his case local probation
!records).
probation supervision;
However, official data sources severely limit the nature of the
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
analyses undertaken. Although data relating to the courses completed
therelationship
probationer
duringthese
the two;
probation
!bythe
between
and order and the eventual
outcome of the order (completed successfully, terminated early for
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
good progress or breached) are available, it cannot be guaranteed that
behaviour.
all information relevant to assessing the impact of the order will have
been recorded. For example, how did the probationer respond to the
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
order? Did the probationer actually employ any new techniques for
avoiding offending which were learnt during the order? Did the
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
probationer really stop offending or just avoid detection? What were
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
the probationer’s views on the input he or she received from the
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
probation service? Without examining individual case records, questo such obstacles.
tions of this nature are very hard to answer using official data sources,
yet absolutely
essential
to a full
evaluationand
of the
theprobationers’
impact of a
!and
Identify
those aspects
of probation
supervision
probation
order.
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
In addition,
reliance
upon official
data sources
can lead toto
a rather
key
factors in
motivating
and assisting
the probationer
avoid
uncritical
approach to case files. The case file, into which officers write
further offending.
notes of contacts with a probationer, the topics they discussed together
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
and other relevant matters, is a record of the interactions between the
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motiofficer and the probationer. However, the case file records the
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
perspective of only the officer. The probationer’s experiences and
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
interpretation of probation may not have been recorded in sufficient
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
detail to allow for meaningful research into this matter to be based on
records.
probationers
can playwith
a crucial
in
!such
Contrast
the Furthermore,
views of the officer
and probationer
regardsrole
to the
terms
of what
is recorded
– forduring
example,
by concealing
things which
probation
work
undertaken
the order
and the probationer’s
areresponse
not in to
their
thisinterests
work. for the officer to know. One probationer
interviewed as part of the ‘Tracking’ project said of his own case file:
Whilst there have been numerous investigations which have relied
If I tell
[my officer]
that I’m practice
likely to offend,
he’ll
note it in his
upon
accounts
of probation
from the
perspectives
offiles.
either
11
If I then
do offend and
gowhich
back to
court,
they’ll
that high
risk
officers
or probationers
or
have
relied
uponsee
recorded
informaassessment
me prison.
So, I’mwith
not probationers
worried about(e.g.
getting
tion
pertainingand
to give
the work
undertaken
Lloyd
I’m
worried
what
is written
in which
the filewould
(PR094).
et caught,
al. 1994),
what
was about
required
was
a project
compare
officers’ and probationers’ accounts of their work together. Data were
Thus the so
reliance
official
limits of
thetheir
analyses
undertaken
collected
as to on
enable
therecords
comparison
accounts
of the
14
solely to thoseoffending,
topics about
information
is routinely
probationer’s
the which
obstacles
to desisting
which he collected.
or she was
17
19
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Furthermore, this reliance ignores the fact that official probation
records are based upon a complex series of interactions between the
officer and probationer, which may conceal issues relevant to the
eventual outcome of the order.
On the occasions when data have been collected from probationers
themselves, the data have usually been elicited by officers during their
routine interviews with probationers rather than by independent
researchers (e.g. Davies 1969) or via restrictive ‘tick box’ questionnaires, which do not always allow for expansions or explanations on
the answers given. Indeed, data collected in these ways have rarely
shed much light on the processes involved in the probation intervention, or upon how this intervention has impacted upon the probationer.
There remains, of course, the real possibility that probationers for
various reasons conceal certain aspects of their lives or offending from
their officer, which in turn raises the issue of the validity of the material
collated in official records (see, for example, the quote from the
probationer above).
What was required, then, was data collected via an alternative
method, or series of methods. The research sought to assess the impact
of probation supervision by asking probationers in detail about the
extent to which they found probation had made a useful contribution
to their lives. Further light would be shed upon the processes and
outcomes of probation supervision by asking probationers what they
had learnt whilst on probation, whether they felt it had helped them to
avoid further trouble or alleviated particular problems which they had
faced. The project therefore collected data from both those on probation and the probation officer supervising them. This strategy enabled
reports of actual behaviours by both the probationer and officer to be
recorded and ensured that both the professional judgement of the
officer and the views and opinions of the probationer were collected.
Self-reported data
Of course, the reliance upon official data sources has meant that the
measurement of offending behaviours is limited to recorded offending,
rather than actual offending. The use of reconviction as a measure of
outcome has been debated on numerous occasions over the years (see,
in particular, Hood and Sparks 1970; Lloyd et al. 1994; Mair et al.
1997). 15 Generally, the outcome of the probation intervention is
measured by how many people are reconvicted of a further offence
within a set period of time (usually two years after the start of the
order).
20
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
By asking
There
haveofficers
been several
and probationers
attempts toto
add
discuss
variety
probation
to the nature
supervision
of this
outcome
in the context
measure.
of theSome
probationer’s
have used
personal
lengthand
of time
socialtocircumstances,
reconviction
instead
and by of
tracking
the simple
the progress
reconvicted/not
of probationers
reconvicted
overdichotomy
time through
(e.g.
repeated
Mair
andinterviews,
Nee 1992; such
Lloyda et
project
al. 1994,
would
Brownlee
illuminate
1995;how
Oldfield
officers
1996).
and
probationers
Others
have attempted
understandtoand
measure
perceive:
the seriousness of reconviction by
either assessing whether the offence for which the person was
reconvicted
more or less serious than previous convictions, or by
! probation was
supervision;
considering the severity of the disposal at reconviction, the assumption
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
being that more serious offences receive more severe sentences (e.g.
Mair
Nee 1992;between
Lloyd etthese
al. 1994;
! theand
relationship
two;Raynor
and and Vanstone 1997). How
frequently a person is subsequently reconvicted is a further variation
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
on the theme, but this is seriously complicated by the fact that further
behaviour.
convictions may result in custodial sentences and thus take the person
‘off the street’ and reduce the time ‘at risk’ of offending (Brownlee
More 16
specifically, the aims of the research were to:
1995). And, in any case, all these attempts to add ‘subtlety’ to the
matter are limited by their being based on officially recorded convic! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
tions.
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
Reconviction is a relatively easy variable to collect (especially as all
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
but the most trivial convictions and sentences are recorded by the
to such obstacles.
Home Office). However, since several studies have suggested that (on
about
2 perofcent
of the offences
actually
result
!average)
Identifyonly
those
aspects
probation
supervision
and committed
the probationers’
in own
a conviction;
this
means
that
the
data
employed
to
measure
circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
reoffending
areinseverely
biased
for example,
Hood andto Sparks
key factors
motivating
and(see,
assisting
the probationer
avoid
1970:
36; Figure
1.6, Home Office 1999: 28). There is no getting away
further
offending.
from the fact that official data on offending are a poor substitute for
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
well validated self-reported data on reoffending. Furthermore, convicsituation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motition data alone reveal virtually nothing about the probationer’s
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
motivation for offending, the sequence of events which led up to the
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
offence, the extent to which the offence was premeditated or indeed a
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
range of other important contextual information.
continued
useofof
in place ofwith
reoffending
a
! The
Contrast
the views
thereconviction
officer and probationer
regards toisthe
pragmatic
than an ideal
choice.
The and
issuethe
is probationer’s
still further
probationrather
work undertaken
during
the order
complicated
thework.
fact that not all offences are equally likely to be
response toby
this
reported, recorded, detected, proceeded against or result in a conviction.
convictions
for someinvestigations
forms of sexual
offending,
for
WhilstSecuring
there have
been numerous
which
have relied
example,
is particularly
difficult,
especially
the victim is of
a minor.
upon accounts
of probation
practice
from so
theif perspectives
either
11
Self-report
studies, it
must
be have
said,relied
have upon
theirrecorded
own limitations.
officers
or probationers
or
which
informaGraham
and Bowling
some
of the
most serious
of Lloyd
these,
tion
pertaining
to the (1995)
work outlined
undertaken
with
probationers
(e.g.
including:
concealing
exaggerating
et
al. 1994),respondents
what was required
was or
a project
which their
wouldoffending;
compare
biases resulting
from the accounts
reliance upon
or school-based
officers’
and probationers’
of theirhousehold
work together.
Data were
samples
(which
could
under-sample
‘serious’
offenders);
memory
collected so as to enable the comparison of their accounts of and
the
‘telescoping’ problems;
theobstacles
finding that
those who
refuse
to she
partake
probationer’s
offending,17the
to desisting
which
he or
was
17
21
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
in such studies are more likely to be offenders; and the inclusion of
‘trivial’ offences which may not be appropriate for the age of the
respondents.
Nevertheless, several prominent researchers (Graham and Bowling
amongst them) have argued that the investigation of offending by way
of self-report methodologies remains a valid technique. For example,
Farrington (1989: 406) found a high degree of agreement when
self-reports of offending amongst the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development cohort were checked with official convictions and concluded that ‘none of the tests of the validity . . . indicated that
[self-reports] were seriously invalid or that there was any serious
problem of deliberate distortion or concealment’ (ibid.: 409). Barnea et
al. (1987) and Ross et al. (1995) have claimed that self-reported data
gained from drug users are valid, although they suggest that the
intervals between interviews are kept as short as possible. Weis (1986:
44), in his gargantuan review of the literature pertaining to the
measurement of criminal careers, concluded that ‘there is much more
convergence than discrepancy in [self-report and official] representations of the phenomena’. Additionally, Sampson and Laub (1993: 52)
report high levels of agreement between self, parent and teacher
assessments of offending. It would appear, then, that self-reports reveal
more offences than official records, and that whilst there are some
problems with the methodology, these are not so great as to suggest
that the method is seriously flawed. When checks of self-reports have
been made, these appear to have been favourable and as such support
the continued use of this approach.
However, despite these generally positive assessments of the validity
of the self-report methodology, the ‘Tracking’ project sought to address
possible biases in a number of ways. It must be said that several of the
criticisms levelled at self-report methods did not, in fact, apply to the
project in any case: sampling would not be undertaken at the
household or school level, and as all respondents would have been
convicted at least once, ‘serious’ offenders were more likely to have
been included in the sampling frame. 18 Additionally, ‘telescoping’ and
memory problems were reduced by seeing respondents frequently
(Barnea et al. 1987), and non-response biases were reduced (but never
fully overcome, of course) by also collecting officers’ accounts of the
probationer’s offending. Concealment and exaggeration of offending,
always hard to assess in any study, can be assessed by making checks
against the officer’s accounts of offending and criminal records. 19
In addition to this, the study incorporated Elliott’s (1989: 181)
suggestion that detailed follow-up probes be employed to distinguish
22
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
between
By asking
trivial
officers
and non-trivial
and probationers
offences.
to discuss
The useprobation
of detailed
supervision
follow-up
probes
in the context
in the current
of the probationer’s
study also ensured
personalthat
anddata
social
pertaining
circumstances,
to the
reasons
and by behind
trackingthethe
probationer’s
progress ofoffending,
probationers
the events
over preceding
time through
the
offence
repeatedand
interviews,
other relevant
such amaterial
project would
were also
illuminate
collected.
how officers and
probationers
This study understand
therefore collected
and perceive:
self-reported data on offending, first
hand from the probationers themselves. By recording in greater detail
nature ofsupervision;
the offence (e.g. the background to the offence and the
!theprobation
social context within which it occurred, the nature of the harm done to
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
others and the extent to which the offence was planned), it was
to assess between
more thoroughly
!possible
the relationship
these two;the
andseriousness of the offending
and, hence, to reduce the reliance upon disposal at reconviction as a
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
proxy of the severity of recidivism.
behaviour.
More specifically,
the aims of the research were to:
Reconceptualising
outcomes
The outcome of probation supervision has generally been concep! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
tualised as a binary variable (‘success’/’failure’) rather than degrees of
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
success or failure. This is due, perhaps, to the reliance upon officially
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
recorded offending, whereby people are classified as either having been
to such obstacles.
reconvicted or not. This conceptualisation of outcomes has severely
!curtailed
Identifythe
those
aspects
of probation
supervision
the probationers’
work
on probation
outcomes,
bothand
theoretically
and in
ownofcircumstances
which officers
and
perceived
to be
terms
substantive findings.
Virtually
allprobationers
the evaluations
of probation
key have
factors
in reviewed
motivating
and
assisting
thevariables
probationer
avoid
which
been
treat
other
outcome
(be ittoofficers’
further offending.
assessments
or the nature of the termination of the order) as a
dichotomy – that is to say, an outcome which is ‘a success’ or ‘a failure’
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
(Barr and O’Leary 1966; Phillpotts and Lancucki 1979; Lloyd et al. 1994).
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motiHowever, any reasoned consideration of the outcome of anything,
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
whether it be probation or some other pursuit, leads one to realise that
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
very few things are likely to be either a complete success or a complete
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
failure. It is more usually the case that the outcome of a venture is a
!certain
Contrast
theofviews
of the officer and probationer with regards to the
degree
success.
probation
work undertaken
the order
themore
probationer’s
By conceptualising
probationduring
outcomes
in thisand
way,
accurate
response
this work.
and
subtle tomeasurements
may enable us to identify the salient
factors associated with successful outcomes. Despite a further offence
Whilst
there have the
been
numerousmay
investigations
which
have relied
being committed,
probationer
have gained
something
from
upon
accounts
of probation
from
the or
perspectives
of either
the order
– a reduction
in practice
a harmful
habit
better employment
officers
or probationers
prospects.
These real, 11beneficial,
changes
areupon
‘lost’recorded
when outcomes
or which have
relied
informaare considered
about with
offending
and solely
as a
tion
pertaining toasthebeing
worksolely
undertaken
probationers
(e.g. Lloyd
binary
measure.
order
to tease
these which
gradations
impact,
et
al. 1994),
what In
was
required
was out
a project
wouldofcompare
rather than
approaching accounts
‘success’ ofastheir
being
thetogether.
total absence
of
officers’
and probationers’
work
Data were
offending,sothe
to which
an individual
was accounts
showing ofsigns
collected
as extent
to enable
the comparison
of their
the
of desisting was
measured.
This allowed
for anwhich
individual
to have
probationer’s
offending,
the obstacles
to desisting
he or she
was
17
23
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
offended during the order without immediately declaring him or her
to have ‘failed probation’. Success was also assessed in terms of the
eradication of specific obstacles to desistance faced by the probationers.
Describing probation supervision
Very few of the studies reviewed have gone much beyond the most
basic descriptions of the work undertaken by the probation officer, a
point made by Hedderman (1998: 1) when she wrote ‘we know little
about the content of one-to-one supervision’. The character of the
intervention, the sorts of topics discussed and how key problem areas
in the probationer’s life were tackled have not been made the subject
of exhaustive research. Yet one-to-one work remains the mainstay of
probation supervision. Despite the increase in the use of group-work
programmes, reporting schemes and partnerships, very few (if any)
probationers will complete their supervision without having been
subject at some point to one-to-one supervision. Some research studies
have described various projects (e.g. Wilkinson 1997) or particular
court requirements (e.g. Mair and Nee 1992). Wilkinson (1997: 569) for
example, described the Ilderton motoring project run by ILPS thus:
it gives young people who have become involved in car crime a
chance to pursue an enthusiasm for cars in a constructive and
responsible fashion. The aim is [that] this should take place in a
disciplined environment which challenges their offending. Ilderton is
effectively a large garage and workshop where young people can
work on cars and learn about how they function and are maintained,
most of the work is done in the project where young people may work
on their own cars, or restore old cars for use in ‘banger’ racing . . .
Whilst Wilkinson’s description gives one a flavour of the programme,
it remains unclear exactly which of these features of the programme
are intended to be of help to those involved, were actually of help or
in what ways they helped.
Mair and Nee (1992: 330) considered the impact of day centres: ‘Day
Centres vary from place to place in terms of the number and types of
staff, the kinds of offenders accepted, the programme and courses on
offer, the length of order and the opening times of centres.’ The most
detailed description of the sorts of activities provided is ‘. . . social/life
skills . . . health/welfare activities, art/craft work and sport . . .’ (ibid.).
As such, the descriptions of the work undertaken and the impact that
this has had on probationers, their lives and patterns of offending have
24
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
never
By asking
been officers
fully spelt
and out.
probationers
Without toa discuss
full appreciation
probation supervision
of what a
in
particular
the context
officer
of did
the with
probationer’s
a particular
personal
probationer
and social
at a circumstances,
particular time
during
and bytheir
tracking
supervision
the progress
with regards
of probationers
to a particularover
problem
time itthrough
is hard
to
repeated
understand
interviews,
fullysuch
the aprocesses
project would
by which
illuminate
officers
how successfully
officers and
intervene
probationers
in understand
the lives ofand
those
perceive:
whom they supervise. The project
therefore collected data about the specific obstacles to desistance faced
each probationer,
how these were dealt with and the eventual
!byprobation
supervision;
outcome(s) of these efforts.
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
! the relationship between these two; and
Exploring the role of social and personal factors
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
If the desistance literature demonstrates anything, it is this: that people
behaviour.
can, and regularly do, stop offending without the assistance of any of
the branches of the criminal justice system. This raises the question: to
More specifically, the aims of the research were to:
what extent is desistance after intervention the result of that intervention, or the result of other social or individual processes at work? 20
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
Because so much of the probation literature ignores the social and
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
personal circumstances which might influence an individual, it also
to track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
ignores the possibility that it may not be probation that induced
to such obstacles.
change, but rather the influence of other factor(s) – or a combination of
!probation
Identify and
thoseother
aspects
of probation
andof
the
probationers’
factors.
There is supervision
a certain sense
irony
haunting
circumstances
which officers
probationers
to be
theown
literature
with regards
to this and
issue.
Probation perceived
is a community
key factors
in motivating
and assisting
avoid
penalty,
but many
have neglected
to includethe
theprobationer
role of ‘the to
commufurther
offending.
nity’
in their
investigations of probation supervision. The solution to
this conundrum is to locate and understand probation interventions
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
and changes in the life of the probationer in the social and personal
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motimilieus in which they live.
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
Although May’s study (1999) went some way towards addressing
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
this deficiency, most studies of probation supervision have been
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
limited to those topics about which probation services routinely collect
!data,
Contrast
theage;
views
of theattendance;
officer and probationer
regards
to the
namely:
gender;
length of thewith
order;
reasons
for
probation work
undertaken
during One
the order
the probationer’s
termination;
and previous
disposals.
of theand
earliest
attempts to
response
to this
work.
locate
probation
work
in a wider social context was that undertaken by
Davies (1969), who addressed a range of probationers’ circumstances
Whilst
there have
been
investigations
which haveDavies
relied
(employment,
health,
peernumerous
groups, home
life and partnerships).
upon
of probation
practice
fromwere
the related
perspectives
of either
found accounts
that a number
of these
variables
to subsequent
11
officers
or probationers
failure on
probation. For
example,
it was
found
thatrecorded
those with
poor
or
which have
relied
upon
informamental
health, who
lived
in ‘dirty’
homes,
hadprobationers
disliked their
previous
tion pertaining
to the
work
undertaken
with
(e.g.
Lloyd
two
or were was
generally
‘unfriendly’
towards
their
et al. jobs,
1994),were
whathostile
was required
a project
which would
compare
officer
likely toaccounts
fail theirofprobation
order.
However,
officers’were
and more
probationers’
their work
together.
Data since
were
then,
theresohas
little further
work in this
one of
of the
collected
as been
to enable
the comparison
ofvein.
theirIndeed
accounts
most
important
investigations
of probation
supervision
the was
UK
probationer’s
offending,
the obstacles
to desisting
which he in
or she
17
25
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
(Folkard et al. 1974, 1976) barely referred to social and personal
variables at all.
This general neglect of social and personal factors is extraordinary in
view of the well established fact that there is a strong link between
some forms of offending and some social and personal circumstances
(see, for example, the reviews of this literature in Johnson 1979; Tarling
1993; Adams 1997; Farrington, 1997). Thus, the ‘Tracking’ project
collected data concerning the probationer’s social and personal life in
order to assess the impact of such variables on the work undertaken as
part of the probation order.
Research design, data collection and analysis
Very few research projects conducted into probation outcomes have
employed prospective longitudinal designs; most have been retrospective, and most have been concerned with comparing the reconviction
rates of probation-based disposals with, most commonly, prison and
community service (e.g. Phillpotts and Lancucki 1979). Many researchers have therefore not considered changes in variables over time.
For example, Radzinowicz (1958) and Davies (1969) related probation
outcomes to features of the probationers’ lives when they started
probation. As such, the sorts of variables which dominated these
studies include age at the start of the order, previous convictions and
disposals. These variables were all ‘static’ – that is to say, variables that
could never change during the course of a probation order. However,
there is good reason to hypothesise that ‘dynamic variables’ relating to
the probationer, such as changes in employment, marital status or drug
dependency, may be related to probation outcomes (Andrews 1989).
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the role that
dynamic variables can play in explaining successful probation outcomes. Dynamic variables, by their very nature, require time in which
to change. Only a longitudinal research design, which at each
interview asks probationers about the sorts of problems they face, how
these have changed from the time when previous interviews were
conducted, how the probationer anticipates them to change in the
future, and locates these in both the context of the probation order and
the wider social context, can measure the effects of change in these
variables and their impact on offending.
One of the results of the reliance upon official records is that most of
the data available for analysis have been numerical. Indeed, it must be
said that the probation research reviewed earlier relied almost exclusively upon quantitative data sets. Whilst such data sets are essential for
26
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
theByproduction
asking officers
of rates
andofprobationers
reconviction,toquantitative
discuss probation
data analyses
supervision
miss
the
in the
nuances
context
of of
probation
the probationer’s
work. These
personal
criticisms
and social
are part
circumstances,
of a wider
critique
and by of
tracking
quantitative
the progress
research methods
of probationers
as they over
are used
timein through
generic
social
repeated
investigation
interviews,and
suchcriminology
a project would
(see, for
illuminate
example,
how
Bowling
officers1993:
and
241–43).
probationers
Quantitative
understand
data
and
sets
perceive:
convert social processes into ‘events’
and ignore subtle changes in experiences or feelings (Bryman 1984).
‘Tracking’
project therefore collected data in such a way that the
! The
probation
supervision;
nuances of probation work and their relationship to outcomes could be
! the probationer’s wider circumstances;
more readily understood. This has been achieved by the use of
‘open-ended’
questions
andthese
the tape
of some interviews. In
! the relationship
between
two;recording
and
addition to overcoming the deficiencies noted above, the project also
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
employed an innovative approach to longitudinal research based on
behaviour.
the earlier work of Burnett (1992, 2000). Most longitudinal research
involves returning to respondents in order to bombard them repeatedMore specifically, the aims of the research were to:
ly with similar questions about the same topics. Results over time are
then compared, the aim being to draw conclusions about the causal
! Investigate the specific obstacles which officers and probationers
ordering and timing of key events. Does, for example, unemployment
perceived as standing in the way of the probationer desisting, and
precede offending, or offending precede unemployment? Whilst anato track, over time, how both the officer and probationer responded
lyses of this nature have driven forward the understanding of patterns
to such obstacles.
of offending over the life-course, such a style of analysis does not fully
establish
or in
wayssupervision
variables may
to one
! Identifywhy,
thosehow
aspects
of what
probation
and be
therelated
probationers’
another
over
time.
Whilst
unemployment
may
precede
offending,
it
own circumstances which officers and probationers perceived to be
does
not
follow
that
it
caused
it.
key factors in motivating and assisting the probationer to avoid
Similar
issues are raised when one considers the impact of probation
further offending.
supervision. Whilst being on probation may precede the probationer
! Explore the role of events (such as changes in home life, employment
gaining full-time employment, it does not follow that it was probation
situation and area of residence) and changes in beliefs and motisupervision which directly led to the probationer gaining employment.
vation amongst those under supervision, and the extent to which
Thus in order to establish the ways in which probation supervision
these were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
impacted upon the lives of those on probation, officers and probationers
impact of probation supervision and offending behaviour.
were prompted to discuss specific issues which they raised at previous
interviews
and
these had
Through
technique,
! Contrastand
the how
views
of why
the officer
andchanged.
probationer
with this
regards
to the
theprobation
project had
theundertaken
measurement
of change
built and
into the
its very
heart.
work
during
the order
probationer’s
response to this work.
Notes
Whilst there have been numerous investigations which have relied
upon accounts of probation practice from the perspectives of either
1 Probation orders are now
known as community rehabilitation orders, and
officers
or probationers 11 or which have relied upon recorded informacombination orders as community punishment and rehabilitation orders.
tion
pertaining
toconviction
the workisundertaken
withtheprobationers
Lloyd
2 The
peak age of
the age at which
proportion of(e.g.
convictions
et al.
1994),
what
was
required
was
a
project
which
would
compare
per 100,000 of the population is highest.
officers’
and probationers’
of their
work together.
Data were
3 See Farrington
(1997) for aaccounts
more thorough
summary
of the literature
and
collected
so etasal.to
enable
the comparison
of their accounts
of the
Blumstein
(1986)
for discussions
of the methodological
sophistication
of this field,offending,
its policy uses
other substantive
probationer’s
the and
obstacles
to desistingissues.
which he or she was
17
27
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
4 The studies undertaken by Burnett and by Leibrich could arguably be
included with the research which has attempted to measure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, their reliance on self-reported
data, extensive use of qualitative interviews and exploration of the social
and personal factors associated with persistence/desistance means that
they have more in common with the criminal career paradigm.
5 There is also, of course, the issue of domestic violence, which clearly calls
into to question the observed association between partnership and desistance. For a discussion of findings relating to desistance from domestic
violence, see Fagan (1989), Feld and Straus (1989, 1990), Quigley and
Leonard (1996) and Tolman et al. (1996).
6 For example, some of the earliest investigations of the relationship between
employment and desistance relied upon relatively young populations. For
example, Rand’s (1987) sample was under 26 years old, the members of
Mulvey and La Rosa’s (1986) sample were all between 15 and 20 years old
with an average age of 18 and, more recently, Graham and Bowling’s (1995)
sample were aged 17–25. Similarly, early investigations of the relationship
between marriage and desistance were also based on relatively young
populations: Mulvey and Aber’s (1988) sample were aged between 16 and
19 years old; Pezzin’s (1995) were between 14 and 22; Rand’s (1987) were
under 26; Knight et al.’s (1977) sample were all under 21, and the later
extension of Knight et al.’s analyses (Osborn and West 1979) followed these
men until they were 22–23.
7 See Chapter 10 on the relationship between desistance and gender and race
in the current study.
8 Like any body of literature, the published studies of desistance suffer from
certain biases and omissions, not least of all their geographical concentration. Virtually all the studies on desistance have been conducted in either
the UK or North American (in particular the USA). There have been some
studies conducted outside these areas – Mischkowitz’s (1994) study was
based in Germany, Leibrich’s (1993) study in New Zealand and Chylicki’s
(1992) in Sweden – but it remains the case that the bedrock of our
knowledge about desistance has come from two geographical regions. This
is not to say that these findings would not hold in other regions
(Mischkowitz, Leibrich and Chylicki did not suggest anything remarkably
different from the main literature), but rather that findings have to be
‘translated’ with care. Societies which place less emphasis on employment
or family relationships as indicators of ‘success’ may accordingly have
different processes of desistance.
White-collar offenders are another neglected topic in the desistance
literature. Most, if not all, of the research conducted so far has focused
upon desistance from street crimes (robbery, violence, drug dealing),
acquisitive crimes (burglary, theft and handling stolen property) or petty
crimes (under-age drinking, cannabis use or fighting). The crimes of the
powerful, once again, appear to have been omitted from the research
28
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Introducing
introducing the agenda
agenda.
of offenders which
have probation
not been the
subject of
By
askingAnother
officersgroup
and probationers
to discuss
supervision
exhaustive
are sex offenders.
Possibly
the closest
we get to a
in the
contextinvestigation
of the probationer’s
personal
and social
circumstances,
the processes
of desistance
sex offenders over
is that time
by Acklerley
et
andstudy
by of
tracking
the progress
of by
probationers
through
al.
(1998),
and
even
this
is
based
entirely
upon
officially
recorded
data
repeated interviews, such a project would illuminate how officers and
(which fails to tap undetected offending). Most of the literature on sex
probationers
understand and perceive:
offenders details the various intervention programmes run by probation
services and prisons.
!9 probation
supervision;
Day centres
were introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and
were
generally a condition
made as part of a probation order for young
! the
probationer’s
wider circumstances;
people (17–25-year-olds) with several previous convictions and custodial
! the
relationship between these two; and
experiences.
10 Intensive probation was a short-lived programme which was aimed at
! their combined impact on risk factors and subsequent offending
17–20-year-olds and run as a series of pilot studies in the early 1990s (see
behaviour.
Mair et al. 1994 for an outline of some of the schemes).
11 For example, see Stewart et al. (1994), which reports officers’ accounts of the
More
specifically,
the aims of the
research
lives
of their probationers,
or Mair
andwere
May to:
(1997), which reports
probationer’s accounts of the supervision they were receiving.
12
The distinction
and ‘dynamic’
investigations
is discussed
! Investigate
the between
specific‘static’
obstacles
which officers
and probationers
in greater detail
presently.
perceived
as standing
in the way of the probationer desisting, and
13 to
The
methodology,
sample
characteristics
andand
research
tools areresponded
dealt with
track,
over time,
how both
the officer
probationer
in
Chapter
3.
to such obstacles.
14 There is also the possibility that, knowing these records may be reviewed
! Identify
those management,
aspects of probation
therecords
probationers’
by probation
probationsupervision
officers useand
these
to ‘construct’
defendable accounts
of their and
work.
Similar processes
have to
been
own
circumstances
which officers
probationers
perceived
be
observed
in other
branches of and
the legal
and criminal
apparatus (McConville
key
factors
in motivating
assisting
the probationer
to avoid
et al. 1991).
further
offending.
15 Hood (1963: 90–92) was an early advocate of using additional criteria to
! Explore
the role of
(suchtaken
as changes
home life,toemployment
judge outcomes,
yetevents
few have
up his in
suggestion
measure the
situation
and
area
of
residence)
and
changes
in beliefs
and
motiextent to which probation helps people build constructive
usage
of leisure
vation
amongstattitudes,
those under
supervision,
thethe
extent
to which
time, improves
educates
them and and
makes
‘. . . inadequate
more adequate’.
these
were perceived as reinforcing, negating or mediating the
16 impact
Although
of course,
shouldand
not be
thought of
as ‘crime-free zones’;
of prisons,
probation
supervision
offending
behaviour.
see O’Donnell and Edgar (1996).
! Contrast
the views
ofrespondents
the officer and
probationer
with
regards
to the
17
‘Telescoping’
refers to
reporting
offending
which
falls outside
probation
work of
undertaken
the order
andofthe
probationer’s
the time-frame
the study. during
For example,
reports
offending
which
response
to this
should have
beenwork.
limited to the year 1985 including offences committed
prior to 1985 (‘forward telescoping’) or offences committed after 1985
(‘backward
telescoping’).
Whilst
there have
been numerous investigations which have relied
18
See accounts
Chapter 3 of
forprobation
an outline practice
of the probationers
were recruited
into
upon
from the who
perspectives
of either
the study
and the offences
whichhave
theyrelied
had been
found
guilty. informa11
officers
or probationers
or of
which
upon
recorded
19 The extent to which respondents exaggerate the frequency of their
tion pertaining to the work undertaken with probationers (e.g. Lloyd
offending or the seriousness of their offending, may itself have been the
et al.
1994), what was required was a project which would compare
subject of some exaggeration. Writing in the 1960s, Hood and Sparks (1970:
officers’
and probationers’
accounts
of atheir
workamongst
together.
Data
were
67) concluded
that whilst there
may be
problem
‘a few
isolated
collected
so asthere
to was
enable
the comparison
of exaggeration’,
their accounts
the
individuals’
‘no evidence
of consistent
and of
several
probationer’s offending, the obstacles to desisting which he or she was
17
29
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
test-retest studies and other exercises to assess the honesty of reportings
have confirmed this.
20 A point which few studying probation outcomes appear to have recognised
(or been willing to admit to having recognised). Worrall (1997: 13) has been
one of the few to have recognised the possibility that the sentence may
have been irrelevant to an individual’s desistance. She writes (ibid.):
‘[people] stop committing crimes for many reasons and the sentence they
receive may be only one (and possibly the least significant) of several
influential factors.’
30
Chapter 2
Realism, criminal careers and
complexity
Being able to measure change is one thing, being able to account for it
is quite another. Three bodies of literature informed the data analyses
and, in particular, helped to make sense of change: ‘realistic evaluation’, as most notably outlined in Pawson and Tilley (1997); developmental and interactionist approaches to criminal careers (see, for
example, Sampson and Laub 1993; Thornberry 1997; Ulmer and
Spencer 1999); and David Byrne’s work on complexity (1998). Pawson
and Tilley placed social contexts centre-stage in their manifesto of how
evaluation research should be improved and, as such, their work
resonates with the intention of exploring in greater detail the role of
social and personal circumstances in fostering or preventing desistance. The interest in developmental processes has been one of the
most exciting growth areas in criminology in recent years, and has
been important in shaping both conceptions and knowledge concerning criminal careers (see, for example, Moffitt 1997). Ulmer and
Spencer’s (1990: 107) critique of ‘criminal careers’ from an interactionist
perspective formalised a set of assumptions which were useful when
exploring probationers’ responses to probation supervision. Finally,
Byrne’s (1998) work has introduced to social research an agenda and a
set of ideas aimed at exploring the relationships between three or more
variables, especially when these relationships are non-linear.
These ideas have been employed as ‘sensitising devices’. Thus they
are not referred to continually throughout this book. Rather they have
been used selectively in analysing and ‘thinking about’ some of the
issues to be dealt with. These ideas alerted the author to some of the
issues and processes involved in the outcomes of probation supervision and the influence of such supervision on criminal careers, and
suggested ways in which the analysis of these phenomena should be
approached. Thus the manner of their usage is akin to Sparks et al.’s
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-3
31
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
(1996: 70) use of Anthony Gidden’s structuration theory in their
investigation of order in prisons – that is to say, these ideas are ‘good
to think with’.
Realistic evaluation
In a number of publications, Pawson and Tilley have argued that too
little attention has been paid to the methodologies used to evaluate
criminal justice interventions (Pawson 1997; Pawson and Tilley, 1994,
1996, 1997; Tilley 2000). They criticised the research community for
having reached a state in which knowledge suggests that ‘some things
. . . work’, but ‘. . . in which inconsistent results, non-replicability, partisan
disagreement and above all, lack of cumulation remain to dash the hopes
of evaluators seeking to establish clear . . . guidelines to policy making’
(Pawson and Tilley 1994: 291–92, emphases in original). Whilst they
did not deny that implementation failures, poorly designed policies
and political processes have also contributed to this state of affairs,
Pawson and Tilley (ibid.: 292) found fault with the research community, who, they said, should face the real possibility that ‘. . . research
sloth rather than political blight is responsible for us being unable to
speak with confidence about ‘‘what works in programming’’ ’.
When the literature on probation outcomes is examined, it becomes
clear that even those projects with similar styles of intervention, similar
target populations and similar research methodologies have not produced a set of consistent results about which programmes ‘work’. Ted
Palmer (1996: 136–40), in reviewing the aspects of successful intervention with probationers, wrote that ‘. . . evaluations of physical challenge
. . . have been mixed and wide ranging . . .’, ‘group counselling or
therapy approach presents an especially mixed . . . picture’, ‘individual
counselling or therapy had similarly mixed results . . .’, ‘work experience programs were associated with positive outcomes in about one in
every three operations . . .’ and so on. The upshot from this rather
confusing situation is that whilst some ‘successful’ aspects of interventions have been identified (e.g. ‘multi-modal’ programmes – Palmer
1996: 143 – or, in some reviews, employment schemes – Lösel 1995),
generalised statements about ‘what works’ are hard to make with any
level of certainty. This uncertainty poses a problem for those designing
intervention strategies and for those working with probationers.
Pawson and Tilley’s critique accordingly demands an answer to the
question: ‘What works in evaluation research?’ The answer which
Pawson and Tilley offer is that the ‘traditional’, quasi-experimental
32
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
methodologies used to establish causality are the root cause of this
gap in our knowledge base. Their solution is to incorporate what they
refer to as ‘scientific realistic methodologies’ into criminal justice
research.
Realist philosophy has attempted to avoid both positivist and relativist
theorising in its explanations of social events. Some have characterised
realist philosophy as being ‘commonsensical’ (Williams and May 1996:
81). Realists argue that the world has an existence independent of our
experiences and perceptions of it, and view concepts such as ‘causality’,
‘explanation’, ‘prediction’ as valid. As such they argue that causal
mechanisms can be discovered, understood and described.
Many realist philosophers take as the starting point for their
conceptualisation of realism the activities of laboratory-based scientific
investigations. Such investigations only make sense as explanations of
‘the way the world operates’ if one believes that the objects or people
under investigation in the laboratory continue to behave in the same
ways when they are not in these laboratories. However, social realism
(and therefore realistic research) is committed to a number of principles which suggest that people will not act in the same way inside a
laboratory as they would outside a laboratory. Laboratory settings are
essentially ‘closed’ – that is to say, extraneous variables are controlled
for and/or removed. In contrast, non-laboratory settings are essentially
‘open’ systems. Any number of factors may be introduced at various
times, for various reasons and with various outcomes. In short, in
non-laboratory settings it is virtually impossible to control for all
possible influencing variables. This critique led Pawson and Tilley
(1997: 38) to conclude that:
. . . corrections evaluation needs to develop a much more comprehensive model of the way that different subjects make choices in
response to the range of opportunities offered in the course of a
programme. Experimental evaluation is simply not attuned to
grasping this challenge. The volition of the subject [in laboratories]
has to be treated in the same way as any other threat to the
integrity of the basic [laboratory] design. That is to say, it is to be
regarded as ‘noise’, as a ‘confounding variable’ which has to be
controlled . . . in order to allow the real experimental apparatus to
get rolled into place.
Working on the assumption that ‘communities clearly differ’ (1994:
298) – a point that can easily be extended to individuals – Pawson and
Tilley attempt to take account of specific contexts and individual
33
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
motivations. They view communities as having different cultures (e.g.
religious beliefs, pro-offending); different structures (e.g. rates and
nature of employment, long or short term); and different relationships
(e.g. the amount and nature of contacts between various groups in the
community). The same can be said of individuals – for example, a
probationer will have a set of cultural beliefs (e.g. ‘stealing from private
companies is acceptable, but stealing from private individuals is
wrong’); will be located in a series of structures (past and ongoing
employment histories and peer groups); and will have a number of
relationships with other people and organisations (e.g. employer,
friends, the benefit office and so on). A particular form of intervention
will only ‘work’ if the circumstances in which it is enacted enable it to
operate in the manner intended. If, for example, a probationer with a
‘quick temper’ is unable successfully to reduce or control her alcohol
intake, is unwilling to accept that she has ‘a problem’ or believes that
probation is ‘a waste of time’, then the intended purposes of an anger
management programme will be affected accordingly.
Five ‘component parts’ (‘embeddedness’ – the relationship between
a ‘thing’ and the wider social context in which it is to be found;
‘mechanisms’ – the processes through which a form of intervention
achieves an outcome; ‘contexts’ – the wider social, temporal, geographical ‘backgrounds’ which impinge upon the intervention; ‘regularities’ – the relationship between two or more variables; and ‘change’
– making the regularity between the chosen variables different)
characterise realistic evaluation (Pawson and Tilley 1997: 63–78). To
say that something is ‘embedded’ into a wider range of social processes
is to say that it only ‘makes sense’ because it contains assumptions
about the norms, rules and procedures which govern other social
institutions. For example, breaching a probationer for the non-attendance of the Community Service element of his probation order, the
completion of all the attending paperwork and the imposition of a new
disposal only ‘makes sense’ in the wider organisation known as the
criminal justice system. Translating this into the language of social
causality produces a statement something like this: causal powers lie not
with particular objects (such as the paperwork), nor with individuals who
process this paperwork (the court clerks), but in the social relationships,
organisations, rules and procedures to which they belong and of which they
form a part. As such, one particular action (for example, a court’s
request for a pre-sentence report), leads to another action (a PSR
meeting and the eventual writing of the report) because of the accepted
relationship of these actions both to one another and to a completion
of a wider task (in this case appropriate sentencing).
34
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
This relatively simple principle is the starting point for understanding how programmes can be evaluated along realistic principles. The
‘delivery’ of, for example, an employment training course, involves a
complex series of events and actions. It is (often) made up of a
curriculum of activities which are attempts to impart a set of ideas and
skills to the probationer. Such ideas include (for example) understanding how to organise a job search, how to present oneself at interview
and so on. These actions and events take place (in the main) in
probation offices and, as such, will be bound by expectations of how
probationers should behave, both in the office and away from it, and
about how the probationer should be treated. Similar expectations
govern the activities of officers. The officer will have one set of
priorities in terms of the work that needs to be addressed during a
probation order, and the probationer may (or may not) share this
agenda. The employment and training course is also about the people
involved in its delivery – the probationer, the officer leading the course,
partnership staff, secretarial staff and perhaps others still. All these
people will bring with them their own set of backgrounds, ideas,
assumptions and prejudices – which may influence a particular
probation order or group programme in numerous ways.
In addition to this, a programme of intervention takes place in a
particular place, at a particular time. That is to say, not just in a
particular country but a particular region, and even then not just a
particular city, but a particular suburb of that city. Different locales will
experience a variety of structural conditions (such as chronic unemployment or a vast housing shortage). These conditions will in turn
affect the services that are available in that locale and the amount that
can reasonably be done to help a probationer; thus less should be
expected from seeing an employment training officer when local
unemployment rates are running at 20–25 per cent than if they were at
2–3 per cent. A programme must also be understood to be temporally
located. Not only is probation supervision in the late 1990s different
from probation supervision in the 1960s or 1970s, new social and
economic factors have also emerged. Heroin, video-players and credit
cards – common features of the 1990s – were either less widespread or
non-existent in the 1960s.
Employment training courses, probationers, probation officers and
probation services are embedded in wider social contexts. These range
from the truly macro (global economic down-turns) to the micro (the
office may be a long way from where many of its probationers live).
Probation is ‘. . . its personnel, its place, its past and its prospects’
(Pawson and Tilley 1997: 65). To ignore such aspects of a programme
35
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
of intervention is perhaps to ignore the very elements which ensure its
success or contribute to its failure.
Mechanisms are the processes through which a form of intervention
achieves its aims (or fails to achieve its ends). Understanding a
mechanism means coming to understand the choices people are
presented with and the capacities which they possess via the membership of various social groups. For example, understanding why a
probationer failed to attend a group programme being run for
unemployed probationers in a town 20 minutes by bus from where he
lives means understanding his choices (to go or to not go) and the
capacities he possesses as a result of being unemployed (the time, but
neither the money nor car). Similarly to understand why the same
programme worked for another probationer (this time, say, an
educated female white-collar probationer), one needs again to consider
her choices and capacities: money left from having worked recently,
motivation to gain employment, good presentational skills, availability
of suitable jobs in that area, similarity to programme staff in terms of
goals and educational qualifications and so on. Having identified the
programme mechanisms, one is able to start to move to a position in
which one is able to identify what it is about the programme which
makes it work – or not work.
How would evaluating such mechanisms work in practice? Consider
again the group programme for unemployed probationers. One could
start by thinking about the mechanisms that may be involved in its
operation. The programme may work via a process of empowerment –
for example, putting probationers in touch with services that improve
their interview skills. Alternatively, it may work by increasing the
probationers’ motivation to work by coercing them into demonstrating
each week that they have applied for jobs, which they then find they
want. Such schemes may also work by getting probationers to think
about their own resources, through making probationers list those they
know who may be able to get them work, or who may know of job
vacancies elsewhere. The mechanisms by which a group programme
may work are numerous, and may not be easy to tease out.
Clearly, whichever of the mechanisms is found to be operating, there
will be elements of both individual actions and the wider social context
at work in producing the outcome. A programme may have numerous
contacts and ways of getting people to think about their opportunities
for finding employment, but in the end it is the individual who
completes the application form, goes for the interview and decides to
take the job if offered it. As such, in explaining an outcome in this
manner, one is not simply producing a list of correlates which associate
36
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
actions with outcomes – rather one is attempting to explain how this
outcome is produced. The mechanism is therefore an account of the ‘. . .
make up, behaviour and inter-relationships of those processes which
are responsible . . .’ (Pawson and Tilley 1997: 68) for producing that
particular outcome.
Pawson and Tilley (ibid.) portray ‘contexts’ as being the ‘partner
concept’ to mechanisms. They argue (ibid.: 69) that ‘. . . the relationship
between causal mechanisms and their effects is not fixed, but contingent’, meaning that such relationships rely upon the context being one
which encourages (or at least does not discourage too greatly) the
relationship between mechanisms and outcomes. To return to the
example of the group programme for unemployed probationers, in a
context of high unemployment and very little opportunities for work,
most programmes of this nature would fare poorly. This may lead
some to conclude that such programmes ‘don’t work’, but rather the
more accurate conclusion should be that the programme did not work
in those conditions.
A ‘regularity’ is the relationship between two or more variables
which can be translated into a general rule, for example, the age–crime
curve discussed in Chapter 1. Explaining such ‘regularities’, ‘rates’,
‘patterns’ and ‘associations’ is the very task of research. This takes the
form of positing a mechanism which is key to the production of the
regularity. This is understood further (e.g. in terms of why a mechanism operated, or failed to operate) by reference to the various contexts
upon which the success of the mechanism is contingent. Pawson and
Tilley (1997: 72) claim that ‘when an evaluator tells us that a
programme is a success (the regularity), s/he should demonstrate what
it is (the mechanism) about the programme which works for whom in
what conditions (the contexts)’. In other words, if an evaluator reports
that the employment training course is a ‘success’ he or she has to
demonstrate that the regularity changed in the desired direction (i.e.
that rates of offending for those who were enrolled on the course were
reduced), that this could be attributed to some particular aspects of the
course (e.g. it was being taught how to write speculative letters asking
about vacancies), and the groups and contexts (e.g. middle-aged men
with recent experience of semi-skilled employment) to which this
applied.
Social systems such as probation are ‘open’ – which is to say that
they are open to influence from a number of sources. This includes the
very people running the programme and those undertaking the
programme. Aware of the regularities and mechanisms which help to
shape their lives and the lives of others, these actors will be aware of
37
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
the wider social forces which limit their own options. Whilst some
people may wish to change the regularities which pervade their lives,
these changes may or may not occur as they may or may not – for a
number of reasons – be able to alter these regularities. For example
they may not have sufficient capacities to produce the desired changes,
others may be able to counteract their actions or they may be unaware
of exactly how the mechanisms operate and, therefore, be unable to
produce the exact changes desired. These insights bring to the
investigation of the outcomes of criminal justice interventions a
concern with documenting the social and personal contexts within
which such interventions occur, the responses of those engaged in
these interventions and an emphasis on understanding and accounting
for the mechanisms of change.
Approaching criminal careers
The emphasis on employing insights gained from individual histories
and contexts as suggested by realistic research methodologies, and the
earlier call for a greater degree of specificity in understanding the role
of probation supervision, resonates with some of the approaches
adopted by developmental criminologists (e.g. Moffitt 1993; Sampson
and Laub 1993; Warr 1998), and the interactionist perspective on the
development of criminal careers as summarised by Ulmer and Spencer
(1999).
The criminal career literature has become heavily influenced by a set
of ideas commonly referred to as the developmental (or life-course)
perspective. 1 The life-course perspective is concerned with ‘pathways
through the age differentiated life span’ and ‘expectations and options
that impinge on decision processes and the course of events that give
shape to life stages, transitions and turning points’ (Elder 1985: 17,
quoted in Sampson and Laub 1993: 8). Two concepts central to this
perspective are the notions of ‘trajectory’ and ‘transitions’. The first
refers to a line of development over the life-course (such as, for
example, an employment career), and the second refers to events (e.g.
first job, promotion and so on) which may alter in some way a
trajectory. Sampson and Laub (1993: 8) summarise the perspective as
focusing upon ‘. . . the duration, timing and ordering of major social
events and their consequences for later social development’.
As well as being the source of several debates (see Hirschi and
Gottfredson 1995; Sampson and Laub 1995), the life-course perspective
has contributed greatly to the insights generated by criminal career
38
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
research and the ways in which these have been interpreted. For
example, Sampson and Laub (1993) relied heavily on life-course
perspectives in developing a theory of age-graded informal social
control. The aim of those who have employed insights gained from the
life-course perspective in the study of crime has, essentially, been to
understand involvement in crime as a developmental process. To this
end, researchers who have relied upon this perspective have aimed to
identify features of an individual’s life, or behavioural patterns, which
increase their likelihood of offending. These features and behavioural
patterns may start in the very early years. For example, Farrington (1997:
383) has shown how persistent offending between the ages of 21 and 32
was best predicted by variables associated with life-styles between 8 and
18 years. This approach to explaining offending often emphasises the
outcomes of offending as much as the precursors. Thus, offending at an
early age may create problems at school for an individual, resulting in
him or her leaving school with few or no qualifications, making secure
employment harder to gain, and which may in turn make for a life in
which offending is more likely than if employment had been gained
(Farrington 1977; Farrington et al. 1978, 1986).
Thornberry (1997: 1–10), in his introduction to a volume devoted to
the application of the life-course perspective to criminological theorising, outlined a number of advantages of developmental approaches
in criminology over non-developmental approaches. Developmental
theories have been able to identify and offer explanations for important
variations in rates of offending over the life-course. As such, this
perspective has introduced a new vocabulary to research on offending
behaviours. Onset, escalation, persistence, deceleration, specialisation,
desistance (to name a few of the terms currently employed) are now
all aspects of offending about which more is now known than was the
case even ten years ago.
Secondly, when the developmental aspects of offending are taken
into consideration, two ‘ideal types’ of offender emerge. The first type
(often referred to as persisters or early starters), start their offending at
a young age (pre-teens in some cases), and continue to offend for long
periods of their lives. The second type start their offending at an older
age (often during adolescence) and have usually ceased to offend by
the time they have reached their mid to late 20s (Moffitt 1997). The
observation that these two types of offending careers differ has
implications for both policy and theory and has been validated by
further research (Kratzer and Hodgins 1999). In theoretical terms it
suggests that different explanations of engagement and desistance may
be required for each of these groups. In policy terms it suggests that
39
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
those who can be identified as likely to have lengthy offending careers
ahead of them may be candidates for selective incapacitation (Farrington 1992a). However, there are persuasive ethical arguments against
such a policy. 2
The third way in which developmental theories improve upon
non-developmental explanations is that they have been more directly
concerned with the wider contexts of offending behaviour. The roots of
offending behaviours have been shown to be related to early experiences, often in childhood. By understanding the role of these correlates
(such as poor housing, poor parental supervision, low family income),
the ability to explain the onset and persistence of offending is
enhanced. Similarly, involvement in offending is likely to have a
profound effect upon the rest of an individual’s life; indeed, ‘Serious
and prolonged involvement in delinquent behaviour is likely to
adversely influence social relations with family and peers, belief
systems, and the success and timing of transitions to adult roles and
the life course’ (Thornberry 1997: 4).
Finally, developmental theories of offending highlight the role of
particular events in shaping offending trajectories. Engagement in
offending has been observed to alter as people’s lives undergo various
transitions, such as changes in marital status, employment status, place
of residence and so on. Thus a person’s engagement in offending
behaviours can be described in part by the trajectories along which his
or her life unfolds and the occurrence (or lack of, in some cases) of
certain transitions which alter the course of his or her trajectory.
Despite its utility in accounting for offending amongst the general
population, the developmental perspective has yet to be widely adopted
by those researching the impact of specific criminal justice interventions. Burnett (1992) has been one of the few to adopt a developmental
approach. In her study of those released from prison, Burnett found that
changes in family and employment circumstances were cited by
desisters as the reasons for their wishing to avoid further trouble.
Related to these issues, Ulmer and Spencer (1999) argue convincingly
that the term ‘criminal career’ has been used in different ways by two
contrasting approaches to understanding offending over the lifecourse. The positivist tradition, which has dominated recent research
(especially as it relates to policy concerns), has viewed a criminal career
as a sequence of offences committed by an individual who for any
period of time has a detectable rate of offending. That is, for each
individual for any given period of time, the rate at which he or she was
offending is calculable (known as ‘lambda’ – see Blumstein et al. Volume
One, 1986: 19–20). These studies are overwhelmingly quantitative and
40
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
characterised by Ulmer and Spencer (1999: 97) as being concerned with
‘how offender characteristics, social environmental factors and . . .
criminal justice interventions can predict onset, frequency, persistence,
and exit from criminal activity from crime’. However, this body of work
has experienced two theoretical difficulties: accounting for why some
offenders’ careers exhibit stability, whilst others with similar offending
histories experience changes in their offending career, and why some of
those predicted to offend do not in fact offend (the problem of
individual-level indeterminacy). Ulmer and Spencer argue that positivist
work on criminal careers would benefit from the incorporation of insights
gained from an interactionist perspective of criminal careers. They
suggest that by incorporating some of the insights from interactionsts,
positivist approaches would be better able to meet the challenge posed by
stability and change in offending careers, and also be in a better position
to account for some of the indeterminacy observed in such careers.
The merits of their argument, their portrayal of both the ‘positivistic’
approach to criminal careers and their proposed solution are outside
the remits of this discussion. Of more immediate importance is their
summary of the assumptions interactionists make about crime and
deviancy (ibid.: 107), and the extent to which these can aid understanding of probation outcomes. They argue that four key principles emerge
from the interactionist position. These are (ibid.) that:
1. People confront situations and act on the basis of their definitions of
those situations.
2. Different probabilities of action are conditioned by the constraints
and opportunities presented by situational contexts, and definitions
of situations are influenced by an actor’s biography and prior
repertoires of action. Further, situational and biographical constraints can influence individuals’ definitions and actions both with
and without their awareness of those constraints.
3. However, behaviour involves a dialectic of choice and constraint –
the potential for novel choices and emergent lines of action is always
present.
4. Situational contexts are set by, and actors’ biographies are located
within, larger arrangements of institutional organisation and social
structure.
Regardless of the extent to which these four principles accurately
summarise all the principles inherent in interactionism, they
41
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
immediately resonate with both the approach to realistic research as
outlined above, and with the emphasis of the current project on
specificity of actions, actors and contexts.
These principles offer fruitful ways of approaching not just criminal
careers, but the impact of attempts to alter those careers. The work of
a probation officer, for example, may be deemed ‘useless’ by a
particular probationer even before he or she has commenced an order.
Previous experiences of probation supervision, attempts to stop offending, find employment and so on will permeate the approach of each
probationer to his or her period of supervision and the problems which
he or she faces in desisting. Experiences of past failures will not
suggest to individuals that success is likely – a source perhaps of much
of the continuity associated with offending careers. However, change,
no matter how unlikely, is always a possibility; hence some of the
indeterminacy also observed in criminal careers.
Complexity
The third ‘sensitising device’ employed during the analyses, Byrne’s
(1998: 2–28) understanding and use of the term ‘complexity’, can
similarly be reduced to a set of core statements. These are:
1. That complex social processes have multiple causes;
2. That these causes are not necessarily additive, in other words, the
outcome is not simply the sum of the separate effects;
3. That small differences in initial conditions may, over time, produce
big differences in eventual outcomes; and
4. That many outcomes, nevertheless, fall within a range of known or
calculable outcomes.
Two examples – one drawn from Byrne and the other a hypothetical
criminological example – illustrate these assertions. Byrne (1998: 38–39)
cites the example of an eminent inter-war physician called Bradbury.
Bradbury was interested in what caused tuberculosis (TB) on Tyneside.
The answer, as both Bradbury and Byrne point out, is (initially) very
simple: tuberculosis bacteria cause TB. The problem, however, was that
not everyone exposed to the TB bacteria developed TB. Bradbury’s
investigations suggested that three factors were important in understanding who developed TB and who did not. These were poor
42
Realism, criminal careers and complexity
housing, poor diet and being Irish. The first two are fairly easily
understood: the worse the conditions of one’s housing and the worse
one’s diet, the more likely one was to develop TB. However, the third
was less straightforward. Irish migrants had, at that time, not been
living on Tyneside for very long, and had less experience than the rest
of the Tyneside population of urbanisation. TB, like many other
bacteria, bred for resistance. Hence at that time Irish migrants were
particularly susceptible to developing TB as they had had less
exposure to the TB bacteria and the conditions in which it thrived.
Thus the causal mechanisms for TB on Tyneside during the 1930s were
complex and contingent. Good housing and good diets prevented
infection, being Irish made it more likely.
The second example (this time hypothetical) concerns sentencing in
criminal courts. Imagine a study designed to explain the sentences
which were imposed on all of those found guilty in a magistrates’
court. A number of factors can be identified which might be of use in
accounting for variations in sentences: previous criminal history
(chiefly previous convictions and outcomes of previous disposals);
current offence (intentions to harm and actual harm to victim, the
efforts made by the guilty party to repair the harm he or she caused,
the tariff and so on); the pre-sentence report and the recommendations
made in it; the plea entered; the characteristics of the guilty party
(demeanour, signs of distress, age, gender and so on); the public’s
attitude towards crimes of that nature at the time; and probably several
other factors. In coming to their decision, magistrates may take into
account any number of these factors. Some will make custody more
likely, others will make probation seem appropriate and still others
may make community service or a suspended sentence appear to be a
sensible disposal.
These two examples illustrate the sorts of issues with which Byrne
attempts to deal. In both, there can be found a conglomeration of
factors which influence the outcomes. In the TB example these were
housing conditions, diet and ethnicity (or rather, ethnicity in particular
time and space dimensions). In the sentencing example, these were
hypothesised to be criminal history, offence, etc. However, as shown in
the TB example, these causes are non-additive. Similarly, sentencing
decisions can also be hypothesised to be non-additive: unique factors,
variations and contingencies may influence the outcomes of sentencing
decisions in various ways, some aggravating and some mitigating.
Despite this, the range of outcomes in both cases is known with some
degree of certainty: people either will or will not get TB. The range of
sentencing options can often be estimated both in terms of the type of
43
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
sentence (custodial or non-custodial) and the severity of the sentence
(length of custody or numbers of hours community sentence, for
example).
Byrne places a heavy emphasis on the fact that small differences in
initial conditions can result, over time, in disproportionate outcomes.
However, this assumption is based on the (almost exclusively) quantitative framework within which Byrne locates his own attempts to
explore complexity. When one considers the concept of ‘smallness’ in
qualitative investigations, the concept of ‘small’ loses some of its
(already vague) definition. Because the current project deals with
people’s assumptions and understandings about how the world
around them operates and their place in this world, the word ‘subtle’
is preferred to ‘small’. Subtle implies discerning, discriminating or
slight. As such ‘subtle’ does not invoke a quantitative assessment in the
same way which the word ‘small’ does. Therefore it was felt to be a
more appropriate term to employ when seeking an understanding of
complex outcomes involving variations between individuals, their
perceptions of the world and their social circumstances.
Realism, contexts and complexity
These, then, were the ideas which informed portions of the analyses
undertaken and which were borne in mind when ‘thinking about’ the
outcomes of probation supervision and how these were generated.
Although, as stated before, these ideas are not explicitly referred to
throughout the text, they ‘percolate’ through much of the analyses
presented. Used selectively, these ideas influenced the approaches
adopted during the efforts to open probation’s ‘black box’ and to
discover what it is about probation that ‘works’.
Notes
1 See Elder (1985) and Giele and Elder (1998) on the life-course perspective
and Loeber and LeBlanc (1990) and Sampson and Laub (1993) for examples
of its use in criminology.
2 See Tarling (1993: 156) for a review of these arguments.
44
Chapter 3
The study
This chapter outlines the methodology of the study. The characteristics
of those people interviewed, issues relating to the sampling, the
representativeness of the sample, sample attrition and the honesty of
the responses gathered are discussed.
In all, 199 probationers and their supervising officers were recruited
into the sample. The methodology builds upon that employed in an
earlier study of recidivism among prison inmates who had recently
returned to the community (Burnett 1992, 2000). Due to the high
number of cases required for reliable analysis, the geographical
distribution of cases and the need to keep to a tight timetable of
fieldwork, a number of part-time interviewers were recruited to assist
with the fieldwork. 1
The data collected for this study come from six English probation
areas: Middlesex, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Essex, Inner
London and Wiltshire. All the people interviewed for the study were
either employed as probation officers (or, in a very few cases, senior
probation officers or probation service officers), or were probationers
who were being supervised by these probation services. Some probationers moved home and were transferred to other probation areas.
Follow-up data were therefore also collected in the following probation
areas: Berkshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Liverpool,
Mid-Glamorgan, Norfolk, South Yorkshire, and in various prisons.
The socioeconomic contexts
The six probation services from which cases were taken were spread
widely across England. From Manchester and West Yorkshire in the
north, to Essex, Middlesex and Inner London in the south-east and
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-4
45
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Table 3.1: Problematic circumstances at the time of the
offence: probationers’ reports
Social circumstance
Accommodation
Employment
Finances
Partner
Family
Alcohol
Drugs
Feeling down/depressed
Other
Three or more problems
Total
Percentage reporting it
as ‘a problem’
37
55
53
32
39
23
34
63
31
47
199
Wiltshire in the south-west. Despite this range of locations (northsouth, east-west, urban-rural and metropolitan-town), similarly high
rates of social and economic deprivation were observed. These rates of
economic and social deprivation, which were mirrored in the probationers’ reports of the social circumstances at the time which they
offended (see Table 3.1), were hardly surprising given the social and
economic profiles of the areas served by probation offices.
Local social and economic contexts: an example from Manchester
Greater Manchester is a large metropolitan area. Six of the seven offices
from which data were collected were within the main area of the city,
the seventh being in Stockport – a town adjacent and to the south of
Manchester. The six offices in the city centre serve, to all intents and
purposes, some of the most run-down inner-city areas of England.
Indeed some parts of Manchester (such as Moss Side, where one of the
study offices was located) have gained a rather unenviable national
profile as being ‘crime ridden’. The socioeconomic profile of each area
is outlined below and is based on 1991 census data.
The Beswick and Clayton area (in which one office was located and
another, on Varley Street, adjacent) had experienced a decrease in its
population since 1981 of 5 per cent. Almost a fifth of the residents
reported having a limiting long-term illness (the city averaged was 17
per cent), and of the 16–64-year-old males who were economically
46
The study
active living in Beswick and Clayton, 29 per cent were unemployed
(the city average was 23 per cent). Rates of unemployment for local
females were also higher than the city average (18 per cent compared
with 14 per cent). About half of the local housing stock was local
authority owned. Car ownership (taken as an indication of wealth) was
lower than the city average too, with 68 per cent of households not
owning a car. Only 2 per cent of the population of Beswick and Clayton
had a degree or diploma. One of the police beats in this ward was cited
as being a ‘hotspot’ for criminal damage to dwellings by Manchester
City Council (1998: 17), with 68 offences of this nature in the area
between April and August 1998. Certainly when the author visited the
Beswick and Varley Street offices the levels of deprivation were clear
to see. The Varley Street office was surrounded by high wire fences and
other security measures to deter break-ins. Houses in the local area had
numerous broken windows and graffiti, and generally appeared to be
in a state of decay. The Beswick office was located above a parade of
shops (many of which had closed).
The Cheetham Hill office (to which cases from the Varley Street and
Beswick offices were transferred when those offices closed during the
course of the fieldwork) was similarly located in an area which could
be described as ‘impoverished’. Rates of unemployment for males in
the Cheetham area were 38 per cent, and for females 25 per cent. Like
Beswick and Clayton, a high number of households did not own cars
(67 per cent) and about 16 per cent of the local population had a
limiting long-term illness. The population had decreased between 1981
and 1991 by 12 per cent. However, the office was set in what appeared
to be an reasonably ‘well-off’ part of Cheetham and the visible signs of
decay observed on the visits to Beswick and Varley Street were less
apparent in Cheetham.
Regardless of probation area, many of the offices, all of which would
have taken their cases from the local population, were to be found in
some of the worst urban conditions in England. Whilst some of the
offices were located in affluent areas such as Stockport in Manchester
or Finchley in Middlesex, these were the minority. Most offices took
their case loads from those people living in poor housing, with high
rates of unemployment, few indicators of wealth (such as cars), high
rates of illness, deprivation and crime. Even when probationers in the
sample moved – which they did frequently – they often moved to areas
which were no better than those they had left behind. Drug and alcohol
problems served only to compound the problems experienced in these
areas. It is hardly surprising, then, to find that many of the probationers interviewed as part of this study reported experiencing a range
47
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
of problems. Not only were the probationers likely to be unemployed,
so, too, were many of the people within the areas in which they lived.
The processes of selecting and interviewing probationers
Probation areas were recruited into the study in a number of ways.
Some probation services had existing contracts with the Probation
Studies Unit at Oxford University’s Centre for Criminological Research
and were asked if they would be prepared to become involved in the
‘Tracking’ project. Others asked the PSU if it ‘would like to undertake
research in their area’ and access to others was secured on the basis of
personal contact.
Once it had been established in which services the fieldwork would
take place, the offices from which the cases were to be recruited were
selected. This was a process driven by pragmatic concerns. In some
areas offices were chosen randomly, whilst in others the choice was
limited to those offices which were not too heavily swamped by other
research studies or by operational concerns. Once the offices had been
chosen all staff working in each office were briefed about the study: its
purpose, methodology, impact on routine work and ethical considerations. Each officer was asked to invite probationers to take part in the
study and to be interviewed themselves. In order that officers did not
invite only ‘interesting’ or willing subjects, each officer was required to
invite all probationers meeting the criteria (the details of which are
discussed below) until two had agreed and been interviewed. 2
Probationers aged 17–35 years old and who were commencing
probation or combination orders of 6–24 months duration between the
start of October 1997 and the end of March 1998 were eligible for
inclusion in the study. This age range, it was anticipated, would
produce a high number of probationers who were experiencing a
number of salient life changes, such as marriage, entry to the labour
market and moving away from the parental home, which were expected
to be related to whether or not they desisted from further offending.
It was suggested to officers that they wait until the third or fourth
meeting with the probationer before they raise the issue of taking part
in the study. This was because it was felt that to raise such an issue too
early on in the order might be counterproductive, and in any case there
was a conscious desire not to affect the officer–probationer relationship
in a way that may harm their future work together. Officers called the
research office to register cases who had agreed to be interviewed, at
which point brief details about the probationer were collected and an
48
The study
interview arranged. Interviews were then conducted when the probationer next attended the probation office.
The first sweep of interviewing
The first sweep of interviewing took place from mid-October 1997 to
April 1998, and the majority of interviews were completed seven weeks
after the commencement of each of the orders. The longitudinal nature
of the project and the desire to record both officers’ and probationers’
opinions meant that it was not feasible to recruit a large sample of
cases. If both officer and probationer were seen at all three sweeps,
each case could generate six interviews. It was important, therefore, to
strike the correct balance between having sufficient cases to enable
meaningful analyses to be undertaken without recruiting so many
cases that the management of the project became too burdensome. In
all, counting the 15 or so pilot interviews and the 999 interviews
conducted as part of the main fieldwork, there were over 1,000
one-to-one interviews completed during the study. The achieved
sample of probationers had the socio-demographic characteristics as
shown in Tables 3.2–3.5.
Table 3.2: Sample characteristics:
gender
n
%
Males
Females
173
26
87
13
Total
199
100
Table 3.4: Sample characteristics:
ethnicity
n
%
White
Asian
Afro-Caribbean
Mixed
Other
Unknown
164
13
10
4
7
1
82
7
5
2
5
—
Total
199
100
Table 3.3: Sample characteristics: age
n
%
17–23
24–29
30–35
88
62
49
44
31
25
Total
199
100
Table 3.5: Sample characteristics: length of
order
6
9
12
15
18
24
months
months
months
months
months
months
Total
n
%
10
3
98
2
24
62
5
2
49
1
13
31
199
100
49
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Table 3.6: Sample characteristics: main offence
Achieved sample
(n)
(%)
Violence
Sexual
Burglary
Robbery
Theft/handling
Fraud/forgery
Criminal damage
Drugs
Other indictable
Summary offences
Total
National data
(%)
20
2
22
4
64
11
7
17
19
33
10
1
11
2
32
6
4
9
10
17
9
2
10
1
28
5
2
—4
12
33
199
100
100
Some 47 (24 per cent) of the orders were combination orders. 3 Table
3.6 reports the main convicting offence which resulted in the order, and
shows the comparable national statistics for persons commencing a
probation order in 1996, the most recent year for which data are
available.
The single largest offence type was crimes of dishonesty – with
burglary, theft/handling and fraud/forgery accounting for some 49
per cent of cases. The average Offender Group Reconviction Scale
(OGRS) for the sample was 58 per cent, just above the national average
of 55 per cent (Home Office 1996: Annex 1). Probationers were grouped
into four types of previous conviction experience: ‘no previous’, ‘1–3
previous’, ‘4 or more’ and ‘unknown’. They were similarly grouped
into four types of previous custodial experience (the right-hand side of
Table 3.7).
Table 3.7: Sample characteristics: previous convictions and custody
Convictions
No previous
1–3 previous
4 or more
Unknown
Total
50
(n)
(%)
43
51
98
7
22
26
49
3
199
100
Custody
(n)
(%)
No previous
1–3 previous
4 or more
Unknown
121
50
22
6
61
25
11
3
199
100
The study
Table 3.8: Sample characteristics: age and gender
Males
Age
Achieved sample
National (%)*
17–23
24–29
30–35
40
26
17
40
25
21
83
86
8
6
5
5
5
4
19
14
All males
Females
17–23
24–29
30–35
All Females
*The national data kindly provided by the Home Office. Due to
rounding, the figures do not always sum to 100.
Sample representativeness
Because of the desire to interview both officers and probationers,
consent was required from all probationers involved in the research.
Like any other research which relies upon consent, this meant that
certain unavoidable biases were built into the research. However, as a
check against biases, the achieved sample was compared against
national statistics in relation to age, gender, commencement offence,
OGRS and previous convictions. These suggested a sample that was
not too greatly different from the national statistics and therefore that
the findings may have some general relevance. In terms of the age
composition, the sample is very similar to the national picture, as Table
3.8 demonstrates, although the achieved sample is slightly skewed
towards females. Furthermore, in terms of the offences committed for
which probation was imposed, the sample closely mirrors the national
picture (see Table 3.6).
The impact of second and third sweep attrition
The reporting of attrition rates is somewhat complicated by the fact
that probationers were serving orders of varying lengths, and therefore
not all needed to be interviewed during the final sweep of interviewing. During the second sweep of interviewing, some 156 probationers
were relocated, and of these 137 interviewed (190; 96 per cent of
officers were also re-interviewed during the second sweep). During the
third and final sweep 135 (68 per cent) of the 199 probationers were
located and 120 of these (89 per cent; 60 per cent of the whole sample)
51
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Table 3.9: Attrition rates: offence type (%)
Offence
type
Sweep
one
Sweep
two
Sweep
three
Seen at all
sweeps
National
Burglary
Violence
Sexual
Robbery
Theft and handling
Fraud and forgery
Criminal damage
Drug offences
Other indictable
Summary
11
10
1
2
32
6
4
9
10
17
10
10
2
2
34
4
4
8
11
16
8
8
1
3
33
7
3
10
9
18
9
9
1
3
34
5
4
9
9
17
10
9
2
1
28
5
2
—5
12
33
Total (n of sample)
199
137
120
100
—
Table 3.10: Attrition rates: age and gender
Age and
gender group
Sweep
one (%)
Sweep
two (%)
Sweep
three (%)
Seen at all
sweeps (%)
National
(%)
Males:
17–23
Females: 24–29
Females: 30–35
40
26
21
37
27
23
40
28
18
38
29
20
40
25
21
Females: 17–23
Females: 24–29
Females: 30–35
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
6
3
4
6
5
5
4
199
137
120
100
—
Total (n of sample)
interviewed. Of all the officers required for interview (n!172), 90 per
cent (n!154) were successfully re-interviewed for a third time.
In all, 141 (71 per cent of the original 199 probationers) were seen
either towards the end of their orders, or shortly after they had
completed their orders. The same figure for officers was 182 (91 per
cent). One hundred and fifty-seven of the probationers were interviewed for a second time (during either the second or third sweep; 79
per cent), although, of course, obviously not all these follow-up
interviews coincided with the end of the order.
Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show the impact of attrition on the sample of
probationers across all three sweeps. As can be seen (from Table 3.9),
the attrition rate had little effect on the sample in terms of the
52
The study
distribution of offences for which they received probation. The impact
of attrition on the age and gender breakdown of the sample was also
minimal (see Table 3.10). Thus, the sample remained reasonably
representative of the national picture.
As mentioned above, not all probationers were seen three times. Of
the 120 seen during the third sweep, 20 were amongst those who had
not been interviewed at the second sweep. Thus there were 100
probationers who were seen at all three sweeps. The age, gender and
offence characteristics of these 100 probationers is presented in the
fourth column of Tables 3.9 and 3.10. Again it can be seen that this
group of probationers very closely resembles the national caseloads. In
the light of these analyses, it was decided that there was no need to
weight the sample in order to achieve a better approximation with the
national rates.
Individual sweeps never achieved less than a 60 per cent response
rate. These rates, taken in the light of the fact that many of the
respondents were highly mobile, often with no fixed abode, urbanliving, with drug and alcohol problems and with good reason to
conceal themselves (i.e. their past criminal record), can be regarded as
very good. Osborn (1980: 60) reported that delinquents in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development were more likely to move
than non-delinquents (a finding supported by Gottfredson and Taylor
1988: 79). Attempts to follow up similar groups of people have often
yielded low response rates. For example, Cordray and Polk (1983)
reported that attrition rates in surveys of crime were anywhere
between 5 and 60 per cent. Capaldi and Patterson (1987) reported that
average attrition rates in surveys with 4–10-year follow-up periods was
47 per cent. Wolfgang et al. (1972) were only able to trace 58 per cent
of their sample after three years of searching. In addition, recent data
suggest that there is a tendency for respondents in more deprived areas
to be most likely to refuse to be interviewed (Thorogood et al.
forthcoming).
Interview measures
Two forms of information were collected as part of the study. Initially
a small amount of data were compiled when the case was registered
with the research office (this is referred to as registration data).
However, the data which the study relies upon most heavily were
collected through a series of face-to-face interviews with probationers
and officers.
53
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
The interviews were very much focused on the work undertaken
with the probationer and his or her response to this work and social
and personal circumstances. Extensive data relating to the probation
officers, the extent and level of their training and experience of
probation work were not collected. Whilst it remains possible that this
information would have helped to account for some of the observed
variations in the interactions between officers and probationers, there
were a number of reasons why such data were not collected. The
interview schedule was extensive, and it was felt that a further section
on the officer would have made the interview too long. In addition, in
a world in which their work is already frequently scrutinised, this
element might have felt threatening to many officers. During the
fieldwork it also emerged that several officers only saw their probationers briefly (especially towards the end of their orders), and in any
case some probationers had several officers during the course of their
supervision.
Registration data
Basic information about the probationer was collected over the
telephone when the case was registered with the research office. This
included personal details (age, date of birth, gender, ethnic group),
information about previous involvement with the criminal justice
system (number of previous convictions, offences convicted of, previous probation history and previous custodial history) and current
offence details (length of order, additional requirements, offence(s)
convicted of and name of supervising officer). In addition, where
possible, Criminal Record Office and Police National Computer numbers were recorded. Other relevant information was often relayed
informally by officers. For example, some female probationers requested to be interviewed by a female interviewer. One or two probationers
had to be interviewed at home as they were agoraphobic. All such
requests were met as far as was possible and appropriate. As well as
providing information which would be employed in the analysis, this
summary data were used as a way of ‘vetting’ cases so as to reduce
any risks to the interviewers’ safety.
Interview data
The main source of data came directly from the probationers and the
officers supervising them. The schedules used to interview officers very
closely mirrored those used to interview probationers. 6 The interviewers were trained to use the schedules in a very open-ended fashion
54
The study
and to be flexible in their wording of questions. This decision, which
departs considerably from mainstream thinking on questionnaire
design and delivery, was partly driven by a desire to make the
interviews as ‘respondent friendly’ and as enjoyable as was possible,
and partly by two pragmatic concerns. First, the delivery of the
interview schedule had to be versatile enough to accommodate a wide
range of offences – issues that were sensible to ask a burglar may not
be relevant to someone convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse.
Similarly, issues of concern at the time of the offence for drink drivers
may not be the same for those convicted of possession of heroin. The
second pragmatic concern related to the range of educational qualifications and levels of literacy which could be expected from a diverse
group of probationers. It was anticipated that some probationers may
have required questions to be re-expressed in simpler terms whilst
others would find ‘dumbed down’ questions boring and ‘switch off’.
With this in mind, interviewers were encouraged to approach the
questions contained in the interview schedules as being the questions
to which they sought the answer rather than questions which they asked
verbatim.
The potential drawbacks of allowing the interviewers this freedom
were that some may have inadvertently led respondents, or that the
data collected may have become contaminated in some way through
the discursive nature of the interviews. However, a number of
observations suggested that these were not serious problems. The
interviewers received two day’s training prior to the commencement of
the fieldwork and a further day’s training which introduced them to
the follow-up interviews. During these training days the importance of
ensuring that they did not lead respondents was impressed upon
interviewers and they were coached in the best techniques of asking
questions and receiving answers. In addition to this, the author was in
frequent contact with each of the interviews and proved further
guidance as and when required. The tape-recorded interviews (see
below) also suggested that interviewers adhered to good interviewing
techniques and that they did not stray unduly from the interview
guides.
A general problem with relying on interviews is that self-report
data can ‘only report what people say they do and feel and not
what the researcher has seen them say, do and feel’ (Herbert
Gans, quoted in Bryman 1984: 81). One technique to ensure that
erroneous conclusions are not drawn from an over-reliance upon
interview data has been to triangulate self-reports with others’ reports
of the same event or processes. Where convergence between accounts
55
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
is found, it is assumed that the accounts are ‘trustworthy’. In the current
study there were, of course, examples of both agreement and disagreement between officers and probationers. On some issues an officer and
the probationer he or she was supervising would disagree over the
problem faced by the probationer or the best solution to this. This is
entirely naturally – people with different backgrounds and with different
points of view can reasonably be expected not to agree on every issue. As
such disagreements over the minutiae of any one probationer’s life were
not felt to represent a threat to the validity of the study. Dissimilarities –
at the aggregate level – between the officers and the probationers over
the processes which led to desistance or continued offending, however,
could be seen as a threat to the validity of the study. If the processes
which officers pointed to as leading to desistance were remarkably
different from those identified by probationers, then the data set as a
whole would have to be viewed with caution. However, from the data
analyses which were undertaken and which are reported herein, there is
a high degree of agreement in the types of processes which officers and
probationers identified as being related to the latter’s subsequent
offending careers. Thus, whilst the study relies upon interview data,
corroboration between officers and probationers in individual cases and
parallel findings between the officers’ and probationers’ data sets in
aggregate analyses would suggest that the data are robust.
The interviews covered the following issues:
! Details of the offence which had resulted in the conviction subsequent to offending, and occasions when the probationer came close
to offending.
! Information about the probationer’s social circumstances at the time
of the offence and at the time of each of the interviews (accommodation, employment, finances, life-partner, family, drug use, alcohol
use, gambling, friends and feelings of depression or anxiety).
! The probationer’s desire and abilities to stop offending.
! Specific people or ‘things’ which might help the probationer stop
offending.
! The obstacles which might stand in the way of the probationer
stopping offending, and what could be done (or, in later interviews,
what had been done) to address each of these.
! What the probationer had learnt on probation, and whether it had
helped him or her stay out of trouble.
56
The study
The study
! The ‘biggest single’ change in the probationer’s life, what
! The ‘biggest single’ change in the probationer’s life, what
‘caused’ this, how it had impacted upon the probationer
‘caused’ this, how it had impacted upon the probationer
whether he or she had sought advice from his or her officer.
whether he or she had sought advice from his or her officer.
had
had
and
and
! Future ambitions (not asked of officers).
! Future ambitions (not asked of officers).
The follow-up interviews (at both second and third sweeps) with
The follow-up interviews (at both second and third sweeps) with
probationers and officers were designed to assess how things had
probationers and officers were designed to assess how things had
progressed since the previous interview. With this in mind, each
progressed since the previous interview. With this in mind, each
interviewer was therefore provided with a summary of the previous
interviewer was therefore provided with a summary of the previous
interview(s) tailored to provoke respondents into discussing changes
interview(s) tailored to provoke respondents into discussing changes
in particular facets of their lives. The summary, which was referred to
in particular facets of their lives. The summary, which was referred to
during the follow-up interview at various points when appropriate,
during the follow-up interview at various points when appropriate,
was used to ask officers and probationers in detail about how each
was used to ask officers and probationers in detail about how each
obstacle had been tackled; the current status of that obstacle; and the
obstacle had been tackled; the current status of that obstacle; and the
extent to which changes in the nature of the obstacle were the result of
extent to which changes in the nature of the obstacle were the result of
the advice given to them by their officer. In addition both parties were
the advice given to them by their officer. In addition both parties were
reminded of their previous responses to questions concerning the
reminded of their previous responses to questions concerning the
probationer’s social circumstances and were asked whether each had
probationer’s social circumstances and were asked whether each had
changed, why and with what outcome. After they had been asked
changed, why and with what outcome. After they had been asked
whether the probationer wanted to stop offending and if they were able
whether the probationer wanted to stop offending and if they were able
to stop, they were reminded of their previous answers and, if their
to stop, they were reminded of their previous answers and, if their
answers differed from the previous interview, to reflect on why this
answers differed from the previous interview, to reflect on why this
was the case. The only major changes for the subsequent interviews
was the case. The only major changes for the subsequent interviews
were that:
were that:
! If the probationer had completed the order, the officer was asked
! If the probationer had completed the order, the officer was asked
what he or she thought the purposes of the order had been, and to
what he or she thought the purposes of the order had been, and to
what extent these had been met; and, during the second sweep.
what extent these had been met; and, during the second sweep.
! Probationers were asked a short series of questions about victimisa! Probationers were asked a short series of questions about victimisation in the previous year.
tion in the previous year.
Tape-recorded interviews
Tape-recorded interviews
As a way of capturing in greater details the subtleties of the work
As a way of capturing in greater details the subtleties of the work
undertaken on probation, a small subsample of second and third
undertaken on probation, a small subsample
of second and third
sweep interviews were tape recorded. 7 Both Officers and probationers
sweep interviews were tape recorded. 7 Both Officers and probationers
were asked if they would consent to having their interviews recorded,
were asked if they would consent to having their interviews recorded,
and very few declined. As well as providing a source for capturing in
and very few declined. As well as providing a source for capturing in
greater detail the nuances of probation work and the factors which
greater detail the nuances of probation work and the factors which
57
57
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
facilitated or prevented desistance, the tape recording of interviews
allowed for an assessment of how the questions and the interview
schedule were delivered ‘in the field’. No major instances of inconsistency or poor question delivery were encountered.
The validity of the data collected
Any research which asks people directly about sensitive topics, such as
criminal behaviour, must take steps to ensure that the data collected
are as reliable and truthful as possible. Despite our assurances that
anything said during the interview was confidential (a common
practice intended to increase truthful responses), it could be that
probationers still concealed some things from us. It is assumed that any
concealment, if it existed at all, was most likely when probationers were
asked about their offending. Some respondents may have suspected,
despite our assurances of confidentiality, that any admissions of
undetected offending made during an interview would be relayed to
their supervising officers or the police. In order to check the extent to
which previous offences were concealed by the probationers in the
sample, the following analyses were undertaken.
During the course of the first sweep interviews, probationers were
asked if they had ever before committed an offence. From these responses
it was possible to create two groups – those who admitted to having
committed any crime before, and those who did not admit to having
committed a crime before. These responses were then compared against
previous convictions (undertaken for all cases where previous offending
was known; n!192). If a respondent claimed not to have committed a
crime before, but was found to have a previous conviction, his or her
answers would have to be regarded with some suspicion. Of the 21 cases
who claimed not to have committed a crime before, only three had previous
convictions. Of these three, one had two previous convictions (for violent
and indictable offences); another also had two previous convictions (theft
and handling, and an indictable offence); and the third had two previous
convictions, both for motoring offences. It is conceivable that the last of
these three (who had motoring convictions) may not have realised that
these constituted criminal offences. Of those that did not have any previous
convictions (n!43), 25 admitted that they had committed some sort of
crime previously – suggesting an openness to admit to undetected
offending on their part. This comparison of self-reported previous
offending and officially recorded previous offending suggested that levels
of honesty were good – only three people with convictions did not admit
58
The study
to previous offending, and 25 probationers admitted to undetected
offending. Further analyses (Farrall n.d.) suggest that of the 137
probationers who could be traced through the Home Office’s Offenders
Index, only 14 per cent of those who claimed not to have offended were
recorded as having been convicted during this period, suggesting that the
honesty of the probationers had been consistently high.
Notes
1 The research interviewers received a minimum of three days training, and
some received four days. These training days introduced the interviewers to
the research project and its aims, the arrangements for completing the
interviews, the research instruments and other administrative issues. These
days also placed a heavy emphasis on developing the interviewers’
familiarity with the research instruments and their appropriate usage, and
the confidential nature of the materials which would be gathered.
2 Alternative techniques for recruiting probationers into the study were
considered, but were felt to be impractical. For example, if an interviewer
had been based in the office he or she could have invited probationers to
take part in the study. However, this option was not pursued for two main
reasons: first, it would have been costly to do this (there were 22 offices
which would have had to have been permanently ‘staffed’ during the
recruitment phase); and, secondly, the probationers would be more familiar
with their officer than the interviewer (who they would never have met
before) and therefore were considered more likely to respond positively to
a request from their officer. Repeated telephone calls were made to officers
to ensure that all members of their caseload were being given the
opportunity to become involved in the study.
3 These cases were included in the sample because of their probation element.
The community service element of these orders is not subject to exhaustive
investigation.
4 The Home Office include drug offences in summary offences, hence the
discrepancy.
5 The Home Office include drug offences in summary offences, hence the
discrepancy.
6 Copies of the interview schedules are available upon request from the
author.
7 Interviews were not tape recorded during the first sweep as it was felt that
respondents may be reticent about being taped (they would not have met
the interviewer until immediately prior to the interview) and perhaps
refused to be taped, or gone ahead with the taping of the interview but
concealed or altered some responses (chiefly those concerning offending
it was suspected). At the second interview, respondents ‘knew’ the
59
IntroductionWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
interviewer and were more likely to feel that the research team could be
‘trusted’ (indeed only one probationer of the 24 approached at the second
sweep declined to be taped at this stage). Not all interviews were tape
recorded as time and monetary costs would have made this prohibitive.
Rather than select ‘interesting’ cases, it was decided to tape record the
author’s own interviews and those undertaken by two of the research
interviewers. The interviewers were chosen because of their prior experience
of taped interviewing and were given addition training in the exact
requirements for this project (in addition to the three days they had already
received). In all, there were 111 tape-recorded interviews completed at either
sweep two or three, many of which consisted of pairs of officers and
probationers whose interviews were taped recorded at both these sweeps.
All taped interviews were transcribed in full (totalling over 150 hours of
taped interviews).
60
Part 2
Probation, moivationand
Social contexts
Contexts
social
Chapter 4
Defining ‘success’
What is ‘success’?
Most research which has investigated the outcome of probation has
assessed the outcome of the order in terms of reconviction rates. For
the reasons outlined in Chapter 1, this project employed alternative
measures of success and failure. The extent to which orders were
considered to have been ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’ was assessed by
a variety of criteria. These were:
! whether there had been any continuation in offending (as reported
by the probationers themselves and their supervising officers);
! regardless of whether an individual had offended, the extent to
which the probationers appeared to be desisting; and
! the extent to which impediments to desistance had been removed.
Leaving to one side for the moment the last of these, which we shall
return to in subsequent chapters, let us concentrate on offending
behaviours. As noted in Chapter 3, 141 of the probationers and 182 of
the officers were followed to either shortly before the very end or to
shortly after the end of their orders. Table 4.1 reports the extent to
which probationers reported that they had offended and officers
believed that they had offended during the course of their orders
(offending, and the variables associated with it, are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 11). Officers reported that fewer probationers had
offended (by 12 percentage points). Of course, officers also sometimes
suspected that an individual had offended and when suspected offending
was included, 50 per cent of officers reported that their probationer had
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-6
63
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 4.1: Offending whilst on probation (those seen to the end of their orders)
Probationer-reported
Officer-reported
Not offended
(n)
(%)
Offended
(n)
(%)
(n)
(%)
59
98
82
84
141
182
100
100
42
54
Total
58
46
Table 4.2: Amount of offending whilst on probation (those seen to the end of their
orders)
Did not
offend
(n)
(%)
Probationer-report
Officer-report
59
98
42
54
One to four
offences
(n)
(%)
31
51
22
28
More than
four offences
(n)
(%)
49
33
35
18
Total
(n)
(%)
139
182
99
100
Note: There were two probationers who reported having offended, but who gave no
indication of the number of offences they had committed. These cases have been
excluded from these analyses.
either offended or that they suspected he or she had offended – a rise
of 4 percentage points (eight cases). 2
The number of offences which probationers were reported to have
committed whilst on probation is shown in Table 4.2. Again, the focus
is upon those for whom complete reports of behaviour during the
order exist. It is clear from the probationers’ accounts that about a third
of them had offended quite often (more than four offences during the
course of the order). Whilst about a third of the probationers seen to
the end of their orders admitted to having committed more than four
offences during the order, the same figure for the officers’ reports was
naturally lower. Indeed, only 18 per cent of officers reported that their
probationer had committed four or more offences. 3
Because the investigation of offending was longitudinal, it was
possible to chart the progression of each probationer’s involvement in
offending. In other words, it was possible to assess the extent to which
each individual probationer appeared to be desisting. Whilst relatively
straightforward to define, desistance is harder to operationalise.
Operationalising desistance poses particular problems as it is essentially an issue of ‘absence’ rather than of ‘presence’. That is to say, that an
individual is classified as a desister not on the basis of having a
particular characteristic, but rather because of the continued absence of
this characteristic over a period of time. This peculiarity has already
64
Defining ‘success’
been discussed by Shadd Maruna (1998: 10–11, emphasis added) who
likens these problems to what he describes as ‘billiard-ball causality’:
Desistance is an unusual dependent variable for criminologists
because it is not an event that happens, but rather the sustained
absence of a certain type of event occurring. As such, desistance
does not fit neatly into the linear, billiard-ball models of causality
found most acceptable to criminologists.
Maruna has not been alone in his recognition that desistance is not
usually ‘an event’ but more akin to a ‘process’. Chief amongst the
theorists of desistance are Robert Sampson and John Laub who, in a
recent article (Laub et al. 1998), provided convincing evidence that
desistance was not abrupt but rather a ‘gradual movement away from
criminal offending’ (ibid.: 226). Laub et al. theorised that when men
married into what became ‘good’ relationships they were increasingly
less likely to engage in offending. Thus ‘good’ marriages will, over time,
produce (first) de-escalators, ‘near-desisters’ and (eventually) desisters. 4
Initial operationalisations of desistance were based on assumptions
which are now felt to have been rather crude approaches to the topic
at hand (Bushway et al. 2001). For example, Bushway et al. (2001)
accused Farrington and Hawkins (1991) of having defined desisters in
their study as those who had been convicted before the age of 21, but
were not convicted thereafter. Bushway et al. argued that the age of 21
was derived from a desire to split the available data set into roughly
two equal halves, rather than for any theoretical reason, and that this
approach to operationalising desistance resulted in some people being
classified as a persister for being convicted once at the age of 21, when
in fact they may have had more in common with non-offenders or
desisters. Such an approach, Bushway et al. argued, did not adequately
capture the processes associated with desistance. 5
Regardless of these definitional ‘skirmishes’, desistance is probably
best approached as experienced by many as a process. 6 With this in
mind, the operationalisation of desistance employed in the current
study has placed an emphasis on gradual processes. Such an operationalisation both better captures the true nature of desisting from
offending – in which ‘lulls’ in offending, temporary resumption of
offending and the such like are common – and provides a schema in
which reductions in offence severity or the frequency with which
offences were admitted to could be interpreted as indications of the
emergence of desistance.
65
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Table 4.3: Desistance (those seen to the end of their orders)
Table 4.3: Desistance (those seen to the end of their orders)
Probationers’ reports
(n)
(%)
Probationers’
reports
(n)
(%)
No offending
59
42
Showing
signs
of
desisting
28
19
No offending
59
42
Continued
offending
(trivial)
17
13
Showing signs
of desisting
28
19
Continued
15
11
Continued offending
offending (non-trivial)
(trivial)
17
13
Continued
22
16
Continued offending
offending (escalating)
(non-trivial)
15
11
Continued offending (escalating)
22
16
Total
141
100
Total
141
100
Officers’ reports
(n)
(%)
Officers’
reports
(n)
(%)
98
54
32
17
98
54
14
7
32
17
11
67
14
27
156
11
27
15
182
100
182
100
An important feature of this schema was that it allowed for changes
in An
offending
trajectories
a shift
important
featurewhich
of thisindicated
schema was
thatinitpatterns
allowedof
foroffending
changes
towards
desistance
to be which
charted.
This entailed
examinations
of
in offending
trajectories
indicated
a shift careful
in patterns
of offending
each
probationer’s
of all This
his orentailed
her offending
each sweepof
–
towards
desistance toreports
be charted.
careful at
examinations
the
outline
of
the
offence(s)
committed,
the
amount
of
offences
reported
each probationer’s reports of all his or her offending at each sweep –
and
the nature
and severity
of the the
offences.
this basis
each
the outline
of the offence(s)
committed,
amountOn
of offences
reported
probationer
was
classified
into
one
of
five
groups:
no
offending;
an
and the nature and severity of the offences. On this basis each
offending
trajectory
which
suggested
he
or
she
was
desisting;
conprobationer was classified into one of five groups: no offending; an
tinued
trivial
offending;
continued
non-trivial
and offending
offending
trajectory
which
suggested
he or offending;
she was desisting;
conwhich
was
escalating.
The
extent
to
which
those
probationers
seen to
tinued trivial offending; continued non-trivial offending; and offending
the
ends
of escalating.
their order The
wereextent
judged
be inthose
the process
of desisting
is
which
was
to to
which
probationers
seen to
reported
in their
Tableorder
4.3. Whilst
aroundto
a half
did offend
the ends of
were judged
be inthe
theprobationers
process of desisting
is
–reported
according
to themselves
(58around
per cent;
Table
or their officers
(46
in Table
4.3. Whilst
a half
the 4.1)
probationers
did offend
per
cent; Table
4.1) – about(58
half
signs officers
of starting
– according
to themselves
perthese
cent;either
Tableshowed
4.1) or their
(46
to
or engagement
fairly
trivial
(Tableof 4.4).
So,
perdesist,
cent; Table
4.1) – aboutinhalf
these
eitheroffending
showed signs
starting
despite
theor
fact
that about half
the probationers
were reported
to have
to desist,
engagement
in fairly
trivial offending
(Table 4.4).
So,
despite the fact that about half the probationers were reported to have
Table 4.4: Desistance (all)
Table 4.4: Desistance (all)
No offending
Showing
signs of desisting
No offending
Continued
offending
(trivial)
Showing signs
of desisting
Continued
offending
Continued offending (non-trivial)
(trivial)
Continued
(escalating)
Continued offending
offending (non-trivial)
Impossible offending
to code (escalating)
Continued
Impossible
to
code
Total
Total
66
66
Probationers’
(n)
Probationers’
(n)
64
28
64
20
28
18
20
27
18
42
27
42
199
199
reports
(%)
reports
(%)
32
14
32
10
14
9
10
14
9
21
14
21
100
100
Officers’ reports
(n)
(%)
Officers’
reports
(n)
(%)
105
53
33
17
105
53
15
8
33
17
15
88
15
30
15
15
8
—
301
15
1
—
199
100
199
100
Defining ‘success’
offended, in all, seven out of ten officers reported either no offending
or offending trajectories which were becoming less serious, as did six
out of ten of the probationers followed to the end of their orders 7
(Table 4.4). Table 4.4 reports the assessment of the entire sample’s
offending trajectories. 8
Examples of offending trajectories
Those probationers who were seen only once formed the entirety of
those cases deemed ‘impossible to code’. Those probationers who
‘showed signs of desisting’ reported a decline in the frequency or
offending which became distinctly less serious over time. For example,
case 099 – originally convicted of going equipped to steal car radios –
admitted at the first sweep to having been in possession of cannabis
and amphetamines. At the second sweep he reported buying and
selling stolen electrical goods – to ‘help out a mate who was selling the
stuff’ – and to having considered stealing car radios, but said that he
had not gone through with this as it was ‘not worth it – too much
trouble’. At the third interview he said that he had not committed any
further offences, but had been asked by a friend to help with some
‘credit card frauds’, but had again decided that ‘it was not worth it’
and declined. On the basis that he had not offended since the second
interview, and had even turned down the opportunity to ‘help with
some credit cards’ 099 was classified as showing signs of desisting.
Around 10 per cent of probationers were classified as having
committed trivial offences. For example, case 114 was a student at
university when he was convicted of possession with intent to supply
cannabis (he was in the habit of buying extra amounts of cannabis for
his friends). At the first interview he said that he was continuing to
smoke cannabis, but admitted no other offences. At the second sweep
he admitted to continuing to smoke cannabis and to having driven
over the speed limit (for which he received three points on his driving
licence). At the third interview he again reported that he had smoked
cannabis, but said that he had committed no further offences.
Those cases classified as non-trivial offenders reported frequent,
serious offending, such as ‘hard’ drug use, violence or burglary. Case
022 was given his probation order after becoming involved in a fight
with the police, who were trying to arrest him for being drunk and
disorderly. The probationer claimed that they had been ‘heavyhanded’ when arresting him, and in response he had bitten the
arresting officer and spat in his face. When seen for the first time he
said that he had not committed any offences since the start of the order,
67
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
but at the second interview said that he had again assaulted someone
and ‘given him a good hiding’ and that same night he had again tried
to assault the officer trying to arrest him. He also said he had
considered stealing cigarettes when in a shop, but decided against it as
he was ‘in too much shit already’. At the third interview the
probationer had gained employment working at an amusement park,
where he said he had ‘two or three times’ taken people round the back
of the shed to ‘beat them up – but not bad enough to put them in
hospital’. He also said he had shoplifted.
Amongst the escalators were those probationers who reported
increases in both the severity of their offending and the frequency with
which they offended. Case 083 was given his probation order after
being found guilty of robbery. At the time of the first interview he said
that he had not offended since the start of the order. At the second
interview he said that he had been arrested for fighting. At the third
interview he reported how, angry at seeing heroin being sold to kids
in a local playing park, he had twice beaten up these ‘dealers’, on each
occasion taking between £300 and £500 from them. He had also been
charged with using threatening words and behaviour against his
partner and admitted to having shoplifted and handled stolen goods.
The schema described above captures the desistance process in that it
is the nature of an individual’s offending career (recorded at up to
three points in time) upon which the classification is based. Thus the
desistance process is captured as it extends through time, rather than
as a state which is reached by some arbitrary point in time (such as by
a certain age).
This chapter has outlined the chief outcome measures used to assess
probation supervision. Chapter 5 considers the aims and purposes of
probation supervision and explores the impediments to desistance
faced by the probationers in ‘going straight’. The extent to which
officers and probationers shared these beliefs and their proposed
solutions to these is also examined.
Notes
1 Further analyses, which examined just those cases for whom both officer and
probationers were seen to the end of the order (n!137), suggested no
variation from those rates reported in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
2 Of the 58 probationers who were not seen to the end of their orders, some
25 (43 per cent) admitted that they had offended on the occasion(s) when
they had been interviewed and their officers reported that 30 (52 per cent)
68
Defining ‘success’
3
4
5
6
7
had offended and a further four were suspected to have offended (bringing
the total percentage of known or suspected offenders to 59 per cent). Of the
17 officers who were not seen to the end of their probationer’s orders, 9
reported that their probationer had offended and another 2 that they
suspected that the probationer had offended. In other words, fewer of these
58 probationers themselves reported offending, although when compared to
those seen to the end of their orders, more were reported by their officers to
have offended.
Of the 58 probationers who were not seen to the end of their orders, 33 (59
per cent) did not report offending on the occasion(s) when they were
interviewed. Six probationers (10 per cent) reported having committed
between one and four offences, and 16 (28 per cent) that they had committed
more than four offences. There were another two probationers who reported
offending, but for whom it was impossible to assess the extent of their
offending. Their officers reported that 29 (50 per cent) of them had not
offended, that 16 had committed between one and four offences (28 per cent)
and that 13 (22 per cent) had committed more than four offences. Of the 17
officers who were not followed until the end of their probationer’s orders, 8
reported no offending on the part of their probationers, 5 between one and
four offences and 4 reported more than four offences. So, in terms of the
number of offences this group was reported to have committed, they were
committing marginally fewer offences than the ‘completers’. Bear in mind,
however, that reports are incomplete and the officers might not have known
the full extent of this group’s offending.
Mark Warr (1998) has questioned the causal mechanism proposed by Laub
et al. Warr suggests that marriage reduces the amount of time spent with
peers, and that it is the reduction in time with peers that eventually leads to
desistance, not marriage per se.
However, whilst their assertion that desistance is a process rather than an
event is correct, Bushway et al.’s critique may be mistaken. The operationalisation used by Farrington and Hawkins does not automatically mean
that desistance was assumed to be ‘an event’ – rather it was assumed to be
either an event or a process that by the age of 21 would have been
completed. In short, Bushway et al. would appear to have mistaken
Farrington and Hawkins’ operationalisation for a conceptualisation.
Of course, there will be some people for whom desistance is more like an
event – see Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986) for examples of ‘shocking
events’ which led some in their sample to the decision to desist.
It was possible to assess the offending trajectories for only 16 of the 58
probationers not seen to the end of their orders. Quite simply the remaining
42 had not been seen enough times for sufficient information about their
offending to have been collected to enable an assessment of this sort to be
made. Of the 16 for whom it was possible to make an assessment, 5
appeared to be desisting, 3 reported continued low-rate offending, 1
continued high-rate offending and 7 had offending trajectories which
69
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
appeared to be getting worse. Of the 42 probationers who were not seen
enough times for assessments of their offending trajectories to be made,
officers’ reports for these cases suggested that 25 (59 per cent) of this group
were desisting, 13 (31 per cent) were getting worse, 2 had continued
high-rate offending and 1 had continued low-rate offending (there was one
case in which the officer had only been seen once too, so again no assessment
could be made). These ‘surrogate’ rates suggest that the 42 probationers for
whom assessments could not be made were dissimilar from those for whom
assessments could be made. Fewer of them were assessed as desisting (59
per cent compared to 71 per cent; officers’ reports), and more were rated as
having offending careers which were ‘getting worse’ (31 per cent compared
to 15 per cent).
8 The officers’ and probationers’ classifications showed quite a high degree of
agreement. Of the 154 probationers for whom sufficient data existed for a
classification to be made by both officer and probationer, reports of offending
trajectories for 95 cases suggested that the probationer was a desister (i.e. he
or she had either not offended since the start of their order, was showing the
signs of desisting or had committed only trivial offences) whilst for a further
14 cases both reported that the probationer was a persister (i.e. he or she had
either committed non-trivial offences or had offending trajectories which
were escalating). Thus some 71 per cent of cases were placed in the same
classification group by officers and probationers. Of the ‘disagreeing’ cases,
the majority (31 of 45) were probationers who reported persistence and
whose officer had reported desistance. This was to be expected, as officers
would not have known about all the offences which probationers had
committed.
70
Chapter 5
The focus of probation
What does probation seek to do?
It is surprising how few studies of probation define what probation ‘is’,
what it consists of, what its purposes are or how it could be expected
to achieve these purposes. One of the most succinct definitions was
provided by the United Nations half a century ago (1951: 4): ‘probation
is a method of dealing with specially selected offenders and . . . consists
of the conditional suspension of punishment while the offender is
placed under personal supervision and is given individual guidance or
‘‘treatment’’.’ Of course, this definition is now somewhat past its ‘best
before date’. Amongst other changes during the period since the UN
document was written, probation in England and Wales has, since
1991, been a sentence of the court in its own right, rather than a
‘suspension of punishment’, and there has, of course, been a gradual
move away from individualised treatment towards group-based interventions.
The purposes of probation supervision, as outlined in National
Standards (1995: 17), are: ‘securing the rehabilitation of the offender;
protecting the public from harm from the offender’ and ‘preventing the
offender from committing further offences’. The same document lays
down the following objectives designed to achieve these purposes:
‘confronting offending behaviour’; ‘making offenders aware of the
impact of the crimes . . . on their victims, the community and
themselves’; encouraging the probationer into taking responsibility for
his or her actions; and remedying the practical impediments to the
probationer’s rehabilitation. 1
When asked to outline the purposes of supervision, the officers
interviewed for the current research project suggested similar ‘goals’
and means for achieving them. For example, 59 per cent said the
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-7
71
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
purpose was to ‘help the probationer stop offending’, 38 per cent to
‘advise the probationer’, 28 per cent to address a specific alcohol or
drug problem and 27 per cent to help the probationer ‘understand why
he or she had offended’. One officer said:
The purposes that we agreed between us were to look at the
offending – why he had committed it, what his beliefs were about it,
what the impact of the offending on the victims was, what led to the
offending and the connection between offending and drug use, and
also one of the major factors was to look at his drug use [PO 042].
Thus the core aims of probation supervision are identifiable. Officers
and probationers ‘work together’ (Osler 1995: 75; Boswell 1996: 37;
Whitfield 1998: 55) in order to stop or reduce the probationer’s
offending; to help the probationer with an addiction or habit; to assist
with practical impediments to ‘rehabilitation’; to increase victim
awareness; and to ensure the protection of the public. What the UN
definition also does not mention explicitly is that probation is a
community sentence and that, if revoked, can be replaced with an
alternative, sometimes more severe punishment. Indeed Stone (1998: 8)
reports that around a third of probation and combination orders which
were revoked in 1996 resulted in immediate custody. With these points
in mind, it is possible to sketch what probation ‘is’:
! A sentence which takes place in the community (rather than in
prison).
! A form of help (in that guidance or ‘treatment’ is available).
! A form of punishment (in that the offender has to comply with
various conditions).
! A deterrent to further offending (in that further offending could
result in additional or harsher forms of punishment).
Through these processes, probation is intended to rehabilitate the
probationer (United Nations 1951: 15; National Standards 1995: 17;
Brown 1998: 58–59). But how might these processes actually operate to
produce desistance? The following are arguably the most immediately
obvious ways in which they could, as a result of:
! The direct help of the probation officer (including referrals to special
programmes or partnerships);
72
The focus of probation
! Some of the social and individual processes associated with desistance (as outlined in Chapter 1) and which occur as the result of the
probationer being in the community rather than in prison; and
! Threats of further punishment, which deters the probationer from
further offending.
Data collected from the probationers during the course of this
investigation suggested that the third of these, the ‘deterrence model’,
was spurious. Although 59 per cent of probationers said that they
wanted to stop offending because they were concerned by the thought
of further sanctions, logistic regression analyses suggested that they
were in fact no more likely to have avoided offending (or to have
desisted) by the end of the order than the 41 per cent who had not said
they were worried about the consequences. Therefore, the present
investigation has focused on the impact of the direct interventions of
probation staff and those to whom they refer the probationer, and the
role of social and individual processes in securing successful outcomes.
Regardless of whether or not one accepts the aims of probation as
outlined above as legitimate, the underlying premise of probation work
is that the officer and probationer should share a set of common goals
– or, at the very least, that the officer will try to encourage the
probationer to adopt some of these goals. The opposite of this – the
officer and probationer having a totally different set of ‘goals’ – would
lead to a situation in which ‘working together’ would become
impossible or, at the least, severely hampered.
The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to explore the extent to which
officers and probationers shared a common set of relevant ‘goals’ and
beliefs as they commenced probation and were therefore in a position
to ‘work together’. This commences with an examination of the officers’
and probationers’ understanding of the aspects of the probationer’s life
which were felt to be obstacles to desistance – that is to say, aspects of
their lives represented impediments and obstacles to desistance.
Looking to the future: obstacles to desistance
Several previous studies of the processes associated with desistance
from offending have established that many would-be desisters – be
they eventually desisters or recidivists – faced obstacles to desisting. 2
A shared understanding of the obstacles probationers faced is,
arguably, essential for a productive working relationship between
73
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
officer and probationer. Without a clear understanding of why an
individual might reoffend it is hard to know which aspects of his or
her life should be prioritised for intervention. The following analyses
are therefore based on the ‘concordance’ between the assessments of
obstacles made by each probationer and his or her officer. Few studies
have considered probation from the perspectives of both officers and
probationers. Although Willis’ investigation (1986: 170–75) found
generally high levels of agreement on the purposes and aims of
probation between officers and those they were supervising, his work,
like that of Bailey (1995), Brown (1998) and Rex (1999), was a
qualitative investigation with a modestly sized sample. Rex (1999) had
a sample of 60 officer–probationer pairs, Willis had 30 pairs and Brown
16. Such sample sizes (whilst entirely appropriate and defensible for
the investigations at hand in each study) render generalisations about
rates of agreement between officers and probationers somewhat
limited.
When asked about the obstacles which the probationers faced,
probationers and officers held quite different views (Table 5.1). Half
(n!98) the probationers said that they did not face any obstacles in
desisting, but only one out of ten officers (18 of 199) believed that the
probationers they were supervising faced no obstacles to desisting.
Of the 101 probationers who said that they faced one or more
obstacles, their own use of substances (drugs and alcohol, 19 per cent)
was the most commonly cited, closely followed by their friends and
family (15 per cent). Other obstacles were even less frequently
mentioned. Overall (Table 5.1), few probationers cited social problems
(such as their employment and housing situations) as obstacles to
desistance, despite the well documented evidence that social factors
Table 5.1: Obstacles to desistance 3
Category
No obstacles expected
Friends and family
Financial reasons
Drugs and alcohol
Social problems
Personal characteristics
Other responses
Total obstacles
74
Probationers
(n)
(%)
Officers
(n)
(%)
98
29
17
37
13
18
8
49
15
9
19
6
10
4
18
74
13
74
54
60
32
9
37
7
37
27
30
16
122
100
307
100
The focus of probation
play a large part in offending careers (e.g. Smith et al. 1991; Farrington
1997: 390–92), and only one in ten probationers regarded any of their
own personal attributes as obstacles.
Unlike those whom they supervised, nine out of ten officers said that
the probationer faced at least one obstacle. Several officers thought that
friends and/or family along with drugs and alcohol were likely to be
obstacles (37 per cent). Officers also reported more obstacles relating to
social problems, in particular the probationer’s employment situation,
than did probationers. Interestingly, there were few citations of
cognitive-behavioural obstacles (such as poor thinking skills or anger
management), suggesting that these were either not features of the
current sample’s problems, or that they were not features which were
readily identified by officers. 4
Agreement between officers and probationers concerning the obstacles faced
Of crucial importance, of course, is the extent to which the officer and
the probationer he or she was supervising agreed with one another
about the obstacles which the probationer faced. As can be seen from
Table 5.2, very few (n!12; 6 per cent) officers and probationers both
felt that the probationer faced no obstacles in stopping offending.
Almost all probationers who said that they faced at least one obstacle
in stopping offending (n!101) were being supervised by officers who
agreed with this assessment (n!95). However, almost half the officers
(86 of 181) who felt that the probationer they were supervising faced
an obstacle were supervising probationers who felt that they faced no
obstacles at all. When obstacles which were specifically related to
friends and family were considered, only around one quarter (19 out
Table 5.2: Officer–probationer pairs: obstacles to desistance
Obstacle type
Any obstacles
Friends/family
Finances
Drugs/alcohol
Social problems
Personal
characteristics
Officer and
probationer
‘yes’
95
19
4
27
5
(48%)
(10%)
(2%)
(14%)
(3%)
8 (4%)
Officer and
probationer
‘no’
12
115
173
115
138
(6%)
(58%)
(87%)
(58%)
(69%)
128 (64%)
Officer ‘yes’
and
probationer
‘no’
86
55
9
47
49
(43%)
(28%)
(5%)
(24%)
(25%)
52 (26%)
Officer ‘no’ Total
and
probationer
‘yes’
6
10
13
10
8
(3%)
(8%)
(7%)
(5%)
(4%)
199
199
199
199
199
10 (5%)
199
75
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
of 74) of officers who thought that the probationer faced such an
obstacle were supported in this assessment by the probationer themselves. On the other hand, of the 29 probationers who reported an
obstacle relating to their friends and/or family, 19 (two thirds) were
being supervised by officers who supported this assessment.
Drug and alcohol usage was the obstacle which officers and
probationers most frequently cited as a problem in avoiding future
offending. For 27 (14 per cent) of the cases in the sample, both the officer
and the probationer reported substance use as an obstacle. However,
there was again a tendency for officers to report it more frequently than
probationers. Of the 74 officers who cited drugs or alcohol as an
obstacle, only one third (n!27) were supervising probationers who
agreed with this assessment. The obstacles grouped together as ‘social
problems’ also followed this pattern: officers reported obstacles with
far greater frequency than did probationers. The same can also be said
of the citations of the probationer’s personal characteristics as an
obstacle to desistance.
Thus, even at the very outset of the order – following the often
intense pre-sentence report writing sessions and the high contact
demanded by National Standards in the first months of supervision –
there were few officers and probationers working ‘in tandem’. Almost
half (43 per cent) the officers were supervising probationers whom they
believed faced at least one obstacle, but whose supervisees felt that
they faced no obstacles (Table 5.2). These differential levels of agreement suggest that officers were much more likely to support probationers’ assessments than vice versa. Assuming that the officers were
correct in their understanding of each probationer’s situation and their
diagnoses, this suggests that some probationers were only partially
aware of the issues which needed to be addressed during the order.
This could, of course, be seen as a ‘good sign’ – obstacles which the
probationers were unaware of had been spotted by the officers. Thus
there exists an ‘awareness gap’ which officers could fill. However, as
the first research interviews were undertaken – on average – some
seven weeks into the order, one might have expected that the
probationers would have started to show some recognition of the
obstacles they faced.
Overcoming obstacles – anticipated solutions
Officers and probationers were asked, in relation to each obstacle
identified, how they expected to overcome it. The solution most
commonly proposed by probationers (and some probationers proposed
76
The focus of probation
more than one solution) involved what could be described as ‘homegrown’ techniques, such as ‘just learning to cope with it’ or unaided
attempts to reduce drug intake (33 per cent of the 122 proposed
solutions). Another group of responses focused upon direct action,
such as ‘finding work’ or ‘getting new friends’ (28 per cent). The third
most common response was to ‘seek professional help’. This included
strategies such as enrolling on rehabilitation schemes (usually associated with drugs) and seeking counselling (23 per cent). It is especially
noteworthy that only one probationer said that he would ask his officer
for advice. Another small group of respondents denied that anything
needed be done – usually as it was felt that the problem would not
materialise, or need not be addressed anyway (6 per cent).
Thus even when obstacles were recognised by probationers, their
proposed solutions more often suggested ‘the ad hoc’ (learning to cope
with the obstacle or unaided drug reduction) rather than ‘the focused’.
Many probationers would appear to have failed to grasp the task
confronting them in dealing with these obstacles. They either thought
that there would be no impediments to their ‘going straight’ –
although only 12 of the 98 probationers who claimed they faced no
obstacles were supervised by officers who supported this assessment –
or if they did recognise the existence of obstacles, appeared to suggest
‘homespun’ solutions.
Officers were also asked to discuss the interventions which they
proposed to employ in tackling the obstacles they had identified. Their
responses were coded using the schema developed by Colin Roberts
and his colleagues at the Probation Studies Unit, Centre for Criminological Research, Oxford for classifying modes of intervention (see
Appleton and Roberts 1999; Haslewood-Pocsik and Roberts 1999a,
1999b, 1999c), and are summarised in Table 5.3.
Nearly three quarters of the officers (72 per cent; see the emboldened
row in Table 5.3) said that they would rely on open-ended discussions
with the probationer. After this, referrals to other agencies and
practical help were the next most frequently cited methods of work (35
per cent).
In order to explore in greater depth officers’ and probationers’
proposed solutions to the obstacles identified, case studies of those
officers and probationers who had both identified each of the same
three most commonly cited obstacles (friends, drugs and alcohol) were
undertaken. Despite the small numbers, the data suggest some
variation between officers and probationers in their plans for tackling
each of these obstacles and in their views of the problems associated
with tackling such obstacles. 6
77
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 5.3: Proposed methods for tackling the obstacle: officers’ reports 5
Proposed method
Reporting only
Practical help
Talk – open ended
Talk – about past
Talk – about present
Activity – written
Activity – visual
Activity – role play
Activity – task
Family work
Referral – group programme
Referral – other in-house
Referral – partnership
Referral – other agency
Other
(n)
(%)
3
59
131
32
42
20
3
22
8
22
37
36
41
63
46
2
33
72
17
22
11
2
12
4
12
21
21
23
35
26
Friends
Thirteen officers agreed with their probationer that their friends posed
an obstacle to them desisting. When asked how she would help the
probationer cope with his offending friends, one officer said: ‘Seeing
him regularly, monitoring what he is doing and pointing out the risks
of custody. Encouraging him to get training and employment so he has
a reasonable income and does not need to think about offending’ [212].
Her probationer (who was on probation after getting involved in a
fight whilst out with some friends of his) said: ‘I have moved out of
the area where these friends were. [My] new friends are more
interested in getting jobs than getting into trouble.’ He went on to add
that probation supervision acted as ‘a weekly reminder of what I need
to do to keep out of trouble [and] what I should be doing with my life’.
Another officer said: ‘[I will] try to remind him how he has felt about
them [his friends] in the past – how he has got into trouble with them’
[091]. The probationer in question, a 21-year-old male on probation for
24 months after being found guilty for driving whilst disqualified, said:
‘It is not that I want to [drive whilst disqualified], but I get caught
doing it. My friends can’t drive . . . I can’t tell them to ‘‘get stuffed’’ –
they’re okay really.’ In other words, he proposed to do little directly
about his peers. When asked if being on probation would help him
deal with his friends, he said:
78
The focus of probation
It does help, but when you go from here [the probation office],
your mind is not there and when you are with mates they get you
out of your head and it is not that you look for it, it is just . . . I
cannot tell them to ‘get stuffed’ they would bang me on the head.
It is okay when I leave here but that is just until I am with my
mates.
So probation supervision, whilst acknowledged as being helpful, had,
in this probationer’s opinion, a potentially limited impact which was
partly contingent upon the behaviour of his friends: if they enticed him
sufficiently he might offend. Likewise, the following officer also
lamented the fact that the input she would eventually have would be
minimal:
I can only work on what he tells me. He doesn’t want to upset me
and therefore he would rather tell a lie than the truth if it results
in conflict . . . He wants to be liked – so it’s difficult to follow
through a challenge without destroying him again. My contribution is about laying the foundations. My influence will be a drop
in the ocean. It’ll take far more time than what I’ll spend with him
[165].
Her probationer said that whom he ‘hung around with’ had ‘nothing
to do with probation’. Another officer suggested that her probationer’s
friendships with other drug users were exacerbated as a result of
contact with the probation service:
I think we make [heroin user networks] worse here because of our
waiting room. That inevitably reinforces the network connections.
I don’t know what we can do about that – beyond not making
people wait long. I am a bit cautious about heroin users’
group-work programmes. She doesn’t go to one, but it is our
policy that one goes unless there is a good reason not to refer. I
know there are positive sides to it, what we don’t know is how
much harm it does by reinforcing old networks [060].
This same officer, when asked how much she felt she would be able to
help the probationer overcome this obstacle said ‘not at all – we just
make it worse’. The probationer in question – a 23-year-old female who
said she had been using heroin since she was 16 – also appeared to
place little emphasis on probation interventions:
79
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
I’ve just got to stay away [from heroin users]. I stay at home most of
the time. My mum – who lives with me at my Gran’s – and my Gran
are very supportive. I can talk to them whenever I’m feeling down
and that helps. I can’t think of doing much else at the moment –
’cause of this methadone treatment. I’m struggling not to take drugs.
Two of the probationers were already in prison at the time of the first
interview. Both had received probation orders, agreed to be interviewed and subsequently been remanded in custody. The officer of one
of these probationers said that she would employ the following
techniques in combating the influence of his peer group: ‘Trying to
look at long term strengths. He can make use of his time in prison by
fulfilling his education and gaining work skills. He attended several
college courses before, but these fell through’ [084]. The probationer,
for his part, when asked how he expected to deal with his friends, said:
‘I don’t know. Move out of the area when I get out [of prison]. Move
away from [here] – maybe even . . . isn’t far enough away! Need to go
even further – as far as possible’.
Peer groups, of course, present a particularly tricky obstacle for
officers. Whilst they are often cited as the source of much offending –
especially amongst young males (see Farrington 1997: 381–82) the
actual mechanics of intervening in this aspect of the probationer’s life
are extremely difficult – not to mention felt to be ethically dubious by
some officers. As shown above, although probation supervision was
felt to be helpful by some, its impact was also acknowledged by both
officers and probationers to be ‘under threat’ by these same friends.
Drugs and alcohol
Potentially at least, drug and alcohol obstacles offered more tangible
challenges for officers to work with. Sixteen officers and probationers
both cited drug use (in effect, heroin use) and 13 cited alcohol use as
an obstacle for the probationer in avoiding future offending (two cited
both as obstacles). The following quotations concern a 23-year-old
female probationer who had started to use methadone since the offence
for which she had been given her 12-month order:
She is doing a programme of preventing drug relapse on a
one-to-one basis with me, which heightens her awareness of
relapse [and] addresses the four stages of relapse . . . She has been
encouraged to go to [a local drug help centre] where she gets
acupuncture for withdrawal [PO 058].
80
The focus of probation
I stay in to baby-sit, avoid users and use methadone. My officer
is directing me on a drugs education programme and I visit
an acupuncture centre to relieve the symptoms of withdrawal
[PR 058].
As one would expect, partnership agencies and group-work programmes dominated both officers’ and probationers’ planned responses to drug and alcohol obstacles. In some instances, as with the
case below, the probationer was already known to local drug agencies,
and so the officer’s role was confined to one of monitoring the
probationer’s progress:
He has actually referred himself back to [a local drug centre] and
we’re waiting for him to be accepted again. I’m trying to keep his
motivation up, but it’s quite difficult – knowing that he is using –
so we’re talking about harm reduction [PO 008].
When I’m on my de-tox programme, they’re going to put me on
tablets so if I purchase a £10 wrap, 7 it won’t have any effect ‘cause
of the tablets – so it would be a waste [to use]. Also, group sessions
– ex-addicts talking about how they have coped. There is a de-tox
programme where I can go away from home for three to four
months, but I wouldn’t want to do that ’cause of my family
[PR 008].
Another officer outlined her thinking behind sending her client to a
local group programme:
He will attend drug groups . . . these include drug education,
information on safe drug use and managing drug use. I’ll try to
get him funding for rehabilitation – I think that this would be more
effective than the groups, although the drug groups might help his
motivation and put him in contact with [a specialist worker] who
would assess him for residential rehabilitation. He needs the
funding to go to rehab, which comes from the probation service
and [a local partnership]. The groups are part of his order, so he
has to do them, but I don’t think they will be that useful to him –
apart from the motivational side. I think if he gets funding and
goes to rehab it will help him a lot. It depends on the probation
service and social services having the money available to finance
this [PO 086].
81
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Her probationer said that he was relying on methadone, reduced over
time, as his main technique for dealing with his addiction. Such
schemes, however, offered the probationer a chance to ‘play off’ one
agency against another, as illustrated by the following quotation from
an officer [198] who was supervising a 23-year-old male on a two-year
order made for possession of heroin: ‘Consultation with his prescriber
and counsellor to stop him playing each other off with us. I’m going to
see if I can get access to his urine tests to find out if he is still using
heroin – then I’ll be able to challenge him on this.’ 8 Other officers
preferred more overt liaisons with medical staff: ‘I went with him to
his GP and supported him in getting a methadone script with the aim
of reducing criminal behaviour’ [PO 013]. The probationer concerned
noted that: ‘I am getting medication, I need to stick with it and try to
stop using on top of it. If I could find work, that would keep me away
[from using]’ [PR 013]. In other words, the intervention itself was not
enough – other distractions from heroin were required. ‘Staying busy’
was also referred to by another probationer [105], who described her
own response to her drug use as being: ‘One step at a time, thinking
positive, changing the people that I associate with and seeing it as a
wrong thing to do. Get some work’.
Officers’ responses to drug-related obstacles suggested a reliance on
referrals. The solutions proposed by officers to alcohol-related obstacles,
whilst again showing a willingness to refer, suggested that discussions
with the probationer were the preferred technique for intervening with
alcohol problems. In some cases an eclectic approach was employed:
Drink diaries, mood diaries, anger management . . . He also
attends a substance misuse programme. Essentially a behavioural
approach with a strong cognitive element. A re-examination of his
personal construct – examining his self-perception in a social
context, extracting the positives and reinforcing these and building
a new positive self-construct leaving behind negatives [PO 171].
The probationer in question said he would ‘take every day as it came’,
cut himself off from drinking buddies and attend Alcoholic Anonymous (to which he had been introduced via the probation service).
However, even in the cases discussed herein – where alcohol-related
obstacles were identified by both probationers and officers – the
proposed solutions were sometimes admitted to be precarious at best:
The only thing I can do is to isolate myself from people who are a
bad influence. I’ll have to work on that. But this is not easy because
82
The focus of probation
you can’t cut [yourself] off completely – its unrespectful. Because
it is like I was explaining before – it’s a community thing, a sense
of belonging. 9 You have to look after them and they look after you
when there’s a need. I’m working on it. It would be an offence to
be with them and not drink. It would mean you are not one of
them [PR 076].
His officer said that he would refer him to a specialist social worker
who worked with those who had alcohol problems and try to
encourage him to enrol on a de-tox programme whilst supporting him
on a one-to-one basis.
The analysis of officers’ and probationers’ beliefs has suggested some
important differences in opinions. Officers’ and probationers’ assessments of the obstacles facing probationers suggested that few agreed
over the obstacles faced. Probationers who reported a particular obstacle
to desistance were likely to be supported in this assessment by their
officers – but the reverse was not true: probationers less frequently
supported their officer’s assessments. Thus it would appear that there
were few officers and probationers who had identified the same obstacle,
or – when they did agree over the obstacles faced – were approaching its
resolution in the same way. In short, there were few officers and
probationers who were ‘working together’. As such, the principles of
‘guidance’ and ‘treatment’ (as enshrined in the UN definition), the
officers’ reports of their work (see above) and the wider literature (e.g.
Rex 1999: 373), whilst worthy values, would not appear to be typically
part of the actual ‘business’ of probation. Some of the quotations above
hint at explanations for this sorry state of affairs. The next task, however,
is to explore the extent to which this effected the rates with which the
probationers overcame the obstacles they faced. Chapter 6 examines this
matter and considers the efforts of both the officers and the probationers
to resolve these obstacles – including the extent to which they ‘worked
together’ – and the impact of these efforts on resolving obstacles.
Notes
1 Imogen Brown (1998: 58–59) listed a similar range of ‘goals’ reported to her
by the probation officers she interviewed in her sample. Officers reported
‘stopping offending’ to be the ‘ultimate goal’. They stated that dealing with
alcohol problems, immaturity, instability, drug use, low self-control and
irresponsibility as amongst the steps needed to achieve the cessation of
offending.
83
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
2 It should be noted that the studies concerned employed various sampling
frames and methodologies. Therefore the finding that desisters have faced
problems in stopping offending is probably not a function of inadequate or
biased research. For example, Rex (1999) relied upon a probation-based
sample, Burnett (1992) on a sample drawn from those recently released from
prison, Cusson and Pinsonneault (1983) and Dale (1976) on samples drawn
from outside the criminal justice system and Maruna (1997) on published
autobiographies of desistance.
3 Multiple responses possible.
4 For example, of the 60 obstacles relating to personal problems identified by
the officers, 28 related to the probationer’s ‘state of mind’, depression or
stress whilst only 7 officers referred to their probationer as having ‘poor
temper control’. Of the 18 probationers who reported that they faced
personal characteristics which would make desistance hard, only 6 were
related to poor temper control – the rest being problems associated with
changing ones lifestyle, boredom, finding crime exciting or being depressed.
5 Multiple responses possible, n of Officers!181.
6 It is, of course, impossible to compare how those officers and probationers
who did not agree about the problems faced by the probationer proposed to
tackle these problems because these problems were not probed during both
interviews.
7 A ‘wrap’ is a common expression used to refer to small amounts of, in this
case, heroin which are measured out by dealers prior to the sale into
amounts of sufficient dosage to allow the purchaser to use all the ‘wrap’ in
one go.
8 Interestingly, the probationer in question said that he had already solved his
drug use problem by ‘moving off the estate’ and ‘trying to keep away from
druggies’. He also said that he ‘didn’t talk to his officer much about drugs’.
9 The probationer was a ‘born alcoholic’ who periodically lived on the streets.
84
Chapter 6
Resolving obstacles: the role
of probation supervision
One of the key criterion of successful probation supervision is the
overcoming or negation of obstacles which would otherwise have led
to further offending. As one of the principal aims of probation
supervision is to prevent further offending, tackling an obstacle in such
a way that it is no longer felt to represent a risk factor is used as the
measure of success. As can be seen by examining the emboldened row
in Table 6.1, around a half the obstacles identified at the beginning of
the orders were felt to have been successfully resolved.
Because the outcome of probation supervision was assessed by rates
of offending and desistance, it was important to design a measure of
successful obstacle resolution which was sufficiently different from
these measures to avoid a tautology. By asking whether each specific
obstacle had made it hard for the probationer to stop offending, the
focus is on the outcome of the work undertaken to resolve that obstacle,
as opposed to the probationer’s offending in general. Of course, it was
anticipated that those who had not offended or who showed signs of
desisting would be drawn heavily from those who either faced no
obstacles or had resolved those which they had faced.
Table 6.1: The extent to which obstacles were successfully resolved
Total obstacles identified at start
. . . of which followed up by research team
. . . of which resolved
. . . of which not resolved
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-8
Probationers
(n)
(%)
Officers
(n)
(%)
122
101
53
48
307
307
147
160
100
83
52
48
100
100
48
52
85
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
What was the relationship between facing obstacles, resolving
obstacles and desisting? Those probationers who said that they faced
no obstacles when first interviewed were less likely to have reported
having offended at the subsequent interview (p!.001). There was also
a strong relationship between reports of successfully overcoming an
obstacle and the avoidance of offending. When successfully overcome
obstacles were cross-tabulated with the reports of actual offending –
gained in a separate section of the interview – a clear trend could be
observed. Obstacles which were felt to have been overcome were
strongly associated with reports of non-offending. For example, of the
80 probationers who reported facing at least one obstacle when first
interviewed and who were followed up, 40 said that at least one of the
obstacles had made it hard for them to stop offending. Of these 40, 28
(70 per cent) also reported having offended since starting probation as
a result of the obstacle(s). Of the 40 probationers who said that the
obstacle(s) had not made it hard for them to stop offending, only 17 (42
per cent) reported having offended during the same period (p!!.000)
– furthermore, an analysis of their descriptions of the events leading
up to their offending suggested that these episodes were unrelated to
the obstacles they said they faced. Similarly, the 12 probationers who
said that the obstacle which they had identified had made avoiding
offending hard, but who had not offended, reported that they had been
tempted or come close to offending, but had (so far) managed to avoid
this. 1 In order to check the validity of these results, officers’ assessments of whether the obstacles had led to further offending or not were
also compared with probationers’ self-reports of offending – again the
results were statistically significant: officers who reported that obstacles had been resolved were supervising more probationers who did
indeed report having avoided offending than those for whom the
obstacles had not been resolved (p!!.000).
There was a similarly strong relationship between resolving obstacles and desisting (Table 6.2). Of the 76 probationers who reported
facing no obstacles and whom it was possible to classify as either a
desister or a persister, 62 (82 per cent) were rated as desisters. Those
who reported having overcome the obstacles they faced were slightly
less likely to have desisted, but still almost seven out of ten had done
so. Finally, those who did not resolve their obstacles were even less
likely to have desisted (although 51 per cent still managed to do so).
What were the ‘motors’ which drove obstacle resolution? Was this
the result of the good work of probation officers? Was it due to the
motivation of some probationers to avoid further trouble? Or was it
due to some other factors, or combination of factors? It was these sorts
86
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
Table 6.2: Desistance by obstacles: probationers’ reports 2
Faced no
obstacles
(n)
(%)
Obstacles were
resolved
(n)
(%)
Obstacles not
resolved
(n)
(%)
(n)
Total
(%)
Desisters
Persisters
62
14
(82)
(18)
27
12
(69)
(31)
20
19
(51)
(49)
109
45
(71)
(29)
Total
76
(100)
39
(100)
39
(100)
154
(100)
of questions to which the project sought answers. Because the aim of
the project was to develop the understanding of the processes involved
in influencing these outcomes rather than just the correlates of these
outcomes (Pawson and Tilley 1997), it was not enough to employ ‘black
box’ approaches to these sorts of outcomes. The keys used to ‘open’ the
‘black box’ of probation required a reliance upon both quantitative and
qualitative data sources, and an emphasis on locating probation
supervision in wider social and personal contexts. To this end it was
assumed that, to varying degrees, all the following would influence the
outcome of probation supervision:
! The work of the supervising probation officer;
! The motivation of the individual probationer; and
! The individual probationer’s social and personal circumstances.
It was further assumed, in line with Byrne (1998), that these influences
would (1) interact with one another (sometimes working to support one
another and sometimes working to ‘cancel each other out’); and (2)
would be dynamic, changing both their nature and the extent to which
they influenced one another and, ultimately, the outcome of supervision.
The role of supervision
The remainder of this chapter explores the attempts to resolve the
obstacles identified by officers and probationers and it focuses on the
extent to which probation supervision helped to resolve obstacles.
Because so few officer–probationer pairs agreed about the obstacles
faced by the probationer (see Chapter 5), this chapter proceeds with
separate analyses of officers’ and probationers’ accounts of their efforts.
The officers’ accounts are dealt with first.
87
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Officers’ responses
When followed up, 3 officers’ reports of the work which they had
undertaken suggested that they had employed practical help, written
work, role playing, family work and referrals less frequently than they
had anticipated – general discussions dominated their work (Table 6.3).
It is interesting to note the limited use of group-work programmes –
less than half the proposed uses of such programmes actually came to
fruition. One fifth of the officers said that, in their opinion, the
probationer had resolved the obstacle themselves, and just over a
quarter said that the obstacle had not been addressed at all.
Officers’ answers regarding the extent to which the obstacles they
had identified had been resolved are summarised in Table 6.4. As can
be seen, around 40–50 per cent of each type of obstacle were felt to
have been resolved. Officers were asked to describe not only their own
efforts to tackle the obstacle which they had identified, but also their
assessment of the efforts of the probationer to tackle the same obstacle.
The officers’ descriptions of their own efforts 6 and their reports of the
Table 6.3: Methods used to tackle sweep-one obstacles: officers’ reports 4
Category
Sweep one: proposed
(n)
(%)
Reporting only
Practical help
Talk – open ended
Talk – about past
Talk – about present
Activity – written
Activity – visual
Activity – role play
Activity – task
Family work
Referral – group programme
Referral – other in-house
Referral – partnership
Referral – other agency
Other
Nothing – probationer did it all
Nothing – not addressed at all
Missing
3
59
131
32
42
20
3
22
8
22
37
36
41
63
46
—
—
—
Total (officers)
181
88
2
33
72
17
22
11
2
12
4
12
21
21
23
35
26
—
—
—
Follow-up: employed
(n)
(%)
1
24
129
22
34
2
3
3
4
6
15
17
33
39
17
34
50
5
176
—
13
71
12
19
1
1
1
2
3
8
9
18
22
9
19
28
3
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
Table 6.4: Resolving obstacles: officers’ reports 5
Obstacle type
Drugs/alcohol
Friends/family
Personal characteristics
Social problems
Finances
Other
Total (obstacles)
Identified
at start
(n)
Percentage which were
resolved by next interview
(%)
74
74
60
54
13
32
51
38
52
52
38
50
307
48
probationers’ efforts 7 to overcome the obstacles were similarly recoded into a number of variables.
For all obstacles types taken together and each individual obstacle
type, analyses were undertaken to assess whether any specific types of
intervention employed by officers or types of responses taken by
probationers were more frequently associated with the successful
resolution of obstacles. For example, did officers who referred probationers have a higher proportion who had successfully resolved the
obstacle they faced, than, say, officers who gave practical help? Were
those who gave practical help to tackle drug obstacles more successful
than those who gave practical help to tackle social problems? Similarly,
were those probationers who sought employment as a solution to
obstacles relating to alcohol more successful than those who moved
home?
Very few of the intervention types employed by officers, however,
were found to be related to officers’ accounts of whether the obstacle
had made it hard for the probationer to stop offending. 8 This suggests
that few particular types of intervention were any more likely to be
effective than any other type, and that virtually all types were ineffective
in combating obstacles. Similarly, none of the officers’ reports of the
probationer’s actions were significantly associated with the ‘successful’
resolution of obstacles either. However, reporting that the probationer
had not been motivated to address the obstacle was significantly
related to it having not been resolved (p!!.000). In other words, from
the officers’ accounts of their own work and the actions of the
probationer, it would appear that no particular types of intervention
were more effective than any other in helping probationers to overcome the obstacles they were felt to face.
89
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Of course, it may be hypothesised that those officers and probationers who actively worked together would be more likely to combat
successfully and overcome an obstacle than those who did not work
together. With this in mind, additional analyses were undertaken
which explored the extent and nature of co-operation between officers
and probationers. For each obstacle, a further variable, recording the
extent to which the officer and probationer worked together, was
created. A summary of these analyses is shown in Table 6.5. 9
Whilst the numbers were small, some patterns did emerge. About a
third of the officers reported that they and their probationer worked
jointly on the obstacle. This degree of ‘co-working’ was in line with the
analyses presented in Chapter 5, which suggested that few officers and
probationers had identified the same obstacles. Co-working was most
common amongst those whom the officer had felt faced an obstacle
relating to their drug usage (19 out of 35), and least common amongst
those with friends/family obstacles (18 out of 74). Personal characteristics was the obstacle least often addressed – in over a quarter of the
instances in which the officer had identified the probationer as having
such an obstacle, no work had been undertaken (see the emboldened
text in Table 6.5). Obstacles relating to social problems were often left
to the probationer to take the lead in solving – one third of those
officers who had identified their probationer as facing an obstacle of
this nature reported that they had relied on the probationer taking the
lead or sole responsibility for tackling the obstacle.
In order to assess the extent to which working styles were related to
successful outcomes, officers’ assessments of whether the obstacle had
or had not been resolved were cross-tabulated against the above
working styles 16 for each obstacle type. These analyses suggested that
there were no differences in terms of outcomes between officer-led/coworking styles and any other style of work. 17 In other words, if the
probationers in the current study had been left to their own devices, or
if no interventions had been undertaken, they were just as likely to
have overcome the obstacle they faced successfully as they would have
been if their officers had led/co-worked with them.
These findings do not suggest that these efforts never produced
beneficial results but that they were just as likely to succeed as they
were to fail. In other words, the outcomes appear to exist independently of the interventions undertaken. Of course, one obvious limitation of
the analyses presented so far is that the probationer’s perspective is
missing. Whilst officers can report their own understanding of the
probationer’s response to the obstacle identified and the outcomes of
these efforts, it is important to understand probation supervision from
90
3
16
4
8
6
4
0
0 (0)
19 (54)
1 (3)
4 (11)
8 (23)
3 (9)
0 (0)
35 (100)
Officer took the lead 10
Officer/probationer ‘co-working’ 11
Officer/probationer working separately 12
Probationer took the lead 13
Was not addressed 14
Change of officer, ‘don’t know’, etc. 15
Missing
Total
41 (100)
(7)
(39)
(11)
(20)
(15)
(10)
(0)
Alcohol
Drugs
Intervention styles
(0)
(24)
(8)
(18)
(23)
(26)
(1)
74 (100)
0
18
6
13
17
19
1
Friends/
family
60 (100)
3 (5)
20 (33)
4 (7)
2 (3)
16 (27)
15 (25)
0 (0)
Personal
characteristics
(2)
(30)
(2)
(33)
(20)
(15)
(0)
54 (100)
1
15
1
18
11
8
0
Social
problems
Table 6.5: Intervention styles sweep-one obstacles: officers’ reports (numbers, with percentages in parentheses)
(3)
(33)
(6)
(17)
(22)
(19)
(—)
264 (100)
7
88
16
45
58
49
1
Total
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
91
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
the probationer’s perspective. Accordingly, the probationers’ accounts
of the work undertaken were the next subject of the inquiry.
Probationers’ responses
Like officers, probationers were asked about the help which they had
received from their officer in attempting to address the obstacle(s)
concerned. Thirty-two per cent of the probationers said that the officer
had been of ‘little’ or ‘no help’ to them in solving the obstacle which
they had identified. However, over 50 per cent reported that their
officer had helped them confront the obstacle which they had identified. In virtually every case this help consisted of advice: 31 out of the
48 probationers who said that their officer had helped said that their
officer had given them advice.
The data derived from interviews with probationers were subjected
to analyses which paralleled those reported above for officers. Table 6.6
outlines the probationers’ reports of the extent to which they felt the
obstacles which they said they faced had been resolved. Whilst direct
comparisons between officers and probationers should not be made (as
a minority had agreed about the nature of the obstacles faced), some
general trends can be observed.
Probationers’ ratings of the extent to which the obstacles had made
stopping offending hard (i.e. were still unresolved) reveal some
interesting findings (Table 6.6). Half the officers said that the 74 drug
and/or alcohol obstacles they had identified had made it hard for the
probationer to stop, and the same figure for probationers was very
close (57 per cent). In fact, with the exception of ‘other’ obstacles,
Table 6.6: Resolving obstacles: probationers’ reports 18
Obstacle type
Drugs/alcohol
Friends/family
Personal characteristics
Social problems
Finances
Other
Total obstacles
Identified at start
and followed up
(n)
28
24
17
11
13
8
101 (307)
Note: Officers’ reports in parentheses.
92
(74)
(74)
(60)
(54)
(13)
(32)
Of which
resolved
(%)
57
38
53
64
50
77
(51)
(38)
(52)
(52)
(50)
(38)
53 (48)
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
probationer’s assessments for all obstacle types were very close to
those of the officers (compare Tables 6.4 and 6.6).
Like the officers, probationers were asked to describe the work
undertaken by their officer and their own attempts to tackle each of the
obstacles which they had identified. Probationers’ descriptions of their
officer’s work were re-coded into one of three variables: the officer did
nothing/very little; officer gave me advice; and officer helped in
another way. 19 The probationer’s descriptions of their own efforts to
resolve the obstacle they said they had faced were re-coded into
variables similar to those used when exploring the officer’s accounts of
the probationer’s activities (see footnote 8). 20
Analyses of the types of interventions for all obstacles and for each
obstacle type failed to uncover any statistically significant results –
broadly in line with the same analyses performed using the officer’s
data. As with the officers, analyses were undertaken to explore the
extent and nature of the co-operation between officers and probationers.
For each probationer, a further variable recording the extent to which
the probationer and officer co-operated together in solving the obstacle
mentioned was created, again in line with those created from officers’
reports. A summary of these responses is given in Table 6.7.
Again, the number of cases was very small, and drawing definitive
conclusions from them should be avoided. However, it is interesting to
note that almost half the probationers who reported that they faced a
drug or alcohol-related obstacle said that they had addressed this
without the assistance of their officers (i.e. that they did not co-work
with their officer). In parallel with the officers, analyses were undertaken to assess the extent to which these differing intervention styles
were related to outcomes. In none of the analyses undertaken on the
officers’ reports was statistical significance reached. This again suggests
not that ‘working together’ never produced beneficial results, but that
it was just as likely to fail to resolve the obstacle as it was to succeed.
From the foregoing analyses it would appear that whilst there were
often attempts made to tackle the obstacles identified, these were not
always successful – in so far that the obstacle still made it hard for the
probationer to stop offending. This finding, initially observed when
officers’ accounts were explored, was confirmed when probationers’
reports were examined. As stressed above, the interpretation of these
findings is not to claim that ‘nothing works’, but rather to conclude that
these reported efforts appeared to be just as likely to fail as they were
to succeed.
Four possible explanations for this finding exist. First, although there
were very few obstacles which officers said had not materialised, on
93
94
1 (4)
8 (29)
3 (11)
12 (43)
2 (7)
2 (7)
28 (100)
Total
Drugs and/
or alcohol
Officer took the lead 21
Officer/probationer ‘co-working’ 22
Officer/probationer working separately 23
Probationer took the lead 24
Was not addressed 25
Cannot remember, ‘don’t know’, etc. 26
Intervention styles
(4)
(1)
(17)
(21)
(21)
(17)
24 (100)
1
5
4
5
5
4
Friends/
family
(12)
(18)
(—)
(35)
(18)
(18)
17 (100)
2
3
0
6
3
3
Personal
characteristics
(—)
(46)
(10)
(36)
(—)
(10)
11 (100)
0
5
1
4
0
1
Social
problems
Table 6.7: Intervention styles sweep-one obstacles: probationers’ reports (numbers, with percentages in parentheses)
(5)
(26)
(10)
(34)
(13)
(13)
80 (100)
4
21
8
27
10
10
Total
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
which they had not worked, or which they felt unable to comment
upon for various reasons, given the small cell sizes involved, the
inclusion of data pertaining to these obstacles may have distorted the
findings. Analyses, without these data, were rerun. The findings
remained the same. Similar analyses were undertaken with the
probationers’ responses, this time ‘dropping’ from the analyses those
obstacles which probationers had said did not emerge or about which
they had forgotten what had been done. Again, the initial findings
were supported.
Secondly, it could be argued that the officers and probationers
identified a range of ‘needs’ rather than ‘obstacles to avoiding further
offending’. For example, unemployment per se does not prevent an
individual from desisting. One can be unemployed and desist, or
employed and offend. To what extent, then, were the obstacles
identified by officers obstacles which could reasonably be thought to
be related to offending? It is not possible to comment definitively upon
this issue. However, on the basis of what is known about the correlates
of offending, the obstacles identified appeared to represent the commonly observed ‘risk factors’ for continued offending. For example, the
obstacles identified by officers were dominated by problem drug and
alcohol usage, peer groups, poor employment prospects, financial
difficulties and depression/low morale. None of these seem unreasonable features of an individual’s life to identify as possible causes of
further offending. Like the officers who supervised them, the probationers also did not appear to identify obstacles which bore no relation
to offending. The hypothesis that officers and probationers identified
‘social needs’ rather than ‘obstacles to avoiding further offending’ is
therefore unsupported.
Two remaining explanations remain to be explored. These form the
focus of the following chapter, which deals with the role of motivation
in tackling the obstacles to desistance identified by officers and
probationers, and the subsequent chapter, which explores the impact
of social and personal context on the efforts to tackle these obstacles.
Notes
1 These findings were replicated with officers’ reports, again at the p!! .000
level.
2 Virtually identical results were obtained when officers’ reports of whether
obstacles had been resolved or not were cross-tabulated against desistance
and persistence. Desisters here refers to those who did not offend, who
95
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
3
4
5
6
7
8
96
showed signs of desisting or who committed only trivial offences.
Persisters are those whose offending was either non-trivial or appeared to
be escalating.
All analyses (unless otherwise stated) employ responses from officers and
probationers from their second research interview. For many cases this is,
of course, the interview conducted during the second sweep of fieldwork.
However, there were a small number of both officers and probationers who
were not seen during sweep two, but who were seen during sweep three.
For these 8 officers and 20 probationers, the responses which they gave in
the third sweep are employed. For the officers this means that the total
number of respondents is 198 and, for probationers, 157.
This chapter relies most heavily (but not exclusively) on the data
collected when officers and probationers were interviewed for the second
time (rather than all follow-up data). When the data collected at the third
interview were analysed, it was observed that many officers and probationers reported little work having been undertaken between the second
and third interviews. This is entirely understandable as, by that time, many
probationers had to all intents and purposes completed their supervision
and had been placed on nominal contact. In order therefore to make a
meaningful comparison of working styles, the analyses rely most heavily
on data from the second interviews.
Multiple responses possible.
Multiple responses possible.
More specifically: practical help; talking; activities; family work; referrals
(including group programmes); and ‘other’ interventions (including the use
of a reporting scheme). In addition to these, variables for the obstacles
which were either not addressed or which the probationer overcame without
help were also created.
More specifically: the probationer motivated him/herself (such as the probationer ‘realising crime was wrong’, ‘reassessing his or her life’, ‘started
thinking more before acting’ and the such like, all of which contained an
element of the awareness that ‘something needed to change’ and that this
change was, at least, initiated); the probationer got a job (which included
getting work, getting better work, seeking work and joining the armed
services); the probationer addressed or changed his or her family situation in some
way (such as finding a new partner, leaving the old one, trying to get on
better with his or her family or taking some similar action); the probationer
addressed or changed his or her drug intake (mainly gave up altogether or
reduced drug intake); the probationer addressed or changed his or her alcohol
intake (mainly gave up altogether or reduced alcohol intake); the probationer
moved home; the probationer changed his or her friends; the probationer attended
group work or other counselling; the probationer did not address the obstacle and
I don’t know what the probationer did.
Including: talking to the probationer (associated with making obstacle
resolution harder, chi. sq. p!.005) and referring the probationer (also
Resolving obstacles: the role of probation supervision
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
associated with making obstacle resolution harder, chi. sq. p!.005). Similarly, referring the probationer to a partnership for a drug-related obstacle
was associated with making obstacle resolution harder than if the probationer had not been referred (Fisher’s Exact Test!.009), as was the
probationer attending a group programme (again associated with the
obstacle making obstacle resolution harder than if the probationer had not
been referred, Fisher’s Exact Test!.013).
As financial obstacles and ‘other’ obstacles have been omitted from Table
6.5, the total number of obstacles is reduced slightly to 264.
That is, that the lion’s share of the responsibility fell to the officer.
That is, that the officer and the probationer set about tackling the obstacle
along similar lines, often in conjunction with one another.
Officer and probationer both tackled the obstacle, but employed different
techniques.
That is, that the lion’s share of the responsibility fell to the probationer.
This (often, but not exclusively) refers to the probationer failing to take up
the officer’s advice, referrals, offers of help and the such like. In a few cases,
the probationer’s ‘presenting problems’ were so pressing that they required
they be focused on to the exclusion of all other obstacles, or one obstacle
could not be tackled until another had been resolved first. In a very few
cases the officers admitted that they simply had not addressed the obstacle
at all, but gave no clear explanation of why this was.
In some instances, the supervising officer had changed and did not agree
with the previous officer’s assessment of the obstacle, or felt unable to
comment on the work undertaken. In other cases the officer had changed
his or her mind about the salience of obstacle and accordingly no work had
been undertaken. Additionally, the obstacle may have been ‘hypothetical’
(i.e. ‘if he lost his job’) and the situation never arisen, hence no work having
been undertaken.
These were re-coded with ‘officer led’ and ‘officer/probationer co-working’
against all other working styles. The hypothesis being that success was
more likely in those cases where the officer took responsibility for solving
the problem or where both parties worked together.
Chi square values for these tests lay between .505 and .866, far greater than
even the least acceptable level at which statistical significance is commonly
accepted (.050).
Multiple responses possible.
Such as gave counselling, taught coping techniques, changed my attitude,
gave practical assistance or made a referral.
In some cases these codes were slightly different. For example, whilst there
were three officers who said that their probationer had ‘found god’, none
of the probationers interviewed reported this as a technique for tackling the
obstacle in hand. Again, obstacles relating to finances and ‘other’ obstacles
have been dropped from Table 6.7, bringing the number of obstacles to 80.
That is, that the lion’s share of the responsibility fell to the officer.
97
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
22 That is, that the officer and the probationer set about tackling the obstacle
along similar lines, often in conjunction with one another.
23 Officers and probationer both tackled the obstacle, but often employing
different techniques.
24 That is, that the lion’s share of the responsibility fell to the probationer.
25 This (often, but not exclusively) refers to the probationer failing to take up
the officer’s advice, referrals, offers of help and the such like. In a few cases,
the probationer’s ‘presenting problems’ were so pressing that they required
they be focused on to the exclusion of all other obstacles, or one obstacle
could not be tackled until another had been resolved first. In a very few
cases the officers admitted that they simply had not addressed the obstacle
at all, but gave no clear explanation of why this was.
26 In some instances probationers were unable to provide details about the
work which had been undertaken. Where this was the case it was often due
to their ‘not remembering’ what had happened or missing data. Like the
officers, some probationers reported obstacles which were ‘hypothetical’
(i.e. ‘if my wife left me’) and the situation having never arisen, so no work
was undertaken.
98
Chapter 7
Motivation and probation
Motivation to desist
Having the motivation to avoid further offending is perhaps one of the
key factors in explaining desistance. As mentioned in Chapter 1, West
(1978), Shover (1983), Shover and Thompson (1992), Moffitt (1993),
Sommers et al. (1994) and Pezzin (1995) have all pointed to a range of
factors which motivated the offenders in their samples to desist. These
included the desire to avoid negative consequences (such as death or
serious injury), realising that legitimate financial gains outweigh
criminal gains, wanting to ‘lead a quieter life’, embarking upon a
committed personal relationship and so on. 1 Burnett (1992: 66, 1994:
55–56) suggested that those ex-prisoners who reported that they wanted
to stop offending and, importantly, felt they were able to stop
offending, were more likely to desist than those who said they were
unsure if they wanted to stop offending:
‘more of those who desisted stated unequivocally at both the
pre-release [from prison] and the post-release [interview] that they
wanted to desist’ (1992: 66).
Thus, in the current study, both probationers and officers were asked
if the probationer wanted to stop offending and if he or she would be
able to do so. As many as 95 per cent of the probationers said that they
wanted to stop offending and their officers reported similar rates (see
Table 7.1a). A slightly different picture emerged, however, when
officers and the probationers were asked about ability to stop offending
(Table 7.1b). Whilst most thought that the probationer would be able
to stop offending, there was a significant minority of both officers and
probationers who said that they did not know if the probationer would
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-9
99
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 7.1: Motivation and expectation to desist
a Want to stop offending?
Yes
Don’t know
No
b Able to stop offending?
Yes
Don’t know
No
Total (n!199)
Probationers
Officers
94
2
4
96
2
2
80
14
6
68
16
16
100
100
Note: All figures are percentages.
be able stop offending (around 15 per cent for each). Officers were three
times more likely to report that their probationer would not be able to
stop offending than the probationers themselves (16 per cent as
opposed to 6 per cent).
It would appear, therefore, that the probationers in the current
sample were very keen to avoid further offending. Burnett (1992: 47)
reported that 82 per cent of the prisoners in her study were motivated
to desist – in the current study 94 per cent of probationers said that
they wanted to stop. Similarly, Burnett’s prisoners were less confident
about their ability to stop offending (41 per cent of her study said they
felt able to desist compared to 80 per cent of the current study). The
explanation for the lower rates of ‘confidence’ amongst inmates in the
Burnett (1992: 82) study is probably related to the fact that the prison
inmates in her sample more frequently reported obstacles to desisting
and had experienced long periods of incarceration (ibid.: 42, Table
3.1b). 2 The number of probationers in the study who said they wanted
to stop offending and felt able to do so suggested that they were ‘good
working material’ for probation officers.
When the officers’ responses were considered, most of them also said
that they thought that their probationer wanted and would be able to
stop offending (68 per cent), but 16 per cent said they were unsure of
their ability to so do, and another 16 per cent felt that, despite their
probationer’s motivation to stop, they would be unable to do so. They
were therefore more cautious in their prognoses than the probationers.
More detailed analyses of officers’ and probationers’ responses
concerning ability and desire to cease offending indicated that there
were three groups of probationers:
100
Motivation and probation
1. Some 110 probationers who said that they wanted to, and felt that they
would be able to stop offending and whose officers agreed with these
assessments. These cases are referred to as ‘the confident’ (as both
parties are confident of the probationer’s desire and ability to desist).
2. A second group (n!46) of probationers said that they wanted to
and felt able to stop offending, but their officers did not support this
assessment – they either felt that the probationer did not want to
desist, was unable to desist or both. These cases are referred to as
‘the optimists’.
3. And ‘the pessimists’ (the remaining group of probationers; n!43)
who said that they did not want to stop, would be unable to stop or
both. In some cases, officers supported their assessments but, in
others, they did not.
The stability of motivation
As well as being asked to describe the probationer’s desire and ability
to desist at the first interview, officers and probationers were asked
identical questions during the second and third interviews. This
enabled the progression of the probationers’ motivation–expectation 3
during the order to be charted. Table 7.2 summarises the progression
of the three groups throughout their orders.
For ease of presentation, Table 7.2 presents data relating solely to
those cases for which both officers and probationers were interviewed
Table 7.2: Changes in motivation throughout the order
Motivation–expectation at sweep one
Confident
Optimistic
Pessimistic
(n)
(%)
(n)
(%)
(n)
(%)
Total
(n)
(%)
Sweep two
Confident
Optimistic
Pessimistic
34
11
9
(63)
(20)
(17)
10
4
2
(63)
(25)
(13)
6
5
9
(30)
(25)
(45)
50
20
20
(56)
(22)
(22)
Sweep three
Confident
Optimistic
Pessimistic
45
5
4
(83)
(9)
(7)
6
9
1
(38)
(56)
(6)
8
3
9
(40)
(15)
(45)
59
17
14
(65)
(19)
(16)
Total
54
(100)
16
(100)
20
(100)
90
(100)
101
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
at all three sweeps of interviewing (n!90). 4 Of the 90 cases selected for
inclusion in the analyses reported in Table 7.2, 54 (60 per cent) were
rated as being confident at the first sweep, 16 (18 per cent) were rated
as being optimistic at the first sweep and 20 (22 per cent) as being
pessimistic. (To this end, the 90 selected cases are skewed slightly
towards the confident, mainly at the expense of the optimistic.)
The upper half of Table 7.2 indicates that at the second sweep, 63 per
cent of the confident remained rated as confident, whilst 11 cases (20
per cent) had moved into the optimistic group (in other words, their
officers felt less certain that they desired or would be able to desist). A
slightly smaller group of confidents (n!nine; 17 per cent) were now
rated as pessimists (that is to say that the probationers themselves now
felt that they could not desist). Most of those rated as optimistic at the
first sweep (10 out of 16) had done sufficiently well for their officers to
have become convinced that they could now stop offending and were
accordingly rated as confidents. Of those rated as pessimists at the first
sweep, almost half (9 out of 20) had remained pessimists, whilst the
remainder had either started to believe they could desist (n!5), or both
they and their officers now felt that they could desist (n!6).
When the responses from the third sweep were examined (the lower half
of Table 7.2), some of the trends noted in the upper half of the table appear
to have reversed. Most of the confidents that had been rated as either
optimists or pessimists at the second sweep had ‘returned to the fold’, so to
speak. Similarly, some of the optimists who had been rated as confidents
were once again rated as optimists. Finally, some of the pessimists
continued their progression towards becoming confident – with previously
rated pessimists becoming rated as confidents or optimists. 5 Further
analyses suggested that shifts in rates of offending, drug and alcohol usage,
and changes in personal and social circumstances were the main reasons
given by officers and probationers in accounting for the changes in their
assessment of changes in the latter’s motivation. In short, the assessments
of motivation were fairly stable, although some cases initially classified as
pessimists were later reassessed as optimists or confidents.
Variations in criminal history and social circumstances by
motivation
These three groups, on closer inspection, were found to differ from one
another in several ways, especially in terms of their socio-demographic
characteristics and criminal histories. Table 7.3 outlines some of their
characteristics.
102
Motivation and probation
Table 7.3: Motivation groups’ criminal histories at start of order
Average for each group
Age at start of order
Age at first conviction
Previous convictions (n)
Previous probation orders (n)
Previous custody (n)
OGRS
Total
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
All
25 yrs
20 yrs
6
0.5
0.6
53%
25 yrs
19 yrs
11
0.6
2.4
61%
26 yrs
17 yrs
19
2.4
2.3
68%
25 yrs
19 yrs
10
0.9
1.3
58%
46
43
110
199
Whilst there was little difference in their age at the start of the orders,
the pessimists were younger when first convicted (being on average 17
years old) compared to the confident (on average 20 years old) or the
optimists (aged on average 19 years when first convicted). Consequently the average length of their criminal careers varied: confidents had
the shortest careers at five years, optimists’ average career length was
six years and the pessimist had by far the longest, with an average
nine-year criminal career. There were substantial differences in the
average number of convictions recorded against each group: the
confident were the least frequently convicted (averaging 6 convictions
each), with the optimistic the next most convicted (averaging 11
convictions each) and the pessimistic the most convicted (averaging 19
convictions each). Their average number of previous probation orders
and prison sentences also differed: the confident and optimistic had
had little experience of either, whilst the pessimistic had had more
experience. When previous custodial sentences were considered, the
confident can be seen to have had very little experience, unlike either
the optimistic or the pessimistic.
The confident, when compared to the optimists/pessimists, were
more likely to be in the lower half of OGRS scores (p!!.05), to have
had the fewest convictions (p!!.000) and to have never previously
been in prison (p!!.000). When compared against the confident/
optimistic, pessimists were more likely to have been in prison before
(p!!.000). In terms of offending since the start of the order, the
confident were less likely than either the optimists or the pessimists to
have reported offending during the time (about seven weeks) since the
start of the order (probationer report: p!.05; officer report: p!!.000).
The pessimists, however, were more likely than either the confident or
the optimists to have reported offending since the start of the order
(p!!.01).
103
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 7.4: ‘Problematic’ circumstances at the time of the offence: probationers’
reports (%)
Social circumstance
Accommodation
Employment
Finances
Partner
Family
Alcohol
Drugs
Gambling
Feeling down/depressed
Other
Three or more problems
Total (n of sample)
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
All
29
56
48
38
42
21
27
6
63
27
43
39
57
65
28
46
17
46
2
63
30
50
54
51
51
21
26
33
37
7
65
40
56
37
55
53
32
39
23
34
6
63
31
47
110
46
43
199
Confidents reported that on average they had fewer problematic
social and personal circumstances at the time of the offence than either
the optimistic or the pessimistic (Table 7.4, emboldened row), although
this difference was not statistically significant.
The confident were the least likely of the three groups to describe
their accommodation and finances as being problems at the time of the
offence. Their reporting of ‘problem’ drug usage was also lower than
either the optimistic or the pessimistic. The optimists had the highest
rates of reporting both employment and finances as problems, especially the latter. The pessimists were more likely than either the confident
or the optimistic to report that their use of alcohol had been a problem.
The confident were the group most likely to report that their
relationship with their partner had been a problem. Feeling down,
depressed or anxious appears to have been a feature of life common to
all three groups.
The pessimists reported fewer employment, family or partnerrelated problems than either of confidents or the optimists. This could,
in part, be explained by the pessimists actually having fewer relationships with partners and family members and, as such, these features
of their lives not presenting immediate problems by virtue of their total
absence rather than the inherent quality of these relationships for the
pessimists. 6 Another explanation might also be that what is a problem
for one person is less of a problem for another – the perennial dilemma
for self-report studies. 7
104
Motivation and probation
The three groups differed also with regards to the obstacles which
they had been identified as facing at the outset of their orders. The
confident were the most likely to have faced no obstacles (officer
report: p!!.05; probationer report: p!!.01); their officers were also
less likely to have described the confident as facing obstacles relating
to their personal characteristics (p!!.01) or to be facing obstacles
relating to their drug and alcohol usage (p!!.05) than either of the
other groups. The pessimistic had been reported by their officers as
being more likely to face at least one obstacle to desisting (p!!.000),
whilst the optimistic had been more likely than either the confident or
the pessimists to have been assessed by their officers as facing obstacles
related to their personal characteristics (p!!.05).
These findings suggest an important conclusion: that the group of
probationers felt most like to desist (the confident) is similar, in
characteristics, to those identified in the general literature as being the
least likely to be re-convicted. These, then, were a group of relatively
non-problematic probationers; both they and their officers believed that
they wanted to and would be able to stop offending and their
socio-demographic and criminal history variables would appear to
lend some weight to these assessments. More importantly, their
self-reported offending, their officers’ estimates of their offending and
the frequency with which they identified obstacles supported the belief
that they could and would desist.
The role of motivation in overcoming obstacles
What part did motivation play in the resolution of obstacles? Table 7.5
summarises the obstacles which officers and probationers identified at all
three sweeps of interviewing and analyses this by motivation. 8 The table
confirms that both officers and probationers reported that fewer of the
confident faced obstacles which were related to their personal characteristics than the pessimists. For example, only 17 per cent of the confident
probationers were reported by their officers to have faced such obstacles,
whilst for pessimists the figure was 31 per cent (the emboldened text).
However, there were few other outstanding differences in the reports of
the obstacles faced by each of the three groups of probationers.
The resolution of obstacles
Table 7.6 reports the extent to which the obstacles identified had been
felt by officers and probationers to have been resolved. 9 Again, it is
105
106
(26)
(4)
(22)
(24)
(17)
(8)
690 (100) 314 (100)
81
13
68
74
53
25
Total no. of obstacles identified
(22)
(5)
(22)
(20)
(22)
(8)
152
36
150
140
155
57
(18)
(8)
(24)
(21)
(22)
(10)
35
10
35
29
55
12
(20)
(6)
(20)
(16)
(31)
(7)
35
31
54
30
28
14
(18)
(16)
(18)
(16)
(15)
(7)
(21)
(20)
(27)
(13)
(13)
(5)
84 (100)
18
17
23
11
11
4
(23)
(18)
(41)
(10)
(3)
(5)
39 (100)
9
7
16
4
1
2
(12)
(10)
(22)
(20)
(24)
(12)
68 (100)
8
7
15
14
16
8
Probationer identified obstacles (n) (%)
All
Confidents Optimists Pessimists
200 (100) 176 (100) 191 (100)
36
13
47
42
43
19
Officer identified obstacles (n) (%)
All
Confidents Optimists Pessimists
Friends and family
Financial reasons
Drugs and alcohol
Social problems
Characteristics of the probationer
Other responses
Category
Table 7.5: Obstacles identified by officers and probationers
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Motivation and probation
Table 7.6: Was the obstacle resolved? 11
Officer assessment (n) (%)
Probationer assessment (n) (%)
Confidents Optimists Pessimists Confidents Optimists Pessimists
84 (68) 45 (71)
40 (32) 18 (29)
16 (59)
11 (41)
29 (63)
17 (37)
Total obstacles
identified
224 (100) 128 (100) 124 (100) 63 (100)
27 (100)
46 (100)
Yes
No
176 (79)
48 (21)
74 (58)
54 (42)
important not to overstate the findings, especially in the case of the
self-reported data pertaining to the optimists (for whom cell sizes are
small), but trends are nevertheless discernible. A higher proportion of
the obstacles faced by the confident were felt to have been resolved (by
both probationers and officers). The least likely to have resolved their
obstacles were the optimists, although they were very similar to the
pessimists. There does, therefore, appear to be something of a variation
by motivation in the rates with which obstacles were felt to have been
resolved. The obstacles identified as facing the confident were the most
likely to have been resolved, whilst those facing the optimists and the
pessimists were the least likely. 10
However, the relationship between motivation and obstacle resolution, such that it is, appears to have existed independently of
probation work: when working style and amount of help received were
examined they varied only slightly between confidents, optimists and
pessimists. As mentioned earlier, officers and probationers were asked
to describe how they had attempted to tackle the obstacles which they
had identified. Table 7.7 reports their accounts of the extent and nature
of co-operation between officers and probationers and relates these
assessments to their motivation. Although cell sizes were small, some
trends emerged. As noted in Tables 6.5 and 6.7 in Chapter 6, there were
relatively few officers and probationers who worked together to tackle
obstacles (typically around a quarter to a third). When the same data
were analysed by motivation, there appeared to be little variation when
officers’ reports were considered: officers reported that they had
co-worked with the confidents, the optimists and the pessimists to an
equal extent (between 34 and 40 per cent of officers reported coworking with their probationers – see the emboldened text in the
left-hand side of Table 7.7).
The probationers, on the other hand, presented a slightly different
picture. Similar proportions of the confident and the pessimistic
reported having co-worked with their officers, but far fewer of the
107
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 7.7: Working styles used to tackle the obstacles identified at sweep one 12
Worked
together?
Officer reports (n) (%)
Probationer reports (n) (%)
Confidents Optimists Pessimists Confidents Optimists Pessimists
43 (34) 30 (40)
82 (66) 45 (60)
22 (35)
41 (65)
14 (39)
22 (61)
2 (12)
14 (88)
9 (32)
19 (68)
Total obstacles 125 (100) 75 (100)
63 (100)
36 (100)
16 (100)
28 (100)
Yes
No
optimistic reported co-working. Only two of the sixteen optimists who
identified obstacles and were followed up reported working with their
officer – see the emboldened text in the right-hand side of Table 7.7.
However, there were few other differences between the officers’ and
probationers’ reports of their work together and there appears to have
been little influence of motivation on the extent to which officers and
probationers ‘worked together’. With the exception of the optimist’s
reports of their own work with their officers, it would appear that
co-working was uniformly distributed and therefore cannot account for
the variations in resolution rates reported in Table 7.6. 13
A model of desistance is starting to emerge from the analyses
reported so far here and in Chapter 6: solving obstacles was related to
desistance (Chapter 6), but it would appear that the type of probation
intervention was not associated with resolving obstacles (Chapter 6).
Motivation, however, did appear to influence the extent to which
obstacles were both faced and overcome. These relationships are
presented diagrammatically in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 – which chart the
progress of each of the three groups of probationers towards desistance. 14
Fewer of the confident (40 per cent) faced obstacles than either of the
other groups, whilst half the optimists and eight out of ten of the
pessimists faced one or more obstacles. Of the few pessimists who
faced no obstacles, 67 per cent desisted. However, 64 per cent of those
pessimists who faced an obstacle but overcame it desisted, whilst even
fewer – only 31 per cent – of those pessimists who faced an obstacle
but did not overcome it desisted. For the optimists and pessimists,
solving obstacles was particularly strongly related to desistance: of the
six optimists who overcame the obstacle they faced, all but one
desisted. On the other hand, of the 11 who did not overcome the
obstacle they faced, five desisted and five did not (one was lost during
the follow-up). Desistance rates were highest amongst those groups
that faced no obstacles and lowest (with one exception – the confident)
amongst those who faced obstacles but did not overcome them. This
108
Motivation and probation
suggests that overcoming obstacles is successively more important for
each group. Most of the confident desisted regardless of their resolving
their obstacles. However, 64 per cent of the pessimists who resolved
their obstacles desisted, compared to 31 per cent of those who did not
(Figure 7.1). Data from the officers (Figure 7.2) support this model.
How and why did motivation effect the resolution of obstacles? In
order to explore further the relationship between motivation, solving
obstacles and desistance, case studies of individual probationers need
to be examined.
Steve [020] was a confident who desisted. He was in his 30s when
he started his order – imposed for theft. He had been wandering
around looking for something to steal in order to raise money to buy
heroin for himself and his girlfriend, Suzie. Spying some scrap metal
in a disused railway siding, he attempted to steal it, but was caught
leaving the yard by a security guard.
By the time of the first interview both Steve and Suzie were on
methadone and had stopped using ‘street drugs’. Steve and his officer
said that he wanted to stop offending – both also identified the same
motivation: he and Suzie getting their children back from the social
services. Although Steve did not identify any obstacles to him
desisting, his officer said that if they did not get better access to their
children or if he slipped back into drug use Steve might offend again.
The first of these, she said, she could do little more than advise upon,
and the second she was unsure exactly how she would approach, but
thought that a de-tox might offer a possible solution.
By the time of the second interview, Steve and Suzie had been given
increased access to their children and had stayed on the methadone
course. Steve said he was wary of coming off methadone too quickly,
as it could see a return to his using street drugs. His officer said that
in general Steve was ‘responding well and making reasonable progress’. In terms of their access to their children, Steve’s officer confirmed
that access had been increased, and added that she had advised Steve
about how to approach the social services department and suggested
that he enrole on a college course to improve his ‘image’ with social
services (which Steve said he was going to do the following autumn).
Drugs de-tox was still on the agenda, but Steve’s officer understood his
reluctance to come off methadone too quickly. Neither Steve nor his
officer identified any further obstacles to his desisting.
At the third interview, both Steve and his officer reported that things
with social services had continued to improve, and that Steve and
Suzie were planning to go to court to seek more contact with their
children. Both Steve and his officer said that he now wanted to work
109
blank
110
Figure 7.1 Motivation, obstacles and desistance: probationers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Figure 7.2 Motivation, obstacles and desistance: officers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
Motivation and probation
111
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
and seemed in a better position to do so. Neither identified further
obstacles to his desisting and both reported him to have desisted by
the time of the end of the order.
Dave [061], on the other hand, was an optimist whose offending was
little affected by his time on probation. He did not desist and was rated
as a continuing non-trivial offender in the schema outlined in Chapter
4. Dave was 17 when he breached his Community Service Order and
18 when he started the probation order imposed to replace it. (The CSO
had been made originally for an affray.) Although Dave said that he
was both able and wanted to stop offending, his officer disagreed with
him on both counts, saying ‘he will do the same thing again if the same
circumstances arose’ adding ‘he will not accept that he may be wrong’.
Dave said that the only obstacle he faced in stopping offending was
that he ‘lived in a bad area’. His solution was to live in ‘a nice area’,
but he saw ‘no reason why I should have to move house’. He did not
think his officer would be able to help him with this matter. His officer
said that the obstacles which Dave faced were his ‘attitude’ (not
understanding that he had done wrong) and his poor level of literacy.
The first of these would be hard to address as Dave was ‘very reluctant
to work with probation’. She planned, however, to tackle his illiteracy
by finding him a course in reading and writing.
At the second interview, Dave said he had in fact moved house and
foresaw no other obstacles. Again, he said that he was able and wanted
to stop offending. He had arranged a college course for himself –
‘having got fed up waiting for probation to do it for me’. He also
complained about not having seen anyone from probation for ‘ages’
and said that he had had ‘very little contact’. His officer had left, and
he had been seen by a number of Probation Service officers –
who only saw him for a few minutes at any given appointment. On the
third occasion he was seen, Dave said that his officer had ‘talked down
to me all the time’ and recounted how he had once walked out of her
office. Dave smoked cannabis throughout the course of his order and,
at the third interview, reported that he was being taken to court for
possessing an offensive weapon (a knife) which he had been carrying
after being threatened on several occasions. It was on the basis of this
last offence which he was classified as a non-trivial offender.
Les’s [177] offending escalated during the time he was on probation
for assaulting a police officer. He and his wife had separated, and he
had been ordered by the court to stay away from her home. However,
she phoned him and asked him to come round to help her look after
their daughter, who was mentally handicapped. According to Les, his
daughter started ‘smashing things up and screaming’, and a neighbour
112
Motivation and probation
called the police. When they arrived they assumed that Les had started
the trouble and a fracas broke out, during which Les punched one of
the constables.
In terms of Les’s desire and ability to stop offending, neither he nor
his officer felt he was able to desist. Les said: ‘The problem is that I
don’t sit down with idiots. I can’t help it, I kick off. I’d love to be able
to change, but I can’t help it’. Les did not identify any obstacles that
would prevent him from desisting. However, his officer said that his
attitude towards others presented a problem:
he has this strong sense of being a ‘man’, protecting his family and
wife which increases his violence. I am trying to show him how
this can be both negative – i.e. getting him into further trouble –
and positive – i.e. taking care of his daughter without being
aggressive to others. He is still very defensive when challenged
about his use of violence. He sees himself as a strong, protective
father. The thing is to make him see that he can be himself and
have values without ‘kicking off’.
However, by the time of the second interview, Les had reoffended.
Driving to the home of someone he was intending to ‘get even with’,
Les was stopped by the police, who suspected him of being drunk.
When asked to provide a specimen, Les refused and was arrested.
Found guilty, he was given a custodial sentence. Prior to this, Les had
threatened his original probation officer after she had contacted the
local social services about his behaviour. She described him as being
very resistant to any challenges from her and that he still saw violence
as the fault of others. Although Les was contacted during the fieldwork
for the second sweep of interviewing, he told the interviewer to ‘fuck
off’ and hung up the phone on her.
As a pessimist, it is hard to find a better example than Les. He didn’t
think he could stop offending; neither did his officer and there seems
to have been little constructive work between them. The obstacle which
his officer had identified appears to have been only too accurate in the
light of subsequent events.
These case studies suggest that motivation at the outset of supervision was associated with desistance because it influenced the way in
which probationers approached the obstacles they faced. For example,
Steve took a cautious approach to his drug problem and understood
the importance of making a ‘good impression’ with the social services.
Dave appeared to be reluctant to engage with probation supervision
and got on badly with his officer. Les appeared to have made no efforts
113
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
to ‘change his ways’ and to have even ruled out the possibility of such
a change. However, these case studies also suggest that other factors
may have been present. Steve’s motivation appears to have been
supported by both his partner and their desire to rebuild their family.
Similarly, Dave’s attitude to probation and Les’s attitudes towards
other people did little to help them desist. As well as probationers’
approaches to the obstacles they faced varying by motivation, it would
appear that other social and personal factors influenced the extents to
which impediments were overcome, and it is to a consideration of
these that we now turn.
Notes
1 On the motivational factors associated with not committing an offence, see
Tunnell (1992: Chap. 7).
2 Of the respondents in Burnett’s sample, only 8 of 107 (7 per cent) said that
they felt that they would not face any obstacles in stopping offending – in
the present sample the figure is far greater (49 per cent). There is, of course,
an additional wealth of literature which posits a direct relationship
between experiencing a custodial sentence and problems in resettling in the
community after a custodial sentence.
3 The term ‘motivation–expectation’ is something of a mouthful, and so
‘motivation’ is used in its place at points through out the text.
4 Identical analyses were undertaken employing data from all cases followed
up during the second sweep (n!137) and all cases seen during the second
and third sweeps (n!106) and all cases seen in the first and third sweeps
(also n!106). These analyses confirmed the results shown in Table 7.2 and
described in the main text.
5 All the results reported were checked against frequencies for each of the
three groups across second and third sweeps to ensure that by selecting just
those cases for whom both officers and probationers had been seen at all
three sweeps had not distorted the findings. The results were confirmed.
6 This certainly appears to have been the case with partners – whilst around
15 per cent of both confidents and optimists reported being single, the same
figure for the pessimists was 21 per cent.
7 Indeed, when officers’ reports of the problems faced by these three groups
were examined, they appeared to have faced similar levels of employment,
family and partner-related problems.
8 In the following analyses, all reported obstacles are used (including those
identified during the second and third interviews) so as not to reduce cells
sizes too much when controlling for motivation.
9 By focusing on those obstacles which were resolved, the data analyses are
limited to just those obstacles reported during sweeps one and two, as
114
Motivation and probation
10
11
12
13
14
those obstacles identified during the third and final sweep could not have
been followed up.
The optimists do less well than one would have expected. Had the
relationship between motivation and obstacle resolution been perfect, one
would have expected to see the optimists overcoming fewer of the
obstacles than the confidents, but more of them than the pessimists did.
The general rule that the optimists ‘fall between these two groups’ is
confirmed by a number of other tables. See, for example, Tables 7.3 on their
criminal histories; 7.4 on the total problems faced by each of the groups;
10.2 on the rates with which they desisted; 11.1 on the rates with which
they offended; 11.5 on the amount of offending they were reported to have
committed; and Table 11.4 on the rates with which they offended
controlling for type of offence. To this extent, Table 7.6 represents
something of an oddity.
Multiple responses possible.
These responses are identical to those used above, and described in
Chapter 6. The data analyses use only those obstacles identified during
sweep one because, as noted in chapter 6, footnote 3, when those obstacles
identified during sweep two and which were followed up during sweep
three were analysed, it emerged that little work had been undertaken in the
period between sweeps two and three.
In any case, as reported in Chapter 6, co-working was not associated with
resolving obstacles.
For those who faced more than one obstacle, the overall extent to which all
the obstacles they faced was used to determine whether they were counted
as having their ‘obstacle solved’. For cases which had equal numbers of
obstacles solved or unsolved, the outcome of the main obstacle was used.
115
Chapter 8
Probation work: content and
context
This chapter takes the investigation started in Chapter 6 a step further
and explores the role played by social and personal contexts in
mediating the outcome of the attempts to tackle obstacles successfully.
Instead of concentrating on the type of intervention, the extent to which
officers and probationers worked together or the extent to which these
were associated with the probationers’ motivation, the focus is on the
social and personal contexts in which the efforts to tackle obstacles
were embedded. In so doing, more light is thrown upon the content of
probation work. This process of illumination offers an explanation for
one of the clearest findings to emerge from the study: that probation
interventions appear in many cases to have had little impact on either
the obstacles faced by probationers or their lives more generally. The
explanations for this would appear to be that much probation work is
negated by aspects of the probationers’ lives, is aimed at tackling
obstacles which are enduring and therefore very difficult to address or
that the proposed solutions and the manner of their delivery appeared
to be irrelevant to the needs of the probationers.
The manner in which ‘contexts’ were approached and operationalised in the current study drew heavily upon the work of Pawson
and Tilley (1997: 69–70), who have argued that contexts can be crucial
in understanding the outcomes of social interventions:
programmes are always introduced into pre-existing social contexts and . . . these prevailing social conditions are of crucial
importance when it comes to explaining the successes and failures
of social programmes. By social context, we do not refer simply to
the spatial or geographical or institutional location into which
programmes are embedded. So whilst indeed programmes are
initiated in prison, hospitals, schools . . ., it is the prior set of social
116
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-10
Probation work: content and context
rules, norms, values and interrelationships gathered in these
places which sets limits on the efficacy of programme mechanisms.
Thus the ‘context’ and, in particular, the social context, as developed
by Pawson and Tilley, is not just the ‘where’ and ‘when’ of an
intervention, but also the attitudes, socially ‘appropriate’ activities,
approach to life and social relationships which existed prior to and
during the period of supervision. To this can be added person-specific
contexts: the personal histories, lifestyles and life chances of the specific
individuals who were the focus of the programme in question.
In order to assess the role of such contexts in mediating the outcomes
of the obstacles probationers faced, detailed analyses of officers’ and
probationers’ accounts of how they tackled these obstacles were
examined. In the case of officers, attention is focused upon two types of
obstacles – drugs and the personal characteristics of the probationer –
although these findings were replicated with regard to other obstacles.
One officer [233] described how his efforts to combat one confident
probationer’s heroin problem ultimately came to nothing:
I referred him to [a local drug team] and discussed with him the
bad effects of drugs and methods for overcoming his addiction. He
attended the drug team, got methadone scripts from them, but
failed to turn up again [and] was never seen again. He was on the
[methadone reduction] programme from the start of the year until
March.
The investigations undertaken by both his supervising officer and the
author aimed at ascertaining why the probationer ‘disappeared’ so
dramatically, and suggested that poor housing, drug use and unpaid
fines were all possible contributory factors. Another officer [006]
recounted how she had referred her probationer – an optimist – to a
local drug rehabilitation scheme only for him to be convicted for an
earlier offence two months into his order, and for which he received a
custodial sentence. In the time he had been on probation, the
probationer had been to the drug scheme just once and had continued
to offend, albeit of a trivial nature. Even following referrals, officers
often had to contend with the probationer’s own inactivity. As some
officers said of their respective probationers:
He did nothing. Went nowhere [049].
[She did] very little – carried on associating with other drug users [141].
117
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
[He did] a de-tox, but started using again. Initially avoided users,
but drifted back into the scene [172].
As recounted by their officers, the lives of each of these three
probationers present a similar set of underlying reasons for failing to
complete, or even start, the schemes to which they had been referred.
In the case of 049 – an optimist whose offending escalated – the officer
said that he had been consistently missing appointments for the last
five months of his nine-month order and had been using heroin
throughout that period. When asked to describe the biggest change in
his life since the first interview, she said ‘no change – that was the
problem’. The circumstances surrounding the work undertaken with
case 141 – a confident whose offending also escalated – portray the
violent and exploitative side of heroin-user networks. The officer at the
first interview identified two obstacles to her desisting: using heroin
and her friendship with a local dealer. Despite referrals for drug
counselling, the officer reported that it was: ‘hard to engage the
probationer in work whilst on probation, very difficult to persuade her
that she had a problem’ and that advice ‘went in one ear and out the
other’ [141]. Within two months of the start of her order, she was
abducted by three or four men – possibly her dealer and some
accomplices – and ‘gang-raped’. Following this she received death
threats from these same men, required an abortion and suffered a
nervous breakdown, resulting in her eventual sectioning under the
Mental Health Act. Her officer was unable to see her for some six
months because she had been sectioned. At the time of the second
interview, the officer had placed the probationer on monthly reporting
and had, in effect, ceased to work with her.
In the opinion of his officer, case 172 had only stopped using heroin
for a brief period following a residential de-tox. Case 172 was another
confident whose offending escalated. It would appear that he started
probation heroin-dependent, burgled his parents’ home, started and
successfully completed the de-tox and was then heroin-free, was then
convicted for the burglary and, as a result, expelled from his parents’
home. This in turn led to the probationer living ‘rough’ on the streets
and his eventual return to heroin use.
This scenario highlights the part that families can play in fostering
or hindering change. Another probationer (086 – an optimist whose
offending escalated) commenced his order after moving home to his
parents’ in an attempt to avoid heroin users. His officer duly set about
arranging appointments with a drug counsellor for him. He did not,
however, keep these appointments. As a result of an argument with his
118
Probation work: content and context
parents, he left their home, returning to the area in which he had lived
previously. The argument with his father, be it either as the result of
his continued drug use or the cause of continued use, had left the
probationer living close to the old drug associates he had been trying
to avoid. His officer said:
I think that he is more at risk of getting back into heavy drug use
and re-offending – in terms of stealing – because he has gone back
to where he knows a lot of drug-using people. That was why he
left in the first place, to get away from that scene.
Not all families reacted in these ways, however. In the case of one of
the probationers (105 – a confident whose offending initially escalated
but had ceased by the time of the end of her order), her family (not her
officer) worked together in order to arrange and pay for her admission
to a rehabilitation clinic. Her officer said:
They’re all involved. Her Uncle, her Aunt’s research [about the
clinic] – it’s a team . . . a family commitment. She seems to be
rising to meet their support – even her grandfather is helping. [She
is] committing herself to the rehabilitation programme in a
genuine way [105].
Her officer, who had only recently started to supervise the case, said
that she was supporting the probationer’s decision to enter the clinic.
Another officer believed that her probationer’s concern to repair his
relationship with his family had been the reason why he had addressed
his drug use:
He made a big effort at getting off heroin. He tried to cut down
and arranged to de-tox. The motivation was there to repair family
relationships. This was the main focus of the work that I did with
him, so we discussed all aspects. I guarded him against complacency too, I warned him that it would be a long process [227, an
optimist who desisted].
The officer supervising case 060 – an optimist – recounted the following
sequence of events as the probationer failed to come off heroin:
I ensured that she had access to treatment – her GP and [a local
drug partnership]. She got methadone from her GP and the local
drug partnership gave her acupuncture and counselling. She was
119
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
aware of these facilities anyway, but we discussed them regularly.
I’ve offered her ‘time out’ in a crisis, which she’s not taken. I’ve
seen her jointly with her mum. [The probationer] went to her GP,
to [the local drug partnership] and another clinic, but the
counter-influences, particularly this man have been very powerful.
This man – an ex-boyfriend – re-emerged. He was a bit of a wolf
in sheep’s clothing. In the end they both ended up using heroin
quite heavily. He was very controlling. She lost her self esteem and
got back into heroin in a big way. She couldn’t turn her back on
him.
At the time of the follow-up interviews, the probationer was thought
to be using heroin again and in breach of her order – there was a
warrant out for her arrest as a result of her failing to maintain contact
with her officer:
She’s gone to relatives in . . ., but it was not done in a positive way.
I would have given my blessing and transferred her. But it is the
same way of her thinking as with heroin treatment – when she gets
an idea into her head it has to be done instantly. Last time I heard
from her was when she rang our duty officer while I was away
and wouldn’t give her address. In a way, she did the right thing,
but in the wrong way.
For some people, however, the decision to come off heroin was made
for them. One officer recounted how the probationer he was supervising – a confident who desisted – had almost died as a result of injecting
into an artery in his groin:
He was so desperate for heroin that he injected in unsafe
conditions. He knew he’d hit an artery, but rammed it in anyway.
I had to physically go round and take him to hospital. He wasn’t
going to move. His doctor said that if he’d stayed in the flat one
more day he’d have lost his leg – two more days, his life [153].
This event had, at least in the officer’s opinion, removed the probationer from the street and placed him in a safer environment – the
hospital.
Not all officers reported events as unpleasant as some of those
discussed above. One officer said that his probationer – a pessimist
who was classified as a continuing trivial offender – ’may relapse into
drug use’. When asked what had been done to prevent this from
120
Probation work: content and context
happening, he replied: ‘Not much. It hasn’t been necessary as he is
clear now. I do rely on his reporting if there was any change. We’ve
talked about it a few times, but it hasn’t been a problem at all’ [168].
When asked how much he’d been able to help the probationer with this
obstacle, he said ‘not much’, adding that this was ‘more a reflection of
what [the probationer] has achieved rather than the work of probation’
(emphasis added). The probationer had a new partner and had moved
in with her. His officer reported that his new partner was in full-time
employment and was a good influence upon him.
Other officers reported their experiences of ‘gently nudging’ their
probationers towards total drug abstention:
We’re having discussions for a longer de-tox programme. 1 I am
trying to encourage him to take the next step, but he doesn’t seem
to be ready now. He has cut down a lot on his methadone. I think
he is afraid to give it up completely in case he gets weak and falls
back to serious drugs again [020, a confident who desisted].
I can only encourage [her], I can’t march her to the drugs agency.
She has reduced her intake, but she is finding it difficult to go the
last fence and give up altogether her methadone. Her GP has
reduced it forcefully, even when she didn’t want it reducing any
more [058, a confident who desisted].
Another officer reported a gradual improvement in her probationer’s
use of drugs:
It’s much better now. [I referred him] to [a local resettlement
centre] and through there he got on a methadone programme.
There was a case conference to resolve things with the doctor, and
he now gets his prescriptions from another GP. He now uses
methadone and not heroin [013, a pessimist who desisted].
A similar set of processes were detected when officers’ accounts of
their work aimed at tackling those obstacles related to the probationer’s
personal characteristics were examined. Many of these obstacles
concerned the probationers’ mental health or their ‘attitudes’. Officers’
work in such cases often revolved around making referrals: ‘I spoke to
the mental health specialist in the [probation] office and she took her
case to the Mentally Disordered Offenders Panel. They agreed that a
psychologist would see her with a view to counselling’ [110, a
confident who desisted].
121
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Other responses suggested that officers had placed an emphasis on
helping the probationer balance his or her medical needs. One officer,
who reported that her probationer was suffering from depression and
that this represented an obstacle to him desisting, described how she
had: ‘Tried to encourage him to keep in contact with the hospital and
to stop self-medicating. To discuss things with his doctor. We looked
at trying to keep busy and focused on things outside of his relationship. 2 I referred him to our Mental Health Team, but he did not attend’
[127]. The probationer, a pessimist whose offending escalated, had: ‘. . .
gone full circle. He is realising that he needs more help – maybe he will
take it. In relation to his depression, he has come off pills willy-nilly –
tried to do it alone – but it is too much for him by himself. He needs
medical help.’
In this case the officer’s efforts were nullified by the probationer’s
actions (failing to attend the Mental Health Team and coming off his
medication haphazardly – both symptomatic of his depression perhaps). In other cases mental health problems either failed to materialise
or were in someway suppressed by factors outside the officer’s sphere
of influence:
[his mental health] is still a problem, but now dormant. It is there,
but he got employment. If he loses the job, the depression will
come back. Psychiatric service help is still in the pipeline, but it is
up to the service to contact him. He got the job himself [and] he’s
bloomed. It raised his self-esteem and financial ‘muscle’. He threw
himself into work [077, an optimist who desisted].
Cutting down on alcohol made her less depressed. Circumstances
also slightly improved, which had a positive effect 3 [152, an
optimist who desisted].
Apart from offering advice and support, I couldn’t do much about
[his mental health]. He was taking his medicine before he got put
on probation [119, an optimist who desisted].
Obstacles relating to immaturity, low self-esteem and attitudes appeared to be especially hard for officers to tackle successfully. In the
following report of the work undertaken, the officer discusses how,
between them, he and the probationer had addressed two obstacles –
stress in the probationer’s life and his low self-esteem:
He creates stress. There are problems in his relationship – not
showing any affection to her. I discussed parenting skills with both
122
Probation work: content and context
of them. He listened, but it was short-lived. [In terms of his
self-esteem], we’ve focused on the times when he handled things
well. He had been a main-carer for their children at one point, and
his self-esteem was high at this time. He went on a sex chat line –
thought it would give him confidence, but it contributed to his
dissatisfaction with his partner, and the result was a pile of sexual
problems with her – from his point of view [118, an optimist
whose offending escalated].
Other officers reported similar problems:
We’ve discussed his attitude. He has no respect for girlfriends, so
finds the work hard to take in. I just tell him not to hit women [102,
an optimist who desisted].
Not done much [about the probationer’s immaturity] really, except
talk. But it is difficult to get into the pattern of work with him. He
brings in other crises 4 [107, an optimist who desisted].
I’ve tried case-work, aiming at behaviour modification. Getting
him to identify his own mood patterns and to understand how he
got himself out of these patterns. He continued to believe that
moods were ‘inevitable’ and ‘uncontrollable’ [016, a confident
whose offending escalated].
Obstacles associated with poor temper control or anger management
were only identified by officers in six cases and appeared to be no
easier to tackle than inappropriate attitudes:
I hoped to get him on a course, but wasn’t able to do that. I’ll just
continue to expose issues related to this in supervision, but there
hasn’t been continuity, and with him being at work I didn’t want
to increase contact. He is willing to look at these issues when he
comes here. There’s a lot of back-log to work through. There’s a
lack of time now. I was hoping that if he was convicted of this
assault 5 I could get him on an order with a condition, but the
charge has been withdrawn [220, an optimist whose offending
escalated].
We looked at some of his past instances of losing his temper. But
this got side-tracked by him losing his accommodation and job.
These then became the focus of the work. He walked out of his job
after a conflict at work. He doesn’t see it as a problem –
123
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
the ‘problem’ is other people’s behaviours [193, an optimist whose
offending escalated].
In some cases, the officer’s attempts to tackle the obstacles they had
identified were rendered impotent by the probationer failing to
maintain contact (see Farrall 2002, on unauthorised absences). The
officer supervising one probationer [146] had identified three obstacles
at the first interview: his addiction to gambling; his accommodation;
and his low self-esteem. However, the probationer – a pessimist
whose offending escalated – moved away and there was little the
officer could do to intervene with any of these obstacles. In some
instances, characteristics of the probationer themselves presented
impediments to effective work. Gary [202], in his early 20s at the start
of his order, had been found guilty of a number of counts of arson,
which appeared to be the result of his father’s recent death and
excessive drinking on the probationer’s part. As a result of some of the
concerns expressed by his officer, the probationer was assessed by a
clinical psychologist, who reported that he was ‘borderline educationally disabled’ – a fact which appeared to have hindered all efforts at
working with him:
SF
Last time we met, I asked you if you thought there was
anything that might make it hard for Gary to stop offending.
You said that there was only one obstacle – another possible
trauma like the death of his father previously. Have there been
any [traumas]?
PO Not that I am aware of – and I wouldn’t necessarily agree with
my own view six months later. There clearly must have been
some kind of catalyst to set of this chain of offending that
occurred . . .
SF [Interrupting] Sorry, I thought he was only convicted of two
arsons?
PO I think he was convicted of one with ‘recklessness to whether
life endangered’ and one ‘without . . .’, but there were probably
more fires than the two that he is convicted of. In fact there
were probably quite a few more . . . What was thought at the
time was that it was a combination of the trauma and the
unresolved grief of the bereavement and the excessive use of
alcohol that had actually brought about the offending behaviour. Nothing has been done to address either of those issues –
or nothing significant. What he said – that he was not able to
articulate his feelings in any way . . . so certainly if he did
124
Probation work: content and context
experience a trauma of any nature, the risk of re-offending
would increase. But he hasn’t. I do feel less inclined to accept
that this was just about that trauma than I did six months ago.
Why? I think there is probably a more long-standing problem
– but I am not sure what it is. Certainly a bereavement, if you
are stressed and anxious, you are going to get more stressed and
anxious – I’m not saying it was insignificant. But I’m more
inclined to think that we ought to be looking much further back
at something that . . . maybe not a one-off event but something
about the way . . . I don’t know. Something that has been
happening to him through out his life probably.
SF You said that you haven’t been able to make any progress with
issues around bereavement or alcohol, is there anywhere where
you have been able to make progress?
PO No, not really. The fact that he attends appointments and goes
to education [classes], which, I think, is positive. And I don’t
think that we’ll always be in this position of not being able to
make progress, well we may be, but if we are we will know
why that is. I am much more inclined today than I would have
been six months ago to believe that actually one of the major
reasons for lack of progress is Gary’s reluctance to engage in
anything too demanding.
Gary did not face any further traumas and attended well for the rest
of his probation order (some 18 months). He appeared genuinely
remorseful when discussing his past offending – which, it appeared,
had been limited to just the arsons referred to above. He did not offend
again during the time of the order (two years). However, given the
difficulties his officer faced when working with him, it is hard to find
evidence that his supervision played a part in accounting for his
desistance.
Probationers’ responses
Thus far, the analyses undertaken have relied upon officers’ accounts
of the work undertaken. In this section, the probationers’ perspective
is developed. Because probationers generally reported fewer obstacles
than their supervising officers, the following analyses draw upon all
obstacle types identified by probationers rather than just drugs and
personal characteristics, as was the case with officers.
Some of the probationers reported instances when their officer had
been able to help them directly with the obstacle which they had
125
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
identified. In one case, the probationer reported how his officer helped
him ‘change his lifestyle’ (the obstacle he had identified):
She has helped me getting the place where I am now. It is a
resettlement unit run by the Salvation Army. [I’ve also] kept away
from certain people. Resisted being tempted to use heroin and
occupied my time by doing voluntary work and going to college
three days a week [013, a pessimist whose offending continued at
a high rate before he desisted].
Another probationer had identified the ‘trouble in the area since my
friend was killed’ as something that could make it hard for him to stop
offending. With regard to this obstacle, he said, his officer had helped
him to understand: ‘. . . my feelings at the time when I almost attacked
this guy. 6 She made me aware of the ‘‘warning signs’’ 7 and made me
aware of the consequences’ [068, a pessimist who was classified as a
continuing non-trivial offender]. 8
In other cases it is clear to see how the direct influence of the officer
helped to avert situations which would almost certainly have led to
further offending by the probationer. Samantha (028 – a confident who
desisted) recounts how her officer intervened to support her efforts to
avoid a drug-using and violent ex-partner:
He came back from Holland and moved here. He had a nice job, his
own house and money and said he had gone straight and drug-free.
He made a lot of promises but then he went back to drugs and
offending. When I tried to get rid of him, he started beating me up. I
didn’t want him in my life because I knew he would get me back on
drugs. It killed a few months of my life. I got depressed and ended
up taking pills. I lost a lot of weight and my life was in a mess. [My
officer] made a home-visit to see why I was missing all my
appointments. When I explained, she phoned the domestic violence
people and got back to me with their advice. She also called the
police and told me to let him [boyfriend] know. I phoned the police
like she told me to do and I made a complaint because of his
violence. This stopped him because I told him. He still lives around
the area, but he’s not bothering me anymore. I was scared at some
point that I would get back into drugs because of him.
For the following probationer – another confident who desisted – the
influence of his officer was apparent to him, even if he could not
articulate exactly how she’d helped him with his depression: ‘It is not
126
Probation work: content and context
something that I can say in words – not just something she said . . .’
[027]. Other obstacles were confronted and overcome in slightly more
roundabout ways, as this quotation from a young male probationer
(who had identified his ‘temper’ as an obstacle) illustrates: ‘She tried
to make me see ‘‘the light’’ – anger management helped, but it was
really related to cocaine use, and [I] calmed down when I stopped
using. I stopped using coke, but before I stopped I didn’t realise it was
related to my temper’ [071, a pessimist who desisted]. The probationer
had earlier in the same interview identified ‘stopping taking coke’ as
the biggest change since the previous interview, which he put down
to: ‘My girlfriend was getting pissed off. At work I was knackered if I
couldn’t score. I started reducing then stopped’ 9 [071].
Another probationer (who had identified alcohol as his obstacle to
stopping offending) said:
My officer referred me to [a local alcohol partnership], my GP and
the Alcohol Dependency Unit at the hospital. My GP told me to
cut down as I had alcohol related diabetes, so I had no choice. I
was also in and out of court all the time for ‘drunk and disorderly’,
which I got fed up with [030, a confident who desisted].
Again, locating the driving force for this abstinence is hard. The GP,
his officer and his own growing irritation at being in and out of court
could all claim some role in it.
Despite these cases, which all show the influence of probation
supervision in helping probationers confront the obstacle which they said
they faced, there are equally compelling accounts of how, despite the work
of officers, wider social and personal contexts hampered the complete
resolution of the obstacle mentioned. One probationer (193 – an optimist
whose offending escalated) reported at the first interview that he felt that
‘having no money, no job and no home’ would make it hard for him to stop
offending. When interviewed for the second time he said that although his
officer had helped him get somewhere to live and given him ideas about
work and despite his own efforts to find work, his several previous
convictions had made getting work hard. In other cases, the probationer
appeared either not to have sought advice or to have ignored it:
We didn’t discuss [drugs]. I de-toxed myself and got a job [072.
Obstacle: ‘drug use’. A pessimist whose offending escalated].
She gave me advice, but I didn’t really take it. I find it difficult to
let go. She couldn’t have done more. The decision has to come
127
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
from myself [206. Obstacle: ‘if boyfriend gets back on drugs’. A
confident who desisted].
She didn’t have much chance to help me because I told her it
wasn’t much of a problem. We discussed gambling, but I thought
I was cutting down – I now realise I wasn’t. If I’d asked her she
could have set up appointments with Gamblers Anon. I didn’t ask
because I thought I could stop myself [146. Obstacle: ‘gambling’.
A pessimist whose offending escalated].
Others denied that probation could ever be of help. The following
probationers, when asked: ‘has being on probation helped you stay out
of trouble?’, said:
No. Probation does not help, it’s up to the individual. I’ve been on
probation for years and it doesn’t stop me from offending. It may
help some people, but not me. It’s okay, but it doesn’t keep me out
of trouble [226, a pessimist whose offending escalated].
I don’t know how she can help me with it. 10 Just talking to her is
a positive experience, but in practical terms she has no effect.
Though I like her as a person and I’d hate to disappoint her, she’s
of no consequence to me, nor me to her, so . . . I’ve changed my
lifestyle a little, sacked a few friends, been more considerate,
curbed a bit of my routine. I’ve looked at my future, long and
short term and made plans, been more responsible [019, a
pessimist whose offending initially continued before showing
signs of desisting].
Life events (such as marriage, child-rearing, employment and so on)
have long been associated with desistance by those researching
criminal careers (see Chapter 1). Similar processes can be seen in the
lives of probationers as they overcame some of the obstacles which
they had identified:
I’m still on methadone prescriptions, but nothing else. Not much
[has been done by my officer]. We’ve talked a lot about it, but that’s
as far as it goes. I didn’t get much help. I was already pregnant last
time I saw you. I knew I had to stay out of trouble for the baby’s
sake [PR 134. Obstacle: drug use. An optimist who desisted].
She suggested things – like anger management, but nothing
happened. Because life’s generally better, I can cope easier. I split
128
Probation work: content and context
up from my boyfriend. It was my decision to end it – it was
destructive for both of us. I’ve been a lot better, before I was
stressed out, I’m no longer stressed [PR 110. Obstacle: temper. A
confident who desisted].
I don’t normally see my friends so much during the week. I’m
with my girlfriend. It is still a problem because when I see them
at the weekend I need . . . like . . . they all start smoking and I just
can’t resist it really [039. Obstacle: drug use. An optimist who was
classified as a continuing trivial offender].
Looking at obstacles from different sides
So far, the analyses have focused on officers and probationers in
isolation from one another. This style of analysis was driven by the fact
that very few officer and probationer pairs had identified the same
obstacles as one another. We turn now to consider the instances where
officers and probationers agreed about the obstacles faced. Probationers’ battles against drug addiction (usually heroin) have formed a
recurring aspect of the analyses. One officer [008] described the work
he had undertaken with his probationer: ‘I have negotiated with the
[drugs dependency team] and tried to get him to be honest about the
extent of his drug use.’ However, when asked to describe what the
probationer had done, the same officer said: ‘He got himself back on
the programme [with the drugs dependency team], and then played
silly buggers with the methadone doses!’ Things were not all doom
and gloom, however. The probationer’s partner had had their second
child, which the officer described as having ‘spurred him into getting
a job’, which the officer said the probationer seemed quite happy about.
In addition, the couple’s first child, aged 3, was ‘getting some
awareness of ‘‘Daddy’s’’ frequent use of the toilet’. 11 Whether it was
due to the arrival of the new baby, the older child’s growing awareness
of his father’s drug use, the somewhat stymied drug programme or the
probationer’s growing sense of needing to provide for his family
(hence the job) is hard to ascertain with any certainty. What can be
said, however, is that he went from being a pessimist when first seen,
to an optimist and finally a confident and was classified as a desister.
The probationer himself described his officer’s efforts at helping him
give up drugs as: ‘He just talks to me really. When I stopped going to
the [drugs dependency team], he was keeping in touch with them,
checking how many times I was going there.’ Of his key-worker at the
team and the team generally he said: ‘I came off drugs with the help
of the team. I didn’t get on with my key-worker, he was a pain in the
129
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
bum. I stopped going, but things are alright now.’ When asked to
describe the biggest change in his life, he said ‘giving up drugs’. When
prompted to discuss why he had given up drugs he referred to his new
baby and added that his wife had said she would leave him if he did
not stop using heroin. Indeed the role of his wife appeared to be a key
factor in understanding why he had ceased using heroin. His officer
said: ‘In recent months he’s felt under pressure. Fluctuating motivation
of attending the [drugs dependency team]. She had quite a big
influence on him actually turning up.’ This account was supported by
the probationer himself, who said of a recent threat of breach from his
officer:
When I didn’t go a couple of times, he sent me a letter warning
me that if I didn’t go he’d have to report me. Still I didn’t go, but
[my wife] panics too much and made an appointment for me to
go and see him – which I did.
In another case, whilst both officer and probationer agreed about the
obstacle faced by the probationer, and even agreed on the course of
action required to combat it, other factors negated action:
I encouraged her to go to the Employment Training Officer, but
she wants to wait for her daughter to start school before doing so
[PO 058. Obstacle: unemployment].
We’ve talked about it, but with a little girl I can’t do anything
work-wise at the moment [PR 058. Obstacle: unemployment].
In other instances, whilst there was an agreement about the obstacle
faced, the solutions proposed by the officer and probationer were
different. In the following case, the probationer was a pessimist who
was classified as a continuing non-trivial offender:
Well, to tell you the truth, I could get a job anytime I want. I have
got to a stage where I didn’t really want to work. I’m quite happy.
Then it came to the stage where I wanted to start working again.
If I really put my mind to it, as soon as I get out of here, 12 I could
have a job within a few days [PR 204. Obstacle: unemployment].
I remember him saying that he was most likely to offend late at
night and in the morning and that if he could find a nightshift job
it would stop him re-offending, but he never did find a nightshift
job. I don’t think, however, for me, that was the solution. It might
130
Probation work: content and context
have helped him break a pattern, but he needed to learn ways of
not offending other than finding a nightshift [PO 204. Obstacle:
unemployment].
In yet other cases the treatment offered was not felt by the probationer
to fit his or her requirements:
I made appointments for him with a drug counsellor, he failed to
attend these [PO 086. Obstacle: drug use. An optimist whose
offending escalated].
She tried to get me on a day course. I’d been on one before but it
didn’t do any good before, so I didn’t go on it, which she accepted.
I said I needed residential care all along. They are asking me to do
an unrealistic thing – to get off drugs while I’m out here. 13
Everyone you know is doing it, so the temptation is too much. But
they won’t put me on a residential rehab [PR 086. Obstacle: drug
use].
In any event, as reported earlier, the probationer left home after a row
with his parents and moved home – taking him to another probation
area altogether.
A case study: a pessimist who desisted
In this section, the work of one officer–probationer pair is examined in
detail. The purpose of investigating this case is to illustrate both the
nature of the work undertaken as part of probation supervision and the
role of other individual and social contexts in mediating such work.
Anthony [094] was in his late 20s when he started his 12-month
probation order – imposed after he had been found guilty of actual
bodily harm. He had been working on a confectionery production line
when another employee approached him and started to pass remarks
about Anthony’s hair style. Anthony head-butted this man, breaking
his two front teeth. Anthony said that at the time of the incident he had
been getting on badly with his wife, who had just given birth to their
first child; he hated his work and was generally stressed, mainly about
the new baby, which was keeping him awake. He said that he spent
about £50 a week on cannabis and amphetamines. His officer confirmed this portrait, adding that Anthony ‘drank heavily with his
friends’.
Between the offence and the first interview, Anthony’s lifestyle
changed. He had left the home he had shared with his wife and child
131
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
to live with his sister, and divorce proceedings had commenced.
Anthony said that he ‘occasionally snogged birds’, but was not in a
steady relationship. He had a new job (having been sacked from the
previous one as a result of the assault), but was drinking and smoking
cannabis much more, both of which he attributed to his divorce. He
said he was also feeling ‘down’, again due to the divorce. His officer
painted a similar picture.
Anthony identified two obstacles to his desisting: if he saw his wife
with her new boyfriend, and his drug use – which he said was not
something he would address as ‘no one will stop me smoking drugs’.
With regards to the first obstacle he said he had ‘told her not to bring
her new fella near me’. When asked directly whether probation could
help him with this obstacle, he said: ‘No. There’s nothing they can say
or do that would stop me attacking him – it’s a pride thing. She
shouldn’t see someone in front of me.’
Anthony’s officer also identified two obstacles: his ‘way of thinking’
and his friends, whom he described as a ‘bunch of ruffians’. In terms
of tackling the first of these, he stated that Anthony got angry quickly
and that they would use some of the exercises from ‘Targets for
Change’ to deal with this. However, the second obstacle – Anthony’s
friends – would be addressed less directly: ‘I won’t do too much. The
more you tell someone not to do something the more they’ll do it. I’ll
try to empower Anthony to do something himself – give Anthony an
insight into the consequences of knowing these people.’
By the time of the second interviews, Anthony’s circumstances had
changed again: he had moved home again and was now living on his
own which he liked, as it gave him more independence; he had also
been off sick from work, after he hurt his leg in a fight; and he was
drinking more. The obstacles he had identified during the previous
interviews were revisited:
SF
PR
132
Last time we met, I asked you if you thought there were any
problems that might make it hard for you to stop offending,
and I remember you said ‘if you saw your ex with her new
bloke you’d flip’.
Yeah, I would, I probably would still now. Lucky I haven’t seen
him – I don’t want to see him. I keep telling her ‘don’t bring
him anywhere near me. If I see you in town with him – I will’.
‘Cause inside [of me] I know I will. I can sit here now and say
‘nah I won’t do nothing’, if they walked past that window now,
I’d have my trainers on going down there getting him. It’s
inside you, you know what I mean? You can’t stop that. I’m
Probation work: content and context
SF
PR
not going to go stalking him or anything, or anything like that,
it’s just that if I see him in a pub or in the street, I’ll hit him or
whatever – I will. It just . . . it’s a matter of principle. When I
split up with my wife, within six weeks, she was seeing him.
As far as I know, she could have been seeing him before hand.
But she swears blind she weren’t. But I still got that doubt. It
will always be there – until I get it out, get it out of my system,
actually give him a kicking, it will always be there.
You said earlier that you’d talked to [officer] about how you
felt about that, is there anything else that he could have
done?
No, no. At times when I talked to him about it, I was for going
round there, kicking the door in giving him abuse. Waiting for
him to walk out of work and jump him. But [officer] was saying
that was a stupid thing to be doing – ’you’ll get inside, you’ll
miss your kid’. That’s right, yeah, but if I saw him in the street,
I wouldn’t stop it anyway. It’s just inside – I’d just flare up. I
can stop myself from going to get him, I can stop myself from
stalking and getting him, but if I see him . . .
Although Anthony’s officer had identified him as being ‘quicktempered’ at the first interview, he said during the follow-up that he
had actually done very little work with Anthony on this topic as he
was due to start an anger management course. With regards to
Anthony’s domestic arrangements he observed:
He felt that the situation at home [when he had been living with
his wife] was . . . well, that he didn’t want to stay in it, and he
moved out – which was his right. And I wouldn’t try to put him
back there. I wouldn’t try to encourage him to go back there cause
it is not what he wants. He thinks he has got a temper, and I think
he has got a temper, although when he comes to see me he has a
placid way of co-operating. And we can discuss lots of issues. I
think if he was pushed emotionally he would react. And he did
say to me before that he was looking forward to going on the
anger management programme as he hopes that by the end of
the programme he would be able to develop strategies to deal with
his anger and his temper. Which he recognises is a problem for
him . . .
The second obstacle to his desisting which Anthony had identified was
his continued use of drugs and, in particular, cannabis:
133
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
SF
PR
SF
PR
The other thing that you said that might make it hard for you
to stop offending was the fact that you were smoking dope.
Yeah. I reckon that . . . well . . . I’m not going to give up dope
whether they make it legal, illegal, whether they ban it. I’m still
not going to give it up. It’s my prerogative. They’re allowed to
get pissed up on whiskeys, 14 I’m allowed a spliff. That’s the
only way I mean, if they made it legal tomorrow, I wouldn’t be
breaking the law smoking a spliff. They’re making me a
criminal by doing that. That’s one reason why I ain’t giving up
dope – I enjoy it too much. I’m not giving up no drugs – I like
this, I like pills and I like coke. That’s like, when I go out at the
weekends, I’ll have a few drinks, and I’ll have perhaps some
whizz. 15 Between that I’m smoking spliffs – spliff after spliff
after spliff. Cause everyone I know smokes. Skins up, well one
every ten minutes. Well, I smoke all the time . . .
Remind me again, did you talk to [officer] about dope?
He says, I’ve spoke to him about it like – there’s not a lot wrong
– he don’t say it’s right. He just says there’s not a lot wrong, a
few spliffs here and there. He said if it don’t agree with you,
just have beer . . . he don’t actually condone it, but he don’t
actually say ‘don’t do it’.
This report was supported by Anthony’s officer who said ‘well, he
smokes cannabis, he tells me that. Only now and then, but it is not a
major problem’. Anthony’s officer had outlined two obstacles to his
desisting. One of these, his temper, has already been discussed. With
regards to the second obstacle – Anthony’s friends – the officer said:
Well, I know some of the people he associates with, and I know of
the [pubs and clubs] that he goes to to relax, have a game of pool
and a few pints. It is a well known establishment in town. I have
seen him around the town centre with others who I know, through
my work as an officer. He is associating with these people and
since the offence [for which he received the order] he hasn’t come
to the notice of the courts. So I think he . . . it appears he is
managing alright. Whilst I want to be able to wish him well for the
future – I am skirting around it here – I don’t want to be
judgmental, he has known these individuals for a long, long time
and they are friendships that were nurtured at school, very hard
to shake off. You can still have relationships with people who are
offending and not offend yourself. I would like to believe that that
is the case.
134
Probation work: content and context
The topic of Anthony’s friends was returned to repeatedly during the
interview:
SF
Has Anthony been involved in any offending since the last time
we met?
PO Not to my knowledge. But I do know . . . I am concerned about
some of his peers . . . that are known to me, known to the
[probation] service. I see him around the town . . . and I do see
him in the company of others that I would rather he didn’t
associate with. But that’s . . . he is happy in their company, and
so far he hasn’t come back he hasn’t re-offended so I suppose
it is not like that . . . but I would rather he didn’t associate with
some of his peers.
When the focus of the interview fell upon the officer’s own efforts to
intervene he said that he had done very little. This is entirely
understandable, and exactly as he had predicted:
SF
Just thinking about the friends, which strikes me again and
again as being your primary concern about Anthony’s future,
is there that anything that you or the probation service can do?
PO I don’t think that you can legally prevent anybody from
associating with anybody in this country really. It is a democracy after all. We can befriend whomever we please. In this
particular case, as far as probation goes, all we can do is to raise
. . . my concerns and then it will be entirely up to him if he
wants to or not.
SF Have you raised your concerns about his friends with Anthony
himself?
PO Not recently. He did tell me of some individuals that he knows,
and he knows that I know these individuals as well. And we
talked about the merits of actually being with them. I did
actually say to him that he should be a little more self-aware
than that, and he actually said he wouldn’t associate with
them, but we never talked in depth about it. How did he react to
your suggestion that he be more . . .? Basically I didn’t want to put
too much of a point on it. I didn’t want to sort of make it the
main focus of anything. I just mentioned it and allowed it to
stay with him and let him deal with it. I don’t want to do the
big brother thing and sort of ‘don’t do this’. I felt I would just
mention it and allow it to stay on the agenda and perhaps to
come back to it another time. Give him time to think about it.
135
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
At the end of the second interview, both Anthony and his officer were
asked to identify further obstacles facing Anthony and to reflect on
how they might tackle these. Anthony’s officer said that Anthony’s
friends would still pose a problem, but because Anthony was going
into group-work for the rest of the order, they would be seeing very
little of each other. Anthony himself identified his involvement with
drugs and friendships:
SF
PR
Tell me a bit more about some of the things you think might
get you back into trouble.
Oh, there’s definitely drugs and that. Like even being in work,
like my mates – like they’re drug dealers. Like I’m in a car with
him a lot of times, and he’s got drugs in his car, I’m in that car,
I’m nicked with him. He’s not gonna say it’s his, he’s gonna
say ‘humpf – I don’t get that’ – you know what I mean? And
I’ll be sat next to him, so there’s another way of getting nicked.
I also, the pubs I go in as well, the other pubs I go in, most of
the pubs near town, you get a lot of trouble, like people coming
in Saturdays and things like that. Too much uncertainty – it’s
all ‘ifs and buts’. But it is possible, it is easily possible. There’s
many different ways of getting arrested for silly things. Some
of them are not so silly and some of them are. Is there anything
you can do to sort of . . . stop that? Yeah. No. You can’t. There’s
no way you can do it. The drugs for instance, that’s my social
life. That’s the people I deal with and hang around with. That
kind of thing – that’s just life. Its part of life. If it wasn’t for
drugs, if they weren’t illegal, then . . . then, I wouldn’t be
breaking the law. Fighting for instance, that you can’t stop,
that’s gonna happen whatever, the poshest bloke in the world
or the lowest bloke in the world – if someone hits you you’re
gonna hit back. So that kind of thing you can’t stop.
The third sweep interviews took place shortly after Anthony was due
to have completed his order. However, at that time it became apparent
that he had attended very few of the anger management sessions. The
officer interviewed (who had taken over the case after the previous
officer had left the office) had never met Anthony and could provide
little information about him. He noted that Anthony had been reported
by the officers running the anger management group to have appeared
‘withdrawn’ at the two sessions he had attended, but that he had not
approached either of these officers about this. Anthony was breached
and a warrant was issued for his arrest. His account of his ‘disappear136
Probation work: content and context
ance’ was the first thing discussed when he was seen for the third and
final time:
SF
PR
SF
PR
So, you’re technically no longer on probation, that all finished.
Yeah that all finished. When did that finish? Well, I assume,
when I never went to anger management (laughs). Cause I
moved from that address, they never contacted me. All my
mail must have gone to that address and I never heard nothing,
so I assume that I have been breached. I saw you in July, and you
were still seeing [original officer] then. Yeah, I was. Once a
fortnight I was seeing him then. And, what happened? Well, I just
sort of moved house, didn’t go to my appointments when I was
supposed to. And stuff like that really. He sent a few letters
saying ‘turn up at such and such a time’. This is [original officer]?
Yeah. Once I knew I’d lost me job, and was in debt to my rent,
I just thought ‘fuck it, fuck everything’. Move away from the
area, move away from the city centre sort of thing, and just
forget everything, forget the anger management, forget probation, and just move on. I don’t think I need it anymore,
personally speaking.
You went to some of the anger management sessions.
Yeah I went for 11 weeks. And what were they like? Stupid. They
were based on an American thing. It is a trial thing over here
really. It is basically, they ask you stupid questions of situations
which never happen and how you are going to respond to
them. Like, I’ll give you an example: one of them was ‘you’re
with a bunch of Jewish people, you’re being chased through a
village, and there are German soldiers chasing you, they run
into this house and one of the women’s got a kid. The kid is
crying, it’s going to give away your position, and the Germans
are going to come in and shoot you all, what do you do? Do
you kill the kid or . . .?’ Do you know what I mean? Do you
give yourself up for the sake of the kid? What a stupid
question. I refused to answer it . . . 16
Anthony was asked to discuss the obstacles which he had identified:
SF
PR
When I spoke to you last time I asked you if you thought there
was anything that might make it hard for you to stop offending
and you said ‘knowing people who use drugs’.
Yeah – cause I am constantly around people who smoke dope
all the time. It is like a different social world to everyone else’s.
137
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Like everyone else who don’t smoke dope, they got their
friends and such and such, they go out for a drink with the
friends, or play cards, or whatever they do with their friends.
When you got smoking friends, you go round their houses, you
sit down, you smoke a few spliffs, you get stoned with them,
you have a laugh, most of the people I know, nearly everyone
I know, smokes dope. It is a different social background. So, I
go in drug dealers’ houses all the time. I have a smoke in there
– if I’m in there and they get busted, and there’s loads of drugs
around, I’m dragged in with it. That is a risk you take. It is only
cannabis – it is not heavy drugs. But if they legalise it, then no
one would be criminals.
So, in effect, he had done nothing about the obstacle which he had
identified. In sum, neither he nor any of the officers he’d had contact
with had directly addressed his ‘temper’. His officer had not wished to
tackle it directly, for fear of ruining the work to be undertaken in the
group-work sessions, and the officers running the group did not
appear to have impressed Anthony in any way. At every one of the
three interviews, Anthony reported having been in numerous fights
(usually associated with drinking). His drug use continued and he was
‘hanging around’ with other users and dealers.
Yet despite this, Anthony would appear to have received (and by all
accounts listened to) advice from his officer. For example, he discussed
with his officer his ex-partner and her ‘new fella’ and how he should
react to this situation and, accordingly, he had not gone to her new
home and ‘jumped’ her ‘fella’. Anthony remembered sufficiently well
what his officer had said to be able to recount it when interviewed, had
realised that his officer’s advice was worth heeding and had started to
get on better with his ex-wife.
Whilst he had continued to become involved in fights, at the third
interview he estimated that his last fight had been six months prior to
the interview. At around that time, Anthony’s life changed dramatically: not only did he leave the area (near the city centre) in which he
had been living to move to a suburban part of the same city, but he
started to live with a new girlfriend, Cleo. During his final interview,
Anthony discussed the influence of Cleo, probation supervision and
other normative life events:
SF
PR
138
Any other trouble that you’ve got into since I saw you?
No, not really. I’ve stayed off the drink as much. Now I’m with
Cleo like, I don’t drink as much as I used to. I drink a bit
Probation work: content and context
indoors, but I don’t go out pubbing it no more. I don’t need to.
The only reason why I used to go out pubbing it was to
socialise. Meet girls. Get drunk, y’know. I don’t need to since I
met her. I just stay in with her – become a quiet life again.
And again:
SF
PR
SF
PR
SF
PR
Can you describe for me your life when you first started
probation, back that year or so ago.
Well, when I got [probation], just before Christmas in December I got sentenced. It must have been just after I split up from
my missus. Back that time I probably needed someone like
[officer], like I said, it felt like counselling, you could go in there
and say to them and it felt better when you left there, like
‘fucking bitch won’t let me see my kid’. And he’d say ‘well,
you ain’t gonna see your kid if you speak to her like that’. He’d
make you look at it that kind of way. So it was all right for that
sort of reason. The counselling. It helped with my personal
problems. As for re-offending and stuff like that, as I said
before, everyone breaks the law everyday, it’s just that people
do it in different moderations.
That was your life then. Tell me a bit more about your life now.
Now I’m unemployed. I’m not really looking for work at the
moment. After working for five years on two shitty jobs, I want
about a year off. Have a break. I’m a lot happier now that I’ve
got Cleo. I don’t go out with attitude no more. When I was
single and that, I used to go out with attitude and that. It was
all about getting a name for yourself and all stuff like that.
Which I already have, but its all image when you’re on your
own. But when you are with someone you don’t give a fuck
about anything, you just think ‘ahhh fuck it. I’m with her and
that’s it’, it’s as simple as that. So you can relax more. You can
take little digs at you a lot easier. Like before you’d bite on
them – you’d say ‘what was that you fucking said?’, but now
you just think ‘yeah, yeah, go away you prick’, you know what
I mean. You just brush it off easier now.
Those changes, that you just described to me from between
when you started probation and now, was that anything to do
with probation or was it things away from probation?
Nah. Its away from probation. I done it myself. Probation
didn’t really help me. The only thing they really did for me was
like I said – counselling type of thing, helped me see my kid
139
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
and things like that. It helped me . . . use it . . . the right way
about going about things. Like going round there blowing up,
putting windows in and trying to get the kid and stuff that
way, he made yer sit down and think about it. And that’s about
it really. But, then I never really talked to him about crimes or
anything, ‘cause he is an officer, you know what I mean. You
can’t say ‘yeah, I go out smoking dope’, ‘I’m doing ‘‘this’’ all
the time . . .’, cause he’ll just go ‘oh, yeah? oh yeah? –
you’re breached, you’re not supposed to commit offences
whilst on probation. So you can’t really say nothing like that to
him. You can talk to him to a certain extent, but not to the full
extent – not like you – you’re in confidence, 17 they’re supposed
to be confidential too, but if they know that you’re breaking the
law, a serious offence, they’ll scratch that straight away.
These extended extracts reveal the influence of Cleo. Anthony claimed
that the changes in his life and his frequency of offending were due to
Cleo – and certainly no other major changes could be detected.
Probation was, he admits, helpful at the start of the order, when he had
somewhere to go and ‘sound off’ about his wife, and the advice of his
officer may have been of use. Certainly it would appear that having
someone to talk to did help Anthony at that time.
Anthony’s experiences were chosen as an example of the situated
context of probation work because whilst he and his officer had
identified different sets of obstacles, similar themes – peers, the ‘ex-’ and
anger – permeated their discussions. They had also discussed together
possible ways of resolving some of these (the ‘ex-’ and peers being the
obvious examples), and it would appear that Anthony had taken on
board some of the advice given to him – in particular concerning his ‘ex-’.
Nevertheless, it is hard to come to the conclusion that probation was the
driving force behind Anthony’s offending reducing in the way it did. He
claims his offending (i.e. fighting) was greatly curtailed around the time
that he ceased to attend probation, moved away from a particular area
and started to live with Cleo. In other words, changes in Anthony’s
personal and social contexts appear to have been the features of his life
which encouraged desistance, rather than probation supervision alone.
Summary
This chapter has developed the analyses started in Chapter 5, which
explored the outcomes of the attempts to tackle the obstacles to
140
Probation work: content and context
desistance faced by probationers. After finding that variations in the
formal interventions made by officers played little part in accounting
for whether obstacles were resolved or not, this chapter has considered
the role of personal and social contexts.
This discussion has demonstrated a number of important issues
concerning ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ attempts to tackle these
obstacles whilst on probation. There were very few instances where
failure was due to inexcusable inaction on the part of the officer.
However, even when officers did intervene to help their probationers
overcome the obstacles which they faced, their efforts did not often
appear to have been of help. There appeared to be a tendency for
officers to ‘talk about’ the obstacles which their probationers faced,
rather than actually take action (see Table 6.3). Officer 107 reported that
he had talked with his probationer about his immaturity yet, as he
noted, it proved to be very hard to make much headway with this
approach. The officer supervising Anthony reported that he had ‘. . .
just mentioned [Anthony’s friends] to him . . .’ as he ‘. . . didn’t want
to make it the main focus of anything’. One is left with an impression
of circuitous discussions between officers and probationers during
which officers ‘drop hints’ about ‘issues’, the lessons of which are not
brought home to the probationers. Contrast this approach with case
113 (in Chapter 10), where the officer ‘continually’ spelt out to the
probationer the need for him to change. This interpretation is borne out
by quotations from the probationers themselves – see case 134 earlier
in this chapter on how she and her officer ‘talked about it’, but that was
‘as far as it went’, or case 110 who reported a discussion about anger
management but that ‘nothing happened’, or case 008 who reported
that his officer ‘just talks’. There appears to be a consensus amongst
officers that ‘talking about’ obstacles to desistance with probationers
will resolve them. It may well be that this is the first step towards
resolving them, but it would not often appear that this approach
actually solves these obstacles in and of itself.
What, then, would appear to help probationers to overcome these
obstacles, and thereby increase their chances of desisting? The answer
could lie in not talking, but acting. From the qualitative data presented
in this chapter, examples of ‘good work’ (i.e. intervention which led to
some positive outcome for the probationer) by officers would appear
to consist of action. Consider, for example, the officers who helped
probationers to find accommodation (see earlier this chapter); went
round to the probationer home and assisted them, either by telephoning other agencies on their behalf, or who physically took the
probationer to another agency. Other examples of similarly ‘good
141
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
work’ being equated with action rather than talk will also be found in
subsequent chapters: by, for example, telephoning family members to
ask them to help probationers, case 153 (in Chapter 9) or case 054 (in
Chapter 10). This not to say that talking is never good, but that too often
it is all that is relied upon and that more, by way of action, is required
to maximise probation supervision. Consider the events reported by
officer 060 (this chapter). She reported that she and her probationer
‘regularly discussed’ heroin and that the probationer was offered
‘time-out’ – but nothing was done to address the ‘counter-influences’,
namely, an abusive boyfriend. Contrast this with the reports of the
action taken by another officer in a very similar situation (case 028, this
chapter), who intervened in a very direct manner and achieved a
positive outcome.
This is not, of course, to ignore wider social and personal contexts
or their influences on the probationers. There were several instances of
the probationers’ social and personal contexts intervening in such a
way as to influence the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the attempts made to
deal with the obstacle. Arguments and reconciliation with family
members usually occur independently of probation supervision; decisions to leave home, return home, ‘runaway’ and so on are made for
reasons other than their ‘rehabilitative’ tendencies. Gaining employment – often associated with reductions in offending – losing work and
getting better work are also open to influence from factors outside
probation supervision. Hitherto, evaluations of probation work have
largely ignored the role of these factors in encouraging or inhibiting
desistance from offending. Whilst the discussion above has not
investigated the magnitude to which social variables impacted upon the
general outcome of probation supervision (this issue is discussed in
more depth in Chapter 10), it has demonstrated that the outcome of the
work aimed at tackling the obstacles identified by officers was
influenced by the social and personal circumstances of the probationer.
Another theme which emerged from the responses given by the
officers was that ‘successful’ and ‘failed’ attempts to tackle obstacles
were often the result of the probationer’s inability or reluctance to
confront or resolve the obstacle as well as the influence of the
probationer’s social and personal life. Probationers, by their own
admission, failed to seek advice – or sought advice but then did not
follow it – or attempted to tackle obstacles in ways other than as their
officers had suggested.
Of course, motivation, social and personal contexts and probation
work do not exist independently of one another. Similarly, social and
personal contexts are fluid – as some of the data presented in this
142
Probation work: content and context
chapter have demonstrated. A probationer’s employment status may
alter, his or her family relationships may change and so on. The next
chapter explores the most frequent changes in probationers’ social and
personal circumstances and the ways in which motivation, changing
contexts and probation supervision interacted with one another.
Notes
1 The probationer was already on a methadone reduction programme.
2 The probationer in question was in the process of separating from the
mother of his children.
3 The probationer had been given better terms of access to her children, who
were living in care.
4 Although the officer did not mention specific crises, it is clear from the
interview that the probationer had problems with the following aspects of
his life, any of which could readily have thrown up crises: unstable
accommodation; unstable employment; financial problems; problems with
access to his children; a tendency to drink large quantities of alcohol; and
depression.
5 The probationer had faced charges, which were eventually withdrawn.
The officer’s recall of the events surrounding the offence were hazy (due to
the case being withdrawn), but it appears that the probationer and his
partner were in a pub where he assaulted her after a dispute. The charges
were withdrawn by the probationer’s partner shortly after the event took
place.
6 The probationer had recounted how he had met one of the people involved
in his friend’s death and come close to assaulting him.
7 Which he described as ‘how I feel when I get angry’.
8 Although the probationer had gained insights into his offending, being
‘known’ in the area frequently resulted in him having to resort to violence
to protect himself and/or his friends.
9 On the role of his officer in this process he said: ‘she didn’t know [about
him giving up cocaine] until I stopped.’
10 The obstacle identified by the probationer was his ‘pride’. He is expanding
on this point by saying: ‘If I say I’m going to do something, then I get it
done. If someone kicks my fucking door through, and I say ‘‘I’m gonna get
you’’, then I will.’
11 In order for him to inject heroin without the child seeing him do so.
12 The probationer was in prison at the time of the second interview.
13 In the community.
14 It is unclear who the ‘they’ refers to – but at the time of the interview, it
appeared to refer to judges or magistrates.
15 Amphetamines.
143
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
16 The probationer recounted this same tale during the second interview.
He’d started the course previously (as part of this order) and not completed
it then either.
17 Anthony was referring to the interviewer at this point.
144
Chapter 9
Motivation, changing contexts
and probation supervision
This chapter builds on the previous two chapters in two ways. The
recent literature on the effectiveness of penal interventions has emphasised the need to take account of dynamic variables 1 (Andrews 1989;
Jones 1996: 58). This chapter therefore investigates the most common
changes experienced by probationers and the impact these had on their
lives. It then moves on to consider the role of the officer in helping to
foster these sorts of changes and, in so doing, ‘brings together’ the
analyses of motivation, probation supervision and changes in personal
and social circumstances.
Change and development in social and personal contexts
All officers and probationers seen during the follow-up phases were
asked to describe the ‘biggest single change in the probationer’s life’
since the previous interview. The most common responses – those
which accounted for more than 10 per cent of all changes – are reported
in Table 9.1. Two of the most common changes reported related to
employment and family formation. When individual case studies were
examined, it was found that the reported changes of home were
usually incidental to other changes. For example, many of the moves
of home were in fact to addresses close to the probationer’s original
address and were the result of changes in employment status or family
formation. This is a fairly obvious finding – as people start work, set
up or end relationships, they often move home. Changes in substance
use were also often usually found to be the result of changes in
employment and family formation. For these reasons, this chapter
focuses primarily upon changes in employment and families. There
are, however, other good reasons for focusing on employment and
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-11
145
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Table 9.1: Probationers’ ‘biggest single’ life change since the previous interview
Category
Officers
(n)
(%)
Probationers
(n)
(%)
Change in employment 2
Change in family formation 3
Change in substance use 4
Change in home address
No change/don’t know
All other changes
41
44
34
43
76
103
(12)
(13)
(10)
(13)
(22)
(30)
45
35
33
34
31
77
(18)
(14)
(13)
(13)
(12)
(30)
Total
341
(100)
255
(100)
family. As well as being amongst the most common indicators of
‘adulthood’ (Hogan and Astone 1986; Graham and Bowling 1995), and
hence of ‘maturity’ and ‘responsibility’, the acquisition of stable
employment and family formation have been linked with desistance
from offending in several previous studies (see Chapter 1).
In terms of its impact on an individual’s life, paid employment has
the potential to achieve all the following: a reduction in ‘unstructured’
time and an increase in ‘structured’ time; an income, which enables
‘home-leaving’ and the establishment of ‘significant’ relationships; a
‘legitimate’ identity; an increase in self-esteem; use of an individual’s
energies; financial security; daily interaction with non-offenders; for
men in particular, a reduction in the time spent in single-sex, peer-aged
groups; the means by which an individual may meet his or her future
partner; and ambition and goals, such as promotion at work. 6
The descriptions obtained from officers and probationers of the
latter’s gaining work, getting more stable work or being promoted at
work illustrate some of these processes. Employment brought a
number of changes to probationers’ lives – one of the first of these was
to reduce the amount of ‘unstructured’ time:
[the probationer’s drinking] is moderated by the fact that he is
working. I think that if he wasn’t working, he’d be drinking more
[PO 194, a confident who desisted].
I’ve got a job. I’ve always got money. When you’ve got money
you’ve got things you can do, so I can go out and that instead of
going out, like, on the streets drinking, causing trouble [PR 067, a
pessimist who desisted].
146
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
I mean, obviously if I’m at work, I can’t smoke [heroin]. You know,
I can’t go out for a drink every ten minutes or I can’t have a line
of coke every hour you know. So really, it’s quite good because it’s
controlling me . . . [PR 164, a pessimist who was classified as a
continuing trivial offender].
In addition, some jobs physically removed people from the situations
which had previously led them into trouble. One person, on probation
for assaulting his partner, gained employment which took him away
from their home during the week:
Well, for one thing, he is not living [at home], and so the
opportunities for discord between him and Nina is limited – ’cause
he has been working away. It just takes him out of the environment doesn’t it? Working all across the country, his mind is
preoccupied with other things and so relationship problems are
not magnified. Maybe he is more able to be more objective about
the relationship than if he was not at work and hanging about . . .
[PO 098, a confident who desisted].
Indeed, one of the probationers who said that he had lost his job
reported that he had become: ‘. . . bored. I take it out on my girlfriend
– we’re in each other’s faces twenty-four hours a day. Makes me lazy.
I’m in bed ‘til four o’clock most days’ [PR 022, a pessimist whose
offending escalated].
Several respondents reported that employment encouraged the
probationer to take a ‘more responsible’ attitude towards consuming
drugs and alcohol:
I’ve cut down a lot [on drinking]. I only get really drunk one night
a week. Before I would have had a few cans whilst getting ready
to go out, now I don’t [PR 014].
I’ve been promoted in my job. I have got more responsibility now,
so obviously I can’t smoke [cannabis] during the week – which I
was before. I have to concentrate because I work on the railways [PR
039, an optimist who was classified as a continuing trivial offender].
As well as reducing the ‘time available’ for ‘aimless hanging around’
which may lead to offending (especially amongst young men: Wallace
1986, 1987) and encouraging reductions in drug and alcohol usage,
employment ‘keeps one occupied’:
147
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Because I have work, I have got things to do. Because, before,
when I committed crimes, I didn’t have a job and I was just going
around just to make money and that and I had time on my hands
so I was drinking all the time. Now I have got a job and that I am
working all the time and I haven’t got time to drink [PR 067, a
pessimist who desisted].
Long hours, which served to tire the probationers, appeared to be
something of a recurring feature: ‘I’m working a lot – I enjoy it’ said
case 014, whose officer added: ‘he works long hours – ’til seven or eight
at night.’ Long hours spent at work, in many cases, served to reduce
the probationer’s desire to do much but relax after work: ‘If I am not
too tired I jump in the shower, get dressed and go and see [my
daughter]. If I come home knackered, I have a shower and relax, I don’t
go anywhere!’ [PR 036, a pessimist who desisted].
Fieldnotes made after interviewing another probationer supported
the idea that work not only occupied the probationer’s time, but also
left some with little energy to do much else:
He was very tired. He said that he had to get up at six in the
morning to get to work and it was twenty to eight in the evening
before he got home, where the interview took place. It must be
said that he did look pretty tired [PR 067].
For Jamie, a pessimist who desisted, it appeared his employment had
imposed a gruelling routine upon his life:
by the time I get home, it is six or seven o’clock in the evening, I
go out, back in by eleven o’clock, then [get up for] work again.
And weekends – means you can’t do nothing [PR 115].
I visited him twice at his home. Always five p.m.-ish. I would wait
for him to come in and yeah, he wouldn’t have the energy. He’d
just sort of [officer mimics a slouch]. Three hundred and fifty
pounds was good money, but he worked for it [PO 115].
Both the officers interviewed about this probationer reported that his
self-esteem had been increased as a result of his gaining employment:
the conversations we had at supervision were very positive, much
more vibrant . . . much more definite tones in his voice about what
his life was about and how he was going to do this and that . . .
148
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
When he had the job he was much more positive. Plans for
holidays, plans for this . . . things I’d never heard him talking
about [PO 115, second interview].
He seemed to be really motivated about these jobs . . . He had an
identity with the job, he apparently enjoyed the job, he was
working very late, getting rid of his energy that way. It appeared
to me that the employment was where he got his identity and got
a role for himself [PO 115, third interview].
Employment not only changes an individual’s image of him or herself
but it also changes others’ opinions of that individual. One officer
reported how, by starting work, his probationer’s family no longer saw
him as ‘a druggie’:
because he is now working and providing for the household, all
his pressures [with his family] have gone down. He was on the
verge of actually being thrown out, and [made] homeless, by them.
And that has receded ‘cause he is becoming – from their point of
view – a productive and constructive member of the family, and
therefore working with them instead of against them. Which is
often the perception of families with drug addicts – ’no matter
what they do, they still end up on drugs’ [PO 150, an optimist who
desisted].
As some probationers remained in work, and started to perceive their
employment as something from which they derived benefits, they
came to realise that staying in work could be jeopardised by further
convictions:
what was coming through [in supervision] was that he was
thinking about drinking, thinking about not putting himself into
vulnerable situations because his job is heavily dependent upon
him driving. He is delivering books all over the South West [of
England], so he can’t lose his licence. So he has been thinking ‘I
will not make myself vulnerable, I will get a cab home or I will
think how I will get home now’ [PO 034, a confident who desisted].
the only time I got behind the wheel of a car was to start my dad’s
car up in the driveway ‘cause he was under the bonnet, and that
was it, and I got straight out of it when I started it up . . . I
wouldn’t do it. ‘Cause I know that if I got caught I’m going to lose
my job [PR 194, a confident who desisted].
149
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Work also introduced probationers to people they would never otherwise
have met – as one [014] said, ‘you get to meet people, see different
perspectives on things’. Similarly, one of the officers [066] explained why
he felt employment was associated with reductions in offending: ‘when
people work they tend not to go out so much, they tend to be a bit more
focused. A bit more able to relate to . . . a bit more of the world and society’.
The following case study illustrates further the role of employment.
Sandra [063], a confident who was classified as a continuing trivial
offender, was 23 years old when she started her probation order, imposed
after she had been found guilty of theft from her employer. ‘I was working
as a waitress in a cocktail bar,’ she said, when she started drinking heavily.
She stole around £2,500 from the till in order to buy drinks, and was
consuming several cans of lager and a bottle of spirits a day around the
time of the offence. Sandra said that she liked neither her work nor her
home life. Until shortly before the offence, Sandra had been living with her
parents, but had left home and was staying with friends whilst looking for
more settled accommodation. She said that at this time she had been
feeling down and confused over ‘where she was going in life’.
At the second interview, Sandra had found employment. Following
a self-initiated referral to a local alcohol counselling service which also
ran an employment and re-skilling course, she had applied for work in
the accounts department of a large firm. This was a daunting prospect
for someone who had little prior work experience, and none at all in
the previous six months: ‘[Work is] okay. It’s getting better – the longer
I spend there, it’s getting better. The first week I was there I was
thinking ‘‘urrrrggggghhh – what am I doing here?’’ I was ready to
[quit], but I stuck at it and it is going good.’
Sandra’s officer recounted how nervous Sandra had been about
applying for the position, and described her own efforts to reassure
Sandra:
I think she thought that nobody would want to employ her again
because the offence was actually for dishonesty – which was
against her employer. So in fact it was a breach of trust, in
employment . . . so that did present some difficulties when she
went for this job. But in the end they decided to give her the job
because they got a fairly favourable report from the employment
and re-skilling project that she was attending.
I tried to explain that that was one department [internal security]
that was putting up the stumbling block [regarding her previous
conviction]. And yes, she was a bit down sometimes about it, but
150
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
she tried to remain positive, ‘cause she went for the interview, and
I said ‘well, at least you passed the interview stage, and if it comes
that you don’t get the job . . .’ I tried to be positive – I said ‘well,
you know that it is not because you are not capable of going
through the interview process. You’ve done the application,
you’ve done the interview . . .’ I said ‘you know you are capable of
doing it’. So I said, ‘if you don’t get it, don’t let that stop you’. So
I think she started to feel a little bit better about it. I said ‘there
will be another firm that maybe won’t have somebody that is so
pedantic. Yes, they will need to know [about the conviction],
they’ll be aware of it and can work with that, but . . .’ I think it was
the first job she applied for.
Sandra described her reaction to finishing her first week in her new job:
The very first Friday I worked it was ‘yeeerrrse! Down the pub,
down the pub!’ I got absolutely rat-arsed, and felt so really
ashamed of myself on the Saturday. I thought, ‘okay – that is
allowed, that is your first Friday, first full week at work. Okay, it
is not going to happen next week’. And it didn’t and it’s been cool.
I’m going away on holiday on Thursday. Oh, where to? Tunisia.
When I first started work, one of the things that worried me was
having money again would just be a ticket to going down the pub
every night. But it hasn’t been. I want to learn to drive, I want to
get out of home, I want these things. So I am just going to have to
save up and do it like everybody else.
Sandra’s officer described the changes in Sandra which she had
identified since she had started working again:
I think it has done her the world of good. The first time she came
in she had really made an effort – she had done her hair up,
dressed a lot smarter, her whole attitude and . . . what’s the word
I am looking for? When she comes in she doesn’t look so down
about things . . . she’s really happy. She is really pleased about it.
Sandra’s employers also appeared to be pleased with her efforts at
work, and shortly before she was interviewed for the second time had
given her a positive appraisal:
Last week, they told me that they are happy with my work –
which has given me a boost. Up ‘til then I was just getting along
151
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
with it and I didn’t know if they were happy with what I was
doing. So that was good – they reassured me. ‘We’re really happy
with you – keep it up’.
Sandra admitted that she had continued to smoke cannabis throughout
the course of her order, but said that her usage was ‘nothing serious’.
At the third interview she said that she ‘felt like a normal person’ and
was still enjoying work. When asked to describe her plans for the next
six months she said she had enjoyed Tunisia and was ‘going to South
America in the summer’. When asked about longer-term plans she said
‘to stay employed, progress in employment as far as I can and start
driving lessons’.
Clearly, gaining employment will not guarantee that an individual
will cease to offend (and, indeed, several studies have demonstrated
that work can increase the opportunities for offending, e.g. Ditton 1977;
Henry 1978). But evidence suggests that gaining work serves to reduce
offending (e.g. Farrington et al. 1986; Horney et al. 1995). The reason for
this is not simply because people commit crime because they are out
of work, and employment takes away the need to offend. For many,
employment structures their daily lives in such away as to reduce some
of the opportunities for offending. Additionally, it gives people a sense
of ‘identity’ and ‘a role in society’. Commitment to work, that is to say,
believing that one’s job is beneficial in some way, serves in time to
reinforce reductions in offending. Because most jobs demand physical
presence at set times, and repeated transgressions of this may lead to
disciplinary action being taken, commitment ‘shapes’ people’s routines, often leaving them little opportunity to offend.
Changes in family formations also produced dramatic changes in
probationers’ lives. Several probationers had, either as a result of their
engagement in offending, or for other reasons, ‘fallen out’ with their
parents and had left home or were living independently and had little
or no contact with their parents. Becoming reconciled with parents and
a return to the parental home, often described as a ‘temporary
arrangement’, provided one context in which families acted to support
probationers during either moments of crisis or prolonged attempts to
desist from crime.
One officer recounted how the probationer he was supervising (153,
a confident who desisted) had eventually started living with his
mother again after over ten years of living independently. Some of the
circumstances surrounding the probationer concerned have already
been referred to in Chapter 8. He had almost died as a result of
injecting into an artery in his groin and had had to spend several weeks
152
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
in hospital. Whilst he was in hospital, his officer spoke to his mother.
Initially she had been reluctant to allow her son to come home to live
with her, but consented when she realised that he would be homeless
otherwise. Realising how close he had come to dying, the probationer
resolved to stop using heroin and accepted his mother’s offer of ‘a bed’.
When he was interviewed for the third time he was still living with his
mother and reported that he had stopped offending as he had given
up heroin.
Sandra [063], whose case was discussed above in relation to her
employment, also moved home. Although she had not got on well with
her parents for some years, and had not told them of her conviction,
for fear of incurring their disapproval, her relationship with her
parents had improved after an uncle had been diagnosed with cancer.
When her own accommodation plans fell through, Sandra turned to
her parents:
I wasn’t going to move back home – I had a flat lined up, I was
going to move in with somebody. It was somebody from the
alcohol sessions. He’d been dry for a long time. And we got on
really well. He lived 15 minutes away from where I worked, so it
was all dandy – it was going to be cheap, it was all perfect. I was
meant to move in there on the Saturday, and I rang him up and
he was drunk. So, that was it. I couldn’t afford to put myself in
that situation. He was older than me – he’d gone through an awful
lot more. He was further along in the alcohol line than I was –
much further along. I couldn’t put myself in that situation. So my
only option was to go home. At first it was . . . like going
backwards, but then, after speaking to a few people, I realised it
is not going backwards, it is going sidewards. It is just putting
things on hold for a little while and doing things more sensibly.
As well as providing a ‘refuge’ in times of emergency, some families
also appeared to offer practical assistance that could help probationers
avoid further offending. For example, case 103 (a confident who
desisted) reported how his wife drove their family around after his
conviction for drink-driving. However, the most striking examples of
intervention by families again concerned their attempts to assist
probationers, usually their sons and daughters, in their attempts to
give up drugs and/or alcohol. In one case this consisted of driving the
probationer around in an attempt to find a drug rehabilitation clinic of
her liking (092, a confident who was classified as a continuing trivial
offender). In other cases far more urgent action was required. Two
153
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
cases in particular (052, and 105, 7 both females in their mid-20s and
both with family living abroad) provide examples of this sort of help.
On learning that their daughters had developed heroin habits, both sets
of families returned to the UK and rallied to support the women in
question. In both cases this entailed finding the money to fund lengthy
stays in drug rehabilitation clinics. However, not all families were as
supportive – exclusion from parental homes resulting in increased
risks of returns to drug usage were not unheard of (e.g. cases 086 and
172, Chapter 8).
Until this point, most of the discussion has focused upon the
probationers’ families of origin – that is, the families of which the
probationers were the off-spring. Some of these families had been able
to offer practical help, funding for rehabilitation programmes and
temporary accommodation to ‘wayward’ sons and daughters. Similarly, families of formation – that is, those families which the probationer
had formed via marriage, partnership and child-rearing – also offered
the motivation to avoid further trouble.
Karla (134, an optimist who desisted) already had two children in
social services care by the time her third child was born. Although she
said she had given up heroin at the very start of her order, the child
was born methadone dependent. Karla’s officer reported that:
there was an overall improvement in her self-esteem. Also the
baby has increased her motivation, she’s got a serious reason to
avoid the risk of custody. Previously, she lost the care of her other
two children and she does not want this to happen again. She has
been very co-operative with the social services, who have told her
she’ll be able to get the baby back once she has her own
accommodation and has remained drugs free.
Karla responded to this advice and established a close relationship
with the baby – visiting him every day whilst he was in the hospital.
Her officer described the baby as ‘her main motivation to stop using
drugs’. By the time of the third interview, Karla had found settled
accommodation and had care of her baby and was seeing more of her
children in care. Her officer said that she ‘didn’t want to lose what
she’s got now’. Although Karla could not be traced at the time of the
third interview, 8 her accounts during the previous interviews support
this general picture. Her motivation to stop offending (in effect, get off
heroin) appeared to be high, and she reported that she did most of the
work in achieving this by herself, saying ‘I didn’t get anything from
probation, not even from the women’s group’. Her officer supported
154
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
her assessment: ‘no matter what we do, it’s mainly down to her. She’s
been highly motivated and she’s made a lot of effort [to get off drugs]’.
Clive (076, a pessimist who desisted) had had a drink problem for a
very long time. He was in his 30s when he started probation, and his
officer said that he had had a drink problem for over 20 years. When
first interviewed he was still drinking ‘heavily’, but by the time of the
second interview, Clive’s partner was pregnant: ‘This is my fourth
child, but it is like I get a second chance with the relationship. I can’t
‘‘destroy’’ it this time. It gives me determination to make it work.’
His officer said that expecting another child had made Clive
determined to tackle his alcohol problem and had helped him to stay
out of trouble. Clive had contacted a local alcohol support group and
was spending more time at home with his partner. By the time of the
third interview the baby had been born, and Clive was spending even
more time at home:
I spend more time at home now. I have more things to do with
myself. It also keeps me out of trouble. It’s my own choice – I don’t
want this life for my baby, I still haven’t given up drinking, I don’t
think I ever will, but things are not so bad now.
I’ve tried to stay out of trouble, in order to prove to the social
services that we can look after the baby. I only drink a couple of
times a week now, and it’s only outside the house.
As well as providing something which could be jeopardised if plans to
desist are not kept to, families also provided a means of ‘enforcing’
such plans:
[My partner] wouldn’t let me re-offend anyway. Like, if I say ‘look,
I’m going to go with my mates today . . .’, like if I told her about
a certain person like, and she knows I am going round there, like,
basically she won’t let me go round there . . . She doesn’t like to
see me getting into trouble in any way [PR 036, a pessimist who
desisted].
Another young male probationer (039, an optimist who was classified
as a continuing trivial offender) said that seeing his girlfriend during
the week (instead of his friends) limited his consumption of cannabis
to the weekends. In addition, his girlfriend did not approve of his drug
use and this also stopped him from using during the time he spent
with her.
155
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
Having a girlfriend and, consequently, spending less time with
friends also ‘interrupted’ legitimate pursuits which could place the
individual at risk of offending. For example, one probationer (194, a
confident who desisted) reported how he now spent less time with his
mates drinking in pubs as a result of seeing his girlfriend (see also Warr
1998). Even when probationers did go to pubs, they were now often
accompanied by their partners, which could also alter their behaviour.
Anthony (see Chapter 8) reported during his third interview:
I’m a lot happier now that I’ve got Cleo. I don’t go out with
attitude no more. When I was single and that, I used to go out with
attitude and that. It was all about getting a name for yourself and
all stuff like that. Which I already have, but it’s all image when
you’re on your own. But when you are with someone you don’t
give a fuck about anything. You just think ‘ahhh. Fuck it. I’m with
her and that’s it’, it’s as simple as that. So you can relax more. You
can take little digs at you a lot easier. Like before you’d bite on
them – you’d say ‘what was that you fucking said?’, but now you
just think ‘yeah, yeah, go away you prick’, you know what I mean.
You just brush it off easier now [094, a pessimist who desisted].
Families as ‘something which could be lost’ and as ‘supportive’ were
two topics which recurred during the discussion of the ways in which
families served to assist people in desisting. The following case study
of Dominic (227, an optimist who desisted), who was in his mid-20s
when he was given a six-month probation order for possession of
heroin, illustrates both these themes. Dominic had been an addict for
about two years and was spending about £80 a day on heroin. He had
managed to keep his addiction secret from his wife and their children
(all of whom he lived with) and his wider family. Following his arrest,
however, he was no longer able to conceal his heroin use, and his wife
refused to let him stay in their house. His parents had initially
‘disowned’ him too and Dominic was living with friends: ‘They sort of
disowned me when they found out about my drug habit. But now they
are supporting me, hoping to get me off heroin.’ Dominic’s officer
appears to have played some part in encouraging him to foster links
with his family: ‘I encouraged him to be open with his family and
through this to ensure their support.’
By the time of the first sweep of interviewing, Dominic’s expenditure
on heroin was down to £20 a day. At the time of the second interview
his officer said that Dominic had ‘made a big effort at getting off
heroin’. From his own descriptions of his life at that time, Dominic had
156
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
indeed successfully tried to cut down on his heroin use and was now
‘clean’. The motivation for this appeared to have been his desire to
return to his family. Dominic himself said that he was ‘off drugs’ and
had moved back with his wife and children. His parents, however,
were still suspicious of him: ‘If I look pale one day, they think I’m back
on drugs again. I don’t talk to them. After they found out about my
habit, they started to accuse me of stealing things, like they thought it
was me who stole their neighbour’s bike’.
At the third interview Dominic was still living with his wife and
children and they were considering a move away from the area in
which they had been living, in order to make it easier for Dominic to
avoid other drug users and dealers in that area. Dominic, however, had
largely managed to avoid these people anyway. By this time also his
parents had started more readily to accept that Dominic had stopped
using heroin. They had even gone as far as to pay off the money
(around £1,000) which he owed to various dealers and were ‘coming
round for hours and being really nice’ to him. Dominic said that he felt
‘quite shocked’ at this turnaround in their attitude, which he likened
to being ‘given another chance’.
Employment and familial arrangements are two of the key determinants of an individual’s lifestyle. For those lucky enough to have it,
employment, as well as providing a wage, provides a structure to one’s
days and weeks. Similarly, familial arrangements organise a daily
routine. As well as representing something which could be jeopardised
by further conviction, families help to structure time and activities.
Lifestyles and, in particular, the ways in which these are organised by
family and employment, are the focus of this section. ‘Lifestyle’
(following Blaxter 1990) is interpreted as being not just the voluntary
aspects of an individual’s life, but also those aspects of their life which
are, in some way, prescribed for them, or at the very least aspects over
which they have limited choice.
The extent to which their lifestyles were not simply a matter of choice
for probationers was made several times during interviews with officers:
I’d say [being unemployed] is a problem for anyone who has been
unemployed for a long time and has no recent job reference or job
experience, and somebody who is in and out of prison doesn’t
have any qualifications or any saleable skills . . . [017, an optimist
whose offending escalated].
It’s very understandable why people in her situation drift into
these problems [claiming benefit whilst working] because they’ve
157
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
no skills, they actually can only get very, very low-skilled
employment, unskilled employment . . . I think the employers
make use of this by employing them erratically as and when it
suits and then laying them off for days unexpectedly. I’ve noticed
several probationers have had this very erratic employment
pattern [and] because the employers will only take them on for a
time, [they] end up claiming benefits, letting the benefit continue
because they really don’t know whether or not they are going to
be given a day’s work here there and whenever [079, a confident
who desisted].
When he came out [of prison], he had nowhere to live, a girlfriend
who was pregnant, he was on drugs, so bottom of the list was
learning to read and write [070, a confident whose offending
escalated].
Lack of employment, family support and, in general, a lack of
‘structure’ which organised the lives of probationers were frequently
referred to as often leading to ‘trouble’, whilst the acquisition of such
a ‘structure’ was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of being
involved in trouble:
I think . . . not having a constructive use of her time – it is not a
job per se, if she was in college, if she had something where she
had to get up and spend time with non-offenders, I think that that
would be really positive. I think the fact that she has an awful lot
of time on her hands and no money certainly increases the risk of
offending [PO 054, a confident whose offending escalated].
A lot of his depression was an unstructured lifestyle. And not
having any real work. In actual fact, he did work in the past, but
he lost that work for bad time keeping. Either he had got himself
so chaotic, that getting into a routine was difficult for him so he
lost it, but somehow this new [job], he has been more capable of
getting it together [PO 150, an optimist who desisted].
I know what I am doing. I got everything in perspective . . . I got
everything productive. I can sit down and say ‘yeah – this is
happening, this is happening . . .’ Before, it was one of those days
where you take it as it comes. The first person who comes to your
house, that is the person you are going to be for the rest of the day
[PR 212, a confident who was classified as a continuing trivial
offender].
158
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
Changes in lifestyles, particularly when associated with gaining
employment, promotion at work or family were often observed to lead
to increases in ‘responsibilities’. Looking after younger siblings, ensuring that one’s work is satisfactory, providing for one’s family and an
increased understanding of the consequences of further convictions
were all amongst the factors which were cited as examples of
increasing ‘responsibility’:
I’m twenty-seven. I can’t be doing with that going to court all the
time. I got a little boy, I need to be around for my little boy. The
misses and that . . . just . . . settled. Like if I was single and that, it
wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, not in the slightest, I could
hack going to prison, it wouldn’t bother me at all. But it is not me
who it affects now, well it is, but it goes deeper than that. It would
affect the little ’un and that. It has got more implications now. The
most of the trouble that I have ever got in, has been when I have
been on me own and that and I have had no one to like . . . It didn’t
matter whether I was locked up or not – it’s not going to really
affect anyone. But now it would [PR 098, a confident who
desisted].
I am more grown up for a start. More responsible, with regards to
the children and my wife. You’re married now? Yeah. I’ve been
married – I’ve forgotten already – it was only [seven months
previously]. But I’ve got kids from another relationship. I’ve got
one living with me now – the boy – I’ve got custody of him. But
. . . Yeah, the responsibilities. It is just basically everything in life.
What goes on in my life – job, family, my home, it is all more
important. And I can understand why it is more important [PR
032, a confident who desisted].
I am working now and I got this course, so work can help me save
money, plus I help pay for the bills . . . It helps my brothers get to
school and all that. I help my mum with the money . . . I give my
mum – I get £110 or £120 a week, depending on what hours I do
– so I give my mum £40 a week. So it is less for her to pay. Did
you say you chipped in for the electricity too? Yeah. And the phone.
It’s just so that it is less for her to pay [PR 212, a confident who
was classified as a continuing trivial offender].
These quotations (taken along with some of those reported above – see,
for example, case 039 on the ‘responsibilities’ of working on the
railways) illustrate how responsibilities were not merely situated within
159
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
a wider social context, but were invoked by that context. No one can
take responsibility for children or employment he or she does not have.
Responsibilities were also understood in terms of ‘appropriate’ behaviour given the role in society which that individual occupied: for
example, being a ‘father’ meant not going to prison; similarly, being a
‘worker’ meant paying for household bills. The social context surrounding individual’s lifestyles and changes in that social context
(either ‘real’ or ‘perceptual’) were often the starting points for the
adoption of responsibilities.
The adoption of a ‘stable lifestyle’ (which appeared to entail regular
employment with the same employer, living at the same address, often
with a partner and/or children) was often cited by officers as being a
key factor in the ability of probationers to ‘avoid trouble’ (i.e. avoid
offending) or moving towards a position where an individual was
more able to avoid trouble:
Well I think that all of [the probationer’s social circumstances] can
have an impact. Take the housing. I have always felt that that was
a fundamental . . . having him in some stable housing that he
could cope with, where he wasn’t feeling that he was still under
the threat of being a victim, which at one [address] he was . . .
Employment will have a knock-on effect, actually being in work
and with a decent income. I believe that being integrated within
the community and therefore the quality of contact with his
family, and giving him more stability in that respect may well also
be a fundamentally positive factor for him as well [PO 232, a
confident who desisted].
The roles of motivation and supervision
The analyses reported thus far have focused upon changes in the lives
of the probationers and very little has been said directly about the roles
of motivation and probation supervision in these processes of change.
This section of the chapter brings together motivation, probation
supervision and changes in social and personal contexts.
As noted in Chapter 5, the role of probation supervision in tackling
obstacles to desistance appears to have been slight. However, as the
case studies in this chapter have demonstrated, improvements in
employment and family relationships were associated with positive life
changes. In order to assess the extent to which officers were able to
assist probationers in fostering changes in their employment and
160
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
family circumstances, data relating to those officers who had identified
such obstacles were re-examined. 9 Data were coded to record whether
the problematic aspects of the probationer’s family and employment
circumstances had been overcome by the end of the order. For an
obstacle to have been overcome, families had to have been reunited,
for example, or a previously unemployed probationer found work.
Reports of having overcome employment and family obstacles were
associated with desistance (p!.021), confirming the earlier qualitative
analyses which suggested that improvements in employment and
family circumstances were associated with positive life changes, in this
case desistance.
Table 9.2a reports whether employment and family-related obstacles
had been overcome during the course of the order, who the main
instigator in overcoming the obstacle was, and the amount of help that
officers said they had given the probationer in tackling the obstacle
concerned. It can be seen that whilst most of these obstacles (57 per
cent) were overcome during the course of the orders, this was,
according to the officers themselves, due mainly to the efforts of the
probationers, rather than their own efforts (see the emboldened row in
Table 9.2a).
Table 9.2: Resolving employment and family obstacles: main instigator of solution
and amount of help given by officer
Not overcome
(n)
(%)
Overcome
(n)
(%)
Unclear
(n)
(%)
(n)
All
(%)
a Main instigator of
solution
Officer
Probationer
Both
Neither
Unclear
Total no. of obstacles
7
3
3
10
4
27
(78)
(7)
(23)
(91)
(20)
(28)
2
41
9
1
3
56
(22)
(91)
(69)
(9)
(15)
(57)
0
1
1
0
13
15
(—)
(2)
(8)
(—)
(65)
(15)
9
45
13
11
20
98
(12)
(60)
(13)
(15)
(15)
(100)
b Amount of help
Little/none
Some/a lot
Unclear
Total no. of obstacles
16
4
7
27
(36)
(15)
(26)
(28)
26
21
9
56
(58)
(72)
(33)
(57)
3
1
11
15
(7)
(4)
(41)
(15)
45
26
27
98
(46)
(27)
(28)
(100)
Note: All percentages are row percentages, except for those in the rightmost column,
which are column percentages.
161
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
In the nine cases where the officer alone was the main instigator of
the attempts to resolve employment and family-related obstacles, only
two attempts were successful. However, 41 of the 45 instances where
the probationer was the main instigator resulted in the obstacle being
solved. This is not to suggest that the impact of probation supervision
is ‘nought’ but, rather, that it is extremely limited, a point reinforced by
Table 9.2b. When officers said that they had done nothing or little, 58
per cent of these obstacles were overcome anyway (see the emboldened
text in Table 9.2b). However, when they were able to assist the
probationer, there was evidence that their help was associated with
higher levels of overcoming obstacles (72 per cent). In other words, the
work of the probation officer supplemented the probationer’s work.
This begs a further question: what was the attitude – i.e. the
motivation – of the probationers who instigated the attempts to resolve
these obstacles? Table 9.3 suggests that it was those who had been
confident or pessimistic at the beginning of their order. Half of both
the confident and the pessimistic took the lead in solving the obstacle
themselves, compared to a quarter of the optimistic. However the cell
sizes for the pessimists and optimists are probably too small for
meaningful conclusions to be drawn from them; hence they are
collapsed together (on the grounds that in both categories their officers
had had doubts about their chances of desisting).
When one compares the confident and the pessimists/optimists (the
emboldened text in Table 9.3), a small difference in the extent to which
probationers took the lead in solving the obstacle at hand emerges.
Thirty-eight per cent of the pessimists/optimists took the lead,
compared with 54 per cent of the confident, although this difference
was not statistically significant. It must be remembered, however, that
the probationer’s motivation was not the only factor in resolving
obstacles (see Chapter 8) and that around 40 per cent of those classified
as pessimists at the outset of their orders were classified as confidents
by the end of it (Chapter 7) – in other words, a sizeable proportion of
those classified as pessimists in Table 9.3 may have been closer to being
confidents. In addition, in a third of the cases it was unclear who had
taken the lead in solving the obstacle and the data do not include the
probationers’ perspective (see footnote 9). Therefore, whilst in no way
conclusive, the data were indicative of a variation by motivation and as
such warrant further investigation.
The qualitative data presented in the earlier sections of this chapter
suggested that positive life changes were associated with changes in
employment and family relationships. As probationers gained work,
were reunited with family members or developed attachments to new
162
3
5
1
6
9
Confident
Optimists
Pessimists
Pessimists and optimists
Total no. of obstacles
(9)
(6)
(19)
(5)
(13)
Officer
(n)
(%)
45
27
7
11
18
(46)
(54)
(26)
(52)
(38)
Probationer
(n)
(%)
Table 9.3: Main actor in overcoming obstacles by motivation
13
6
5
2
7
(13)
(12)
(19)
(10)
(18)
Main actor
Both
(n)
(%)
31
14
10
7
17
(32)
(28)
(38)
(33)
(35)
Neither/unclear
(n)
(%)
98
50
27
21
48
(n)
(51)
(28)
(21)
(49)
(%)
(100)
Total
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
163
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
partners or children, so they refrained from behaviours likely to result
in offending – drug use, excessive drinking, ‘aimless hanging around’
or general aggressiveness. The quantitative data have suggested that
those probationers who took the lead in addressing the employment
and family-related obstacles they faced (itself indicative of possessing
the motivation to confront and resolve problems) were also those most
likely to have solved such obstacles by the time the order had been
completed (Table 9.2a).
These analyses, taken together, suggest that the outcome of probation supervision is the result of a series of interactions between
motivation, probation supervision and social and personal contexts.
Gaining employment would, from the descriptions of officers and
probationers, appear to have brought about dramatic changes in the
lives of the probationers. Similarly, families of formation appear to
have acted as a motivating influence on probationers’ desires to desist,
whilst families of origin appear to have offered an avenue of support
in achieving this change.
When the role of probation supervision in helping probationers to
achieve these changes was considered, the themes established in
Chapters 7 and 8 re-emerged. That is, that whilst officers would appear
to have identified appropriate obstacles and taken appropriate steps to
tackle these obstacles, and whilst most of the obstacles identified were
indeed resolved by the end of the order, this appears more often to
have been the result of the probationers’ own actions and their own
circumstances rather than as a result of the actions of the officer (see
also Crow 1996: 60).
As such it is possible to develop further the model of desistance
outlined in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 (Chapter 7). Figures 9.1 and 9.2
introduce to the model summarised in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 the issue of
social and personal contexts. 10 The introduction of social and personal
contexts, especially the extent to which these circumstances remained
stable or either improved or worsened, has the unfortunate effect of
reducing cell sizes. However, by including change in social circumstances, one is able more readily to grasp the extent to which some
probationers started in a more advantageous position and the extent to
which improvements in social circumstances were related to both the
presence of obstacles and the resolution of obstacles.
Consider, for example (in Figure 9.1) the confident who faced no
obstacles: of those who were living in good contexts at the start, 79 per
cent were still living in good social circumstances at the follow-up. Of
the confidents who did face obstacles, more were living in poor rather
than good social circumstances (61/39 per cent). Living in social
164
N (%).
gures are
fi
ll
A
.
s
port
oners’ re
: probati
ts
x
te
n
o
c
d social
tacles an
oabnsd
,
n
o
ti
a
Figure 9.1 MotivatioM
n,oo
b
s
t
acl
e
s
s
o
ci
al
co
ntexts: probationers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
v
ti
Figure 9.1
n
supervisio
probation
d
n
a
ts
x
g conte
n, changin
Motivatio
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
165
165
166
165
Figure 9.2 Motivation, obstacles and social contexts: officers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
Figure 9.1 Motivation, obstacles and social contexts: probationers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
Probation, motivation
and
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
with
Motivation,
changing contexts and probation supervision
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
circumstances which were initially good, but which deteriorated was,
irrespective of motivation, more frequently associated with failing to
resolve obstacles than with resolving obstacles. For example, of the
four confident probationers who faced an obstacle and who were
initially living in good social circumstances which worsened, only one
resolved the obstacles which he faced. Similarly, of those confidents
who faced an obstacle and never lived in good circumstances, 58 per
cent did not overcome the obstacles they faced. However, of the ten
confidents who faced an obstacle and were initially in poorer circumstances but which improved, eight overcame the obstacles they faced.
These figures confirm the analyses reported earlier, namely, that
motivation and contexts were important in understanding obstacle
resolution rates, and that these co-varied. For example, 57 per cent
(n!63) of confidents reported that they were living in good contexts at
the start of their orders; rates for optimists and pessimists were lower,
respectively: 50 and 44 per cent (n!23 and n!19).
But which is more important to resolving obstacles – contexts (and
changes in contexts) or individual motivation? The answer is that it is
virtually impossible to disentangle the two from each other. The
probationers who appeared most motivated to desist – the confident –
started in a more favourable position, with, for example, shorter
criminal careers and generally fewer problem social circumstances (see
Tables 7.3 and 7.4 in Chapter 7). Those who were motivated to address
the obstacles and seemed capable of doing so appeared to receive help
from their partners and families, which in turn appeared to sustain the
probationer’s motivation to desist and belief that he or she were able
to do so. For example, Dominic after initially being rejected by his
family, proved he was able to cut down on his heroin use and was
eventually ‘given another chance’ by them. Similarly, another case
[065], who was recognised as having more potential than many of his
fellow employees, reported increases in his self-esteem and feelings of
‘self-worth’ after his promotion to a management position. In turn this
appeared to have helped him in his relationship with his partner. Other
examples of what is essentially a feedback loop between good social
and personal contexts and motivation to avoid further trouble were not
hard to find: reports of probationer’s families supporting them after
they found work or probationers becoming more motivated as a result
of working or of praise at work litter the accounts referred to above. In
short ‘nothing breeds success like success’. An example of the reverse
of this – a confident probationer who failed to find employment, did
not receive the encouragement of her family and who did not desist –
will be presented in chapter 10 (Tracy, 054).
167
Probation, motivation
andwith
socialOffenders
contexts
Rethinking
What Works
This chapter brings to a close the investigation of the roles of
motivation, probation supervision and contexts in helping probationers
tackle some of the features of their lives which were felt to be possible
sources of further offending.
Chapter 5 outlined the obstacles faced by the probationers as they
commenced their supervision. Chapter 6 explored the outcomes of the
efforts of probationers and officers to tackle these obstacles – finding
little evidence of probation interventions ‘working’. Chapter 7 considered the motivation of the probationers concerned, and found that
whilst motivation did not appear to influence the extent to which
officers and probationers ‘worked together’ to solve obstacles, the rates
with which probationers were reported to face obstacles and were felt
to have resolved these were related to motivation. Chapter 8 explored
the contexts in which these efforts were located and found evidence to
suggest that social and personal contexts played crucial roles in
mediating the outcomes of probation supervision. This chapter has
explored changes in these contexts, in particular employment, familial
relationships and lifestyles. The data have suggested that changes in
employment and family relationships can radically alter individual
lifestyles and offending trajectories. Additionally, the quantitative data
(Table 9.2b) have suggested an important finding for probation
supervision:
When officers reported that they had given the probationer ‘some’
or ‘a lot’ of help in tackling employment and family-related
obstacles, the obstacles were more frequently solved (Table 9.2b,
emboldened cells), suggesting that help with these obstacles
reaped benefits.
This is encouraging news for probation services. Whilst motivation and
social and personal contexts appear to be the dominant forces in
determining whether the obstacles facing probationers are successfully
resolved, there was evidence that the work of probation officers could
improve the chances of success.
Notes
1 For example, whether a probationer has had a previous custodial sentence
is not a dynamic variable as there are no circumstances under which this
can be altered. However, employment or marital status is a dynamic
variable, as these aspects of the probationer’s life can change.
168
Motivation, changing contexts and probation supervision
3 Includes starting work; starting a ‘better’ job; getting more stable work;
losing work; joining the armed services; and starting full-time education or
training. The majority of responses were, however, ‘started work’ (25 of the
41 officer responses and 25 of the 45 probationer responses).
3 Includes started seeing a (new) partner; stopped seeing the old partner; got
back with an ex-partner; getting on better/worse with family; probationer/
probationer’s partner had/expecting a child; and got better access to
child(ren). The single most common was ‘probationer/probationer’s partner had/expecting a child’ (17 of the 44 officer responses and 16 of the 35
probationer responses).
4 Includes gave up alcohol; gave up drugs; cut down on alcohol; cut down
on drugs; used drugs more; started to use hard drugs; and started to drink.
The single most common change was giving up drugs (13 of the 34 officer
responses and 17 of the 33 probationer responses).
5 This included a ‘hotchpotch’ of changes, including deaths of close relatives,
learning to drive, having more money to spend and so on.
6 Full-time education or voluntary work may also provide many of these
features.
7 052 was classified as a confident who had continued offending, and 105 a
confident whose offending escalated but had ceased by the time of her
order.
8 Karla would appear to have deliberately ‘covered her tracks’ in order to
‘start again’.
9 There were 82 officers who reported that the probationer they were
supervising faced either an employment or a family-related obstacle (or
both), making in all 98 such obstacles. When probationers were considered,
it was found that there were only 14 who identified family and/or
employment obstacles. Between them they identified 16 such obstacles.
Although data collected from the probationers were examined, it was hard
to draw any definitive conclusions from them.
10 These measures were summations of the social and personal circumstances
which probationers reported were ‘problems’. Those with three or more
problematic circumstances were classified as not having good contexts.
169
Part 3
Persistence and desistance
Chapter 10
Desistance, change and
probation supervision
This chapter focuses explicitly on desistance from offending and, in
particular, deals with a discussion of the role that probation supervision may have played in helping some probationers to desist. The
largest group of probationers were those who, on the basis of their
self-reports throughout their orders, were classified as ‘showing signs
of desisting’ or who were reported not to have offended at all whilst
on probation. Of all 199 probationers interviewed, 46 per cent fell into
these categories. From the officers’ reports, the corresponding figure is
even greater: 70 per cent of the sample were classified as either
‘showing signs of desisting’ or having avoided offending altogether.
For the purpose of all further analyses, the groups outlined in Table
10.1 were divided into two groups: ‘emerging’ desisters (comprising
non-offenders, those showing signs of desisting and trivial offending
groups) and ‘persisters’ (consisting of those whose offending was
non-trivial or escalating). Those cases seen only once were deemed
impossible to code and were dropped from all further analyses.
Table 10.1: Desistance (all)
Probationers
(n)
(%)
No offending
Showing signs of desisting
Continued offending (trivial)
Continued offending (non-trivial)
Continued offending (escalating)
Impossible to code
Total
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-13
Officers
(n)
(%)
64
28
20
18
27
42
32
14
10
9
14
21
105
33
15
15
30
1
53
17
8
8
15
—
199
100
199
100
173
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
Table 10.2: Desistance by motivation
Confidents
(n)
(%)
Optimists
(n)
(%)
Pessimists
(n)
(%)
All
(n)
Probationer report
Desister
Persister
70
20
(78)
(22)
22
9
(71)
(29)
17
16
(52)
(48)
109
45
Total
90
(100)
31
(100)
33
(100)
154
Officer report
Desister
Persister
92
18
(84)
(16)
33
13
(72)
(28)
28
14
(67)
(33)
153
45
110
(100)
46
(100)
42
(100)
198
Total
Exploratory regression runs (not reported here) suggested the ‘sorts’
of probationers who were desisting. Those with fewer previous
convictions and in lower OGRS bands were more likely to be amongst
the desisters (probationers’ reports), as were those with fewer social
problems and, in particular, those fortunate enough to have experienced stability in terms of both their employment and accommodation 1
(both officer and probationer reported). Motivation was also related
to desistance: those who were pessimistic at the start of their orders
were more likely to be amongst the persisting group, as Table 10.2
confirms.
Of the confidents, 78 per cent desisted according to their self-reports
(84 per cent when officer-reports were considered). The optimists were
very similar to the confident in terms of the proportion which desisted.
As probationers were classified as optimists when they expressed the
desire to and belief that they would stop offending and their officer
expressed doubts about their desire and ability to desist, this finding
suggests that their officers underestimated optimists’ abilities to desist.
Another of the findings to emerge from Table 10.2 was that around
half the pessimists had desisted. Given that the pessimists had rather
longer criminal careers than either the confident or the optimists and
had an average OGRS of 68 per cent (see Chapter 7), the finding that
about half the pessimists were desisting, despite their original gloomy
prognosis, should be regarded as ‘good news’.
Gender did not appear to be a salient factor in desisting: not only did
it not enter during the regression runs, the proportions of males and
females classified as desisters was not significantly different (68 per
cent of males and 86 per cent of females were classified as desisters;
174
Desistance, change and probation supervision
p!.083). Similarly, desistance did not vary by race (69 per cent of
whites desisted compared with 79 per cent of ethnic minorities; 2
p!.316). Age was also amongst the variables which appeared to be of
little utility in accounting for desistance. 3
The role of probation in desistance
From the analyses reported in the previous chapters which have dealt
with the impact of probation supervision on obstacles to desisting
(especially Chapters 5 and 7), it would appear that there was little
evidence to suggest that interventions by officers often played very
much of a direct role in desistance. In any case, as Chapter 6 suggested,
much of the work of officers was limited by the actions (or inaction) of
probationers themselves, or as a result of the circumstances in which
the probationers lived.
There is, however, a further reason for the limited impact of
probation supervision: probation officers actually spend very little time
with their probationers. Imagine a probationer on probation for 12
months who sees his or her officer exactly as directed by National
Standards. The probationer would see his or her officer once a week
for the first three months of the order, fortnightly for the next three
months and monthly for the remaining six months. Suppose too that
his or her meetings lasted an average of 45 minutes. This amounts to
20 hours of contact. During one calendar year there are 8,760 hours, of
which one third of these (lets say) would be spent asleep – leaving
5,840 hours of ‘wakefulness’. Of the 5,840 hours the probationer is
awake, he or she would spend about one third of 1 per cent of this time
with his or her officer. These figures suggest two important things.
First, that the actual amount of time spent with officers relative to the
time engaged in other activities is very small and therefore perhaps not
too much should be expected of probation supervision. Secondly, that
the continued concentration upon ‘what the officer/probation service
does’ inevitably misses a huge number of other factors which are at
play when people desist or persist.
It should be noted that the calculations above probably have a
tendency to overstate the amount of contact: few probationers will
attend every session and not all sessions will last as long as 45 minutes.
It is probably for this reason that others who have made similar
calculations have reported much lower levels of contact. Philip Bean,
writing a quarter of a century ago, reported that most probationers
would get about 11 hours of supervision a year (1976: 76). In fact, the
175
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
limited amount of contact was referred to by officers and probationers
themselves:
We are seeing someone for an hour a week. There are another six
days and twenty-three hours of that week to go. We are on ‘the
surface’, and sometimes an awful lot more is expected of us than
is . . . I think we do very well in very difficult circumstances [PO
066].
. . . all I had to do was go and show my face every three weeks. I
just went in there, showed my face, they asked me if I had any
problems, I said ‘no’ and that was it [PR 121].
However, whilst it is true that the impact of probation on desistance
would appear to have been rather minimal, and whilst there are good
reasons to believe that probation ‘is but a drop in the ocean’, it must
be noted that case studies of individuals’ experiences suggest that there
were instances in which probation supervision was a significant factor
in helping some probationers desist (see also the concluding discussions in Chapters 8 and 9).
In the section below, attention is turned to the role played by
probation supervision amongst three groups of probationers:
1. those pessimists and optimists who nevertheless desisted;
2. those pessimists who persisted; and
3. those confident and optimistic probationers who, against their own
predictions, persisted.
These groups of probationers were chosen for analysis for a number of
reasons. Persisting confidents and optimists were grouped together
because the optimists and confidents shared the motivation to and
expectation that they would desist – yet they did not do as well as
expected: what went wrong for them? The persisting pessimists
similarly did not ‘do well’ – they were however not expecting to do
well. Which processes prevented them from desisting? The desisting
pessimists and optimists, on the other hand, were the real success
stories: their officers were not expecting them to desist, yet they did:
what changed about their lives to enable this? It is with these success
stories that the analyses commence.
Table 10.2 suggested that of the 43 pessimists, between a half and
two thirds showed signs of desisting. There were 12 probationers who
176
Desistance, change and probation supervision
were classified according to both their own and their officers’ reports
as desisters. These ‘unanimous’ desisters are compared against the 16
pessimistic probationers who reported continued offending. 4 In addition to the 12 desisting pessimists, 20 desisting optimists are considered, albeit briefly.
The desisting pessimists: what changed?
The individual case histories of the 12 pessimists who showed signs of
desisting revealed a number of processes which appeared to be
associated with changes in offending trajectories. These included
gaining employment; changes in the probationer’s family life; and, to
a lesser extent, the influence of their probation officer.
Gaining employment, a topic already dealt with in some depth,
appeared to play a large part in desistance for some people. Jacob [057]
was 21 years old when he started his probation order. He had received
his first conviction when 15 years old and had in all ten convictions for
a range of offences. When he was seen at the second interview he was
asked to describe the ‘biggest single change in his life’ since the
previous interview. He said ‘getting a job’, which he said had: ‘given
me security, money, something to aim for. It’s made me ‘‘come out of
my shell’’. Made me behave myself because now I have more to lose.’
Jacob was working in a bakery as an assistant manager, a job which he
got through a friend who offered him work. At the third interview
Jacob reported how the bakery was opening a new shop and in which
he would be given a 50 per cent stake of the profits. When asked again
to describe the biggest change since the previous interview, Jacob said
that he was ‘developing, maturing in myself’ and described himself as
being ‘more confident’ (a fact which he attributed to having started
work). On the influence of his officer, Jacob was less enthusiastic,
saying that he had been ‘stringing her along for a long while’ and that
she ‘could have helped me, but I didn’t want to be helped’.
Malcolm [180] was 25 years old and already had eight previous
convictions when he started his 18-month probation order. Like Jacob,
he too pointed to gaining employment as the explanation for his
desistance. When asked (at the third interview) to explain how he had
managed to avoid offending since he had started probation, he said: ‘A
job, that’s it. Most of the time you’re at work, and when you ain’t you’ve
got money. Plus, when you get home from work you just want to get
some food and go to sleep. I do ten hours a day, plus travelling time.’
His officer reported that Malcolm had ‘always said that if he got a
job he would stop offending’ and that her approach had been to point
177
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
out to him the link between drinking and offending. However Malcolm
himself reported little assistance from his officer saying at the third
interview that it ‘hadn’t really affected me’.
Another factor which encouraged desistance amongst the pessimists
appeared to have been the influence of ‘meeting someone’. Kevin [071]
was 17 years old when he started his order. At the second interview
he reported how ceasing to take drugs (in this case, cocaine) had been
the biggest change in his life since the previous interview. He
attributed this to his girlfriend, feeling tired at work and a short ‘coke
drought’. Kevin’s reduced cocaine intake left him ‘feeling better’. His
cocaine use had made him less able to control his temper, affected his
work and eaten into his money. However, it was not until he had
stopped using cocaine that he realised this. When asked to describe
how probation had helped him stay out of trouble he said it ‘makes no
difference’ and that he ‘didn’t like coming here [to the probation office]
and having to talk a load of rubbish’.
One of the findings from the quantitative analyses was that stable
accommodation (especially when also experienced with stable employment) was associated with desisting. One of the officers [163] reported
how his probationer, after getting stable accommodation, was able to
use that as an address from which he could apply for work –
which he got. The officer’s role in this appeared to consist of discussing
with the probationer the limitations of what could be expected from
the local housing associations and renting agencies.
Other probationers reported more direct influences of probation
supervision. One [113] said that his officer had ‘consistently spelled out
that if I don’t change my act, I’d be back in prison’. The probationer
(who had amassed 26 convictions in 15 years and was by that time in
his early 30s) said he felt he needed to be told this regularly as it helped
him to stay out of trouble. He went on to say, however, that ‘most’ of
the reason he had avoided trouble was because of his fear of a return
to prison. He added that, in his opinion, prison did not help people
confront their behaviour, but served only to make it worse. Another
probationer [067], when asked to explain how he had managed to
avoid trouble, said: ‘a mixture of probation, like talking to me about
what could happen if, like, offences are committed again and things
like that, and me stopping drinking really.’
Clive [076], who was referred to briefly during Chapter 9, was, in his
own terms, ‘an alcoholic’ who was given probation for attempting to
steal vodka from a supermarket. At the first interview Clive said that
he wanted to stop offending (‘I never wanted to offend in the first place
– it’s like having a double personality: sober and drunk’), but said he
178
Desistance, change and probation supervision
did not know if he could. At the second interview he said he still
wanted to stop and was still unsure if he could. However, at the time
of the third interview he said he had stopped and, when asked whether
he could ‘stay stopped’, he said ‘I can only answer that for when I’m
sober’. 5
What happened to Clive during the course of his order which helped
him move from being a regularly offending 6 pessimist to a nonoffending and slightly more ‘upbeat’ individual? As noted in Chapter
9, Clive had had an alcohol problem since he had been a child, and this
formed a large part of the work which his officer undertook with him.
When discussing how he saw being on probation in relation to his
alcohol problem, Clive said:
I see probation as a step forward for me. It helps me as an
individual. There is someone there for me now and I need it. I
would have been in prison now. That would destroy me completely. If I ended up in prison I would have been even worse. Of
course, I am forced to come [to the probation office]. If it was my
choice I wouldn’t be here, but it helps to keep me away from the
streets and of course the drinking.
The answers which both Clive and his officer gave suggested that Clive
had benefited greatly from his period of supervision:
I’ve learnt more about people and communication and how it
affects me. I never used to be like that but people [at the probation
office] were asking me if I’m well and how I’m getting on and now
I [ask others] too. Before I wouldn’t talk. I’ve learnt that if I get in
trouble, that will be it – I’d lose everything I’ve tried for.
[My officer] is the best one I’ve met. He wasn’t pushing me or
screaming at me, but still was telling me what I needed to do.
Other officers want to control you, but [he] is not like that. He’s
told me what I have to do and reminded me things I would forget
without trying to control me.
Towards the end of the second interview, Clive was asked about the
obstacles he saw standing in his way to desistance. He said ‘if anything
went wrong with the social services, or the baby or anything’. 7 When
asked if probation could help with this he said: ‘Yes. Just talking to [my
officer] makes me feel better. It helps me release all my stress. When
there’s nobody there you suppress your feelings and let it come out
179
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
differently. He also helps with communicating with the social services.’
Clive’s feelings about his period of supervision did not change when
he was seen for the third time. When asked if he had been able to avoid
the situations which had previously got him into trouble, Clive said:
Yeah, probation had a lot to do with it, because of the specific
officer. All of my other experiences on probation were bad. I
wouldn’t listen to the other officers because I didn’t like them.
Drinking is still a problem, I get on the edge 8 from time to time,
but now I can control it.
In addition to praising his officer, at the third interview – by which
time Clive’s partner had had their baby – he said, perhaps most telling
of all: ‘I’ve got a family now. I want to be responsible.’ It would appear
from these accounts that the arrival of the new baby and the influence
of his officer both contributed to Clive’s steady progress as a recovering
alcoholic. However, the role of his officer was not referred to
extensively in the passage in Chapter 9 as it appeared to play no part
in strengthening Clive’s family. Similarly, in the discussion above
concerning the role of Clive’s officer, the arrival of the baby is
suppressed. Clive’s case indicates the fact that social circumstances and
probation supervision can both assist in positive change without
actually ‘connecting’ in any way.
The desisting pessimists appeared to desist as the result of either
changes in their family or employment circumstances or because of the
advice of their officers. In a few cases, such as Clive, changes in family
life and probation supervision would both appear to have been of
importance in accounting for their desistance.
The desisting optimists appeared to desist for reasons which were – in
the main – associated with family and employment changes. Of the 20,
seven reported that they had desisted because they had started to get on
better with their families, or had embarked upon new relationships. In
all some five reported that employment had in some way encouraged or
enabled them to desist. Giving up drugs and/or enrolling on methadone
schemes were cited by another three probationers. The remaining cases
referred to stressful situations passing, spending more time at home
after illnesses and ‘growing up’ as the reasons why they had desisted.
The persisting pessimists: the failure to change
This section considers the reasons which lay behind some pessimists’
failure to address their offending behaviours. Five explanations for
180
Desistance, change and probation supervision
continued offending amongst the pessimists emerged: the probationer
failing to respond to the order (seven of the 16); a feeling that ‘nothing
had changed’ in the probationer’s life (six cases); the probationer being
‘addicted’ to shoplifting (four cases); the probationer continuing to rely
upon substances (five cases); and the probationer being a ‘professional
criminal’ (one case). 9
Seven of the 16 persisting pessimists showed signs of having failed
to respond to probation – often they reported that they felt that the
order had been ‘a waste of time’ and, on occasions, their officers also
noted their reluctance to engage with probation. One probationer [022]
said that probation had ‘done my head in, coming here speaking about
bollocks to them’. His officer reported that he had ‘kept us [the
probation service] at arm’s length’. Another probationer [005] recalled
how he had found supervision ‘patronising’, a ‘wind up’ and described
it as having ‘no point’. The following extract is taken from the third
interview with a probationer who was seen in prison at the second
interview, was on licence at the third but was being supervised by his
original officer:
. . . at the end of the day, what we are doing is . . . what are we
doing though? I come in here, she says ‘are you alright?’ I say ‘I
am alright’, that’s it. What is actually happening? There is nothing
happening, is there? It seems to be like . . . I dunno, a useless
exercise really. I come down here for ten minutes, five minutes,
and [my officer] says to me ‘are you alright?’ I say ‘yeah I’m
fine, and I’m this and that’, and she writes it down in the little
book and then she says to me ‘what are your chances of
re-offending?’ and I’ll just say ‘nil’, and she’ll say ‘well, what do
you think . . .’ . . . and it just seems to be . . . I dunno, it just seems
to be pointless. A whole pointless exercise ‘cause I don’t think that
coming into probation for five minutes once a week and then
every fortnight after a while is really going to do anything for you
[PR 204].
Six of the 16 persisting pessimists appeared to have shown no signs of
having changed their lives; they continued in much the same vein as
before: ‘Well, that’s the problem with [probationer]. There hasn’t been
any change’ [PO 168]. It is hard to account for the lack of change, but
reading the interview transcripts one gains a sense of fatalism on the
part of the probationers, and from the officers a sense of being unable
to help. One officer [127] reported how the probationer she was
supervising had ‘gone in a full circle’ but was starting to realise that
181
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
he needed more help. She said she had tried to encourage him not to
expect too much of himself. At the final interview the same officer
reported how the probationer would come to the probation office, but
not when scheduled to do so. When asked how much probation had
impacted upon the probationer, the officer said ‘nothing tangible’ and
the probationer said ‘nothing really’.
Another group of four pessimists who persisted referred to their
own ‘addiction’ to shoplifting. One probationer [007] reported how
shoplifting was: ‘. . . addictive. It is not planned, it happens. If I go into
town I get an adrenaline rush. There is no explanation, last week I
pinched a £4.99 plate, I took it because I can.’ Whilst others said:
I think that it’s a bit of an addiction. I used to get a buzz out of it,
but not anymore. I find it hard to stop because I’m so used to
doing it. It’s easy money, like a job [PR 146].
I feel that if I stop [stealing], some part of me would die. It gives
me a buzz [PR 022].
Interestingly, none of the officers supervising these probationers
reported them to be ‘addicted’.
A reliance upon (or unwillingness to give up) a particular substance
such as alcohol, heroin or cannabis was another of the factors which
emerged when persistence amongst the pessimists was considered.
Probationers either refused or were unable to give up drugs, or continued
to drink heavily. There appeared, again, to be little that the supervising
officer could do to encourage these probationers to change their ways.
One of the probationers – in prison at the time of the interview – reported
that he and his family were ‘professional criminals’ who were involved in
the large-scale importation and distribution of drugs.
The persisting pessimists appeared to represent a group who were
unlikely to respond well to probation supervision because they were
not motivated to do so, either ‘addicted’ (real or otherwise) to a
substance or to shoplifting, or were incapable or unwilling to engage
with probation. The desisting pessimists, who on the whole also
suggested that probation had not had very much of an impact on their
lives, nevertheless had found a job or a relationship which they valued
sufficiently for them to wish to change some aspects of their behaviour.
Probation supervision (for the desisting pessimists) appeared to have
been ‘in the background’ offering advice, ideas on how to find work or
spurring the probationer on in some way. However, the persisting
pessimists did not experience the sorts of life changes which might
182
Desistance, change and probation supervision
encourage desistance, or were in some way incapacitated. Nor did they
respond positively, it would appear, to probation supervision.
The persisting optimists and confidents: what went wrong?
The most worrying group of probationers identified during the course
of the investigation were the confidents and optimists who continued
to offend. Eighteen officers reported that the confident probationer they
were supervising had persisted, and 20 of the confidents themselves
reported persistent continued offending. Nine optimists also reported
continued offending, as their officers had feared. An examination of the
reasons cited for their offending suggested a number of explanations:
continuing drug or alcohol use (cited by eight officers and 11
probationers); anger management problems and immaturity (cited by
seven officers and nine probationers); mental health problems (cited by
three officers and three probationers); lack of alternative career
opportunities (cited by two officers and four probationers); and a range
of other unique explanations.
Drug use appeared to be particularly problematic. One probationer
[035], who had been using heroin for seven years, reported how
despite coming off heroin for several weeks, he drifted back into heroin
use. ‘I’ll always find a reason to use again,’ he said when seen shortly
after his order had ended. Although his use of heroin had stabilised,
he said that he was unsure if this had been due to probation as this
‘could have happened anyway’. His officer said that they had had
‘discussions about drugs and [I] constantly reminded him about the
dangers of drugs’. However, the officer did not refer the probationer
for treatment until towards the end of his order, which perhaps goes
someway to explaining the probationer’s assessment of his order:
‘[probation] was a footnote – it came and went, neither good nor bad.’
The officer cannot, however, be blamed for not referring the probationer sooner. When interviewed the probationer said: ‘I denied using
heroin, but then again that is what he wanted to hear.’
Another of the probationers [105] reported how ‘intoxicated with
valium, heroin and booze’ she stole a CD player whilst out shopping in
order to help her pay her rent arrears. Similarly she acted as a fence for her
friends who also used heroin: ‘People I knew who were on gear would
bring me stuff – all part of a circle . . .’ Her officer confirmed these events –
for which she was given a further probation order. Boredom and a ‘lack of
something to do’ were often referred to by recovering heroin addicts as
factors in their return to heroin use, but for some officers a more
significant problem was the probationer’s lack of sustained motivation:
183
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
I don’t think he can [stop offending]. He can’t accept that he can
do without [heroin]. He would probably say it’s because he can’t
get the help he wants, but it has been offered to him. Much was
on offer: prescriptions, being detoxed in hospital, but he didn’t
take it and went back on drugs. It’s a way of life for him now, he
needs a dramatic change in his lifestyle and he’s not motivated at
this time [PO 172].
Whilst continuing drug use was often associated with property crimes,
continuing engagement in violent behaviour was frequently the result
of alcohol problems. For example, one probationer [095] recounted
how his fighting was related to his alcohol use: ‘when I drink, my
‘‘fuse’’ goes right down. Also I’m known in this area – I’ve got to fulfil
people’s expectations, I’ve got to hit them first or they hit me.’ The
probationer went on to say he still had a bit of a drink problem, that
he liked to drink everyday and that, in his opinion, he should have had
more alcohol counselling. 10
Another probationer [083] who was on probation for robbery and
carrying an offensive weapon, beat up drug dealers who were
operating in his local area. He said that he had been angry at them
selling heroin in a children’s park which his children used. He
admitted that he could have gone to the police instead, but said that
he had not as ‘I’m not a grass’. He also reported how he had been
charged with using threatening words and behaviour towards his
partner after a row at their home to which the police were called. His
officer, although she did not report any offending on his part, did
acknowledge the potential for him to become involved in confrontations: ‘He lives in an area where certain groups are seen as volatile –
he is [volatile] too – this leads to a process to expect trouble and to
respond accordingly.’
Other examples of ‘violent’ offending suggest not so much an anger
management problem, but a degree of immaturity. One probationer
[167], who was on probation for a minor assault on a police officer,
reported how he had ‘tapped’ someone:
Saying that, I did hit someone. Right, in the street? No. He walked
back to my friend’s house and he was going to beat up the guy
that was already there so I sort of told him not to. And things were
getting out of hand. I was just sitting on the couch watching it all
and it was all getting out of hand. Then they started attacking each
other. It was a really big guy against a little guy. So I just give him
a little tap to end it. And it ended it quite nicely. Right, I see. And
184
Desistance, change and probation supervision
they all stopped misbehaving. And you actually did that, you said ‘a
little tap’? Stopped it all, yeah. What do you mean by that? Well, I
just give him a little tap because I told him not to have a fight. I
said: ‘Look, you have got to leave the guy. He’s smaller than you.’
We’d been out drinking all night and had a laugh and we have
come back to this house. ‘He’s here and you are picking on him,’
I said, ‘and I can’t watch that happen.’ So I gave him a couple of
warnings. And you hit him? Yeah.
The same probationer reported similar events when seen towards the
end of his order – again using violence to end or prevent confrontation.
Another officer [026] reported how his probationer (a young man aged
20) was eventually breached for failing to report, failures which his
officer put down to his immaturity:
he does behave like an adult when he’s in a club or whatever and
girls are talking to him, whatever, he’s very, very adult. But when
he’s at home, his mum’s giving him grief, then he’s very much a
child. And he’s moving from one stage to another so he’s not yet
got the adult responsibilities of turning up to appointments when
he’s supposed to and organising his life and stuff. So we have been
working on that transition and bits of his life that are adult and
bits of his life where he’s still a child . . . Probation is a pretty
boring place to come to. It’s not somewhere he would choose to
come to. But it’s just with all this other stuff going on in his life he
doesn’t prioritise or see it as very important and that is quite a
childish response on his part because the offence he committed, he
could well [have gone] to prison for it. And he needs to know that.
[Theft from employer] is extremely seriously regarded by the court
and he was very lucky not to go to prison in the first place. It was
only because it was his first offence and his immaturity that they
didn’t give him prison.
As it transpired, the probationer was given a short custodial sentence
for his failure to attend. When interviewed after he had been released
on licence the probationer hinted at a growing awareness that he had
been immature in his earlier approach: ‘[officer]’s shown me ways, like
. . . because now I am over 18, I have to start being an adult, not being
a child or anything’.
Other probationers’ continued offending appeared to be related in
various ways to their mental health. One probationer – originally on
probation for sexual offences (rubbing himself against women in
185
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
crowds) – reported how he had ‘heard voices’. His officer reported a
deterioration in his mental health prior to his offending again: ‘His
mental health deteriorated and he was sectioned and held in a hospital.
After being discharged, he was found a place in a hostel, but two
weeks later was found masturbating in a churchyard’ [PO 016].
In other cases mental health problems appeared to be related to
continued offending in a rather roundabout way. One probationer [037]
reported how his depression prevented him from working. His officer
confirmed this, reporting that for several months he was very depressed and reluctant to leave his home for prolonged periods. His inability
to hold down regular employment meant that the probationer was
reliant for much of his income on acting as a drugs courier for friends
of his. His officer reported that his mental health posed a considerable
problem to the work she had planned to do – mainly aimed at looking
at his relationship with his wife – and confirmed that he was indeed
too ill to work. She added that during their conversations about his
drug-dealing friends he had said to her ‘these are my friends, this is
where I grew up, who else would want to know me?’
Other probationers reported how they had continued to offend as
they saw few other means of surviving economically. One of them
[082] recounted how he regularly drove without insurance or tax as he
was unemployed (due to being partially disabled) and could not afford
to insure his car. Other confident probationers who continued to offend
did so for a variety of reasons. One probationer [091] reported how he
continued to drive despite being disqualified because he enjoyed
driving and liked to drive around his friends – none of whom could
themselves drive. Another officer [143] felt that the probationer she had
been supervising had not been able to stop offending because of his
past reputation. The probationer, who was placed on probation for
drink-driving and possession of offensive weapons, was later charged
with a serious assault after returning to a area where he used to live.
The assault charge related to a fight with a former associate which, in
the probationer’s words, was part of a long-running ‘vendetta’.
Although they had discussed his reputation, his officer acknowledged
that it would always be a potential cause of further trouble. When
asked to summarise why he had not been able to avoid trouble, another
probationer [080] replied: ‘I’m not working. I’ve never really had a job
– I don’t know nothing else.’
In some cases, despite the best efforts of the officer, and the
probationer’s motivation to avoid further trouble, offending persisted.
Tracy [054], the subject of the following case study, was 23 when she
started her probation order, imposed after she had been found guilty
186
Desistance, change and probation supervision
of common assault. Tracy and her officer both reported that she wanted
and was able to stop offending when they were first interviewed and
maintained these beliefs at every subsequent interview. As her officer
explains, initially things went well for Tracy on probation:
She was coming every single week. She was doing job skills,
computing, and she was at a sort of partnership agency. She was
seeing our employment officer. You know it was very active and
things were happening and she really . . . like she was, you know,
trying to achieve positive change. I think, I suppose it happens
sometimes, it goes down to fortnightly appointments, doesn’t it?
A bit of momentum. By six months in the order, Tracy herself, I
think, let things drift an awful lot and I suppose perhaps probation
ended up chivvying her along or refocusing her. Do you know
what I mean? And I think, she came in today and we were both
sitting here going ‘Oh God, everything has drifted. Shall we go
back to fortnightly appointments?’ And she was quite keen for
that. I mean, she is aware of it herself. How do you mean things have
drifted? Well, she stopped going to the education, for the computing. There was the New Deal, 11 it might be taken under the New
Deal umbrella, and I think that is quite slow-going anyway
because it is a new system going into place.
Tracy declined to be interviewed at the second sweep, and at the third
sweep (when she did agree to an interview) it transpired from her
officer’s account that she had been involved in heroin use and theft:
SF
It sounds like from what you have said that Tracy hasn’t been
able to stay out of trouble. What would you say have been the
things that have prevented her from staying out of trouble?
PO I think her motivation wavers. Sometimes I see her and she is
very motivated to work, to go to college, to do things. I think
she is very isolated, she lives in a flat by herself that she can
barely afford to run. She is very bad at managing her money.
When stressed she is extremely vulnerable. In the summer,
after this drugs thing, she started to see her GP, who was
prescribing her quite high dosages of diazepam and valium
and she kinda lost it again. She was going to him saying ‘I can’t
cope’ and she was on quite a lot of sedative medication which
caused other problems. And then probably during that time we
had two or three appointments that . . . ’cause I think I have
always said to you that ‘there’s something going on and I don’t
187
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
know what it is’ – I think it was very obviously that she feels,
I can’t remember how old she was when she moved to this
country, but she has felt very isolated. She feels that she was
never consulted about her family moving here, she feels that
the rest of her family have settled and she has felt quite alien
here, she feels her mother and sister have a good relationship,
from which she feels excluded, and she really feels this kind of
‘differentness’, not belonging and I think she is very isolated
and it makes her vulnerable to people like this bloke. 12
SF Would you say that – since I saw you last – that Tracy has
learnt anything as a result of being on probation?
PO Erm . . . there are times when she has felt very supported by
probation, and I think it is probably the only people who do
support her. There are times when she has felt quite angry with
probation ‘cause it feels like we are adding more . . . y’know,
quite strict about her attending appointments and so on. We’re
adding more pressure when she has got enough. I think that
she is quite clear about what she needs to do. I think she is
unrealistic about how difficult it is to do it. And I think
originally – both the last times I have been interviewed, I have
overestimated her abilities to manage an independent life. She
presents as quite able and she can be quite eloquent and she’ll
express motivation to sort her life out, which I believe is
genuine. But I think that she underestimated and I think that I
underestimated how difficult she finds it . . . say, she is always
wanting jobs, but they never work out. Nothing ever seems to
work out. I think that there is a real problem with wavering
motivation. She is just very vulnerable, it doesn’t take a lot and
she is back to square one.
SF Since I saw you last in July, do you think that there is anything
that you have said or done that will help keep Tracy out of
trouble in the future?
PO I think that one thing that I did when she came – it wasn’t an
appointment – she came here very, very distressed. And she
felt – it was a Friday, she had nothing, she felt completely
isolated, no where to go, nothing to do all weekend, didn’t
know how she was going to cope. And I actually made ’phone
calls to her mother and her sister and explained that I thought
that she was trying, but did need some support, and the latest
I’ve heard is – it’s tentative, but I think communication . . .
y’know sometimes people take notice if a probation officer
rings them up and says ‘I’m concerned about your sister – she
188
Desistance, change and probation supervision
does need a helping hand here’, and I think that that is
probably one thing that I have done. It is still very fragile of
course.
At the third interview, Tracy herself recounted this story about how
she had come to probation ‘in a right state’ and her officer had ’phoned
her family to ask them for their support on her behalf: ‘she rang round
my family and helped me out with bus fares.’ It was clear that a lot of
time and effort had been expended in helping her feel less isolated.
There was also evidence of the much more practical assistance offered
by her officer:
SF
[At the previous interview] you said that there were two
obstacles to Tracy stopping offending. The main one was that
she didn’t have a job. Has that continued to be a problem?
PO It is more of the same problem. Her problem . . . I think the
problem now is . . . it is not just as straightforward as
employment . . . she is having difficulty achieving any sort of
permanent occupation, whether it be college or . . . she has
done bits and pieces with college, it is that staying power and
organisational abilities. It is not . . . if someone put a job in front
of her I would think ‘yeah, that would be it’, but it is . . . there
is a big gap even before . . . she is not prepared enough at the
moment to hold down a job . . . there is foundation work that
needs to be carried out. Have you looked at work with Tracy? She
has quite regular appointments with our employment officer.
Who has kinda put her into different . . . y’know she was doing
some computer training, and has pulled out other kind of
resources and it is Tracy’s lack of . . . success in following any
of those through which kind of causes warning bells all the
time. Is Tracy still doing the computer training course which she was
last time? No. That has finished. That resource has finished
within the probation service, but she had bombed out before
then anyway. So she didn’t complete it? No. She didn’t attend on
a regular enough basis. She was always half looking at other
options. I suppose you get lulled – ’oh well, at least she is
looking at something’. It takes a long – it sounds like I am really
slow on the uptake – but it takes a long time to realise that a
pattern is emerging of everything is bombing. A few weeks ago
she walked in and she said ‘oh I have got agency work starting
tomorrow, I’m coming off my benefits’, and part of you wants
to believe it and part of me was wise enough now to think
189
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
‘we’ve been through this before’. So when she came in last
week and said ‘it never really worked out’, there was no
surprise, and I had – when she said ‘I’m going to start work
tomorrow’ – started to be thinking ‘well, let’s look at what has
failed before’. I think she wants a job now, and . . . my
experience of her would be that she needs to build up more
slowly and at the moment she isn’t showing the motivation or
consistency to do that.
SF How much would you say you have been able to help Tracy
with the issues around her work?
PO She has missed several appointments with [the employment
officer], and I don’t think that that has been helpful. And I think
a good example, like last week, Tracy turned up and she had
some note of a course that was starting today and wanted to
get me sorted to get her on it. I encouraged her, I tried to make
the ’phone call, I couldn’t get through, I said ‘this isn’t the way
to do it, this is where you are falling down all the time, let’s
book you in to see [employment officer] next week’ and I am
sort of encouraging her to . . . I suppose it is every aspect of her
life, not just employment. [She needs] to take planning, to think
about what might go wrong, try and think of ways, rather than
‘I need a job, I’ll do it today’ and then it all falls down. And
then she didn’t turn up to see [employment officer] last week.
So, I think that it is going to take a lot more reinforcement . . .
‘you need to plan’. Would you say that not having a job has made
it hard for Tracy to stop offending? Yes. I mean, I think . . . not
having a constructive use of her time – it is not a job per se, if
she was in college, if she had something where she had to get
up and spend time with non-offenders, I think that that would
be really positive. I think the fact that she has an awful lot of
time on her hands and no money certainly increases the risk of
offending.
Despite all the efforts which her officer went to, Tracy neither managed
to get stable employment nor to stop offending. This is not to suggest
that had she got stable employment (or, as her officer notes, a college
course) she would have stopped offending. What might have happened, however, was the disruption of her daily agenda by the routine
of work or college such that she had less free time to spend with people
like her boyfriend. The lack of a good informal social support network
(like a family) to which she could regularly turn for help only served
to exacerbate Tracy’s isolation. A ’phone call to the officer after the
190
Desistance, change and probation supervision
fieldwork had been completed revealed that Tracy had been ‘on and
off’ heroin around the time of the third interview and had offended
again.
The range of factors associated with persistence amongst confidents
and optimists appeared to be not too dissimilar from those associated
with persistence amongst pessimists. Substance use in particular
appeared to be a particularly salient factor. In some cases there was an
apparent failure on the part of the probationer to be honest with his or
her officer about the problems he or she faced (e.g. case 035 who denied
using heroin) or to maintain the willpower to address the sources of
his or her offending (e.g. case 095 who could have sought further
counselling for his alcohol use, but chose not to).
This raises the question why these probationers were so confident of
their ability to desist. The author was fortunate enough to have
interviewed many of the confident probationers who persisted. The
majority of these probationers appeared to be articulate and had
insights into the problems they faced, and it is easy to see why they
might have been felt by their officers to want and be able to stop
offending. This, coupled with an element of wishful thinking on their
own part, may go much of the way to explaining why both they and
their officers believed that they would be able to desist. It was also
noted that none of the confidents and optimists who persisted were
both working and in a relationship, and that the majority of them were
neither working nor in a relationship.
This chapter has dealt with the extent to which the probationers in
the sample can be said to have desisted from offending and the factors
associated with desistance. Around about half the sample self-reported
rates of offending which were indicative of what has been termed
‘emerging desistance’. When officers’ reports were considered, over 80
per cent were reported to have shown signs of desisting. Stability of
employment and accommodation, and initial motivation appeared
from quantitative data analyses (not reported here) to be the variables
which best accounted for desistance. Probation supervision appeared,
for many probationers, to play a very slight part in whether or not they
desisted, although a small number of probationers did appear to have
benefited substantially from probation supervision.
Those pessimists who did manage to desist appeared to do so as a
result of either finding employment or attachment to a partner or
receiving help from their officer. Persistence amongst pessimists
appeared to have been the result of various factors: an unwillingness
or inability to engage constructively with their officers; or an ‘addiction’ to theft or substances such as heroin or alcohol. The confidents
191
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
and optimists who persisted also seemed to have either failed to have
addressed their drug or alcohol use or to have reacted violently in
particular circumstances. Additionally none of them reported stable
employment or partners when seen during the course of their orders.
Notes
1 If an officer or a probationer reported that the probationer’s employment
was a problem at two or more of the sweeps he or she was classed as
having experienced ‘employment instability’. The same procedure was
repeated for accommodation.
2 Ethnic minorities (of which there were 35) were made up of Asians,
Afro-Caribbeans, those of mixed parentage, others and unknowns. See
Table 3.4 in Chapter 3 for the relative sizes of these groups.
3 Various age groupings were employed – none of which produced a
relationship between age and desistance, suggesting that this finding was
a ‘true’ finding rather than the result of coding decisions.
4 The fact that 11 of these 16 probationers had officers whose reports
suggested that the probationer had or was desisting is not a major concern.
As noted in Chapter 4, officers were bound not to know of all offences
committed by probationers. The reverse (probationers claiming to have
desisted whilst their officers reported persistence) was less often encountered.
5 Which has been interpreted as meaning ‘yes, but I’m not in control of my
actions after I’ve been drinking and I might offend whilst drunk’.
6 Clive’s first conviction had been when he was 16 years old. He was 30
when he started his order. In the period between his first conviction and
the start of his probation order, Clive had amassed 23 convictions,
amounting to an annual average of 1.6, or about three convictions every
two years.
7 Clive’s partner was expecting their fourth child. The previous three were
in the care of social services.
8 It is ambiguous what Clive is referring to when he says ‘on the edge’. It
could refer to getting close to offending, getting close to drinking too much
or some other, less tangible, ‘stressed out state’. However, despite this
ambiguity, as he says himself, he can control it now, so perhaps the exact
meaning is of little importance.
9 Some probationers were included in more than one explanation.
10 The alcohol counselling he received was from a partnership agency, who
would have continued to see him after his order was over. As such the
onus was on him to maintain this contact.
11 A national employment scheme originally aimed at young people.
12 A new ‘boyfriend’ who appeared to have played a large part in Tracy’s
offending.
192
Chapter 11
The factors associated with
offending
This chapter focuses upon the offences which probationers were
reported to have committed whilst on probation. Its purpose is to
report the types of offences which probationers committed, the frequency
with which these were committed and the strength of the factors
associated with offending.
Virtually every investigation of the impact of supervision has
employed further offending, most commonly further convictions, as
the main criterion of success or failure. However, there has been a
tendency in many of the previous studies to assume that further
offences equate to ‘failure’. There are good reasons for this assumption
– not least of all that continued offending indicates that previous
behaviours would appear to have continued. But by accepting uncritically that any offending indicates a failure of probation supervision,
reductions in the frequency or the seriousness of the offending are
overlooked (Mair et al. 1997: 41). The previous chapter demonstrated
that of the 93 probationers who reported having continuing to offend,
28 (30 per cent) appeared to be in the process of desisting. Similarly, of
the 93 probationers reported by their officers to have continued
offending, 33 (34 per cent) also appeared to be desisting.
In addition, offending may sometimes lead to more ‘positive’
outcomes, at least as far as the offender is concerned. 1 For example, one
officer [158] reported that the probationer he was supervising was
being considered for early revocation on the grounds of good progress.
However, almost a year after the original offence (a theft, committed
after the probationer had drunk heavily), the probationer committed a
very serious assault on a stranger after another very heavy drinking
session. Both these offences occurred around the time of the anniversary of the death of the probationer’s twin brother, when they were
young boys. When interviewed about the second offence, both the
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-14
193
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
officer and probationer explicitly referred to the twin’s death. The new
offence, taken in the light of some of the probationer’s other circumstances (feeling down and drinking heavily at the time of both offences
and the probationer’s otherwise stable life), brought home to the officer
the extent to which the probationer required intensive bereavement
counselling as part of his supervision. A further order with this
condition was eventually made. 2 In other words, offending on probation allowed the officer to gain a better insight into the factors
associated with the probationer’s offending.
Similarly, another officer [054] reported how it took several ‘crises’
to befall the probationer she was supervising before both of them
realised that poor life skills lay at the root of many of the probationer’s
problems:
I suppose the success we have made is that we are both a lot
clearer about what we are dealing with now. She is and I am. This
cycle has happened enough times for us to realise what is going
on and to focus on things like budgeting, for example. It almost
takes quite a few crises for you to suddenly think ‘this isn’t bad
luck, this is the way you are managing – or not managing – your
life’.
In some instances, relapses into drug use or offending galvanised the
probationer into wanting to desist. One probationer [109] reported
having used heroin with an old acquaintance as he ‘wanted to have sex
with her’. However, they did not have sex and he reported that he
‘didn’t feel good about having used [heroin]’ and ‘didn’t want to have
much to do with her’ after this episode. Another probationer also
reported how he had used heroin again after several months abstinence: ‘the next day I was really pissed off with myself – I’d gained
nothing, just five or six hours of pleasure.’ He had not used again since.
Additionally, those supervising some types of offenders, for example,
sex offenders or those who commit acts of domestic violence, may also
consider self-reports of ‘near-offending’ to the officer as indicating an
increased awareness of ‘risky situations’ and a reduction in the denial
of harm to others.
These observations are not intended to suggest that offending should
be considered in any way as a ‘good sign’ but, rather, that the issues
surrounding offending (and the reporting of offending to officers) must
not be thought of as always indicating failure. Offending in some
circumstances can be understood as leading eventually to a positive
outcome in that it may increase an offender’s desire to desist or – in
194
The factors associated with offending
the case of offending of reduced seriousness – indicate to the
supervising officer that progress has been made.
Offending behaviours
Table 11.1 reports the rates of self- and officer-reported offending by
motivation. As can be seen, the confidents were always those least
frequently reported to have offended. Some 44 per cent of the
confidents and 54 per cent of optimists admitted to offending,
compared to 79 per cent of the pessimists. Officers’ reports mirror this
trend. How do these rates reported in Table 11.1 compare to other
studies of self-reported offending by probationers? Only two other
studies are known to have been published – Leibrich (1993) and
MacKenzie et al. (1999). The current rates are not too dissimilar from
those reported in Leibrich’s New Zealand study (1993: 31–33). Leibrich
found that of the 48 ex-probationers in her sample, 25 (52 per cent) had
continued to offend. Leibrich’s sample was based on those who had
completed probation and not been convicted for three years and, as
such, it is difficult to assess whether the offences reported to her took
place after the order had been made but before it had been completed,
after the order had been completed, or both. 3 MacKenzie et al. (1999:
436–37) in the USA found that of the 107 probationers in their sample,
only 22 (21 per cent) reported any offending whilst on probation.
Without other similar studies against which to compare these rates, it
is hard to assess the typicality of the current sample’s rate of offending.
Concordance between officers and probationers
When reports of offending gained from probationers and the officers
who were supervising them were compared, very high levels of
Table 11.1: Offending by motivation
Probationer-reported
offending
(n)
(%)
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
All
48
25
33
106
44
54
79
53
Officer-reported
offending
(n)
(%)
41
24
29
94
36
52
63
47
Total
110
46
43
199
195
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
Table 11.2: Concordance of offending
Agreeing cases
Both ‘yes’
Both ‘no’
Offended
70 (35%)
71 (36%)
Disagreeing cases
Officer ‘yes’,
Officer ‘no’,
Probationer ‘no’ Probationer ‘yes’
21 (11%)
37 (19%)
agreement were noted. For example, as the left-hand side of Table 11.2
shows, some 35 per cent of officer–probationer pairs agreed that the
probationer had offended. Additionally for 36 per cent of cases both
officer and probationer reported that the probationer had not offended.
When there was disagreement – see the right-hand side of Table 11.2 – it
is interesting to note that this disagreement was most often due to
probationers having said they had offended, whilst officers reported that
they had not. This has been interpreted as indicating the probationers’
willingness to admit to offences of which their officers were unaware.
The offending reported by officers and denied by probationers was
reasonably low (11 per cent, see Table 11.2). In addition to the simple
‘offended’/’not offended’ dichotomies presented in Table 11.2, officers’
and probationers’ reports of the number of offences committed were
investigated. These also proved to be positively correlated (Spearman’s
rho!.364; p!!.01). Similarly, high rates of agreement were noted
when the type of offences reported was investigated. Agreement over
violent, property and drug offending was statistically significant at the
p!!.000 level, whilst for ‘other’ offences p!!.010.
Factors associated with offending during the order
A series of logistic regressions were undertaken to explore some of the
possible factors associated with reports of the probationers’ offending
(see Table A1 in the Appendix). From initial bivariate regression runs,
only the most statistically significant and powerful, and theoretically
salient variables, were employed in attempts to create multivariate
models. Inevitably, some variables were highly correlated with one
another and, unless circumstances dictated otherwise, only variables
which were not correlated with one another were employed in the
multivariate analyses. The aim of the multivariate analyses was to
produce a model which best accounted for the reported incidents of
offending, but which was as uncomplicated as possible.
When probationer’s reports of their offending were examined, three
variables appeared to be of importance: having had a previous conviction
196
.
71%
.4106
1.6227
!.1708
Motivation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
Constants
Cases correctly predicted
.5542
!1.5095
2.2495
Probationer
Theft convictions
Financial problem (offence)
Drug problem (SWP1)
Beta
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Df
.0037
.3262
.0008
.5612
.1074
.0000
.0000
Sig
Table 11.3: Factors associated with offending: final models
Motivation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
Constants
Officer
Drug Probs (SWP2)
—
—
.65%
.3583
.9429
!.7359
1.5274
Beta
2
1
1
1
1
Df
.0494
.3453
.0147
.0004
.0000
Sig
The factors associated with offending
197
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
for theft (p!!.05); reporting a drug problem at the time of the first
interview (p!!.000); and reporting that one did not have any financial
problems at the time of the offence (p!!.000). However, separate
analyses (Table 11.1) suggested that motivation was also associated
with differing rates of offending. When motivation was entered into the
model previous convictions for theft was removed, as shown in Table
11.3.
Thus, whilst previous convictions for theft initially appeared to be
related to offending this ceased to be the case when motivation was
included in the model. The model suggests that those with financial
problems were less likely to have offended during the course of the
order, that those with drug problems were more likely to have offended,
and that confidents were no more or less likely to offend than
optimists, but that pessimists were much more likely to have offended
when compared to confidents. These findings are broadly in line with
other investigations into the role of social variables in offending/
reconviction amongst probationers. For example, both Oldfield (1996:
44) and May (1999: 33) reported that those with financial problems
were more likely to be reconvicted. Similarly, those with drug
problems have been found to be more likely both to reoffend and be
reconvicted (May 1999: 33; Oldfield 1996: 44; MacKenzie et al. 1999:
439).
When data collected from officers were analysed, a larger number of
variables appeared to be related to offending. These included previous
convictions for violence; total number of previous convictions; OGRS;
the officer’s assessment that the probationer had drug, employment
and financial problems; and the total number of all problems faced by
the probationer. 4 In line with these analyses, both Raynor (1998: 8) and
May (1999: 21) found that those probationers with more problems were
more likely to be reconvicted. Similarly, Davies (1969: 78), Oldfield
(1996: 44) and May (1999:33) found that employment problems were
associated with reconviction. However, several of the variables associated with offending from the officers’ data set were found to be
strongly intercorrelated and the best model which could be fitted
contained just one variable: drug problems at the time of the second
interview (p!!.000). When motivation was introduced into the
model, drug problems remained in, but its power was slightly reduced
(from a beta of 1.6381 to 1.5274; see Table 11.1).
In keeping with their generally higher rates of offending, the
pessimists were the most likely to have reported committing every
type of offence. For example, property offences (the emboldened row
in the top half of Table 11.4) indicate that whilst 19 per cent of the
198
The factors associated with offending
Table 11.4: Type of offending by motivation
Probationer
Reported offending
Violent/sex 5
Property
Drugs
Other
Total
Officer
Reported offending
Violent/sex
Property
Drug
Other
Total
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
(n)
(%)
(n)
(%)
(n)
All
probationers
(%)
(n)
48
21
21
28
17
44
19
19
25
15
25
9
14
15
6
54
20
30
33
13
34
15
28
18
19
79
35
65
42
44
110
46
43
107
45
63
61
42
199
41
12
22
16
16
37
11
20
15
15
24
10
15
14
14
52
22
33
30
30
29
9
21
19
11
67
21
49
44
26
94
32
63
53
44
110
100
46
100
43
100
199
confident probationers and 30 per cent of the optimistic probationers
reported having committed a property offence, 65 per cent of the
pessimists said that they had committed a property offence. The
emboldened row in the bottom half of the table (the officers’ reports)
show a similar trend: 20 per cent of the confidents were reported as
having committed a property offence, 33 per cent of the optimists and
49 per cent of the pessimists.
Officers and probationers also asked about the number of times the
latter had offended (see Table 11.5). An inspection of Table 11.5 reveals
a familiar trend. A smaller proportion of the confident reported they
had offended frequently than either the optimists or the pessimists. The
emboldened cells in Table 11.5 illustrate this: fewer of the confidents
(25 per cent) reported having committed more than four offences than
either of the optimists (37 per cent) or the pessimists (54 per cent). This
trend is again supported by the officer’s reports.
In the course of undertaking bivariate logistic regression runs,
several variables presented themselves as possible candidates for
inclusion in a multivariate model. The most salient of these are
summarised in Table 11.6. Very few studies have investigated social
factors and the number of subsequent reconvictions. Oldfield (1996:
47–48), however, found that previous prison sentences, the number of
199
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
Table 11.5: Amount of offending by motivation
Confidents
(n)
(%)
Optimists
(n)
(%)
Pessimists
(n)
(%)
Total
(n)
(%)
Probationer report
No offending
One to four offences
More than four
62
20
25
56
18
26
21
8
17
46
18
37
9
10
23
21
23
54
92
38
65
46
19
33
Officer report
No offending
One to four offences
More than four
69
26
15
63
24
14
22
13
11
48
28
24
14
18
11
33
42
26
105
57
37
53
28
19
110
100
46
100
43
100
199
100
Total
previous convictions and unemployment at the start of the probation
order were associated with more frequent reconvictions. Interestingly,
and in line with Oldfield (1996) and Murray and Cox (1979, cited in
Oldfield), the current data suggest that probation supervision might act
to ‘suppress’ offending. In the current sample those probationers who
reported greater levels of general help from their probationers (the
Probation Impact Scales, 6 see Table 11.6) committed fewer offences.
These scales were, however, significantly related to motivation
(p!!.05) such that the confidents were the most likely to have
reported greater levels of help. However, this relationship was not
particularly strong and despite attempts to explore the relationship
between motivation, offending and amount of help, it remained
unclear as to whether it was the help received or the probationer’s
motivation which accounted for the reductions in offending. It could,
of course, be that whilst the confidents were helped the most, this help
was unrelated to their avoidance of further offending.
An inspection of the relationships between these variables suggested
that most of the criminal history variables were highly correlated with
one another, as was the case with probationers’ self-reports of their drug
problems and their assessments of the impact of probation supervision.
Thus, only three variables were chosen for further use when developing
a model of probationers’ reports of the amount of crimes they had
committed: drug problems at the time of the first interview; Probation
Impact (measured at the third sweep); and OGRS (dichotomised as 0–75
and 76–100 per cent). In addition, variables indicating whether the
probationer was a confident or a pessimist were employed, only the
latter of which entered the final model, shown in Table 11.7.
200
.006
.004
!.249
!.263
Motivation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
—
—
—
—
Order made for drug offence
Drug problem (at offence)
Drug problem (SWP1)
Drug problem (SWP2)
Friends (SWP2)
Drug problem (SWP3)
Friends (SWP3)
Total problems (at offence)
Total problems (SWP1)
Total problems (SWP2)
Total problems (SWP3)
Probation Impact Scale (SWP2)
—
.000
.639
.000
.015
.048
.001
.036
.033
.003
.000
Motivation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
Had prison previously
Previous theft conviction
Previous drug conviction
OGRS (76–100%)
Order made for drug offence
Drug problem (at offence)
Drug problem (SWP1)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Probation Impact Scale (SWP2)
Probationn Impact Scale (SWP3)
!.247
.033
.147
.176
.143
.151
.137
.151
.211
.310
Officer
Sig
Probationer
Std beta
Table 11.6: Factors associated with the amount of offending: summary
.011
.179
.096
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.006
.039
.000
.000
.004
.021
.276
.278
.300
.387
.308
.348
.194
.147
.250
.295
.205
!.180
Sig
!.179
.096
.118
Std beta
The factors associated with offending
201
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
Table 11.7: Factors associated with the amount of offending: final models
Std
beta
Sig
Probationer
Drug problem (SWP1)
.286 .001
Probation impact (SWP3) !.171 .045
OGRS (76–100%)
.120 .152
Pessimists
.277 .001
Constants
.000
Adjusted R-square
.208
Std
beta
Officer
Drug problem (SWP2) .348
Total problems (SWP3) .166
—
Confidents
!.095
Constants
Sig
.000
.011
.156
.000
.173
When the officers’ data set was analysed, several of the variables
were found to be highly correlated with one another. For example,
officers’ assessments of the probationer’s drug problems at each
interview were all highly correlated. However, a model including drug
problems (at the second interview) and total problems was developed.
In this was included a variable indicating whether the probationer had
been classified as a confident or not. However, despite being significantly related to the amount of offending during the bivariate runs, this
variable did not enter the final multivariate model. As such, the
amount of offending was most closely related to drug problems, being
a pessimist and the amount of help received from one’s officer.
Summarising the variables associated with offending
From this and the preceding chapter, a number of statements relating
to desistance and persistence can be made. Motivation appeared to be
strongly related to desistance and continued offending. The analyses
reported in Chapter 10 (Table 10.2) and the Appendix (Table A1)
suggest that motivation was strongly related to desistance, whilst
analyses here suggest that motivation was related to both reports of any
offending by the probationers (Table 11.1) and the amount of offending
they were reported to have committed (Table 11.5).
Various of the social circumstances were also related to both reports
of offending and desistance. For example, employment and accommodation stability were associated with desistance (Chapter 10 and Table
A1). Similarly the number of ‘problem’ social circumstances was also
related to desistance (Chapter 10 and Table A1) and to the amount of
offending reported (Tables 11.5 and 11.6). These findings suggest the
202
The factors associated with offending
utility of collecting data which are not solely related to the work
undertaken as part of the probation order and which are repeatedly
measured. However, as employment and accommodation stability
were important factors, so too it must be remembered are changes in
the social contexts and the effects of these on solving obstacles (see
Figures 7.1, 7.2, 9.1 and 9.2).
Just as with the attempts to account for desistance, social variables
and motivation appeared as key influences upon offending by probationers. The social variables were of greater utility and appeared to
account for variations in whether the probationer offended, the number
of times he or she offended and the types of offences committed.
Similarly motivation appeared to be associated with whether the
probationer was reported to have offended at all and with the number
of times he or she offended. The amount of help provided by officers
and the probationer’s previous criminal history were of less utility as
predictors of reoffending.
The findings relating to the Probation Impact Scales initially suggested that probation supervision had a role in ‘suppressing’ offending, a
finding also noted by Murray and Cox (1979), Oldfield (1996) and
MacKenzie et al. (1999: 438). As probationers reported greater levels of
help from their officers, so the amounts of crime they reported
declined. These scales were, however, significantly related to motivation (p!!.05) such that the confidents were the most likely to have
reported greater levels of assistance – it remained unclear whether it
was the probationer’s motivation or the amount of help which he or
she received which accounted for the lower number of offences
committed.
One of the most surprising results to emerge from the regression
analyses undertaken concerns the utility of the criminal history
variables. These were not as strongly related to reports of offending as
had been anticipated and were on occasion ‘forced out’ of models by
the inclusion of other variables. For example, in Table 11.3 previous
theft convictions were forced out of the model of any offending by the
introduction of motivation. In fact, OGRS appeared to be weakly
associated with most types of offending with the exception of property
offending. The explanation for this probably lies in the fact that OGRS
was designed to predict future criminal convictions rather than
self-reported offending. To this end the comparatively poor performance of OGRS should not be taken as an indication of weakness on the
part of the scale itself.
203
PersistenceWhat
and desistance
Rethinking
Works with Offenders
Notes
1 There has been some evidence that this may in some circumstances extend
to the victim too – see Sparks et al. (1977: 208–209) on reductions of fear
following victimisation.
2 When last contacted, some months after the main fieldwork had been
completed, the officer reported that the order was progressing smoothly and
that the probationer had not offended in the 18 months since the assault.
3 To refresh readers’ minds on this topic, the current study is focused upon
offending during the probation order.
4 In terms of their statistical significance, the criminal history variables were
all at the p!!.050 level, whilst the social variables ranged from p!!.050
(employment and finances) to .000 (drugs and total problems).
5 There was only one sexual offence reported from the respondents in the
sample.
6 Probation Impact Scales were developed by summating three questions
asked of officers and probationers at sweeps two and three. These asked
whether the officer had said or done anything that would be helpful in
keeping the probationer out of trouble in the future; probation supervision
had helped the probationer stay out of trouble; and whether the probationer
had learnt anything whilst on probation. The alpha coefficients for these
questions were sufficiently high for them to be summated and used as a
scale, and were officers, sweep two: .6324; officers, sweep three: .6158;
probationers, sweep two: .7025; probationers, sweep three: .4619. These
scales were positively correlated (officer sweep two/probationer sweep two:
.289; Spearman’s p!.002; officer sweep three/probationer sweep three: .211;
Spearman’s p!.033).
204
Part 4
Conclusions
Chapter 12
Probation, social context and
desistance from crime:
developing the agenda
Parts 2 and 3 of this book have explored the responses of officers and
probationers to the obstacles faced by the probationers, and the
continuation or cessation of offending behaviour. This chapter summarises these findings and draws out the lessons from the research.
Resolving obstacles to desistance
When compared to their officers, fewer probationers believed that they
faced obstacles to desistance, and those who did frequently identified
fewer obstacles than their officers. On the whole, officers and probationers did not agree over very many of the obstacles faced. However,
both officers and probationers identified a range of obstacles which, to
a large extent, mirrored the risk factors identified in the wider
literature. Around a half of all obstacles identified and followed up
had, according to officers and probationers, been resolved by the end
of the order (Tables 6.4 and 6.6, Chapter 6). It would appear both from
the obstacles identified and the solutions undertaken to resolve them
that only a minority of officers and probationers ‘worked together’ to
tackle these obstacles. The solutions which probationers proposed to
employ in overcoming these obstacles were ad hoc rather than
sustained or focused attempts to deal effectively with the issues at
hand (Chapter 5). Officers reported that they intended to rely upon
discussions with the probationer in order to tackle the obstacle. The
further examination of those officers and probationers who had
identified the same obstacles suggested that both officers and probationers expected that the successful tackling of an obstacle would be
contingent upon a range of factors – many of which appeared to be
outside the direct control of either of them. When the outcome of the
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-16
207
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
work aimed at tackling these obstacles was explored, officers’ and
probationers’ beliefs that such contingencies would play a role in
overcoming obstacles appeared to be borne out. The analyses undertaken in Chapter 6 explored the extent to which different interventions
were associated with successful obstacle resolutions. Responses from
both officers and probationers suggested that no specific probation
interventions were associated with successful obstacle resolution. The
extent to which officers and probationers ‘worked together’ was
explored and was also found not to be associated with resolving
obstacles. A number of possible explanations for this were considered,
in particular:
! that the motivation of the probationer may have mediated the
outcomes of the attempts to resolve obstacles; and
! that the probationer’s social and personal circumstances could also
have influenced the outcomes of such efforts.
When – in Chapter 7 – the influence of probationer motivation was
considered, it emerged that the optimists and pessimists were the least
likely to have successfully resolved their obstacles: 41 per cent of the
optimists and 37 per cent of the pessimists said that their obstacle had
led to further offending, compared to 21 per cent of the confidents.
There was little evidence of extensive ‘co-working’ between officers
and probationers regardless of probationer motivation and very little
variation between confidents, optimists and pessimists in terms of the
extent to which they were helped by their officers to resolve the
obstacles to desistance which they faced.
Chapter 8 continued the investigation into the factors which may
have influenced the outcomes of the efforts aimed at overcoming
obstacles. The social and personal contexts of the probationers were
examined in detail. Both officers’ and probationers’ descriptions of
their responses to the obstacles suggested that the social and personal
contexts in which these efforts were located were key determinates of
the success or otherwise of these efforts. Just as seeds thrown on stony
ground will not take root, so efforts to resolve particular obstacles will
come to little if the conditions for success are not present, or do not
emerge quickly.
Figures 12.1 and 12.2 (previously presented as Figures 7.1 and 9.1,
respectively) summarise these findings. 1 In Figure 12.1 the progress of
each of the three groups of probationers towards desistance is charted.
Fewer of the confidents faced obstacles than either of the other groups
208
Figure 12.1 Motivation, obstacles and desistance: probationers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
209
are N (%).
All figures
s.
rt
o
p
re
s’
ner
xts: probatio
social conte
d
an
s
le
ac
ation, obst
9.1otivM
Figure F12.
atoiotinv, obstacles and social contexts: probationers’ reports. All figures are N (%).
igu2re M
exts
changing cont
tion, Offenders
Motivawith
ConclusionsWhat Works
Rethinking
210
n
n supervisio
and probatio
165
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
(40 per cent), whilst eight out of ten of the pessimists faced one or more
obstacles. Of those pessimists who faced no obstacles, 67 per cent
desisted. However, 64 per cent of those pessimists who faced an
obstacle but overcame it desisted, whilst even fewer – only 31 per cent
– of those pessimists who faced an obstacle but did not overcome it
desisted. For the optimists and pessimists, solving obstacles was
particularly strongly related to desistance: of the six optimists who
overcame the obstacle they faced, all but one desisted. On the other
hand, of the 11 who did not overcome the obstacle they faced, five
desisted and five did not (one was lost during the follow-up).
Desistance rates were highest amongst those groups that faced no
obstacles and lowest (with one exception – the confident) amongst
those who faced obstacles and did not overcome them.
Figure 12.2 introduces the issue of social contexts. 2 The figure
suggests that social contexts – measured at the start of the probation
order and towards the end – were an influence on obstacle resolutions.
Consider, for example, the confident who faced obstacles: of those who
were living in good social contexts at both the start of their orders and
the follow-up, 56 per cent overcame their obstacle. Similarly, of those
who were not living in good social contexts throughout the duration
of their orders, only 42 per cent overcame the obstacles they faced.
Changes in social contexts were also important. Of the four confidents
who faced obstacles and who started in good contexts which worsened,
only one overcame the obstacle he was facing. However, of the ten
confidents who were initially in poorer social contexts but which
improved, eight overcame the obstacles they faced. These figures
confirm the analyses reported earlier, namely, that motivation and
social contexts were important in understanding obstacle resolution
rates, and that these co-varied. For example, 57 per cent of confidents
were living in good social contexts at the start of their orders; rates for
optimists and pessimists were lower, respectively: 50 and 44 per cent.
Chapter 9 explored in greater detail the issue of change in social and
personal contexts. Changes in employment status and family formation
were observed to be two of the most commonly reported by both
officers and probationers. For many probationers, these changes were
positive – that is to say, that they gained employment, achieved
promotion at work, were reunited with family members or embarked
upon new familial relationships. There was evidence also that these
positive changes were associated with positive changes in probationers’ lifestyles and their offending behaviours.
But what were the roles of probationer motivation and probation
supervision in assisting these changes to take place? Because changes
211
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
in employment and family circumstances had been found to be related
to positive changes in lifestyle and offending, the impact of probation
supervision on the obstacles related to employment and families was
revisited towards the end of Chapter 9. These analyses suggested that
most of these obstacles were solved following actions initiated by
probationers, rather than by their officers, and, as such, those who were
motivated to resolve these obstacles were the most successful in so
doing (Table 9.2a). However, the greater the assistance given by the
officer, the greater the proportion of cases who successfully tackled
their employment and family-related obstacles (Table 9.2b). Thus
whilst social and personal contexts were important influences upon the
outcomes of the attempts to solve the obstacles faced by probationers
(see Chapter 8), there were important interactions between these
contexts and motivation – a point confirmed by Figures 12.1 and 12.2.
The process of desisting
Around a half the probationers and almost three quarters of the officers
reported offending trajectories which suggested that the probationer
was desisting from offending (Table 10.1, Chapter 10). When the factors
associated with desistance were examined, it appeared that as the total
number of ‘problem’ social circumstances facing the probationer
increased, so desistance became less likely.
A detailed investigation of the experiences of those pessimists who
showed signs of desisting confirmed that changes in family and
employment circumstances were key factors in accounting for their
desistance. For a significant minority of probationers, their officer was
key in assisting them to avoid further trouble (e.g. Clive, discussed in
Chapter 10). Those pessimists who persisted appeared to do so because
of existing addictions to substances or shoplifting, or as a result of the
‘lack of change’ in their lives. Interestingly, those confidents and
optimists who persisted also appeared to do so because of a continued
reliance on drugs or alcohol. Others accounted for their persistence by
citing a lack of career opportunities and, indeed, it was observed that
many were neither employed nor in a stable relationship.
Does this mean probation ‘does’ or ‘does not’ work?
The question of whether probation ‘works’ or not cannot be answered
without first addressing what is meant by both ‘works’ and ‘probation’.
212
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
Virtually all previous investigations of the outcomes of criminal justice
interventions have used ‘works’ to refer to a reduction from some
expected level in the rate of conviction. Further, they have assumed
that any such reduction is the direct result of the intervention rather
than the result of some other set of factors – i.e. the ‘black box’
approach. In effect the definition of ‘works’ employed in the ‘What
Works?’ perspective has been something like the following:
1. A set period of time following the commencement of supervision
during which the probationer was not found guilty of further
offences.
If it could also be demonstrated for a cohort of probationers that their
actual rate of reconviction was statistically significantly lower than their
predicted rate of reconviction (which, thanks to developments like
OGRS, it can), then so much the better. However, one has to ask: is this
a realistic or appropriate definition of ‘works’? A more accurate
definition of ‘works’ would be something like:
2. A positive (or at least, not a negative) impact on the probationer
which is wholly or in part attributable to some aspect of the
intervention.
This is a more roundabout definition, but one which captures more
accurately the problems of undertaking research in an ‘open’ system
(Pawson and Tilley 1997). Such a definition shifts the focus from
convictions and, most importantly, by referring to ‘some aspect of the
intervention’, alters the way in which we approach such interventions
and how these are constituted. It does so by allowing for the possibility
that the ‘aspects of the intervention’ which were of most help in
creating the positive impact need not be drawn from those originally
intended to do so (in this case probation supervision, Worrall 1997: 13).
For example, whilst contact with probation officers, drug workers,
employment advisers and so on will probably not do any probationer
much harm, it need not be these features of their time on probation
which ultimately help the probationers overcome the obstacles they
faced and avoid offending. The elements which this study has most
frequently found to be of most help in assisting probationers overcome
obstacles and avoid further offending have not come from officers, etc.,
but from the probationers themselves (their motivation) and from
changes in the nature of the social contexts in which they lived. Good
motivation, gaining employment, mending damaged relationships,
213
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
starting new relationships, moving home and so on were key influences on the success or otherwise of many of the attempts to overcome
obstacles. In many cases changes in the probationer’s social and
personal circumstances boosted already existing motivation, provided
those with poor motivation or who lacked self-belief with the desire
and/or motivation to address the obstacles they faced, and in other
cases they better enabled probationers to address such obstacles.
The definition above in (2) opens the possibility of including factors
like motivation, employment changes and other life contingencies
which have not traditionally been considered to be part of probation
supervision by those evaluating the outcomes of criminal justice
sanctions. Palmer (1996), in an essay entitled the ‘Programmatic and
non-programmatic aspects of successful interventions’ (emphasis added), lists the following as non-programmatic aspects of successful
interventions: staff characteristics (for example, whether volunteers or
professional); staff–client interactions (the extent and nature of their
communications); offender differences (essentially personality differences); and the setting (prison- or probation-based). Palmer (1996: 168)
concludes his review with some words of wisdom: ‘progress in
identifying key ingredients of successful programmes has been relatively
slow’ (emphasis in original). This he attributes to ‘the particular
analytic framework and the tools that were used’. The solution to this,
Palmer (ibid., emphasis added, irony in original) summarised thus: ‘To
make faster and better progress in identifying key ingredients one
needs a broader and more integrated analytic framework and tool than
those used to date to determine whether intervention works and, if so,
which types . . . are successful.’ It is unclear to what exactly Palmer is
referring when he writes of ‘a more integrated analytic framework’.
However one solution is to conceptualise probation interventions as
being aimed at altering some aspects of an individual’s social and
personal circumstances (for example by assisting the probationer to
become a wage-earner rather than a benefit claimant) but which are
themselves open to influence by those same circumstances. Thus the
probationer’s social circumstances and relationships with others are
both the object of the intervention and the medium through which this
change can be achieved.
This, of course, means accepting that the social and personal
circumstances are, in many respects, integral ‘parts’ of the programme
of probation work. But how plausible is it to accept this? Joan Petersilia
(1998: 563, emphasis added), in a recent introduction to probation and
parole supervision, has observed that: ‘Both [probation and parole] are
designed around the concept of offender reintegration, a key element
214
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
of which is dealing with the offender’s problems in his or her social and
community context.’ In other words, probation work is not divorced
from community influences, and should not be evaluated as such.
Writing from a British perspective, Rex (1998, 1999: 373) has noted that
even the architects of cognitive programmes emphasised the requirement that effective supervision should also attend to the social and
personal problems faced by probationers (Ross and Ross 1995: 8; cited
in Rex 1999: 373). If, as seems reasonable, we accept that social
circumstances are an integral element of what helps probation supervision to ‘work’, then ‘the community’ becomes an integral and constitutive component of probation supervision. 3 Giving those found guilty
of offending, by way of probation supervision, the chance to address
these circumstances is actually a part of what probation ‘is’ and what
sets it apart from other sentences – most notably imprisonment.
Therefore, part ‘of’ probation is allowing probationers to remain in the
community and for them to develop techniques for tackling obstacles
in a community context. As Haines (1990, cited in Rex 1999) and the
current study have demonstrated, probationers and their networks are
often more effective than statutory bodies in solving some obstacles,
but this cannot happen if probationers are not in the community.
Thus it does seem reasonable to accept that the influence of social and
personal contexts is an element of ‘what probation is’. The changes in
employment, personal relationships, homes and so on as experienced
by the probationers in the current study, as well as being indirect
functions of probation supervision, would have been much less likely
had these people been subject to imprisonment. In many cases,
therefore, probation supervision achieved an intended consequence
(desistance) through unintended influences: chiefly changes in employment status and family formation.
The answer to the question of whether probation works is a qualified
‘yes’. In many cases the work undertaken whilst on probation was of
little direct help to many of the probationers; however the indirect
impact of probation (i.e. naturally occurring changes in employment,
accommodation and personal relationships) was of greater significance. ‘Of greater significance’ is unfortunately about as precise an
estimation of the impact of social and personal contexts relative to
probation work as can be made. It is impossible to quantify more
accurately the role of these contexts, as Jock Young (1999: 130) has
asserted: ‘the social world is a complex interactive entity in which any
particular social intervention can have only a limited effect on other
social events and where the calculation of this effect is always difficult.’
215
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Encouraging desistance: what does this mean for probation
practice?
The foregoing analyses have suggested that motivation and changes in
individuals’ social circumstances were the main ‘motors’ which drove
desistance. Changes in motivation – when they did occur – appeared to
be the result of changes in social and personal circumstances (see Chapter
7). Because the motivation to avoid further trouble either existed from
very early on in the life of the order, or was fostered by changes in social
and personal circumstances, this section focuses on how such changes in
social circumstances can routinely be generated. This discussion is placed
within the framework of human and social capital (Coleman 1988, 1990).
These terms offer a way of conceptualising how probation practice might
intervene in probationers’ lives to foster desistance in the light of the
observation that desistance was often the result of social processes over
which probationers and officers did not have full control.
Human capital refers to the skills and knowledge which individuals
possess and which enables them to apply for jobs, hold down work,
achieve at work and so on. It ‘. . . is created by changes in persons that
bring about skills and capabilities that make them able to act in new
ways’ (Coleman 1988: s. 100). Clearly, poor or inadequate human
capital will make gaining and keeping employment, for example, all
the harder. Social capital, on the other hand:
. . . is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety
of entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some
aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of
actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure.
Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making
possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would
not be possible (ibid.: s. 98).
The function of such a conceptualisation is to identify the value of
‘social capital’ to social actors as resources which they can use to
achieve their interests (ibid.: s. 101). As such, social capital:
. . . originates in socially structured relations between individuals,
in families and in aggregations of individuals in neighbourhoods,
churches, schools and so on. These relations facilitate social action
by generating a knowledge and sense of obligation, expectations,
trustworthiness, information channels norms and sanctions (Hagan and McCarthy 1997: 229).
216
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
Examples of how social capital operated to assist desistance amongst
probationers in the current sample are not hard to find. For example,
Jamie (case 115, see Chapter 9) found the work which so dramatically
altered his life via a family contact. Similarly, case 150 (Chapter 9) was
not ‘kicked out’ of his parents’ house after finding work. 4 A further
case (163) illustrates how social capital is ‘defined by its function’. The
probationer, by finding somewhere stable to live, was able to use this
resource as a base from which to apply for employment. Officers, when
they took direct action to intervene in a probationer’s life, often did so
by linking probationers to various forms of social capital – families,
medical services, the police and housing agencies.
Probation services already try to improve the human capital of the
individuals they supervise by referring them to employment partnerships or by running short courses in ‘thinking skills’, safe drug use and
so on. However, as Crow (2000: 121) has noted, studies of employment
schemes have frequently been unable to demonstrate an impact on
offending, a finding which he suggests is in part due to their being
unable to address the wider problem of mass unemployment. In other
words, such schemes were ultimately unable to act in such a way as to
improve their participants’ social capital as they ultimately had little
direct control of or influence over wider meso- and macro-level
circumstances – in this case employment rates.
Changes in social capital alter the possibilities for various forms of
social activity. Coleman (1988: ss. 99–101) cites the example of South
Korean student radical activists whose study groups served as the
basis for transforming individual discontent into organised rebellion.
These study groups constituted a device for organising wider forms of
social protest. It follows that variations in other forms of social capital
therefore may serve to encourage the avoidance of delinquent acts in
some people and the engagement in offending by some others.
Employment (or the lack of it) may serve just such a role:
A key problem is that while for many youth early and sustained
employment contacts enhance the prospects of getting a job and
subsequent occupational mobility, connections into crime are
likely in a converse way to increase the probability of unemployment (Hagan 1997: 299).
Under [widespread youth unemployment], the peer group takes
on a more important and more enduring dimension as the
principal (if not only) source of security, status, sense of belonging
and identity (Graham and Bowling 1995: 97).
217
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
Inadequate availability of employment is perhaps the biggest
obstacle to successfully traversing the gap between a troubled
adolescent and the entry into a more stable adulthood (Hagan 1997:
299, emphasis added).
These quotations suggest that as some forms of social capital are
eroded (in this case, employment) so behaviours are altered, and that
this frequently has implications for some people’s involvement in
crime. This process was highlighted during the analyses presented in
Chapters 9 and 10, during which employment and employment
stability were frequently reported to be associated with desistance.
Poor employment prospects encourage engagement in offending which
may ultimately serve to block subsequent opportunities for legitimate
employment and desistance. Hagan (1997) has argued that western
industrialised nations have, during the last quarter of the twentieth
century, witnessed an overall slow-down in economic growth. This has
been: ‘. . . characterised by increased unemployment and income
inequality, led by the loss and only partial replacement of core sector
manufacturing jobs with less stable and poorer paying service sector
jobs’ (ibid.: 289). Many of the poorest men and women were amongst
those who lost most during this period of economic upheaval. These
economic changes have resulted in huge social changes. For example,
a significant proportion of young people leaving school will either
expect not to work, will experience economic instability or may become
accustomed to periodic unemployment. As well as helping to maintain
the concentration of poverty, such changes will create:
a social context that includes poor schools, inadequate job information networks, and a lack of legitimate employment opportunities [that] not only gives rise to weak labour force attachment, but
increases the probability that individuals will be constrained to
seek income derived from illegal and deviant activities (Wilson
1991: 10, cited in Hagan 1997: 292).
In other words the economic changes of the last quarter of the
twentieth century have resulted in reductions in human and social
capital. 5 In less advantaged communities – similar to those in which
many of the respondents in the present study were living – individuals,
families and ‘aggregations of individuals’ will be amongst those who
have experienced reductions in social capital. Those most likely to be
made subject to probation orders are therefore amongst those most
likely to have limited legitimate resources both in terms of their human
218
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
capital (i.e. their own skills) and in terms of the skills and knowledge
which permeate the communities in which they live (their social
capital).
Given that when they started probation, many of the probationers
reported problems with their employment (55 per cent) and finances
(53 per cent) and described themselves as having drug and alcohol
problems (respectively, 34 per cent and 23 per cent), it is little wonder
that about half of them reported offending during the course of their
orders, or that officers’ efforts to tackle these obstacles appeared to
have been so limited. As Moffitt (1993: 415) has noted: ‘Interventions
with life-course persistent [offenders] have met with dismal results.
This is not surprising, considering that most interventions are begun
relatively late in the chain of cumulative continuity.’ These arguments
suggest that the reason why ‘traditional’ one-to-one probation supervision and more recent innovations such as group programmes have
experienced only limited success in helping probationers to desist is
because, despite their good intentions, such interventions are unable to
get at the heart of the problem facing many of those on probation.
Human capital can be relatively easily gained – for example, group
programmes can teach employment skills and partnerships can help to
develop these – but ultimately if local social and economic circumstances do not encourage employment then no assistance – regardless of
intensity, design or commitment of staff – will be of any help. As such
the strengthening of social capital should become one of the aims of
social and criminal justice policy and accordingly the focus of much of
the work undertaken by probation services.
How exactly should this proceed? Laub et al. (1995), building on
Sampson and Laub (1993), outlined two substantive areas in which
they felt criminal justice policy could make potentially fruitful interventions: strengthening marriages6 and increasing attachments to the
labour force. Laub et al.’s contribution was not aimed specifically at the
probation service, but at more general interventions. However, strong
ties to marriage partners and employment have both been cited as
factors in desistance and, as such, both will be considered here.
Laub et al. (1995) were writing from an American perspective and,
in this light, it is interesting to note their calls for the greater use of
probation and parole as alternatives to custody. They argue that
counselling should be available so that:
offenders . . . become better spouses and [to] help them through
crises in their marriages by making appropriate counselling
readily available. Helping offenders repair personal relationships,
219
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
salvage marriages or improve interpersonal relationships so that
permanent relationships are possible will all in the long run,
contribute to law-abiding behaviour (ibid.: 100–01).
These sorts of provisions already exist in England and Wales, although
their use would not appear to be widespread on the basis of the current
study. From Chapters 6 (Table 6.5) and 9 (Table 9.2) it would appear
that officers did not readily address the family-related obstacles to
desistance which they had reported their probationers were facing. In
some respects this is understandable: one hears a lot about probation
work being concerned with ‘offending-related’ factors. However, this
is perhaps mistaken. Probation officers should not focus on ‘offendingrelated’ factors but, rather, on ‘desistance-related’ factors. As Shover and
Henderson (1995: 243, emphasis in original) have commented:
[current repressive crime control policies] ignore entirely the
theoretically obvious: Offenders’ behaviour can be changed not
only by increasing threat but by also increasing legitimate opportunities. It is important to make this point if for no other reason than
the fact that increased legitimate opportunities extend the choices
to offenders . . .
If probation work became desistance-focused rather than offendingrelated, officers may feel that they had a clearer mandate to help
probationers tackle family problems. This may in turn result in a
greater involvement of officers in the attempts to tackle such obstacles
and greater success in actually resolving them.
Laub et al. (1995) suggest that more should be done to increase the
job prospects of probationers. They suggest that ‘any probationer or
parolee who is not working should be required, as a condition . . ., to
obtain work or appropriate job training’. This is, perhaps, rather
draconian. No one should be forced into work if he or she does not
wish to. However, the basic premise is still sound and, as such, raises
the question: what can probation services do to alter significantly local
economic contexts in such a way as to increase social capital and
reduce offending?
One recent development does offer the hope that probation services
will be able to alter local contexts. Surrey and Inner London Probation
Services have both initiated schemes aimed at developing local
employment opportunities which will meet the needs of their
caseloads. Interestingly, the project in Surrey aimed to provide
‘sheltered employment’ in the form of a recycling scheme. Early
220
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
indications (Sarno et al. 1999, 2000) are encouraging, but a final
evaluation is still a long way off.
How might such schemes be developed in the future? It is not
always easy to find work – and less easy still if one has few skills, a
poor or non-existent employment record, a criminal conviction and
knows few other people who work. Perhaps, then, probation services
should – as well as referring some probationers to employment
schemes – attempt to create jobs locally for their caseloads. In other
words, probation services should provide sheltered employment in the
form of schemes like the recycling scheme in Surrey. Probation services
could find themselves being in a position to provide employment to
suit a range of employment skills and needs. For example, a recycling
scheme with its own chain of shops to sell some reclaimed goods and
goods made from recycled materials would provide the following
types of posts: people to collect the goods for recycling; people to sort
them for sale or recycling; people to make new goods from old
materials or to refurbish partially damaged goods; people to work in
the shops; clerical assistants to process payments (to employees) and
supervise revenue from shops; and so on. Clearly, not all these skills
could be met by probation caseloads, but a high number of them could
be. The aim of such a scheme would be to get people to the first rung
of the employment ladder: a job. Employment provides a record of
‘employability’ in the form of people who can be approached to
provide references and, as such, may well provide the basis of further
jobs in other occupations.
By offering work with a caring employer (the probation service)
which understands the problems facing probationers, such as needing
time off to attend court and probation appointments, and which is
committed to a notion of social justice, schemes like those sketched
above may be able to make a greater contribution to securing ‘good’
employment for probationers than has previously been the case. 7
Some may question the innovative nature of such schemes – those
working on such schemes will be identified as ‘offenders’ and may be
treated negatively by others. However, Chapman (1995) provides
evidence that imaginative schemes aimed at intervening in local
community problems can be successfully implemented. Certainly,
current criminal justice policies based on ‘harshness’ may, in the long
run, serve only to prolong criminal careers. As Shover (1996: 179)
observes:
In many [US] states, as matters stand today, the heaviest penalties
fall at the point when many offenders are on the verge of desisting
221
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
or shifting to less serious forms of crime. Heavy prison sentences
can exact such a toll from offenders that they miss all timetables
for achieving success legitimately.
The most recent development in UK probation has been the creation of
the National Probation Service. Whilst to be welcomed in that it raises
the profile of probation, the programme of work and general orientation towards rehabilitation do not suggest that extra efforts will be
aimed at helping probationers to find work or to ‘. . . become better
spouses . . .’ (Laub et al. 1995). Instead the programme of work appears
to differ little from what went before it, namely, ‘accredited’ programmes on anger management, thinking skills, ‘safe’ drug use and the
such like. Getting people into work (like the Surrey and ILPS schemes)
or encouraging people to become better parents and/or partners is not
on the agenda as current probation thinking is about criminogenic
need not desistance-orientated facilitators. This is in direct contradiction with most of the literature on why people stop offending and the
findings of the current investigation into desistance following probation supervision and, incidentally, an argument promoted by Bottoms
and McWilliams twenty years ago (1979: 175).
What does this imply for the ‘what works?’ agenda?
The methodology employed and the substantive findings of the study
have implications for the ‘What Works?’ agenda. This body of work
has sought to understand which programmes of intervention ‘work’
best (i.e. which are associated with the lowest rates of subsequent
convictions). Many of the reviews undertaken in this field have come
to the conclusion that very little can be demonstrated to work with
unanimity (see the review in Chapter 1). As also noted in the same
chapter, many of those who have researched the outcomes of community sentences have neglected to include the role of the community in
their investigations of such outcomes. Palmer’s (1996) review of the
evidence, discussed above, illustrates this tendency – ’non-programmatic’ aspects of interventions were considered only to extend as far
as staff characteristics and so forth. By ignoring the role of social
contexts, such evaluations ignore what is arguably one of the most
important ingredients in probation supervision, and certainly the
aspect which sets it apart from imprisonment. In short, future
investigations of the outcomes of probation supervision should focus
upon the role of the social contexts in assisting probationers to combat
222
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
risk factors and ultimately to desist. Chiefly amongst these influences,
the current study and the literature on desistance would suggest, are
personal motivation, gaining employment and changes in family
relations.
This will require those interested in the ‘what works?’ debates to
adopt a different approach to the investigation of sentence outcomes.
It is not enough to collect data about an individual’s employment,
accommodation, financial circumstances and so on – what is required
is an understanding of how these impacted upon the work implemented under the auspices of probation and how probation influenced
these factors. Interests in such bi-directional relationships will require
repeated sweeps of data collection to explore these issues and how they
change during the course of the period of supervision.
Additionally, good, rigorously collected qualitative data should
become part of the methodological toolbox of ‘What Works?’ evaluation. For too long attempts to evaluate which interventions are
associated with better outcomes have relied solely upon quantitative
data. Matthews and Pitts (2000: 138) have recently made similar calls
in relation to violence-reduction programmes in prison: ‘. . . evaluation
also needs to include more qualitative and ‘‘intensive’’ data gained
from discussion with those who have actually participated in the
programme’. Such an approach would not just provide information
about whether a programme works, but how it works and how it works
in specific contexts.
The use of social and personal context variables in evaluation research
Few recent studies have explored the roles of social and personal
contexts in mediating the outcomes of probation supervision – or at
least those that have, have not done so to the extent which the current
project has. Writing towards the end of the report which helped to
reinvigorate UK research on the outcomes of sentences, Lloyd et al.
(1994: 54) called for more research aimed explicitly at exploring the role
of social variables in accounting for rates of reconviction following
community supervision. May (1999) took up this challenge.
May’s investigation into the role of social variables in predicting
reconviction produced a number of important findings. Some social
variables were strongly related to reconviction rates (ibid.: 15–26), and
were in fact so strongly related that even when age and previous guilty
appearances were taken into consideration, social variables were still
more strongly associated with reconviction rates than other criminal
history variables (ibid.: 28–29). May (ibid.) concluded that, for some
223
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
groups: ‘even when age and previous appearances [in court] are taken
into account . . . social variables are still linked with differences in
reconviction rates and . . . this association is stronger than that of other
criminal history variables.’ Yet despite this, in his attempts at explaining reconviction following a ‘community sentence’ (the title of May’s
monograph), he employed criminal history variables ahead of the
social variables – that is to say, he attempted to explain reconviction
rates using criminal history variables, and then investigated by how
much social variables would improve the percentage of correctly
predicted cases (ibid.: 27–44). The answer, not surprisingly, was ‘not
very much’ (ibid.: 37). May made various assertions that social
variables could be used to improve the predictive power of the current
(criminal history dominated) models for some groups (e.g. ibid.: xi),
but since in aggregate this amounted to only a half a per cent increase
in correctly predicted cases and the fifth of a per cent decrease in
incorrectly predicted cases (ibid.: 47, Table 6.2), it is hard to imagine
that many of those who read May’s report would have been convinced
of this.
The net result, one fears, is that criminal history variables are likely
to remain as the accepted ‘best predictors’ of future reconviction. This
is politically convenient. By repeatedly pointing to (static) criminal
history variables as the best predictors of reconviction, those social and
economic factors which co-vary with much offending are overlooked.
By focusing upon criminal history variables (about which nothing can
be ‘done’) the social origins of offending and recidivism are neatly
side-stepped. Cash-strapped local and national government departments need not address the social or economic factors associated with
crime, since social variables appear to explain little of the variance. In
addition, criminal policy-makers are not forced to promote unpopular,
but criminologically sensible policies which might be interpreted as
‘rewarding’ past offending (Uggen and Piliavin 1998: 1421–22). Target
hardening, ‘thinking skills’ courses, surveillance and longer sentences
for repeat offenders are easier to implement than sustained efforts at
changing people and communities. 8
The problem, perhaps, is an interchangeable use of the terms
‘explain’ and ‘predict’. May’s study demonstrated that, as far as
reconviction data go, social variables do account for large variations in
rates of reconviction. This held even when other variables were taken
into consideration. However, despite their salience, May reverted to
the (predictively weaker) criminal history variables and attempted to
improve these by using the social variables. What would have
happened, one wonders, if he had done the logical thing, and
224
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
attempted to improve the percentage of cases correctly predicted by
the social variables by adding to these the criminal history variables?
Predicting reconviction is probably better achieved (for the purposes of
official bodies such as probation services and the Home Office) by
continuing to rely upon OGRS and criminal history variables. Explaining reconviction, however, as May’s own data suggest, requires the use
of social variables – a finding supported by the data collected as part
of this study. In short, the current study found that social and personal
variables were found to account for variations in the extents to which
obstacles (i.e. risk factors) were resolved; rates of offending; and rates
of desistance. Criminal history variables, were, generally speaking, not
as useful. It therefore follows, in line with May, that social variables
should form part of our understanding of why probationers reoffend,
and therefore should be treated as issues which need to be addressed
by social and criminal policy.
A greater use of social and personal variables should certainly be
promoted. However, the insights gained from this project also support
the assertions made by others (e.g. Haines 1999) concerning an
important weakness in current approaches to research on criminal
careers. Haines (ibid.: 266) points to one of the most common findings
from criminal career research: that unemployment is associated with
continued offending. However, as Haines argues, unemployment is not
merely a problem for individuals, but is a social problem. 9 By focusing
upon the behaviour and attributes of individuals (as much quantitative
criminal career and What Works research does) this style of research
focuses upon criminals rather than upon crime. This has two outcomes.
Obviously there is first and foremost an inbuilt tendency to ignore
wider social contexts. Whilst Chapters 8 and 9 suggested that gaining
work was associated with reductions in offending, these jobs were the
result not simply of an individual ‘getting on his or her bike’ and
looking for work, but also of that work actually being there to be found,
and an employer being prepared to offer a job to the probationer
concerned. For example, would Sandra (discussed in Chapter 9) have
been able to find employment so readily if it had not been for an
employer deciding to risk employing an individual with little prior
work experience and a conviction for stealing thousands of pounds
from her previous employer? None of this should be taken as an
attempt to discount the role of the probationer in getting employment,
but rather to raise the issue that it is not just the individual who must
be considered when such changes are (or are not) taking place or when
these changes are attempted. As Farrall and Bowling (1999: 261,
emphasis in original) wrote: ‘. . . the process of desistance is one that is
225
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
produced through an interplay between individual choices, and a range
of wider social forces, institutional and societal practices which are
beyond the control of the individual.’ It would appear that the
quantitative research programmes in both the criminal careers and
‘What Works?’ literatures have yet fully to get to grips with the social
and personal contexts within which the processes of desistance are
embedded – and this is especially the case in the UK. Again this is not
to consign these bodies of work to the proverbial waste-bin but, rather,
to highlight a current deficiency in order that it may be addressed. As
such, the quantitative programme of research in both criminal careers
and the ‘What Works?’ paradigms may be leading us to subtly
incorrect conclusions. More research needs to be focused on how
probation supervision and individual changes are influenced by local
contexts. Whilst this project has investigated the role of social and
personal contexts, what is required is a project which locates probation
interventions and personal changes in relation to the structure of
specific local communities.
Moving the agenda forward
As people who are interested in either helping others to stop offending
or evaluating such efforts (or both), we need to develop a new research
agenda. The simple focus upon ‘what works’ has not served us well. It
has failed to embark upon a thorough enough investigation of social
and personal contexts, become overly reliant upon official data sources
and official definitions of ‘success’ and ‘failure’, and has had a
tendency to analyse data in ways which can only be described as
‘static’.
The current research project has attempted to go beyond the rather
limited methodologies which have dominated this field of research. In
the light of the current project, a programme of research can be
identified. Such research should not rely solely upon official data
sources, should develop a range of ‘outcome’ measures which are not
based on simple reconviction/reoffending data and which is prospective rather than retrospective. On the basis of the findings of this study
such a research agenda should focus upon two main areas:
1. what individual officers/the wider probation service can do about
addressing not just offending-related factors but also desistancerelated needs; and
2. how probationers’ social capital can be increased in such a way as
to foster desistance.
226
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
The first of these is perhaps the more straightforward of the two
suggestions. Desistance, it is widely becoming accepted, is often the
result of attachments to the labour force or to marriage partners or both
(see, for example, Sampson and Laub 1993). The current research has
found evidence to support these claims. The project also found that
officers appeared to be reluctant to work with their probationers to
address family and employment obstacles. Yet when officers did assist
their probationers, their work appeared to supplement the efforts of the
probationers and to be associated with greater rates of success (Table
9.2b, Chapter 9). This reinforces the arguments put forward by Bottoms
and McWilliams over twenty years ago (1979: 172–75) when they wrote
that ‘. . . help may be more crime-reducing than treatment’ (ibid.: 174).
As such, more effort should be focused on how officers can support
probationers address either their existing family problems, or attempting to prepare them for events like parenthood. Similarly, more effort
should be focused on getting probationers into employment (Bridges
1998). This might entail a shift in the orientation of probation work.
One probationer [065], when asked what would prevent him from
reoffending, replied:
Something to do with self-progression. Something to show people
what they are capable of doing. I thought that that was what [my
officer] should be about. It’s finding people’s abilities and nourishing and making them work for those things. Not very consistent
with going back on what they have done wrong and trying to
work out why – ’cause it’s all going around on what’s happened –
what you’ve already been punished for – why not go forward into
something . . . For instance, you might be good at writing – push
that forward, progress that, rather than saying ‘well look, why did
you kick that bloke’s head in? Do you think we should go back
into anger management courses?’ when all you want to be is a
writer. Does that make any sense to you at all? Yeah, yeah. To sum
it up, you’re saying you should look forwards not back. Yeah. I know
that you do have to look back to a certain extent to make sure that
you don’t end up like that [again]. The whole order seems to be
about going back and back and back. There doesn’t seem to be
much ‘forward’.
In other words, probation should assess what people require in their
lives to ensure that they stop offending and then attempt to produce
these features in their lives in such a way that they do actually stop
offending. This might mean, for example, officers assessing whether a
227
ConclusionsWhat Works with Offenders
Rethinking
probationer’s family offers him or her an avenue towards desistance
(see Chapter 9). Of course, such efforts should be addressed in the
contexts in which the probationer is living.
Increasing individuals’ social capital will probably ultimately mean
providing them with legitimate employment, which will in turn help
to foster the sorts of ties and social contacts which allow for the
development of social capital. It is unclear exactly how well probation
services will be able to influence local economic conditions. The
suggestion made earlier, that probation services develop in some way
employment schemes in which they are able to offer probationers work
rather than referring them to other agencies, may be only one amongst
a number of solutions. Other possible solutions would involve concerted efforts aimed at reinvesting in some of the most deprived and
crime-ridden inner-city areas.
These suggestions entail a further point. Namely, a step back from the
exclusive focus on cognitive behavioural work which has dominated the
probation work and ‘What Works?’ agendas in recent years. As Rex
(1999: 373) has correctly noted, even the original architects of such
programmes saw them as complementing the social and economic
problems faced by probationers. This is not to suggest that cognitive
behavioural work is to be abandoned but, rather, that whilst it correctly
focuses on increasing probationers’ human capital, it is unable to address
the wider social contexts in which these probationers live and as such is
unable to address such social and economic needs. What is required is a
research project which attempts to ‘fuse’ together developments in
individual cognitive abilities and changes in their social contexts.
The current project has suggested that probation supervision ‘works’
indirectly through allowing the probationer’s life to develop positively.
Ensuring how best to enable those developments to occur and
designing working practices which will enable probation officers to
intervene more readily should form the next stage of research into
probation effectiveness.
Notes
1 Because the trends which emerged from officers’ and probationers’ reports
of the relationships between facing obstacles, overcoming these obstacles
and social contexts were very similar (see Figures 7.1, 7.2, 9.1 and 9.2), we
concentrate here on the probationers’ reports.
2 These measures are summations of the social circumstances which probationers reported were ‘problems’. Those with fewer than two problematic
228
Probation, social context and desistance from crime: Developing
developing the agenda
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
social circumstances were classified as having good social contexts, whilst
those with three or more as having poor social contexts.
The ultimate test of this is to try to imagine what probation supervision
would ‘look like’ if probationers were not in the community. What would
officers attempt to ‘do’ with those they supervised? What would be
discussed during supervisions? What would the goals of such a probation
order be? Trying to conceptualise probation as separate from ‘the community’ is like trying to imagine imprisonment without the loss of liberty.
Living with one’s parents has been found to act as a protective factor against
offending for males – see, for example, Graham and Bowling (1995).
These processes should not be thought of as being either irreversible or
uniformly distributed.
In informal conservations undertaken during the fieldwork for the project,
several probation officers expressed their opinions that ‘one of the best
things we could do to help these young lads is to start a dating agency’.
Clearly impractical, but nevertheless interesting to note in the light of the
some of the findings reported above.
If this sounds familiar to historians of the probation service, this may be
because many of the precursors of probation supervision placed an
emphasis on providing offenders with suitable employment – see, for
example, Bochel (1976: 4).
Although, see the New Deal for Communities programme, interestingly a
project being run by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions project, rather than the Home Office.
Haines’ point underlines the earlier comments regarding the development
of social capital. Unemployed people living in areas in which unemployment is rife will have fewer chances of gaining work through friends’ and
neighbours’ contacts.
229
Chapter 13
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
Rethinking . . .20 years later
What happened next?
In this chapter, I will provide an update on the two subsequent sweeps
of interviews (in 2004 and 2010–2012), in order to – if only partially –
answer the question ‘What happened next?’ The answer I provide
relates to both the lives of the individuals involved in the project and
the project more generally. This chapter also allows me to summarise
my thinking on both a more general theory of desistance and a theory
of what might be termed ‘assisted desistance’ – that is desistance supported by a formal organisation such as a probation service or drug
or alcohol treatment provider. I will also take the chance to reflect on
wider developments in the field of desistance and criminal careers more
generally.
What happened next?
The fieldwork for Rethinking What Works with Offenders had ended in
late 1999, and by the time the manuscript was completed, I had left
Oxford and taken up a Research Fellowship in the Department of
Criminology at Keele University. This afforded me the chance to revisit
the sample via fieldwork, which was funded by the Leverhulme Trust
and published as Farrall and Calverley 2006. The fieldwork focused on
a number of topics, such as the victimisation of the sample (updating
an article which Sarah Maltby and I had published in in 2003), the
emotional trajectories of desistance, citizenship values and desistance
and the development of the sample’s social lives in general. It was
however, perhaps inevitably, that the chapter dealing with the longer-term effects of their probation supervision (Chapter 3) became the
main focus for many readers.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003143789-17
231
Conclusions
This chapter, however, delivered a very similar (that is, rather downbeat) assessment of the impact of probation supervision on the lives of
these men and women. Very few of them had changed their assessments
of the extent to which probation supervision had helped them. There
were, for some, the first signs of probation supervision being cited by
sample members as one of the things which helped them either to start
to consider ceasing their engagement in crime or which assisted in with
practical problems related to desisting. Nevertheless, the overall picture
of the assistance of probation supervision in helping to ‘produce’ desistance was still rather sparse.
The fifth (and in all likelihood final) sweep of interviews took place
between 2010 and 2012 (and was again funded by the Leverhulme Trust,
and published as Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, & Calverley, 2014). As in the
previous book (Farrall & Calverley, 2006) we explored the emotional
trajectories of desistance, victimisation rates for the sample, citizenship
values and desistance and, for the first time, the spatial dynamics of
desistance. It was, however, the chapters on the development of the
sample’s social lives and the impact of probation supervision upon their
lives which garnered the most attention.
Whilst it was still the case that many of the sample were still offending, amongst those who had stopped offending there was a growing
recognition that the probation supervision which they had received
in the very late 1990s had, in fact, assisted them in stopping offending. The seeming volte-face was so unexpected that one colleague
(who had read both of the previous books) after one talk I gave on the
topic, asked me, “What made you change your mind?” The answer, of
course, was that the growing recognition that probation had assisted
them was not a decision which I had taken; I (and my co-authors)
were simply reporting on the change in recognition as told to us by
the sample members. It was the sample members who had changed
their minds (some of them), rather than ourselves. Nevertheless, the
question is a good one (even if posed to the wrong person!). It begs
the question of why, during and shortly after the inputs which they
had received, the sample members had not recognised the help they
had received, whilst some years later, they now did acknowledge the
importance of it. The finding that some of the sample now felt that
supervision had helped them went against much of the thinking on
inputs and decay times. We reflected on this matter in the third book
(Farrall et al., 2014, p. 157):
Why have they changed their minds? We suspect that a number
of things are at play here. Certainly the lives of many of those we
232
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
interviewed had developed (employment found, relationships
formed, children born, and so on) and with this often came desistance (Sampson & Laub, 1993). But, crucially, these drivers to desistance had required sample members to revisit what their officers
had said to them, and to start to think about and apply some of this
advice. This complicates standard models of how people change.
Instead of people thinking about change and then seeking advice
about how to effect change, we have observed the reverse: the
advice about how to change was delivered many years before the
desire to change, but was still able to play a key part in those processes of change. In this respect our data challenges some of the key
assumptions of decay in many interventions. Instead of interventions decaying over time (as Figure 13.1), it is possible that for many
their impacts actually increased (Figure 13.2). If supported by other
studies, this suggests that ‘full’ assessments of probation supervision (or any other efforts to encourage individual-level change)
ought to focus on periods beyond the common one- or two-year
follow-ups.
Level of Impact
The analogy which I used when talking about this was of the headache. If I have a headache, I take a tablet, which fairly quickly alleviates
the headache. If, when the effects of the tablet have worn off, I still have
a headache, I might take another one, and, if it persists further, seek
medical advice. The assumption in much medical research, which has
sometimes been used without very much reflection in some branches
of the social sciences, is that an input will, over time, suffer from decay,
and in so doing will produce less of an impact over time. This, of course,
Time
Figure 13.1 Assumed Model of Impact
233
Level of Impact
Conclusions
Time
Figure 13.2 Possible Model of Impact?
makes sense if we are, for example, (using a criminological example) trying to assess the impact of burglary alarms in houses or other buildings.
When first fitted they may immediately deter some burglars. Those with
little experience (opportunists) may simply look for alternative places
to burgle. Others, the more determined, might try to work out how to
disable the alarm and continue to burgle. That might take some time
and several failed efforts. Still further down the line, new alarms (or
other deterrents) may be employed, meaning that those buildings with
older-style alarms actually become more attractive options for burglars
when compared to the new deterrents. Either way, over time there is a
decay effect. Similar effects might be observed for all sorts of physical
inputs. But what of humans?
Humans are reflexive animals. They learn, ‘unlearn’, relearn, adapt and
amend as they go along. The advice which they received (not all of which
will come from probation officers) might well be remembered several years
later. As it happened, one of the cases followed up during the fifth sweep
(Peter) had had a probation officer who observed (several years earlier)
that, ‘Sometimes when you say something that sticks in the mind [it] comes
out only a long time after the event. Sometimes people remind you of something you said five years ago’. Looking back to that interview in 1998, her
words seem prophetic. Of course, this is not simply to say that we ought to
‘lag’ all outcomes by several years (or over a decade, in the case of Peter),
since there were still cases who rejected the idea that probation may have
helped them stop offending. However, it does raise another set of questions
which relate to what helps people cease offending and how we ought to
approach this theoretically and empirically.
234
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
An integrated theory of structural and individual level processes
and criminal careers
Following my interest in both wider structures and how these interact
with agency (see for example, Farrall & Bowling, 1999; or Farrall et al.,
2011), and concurrent with the fieldwork for the fifth sweep, an interest
in how political decisions affect crime rates (e.g. Farrall & Hay, 2010),
I sketched the outline of a theory of desistance which we presented in
the third book (Farrall et al., 2014). This theory tried to take seriously
the idea that macro-level processes can and do shape individual-level
outcomes (relating to all sorts of outcomes, not just crime and offending), whilst holding on to the very real facts that men and women make
choices day-in, day-out; that these too can have great impacts upon their
lives; and that situational contexts also shape events and processes.
Figure 13.3 is a diagrammatical representation of this theory. The
three bands running along the top of the diagram represent different
macro-level influences which shape all (or at the very least, most) of the
lives of most people living in a particular society. That these affect all
lives does not mean that it affects all lives in the same ways or with the
same outcomes, however. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon
in 2001, the economic downturns of 2008–2010 and slow shifts in some
social attitudes can all have transformative effects on peoples’ lives but
will have affected some social groups more than others and reduced
the life chances of some whilst enhancing those of other groups. The
macro-level influences in the top band are broadly unchanging, or at
best change only very slowly. So, for example, almost all human societies have a social institution which can be thought of as ‘the family’.
The definition of what constitutes a family may alter over time for both
individuals and societies, but the general concept remains. Similarly,
almost all societies have constructed some behaviours as acts which
are ‘crimes’ (and again, the definition of these will evolve over time).
Hence a criminal justice system (or something like) is needed to respond
to rule-breaking. There are also those less easily identifiable influences
such as collective aspirations and fears (the zeitgeist) which can set the
tone of what is imaginable and tolerable in, for example, the criminal
justice system, levels of economic inequality, which jobs are worthy of
high salaries and so on. Again these will periodically experience shifts
and oscillations in their definitions.
Below these is another tier of macro-level influences on desistance –
albeit one which changes less slowly. Naturally, the speed of change
will be variable (and may accelerate or slow down rapidly). For example, economic systems may suddenly enter recessions. Similarly, not
235
PAST
Rela!onships between individual social
(both between well known others and the
and played out in specific places in specific
actors over !me
unknown/‘lightly engaged’
contexts of meaning)
Changes in values (crime and non-criminal) and cogni!ve orienta!ons (willingness/desire to
Subjec!ve views (and objec!ve reali!es) of structures, rela!onships, one’s own abili!es
(and changes in these)
Previous experiences of the CJS … (unfolds over !me).See also Fig 13.1
Influences of specific social policies … (unfolds over !me)
Situa!onal Contexts
Figure 13.3 Structural and Individual Level Processes and Criminal Careers
Ethnic Iden!ty and Gender
Macro-level inputs (rapidly changing); o"en the results of ‘shocks’ to the system (e.g., 9/11 or sudden economic restructuring)
Nature and Length of Past Criminal Career
236
FUTURE
change)
Hopes, wants and
desires (can
change
over !me)
Availability of legi!mate
iden!!es for desisters
(structurally influenced)
Macro-level inputs (slowly changing); economic situa!ons; social values; Acts of Parliament; no!ons of fatherhood; rise of the risk agenda; changes in transi!ons to adulthood
Macro-level inputs (broadly unchanging); the concept of ‘crime’; founda!onal social ins!tu!ons (e.g. families); collec!ve hopes and aspira!ons (eg ‘the American Dream’)
Conclusions
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
all social groups will be equally affected. For example, ex-prisoners,
in addition to facing particular difficulties in gaining employment as
a result of the stigma of conviction and the attenuation of skills that
takes place during incarceration, have lower rates of employment than
the general population. Acts of Parliaments may additionally radically
shift the response to a particular social problem. In some instances, the
impact may be incremental and take several years to start to influence
outcomes, or in other cases legislation may dramatically alter the prospects for change for some groups. Changes in crime types and definitions can also be thought of as operating at this level, since new crimes
are created by legislation, and the political and social salience of some
crime types change.
Of course, some shocks to any system come with little warning, and
whilst these are few and far between, some may be critical for some individuals. For example, Rob MacDonald and his colleagues (e.g. MacDonald & Marsh, 2006) found that the arrival of heroin in Teesside during the
mid-1990s dramatically changed the nature and length of offenders’ criminal careers. Similarly, economic recessions will have particularly negative
impacts on the employment chances of those in insecure and temporary
work. Given that many in the initial stages of forging new identities might
be reliant upon insecure employment, recessions might impact on their
chances of desisting from crime. Although we have separated various macro-level influences according to the speed at which they may change, it is
worth remembering that there may still be interactions between ‘levels’ of
influence. For example, what constitutes a crime is affected by criminal justice legislation, whilst cultural shifts in understandings of parenthood will
affect the family as a social institution.
These things matter since economic downturns will encourage some
people into offending (Farrall, Gray, & Jones, 2020b) and may make it
harder for them to stop later, whilst attitudes akin to racism have the
potential to see different ethnic groups treated differentially by systems
relating to schools, housing and criminal justice. Hence macro-level
influences and processes can alter the life-courses of whole cohorts of
people and, within them, the experiences of certain groups (Farrall et al
2020a, 2020b and 2019).
The two columns on the left-most side of Figure 13.3 deal with individual-level influences. An individual’s gender and ethnicity are known
to shape the opportunities that are presented to them throughout their
life-course. All of us carry with us unconsciously ideas about how others
will treat us on the basis of our gender, age, ethnicity, and so on (Bourdieu’s ‘doxa’, 1977, p. 164). An individual’s past biography may influence their desistance, and studies appear to suggest that these routes
237
Conclusions
away from crime are likely to be mediated by ethnicity and gender
(Uggen & Kruttschnitt, 1998; Calverley, 2013). One factor that appears to
influence the character of pathways out of crime is the nature and length
of the previous criminal career; those with histories of alcohol or substance dependency or who have spent considerable periods in prison
may face more obstacles to desistance, especially if this has damaged
relationships with family members or non-drug-dependent friends.
Those with longer or more intensive criminal careers may well require
a greater degree of rebuilding of their core selves (and hence many turn
to religion or to quasi-religious forms of belief in order to make such
changes possible, intelligible and sustainable). Whilst these aspects of
their lives are rooted in individuals’ pasts, they have the power to influence subsequent relationships and behaviours and accordingly imply
much for individuals’ future identities.
Figure 13.3 contains an oval towards the bottom of it. This represents
routine social interactions and relationships between individuals. It is
an oval, as not all relationships extend far backwards in time (some
people we have only known briefly), and nor will all last for the rest
of one’s lifetime. These relationships can help to kick-start and sustain
desistance, whilst others may interrupt it. Cutting down into this oval
is a column labelled ‘Situational Contexts’. These are the specific circumstances, chapters, events or processes in individuals’ lives (such as
moving to a new town, starting a family or developing a religious faith).
These situational contexts have the power to shape processes of desistance and may present fertile conditions for it or contexts in which it is
frequently impeded but are not frequently examined.
Running from left to right in Figure 13.3 are four further rows. The top
two rows relate to experiences of the criminal justice system. Generally
speaking, direct experiences of the criminal justice system will reduce
as an individual desists (since they are being arrested and convicted at
much lower rates). Nevertheless, and as the fifth sweep of interviews
showed, the input of criminal justice system can help to assist desistance
even in the years after the input was first made (Farrall et al., 2014). Of
course, repeated and prolonged exposure to the criminal justice system,
particularly amongst individuals who have been imprisoned multiple
times or subject to lengthy or intensive post-release parole supervision
requirements, may become so dramatically cumulative to the point that
even if an individual does cease to offend they carry with them a legacy of their earlier sentences. This can lead to individuals ‘giving up’
on efforts to desist, as documented by Halsey, Armstrong, and Wright
(2016). One such legacy is exemplified by the disruption and damage
that imprisonment can cause to significant relationships, the impact
238
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
incarceration can have on employment prospects, and the dislocation
identified by prisoners who feel that the world outside prison moves on
without them (Visher & Travis, 2003; Farrall & Calverley, 2006). We have
also documented evidence that some criminal justice workers leave
imprints on those they have supervised (Farrall & Calverley, 2006; Farrall et al., 2014). In other words, some of what criminal justice workers
say or try to convey was remembered by our sample members. After
their supervision had ended, and often when their circumstances had
changed and they now definitely wanted to try to change their lives,
such advice was recalled and employed (probably in adaptive ways).
Equally, the impact of many social policies will ebb and flow over time.
In some instances, changes in social and economic policies will dramatically alter the fortunes of some (Farrall, Gray, & Jones, 2020a; Farrall et al., 2020b). Similarly, some policies may never have the desired
impacts, may have these only much later or may be superseded by
events or further policy changes.
The bottom two rows relate to an individual’s on-going social
relationships. These build into our thinking their views of structures, of relationships and of their own abilities, as well as changes
in personal values and orientations to the world and the way it
works, (in other words, the ‘habitus’, Bourdieu, 1977). Even if a
relationship has kick-started desistance, it might itself end (as
some may do). However, despite the end of the relationship, the
change in attitudes and values which helped to maintain law-abiding behaviour may persist. As such, it is important to remember
that relationships are dynamic and can change and develop over
time and extend into the future, influencing hopes and desires. As
Farrall and Calverley (2006, p. 129) note, the ‘emotional aspects of
desistance are part of the feelings experienced by a wider social
network of people other than the desister ’. Consequently, the (re)
fashioning of an identity for oneself is dependent on considering
one’s existing identity as others see it. Personal support, mutual
trust, and validation of one’s worth as a human being (rather than
‘an offender ’) will play a part here (Brown & Ross, 2010). So too
will individual resolve or resilience: evidence from a follow-up of
ex-prisoners suggests that the individual’s ability to weather setbacks or to spot new opportunities can greatly influence post-imprisonment outcomes (LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008).
Part of this resolve will be produced via recollections of one’s previous life and may result in individuals ‘dedicating’ themselves
to some new lifestyle (Vaughan, 2007, p. 395). As we found in earlier research (Farrall & Calverley, 2006; Farrall et al., 2014), such
239
Conclusions
changes in self-identity may result in deliberate attempts to avoid
certain places or may alter an individual’s relationship with those
places and in so doing may change the sorts of situational contexts
they encounter.
My work on desistance has drawn upon existential thinking on processes of change. The right-hand side of Figure 13.3 contains a triangle, which is an attempt to represent the idea that lives are lived into
the future; they are on-going projects of the self and of change. Human
being often imagine their future lives and project themselves forward
into the unlived future as part of their immediate day-to-day lives and
as part of their concern for their own future over longer time periods.
However, the extent to which ex-offenders can achieve their desires
and goals is to some extent dependent on the availability for them of
legitimate identities, and in societies that prevent ex-offenders from full
engagement in social and economic life we imagine that more would-be
desisters will return to their old (criminal) behaviours.
No one study would be sufficient to explore the theory outlined
previously – and it is perhaps too fluid to be fully tested in terms of
specific hypotheses in any case. Neverthesless, as well as the fieldwork
which this series of books relied on, I have been fortunate enough to
be able to extend both my own thinking and empirical examination of
the theory outlined previously. With Will Jennings, Emily Gray, Colin
Hay and Phil Jones, I have been able to explore the extent to which processes at the very macro-level and the individual level have altered the
general social and economic circumstances and hence shaped criminal
careers and the criminal justice system. Various of our papers have dealt
with the ways in which macro-level policies (some shaped by specific
Acts of Parliament) changed both rates of crime and the ways in which
crime was responded to. In two papers, we have explored the ways in
which the 1980 Housing Act first corralled poorer citizens of the UK into
social housing, increasing victimisation rates amongst those communities (Farrall, Gray, Jennings, & Hay, 2016), and secondly, how the same
Act made it likely that poorer people were slowly drawn into the criminal justice system (Farrall, Gray, & Jones, 2019). These were processes
which were driving some sections of society into such dire needs that
they needed to rely on crime for survival or out of expression of their
harm they were experiencing. We found them rooted in the housing
system but also in the schooling system (Farrall et al., 2020a). The consequence of the huge economic downturn which the UK experienced
in the 1980s (Jennings, Farrall, & Bevan, 2012; Farrall & Jennings, 2012)
drove up crime and ‘hardened’ the criminal justice system (Farrall,
Burke, & Hay, 2016). As such the macro-level policies pursued by the
240
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
Thatcher governments shaped the contexts of peoples’ lives during the
1980s (and arguably, since), and altered the situational contexts in which
they found themselves.
Our more recent modelling of life-course data (Farrall et al., 2020b)
has suggested that county-level experiences of economic restructuring between 1971 and 1981 were very good predictors of the offending
careers between 1986 and 2000 for a cohort of people born in Britain
in 1970. In short, the economic and social policies pursued from 1979
pushed some people into situations in which offending ‘made sense’
even if the long-term consequences of offending were deleterious. The
fourth and fifth sweeps of the fieldwork on which this and the other
two books were based touched on many of the other aspects of the theory outlined previously. We explored, for example, the ways in which
day-to-day routines shaped and were shaped by offending and non-offending life styles; how values about being ‘a good citizen’ went hand
in hand with desistance and how emotions developed as people ceased
to offend. Whilst the previous outline represents a theory of criminal
careers which touches on many of the influences which appear most
salient, in the 2014 book we also outlined a theory of assisted desistance, which I will outline and review in the next section.
A theory of assisted desistance
Based on the observations derived from the analyses of the data collected during all five sweeps, my colleagues and I outlined model of
probation supervision impact as we believe it took place for our sample
members. We thought of this as being located within the wider model
I have reviewed and expanded upon previously (Figure 13.3). I am fortune enough to have recently been able to revisit this model with Isabelle F.-Dufour and Marie-Pierre Villeneuve (Villeneuve, F.-Dufour, & Farrall, 2021). As illustrated in Figure 13.4, formal agents assist: change does
not systematically come from formal interventions. Probation staff can
guide would-be desisters in moving towards desistance, but they can do
little to force it to happen. Opportunities can ‘kick-start’ the process of
thinking about change (F.-Dufour & Brassard, 2014).
The box on the far left of Figure 13.4 represents the life circumstances
of the probationer (or parolee) and the changes which the court may have
imposed upon them. Crucially, however, it also includes the insights
gained from probation supervision. These may have come from direct
advice and instruction from officers; or indirectly through the actions
officers perform that come to be viewed positively by probationers; or
241
242
Minimal desire to
change
+
Desistancefocused
practice
The start of the
process of
thinking about
change
Recollection
and use of
insight /
knowledge
Accessing
opportunities
for (testing)
change
Life changes (e.g.
partnership,
employment,
accommodation,
relationships)
[t1]
Positive feedbacks / Experiences of social recognition and citizenship
Little / no
immediate
response
(especially
if dealing
with long
term
entrenched
or
structural
issues)
(A Process
Subject to
Feedback)
Figure 13.4 Model of Impact of Assisted Desistance in Formal Settings
Life changes
imposed by the
order/sentence
and insights from
CJS staff
High degree of
embeddedness
Individual
circumstances:
‘Naturally’
occurring
possibilities for life
change (partnership;
parenthood;
employment)
Episodes of
good fortune and
the outcone of
macro-level
policies can
shape … !
Increased
desire /
Willingness to
change
(Iterative
processes)
Reorientation
towards
conventional
goals
Life changes (e.g.
partnership,
employment,
accommodation,
relationships)
[t2]
Sustained
efforts at
‘moving
away’ from
crime / actual
moving away
(desistance)
Conclusions
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
derived from conversations with officers in which the officer was ‘simply’ acting as a sounding board for the probationer’s own ideas. Regardless, they are inputs in which the probation officer has made a contribution – even if it simply to acknowledge and legitimate a positive idea
or approach stemming from the probationer. Integrated into this will
be any conditions imposed by the court (such as to reside in a particular place, seek treatment for some sort of addiction etc.). The speed
and degree of success which this input will have depends on a number
of things. In this case I want to focus on just two them; the degree of
embeddedness in a criminal lifestyle an individual may have and their
desire to change (i.e. to stop offending). The former represents the extent
to which the wider situation of the probationer’s life is conducive to
further offending. This could include, for example, the extent to which
their peers and/or partner sanction or participate in crime or the presence or absence of drug or alcohol addictions that increase or decrease
the likelihood of further offending. The latter encapsulates what we
might term ‘subjective’ factors that contribute to the individual’s attitude towards crime and to changing his or her life. For example, does
the probationer want to stop offending, and do they feel able to in the
face of any obstacles to desistance they may encounter? Within the context of probation supervision impact ‘desire and willingness’ can also
be thought of as the extent to which probationers feel able to work with
their officer towards common goals. Such embeddedness and desire to
change act on the probationer’s responsiveness to the work done by
their officer. The stronger the desire to change and the lower the level
of embeddedness in criminogenic situations, the more likely the probationer is to be immediately responsive to the work done by their probation officer. Let us assume two extremes here, first a case with low levels
of embeddedness and a high level of motivation to change. For them,
the process of change may be relatively easy. Being keen to change and
not being embedded in a lifestyle which makes crime a legitimate and
attractive option, they might be able to disassociate from others who
regularly offend and devote themselves to a more conventional lifestyle,
employing where appropriate any advice from their probation officer.
Such cases are relatively unproblematic, probably fairly rare and need
not really delay us much more.
Contrast this with an individual who is much more heavily embedded in offending (this individual is characterised in Figure 13.4). In these
cases, there may be requirements imposed by the courts. These might produce changes in the individual’s personal circumstances, which might
over time, start processes of desistance. The insights given by their officer will, in all likelihood, not be responded to immediately. How then do
243
Conclusions
the insights gained from probation supervision ‘work’ when there is no
immediate response or change (or even the desire to change)? We found
in Farrall et al. (2014) that rather than being ‘permanently’ dismissed,
even insights which might not be immediately responded to positively
are ‘stored’ until such time as the probationer is more receptive to them.
In effect the inputs ‘lie dormant’ until the probationer is more ready to
deploy them. An increased receptiveness, we found, occurred as a result
of wider changes in the individual’s life. Events such as employment or
becoming a parent may impact on one’s desire to change and also the
degree of embeddedness (for example, employment leading to reduced
time spent with peers). Such events have the effect of ‘kick-starting’ the
process of thinking about change, initiating a reorientation towards
conventional goals combined with a consideration of how such goals
might be achieved. As part of this process, the earlier advice of an officer
might be recalled with greater resonance. Insights given might come to
be more explicitly used in the individual’s new situation, or practical
help may now be of more direct use. Recollection of a probation officer’s
advice as being a possible way to achieve conventional goals increases
the chance it will be used, in turn leading to sustained attempts to move
away from offending. If you wanted a layperson’s description of it, you
might say ‘something clicked’ and they saw things in a new way.
However, life changes, reorientation towards conventional goals and
the recollection and use of an officer’s advice do not follow a strict causal
sequence. Such ‘events’ and processes are iterative and subject to feedback loops, whereby things that feel like they ‘work’ feed back to the next
decision on a recurring process which over a period of time one might
describe as ‘the process of change’. So it is that a reorientation towards
conventional goals might lead to a recollection of a probation officer’s
advice about finding employment. Similarly, successfully using an officer’s advice may lead to a greater attentiveness to other knowledge that
has been imparted. It is the interplay of these factors that makes the
causal relationships involved in probation supervision and desistance
from crime difficult to untangle; feedback loops and iterative processes
are common and dominate. Some may, with some understandable irritation, throw up their hands in exasperation; all of this is too contingent, too vague, too slippery, too imprecise for either policy-makers and
practitioners to work with or for social scientists to test. Well, bad news:
this is how these processes actually are for those living through them.
Periods of change aren’t easy, smooth, well-ordered or easily captured.
As social scientists we need to develop theories with sufficient flexibility
to allow for variations in processes for different individuals and groups
of people; and policy-makers need to have confidence in practitioners
244
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
to trust their expertise in helping individuals to navigate such changes.
Of late (and I would date this from ‘de-linking’ probation training from
social work training in the late 1990s by Michael Howard) there has not
been much trust in probation officers. When more effort ought to have
been put into training probation staff, to encouraging one-to-one work,
we saw a series of much-lauded groupwork programmes, many of
which either did not produce the desired results, or in the case of some
of the sex offender groupwork programmes resulted in higher rates of
offending. Just as we re-invent the architecture of probation in England
and Wales again (following the utterly predictable outcomes of the ‘failing Grayling’ era), now is a time to re-invest in one-to-one supervision
and this time to ditch all of the (frankly absurd) claims that probation
services ‘own’ the desistance of their supervisees. Our understanding
of why and how people stop offending has moved on since the 1980s
and the start of the What Works? movement; we now understand much,
much more clearly than previously that desistance is ‘produced through
an interplay between individual choices, and a range of wider social
forces, institutional and societal practices which are beyond the control
of the individual’ (Farrall & Bowling, 1999, p. 261). My recent work with
Emily Gray and Phil Jones (Farrall et al., 2020a, 2020b) has only further
convinced me that a) macro-level processes such as the economy and
government policies shape lives and offending careers more than previously acknowledged and b) that the focus on What Works is therefore
posing a crucial question at simultaneously too low and too high a level
of abstraction. By which I mean that the answers (note the plural) to
the question of ‘what works’ need to explore macro-level process and
individual-level actions to a far greater extent than they have hitherto.
One has to remember of course, that for many on probation or being
supervised on release from prison, girlfriends, boyfriends, brothers, sisters, mums, dads, mates and other people in their informal social networks will be more important than their probation officer. These relationships will ebb and flow, of course, and some will fade out (recall the
oval in Figure 13.3). Sitting ‘on top’ of all of these messy, incoherent and
beautifully complex lives of real people are the decisions of much more
powerfully located individuals and organisations – and these have not
yet fully entered our thinking. People make decisions about their lives
and lifestyles, in many cases, ahead of its impact of their engagement
in crime. Let’s imagine an individual whose partner gets pregnant and
wants to move to be closer to her parents; they move nearer to her parents, but this is done with a view to the impending birth, rather than
because it affects involvement in crime. In some cases, desistance is the
result of a planned activity, however. An individual might consciously
245
Conclusions
decide to disassociate from a circle of friends or family members in
order to try to start to desist, but in many cases desistance is the result
of ‘side-bets’ as Sampson and Laub put it (1993). We need to create the
conditions in which the side-bets which Sampson and Laub described
are realisable. Top-down actions enable those towards the bottom (and
I think we can agree that most people enmeshed in the criminal justice system are towards the bottom of the social hierarchy) to make the
‘right’ decisions.
Moffatt’s review of the opportunities and challenges of embedding
‘desistance thinking’ into criminal justice systems notes that the management culture of the English and Welsh criminal justice system has
failed those it supervises. In a critique of some of the changes which it
has undergone, he writes:
The demand to reach targets affected the working culture within
probation. A new level of managers was recruited to deal with
the influx of accredited programmes, many of whom did not deal
directly with offenders. They were seen as ‘inordinately obsessed
with meeting targets and practice becoming secondary as ‘it
wasn’t their concern’. Little thought was given to improvements
and understanding what constituted good probation supervision.
Respondents felt that ‘skills were marginalised’ as a culture of
self-defence became the norm, ‘the constructive side of probation
began to play second fiddle to the oversight side’. Frontline practitioners, especially those new to the service, were encouraged to
believe if an offender completed a programme they would change.
Probation officers stopped home visits and talking to families and
in the eyes of some ‘actually didn’t help people’.
(2014, pp. 10–11)
He goes on:
Probation lost the desire and motivation to work with offenders
leading to a loss of core values, and case management became ‘an
administrative function rather than a therapeutic or change focused
one’. Service users viewed probation as ‘an organisation that trips
you up and wants to catch you out rather than wanting to help you’.
(2014, p. 11)
This, of course, resonates with the ‘self-progression’ quote from Mickey
in Chapter 12. In the USA, as one might well imagine, the situation has
not looked especially promising either (see the quote from Shover and
246
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
Henderson (1995, p. 243) in Chapter 12. Nevertheless, what I perceive
as the slow death of ‘programmes’ in the criminal justice system offers
a new hope that other, more creative forms of intervention may find
the room to flourish. Let me turn to some of the things which we might
want to do in terms of practice.
Turning ideas into action on the ground
If I have taken one thing from my studies of Thatcherism and its
effects on the citizens of the UK, it is that ‘ideas matter’. But, ideas
remain only ideas without the imagination to turn some aspects of
them into practices and policies which can be actioned. So, how might
one start to put some of the ideas in the previous section into a series
of statements which might be of use to those working in the criminal
justice system? This, at first glance, appears a virtually impossible
task. There is no ‘Desistance Handbook’. There is no simple ’10-step
guide’ to desisting. The processes are unique to each individual –
even if some more common processes can be picked out. As such,
putting this into a series of statements which can be followed in a set
order with outcomes within some range and with any degree of certainty is wishing for the moon on a stick. The best which I can offer at
present (culled from the work of Fergus McNeill, Beth Weaver, Shadd
Maruna and, at times, myself) is as follows. My overall argument is
that criminal justice systems need to assess what people require to
ensure that they will stop offending, and then, attempt to put these
features of their lives in place in such a way that they do actually stop
offending. Naturally, this approach has a number of similarities to
the strengths-based perspectives (Ward & Maruna, 2007).1 The aim
is for the individual concerned to ‘earn their way back into society’
(rather than just being supervised and controlled in such a manner
as to make offending on their part impossible, which would be an
approach developed from a ‘crime control’ perspective).
Shadd Maruna, Fergus McNeill and I used to lament to each other that
the problem with desistance (as an idea) was that there was no desistance
handbook with 10 weeks’ worth of exercises and tasks for attendees to
complete which could be ‘sold’ (either literally or figuratively) to probation services and so on. Unlike, for example, some of the (I think) rather
dubious programmes based on some peculiarly individualised ideas
about why people start to offend and almost no understanding of why
they might stop, we had no glossy, ring-bound folders we could flog.
I now think that such flexibility (in terms of the adoption of such ideas)
247
Conclusions
may be an asset. Millennials want to embrace their ‘uniqueness’; if the
what works movement was an attempt to individualise Fordist methods
of service delivery (i.e. the system delivers content as a pre-designed,
Fordist, fixed diet, but the success or failure is [wrongly] attributed to
the ‘failings’ of staff or probationers to deliver it properly or to grasp it
fully), then the move to a fully post-Fordist system of service delivery
which embraces uniqueness (even if this is something of a constructed
myth) might make our ideas more palatable to a generation now in their
20s, but who will take control of the political and policy agendas 20 to
30 years from now.
Thinking about the actual delivery of working practices associated
with desistance, McNeill (2003), suggests that desistance-focused work
has two elements to it; the first relates to the assessment and planning
phase, and the second to the actual programme of work:
• Assessment Planning phase: assessments need to be individualised,
and related to the specific situations of each individual being assessed.
This work needs to be focused on levels of personal maturity, social
bonds and the attitudes towards and motivations surrounding
offending, as well as their narrative constructions of their past actions
and sense of self.
• At this stage, the criminal justice worker and the probationer
jointly assess how each of the previous ideas can (or might in the
future) help or hinder the latter ’s prospects of desisting. Do any
of these offer ‘a hook for change’ in Giordano et al.’s perspective
(2002)?
Having developed an understanding of these areas, the worker and
the probationer need to assess the extent to which they are ‘working’
towards desistance. Those which are will need to be supported. Those
which are not may be harnessed to do so, whilst those which may be
likely to lead to offending will need to be mitigated or defended against.
The aim is to reinforce positives whilst challenging negatives. When it
comes to the interventions themselves, McNeill suggests that staff and
the probationer focus on:
• motivations;
• attitudes;
• thinking and values;
248
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
and that the aim is to
• work with families (if appropriate);
• find suitable accommodation;
• develop skills (human and social capital).
Further to this, Beth Weaver and Fergus McNeill (2007) suggest a
number of principles:
• Be realistic. Relapse is common. Change takes time to be produced.
Patience is required by all involved.
• Utilise informal interventions over formal ones. Informal interventions are more flexible and generally less stigmatising. Formal interventions tend to create further formal sanctions if transgressions
occur.
• This means trying to avoid imprisonment unless essential.
• Formal criminal justice organisations need to build good relationships
between themselves and ex-offender charities and societies.
• ‘One size fits all’ approaches do not work as effectively as approaches
which are tailor-made to the requirements of specific individuals
(their pasts, strengths and desired futures).
• Since social contexts are as important as individual contexts, formal
agencies need to work with communities.
• Terminologies which stigmatise ought to be avoided.
• Criminal justice systems need to more readily promote redemption.
• Punishments have to end, and such endings need to be recognised
and respected.
McNeill, Farrall, Lightowler, and Maruna (2012) argued that, in addition to the ideas listed, criminal justice system employees ought to:
• work with people (as opposed to thinking of people as things which
need to be ‘fixed’);
• recognise that relationships matter to people, and harness the power
of relationships in order to support desistance;
249
Conclusions
• maintain hope (as well as motivation), since hope is a key variable
which can support individuals during periods of difficulty and of
change (since it sustains individuals’ longer term goals);
• assist probationers in their attempts to develop their stock of social
capital in order for them to acquire and use the human capital skills
needed to achieve their goal;
• avoid identifying people by the behaviours they wish to leave behind
(e.g. ‘offender’).
Building on these points, Bottoms and Shapland (2019) suggested that
criminal justice staff need to help people change their daily routines (see
Farrall et al., 2014, Ch 7) and to practice newly developed social identities (such as ‘parent’, ‘employee’ and so on). They additionally suggested that local criminal justice systems and those delivering services
ought to develop 24/7 support services for those facing temptations (an
idea based on the insights regarding temptations and the loss of motivation developed by Halsey et al., 2016). Correctional services need to find
ways to formally recognise and ‘certify’ progress and change (Maruna,
2001; Maruna & LeBel, 2003; Maruna, 2011).
Some things we could try
In this section I want to summarize those studies (sometimes evaluations) which have attempted to pursue the sorts of interventions, policies
and practices which could promote desistance. Many of these already
exist (albeit it not in every country). There are others which I have not
discussed herein (such as restorative justice schemes), although they
clearly have the potential to assist and promote desistance (see Robinson & Shapland, 2008). Do not, therefore, treat this discussion as in any
way exhaustive.
The ways in which assessments of needs are undertaken can be
changed so as to facilitate the identification of an individual’s strengths.
Most risk assessment tools (such as SAPROF or SARN-TNA in the USA
or OASys in England and Wales) score various aspects of an individual’s social and personal circumstances in terms of their risk of further
offending. The scales usually run from 0 (no risk) to 10 (high risk). This
approach encourages staff (and the person being assessed) to view the
latter as representing the physical embodiment of risks. Strengths are not
identified (or officially recognised) at all. If the scale could be extended
to run from −10 (a severe risk) to +10 (a strength) with 0 representing a
neutral point (something which was neither a risk nor a strength), this
250
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
would embed a view of the person being assessed as having strengths
and aid the identification of these in such a way which might enable a
programme of planned work which would be more focused on their
positives.
Many individuals, we found, especially during the fifth sweep of
interviews, wanted to ‘give back’ or to make amends for past failings
and offending. This can be achieved at an individual level via sponsorships to complete marathons and so on with the money going to a good
cause of some sort. This could be arranged at an institutional level; why
not have justice system staff and former service-users running marathons together for charities, for example? Another way of giving back
was discussed by Burnett and Maruna (2006). They studied a scheme
run by one local Citizens Advice Bureau. Such bureaus in the UK offer
free advice and advocacy services relating to legal matters. The service
is offered over the phone and in person at a number of locally based centres. One such bureau was unable to cope with the number of calls they
were receiving, and so approached a local open prison (that is a prison
which accommodated low-risk inmates, often near the end of their sentences) and asked for help. The inmates were temporarily released to
answer calls at the CAB. They had their skills base refreshed, and were
reacclimatised to an office environment. They found it a de-stigmatising
experience, as well as one which helped to create civic-values and feelings of having given something back.
As well as the ASSET and Springboard schemes outlined in Chapter 12 (see also Sarno et al.’s, 2000 evaluation of these schemes) some
employers in the UK actively recruit employees from those serving
sentences within the prison system. Timpson’s, who run an extensive
network of cobblers and locksmiths, have created a series of Training Academies inside prisons. Once released, inmates they are fully
trained and able to work in Timpson’s shops. When released, someone
from Timpson’s will often meet them at the prison gates, before introducing them to their new work colleagues and providing them lunch
and time for them to settle them in to their new job. Jobs, Friends and
Homes is run by a charity based in Blackpool, England. The scheme
trains people in recovery or on release from prison in a range of building trade professions with a view to employing them to assist in the
tasks of renovating and leasing domestic properties in the Blackpool
area. The evaluation of the scheme emphasised the extent to which it
was able to develop the social and human capital of those employed
by it (Hall, Best, & Musgrove, 2019). The scheme deliberately used
prominent logos on their vans and their uniforms in order to publicly
demonstrate that former drug addicts and offenders could perform
251
Conclusions
(and were performing) socially beneficial roles in the local community.
The scheme provided a wider social network for those involved and
gave employees a non-deviant sense of identity and meaningful activities outside of work. This social network extended to other professional and community-support groups which could support individual’s needs and processes of recovery. Jobs, Friends and Homes appears
to have produced reductions in offending and substance use outcomes
noted (Hall et al., 2019).
Kirkham prison in Lancashire (England) recognised that one of the
problems facing men on release related to repairing damaged family
relationships. Furthermore, if such relationships proved to be difficult,
the men may turn to their peer group for support (which could lead to
further offending, since such peers were often in trouble with the police
themselves). The prison aimed to empower the families of small numbers
of men facing release at around the same time as one another, so that
they could access support for the member of their family being released.
The families were formed into ‘cohorts’ of six or seven, and were encouraged (as families) to assess the employment, training, recreation, peer
networks and volunteering experiences of ‘their’ inmate. They were then
asked to think of who could assist them and which new connections they
would need to forge for themselves. In a subsequent session, they were
asked to reflect on how they had got on with exploiting existing networks
and forging new ones. Barriers and ways of overcoming these were
exchanged in group sessions. Over time those involved in each cohort
of inmates facing release and their families moved from helping themselves to helping each other, thus increasing their social capital. Evaluations of the programme suggested that it had increased the confidence of
the family members to seek out support for their returning family member, increased their social capital and their well-being and sense of hope.
A similar idea not unrelated to this are prison-based ‘Homework Clubs’,
where the children of inmates take their school homework into prison to
complete with their parents. Such a scheme is being run in England at
HMP Wymott.
Circles of Support and Accountability, although initially developed
to work with sex offenders, offer another model of supporting and
promoting desistance. Working in the community and formed by a
partnership of the police, probation services and local public protection teams as well as other child protection professionals, a Circle
of Support and Accountability consists of four to six of volunteers
from a local community. These volunteers form a circle of support
around someone found guilty of a sexual offence. The circle provides
252
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
a support network, but also requires the person they are working with
to take responsibility for his or her risk management. The circle meets
regularly and might also have face-to-face or phone contact between
meetings. Whilst these circles have been used for those convicted of
sexual offences, there may be potential in extending this to include
people convicted of other offence types.
Building on the insights of labelling theories, it has been recognised that the criminal justice system routinely labels individuals (such as ‘victim’ or ‘offender’) and that these labels are hard to
shrug off, especially so if these are negatives labels. Some have suggested that the criminal justice system try to create de-certification
processes. This might, for example, involve those who have been
sentenced returning to the court where they were sentenced in order
for the end of the sentence to be marked and their progress towards
change celebrated and encouraged. Maruna (2011) has suggested
that certificates of rehabilitation be awarded as part of these sessions,
in the way that awards are given at university degree ceremonies. In
France, criminal records are organised and structured so as to avoid
them hindering access to employment (which has frequently been
cited as an associate of desistance). In France, criminal records are
stratified into three groups, the highest two of which are accessible to
only the courts and other public services. The third (and lowest) tier
is the only one made public. Prospective employees might be asked
by a potential employer to provide a copy of the third tier, which,
unlike the higher two, contains very little information. For example,
prison sentences of up to two years (the vast majority of custodial
sentences in France) are not mentioned in the lowest level. In addition, old court files are destroyed after a certain period of time (Herzog-Evans, 2011). This means that previous convictions cannot be
used in some sentencing decisions or to bar people from some forms
of employment. Those convicted in courts can ask that courts not to
formally record the conviction (again, allowing greater chances of
employment). Courts are able to agree with the convicted individual
that some form of behaviour will be used to signify that individual’s
‘redemption’.
This is not an exhaustive list of schemes which could be developed
further or adopted in the UK. Nor are they all going to work, or work
as effectively in the UK or all cases. Nevertheless, the imagination of
such schemes and the enthusiasm with which they have been adopted
by criminal justice staff and those they work with suggests that there is
both the need and the appetite for such approaches.
253
Conclusions
Reflections on the development of the field of desistance studies:
what might we want to do next?
Finally, let me bring this chapter to a close by reflecting on what is
needed to both develop both academic studies of desistance and the
policy interventions which may flow from them.
One idea is to repeat, as closely as now can be, the original study. This
would enable us to assess the extent to which community supervision has
become more (or less) effective since the late 1990s. More international comparisons of desistance, I think are needed. Those conducted by Osterman
(2018) and Segev (2020) suggest that macro-level processes and cultural
forms shape desistance, as do those of different groups of desisters (such as
Calverley’s study, 2013). The criminal justice systems in the UK, especially
as it relates to community disposals, are very heterogenetic. Cross-national
studies, could, for example, include those north and south of the English/
Scottish border. In Scotland the links between social work philosophies and
criminal justice work have remained largely intact, whilst in England this
has not been the case. I think that there is much to be learnt both north and
south of that border from a study which examined desistance and attempts
to support it led by the criminal justice system/s. Further comparisons of
much less culturally and geo-politically similar countries would also prove
beneficial too I am sure.
One of the perennial problems with longitudinal research projects is
securing further funding. A recent application for a further round of
interviews with the cohort studied in this book (and which would have
focused on persistent offending amongst those who had not desisted)
was turned down by the potential funder (without being sent out for
review) on the basis that they did not fund the continuation of existing
studies. This philosophy strikes me as defensible if the request is for
more money to carry on doing the same project without recognising
temporal change in the object of enquiry or change at the individual
level. However, since longitudinal research very much recognises temporal, institutional, organisational and individual level change and,
as such, as at its heart the variable which many studies exclude by
cross-sectional designs (namely time), it strikes me as a rather worrying development. A common topic of conversation amongst those of us
who have run longitudinal studies which have relied on conducting,
overseeing and paying for repeated rounds of fieldwork is the trouble
of securing further funding time and time again. Whilst funders have,
very much to their credit, recognised the need to support early career
scholars, or those wishing to undertake secondary data analyses, or
those engaged in cross-national studies (such the Open Research Area
254
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
scheme), I am unaware of any such funding scheme which takes seriously the idea that individual-level longitudinal research designs provide ideal vehicles for studying processes of change over time (either
following interventions, or those changes which are unprompted by any
systematic input(s)). If our knowledge base is to grow and expand (and
I use the ‘our’ here to embrace social scientists outwith the criminological enterprise) then such a programme which declares outright the
need for longitudinal studies (even of quite time-limited processes – or
‘short-ditudnal’ studies as I have jokingly referred to them in the past)
would be most welcome.
I have benefited enormously from my engagement in the project
which this book and the other two in the series have been the outcomes
of. It has made me engage in work which I would otherwise not have,
forced me to think about the best techniques and ethics of re-interviewing, and to embark upon discussions with policy-makers both in the
UK and further afield. The thanks and acknowledgements I gave at the
outset of the first book, and those at the start of the second and third,
remain, but over time I have come to recognise, perhaps in keeping with
those whose lives I have studied, just how much I owe to my former
and current colleagues, friends and the wider criminological community which has helped to sustain my enthusiasm and energies over the
past 20 to 25 years. In addition, I would especially like to thank Fergus
and Shadd for their Foreword, and Isabelle, Martine, Mark and Pepe for
their reflections on the original book – all of which, I think, help to locate
the book and what it tried to accomplish better than I ever could. As well
as conversations with them over the years, I have enjoyed and learnt much
from conversations and writing projects with Joanna Shapland, Tony Bottoms, David Gadd, David Best, Mark Halsey, Gwen Robinson and Susan
McVie. Finally, I dedicate this edition to the late Roger Hood, who served
as my D.Phil. supervisor, boss and general mentor, and who shaped the
project and the analyses in numerous ways. Thank you all.
Note
1 Strengths-based approaches offer an alternative to what they describe as ‘needs
based’ or ‘deficits’ models which inadvertently view those being supervised or
worked with as having several deficits in their social or personal lives which
need to be remedied or controlled (Maruna and LeBel, 2003). This broad family
of approaches aim to focus on the strengths which ex-offenders possess, rather
than on their deficiencies. Such strengths may simply be things which are not
risks (such as a strong bond with an elderly relative who is law-abiding) or things
255
Conclusions
which might actually positively assist the would be desister (such as a strong
bond with a law-abiding family, and who might be able to offer, for example,
routes into employment or secure accommodation).
References
Bottoms, T., & Shapland, J. (2019). Introducing ‘desistance’ into criminal justice
supervision policies and practices. In S. Farrall (Ed.), The architectures of desistance. London: Routledge.
Bourideu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brown, M., & Ross, S. (2010). Mentoring, social capital and desistance. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 31–50.
Burnett, R., & Maruna, S. (2006). The kindness of strangers. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(1), 83–106.
Calverley, A. (2013). Cultures of desistance. London: Routledge.
Farrall, S., & Bowling, B. (1999). Structuration, human development and desistance from crime. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 252–267.
Farrall, S., Burke, N., & Hay, C. (2016). Revisiting Margaret Thatcher’s law and order
agenda: The slow-burning fuse of punitiveness. British Politics, 11(2), 205–231.
Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2006). Understanding desistance from crime, crime and
justice series. London: Open University Press.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., Jennings, W., & Hay, C. (2016). Thatcherite ideology, housing tenure, and crime: The socio-spatial consequences of the right to buy for
domestic property crime. British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1235–1252.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Jones, P. M. (2019). Council house sales, homelessness and
contact with the criminal justice system: Evidence from the NCDS and BCS70
birth cohorts. Geoforum, 107, 188–198.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Jones, P. M. (2020a). The role of radical economic restructuring in truancy from school and engagement in crime. British Journal of
Criminology, 60(1), 118–140.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Jones, P. M. (2020b). Politics, social and economic change
and crime: Exploring the impact of contextual effects on offending trajectories. Politics and Society, Special Issue ‘Societies Under Stress’, 48(3), 357–388.
Farrall, S., & Hay, C. (2010). Not so tough on crime? Why weren’t the thatcher
governments more radical in reforming the criminal justice system? British
Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 550–569.
Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., & Calverley, A. (2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime, clarendon studies in criminology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrall, S., & Jennings, W. (2012). Policy feedback and the criminal justice
agenda: An analysis of the economy, crime rates, politics and public opinion
in post-war Britain. Contemporary British History, 26(4), 467–488.
256
Rethinking . . . 20 years later
Farrall, S., & Maltby, S. (2003). The victimisation of probationers. Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 32–54.
Farrall, S., Sharpe, G., Hunter, B., & Calverley, C. (2011). Theorising structural
and individual-level processes in desistance and persistence: Outlining an
integrated perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
44(2), 218–234.
F.-Dufour, I., & Brassard, R. (2014). The convert, the remorseful and the rescued:
Three different processes of desistance from crime. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 313–335.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., & Rudolph, J. (2002). Gender, crime and desistance. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064.
Hall, L., Best, D., & Musgrove, A. (2019). Recovery and communities. In S. Farrall (Ed.), The architecture of desistance (pp. 229–248). London: Routledge.
Halsey, M., Armstrong, R., & Wright, S. (2016). F*ck it! British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1041–1060.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011). Judicial rehabilitation in France. European Journal of
Probation, 3(1).
Jennings, W., Farrall, S., & Bevan, S. (2012). The economy, crime and time: An
analysis of recorded property crime in England & Wales 1961–2006. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(3), 192–210.
LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The ‘chicken and egg’
of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of
Criminology, 5(2), 131–159.
MacDonald, R., & Marsh, J. (2006). Disconnected youth? London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
Maruna, S. (2011). Judicial rehabilitation and the clean bill of health in criminal
justice. European Journal of Probation, 3(1).
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. (2003). Welcome home? Examining the “re-entry court”
concept from a strengths-based perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4(2),
91–107.
McNeill, F. (2003). Desistance-focussed probation practice. In E. Chui, & M. Nellis (Eds.), Moving probation forward. London: Pearson Education.
McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). Re-examining evidence based practice in community corrections: Beyond “a confined view” of
what works. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 35–60.
Moffatt, S. (2014). Prospects for a desistance agenda. London: Criminal Justice
Alliance.
Osterman, L. (2018). Penal cultures and female desistance. London: Routledge.
Robinson, G., & Shapland, J. (2008). Reducing recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 337–358.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making. London: Harvard University Press.
257
Conclusions
Sarno, C., Hearnden, I., Hedderman, C., Hough, M., Nee, C., & Herrington, V.
(2000). Working their way out of offending. Home Office Research Study No. 218.
London: Home Office.
Segev, D. (2020). Desistance and societies in comparative perspective. London:
Routledge.
Shover, N., & Henderson, B. (1995). Repressive crime control and persistent
thieves. In H. Barlow (Ed.), Crime and public policy. Oxford: Westview.
Uggen, C., & Kruttschnitt, K. (1998). Crime in the breaking. Law and Society
Review, 32(2), 339–366.
Vaughan, B. (2007). The internal narrative of desistance. British Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 390–404.
Villeneuve, M-P., F.-Dufour, I., & Farrall, S. (2021). Assisted desistance in formal
settings: A scoping review. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(1), 75–100.
Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community. Annual
Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Weaver, B., & McNeill, F. (2007). Giving up crime: Directions for policy. Edinburgh:
Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice.
Reflections on
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Mark Halsey
Reflections on Rethinking What Works
It is a privilege to offer a retrospective commentary on Stephen Farrall’s
highly influential text Rethinking What Works with Offenders (RWWwO).
With just shy of 1,000 Google Scholar citations, it ranks as the leading
work on the topic of probation and desistance from crime. The observations I want to make about Farrall’s book span the areas of project
originality, methodology, conceptual clarity as well as implications for
my own work. In the spirit of this edition, what I offer in the following
are my personal reflections on a work published some two decades previously. To that extent, I have dispensed with extensive referencing and
adopted more of a biographical style and tone.
On the first topic, project originality, it is easy to forget – given the quite
significant “boom” in the number of probation-oriented scholarly studies completed in the last two decades – that RWWwO was one of the first
such studies in the UK, if not internationally (a key exception being Rex,
1999). There had been, to be fair, previous studies of probation (mainly
in the US) examining the supposed causal link between interventions
and outcomes (e.g., Irish, 1989; Morgan, 1994; Sims & Jones, 1997; MacKenzie, Browning, Skroban, & Smith, 1999). But none sought to delve as
deeply into, as Farrall (2002, p. 14) calls it, the ‘ “black box” of criminal
justice system interventions’. On that count alone, RWWwO stands as a
seminal work. It is the willingness to inquire into the phenomenology as
well as the more ‘objective’ place of such variables as peers, family relationships, employment, motivation to desist, experience of the criminal
justice system (including dealings with police or with court personnel,
length of time served, number of prior periods of incarceration etc.),
and, of course, the responsiveness and empathic dimensions of probation work, that strikes as wholly original, not to mention ambitious.
It is and remains a centrally important book because it focuses on the
lived experience of a sanction that, if completed successfully, has the
259
Reflections on Rethinking What Works
potential to avoid untold economic and social costs associated with the
much ‘deeper’ sanction of incarceration and all the harms associated
with such.
Another key dimension of the book’s originality is the reconceptualization of probation as a potentially agentic practice of the probationer
and the probation officer. It effectively demands that corrective services
personnel think more critically and reflexively about their role(s) and
the implications of taking a more or less compliance-oriented stance to
the job as against a much more nuanced and supportive approach to
probation work. Indeed, Farrall repeatedly asks the key question: What,
precisely, is probation work? What does it look like when it is working
well? And what does it look when it is working in a less than optimal
fashion? To my mind, it is the skilful weaving of the agentic and structural/rule-driven dimensions involved in the probation-probationer
dyad that stands as one of the lasting legacies of the book. Probationary
work and being a probationer are intersubjective processes, not discrete
roles – or at least they should be when and where it is done well. That
insight has profound implications for other areas of ‘casework’ across
both the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems.
With regard to methodology, the approach to data collection still stands
as remarkably impressive. Spanning six distinct locales across England,
199 probationers (and their probation officers), just over 1000 interviews
(111 of which were tape recorded), and three waves of interviewing, it
remains one of the most in-depth explorations of the probation and desistance process to date. I have always thought it remarkable that Farrall
(and his team of research assistants) managed to retain such an impressive proportion of original participants over the life of the project –
specifically, 100 of 199 originally sampled probationers were interviewed at all three sweeps. Anyone who has embarked on a large-scale
predominantly qualitative study involving traditionally hard to access
or “invisible” populations would know of the herculean task involved
here. On that count alone, the book rings with authority – that is, the
breadth and depth of data places the claims and theoretical perspectives
advanced throughout the work on very solid ground. Additionally, the
care taken to ensure representativeness of key characteristics amongst
Farrall’s cohort compared with what is generally known about the
age, offence history, length of order, gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic background of probationers in England/UK was also deftly
managed. Again, that in itself is no mean feat and has assisted greatly to
maintain the explanatory power of the book’s main themes and results.
In relation to conceptual clarity, RWWwO weaves a number of complex threads together around the emergence, sustaining or derailing of
260
Reflections on Rethinking What Works
desistance, as well as the role and place of optimism, pessimism and
confidence. One of the fairly stark conclusions of the book is that probation officers play likely only a minor role in sparking and assisting desistance. There was not much evidence of officers getting meaningfully
and productively involved in probationers’ lives. In fact, three of the
most important things desired by probationers – resolution of employment, housing and family problems – were constructed by officers as
falling outside their direct remit in terms of provision of effective probation work. But this is not to say that had such assistance been actively
evidenced that probationers would not have reported positively on
such. There is a difference, in other words, between the type of probation work
experienced by Farrall’s cohort of probationers and the type of probation work
that one might describe as optimal for supporting desistance.
In terms of my own work, the book has caused me to think about how
the pieces of supported desistance could be better organised and put
into practice. It prompted me to think about how this could be done in
a manner which balanced structure in probation work with what might
be termed appropriate innovation. In a sense, the book posed as many
questions as it resolved. And that, to my mind, is a strength not a shortcoming. I want to briefly mention just two of my own projects that have
been influenced by RWWwO (as well as Farrall’s subsequent work). The
first concerns my longitudinal study of repeat offending and desistance
from crime which sought to use a qualitative framework to understand
the pathways into prison, experiences and impacts of incarceration,
and post-release journeys of a cohort of young men aged 15 to 29 years
(Halsey & Deegan, 2015). That study resulted in 284 interviews within
and beyond prison (with some young men interviewed a dozen times
across a decade), and relied heavily on Farrall’s pioneering work on the
relationship between structure and agency in the desistance process. But
more fundamental to that book – and to the project’s genesis – was the
idea that such a task could be undertaken at all and that it might bear
some fruit in terms of policy and practice. I commenced work on that
study around 2003. Many years later, I cannot overstate the importance
of having been able to refer to a limited number of works which had
sought (successfully) to repeatedly interview vulnerable and hard-toaccess populations over a lengthy period. More specifically, the capacity
to cite such works (essentially, empirically based scholarly precedents)
within scoping, funding and ethics applications was of fundamental consequence. RWWwO was central in that regard and I think this
is something that is possibly too often forgotten. Someone has to be at
the front of the train pushing into unknown territory. Farrall took on
precisely that mantle in RWWwO. My sense is that many others have
261
Reflections on Rethinking What Works
benefited from that type of risk-taking when having to quell doubts
from various quarters surrounding the value of longitudinal qualitative
work that seeks to understand the “messiness” but also the hope and
successes within people’s lives.
A second project that I want briefly to make mention of concerns a
comparative study of assisted desistance within two Australian prisons
(supported by NSW Corrective Services). RWWwO has, as mentioned
earlier, led to and informed a large literature on desistance from crime.
The concept of (what is now termed) assisted desistance was in essence
pioneered by Farrall in RWWwO with the term more definitively coined
and captured by King (2013) a decade or so later (with reference, also,
to Rex (1999)). One of the strengths of RWWwO is that the themes and
concepts within the book are, with appropriate nuance, transposable
to other contexts. In the case of prisons, I worked with colleagues to
understand the nature, relative ‘embeddedness’, and impacts of assisted
desistance in two very different prisons (both of similar population size
and security rating but which seemingly evince very different capacities
for ‘rehabilitation’). Using a co-designed approach – that is, involving
prison officers and prisoners in the design/content of the relevant survey instruments – the project asked those who live and work in such
places about how the primary, secondary and tertiary dimensions of
desistance are supported and/or thwarted within such environments.
This study borrows inspiration from RWWwO and from Farrall’s (2016)
more recent self-reflection on that work, in the hope of producing a conceptually and empirically defensible account of how desistance might
meaningfully be sparked, engaged and sustained in custodial environments. We make no assumptions about the sequencing of the primary,
secondary and tertiary dimensions of desistance but ‘hypothesise’ that
the tertiary element is too often neglected and likely prevents more
meaningful work being done in prisons to assist with positive identity
change that can survive not only incarceration, but beyond prison walls.
In the final chapter of RWWwO, Farrall (2002, p. 208) writes, ‘Just as
seeds thrown on stony ground will not take root, so efforts to resolve
particular obstacles will come to little if the conditions for success are
not present, or do not emerge quickly’. I take that statement to mean
desisting from crime requires more than the right quantum of personal
motivation. It requires also – perhaps especially – a modicum of good
relationships and material circumstances to desist into (McNeill, 2012,
p. 30). And that means, in the tradition of RWWwO and the best criminological work, acknowledging that people’s (probationers’, prisoners’,
etc.) struggles for a better life are best conceived not around individual
pursuits but as a collective endeavour.
262
Reflections on Rethinking What Works
References
Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders, (1/e). Cullompton: Willan Publishing. With a Foreword by Christine Knott, Chief Probation Officer,
Greater Manchester Probation Area.
Farrall, S. (2016). Understanding desistance in an assisted context. In J. Shapland, S. Farrall, & A. Bottoms (Eds.), Global perspectives on desistance: Reviewing
what we know and looking to the future (pp. 187–203). London: Routledge.
Halsey, M., & Deegan, S. (2015). Young offenders: Crime, prison, and struggles for
desistance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Irish, J. F. (1989). Probation and recidivism: A study of probation adjustment and its
relationship to post-probation outcome for adult criminal offenders in Nassau County,
New York. Mineola, NY: Nassau County Probation Department.
King, S. (2013). Assisted desistance and experiences of probation supervision.
Probation Journal, 60(2), 136–151.
MacKenzie, D. L., Browning, K., Skroban, S. B., & Smith, D. A. (1999). The impact
of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 36(4), 423–453.
McNeill, F. (2012). Four forms of “offender” rehabilitation: Towards an interdisciplinary perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 18–36.
Morgan, K. D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 22(4), 341–353.
Rex, S. (1999). Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. The Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 366–383.
Sims, B., & Jones, M. (1997). Predicting success or failure on probation: Factors associated with felony probation outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 43(3),
314–327.
263
A commentary on
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Isabelle F.-Dufour
A commentary on Rethinking by F.-Dufour
This new edition of Rethinking What Works with Offenders is an opportunity to take stock of the exceptional contribution of this flagship book to
the study of desistance. Before recognizing this contribution, I will take
a few lines to signify the major impact this book had on my own career.
In a recent lecture on the links between RNR (risk-need-responsivity)
and desistance, Shadd Maruna (2020) mentioned the following quote
from Pawson (2006, p. 20) ‘Evidence-based policy is dominated by one
question. Attend a conference, read a textbook, peruse a proposal, buy a
tee-shirt on that said topic and somewhere in the headline font appears
the phrase “what works”. However, for all Canadian researchers, this
significance is even greater and I would add, ‘We are what works’.
Indeed, in the short history of criminology in Canada, there is nothing (to my knowledge) that has made us prouder than this resistance
to ‘nothing works’. Although we know more about the limits of ‘what
works’, we must not forget that this almost unshakeable belief of Canadian researchers but also of the Canadian population towards rehabilitation (Roberts, 2003), has protected us from the mass incarceration
observed amongst our southern neighbours.
In my case, this quasi-religious Canadian belief in ‘what works’ was
also a source of uneasiness and doubts. Being trained in social work,
I was quickly exposed to the work of Denis Saleebey on the strengths
perspective – which would then become central to the profession of
social work (Saleebey, 1996; Saleebey & Saleebey, 2013). It was therefore
difficult to adhere to an intervention model that emphasised the deficits
(skilfully identified as ‘needs’) of ‘offenders’. I was in the midst of a
loyalty dispute. How to reject the model which had adorned us with the
worst excesses, which allowed us, Canadian researchers, to be invited
to all forums to praise the ‘Canadian model’ when I was the only one
(that I believed) who could not believe in the famous slogan of ‘the right
264
A commentary on Rethinking
treatment, for the right person at the right time’? I happened to lack the
courage.
It was completely by chance that I came across the book whose title
(very misleading in my opinion) has been spotted by databases because
it contains the terms ‘what works’. It was Summer 2006. From the
first sentence of the book, I knew something was wrong: where were
Andrews and Bonta (1998)? Then, I read again:
The purpose of this book is to explore and throw further light on the
processes that occur during probation supervision which are either
conducive to desistance or which contribute to further offending.
Whilst it is true that the correlates of recidivism and desistance
are well known, the mechanisms by which these correlates are
produced and the role that criminal justice sanctions play in this
remain less well understood.
(p. 3)
I kept on reading and, still more amazed, discovered the work of Sampson and Laub (1993), Burnett (1992), Warr (1998), Shover (1983) and
Maruna (1998) amongst others. I read the book cover to cover, wondering (incredulously): Who are these people? What is desistance? Once
the book was finished (a few hours later), I knew that I had just found
the object of study that was going to occupy my career: finally, someone
asked ‘how it works’ (Chapters 1 and 12).
I realise that such a confession is not without damaging my credibility
as a researcher: how could I have not known the work on desistance?
I will answer with the following analogy. Suppose you live in New York;
the first floor of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) that you are going
to walk through is undoubtedly the third, because you will want to
see the paintings of Andy Warhol who is the master of pop art and an
icon of the city. It is probably by chance that you will also discover the
expressionist works of the British artist Francis Bacon (also on the third
floor), and that you will just as easily have missed his immense talent.
This is what perhaps would have happened to me if the book had been
titled otherwise.
Boldness
In order to lend myself to writing this commentary, I re-read the original version of this book. What strikes me today is how daring you
must be to undertake such a study. At the time, there was not yet an
265
A commentary on Rethinking
operationalised definition of desistance (primary, secondary or tertiary),
nor was there was agreement on the length of time required to qualify
a person as ‘desisted’ (we still haven’t reached consensus, but we now
know that the process is quite long and slow), and there was so little
written on the factors that facilitate desistance (besides employment and
motivation to change, wear and tear on criminal life and, possibly, the
formation of a significant relationship). Above all, there were so very
few examples of studies that were interested in the ‘black box’ of probation. I just cannot imagine how it must have felt to study something
with such few conceptual and methodological reference points. I guess
it felt like jumping off a cliff.
Excessiveness
Anyone who has ever undertaken a qualitative research study knows
how difficult it is to analyse and interpret data when the sample exceeds
30 or 40 respondents. One quickly becomes overwhelmed by the number of themes, by ordering the categories, by the proliferation of meaning units and by the extent of the codification tree. However, Stephen
and his team conducted nearly 1,000 interviews as part of this study.
This is gigantic, considering that the studies of 100 participants are considered extremely large (Mark, 2010; Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). The fact that he was able to trace and interview at least half
of his respondents on three occasions is also an achievement, especially
at a time when it was far harder to trace them through social media (e.g.
Facebook) which are much more common today. No matter how you
look at this sample, you cannot help but wonder how it was possible to
achieve such an exploit (not counting the fourth and fifth interviews),
nor feel dizzy imagining the work it took.
The theoretical quest
In the first version of this book, the author’s interest in macro-social
factors is already evident. Whilst the ‘what works’ is centred on the individual (his past, his family and social relationships, the use of his free
time and his relationship to work in particular), Stephen’s perspective
is centred on inequalities of access to employment and redistribution
of wealth which cause the impoverishment of individuals and neighbourhoods that offer few opportunities for change. This interest will
then materialise in his studies on desistance which take into account
266
A commentary on Rethinking
political, economic, historical and geographical factors and will lead
him to develop “the most daring” integrative model of desistance (Figure 13.3). The model is so comprehensive that its simple explanation
requires six pages of continuous text (this volume, pp. 234-240). In fact,
the theoretical framework is as ambitious as Stephen’s methodology in
this book: it is huge. So that by his own admission, Stephen confirms that
‘no one study would be sufficient to explore the theory outlined above’
(pp. 239) or perhaps only he would have the courage to try it. . .
Reserve
If this work is by all means, bold, huge, enormous and ambitious,
I found that interpretation of results were, in contrast, very cautious.
Is this a sign of the British reserve? I remember that when I first read
the book, I was surprised to read that ‘probation interventions appear
in many cases to have had little impact on either the obstacles faced by
probationers or their lives more generally’ (p. 116). Rather, I drew the
opposite conclusions from reading Chapter 10 (I will return to the role
of probation officers later). If we read Tables 10.1 and 10.2 from my point
of view, we will see that of the 199 probationers we must take out 42
individuals (21%) since it is impossible to know whether they persisted
or desisted from crime. Of the 157 remaining, 64 did not reoffend and
28 were showing signs of desisting. If we add the 20 others who were
committing trivial offences, it would mean that almost two-thirds of the
sample (64.9%) were engaged in some sort of process of desistance. If we
compare to the UK national statistics (which are so hard to grasp), it is
rather encouraging (Eaton & Mews, 2019).
I was even more impressed when I read that almost half of pessimists
were desisting. I often cite this result as the proof that motivation is not
the best predictor of desistance. I always wonder why Stephen did not
‘push’ this result much further. It is a major contribution to desistance (at
least from my point of view). Since then, I have dreamed of a book based
on the stories of these 17 men who believed they could not desist (and
were perceived as having very limited chances of doing it by their own
probation officer) and did it. Stephen wrote a short section about these
men at the end of Chapter 10, and recounts the stories of Jacob, Malcolm
and Clive and, guided by theoretical background available at the time,
he focused on Clive getting a job, finding a partner and being a father.
Even then, Clive is adamant about the role of his or her probation officer
in his desistance process. Surely, it is possible to see in these negative or
deviant cases (the ones that appear to contradict patterns or explanation,
267
A commentary on Rethinking
Patton, 2001 – here the importance of motivation for change) something
more than ‘the desisting pessimists appeared to desist as the result of
either change in their family or employment circumstances or because
of the advice of their officers’ (p.).
For my part, I called these individuals the ‘transformed’, since they
did not want to stop offending at the beginning of their sanctions but
were ‘dragged’ into stopping when they (re)endorsed social identities
(worker, parent, student, etc.) incompatible with their ‘criminal identity’
and then, had to renounce it (I. F.-Dufour, 2013). What is fascinating
(I think) with the transformed is that they all attribute their desistance
process to themselves, and they have very negative views of their probation officer, as said Ivan: ‘they are like pigs [policemen], but worse
than them! They do want to give you advice, noooo, they just want
to trick you [to confess something] and send you back [to prison]!’ (I.
F.-Dufour, 2015, p. 278). What I also found is that if you ask very precise
questions about who did what, another story emerges. Here is an example of Patrick who is told me that he found a job by himself: ‘I talked to
my PO about getting a job, but he was hesitant. Finally, I found a job as
a waiter by myself. [Me: How did you find this job?]. Well, it is my PO.
He sent me . . . do this waiter training . . . in this rehabilitation centre’. (I.
F.-Dufour, 2015, p. 279). So technically Patrick is right: he found the job.
However, would he have found it if he did not participate in the training
suggested by his probation officer? This question is now central to my
research on assisted desistance.
Assisted desistance
In 2015, I started to show interest in assisted desistance. If the term is
from Sam King (2013), I could not find a definition of it. After doing
a scoping review on assisted desistance, we came up with this definition: ‘all interventions directed towards judiciarized person that aim,
directly or indirectly, to cease offending and transform their identity’
(Isabelle F.-Dufour, Villeneuve, & Perron, 2018, p. 213) or in other words,
interventions that aim to help the person attend to the second stage of
desistance (as opposed to only aimed at reducing recidivism). We also
contrasted the formal assisted interventions that are offered by employees of the penal system (probation officer, correctional officer, etc.) from
those that we called informal assisted interventions that are also offered
to judiciarised persons but by professional or volunteers who do not
have a legal mandate of rehabilitating this person (ex. art, sports, mentors, wounded healers, etc.).
268
A commentary on Rethinking
Looking at formal assisted desistance, we found that the ‘talking’ (that
seems so banal to the transformed and pessimists from Stephen’s study)
is often how would-be desisters encountered new ways of understanding their situations, learnt about opportunities in the social structures
(‘hooks for change’, Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph (2002) and discovered housing organizations or trainings, etc. This talking seems to be
the best way to facilitate change instead of ‘doing the job’ for the probationers (Rex, 1999). Knowing this, I have a different understanding of
the results presented in Table 9.2. Whilst Stephen seems so disappointed
that probation officers did not attempt to resolve employment and family-related obstacles themselves, I do not think it is so bad. In fact, we
see that these initiatives are, often, unsuccessful (7 of 9 failed). It is when
the solutions emerged from the probationer that success was more frequent (91%), and I would argue that most of these solutions were either
directly or indirectly envisaged through ‘the talking’ or else, why suddenly, would probationers become so good at resolving difficulties they
faced (often) for many years?
Looking back at Chapter 7 (with what we now know about desistance), we also find great support for the idea that almost all offenders (94% in this study) want to stop offending. Shapland and Bottoms
(2011) also observed that judiciarised persons share the same dreams
as non-judiciarised persons namely: to buy a house, find a partner and
start a family. This idea that we all want ‘a good life’ is, of course, now
established and even serves as a base for interventions (Ward, 2002;
Ward & Maruna, 2007). Back then, it was something new (at least for
me). The RNR model was constructed around the idea that ‘offenders’
are different people to ‘us’: they have deficits in a wide range of areas,
they show no interest in pro-social activities (family and work), they
have antisocial traits, and so on. Stephen (and Burnett, 1992) were the
first to point out how they do not want to be criminals. Some were seen
as idealists (optimists), others as possible-desisters (confidents); we see,
also, how this perception fluctuated during the progression of the probation (some move ‘down’ in sweep two and ‘go up’ at sweep three –
Table 7.2). Stephen, at the time, interpreted this as fluctuation of motivation (as could be the case), but from what we have learned from assisted
desistance, I think it is rather a measure of hope.
At the beginning of their community sanctions, many judiciarised persons are relieved they did not end up in prison or see it as an opportunity to do ‘something different’ and can express hope that it will finally
change (F.-Dufour, 2013; Villeneuve, F.-Dufour, & Turcotte, 2020). Rapidly, they find themselves in a critical phase (Healy, 2012) and face so
many obstacles that it will be more difficult to stay optimists (Hunter &
269
A commentary on Rethinking
Farrall, 2017; Nugent & Schinkel, 2016); for some, it will be easier to
stop desisting. For those who keep fostering change (and are supported
in their efforts to do so), the next step will be easier. Their self-narrative will change. They will see a new future and then will express hope
again. I think this is exactly what is captured here: the different phase of
desistance (primary, secondary and tertiary) and the expression of hope
that goes with it.
I would add to this and argue that persisting pessimists also express a
lack of hope (or helplessness):
It is hard to account for the lack of change, but reading the interview transcripts one gains a sense of fatalism on the part of the
probationers, and from the officers a sense of being unable to help.
One officer reported how the probationer she was supervising had
‘gone in a full circle’ but was starting to realise that he needed more
help. She said she had tried to encourage him not to expect too
much of himself. At the final interview, the same officer reported
how the probationer would come to the probation office, but not
when scheduled to do so. When asked how much probation had
impacted upon the probationer, the officer said ‘nothing tangible’
and the probationer said ‘nothing really’.
(pp. 181–182)
From what we learned about assisted desistance, this expression of
helplessness is a major obstacle to desistance. Almost all studies on
assisted desistance show that it is ‘normal’ for would-be desisters to be
ambivalent towards change and express doubts about their abilities to
do so. But all assisted-desisters also said that their probation officers
helped them reframe their self-narratives in order to reconnect with
their strengths and to see their potential as a unique human being (Villeneuve, F.-Dufour & Farrall, 2021). It is therefore, not on the wouldbe-desister that we must look for hope, but more on the part of the
probation officer that should foster it. I think that is what differentiates the pessimists who persisted from those who desisted in Stephen’s study.
Conclusion
What strikes me many years later is how much we have learned from this
book. Aside from what it told us about inequalities in access to human
and social capital (Chapter 12) that would guide numerous studies to
270
A commentary on Rethinking
come, Stephen’s contribution on ‘how it works’ is major considering that
‘desistance’ originally meant ‘spontaneous or natural desistance’, which
is the exact opposite of looking at the black box of probation. It took a lot
of courage, work, boldness, determination and ingenuity (maybe?) to
embark in such an immense project. The contribution of this work (and
of Stephen’s work in general) on desistance is incommensurable and
no matter when you read this book (and how many times you read it),
it will change your perspective on probationers and probation officers.
I will finish my commentary with this except from the book (Chapter 12) because I think that what is expressed by this probationer,
20 years ago, is still true and should be at the centre of the answer to
‘how we should help’:
Something to do with self-progression. Something to show people
what they are capable of doing. I thought that that was what [my
officer] should be about. It’s finding people’s abilities and nourishing and making them work for those things. Not very consistent
with going back on what they have done wrong and trying to work
out why – ‘cause it’s all going around on what’s happened – what
you’ve already been punished for – why not go forward into something. . . . For instance, you might be good at writing – push that forward, progress that, rather than saying ‘well look, why did you kick
that bloke’s head in? Do you think we should go back into anger
management courses?’ when all you want to be is a writer. Does
that make any sense to you at all? Yeah, yeah. To sum it up, you’re
saying you should look forwards not back. Yeah. I know that you
do have to look back to a certain extent to make sure that you don’t
end up like that [again]. The whole order seems to be about going
back and back and back. There doesn’t seem to be much ‘forward’.
(p. 227)
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Ohio:
Anderson publishing.
Burnett, R. (1992). The dynamics of recidivism. Oxford: Center for Criminological
Research.
Eaton, G., & Mews, A. (2019). The impact of short custodial sentences, community
orders and suspended sentence orders on reoffending. London: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/814177/impact-shortcustodial-sentences.pdf.
271
A commentary on Rethinking
F.-Dufour, I. (2013). Réalisme critique et désistement du crime chez les sursitaires
Québécois: Appréhension des facteurs structurels, institutionnels et identitaires (Ph.
D.). Université Laval, Québec.
F.-Dufour, I. (2015). Le désistement assisté? Les interventions des agents de probation telles que perçues par des sursitaires qui se sont désistés du crime.
Criminologie, 48(2), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.7202/1033846ar
F.-Dufour, I., Villeneuve, I. M.-P. C., & Perron, I. (2018). Les interventions informelles de désistement assisté: une étude de la portée. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 60, 206–240.
Giordano, P., C., Cernkovich, S., A., & Rudolph, J., L. (2002). Gender, crime and
desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of
Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.
Healy, D. (2012). The dynamics of desistance. Charting pathways thourgh change.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Hunter, B., & Farrall, S. (2017). Emotions, future selves and the process of desistance. The British Journal of Criminology, 58(2), 291–308. doi:10.1093/bjc/azx017
King, S. (2013). Assisted desistance and experiences of probation supervision.
Probation Journal, 60(2), 136–151.
Mark, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative
interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in is research.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11–22. doi:10.1080/08874417.2
013.11645667
Maruna, S. (1998). Redeeming one’s self: How reformed ex-offenders make sense of
their lives. (Ph. D.). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Maruna, S. (2020). De la réhabilitation au désistement assisté: Transcender le
modèle médical.Criminologie,53(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.7202/1070500ar
Nugent, B., & Schinkel, M. (2016). The pains of desistance. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5), 568–584. doi:10.1177/1748895816634812
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
Rex, S. (1999). Desistance from offending: Experiences of probation. Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 366.
Roberts, J. V. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five
countries. In Studies in crime and public policy. Retrieved from http://site.
ebrary.com/id/10084855
Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41(3), 296–305.
Saleebey, D., & Saleebey, D. (2013). The strengths perspective in social work practice
(6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning
points through life. London: Harvard University Press.
Shapland, J., & Bottoms, A. (2011). Reflections on social values, offending and
desistance among young adult recidivists. Punishment & Society, 13(3), 256–
282. doi:10.1177/1462474511404334
272
A commentary on Rethinking
Shover, N. (1983). The later stages of ordinary property offender careers. Social
Problems, 31(2), 208–218.
Villeneuve, M.-P., F.-Dufour, I., & Farrall, S (2021). Assisted desistance in a formal settings: A scoping review. The Howard Journal.
Villeneuve, M.-P., F.-Dufour, I., & Turcotte, D. (2020). Désistement assisté: vecteur d’intégration sociocommunautaire pour des adolescents engagés dans
une délinquance grave ou persistante. Criminologie, 53(1), 225–252. https://
doi.org/10.7202/1070508ar
Ward, T. M. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises
and problems. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(5), 513–528. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00076-3
Ward, T. M., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. In
Key ideas in criminology. Retrieved from www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/
protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203962176
Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transition and desistance from crime. Criminology,
36(2), 183–216.
273
A commentary on
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Martine Herzog-Evans
Rethinking What Works with Offenders (hereafter Rethinking) was published
in 2002. I read it in about 2005, shortly before the follow-up publication
(Farrall & Calverley, 2005). Later on, I kept up with the majority of the
work yielded from the Tracking project (and notably Farrall, Hunter,
Sharpe, & Calverley, 2014).
Since Rethinking was published, theories of desistance have made significant progress (see e.g. Shapland, Farrall, & Bottoms, 2016). For instance,
regarding marriage, we have learnt how it impacts desistance, when it
does and under what conditions (Craig, Guerra, & Piquero, 2020). More
recently, as regards the issue of identity and identity shift (or narratives,
Maruna, 2001), more subtle dimensions have been investigated (Forney &
Ward, 2019; Na & Jang, 2019) and this with a variety of approaches (Walters, 2019). Stephen Farrall’s 2002 work has unquestionably stood the test
of time in as much as it has inspired further research. Nearly twenty years
later, however, desistance studies have still not developed a fully fledged
treatment model. As Stephen has put himself put it, there is no ‘desistance
handbook with 10 weeks’ worth of exercises and tasks for attendees to
complete which could be “sold”’ (Farrall, herein, p. 247). For the time
being, the main function of desistance studies is elsewhere: it lies in the
meticulous understanding, whether spontaneous or supported, of the
desistance process and in drawing attention to how ‘real world’ probation
and penal policies can impact this process.
Methodology: persistence, persistence and finesse
The first thing which Stephen’s work has taught me methodologically is
persistence. It is remarkable that he has limited attrition in his cohort to
274
A commentary on Rethinking
such a degree. Not only is it visible in the 2002 initial interviews; but he
has also managed to re-interview a great proportion of his subjects for
the latest sweep.
The second thing that Stephen masterfully illustrates is that research
breadth can only be acquired by measuring results that go far beyond
official statistical data. In my own research, I have endeavoured to
follow his example by systematically collecting the views of the main
stakeholders, i.e. probationers. That being said, I also recognise that
offenders’ interviews or self-reporting methods come with their own
load of difficulties – and Stephen does acknowledge this. In Rethinking,
the subjects were referred by their probation officers (POs) and there
were indeed attempts to limit selection biases. Nonetheless, it is to be
expected that probationers would have hoped that participating in the
research would give them bonus points with their supervisor. Even
when one makes sure that interviewees understand that they will not
get any reward for participating, it is often patent that they still hope
that it will influence decision-makers.
Very little work is done
The main finding of Rethinking, and the one which I refer to the most,
is that probation work as it exists in the real life of the CJS is unlikely
to make a significant dent in reoffending rates and, sadly, when it lacks
certain characteristics and qualities, much difference in people’s lives
at all. In spite of the many nuances and positive interpretation Stephen
instils in Rethinking, he does formulate his own Martinsonian headline:
‘the clearest findings to emerge in the study is that probation interventions
appear in many cases to have had little impact on either the obstacles faced
by probationers or their lives more generally’ (p. 116, emphasis added).
Indeed, Rethinking shows that when the interviewees are left to their
own device, they are just as likely (or unlikely) to overcome the obstacles they face.
More specifically, then, Rethinking shows that, overall, probation does
not help service users overcome the obstacles to the desistance process
which they encounter; that it does not concretely support desistance;
and that, at best, it provides psychological support. Stephen notes,
‘There appears to be a consensus amongst officers that talking about
obstacles to desistance with probationers will resolve them’ (p. 141).
Sadly, I reached similarly sobering conclusions in the French context
several years ago (Herzog-Evans, 2011, 2012).
275
A commentary on Rethinking
One of the reasons for this is that probation typically does not abide
by the Breadth principle (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Unfortunately, things
are unlikely to improve with contemporary McDonaldised (Robinson,
2018) a.k.a. managerial (Dubourg, 2015) probation.
Indeed, as Stephen documents, probationers spend roughly 20 hours
total contact with their probation officers which represents one-third of
1% of their time awake (Rethinking, p. 175). How can probation possibly
have any impact under such circumstances?
Another reason why probation does not make much of an impact is
mentioned on page 127: despite the work of POs or the efforts made by
the probationers the ‘wider social and personal context’ hampers the
resolution of desistance obstacles. Arguably, crime is not committed in
a vacuum and its treatment does not happen outside of the community.
As it happens, Stephen has just recently documented the impact of economic crisis on offending trajectories (Farrall, Gray, & Jones, 2020).
Another reason for probation’s lack of impact is alluded to on page 129:
‘Some offenders denied that probation could ever be of help’. Why might
this be so? One reason could be that these offenders were amongst the
most antisocial of his sample and rejected any form of help. More specifically, they could have had control/abuse schemas leading them not to
trust anyone offering their help (Keulen-de Vos, Bernstein, & Arntz, 2014).
Sociological approaches often dismiss the antisocial hypothesis in spite of
the considerable amount of research which has established its neuro-biological (Raine & Yang, 2006), its quantitative (Bonta & Andrews, 2017) and
its life-course (Moffitt, 2018) relevance. It is the interaction of economic-political and the psycho-neuro-biological explanations that best explain why
some people persistently offend and why they might not accept the help
and the hook for changes they are being offered.
There may also be institutional causes for the lack of impact of probation. One always assumes that probation is either useful or at least
neutral. In reality, probation can be controlling, abusive, and punitive
and, consequently, cause resistance (Werth, 2011). Stephen’s interviewees may well have had previous experience with probation and have
already found that rather than help, it can be oppressive or at the very
least useless in their personal circumstances.
It is further suggested in various parts of Rethinking that contemporary offender treatment may also be responsible for the lack of desistance support. If following the dissemination of risk-needs-responsivity programmes, many opponents of this model have argued that they
have shifted probation work away from social work and desistance
support (McNeill, Raynor, & Trotter, 2010), when Stephen’s sample was
initially interviewed, very little such work had yet been disseminated
276
A commentary on Rethinking
and traditional supervision still prevailed. The probation reality which
Stephen describes is indeed that of one-to-one interviews and referrals.
What went on in these one-to-one interviews was not treatment, or concrete support; in 50% of the cases help consisted in giving offenders
advice (Farrall, 2002, p. 92). This is reminiscent of hands-off probation as
it has developed since the 1970s in many jurisdictions, with the strange
notion that assisting is enabling (Vanstone & Priestley, 2016).
We should and we could do much better. If the recent years have taught
us anything it is that highly developed and structured treatment models such as RNR are not incompatible with a desistance compass; quite
the opposite (Herzog-Evans, 2018). No model is sufficiently comprehensive, sufficiently ethical and sufficiently attuned to the real world and the
real culture of probation services. The only way one will make a serious
dent in the offending lives of vulnerable or more antisocial offenders is
by drawing upon all the existing models that work or are promising and
fill their most glaring gaps. Additionally, POs have to possess a variety of
extremely sophisticated skills ranging from the ability to address attitudes,
cognitions and emotions, to social workers’ ability to build up networks,
to provide welfare support, and including family counselling expertise.
Desistance-based treatment or treatment with a desistance
compass?
Initially desistance was not a treatment model; it still is not in 2022. What
desistance does bring to treatment is, in reality, a series of overreaching
principles.
One rather simple if not simplistic, yet at the same time essential principle is that probationers would benefit from being concretely helped with
overcoming the obstacles they face when they try and desist from crime.
Which obstacles might these be? Rethinking lists several of them: they are
drugs and alcohol, peers, family, employment and housing. In spite of the
different language used (obstacle versus criminogenic needs) desistance
and RNR point in the same direction, which Stephen himself recognises
on page 95. How it is proposed one overcomes such obstacles, however,
differs. The research on desistance argues for a more practical and social
approach; RNR seems to favour cognitive behavioural (and in its modern form, emotional, motivational and trauma focused) intervention. Yet
both argue in favour of breadth; both put great emphasis on the quality
of the relationship that supports treatment; and both have a rehabilitation
ideal and horizon in mind. In fact, the similarities are even greater than
one might think. For instance, when Stephen points to the importance
277
A commentary on Rethinking
of the relationship between the probationer and the PO, he talks about
a psychological construct, i.e. the ‘heart and soul’ of psychodynamics
(Duncan, Millers, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010) and modern CBT (cognitive
behavioural therapy) (Moorey & Lavender, 2018). Thus, in order to truly
understand what the therapeutic alliance consists of, one must turn to the
extremely large psychology literature. So far desistance studies as well
as the RNR model have insufficiently explored this construct and cannot
guide treatment in this regard other than by making general statements.
The similarities between desistance and RNR is also apparent when
Rethinking lists factors that would influence the outcome of probation
supervision (p. 87): the work of the supervising PO; the motivation of
the individual probationer; and the individual professional social and
personal circumstances. This strikingly resembles the list of non-programmatic factors suggested by Palmer (1995) and Andrews (2011).
Likewise Stephen suggests that ‘motivation . . . did appear to influence the extent to which obstacles are faced and overcome‘(p. 108). In
RNR terms, this is a key responsivity factor. However, Rethinking suggests that the ‘most worrying’ (p. 183) factors are: the continued use of
drugs and alcohol; being unemployed and not having any career opportunities; not being in a relationship; anger issues and immaturity; mental health; and also boredom. Again, one will have recognised the RNR
model and several of the ‘Central Eight’ dynamic factors.
Does probation work?
In conclusion Stephen states, ‘The answer to the question of whether
probation works is a qualified “yes” ’ (215); in reality, much of Rethinking has actually shown the opposite. What the book masterfully reveals
is that offender supervision does not focus on the right things, is not
active, and as we have seen, does not help with desistance obstacles. To
use a psychology metaphor much of it is ‘talk probation’.
Arguably, the reason why Stephen concludes that probation works
is because he uses qualitative outcome measures that depart from reoffending rates. Under these more favourable auspices, he states that probation improves offenders’ lives and circumstances. Interestingly, the
Ministry of Justice of England and Wales has recently published a report
supporting this goal (Wong, 2020).
In 2014, Stephen and his colleagues have further downscaled the role of
supervision to planting a seed that might or might not grow years later. In
this volume, Stephen states that perhaps these recommendations are ‘too
contingent, too vague, too slippery, too imprecise for either policy-makers
278
A commentary on Rethinking
and practitioners to work with or for social scientists to test.’ I would argue
that they are indeed. However, Stephen is also is right in saying ‘Well, bad
news: this is how these processes actually are’. I do believe that researchers
are fully able to analyse the detours, the zigzagging and the other complexities of the desistance process. After all this is exactly what Stephen and his
colleagues have so far convincingly uncovered. What is true, however, is
that we need to understand and model this complexity in such a way that
it is tailored to both the individual needs of probationers or ex-prisoners
and to the institutional, legal, practical context of supervision. My opinion
is that for this to happen we need to: a) refer to both sociological and psychological methodologies in such a way that this sheer complexity can be
measured and then modelised; b) draw upon such work in order to adapt
treatment, supervision and care. It is only with an integrated theory modelisation and understanding that we will fully support offenders and assist
them in such a way that they, and the community, do not have to wait for
several decades before the seed that has been planted eventually grows. Of
particular importance is the necessity to link individual, psychological family-related, psychopathological, cognitive and emotional dimensions with
the bigger picture which Stephen has systematically explored, whilst taking
stock and drastically improving external responsibility factors such as institutional, legal and professional-cultural dimensions. Additionally, if critical
criminology and sociological studies have thoroughly addressed and legitimately criticised the brutality and violence of the CJS, little has been done
to link this vast literature with treatment theorisation and guidelines or
with the legal system. The result of this is that the CJS continues to be a vast
industrial complex whose main task is to create more offending, more disruptions in people’s lives and that of their loved ones and wider networks.
When academics refer to treatment or desistance, they tend to consider that
the CJS is perhaps not efficient but at least neutral. In reality, though, the
CJS is an exceptionally nocebo enterprise. It is pointless to try and modelise treatment if we collectively do not address these systemic issues and
start seriously influencing criminal and legal policies. Related to this, one of
Stephen’s main points is that relationships between POs and probationers
matter greatly. This assumes that POs are kind and supportive individuals
who work in an environment that recruit such people and allows them to
behave in this fashion. The reality, however, is that deterrent-based criminal
policies or ‘prisonbation’ make it difficult for it to happen.
Regarding methodology, as much as I agree with the argument that qualitative outcome measures are vastly superior to reoffending rates, and as
much as I agree with the necessity to nurture hope, my main questions
to Stephen has always been: ‘how does one convince policymakers to
fund a system which purports to plant a seed, and provide hope whilst
279
A commentary on Rethinking
not being expected to reduce recidivism?’ Sadly, this question is about
to become ever more pressing as unemployment increases following the
COVID-19 pandemic. A daunting challenge shall then become: what can
probation do when economic hooks for change become virtually non-existent? Probationers will be left to rely on their families; arguably the best
POs, counsellors and social workers of all. Indeed, Stephen suggests that
the CJS could be more successful if it helped strengthening marriages and
families (p. 219). Interestingly, working with families has been the core of
juvenile justice agencies since they were created in the nineteenth century.
Adult probation would possibly benefit from learning from its youth justice counterparts. It might be useful to remember that the so-called adult
probationers are often very young adults who still have teenage brains.
In essence, Rethinking leads the reader to reflect upon what to do with
persistent offenders, and those who struggle to leave a life of crime. It
additionally calls for a more holistic, kinder and more supportive probation: in short, a restorative probation (Marder, 2020).
References
Andrews, D. (2011). The impact of nonprogrammatic factors on criminal-justice
interventions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 1–23.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). London: Sage.
Craig, J. M., Guerra, C., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). Immigrant status, offending,
and desistance: Do relationship characteristics matter? Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00133-4
Dubourg, E. (2015). Les services pénitentiaires d’insertion et de probation. Fondements
juridiques. Evolution. Evaluation et avenir [Probation agencies. Legal rationale and
evolution] (PhD dissertation). University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Duncan, B. L., Millers, S. D., Wampold, B. E., & Hubble, M. A. (Eds.). (2010).
The heart and soul of change. Delivering what works in therapy. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Farrall, S. (2002). Rethinking what works with offenders, (1/e). Cullompton: Willan Publishing. With a Foreword by Christine Knott, Chief Probation Officer,
Greater Manchester Probation Area.
Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2005). Understanding desistance from crime. London:
Open University Press.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Jones, M. P. (2020). Politics, social and economic change,
and crime: Exploring the impact of contextual effects on offending trajectories. Politics & Society, 48(3), 357–388.
Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., & Calverley, A. (2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forney, M., & Ward, J. T. (2019). Identity, peer resistance, and antisocial
influence: Modeling direct and indirect causes of desistance. Journal of
280
A commentary on Rethinking
Developmental and Life Course Criminology, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40865-018-0102-0
Herzog-Evans, M. (2011). Desisting in France: What probation officers know
and do. A first approach. Ejprob, 3(2), 29–46.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2012). Intérêts et difficultés d’une approche “désistante”
en France In P. Mbanzoulou, M. Herzog-Evans, & S. Courtine (Eds.), Insertion et désistance des personnes placées sous main de justice. Savoirs et pratiques
(pp. 87–109). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Herzog-Evans, M. (2018). The risk-need-responsivity model: Evidence diversity
and integrative theory. In P. Ugwudike, P. Raynor, & J. Annison (Eds.), Evidence-based skills in criminal justice. International research supporting rehabilitation
and desistance (pp. 99–126). Bristol: Policy Press.
Keulen-de Vos, M. E., Bernstein, D. P., & Arntz, A. (2014). Schema therapy for
offenders with aggressive personality disorders. In R. C. Tafrate, & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Forensic CBT: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 66–83). Chichester, UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
Marder, I. D. (2020, April). Building restorative probation services. HM inspectorate
of probation. London: Academic Insights.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good. How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McNeill, F., Raynor, P., & Trotter, C. (Eds.). (2010). Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Male antisocial behaviour in adolescence and beyond.
Nature and Human Behavior, 2, 177–186.
Moorey, S., & Lavender, A. (Eds.). (2018). The therapeutic relationship in cognitive
behavioural therapy. London: Sage Publishing.
Na, C., & Jang, S. J. (2019). Positive expected selves and desistance among serious adolescent offender. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology,
5(3), 310–334.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful
intervention: New directions for research. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 100–131.
Raine, A., & Yang, Y. (2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(3), 203–213.
Robinson, G. (2018). Delivering McJustice? The probation factory at the Magistrate’s court. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(5), 605–621
Shapland, J., Farrall, S., & Bottoms, A. (Eds.). (2016). Global perspectives on desistance: Reviewing what we know and looking to the future. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vanstone, M., & Priestley, P. (2016). Probation and politics. Academic reflections from
former practitioners. London: Palgrave Macmilan
Walters, G. D. (2019). Maturing out of delinquency: Unpacking the effects of
identity achievement and future orientation on crime desistance. Self and Identity, 18, 267–283.
Werth, R. (2011). I do what I’m told, sort of; Reformed subject, unruly citizens,
and parole. Theoretical Criminology, 16(3), 329–346.
Wong, K. (2020). If reoffending is not the only outcome, what are the alternatives?
London: HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights 2019/07
281
From ‘what works’ to desistance in
probation? A commentary
José Cid
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
Let me start with a personal note. My first reading of the book was
in 2004. At that moment, I had in mind to write a book on suspended
sentences and probation in the framework of the rehabilitation model.
I remember having a conversation with a Spanish criminologist settled in England who advised to me to read Rethinking What Works
with Offenders. In order to convince me, he said something like ‘It’s
a new perspective’. I followed the advice of my colleague and I read
the book. The experience was very stimulating. At that moment,
I was only to some extent familiar with the What Works perspective
and the book made me aware of the fact that different viewpoints
might illuminate probation practice. Some books are a turning point
in your research interests and Rethinking What Works with Offenders
encouraged me to devote more time to reading the desistance literature and to undertaking research on desistance that we were able to
carry out in the next decade (Cid & Martí, 2012, 2017; Martí, Albani,
Ibàñez, & Cid, 2019).
What was new in Farrall’s book? All criminologists interested in penology know very well the history. The rehabilitation paradigm, that had
sustained the use of alternatives to prison suffered a crisis in the seventies when the rhetoric of ‘nothing works’ was a popular belief amongst
criminologists (Cullen, 2013). The What Works movement was able to
evidence that some programmes, of a cognitive-behavioural orientation, were effective in reducing recidivism (McGuire & Priestley, 1995)
and reverted the crisis. The What Works agenda had a very significant
influence, both in terms of institutional and community interventions,
not only in England (Raynor, 2004), but in many correctional systems,
such the one in my country of Spain (Redondo, 2017). Rethinking What
Works . . . challenged the dominant paradigm. The research on which the
book is based followed 199 probationers during their probation period
282
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
and was focused in understanding desistence and persistence patterns.
The investigation was not only new because it was based on self-reported data from the probationers and their probation officers but also
for its results. It showed that participants who desisted on probation
were not those who had dealt with their individual criminogenic needs
though program participation or individual treatment. The factor that
fostered desistance was improving social bonds with society in the areas
of employment and family relations. The dominant What Works perspective was therefore criticised for being misleading, looking only at changing individual criminogenic needs and overlooking social dimensions,
such as employment status and family relations, that were the most relevant factors that promote desistance. As Farrall (2002, p. 222) stated
in the concluding chapter of his book: ‘Getting people into work . . . or
encouraging people to become better parents and/or partners is not in
the agenda as current probation thinking is about criminogenic need not
desistance-oriented facilitators’.
I re-read the book in order to prepare the present comment in 2020.
The book, of course, was the same (with this additional 13th chapter),
but I read it with a different perspective. My first reading was aimed at
obtaining new perspectives for probation; my second one was devoted
to know whether the challenge to provide a new paradigm for probation practice has been achieved.
This re-reading of Rethinking What Works . . . makes it me clear that in
my first one I was probably much too confident that Farrall’s research
should be seen as a confirmation of the informal social control theory
of Sampson and Laub (1993). In contrast to Sampson and Laub, one
of the factors that was relevant in explaining desistance was raised in
the subjective perspective of participants. Those that wanted to desist
and felt it achievable were more able to desist than those participants
who don’t want to desist or felt incapable of desisting. This result seems
more related to the cognitive transformation theory developed by Giordano and colleagues (2002), according to which the openness to change
is a necessary subjective element that precedes the social interactions
needed to assume a conventional identity opposed to offending. On the
other hand, some criminogenic needs were associated with the subjective state that was relevant for desistance and it suggested that overcoming some criminogenic needs could help to have a more positive
perception about the willingness and perception of capability to desist
(Farrall, 2014, p. 105). Moreover, the relevance of criminogenic needs
were also evident for preventing failures in the process of desistance
(Farrall, 2002, p. 191). The theoretical implications were more complicated than I realised in my first reading.
283
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
Which are, then, the theoretical implication of Farrall’s research? In
the new chapter (Chapter 13) of the second edition of the book, the
author makes it clear that he favours an integrative theory of desistance,
as advanced in the third book (Farrall, Hunter, Sharpe, & Calverley,
2014, pp. 119–120) that reported the fifth follow-up of the original sample. In this book, Farrall and colleagues explain that they don’t conceive
their desistance research as a way of testing theories. According to them,
many theories (informal social control, rational choice, cognitive transformation theory) may be able to contribute to the explanation of the
desistance process, and different cases can be explained by different theories (Farrall et al., 2014).
The discussion about integration of theories of desistance is the
same issue that exists in general in criminological theories (Bernard &
Snipes, 1996), although I understand the reasons for favouring theoretical integration: theories are not incompatible, and including
variables of different theories may enlarge the explanatory power of
criminological theories (Bernard & Snipes, 1996). I detect some collusion between the integrative option in criminology and the mission of informing criminal justice policy. Integrative theories – to
explain engagement in crime or desistance from crime – may be more
explanatory than single theories, but they can also be more difficult
to translate into practice. The reason is that more complex or holistic
theories do not fix priorities for action and therefore arguably have
less impact.
An example of the importance of having a single theory when trying
to produce a practical impact on policy is shown by the What Works
movement. As Cullen (2013) suggests, one of the reasons for the dominance of the What Works paradigm was its single theory (social learning
theory) on which all the different programs advocated by this perspective were based. Of course, the supporters of the What Works movement
are aware that the process of desistance requires full participation in
society but the individual change (overcoming individual criminogenic
needs) was seen as the main explanation of the societal integration. As
Mackenzie (2006, p. 337) states, ‘[t]o get along with family, keep a job,
support children, or form strong positive ties with other institutions, the
person must change in cognitive reasoning, attitudes towards drug use,
antisocial attitudes, reading level or vocational skills’. In my first reading of Rethinking What Works I understood that the findings were more
compatible with informal social control theory that, I think, suggest an
inverse pathway to the one proposed in Mackenzie’s quote. For informal
social control theory, the acquisition of social bonds preceded individual
change. As Laub and Sampson (2003, p. 149) state, ‘we believe that most
284
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
offenders choose to desist in response to structurally induced turning
points that serve as the catalyst for sustaining long-term behavioural
change’. Of course, individual change is needed for desistance, but
the explanation of this behavioural change is the participation of the
individual in conventional social bonds of the adult life, such us stable
employment, a good marriage or other similar bonds with society that
foster individual change.
Do we need an overarching theory of desistance to inform probation
practice? Farrall and colleagues are right when they say that individuals may have different pathways to desistance, and we need to accept
the compatibility of different theories. However, I think, practitioners
need to have a general explanation about how change is achieved to
ground rehabilitation practices in this general perspective. This was
exactly what the What Works perspective provided and one of the reasons for its success. Desistance scholars have elaborated three main
theoretical frameworks to explain desistance: informal social control
theory (Sampson & Laub, 1993); cognitive transformation theory (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002) and social support theory (Cullen,
1994), that provide different explanations of how individual change is
achieved (Cid & Martí, 2017). None of these theories discards the use of
cognitive-behavioural methods or other individual-level interventions
to overcome criminogenic needs but have a more interactive perspective – between societal and individual factors – on how the change is
achieved.
Looking at the findings of Rethinking What Works . . . from the perspective of these theories, I think cognitive transformation theory was
the one most supported by the book. The willingness to change and
the self-perception about the ability to sustain change at the beginning
of the probation order was an explanation of the desistance pathways
taken and of the role that some of the agents of change contributed (new
family relations, new employment, the help of the probation service)
and may be seen as hooks for change that helped participants to build a
conventional identity.
In the new chapter prepared for the second edition of the book, Farrall
presents a Model of Impact of Assisted Desistance in Formal Settings
(Figure 13.4). Although I realise that the author resisted labelling this
model as such, I think is very much in line with the theory of cognitive
transformation because the openness to change is placed at the beginning of the process, and then the probation system should (in case it is
needed) make available to individuals structures (such as employment,
family relationships, and accommodation) in which prosocial agents
can help the individual to foster change.
285
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
If this cognitive transformation theory seems to have confirmation in
England (see also Bottoms & Shapland, 2011, for results that seem also
compatible with this theory), it might be advisable to adapt this theory
to the context, detail the factors that promote openness to change and
those who act as a hook for change and explain the mechanisms that
link these factors with the individual change.
In his 20 years of research on desistance, Farrall has provided criminology with one of the most important research studies in the world
about how change is achieved in the context of probation. Farrall and
his colleagues have provided the evidence about the explanatory power
of some desistance theories. If we wish that individuals and societies
take advantage of this knowledge, we need to advance a theoretically
oriented practice. The author of this book, and his colleagues, are the
ones most able to take this next step forward.
References
Bernard, T., & Snipes, J. (1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and
Justice, 20, 301–348.
Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J. (2011). Steps towards desistance among male young
adult recidivists. In S. Farrall, R. Sparks, S. Maruna, & M. Hough (Eds.), Escape
routes: Contemporary perspectives on life after punishment (pp. 43–80). London:
Routledge.
Cid, J., & Martí, J. (2012). Turning points and returning points. Understanding
the role of family ties in the process of desistance. European Journal of Criminology, 9(6), 603–620.
Cid, J., & Martí, J. (2017). Imprisonment, social support and desistance: A theoretical approach to pathways of desistance and persistence for imprisoned
men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
61(13), 1433–1454.
Cullen, F. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Quarterly,
11(4), 527–559.
Cullen, F. (2013). Taking rehabilitation seriously. Creativity, science, and the
challenge of offender change. Punishment & Society, 14(1), 94–114.
Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., & Calverley, A. (2014). Criminal careers in transition. The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and
desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of
Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.
Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys
to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
286
From ‘what works’ to desistance in probation
Mackenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections. Reducing the criminal activities of
offenders and delinquents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martí, J., Albani, E., Ibàñez, A., & Cid, J. (2019). Personal networks and desistance from crime in young offenders. European Journal of Criminology. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1477370819842207
McGuire, J., & Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing ‘What Works?’ Past, Present and
Future. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 3–34). Chichester: Willey.
Raynor, P. (2004). Rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches. In A. Bottoms, S.
Rex, & G. Robinson (Eds.), Alternatives to prison (pp. 195–223). Cullompton:
Willlan.
Redondo, S. (2017). Evaluación y tratamiento de los delincuentes. Jóvenes y adultos.
Madrid: Pirámide.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
287
288
230
!1.2069
!2.0477
!.7620
.2768
!1.4182
Previous no. of convictions
No previous convictions
1–3 previous convictions
!4 previous convictions
OGRS
OGRS
OGRS
OGRS
OGRS
(0–25%)
(26–50%)
(51–75%)
(76–100%)
!1.1118
!1.0341
!1.4250
!.8247
Probationers
Had prison previously
Previous violent conviction
Previous theft conviction
Previous other conviction
Beta
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Df
.0177
.3552
.7613
.0891
.0028
.0834
.0017
.0028
.0067
.0004
.0253
Sig
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Officers
—
—
—
—
Beta
Table A1: Variables associated with desistance
from logistic regression analyses
Appendix
blank
Df
Sig
.0221
.0174
.0250
.0271
.0373
.0188
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Motivation–expectation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
!.3589
!1.1921
.0175
.0451
1
1
.0216
.4450
.0057
.0023
1
—
—
Employment problem (SWP1)
!1.1471
—
—
—
—
Depressed (SWP1)
!.8589
Accommodation problem (SWP3) !1.0217
—
—
Alcohol problems (SWP3)
!1.3115
—
—
—
Total problems (SWP1)
!.2423
Total problems (SWP2)
!.2079
Total problems (SWP3)
!.3078
—
—
Accommodation and employment !.9808
instability
Probation Impact (SWP2) 1
.5236
Motivation–expectation
Confidents
Optimists
Pessimists
Drug problem (at offence)
Accommodation problem (SWP1)
—
Drug problem (SWP1)
Employment problem (SWP2)
Drug problem (SWP2)
Peer group problem (SWP2)
—
—
Employment problem (SWP3)
Family problem (SWP3)
—
Drug problems (SWP3)
Peer group problems (SWP3)
Depressed (SWP3)
Total problems (SWP1)
Total problems (SWP2)
Total problems (SWP3)
Employment Instability
Accommodation Instability
Accommodation and employment
instability
—
1
1
!.9371
!1.2199
!.6997
!.9381
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
!.7353
!.8057
!1.1894
!1.1827
!1.6441
!1.0426
!.7598
!.1935
!.2315
!.2364
!.9079
!1.1715
!1.6364
1
1
!.7688
!.8472
.0536
.0931
.0243
.0008
.0220
.0442
.0260
.0032
.0029
.0329
.0088
.0009
.0173
.0028
.0466
.0209
.0021
.0018
.0262
.0190
Appendix
Appendix
289
231
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Appendix
Notes
1 Probation Impact Scales were developed by summating three questions
asked of officers and probationers at sweeps two and three. These asked
whether the officer had said or done anything that would be helpful in
keeping the probationer out of trouble in the future; probation supervision had helped the probationer stay out of trouble; and whether the
probationer had learnt anything whilst on probation. The alpha coefficients for these questions were sufficiently high for them to be
summated and used as a scale, and were officers, sweep two: .6324;
officers, sweep three: .6158; probationers, sweep two: .7025; probationers,
sweep three: .4619. These scales were positively correlated (officer sweep
two/probationer sweep two: .289; Spearman’s p!.002, officer sweep
three/probationer sweep three: .211; Spearman’s p!.033).
290
232
References
Ackerley, E., Soothill, K. and Francis, B. (1998) When Do Sex Offenders Stop
Offending? Research Bulletin 39. London: Home Office Research and Statistics
Directorate, HMSO.
Adams, K. (1997) Developmental aspects of adult crime. In Thornberry, T. (ed.)
Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. London: Transaction Press.
Andrews, D. (1989) Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced. Focus on
Correctional Research 1(2): 11–18.
Appleton, C. and Roberts, C. (1999) Corby Probation Team, Northampton
Probation Service Effective Practice Project: A Report of The Findings. Unpublished PSU report, University of Oxford.
Bailey, R. (1995) Helping offenders as an element of justice. In Ward, D. and
Lacey, M. (eds.) Probation: Working for Justice. London: Whiting & Brich.
Bank, L., Patterson, G.R. and Reid, J.B. (1987) Delinquency prevention through
the training of parents in family management. The Behaviour Analyst 10:
75–82.
Barclay, G. (1990) The peak age of known offending by males. Home Office
Research Bulletin 28: 20–23.
Barnea, A., Rahav, G. and Teichman, M. (1987) The reliability and consistency
of self-reports on substance use in a longitudinal study. British Journal of
Addiction 82: 891–98.
Barr, H. and O’Leary, E. (1966) Trends and Regional Comparisons in Probation.
Home Office Research Unit Report 8. London: HMSO.
Bean, P. (1976) Rehabilitation and Deviance. London: Routledge.
Blaxter, M. (1990) Health and Lifestyle. London: Routledge.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J. and Farrington, D. (1988) Criminal career research: its
value for criminology. Criminology 26(1): 1–35.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A. and Visher, C.A. (eds.) (1986) Criminal
Careers and ‘Career Criminals’. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
(two volumes).
291
233
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
Bochel, D. (1976) Probation and After-Care. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Boswell, G. (1996) The essential skills of probation work. In May, T. and Vass,
A. (eds.) Working with Offenders. London: Sage.
Bottoms, A. and McWilliams, W. (1979) A non-treatment paradigm for
probation practice. British Journal of Social Work 9(2): 159–202.
Bowling, B. (1993) Racial harassment and the process of victimisation. British
Journal of Criminology 33(2): 231–50.
Bridges, A. (1998) Increasing the Employability of Offenders. Probation Studies Unit
Report 5.
Brown, I. (1998) Successful probation practice. In Faulkner, D. and Gibbs, A.
(eds.) New Politics, New Probation? Probation Studies Unit Report 6. Oxford:
Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford.
Brownlee, I. (1995) Intensive probation with young adult offenders. British
Journal of Criminology 35(40): 599–612.
Bryman, A. (1984) The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a
question of method or epistemology?. British Journal of Sociology 35(1): 75–92.
Burnett, R. (1992) The Dynamics of Recidivism. Oxford: Centre for Criminological
Research, University of Oxford.
Burnett, R. (1994) The odds of going straight: offenders own predictions. In
Sentencing, Quality and Risk: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on
Research and Information in the Probation Service. University of Loughborough,
Midlands Probation Training Consortium, Birmingham.
Burnett, R. (2000) Understanding criminal careers through a series of in-depth
interviews. Offender Programs Report 4(1).
Bushway, S., Piquero, A., Boidy, L., Cauffman, E. and Mazerolle, P., (1999) An
empirical framework for studying desistance as a process desistance.
Criminology 39(2): 496–515.
Byrne, D. (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
Caddle, D. (1991) Parenthood Training for Young Offenders: An Evaluation of
Courses in Young Offender Institutions. Research and Planning Unit Paper 63.
London: Home Office, HMSO.
Capaldi, D and Patterson, G. (1987) An approach to the problem of recruitment
and retention rates in longitudinal research. Behavioural Assessment 9: 169–77.
Chapman, T. (1995) Creating a culture of change: a case study of a car crime
project in Belfast. In McGuire, J. (ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending.
Chichester: Wiley.
Chylicki, P. (1992) To cease with crime: pathways out of criminal careers.
Unpublished PhD. thesis, Department of Sociology, Lund University, Sweden.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology 94 (Suppl): s95–s120.
Coleman, J.S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. London: Belknap Press.
Cordray, S. and Polk, K. (1983) The implications of respondent loss in panel
studies of deviant behaviour. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 20:
214–42.
292
234
References
References
Cromwell, P.F., Olson, J.N. and Avary, D.W. (1991) Breaking and Entering.
London: Sage.
Crow, I. (1996) Employment, training and offending. In Drakeford, M. and
Vanstone, M. (eds.) Beyond Offending Behaviour. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Crow, I. (2000) Evaluating initiatives in the community. In Jupp, V. et al. (eds.)
Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
Cusson, M. and Pinsonneault, P. (1986) The decision to give up crime. In
Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (eds.) The Reasoning Criminal. SpringerVerlag: New York.
Dale, M.W. (1976) Barriers to the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. Crime and
Delinquency 22(3): 322–37.
Davies, M. (1969) Probationers in Their Social Environment. Home Office Research
Unit Report 2. London: HMSO.
Ditton, J. (1977) Part-time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage.
London: Macmillan.
Elder, G.H. (1985) Perspectives on the life-course. In Elder, G.H. (ed.)
Life-Course Dynamics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Elliott, D. (1989) Improving self-reported measures of delinquency. In Klein,
M.W. (ed.) Cross-National Research in Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Elliott, D. (1994) Serious violent offenders: onset, developmental course and
termination – American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address.
Criminology 32: 1–22.
Elliott, D. and Menard, S. (1996) Delinquent friends and delinquent behaviour:
temporal and developmental patterns. In Hawkins, J.D. (ed.) Delinquency and
Crime: Current Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fagan, J. (1989) Cessation of family violence: deterrence and dissuasion. In
Ohlin, L. and Tonry, M. (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research.
Vol. 11.
Farrall, S. (2000) Introduction. In Farrall, S. (ed.) The Termination of Criminal
Careers. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Farrall, S. (2002) Long-term absences from probation: officers’ and probationers’ accounts. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 41(3): 263–78.
Farrall, S. (n.d.) Self, officer and officially recorded offending on probation:
(how) are they related?. Unpublished paper.
Farrall, S. and Bowling, B. (1999) Structuration, human development and
desistance from crime. British Journal of Criminology 39(2): 252–67.
Farrington, D.P. (1977) The effects of public labelling. British Journal of
Criminology 17(2): 112–25.
Farrington, D.P. (1989) Self-reported and official offending from adolescence to
adulthood. In Klein, M.W. (ed.) Cross-National Research in Self-Reported Crime
and Delinquency. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
293
235
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
Farrington, D.P. (1992a) Criminal career research in the UK. British Journal of
Criminology 32(4): 521–36.
Farrington, D.P. (1992b) Juvenile delinquency. In Coleman, J. (ed.) The School
Years. London: Routledge.
Farrington, D.P. (1997) Human development and criminal careers. In Maguire,
M. et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd edn). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Farrington, D.P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St Ledger, R.J. and West, D.J. (1986)
Unemployment, school leaving and crime. British Journal of Criminology
26(4): 335–56.
Farrington, D. and Hawkins, J.D. (1991) Predicting participation, early onset
and later persistence in officially recorded offending. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health 1(1): 1–33.
Farrington, D.P., Osborn, S.G. and West, D. (1978) The persistence of labelling
effects. British Journal of Criminology 18(3): 277–84.
Feld, S.L. and Straus, M.A. (1989) Escalation and desistance of wife assault.
Criminology 27: 141–61.
Feld, S.L. and Straus, M.A. (1990) Escalation and desistance of wife assault. In
Straus, M.A. and Gelles, R.J. (eds.) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk
Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Flood-Page, C., Campbell, S., Harrington, V. and Miller, J. (2000) Youth Crime:
Findings From the 1998/99 Youth Lifestyles Survey. Home Office Research Study.
209. London: HMSO.
Folkard, S. Fowles, A.J., McWilliams, B.C., McWilliams, W., Smith, D.D., Smith,
D.E. and Walmsley, G. (1974) IMPACT: Intensive Matched Probation and
After-Care Treatment. Home Office Research Study 24. London: HMSO.
Folkard, S., Lyon, K., Carver, M.M. and O’Leary, E. (1966) Probation Research:
A Preliminary Report. Home Office Research Unit Report 7. London: HMSO.
Folkard, S., Smith, D.E., Smith, D.D. and Walmsley, G. (1976) IMPACT:
Intensive Matched Probation and After-Care Treatment, Volume II: The Results of
the Experiment. Home Office Research Study 36. London: HMSO.
Gendreau, P. (1996) The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In
Harland, A. (ed.) Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
Giele, J.Z. and Elder, G.H. (eds.) (1998) Methods of Life Course Research. London:
Sage.
Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1986) The true value of lambda would appear
to be zero: an essay on career criminals, criminal careers, selective incapacitation, cohort studies and related topics. Criminology 24(2): 213–34.
Gottfredson, M. and Hirschi, T. (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gottfredson, S.D. and Taylor, R.B. (1988) Community contexts and criminal
offenders. In Hope, T. and Shaw, M. (eds.) Communities and Crime Reduction.
London: HMSO.
294
236
References
References
Graham, J. and Bowling, B. (1995) Young People and Crime. Home Office, HORS
145. London: HMSO.
Guidry, L.S. (1975) Use of a covert punishment contingency in compulsive
stealing. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 6: 169.
Hagan, J. (1994) Crime and Disrepute. London: Pine Forge Press.
Hagan, J. (1997) Crime and capitalization: toward a developmental theory of
street crime in America. In Thornberry, T. (ed.) Developmental Theories of
Crime and Delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Hagan, J. and McCarthy, B. (1997) Mean Streets. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haines, K. (1990) After-Care for Released Offenders: A Review of the Literature.
Cambridge: Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University.
Haines, K. (1999) Crime is a social problem. European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research 7: 263–75.
Harland, A. (ed.) (1995) Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
Haslewood-Pocsik, I. and Roberts, C. (1999a) Humberside Probation Service
Effective Practice Project: a report of the findings. Unpublished PSU Report,
University of Oxford.
Haslewood-Pocsik, I. and Roberts, C. (1999b) Northumbria Probation Service
Effective Practice Project: a report of the findings. Unpublished PSU Report,
University of Oxford.
Haslewood-Pocsik, I. and Roberts, C. (1999c) The West Midlands Probation
Service and Probation Studies Unit Demonstration Project: using the ACE
system. Unpublished PSU Report, University of Oxford.
Hazaleus, S.L. and Deffenbacher, J.L. (1986) Relaxation and cognitive treatments of anger. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54: 222–26.
Hedderman, C. (1998) A critical assessment of probation research. Research
Bulletin 39: 1–7.
Henry, S. (1978) The Hidden Economy: The Context and Control of Borderline Crime.
Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Hirschi, T. and Gottfredson, M. (1995) Control theory and the life-course
perspective. Studies on Crime And Crime Prevention 4(2): 131–42.
Hogan, D.P. and Astone, N.M. (1986) The transition to adulthood. Annual
Review of Sociology 12: 109–30.
Home Office (1995) The Criminal Careers of those Born Between 1953 and 1973.
Home Office Bulletin 14/95. London: Home Office.
Home Office (1996) Guidance for the Probation Service on the Offender Group
Reconviction Scale (OGRS). Home Office Circular 63/1996. London: Home Office.
Home Office (1999) Digest Four. London: Home Office.
Hood, R. (1963/1967) Research on the effectiveness of punishments and
treatments. In Collected Studies in Criminological Research. Vol. 1. Council of
Europe.
Hood, R. and Sparks, R. (1970) Key Issues in Criminology. London: Wiedenfeld
& Nicolson.
295
237
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
Horney, J., Osgood, D.W. and Haen Marshall, I. (1995) Criminal careers in the
short term: intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life
circumstances. American Sociological Review 60: 655–73.
Hughes, M. (1997) An exploratory study of young adult black and latino males
and the factors facilitating their decisions to make positive behavioural
changes. Smith College Studies in Social Work 67(3): 401–14.
Hughes, M. (1998) Turning points in the lives of young inner-city men forgoing
destructive criminal behaviours: a qualitative study. Social Work Research 22:
143–51.
Irwin, J. (1970) The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jamieson, J., McIvor, G. and Murray, C. (1999) Understanding Offending among
Young People. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Johnson, J.E. (1979) Juvenile Delinquency and its Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jones, P. (1996) Risk prediction in criminal justice. In Harland, A. (ed.) Choosing
Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
Knight, B.J., Osborn, S.G. and West, D.J. (1977) Early marriage and criminal
tendency in males. British Journal of Criminology 17(4): 348–60.
Knight, B.J. and West, D.J. (1975) Temporary and continuing delinquency.
British Journal of Criminology 15(1): 43–50.
Kratzer, L. and Hodgins, S. (1999) A typology of offenders: a test of Moffitt’s
theory among males and females from childhood to age thirty. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health 9: 57–73.
Laub, J., Nagin, D. and Sampson, R. (1998) Trajectories of change in criminal
offending: good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological
Review 63: 225–38.
Laub, J.H. and Sampson, R.J. (1993) Turning points in the life course: why
change matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31(3): 301–25.
Laub, J.H. and Sampson, R.J. (2001) Understanding desistance from crime. In
Tonry, M. (ed.) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Vol. 26.
Laub, J., Sampson, R., Corbett, R. and Smith, J. (1995) The public policy
implications of a life-course perspective on crime. In Barlow, H. (ed.) Crime
and Public Policy. Oxford: Westview.
Lawson, L.S. (1983) Alcoholism. In Hersen, M. (ed.) Outpatient Behaviour
Therapy: A Clinical Guide. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Leibrich, J. (1993) Straight to the Point: Angles on Giving up Crime. Otago, New
Zealand: University of Otago Press.
Leibrich, J. (1996) The role of shame in going straight: a study of former
offenders. In Galaway, B. and Hudson, J. (eds.) Restorative Justice. Monsey,
NJ: Criminal Justice Press.
296
238
References
References
Lipsey, M. (1995) What do we learn from 400 research studies on the
effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In McGuire, J. (ed.)
What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.
Lloyd, C., Mair, G. and Hough, M. (1994) Explaining Reconviction Rates: A
Critical Analysis. Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report 136. London:
HMSO.
Loeber, R. and LeBlanc, M. (1990) Toward a developmental criminology. In
Tonry, M. and Morris, N. (eds.) Crime and Justice. Vol. 12. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. and Farrington, D.P.
(1991) Initiation, escalation and desistance in juvenile offending and their
correlates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82(1): 36–82.
Lösel, F. (1995) The efficacy of correctional treatment: a review and synthesis
of meta-evaluations. In McGuire, J. (ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending.
Chichester: Wiley.
MacKenzie, D.L., Browning, K., Skroban, S.B., and Smith, D.A. (1999) The
impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 36(4): 423–53.
Mair, G., Lloyd, C. and Hough, M. (1997) The limitations of reconviction rates.
In Mair, G. (ed.) Evaluating the effectiveness of community penalties. Aldershot:
Avebury.
Mair, G., Lloyd, C., Nee, C. and Sibbitt, R. (1994) Intensive Probation in England
and Wales: An Evaluation. Home Office Research Study 133. London: HMSO.
Mair, G. and May, C. (1997) Offenders on Probation. Home Office Research Study
167. London: HMSO.
Mair, G. and Nee, C. (1992) Day centre reconviction rates. British Journal of
Criminology 32(3): 329–39.
Manchester City Council (1998) Crime and Disorder: An Audit of Problems and
Priorities for Manchester. Manchester: Community Safety Team, Manchester
City Council.
Martinson, R. (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.
The Public Interest 35: 22–54.
Maruna, S. (1997) Going straight: desistance from crime and life narratives of
reform. The Narrative Study of Lives 5: 59–93.
Maruna, S. (2000a) Desistance from crime and offender rehabilitation: a tale of
two research literatures. Offender Programs Report 4(1).
Maruna, S. (2000b) Criminology, desistance and the psychology of the
stranger. In Canter, D. and Alison, L.J. (eds.) Beyond Profiling: Developments
in Investigative Psychology. Aldershot: Dartmouth Books.
Matthews, R. and Pitts, J. (2000) Rehabilitation, recidivism and realism:
evaluating violence reduction programmes in prison. In Jupp, V. et al. (eds.)
Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
May, C. (1999) Explaining Reconviction Following a Community Sentence: The Role
of Social Factors. Home Office Research Study 192. London: HMSO.
297
239
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
McConville, M., Sanders, A. and Leng, R. (1991) The Case for the Prosecution.
London: Routledge.
McDougall, C., Barnett, R.M., Ashurst, B. and Willis, B. (1987) Cognitive
control of anger. In McGurk, B.J. et al. (eds.) Applying Psychology to
Imprisonment: Theory and Practice. London: HMSO.
McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.
McGuire, J. and Priestly, P. (1995) Reviewing ‘what works’: past, present and
future. In McGuire, J. (ed.) What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Chichester:
Wiley.
Meisenhelder, T. (1977) An exploratory study of exiting from criminal careers.
Criminology 15(3): 319–34.
Meisenhelder, T. (1982) Becoming normal: certification as a stage in exiting
from crime. Deviant Behaviour 3: 137–53.
Mischkowitz, R. (1994) Desistance from a delinquent way of life? In Weitekamp,
E.G.M. and Kerner, H.J. (eds.) Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human
Development and Criminal Behaviour. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Moffitt, T. (1993) ‘Life-course persistent’ and ‘adolescent-limited’ antisocial
behaviour: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100: 674–701.
Moffitt, T.E. (1997) Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent offending: a
complementary pair of developmental theories. In Thornberry, T. (ed.)
Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. London: Transaction Press.
Mulvey, E.P. and Aber, M. (1988) Growing out of delinquency: development
and desistance. In Jenkins, R.L. and Brown, W.K. (eds.) The Abandonment of
Delinquent Behaviour: Promoting the Turnaround. New York: Praeger.
Mulvey, E.P. and La Rosa, J.F. (1986) Delinquency cessation and adolescent
development: preliminary data. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56(2):
212–24.
Murray, C. and Cox, L. (1979) Beyond Probation: Juvenile Corrections and the
Chronic Delinquent. London: Sage.
National Standards (1995) London: Home Office.
Newburn, T. (1997) Youth, crime and justice. In Maguire, M. et al. (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
O’Donnell, C.R., Lydgate, T. and Fo, W.S.O. (1979) The buddy system: review
and follow-up. Child Behaviour Therapy 1: 161–69.
O’Donnell, I. and Edgar, K. (1996) The Extent and Dynamics of Victimisation in
Prisons. Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford.
Oldfield, M. (1996) The Kent Reconviction Survey. Kent Probation Service.
Osborn, S.G. (1980) Moving home, leaving London and delinquent trends.
British Journal of Criminology 20(1): 54–61.
Osborn, S.G. and West, D.J. (1979) Marriage and delinquency: a postscript.
British Journal of Criminology 18(3): 254–56.
Osler, A. (1995) Introduction to the Probation Service. Winchester: Waterside
Press.
298
240
References
References
Ouimet, M. and Le Blanc, M. (1996) The role of life experiences in the continuation
of the adult criminal career. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 6: 73–97.
Palmer, T. (1996) Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful
interventions. In Harland, A. (ed.) Choosing Correctional Options that Work.
London: Sage.
Parker, H. (1976) Boys will be men: brief adolescence in a down-town
neighbourhood. In Mungham, G. and Pearson, G. (eds.) Working Class Youth
Culture. London: Routledge.
Pawson, R. (1997) Evaluation methodology: back to basics. In Mair, G. (ed.)
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Penalties. Aldershot: Avebury.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1994) What works in evaluation research? British
Journal of Criminology 34(3): 291–306.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1996) What’s crucial in evaluation research: a reply
to Bennett. British Journal of Criminology 36(4): 574–78.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.
Petersilia, J. (1998) Probation and parole. In Tonry, M. (ed.) The Handbook of
Crime and Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pezzin, L.E. (1995) Earning prospects, matching effects and the decision to
terminate a criminal career. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11(1): 29–50.
Phillpotts, G. and Lancucki, L. (1979) Previous Convictions, Sentence and
Reconviction. Home Office Research Study 53. London: HMSO.
Priestly, P., McGuire, M., Flegg, J., Hemsley, M., Welham, D. and Barnitt, R.
(1984) Social Skills in Prisons and the Community: Problem Solving for Offenders.
London: Routledge.
Quigley, B.M. and Leonard, K.E. (1996) Desistance of husband aggression in
the early years of marriage. Violence and Victims 11: 355–70.
Radzinowicz, L. (ed.) (1958) The Results of Probation. London: Macmillan.
Rand, A. (1987) Transitional life events and desistance from delinquency and
crime. In Wolfgang, M.E. et al. (eds.) From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to
Crime. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Raynor, R. (1998) Attitudes, social problems and reconvictions in the ‘STOP’
probation experiment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 37(1): 1–15.
Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (1997) Straight Thinking on Probation (STOP).
Probation Studies Unit Report 4. Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for
Criminological Research.
Rex, S. (1998) Promoting effective supervisory relationships. In Faulkner, D.
and Gibbs, A. (eds.) New Politics, New Probation? Probation Studies Unit Report
6. Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford.
Rex, S. (1999) Desistance from offending: experiences of probation. Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice.
Ross, M.W., Stowe, A., Wodak, A. and Gold, J. (1995) Reliability of interview
responses of injecting drug users. Journal of Addictive Diseases 14(2): 1–12.
299
241
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
Ross, R.R. and Ross, R.D. (1995) Thinking Straight. Ottowa: Air Training and
Publications.
Sampson, R.J. and Laub, J.H. (1990) Crime and deviance over the life-course:
the salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review 55: 609–27.
Sampson, R.J. and Laub, J.H. (1993) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning
Points through Life. London: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R.J. and Laub, J.H. (1995) Understanding variability in lives through
time: contributions of life-course criminology. Studies on Crime And Crime
Prevention 4(2): 143–58.
Sampson, R.J. and Laub, J.H. (1997) A life-course theory of cumulative
disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In Thornberry, T. (ed.)
Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. London: Transaction.
Sarno, C., Hearden, I., Hedderman, C., Hough, M., Nee, C. and Herrington, V.
(2000) Working their Way out of offending. Home Office Research Study 218.
London: Home Office.
Sarno, C., Hough, M., Nee, C. and Herrington, V. (1999) Probation Employment
Schemes in Inner London and Surrey – An Evaluation. Home Office. Research
Findings 89. London: Home Office.
Shover, N. (1983) The later stages of ordinary property offender careers. Social
Problems 31(2): 208–18.
Shover, N. (1985) Aging Criminals. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Shover, N. (1996) Great Petenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves.
Oxford: Westview.
Shover, N. and Henderson, B. (1995) Repressive crime control and male
persistent thieves. In Barlow, H. (ed.) Crime and Public Policy. Oxford:
Westview.
Shover, N. and Thompson, C. (1992) Age, differential expectations and crime
desistance. Criminology 30(1): 89–104.
Simon, F. (1971) Prediction Methods in Criminology. Home Office Research Unit
Report 7. London: HMSO.
Smith, D.A., Visher, C.A. and Jarjoura, G.R. (1991) Dimensions of delinquency.
Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 28(1): 6–32.
Sommers, I., Baskin, D.R. and Fagan, J. (1994) Getting out of the life: crime
desistance by female street offenders. Deviant Behaviour 15(2): 125–49.
Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. and Hay, W. (1996) Prisons and the Problem of Order.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sparks, R., Genn, H. and Dodd, D. (1977) Surveying Victims. Chichester: Wiley.
Stewart, J., Smith, D. and Stewart, G. (1994) Understanding Offending Behaviour.
Harlow: Longman.
Stone, N. (1998) A Companion Guide to Enforcement. Ilkley: Owen Wells.
Tarling, R. (1993) Analysing Offending. London: HMSO.
Thornberry, T. (1987) Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology 25: 863–91.
300
242
References
References
Thornberry, T. (1997) Introduction: some advantages of developmental and
life-course perspectives for the study of crime and delinquency. In Thornberry, T. (ed.) Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. London:
Transaction Press.
Thorogood, M., Arscott, A., Walls, P., Dunn, N.R. and Mann, R.D. (forthcoming) Matched controls in a case-control study: does matching by doctors’ list
mean matching by relative deprivation? International Journal of Social Research
Methodology.
Tilley, N. (2000) Doing realistic evaluation of criminal justice. In Jupp, V. et al.
(eds.) Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
Tolman, R.M., Edleson, J.L. and Fendrich, M. (1996) The applicability of the
theory of planned behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior.
Violence and Victims 119(4): 341–54.
Trasler, G. (1979) Delinquency, recidivism and desistance. British Journal of
Criminology 19(4): 314–22.
Tunnell, K.D. (1992) Choosing Crime. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Uggen, C. (2000) Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a
duration model of age, employment and recidivism. American Sociological
Review 67: 529–46.
Uggen, C. and Kruttschnitt, K. (1998) Crime in the breaking: gender differences
in desistance. Law and Society Review 32(2): 339–66.
Uggen, C. and Piliavim, I. (1998) Asymmetrial causation and criminal
desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88(4): 1399–422.
Ulmer, J.T. and Spencer, J.W. (1999) The contributions of an interactionist
approach to research and theory on criminal careers. Theoretical Criminology
3(1): 95–124.
United Nations (1951) Probation and Related Measures. Document E/CN.5/230.
New York: United Nations.
Wallace, C. (1986) From girls and boys to women and men: the social
reproduction of gender roles in the transition from school to (un)employment. In Walker, S. and Barton, L. (eds.) Youth, Unemployment and Schooling.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Wallace, C. (1987) For Richer, for Poorer: Growing up in and out of Work. London:
Tavistock.
Warr, M. (1998) Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology
36(2): 183–215.
Weis, J. (1986) Issues in the measurement of criminal careers. In Blumstein, A.
et al. (eds.) Criminal Careers and ‘Career Criminals’. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, Volume Two.
West, D.J. (1982) Delinquency: It’s Roots, Careers and Prospects. London:
Heinemann.
West, G.W. (1978) The short term careers of serious thieves. Canadian Journal
of Criminology 20: 169–90.
301
243
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
References
Whitfield, D. (1998) Introduction to the Probation Service. Winchester: Waterside
Press.
Wilkinson, J. (1997) The impact of Ilderton Motor Project on motor vehicle
crime and offending. British Journal of Criminology 37(4): 568–81.
Williams, M. and May, T. (1996) Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Research.
London: UCL Press.
Willis, A. (1986) Help and control in probation: an assessment of probation
practice. In Pointing, J. (ed.) Alternatives to Custody. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, W.J. (1991) Studying inner-city social dislocations: the challenge of
public agenda research. American Sociological Review 56: 1–14.
Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M. and Sellin, T. (1972) Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.
London: University of Chicago Press.
Worrall, A. (1997) Punishment in the Community. London: Longman.
Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.
302
244
Index
syndrome, 3–4,
3–4, 14,
14, 16,
16,44,
44,
‘black box’ syndrome,
213 259, 266, 271
87, 175, 213,
study,9,9,10,
10,14–15,
14–15,
Burnett’s prison study,
40, 45,
45,99,
99,100,
100,114fn2,
114fn2
27, 28fn4, 40,
264, 269
chaos/complexity, 31, 42–44
cognitive behaviouralism,
13, 14, 75,
chaos/complexity,
31, 42–44
215, 222,
228
cognitive
behaviouralism,
xix, xxii
criminal
careers,
13, 14,
75, 215,6–11,
222, 15–16
228, 277–278,
179, 282, 284, 285
descriptions
of supervision,
criminal
careers,
6–11, 15–16,24–25,
231,
116–144
235–238
desistance, 3, 7–11, 16, 25, 28fn8,
64–68, 72–73,
108–112, 173–192,
descriptions
of supervision,
24–25,
202–203, 232–233,
212, 215, 241–245,
227
116–144,
by276–279
ethnicity, 174
by
females,
10, 174
desistance,
xxi–xxv,
3, 7–11, 16, 25,
impact
employment
upon, 7–8,
28fn8,of64–68,
72–73, 108–112,
14, 15, 28fn6,
128–129,
142,227,
173–192,
202–203,
212, 215,
145–146, 250–254,
149, 150–152,
177–180,
235–249,
259–262,
191, 212, 274-280,
213–214 282-286
264–271,
impact
of families
by ethnicity,
174 upon, 8–9, 15,
121,10,
128,
by28fn6,
females,
174129, 129–130,
138–140,
142, 145–146,upon,
152–157,
impact
of employment
159–160,
177–180,
190, 191, 142,
212,
7–8, 14, 15,
28fn6, 128–129,
213–214
145–146, 149, 150–152, 177–180,
obstacles
to,213–214
17, 23, 73–83, 207–212
191, 212,
operationalised,
64–68,
impact of families
upon,69fn5
8–9, 15,
role
of motivation
in, 9,
16–17, 18,
28fn6,
121, 128, 129,
129–130,
99–105,
174, 213–214
138–140,160–167,
142, 145–146,
152–157,
and159–160,
white-collar
offenders,
28fn8
177–180,
190, 191,
212,
developmental
213–214 criminology, 31,
38–42. to, 17, 23, 73–83, 207–212
obstacles
domestic
violence, 64–68,
28fn5, 69fn5
126, 142,
operationalised,
147,
194
role
of 184,
motivation
in, 9, 16–17, 18,
‘dynamic’
variables,
145–168,
99–105,
160–167,26–27,
174, 213–214
168fn1
and
white-collar offenders, 28fn8
developmental criminology, 31,
38–42. impact of, 146–152, 167,
employment,
domestic
violence,
177–180,
182 28fn5, 126, 142,
147, 184, 194
‘dynamic’impact
variables,
26–27, 145–168,
families,
of, 152–157,
159–160,
168fn1
167,
177–180, 182
employment,
impact of, Index,
146–152,
Home
Office Offenders
18, 59
167,capital
177–180,
human
(see182
also social
existentialism,
240
capital), 216–219,
228
life-style,
157–160,
families, impact
of,187–188,
152–157, 189–190
159–160,
167, 177–180, 182, 238, 252, 261,
268, 269,
280,
Maruna,
S., 3,277,
9–10,
16,282–285
65
missed probation appointments, 118,
129–130,
131, 136–137,
185, 190
Home
Office Offenders
Index,
motivation,
18, 59 99–114
variations
by(see
criminal
history,
human
capital
also social
102–103,
168 228, 250, 251
capital),
216–219,
variation by social circumstances,
104 Theory of Structural and
Integrated
variations
in Level
obstacles
faced, and
105,
Individual
Processes
108–109,
Criminal 168
Careers, 235–240
303
245
Index
obstacles 157–160, 187–188,
life-style,
agreement
189–190 over, 75–76, 112, 129,
130–131, 138, 140, 207
and ‘co-working’,
90–241,
92, 93
–94, 168
macro-level
processes,
245
impactS.,
of3,motivation
on,239,
99–247,
134,
Maruna,
9–10, 16, 65,
119, 250–251,
129–130, 253,
149, 255,
154–264,
155,265,
249,
156–274
157, 160–167, 178–180,
269,
183–184,
186–188
McNeill,
F., 247–249
planned
solutions
to, 76–83 118,
missed
probation
appointments,
related
to alcohol,
74–75,185,
80–83,
129–130,
131, 136–137,
19093,
105, 122,99–114,
127, 146,
–152,
motivation,
243,150
246,
248,
153–259,
154, 262,
155, 266,
178–267–268,
180, 182,269,
183,
250,
184–185
277–278
related
to drugs,
74–75,
80–83, 93,
variations
by criminal
history,
105,
109–112,
102–103,
168 117–121, 126, 127,
128–129,by132,
133circumstances,
–134, 136,
variation
social
137
104–138, 147, 149, 153–154, 155,
156–157,in
182,
183–184
variations
obstacles
faced, 105,
related
to employment,
74–75, 130,
108–109,
168
131, 157–160, 160–164, 189–190
related to
family,
74–267,
75, 179
obstacles,
238,
243, 262,
269, 270,
related
to friends,
275, 276,
277–27874–75, 75–80,
128, 132, over,
134–136,
160112,
–164129,
agreement
75–76,
related
to personal
130–131,
138, 140,characteristics,
207
74–‘co-working’,
75, 105, 121–125,
126
–127,
and
90–92,
93–94,
132
–
133
168
resolving,
85–95, 109–on,
114,99–134,
131–140
impact of motivation
official
offi
data
sets (critique
of), 18–20,
119,
129–130,
149, 154–155,
21,
26–27,160–167,
226
156–157,
178–180,
outcomes
183–184, 186–188
of
probation,
23–24,
26, 27, 32
planned
solutions
to,25,
76–83
successful,
63–67, 85,
17680–83,
–180
related to alcohol,
74–75,
93, 105, 122, 127, 146, 150–152,
peak153–154,
age of conviction,
5, 27fn2
155, 178–180,
182, 183,
policy
implications,
216
–
222
184–185
related to drugs, 74–75, 80–83,
93, 105, 109–112, 117–121, 126,
127, 128–129, 132, 133–134, 136,
137–138, 147, 149, 153–154, 155,
156–157, 182, 183–184
related to employment, 74–75,
130, 131, 157–160, 160–164,
189–190
related to family, 74–75, 179
304
probation
related to friends, 74–75, 75–80,
definition
71–72, 83,
83fn1,
128, 132,of,
134–136,
160–164
213–215
related
to personal characteristics,
impact
of,105,
160121–125,
–168, 173126–127,
–192,
74–75,
212
–215
132–133
‘Probation
Impact
200–201,
resolving,
85–95,Scales’,
109–114,
203,
204
131–140
official data sets (critique of), 18–20,
realistic
evaluation,
21, 26–27,
226 31–38, 213
reconviction, 63, 193, 198–200, 224
outcomes
rates
of, 3, 5, 23–24,
11–13, 25,
20–26,
21, 26–27
of probation,
research
design, 26–27, 45–60, 226
27, 32
Rex,
S., 74, 215,
228 85, 176–180
successful,
63–67,
risk, 95, 106, 158, 225
peak age of conviction, 5, 27fn2
sampleimplications, 216–222,
policy
attrition,
247–25351–53
characteristics, 49–51
probation
recruitment,
59fn2
definition of,48,
71–72,
83, 83fn1,
representativeness
of, 51
213–215
selective
40, 44fn2
impactincapacitation,
of, 160–168, 173–192,
self report
methodology, 20–23,
212–215
29fn19Impact Scales’, 200–201,
‘Probation
limitations
203, 204 of, 21–22, 55–56, 104
self-reported offending
by motivation,
19531–38,
–196 213
realistic
evaluation,
rates of, 58–63,
59,193,
63–64,
103, 152,
reconviction,
198–200,
224191,
225 20–21, 26–27
rates193,
of, 3,203,
5, 11–13,
social capital
(see26–27,
also human
research
design,
45–60, 226
capital),
216
–
220,
226,
228,
Rex, S., 74, 215, 228, 259,
262,
269229
supervision
risk, 95, 106, 158, 225, 250–251, 253,
role
in tackling
obstacles,
255–256,
262, 264,
276 87–95,
116–143, 175, 191
sample
‘what
works’,
4, 11–14, 32, 212–215,
attrition,
51–53
222
–
228
characteristics, 49–51
recruitment, 48, 59fn2
representativeness of, 51
selective incapacitation, 40,
44fn2
self report methodology, 20–23,
29fn19
limitations of, 21–22, 55–56, 104
self-reported offending
Index
by motivation, 195–196
rates of, 58–59, 63–64, 103, 152,
191, 193, 203, 225
social capital (see also human
capital), 216–220, 226, 228, 229,
249, 252, 270
supervision, 231–233, 238–239,
241–245, 277–279
role in tackling obstacles, 87–95,
116–143, 175, 191
Thatcher, M., 241
‘what works’, 4, 11–14, 32, 212–215,
222–228, 245, 248, 264–266,
282–285
305
Case index
This index allows the reader to follow the progress of specific probationers
through the course of the book, and hence their time on probation. Where a
case has been given a name, this too has been recorded.
Case
number
005
006
007
008
013
014
016
017
019
020 ‘Steve’
022
026
027
028
030
032
034
035
036
037
039
042
049
052
054 ‘Tracy’
Page
number(s)
181
117
182
81, 129–130, 141
82, 121, 126
147, 148, 149
123, 186
157
128
109–112, 113, 121
67–68, 147, 181, 182
185
126–127
126, 142
127
159
149
183, 191
148, 155
186
129, 147, 155, 159
72
117–118
154
142, 158, 167,
186–192, 194
Case
number
057 ‘Jacob’
058
060
061 ‘Dave’
063 ‘Sandra’
065
066
067
068
070
071 ‘Kevin’
072
076 ‘Clive’
Page
number(s)
177
80–81, 121, 130
79–80, 119–120, 142
112, 113
150–152, 153, 225
167, 227
150, 176
146, 148, 178
126
158
126, 178
127
82–83, 155, 178–180,
192fn6–8, 212
077
122
079
158
080
186
082
186
083
68, 184
084
80
086
81–82, 118–119, 131,
154
091
78–79, 186
092
153
094 ‘Anthony’ 19, 131–140, 141, 156
095
184, 191
306
247
Rethinking What Works with Offenders
Case
number
098
099
102
103
105
107
109
110
113
114
115
118
119
121
127
134
141
143
146
150
152
153
248
Page
number(s)
147, 159
67
123
153
81, 119, 154, 183
123, 141
194
121, 129, 141
141, 178
67
148, 217
122–123
122
176
122, 181–182
128, 141, 154–155
117–118
186
124, 128, 182
149, 158, 217
122
120, 142, 152–153
Case index
Case
number
158
163
164
165
167
168
171
172
177 ‘Les’
180 ‘Malcolm’
193
194
198
202 ‘Gary’
204
206
212
220
226
227 ‘Dominic’
232
233
Page
number(s)
193
178, 217
1467
79
184–185
120–121, 181
82
118, 154, 184
112–113
177–178
123–124, 127
146, 149, 156
82
124–125
130–131, 181
127–128
78, 158, 159
123
128
119, 156–157, 167
160
117
307