Month: May 2014

This post is based on a short paper prepared for a University of Sheffield Centre for Criminological Research Knowledge Exchange Seminar at the British Academy in London on 15th May.

In recent years theories of desistance from crime (how and why people stop and refrain from offending) have been much developed, discussed and debated, not just in relation to their various interconnected explanations of the process but also, increasingly, in relation to their implications for penal policy and practice. Underlying this developing scholarship lies an aspiration and an expectation that better understandings of desistance can and should enable the development of better approaches to punishment, rehabilitation and reintegration and thus to the creation of a safer and fairer society.

Defining desistance is far from straightforward, but most discussions begin with the idea of the cessation of offending behaviour. However, since it is impossible to know the moment at which any behaviour ceases permanently, scholars have increasingly come to conceptualise and to study desistance as a process (see, for example, Bottoms et al., 2004; Maruna, 2001; Farrall, 2002; Laub and Sampson, 2003). More specifically, we can think of desistance as a process of human development in social context; one that involves moving away from offending and into compliance with law and social norms. Maruna and Farrall (2004) draw an important distinction between primary and secondary desistance; the former relates merely to behaviour, the latter implies a related shift in identity. They posit that shifts in identity and self-concept matter in securing longer-term, sustained changes in behaviour as opposed to mere lulls in offending. Though the importance of this distinction has been debated by some, secondary desistance (and with it substantive or committed compliance to the law, see Robinson and McNeill, 2008) is likely to be important for people who have been heavily involved in offending and/or heavily criminalized. ‘Spoiled identities’ need to be shed if change is to be secured.

In my own recent thinking, I have been exploring whether it may also make sense to develop the concept of tertiary desistance; thus referring not just to shifts in behaviour or identity but to shifts in one’s sense of belonging to a (moral) community. My argument, based on developing research evidence (for example, Laub and Sampson, 2003; Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Weaver, 2013), is that since identity is socially constructed and negotiated, securing long term change depends not just on how one sees oneself but also on how one is seen by others, and on how one sees one’s place in society. Putting it more simply, desistance is a social process as much as a personal one.

In fact, the links between behaviour, identity and belonging are implicit in the main explanatory theories of desistance. These are commonly divided into ontogenic theories which stress the importance of age and maturation; sociogenic theories which stress the importance of social bond and ties; and narrative theories which stress the importance of subjective changes in identity (Maruna, 2001). Recently, in an important review of desistance research, Bottoms (2014 forthcoming) has suggested a fourth set of explanatory factors which are situational in character. Drawing on his expertise in socio-spatial criminology, as well as on desistance research, Bottoms points out that various aspects of our social environments and of our situated ‘routine activities’ also provide importance influences on our behaviour, for better or worse. While our environments and activities are closely connected to our social bonds or ties (in intimate relationships and to families, work and faith communities), they deserve attention in their own right.

Much of my own work in the last 15 years has focused not so much on advancing our explanations for or understandings of desistance as on the related task of ‘translating’ the implications of this research for policy and practice, and in particular for how we approach to challenges of punishment and rehabilitation (McNeill 2003; 2006; 2009; 2012; McNeill and Weaver, 2007; 2010). Desistance research has particular policy salience to the extent that policy is concerned with reducing reoffending and its associated economic, human and social costs. Rather than simply observing or understanding desistance, the question becomes: “Can we enable desistance through criminal sanctions, or do they tend to frustrate it?” A wide range of recommendations have been developed in response to these questions, but they tend to centre on the following themes: 1. For persistent offenders, desistance is a complex and difficult process, so we need to be realistic about these difficulties, and to expect and better manage lapses and relapses. 2. Since the process is different for different people (even if there are many common threads), interventions need to be properly individualized and tailored to the circumstances of the individual. 3. Since desistance is relational, interventions need to work on, with and through professional and social relationships (and not just through individualized programmes). Developing social capital (meaning networks of reciprocal relationships) is crucial to supporting desistance. 4. Since desistance often involves developing hope for the future, interventions need to work to nurture hope and motivation. Hope seems to be connected to developing a sense of ‘agency’ (meaning the capacity to govern one’s life), interventions should seek to identify and mobilise personal strengths and self-determination. 5. The language of policy and practice matters; to the extent that it entrenches criminalized identities, it may frustrate desistance. We need to mind our language, as well as ensuring that we recognize and celebrate progress, so as to reinforce fledgling positive identities.

In the recent chapter already referred to above, Bottoms (2014 forthcoming) suggests that we need to add to this list interventions that attend to the routine activities and social environments of offenders. In other words, we need to practical supports and activities that enable and sustain change.

Looking at these issues in somewhat broader perspective, I have recently argued (McNeill, 2012; 2014) that over the last 20 years our approaches to rehabilitation have become too narrowly focused on supporting personal change, neglecting three other forms of rehabilitation – moral, social and judicial. The central argument here is that no amount of personal change can secure desistance if change is not recognized by the community (‘social rehabilitation’), by the law and by the state (‘judicial rehabilitation’). Without these forms of informal and formal recognition, legitimate opportunities (for example for participation in the labour market or in social life) will not become available and return to offending may be made more likely. In some cases, the failure in state punishment to attend directly to the need for moral rehabilitation (the settling of debts between the offender, victim and community) may undermine social rehabilitation. Restorative justice may have something to offer here. More generally, my argument is that these four forms of rehabilitation are often interdependent, and that failing to attend to all four reduces the likelihood of successful desistance.

More recently still, I have begun to argue that criminal justice policy and practice needs to reconsider how it frames its goals (McNeill, forthcoming). Studying and supporting desistance eventually forces us to address the complex question not of what people desist from, but what they desist to. In other words, if desistance is a process or a journey, how are we to understand its destination? My suggestion is that the concepts of citizenship, integration and solidarity may have much to offer in addressing this question – and that perhaps a positively framed set of goals for criminals sanctions operationalising these concepts (and a positive set of metrics for judging their successes) may help us move beyond an increasingly fruitless preoccupation with risk and reoffending.

References

Bottoms, A. (2014 forthcoming), ‘Desistance from Crime’, forthcoming in: Z. Ashmore and R. Shuker (eds.) Forensic Practice in the Community, London: Routledge.

Bottoms, A., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Holmes, D. and Muir, G. (2004) ‘Towards Desistance: Theoretical Underpinnings for an Empirical Study’, The Howard Journal 43(4): 368–89.

Bottoms, A. and Shapland, J. (2011) ‘Steps towards desistance among male young adult recidivists’, in S. Farrall, M. Hough, S. Maruna and R. Sparks (eds.), Escape Routes: Contemporary Perspectives on Life after Punishment, London: Routledge.

Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Laub, J. and Sampson, R. (2003) Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age Seventy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McNeill, F. (2003) ‘Desistance Based Practice’, pp146-162 in W-H. Chui and M. Nellis (eds.), Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Arguments and Practice, Harlow: Pearson Education.

McNeill, F. (2006) ‘A desistance paradigm for offender management’ Criminology and Criminal Justice 6(1): 39-62

McNeill, F. (2009) Towards Effective Practice in Offender Supervision. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, available at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/McNeil_Towards.pdf

McNeill, F. (2012) ‘Four forms of ‘offender’ rehabilitation: Towards an interdisciplinary perspective’ Legal and Criminological Psychology 17(1): 18-36 (Pre-publication final draft available at: https://blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/useful-resources/http//blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/files/2011/09/McNeill-2012-Four-forms-of-offender-rehabilitation.pdf)

McNeill, F. (2014) ‘Punishment as Rehabilitation’, pp. 4195-4206 in, G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd (eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2, Springer Science and Business Media: New York. [A final draft version of this paper is available open access online at: https://discoveringdesistance.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/0128d-mcneill-when-pisr.pdf%5D

McNeill, F. and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, available at: https://discoveringdesistance.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/4e60d-changing-lives.pdf

Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S. and Farrall, S. (2004) ‘Desistance from crime: A theoretical reformulation’, Kvlner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 43: 171–94.

Robinson. G. and McNeill, F. (2008) Exploring the Dynamics of Compliance with Community Penalties, Theoretical Criminology 12(4): 431-449.

Weaver, B. (2013) The Story of the Del: From Delinquency to Desistance. PhD Thesis, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

This guest post comes from Steve Kirkwood, a Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Edinburgh.

On 22 April, Beth Jennings (a PhD Candidate) and I ran a Knowledge Exchange Seminar at the University of Edinburgh, bringing together 35 stakeholders – mostly criminal justice social workers – to discuss the methods and preliminary findings from my research project on criminal justice groupwork. The research is relatively innovative in that it uses Discourse Analysis – which treats language as actively constructing reality and as fulfilling a range of social functions – and Conversation Analysis – which is concerned with the fine-grained analysis of conversation – to explore interactions in criminal justice settings. It is my view that this type of approach is one way of making connections between research on effective interventions and processes of desistance.

The research is based on the analysis of video recordings of criminal justice groupwork programmes, and because the videos are too sensitive to show, we showed short video extracts that had been recreated by actors. Creating the videos was an interesting experience in itself, as the idea was to have the re-enactments as close to the originals as possible, which created some interesting challenges for delivery – especially if the actor didn’t already have a Scottish accent!

At the event, I presented some of my preliminary findings, which highlight the way that some service users may resist or show ambivalence towards ‘pro-social’ identities, such as being a good father, and the social workers may orient to this ambivalence, teasing out opportunities or evidence for positive change, while other service users’ change narratives appeared to function as ‘resources’ to support these desistance processes. A key part of the event, which was heavily influenced by Professor Liz Stokoe’s Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (see http://www.lboro.ac.uk/enterprise/carm/ ), involved breakout sessions facilitated by me and my colleagues Prof Bill Whyte, Prof Viviene Cree and Dr Eric Laurier. The sessions involved playing part of an extract, then stopping it to ask questions such as: “What is going on here?”, “What might happen next?” and “As a practitioner, what would you do next?” The idea is that a close analysis of specific instances of practice helps to make explicit key aspects of effective practice and encourages reflective practices that are informed by an understanding of interaction.

For me, the sessions highlighted how practitioners orient to a range of concerns in groupwork, including encouraging participation, reinforcing pro-social behaviour, conveying empathy, dealing with tricky/unhelpful contributions, drawing out and relating contributions to other group members, consolidating learning, and dealing with time constraints, often in subtle and highly skilled ways. I was amazed by the way that some participants at the event could predict what might happen next – including predicting changes in body language and things that would provoke laughter – and interested in those moments that departed from expectations.

The discussion gave me a greater understanding of how practitioners convert principles for effective practice into actual instances of interaction and how concepts related to desistance can be seen or understood in practice contexts. Feedback from participants suggested that focusing on specific instances of practice, informed by discourse analysis and conversation analysis, has real potential for enhancing reflective practice and building knowledge. For instance, it was suggested that a structured research project looking at ‘common scenarios’ in criminal justice might be useful for improving practice. I think this might help to open the ‘black box’ of criminal justice practice with benefits for evaluation research, theory building and social work / probation education.

I hope to be able to take forward this research in relation to one-to-one supervision in criminal justice settings. Saying this, it is important to note that some good reflective practices are already going on, particularly in criminal justice groupwork. The research methods I’ve been using also have some limitations, particularly in terms of the problems associated with taking small instances of practice out of context. Another important aspect is to be aware that the approach is intended to analyse interaction, not judge practice, and that the discussion of real instances of practice needs to be done respectfully and constructively. Overall for me it was great opportunity to discuss my research with practitioners and it was good to hear that the approach has some relevance and potential. Please feel free to contact me at s.kirkwood@ed.ac.uk for further information about the research. We are also in the process of seeking applicants for a Collaborative PhD Studentship that will develop this work – information can be found on this webpage http://www.socsciscotland.ac.uk/studentships/collaborative_award_studentships under the title ‘”Examination of the practice skills for addressing sexual offending through groupwork”.

This guest post comes from Kathy Fox, Dept. of Sociology, University of Vermont.

I recently completed an evaluation for the State of Vermont Department of Corrections (USA) on a program called Circles of Support & Accountability (CoSA), which is a reintegration model that originated in Canada. The U.K. has Circles, as does New Zealand, and a few places in the U.S. CoSA is a model for serious offenders who pose a risk of re-offense in part because of their isolation and lack of social support. The CoSA is a group of a few volunteers—just ordinary citizens really—who commit to meeting with the released “core member” for a year, offering support and guidance as he or she transitions back to the community.

Vermont is the only place as far as I know that uses CoSA many kinds of serious offender; other places use it only for sex offenders. Also this tiny state (of just under 700,000 people) has run more Circles than any place in the U.S.—close to 100 since 2005.

The evaluation was a qualitative one, designed to understand how CoSAs work, what the nature of the relationships is, and how members experience it. I interviewed 20 core members and 57 volunteers (each CoSA has three volunteers surrounding him or her). What I found was interesting and I will briefly summarize here:

• CoSA is effective in part because it is unpaid, nonprofessional volunteers. Many core members were moved by the fact that ordinary people would invest time in them; this created a sense of mutual obligation. Core members didn’t want to let their team down.
• CoSA volunteers balanced support and accountability but seem to work best when it’s longer on support, especially initially. Volunteers often would help core members stay within their conditions of release by giving them rides places, helping them shop, etc. And they would encourage them in their job pursuits. In addition, they would remind them of what they liked to do, like fish or bike, and participate in those activities with them. I found that the deeper and more socially involved the team became with the core member, the greater moral authority they had when they had to call them on a risky behavior.
• A function that CoSA served that I had not expected was to de-institutionalize people who had served long sentences. Because the core members were released on supervision conditions, most could not drive, and some had restrictions on where they could live. They were often, lonely, overwhelmed, and unsure how to live in a world that had changed. CoSA helped them take small steps, like learning how to use a cell phone, and to get a bus pass.

A major function that CoSA serves is to communicate to ex-prisoners that they belong in the community and that ordinary citizens think they are worthwhile. This generated a sense of optimism—reminding me of the necessary components for desistance that Maruna (2001) talked about and “secondary desistance” that Maruna and McNeill discuss, which is the more abiding desistance based on a newly emergent pro-social identity. It’s quite clear that prison alone and even prison with rehabilitation does not lead to a more optimistic self—that is a social process, one that a circles model can assist. Over the coming months, I (along with Dr. Robin Wilson, who evaluated CoSA in Canada and found it reduced recidivism dramatically) will be conducting a recidivism study with the 100 Vermont CoSAs. The U.S. federal government seems interested in expanding CoSA (which was funded in Vermont by the Second Chance Act, which is a federal reentry fund), recently releasing a solicitation for programs to run circles.[1] Interestingly, the newest federal solicitation out of the SMART office (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Tracking, Registering and Tracking) refers to CoSA as a “supervision” strategy, whereas the original model out of Canada was called an adaptation of restorative justice.

Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[1] http://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/SMART_FY12_COSA.pdf

Stephen Farrall will be talking about his research into why people stop offending following probation supervision at the Houses of Parliament on the 21st May. This link here gives more details:

http://thepeoplesparliament.me.uk/themes/policing-prisons-probation/

Best wishes,

Steve