Evidence of everyone’s hardwork at our first discovering desistance workshop, held in Glasgow on 10 April 2012. Thanks to everyone who contributed with so much energy, enthusiasm and commitment to do things better. It was wonderful to meet everyone and look forward to seeing you again on the 16 May.
We (Fergus McNeill, Steve Farrall, Shadd Maruna and myself) have produced a summary of the evidence about how and why people stop offending. This gives an overview of the evidence and discusses the implications for both practice and the wider criminal justice system. Following the link will take you to a web version of the summary, from this page you can also download as a pdf or order hardcopies if you wish. Note those of you attending the workshops which form part of this project will be able to get copies there.
We’d be very interested to hear your views about this, both in terms of the content and whether presenting it in this way is helpful/useful for you.
And here’s another — my intro to the latest newsletter of the OEP…
The Offender Engagement Programme is still comparatively young. But questions about the role of evidence in criminal justice policy and practice have been around for a long time. One of the greatest Enlightenment thinkers on crime and punishment, Cesare Beccaria, writing in 1775, put it this way:
‘Would you prevent crimes? Let liberty be attended with knowledge. As knowledge extends, the disadvantages which attend it diminish, and the advantages increase… Knowledge facilitates the comparison of objects, by showing them in different points of view. When the clouds of ignorance are dispelled by the radiance of knowledge, authority trembles, but the force of the law remains immovable’ (in Priestley and Vanstone, 2010: 11).
Alongside his early endorsement of the role of science in promoting public safety, Beccaria demanded clarity in the law, due process in its administration, and certainty and regularity in its delivery of punishments, limited by the principles of parsimony and proportionality. So, for him, as for many that have come after him, delivering criminal justice must be about both evidence and principle; both science and law; both the empirical and the normative.
In a paper that I’m still writing, I’m trying to tease out this central set of relationships, by exploring these intersections. I’m not going to rehearse the arguments here – they are still brewing up — but I want to mention how my thinking has been developed
in and through an interesting and challenging range of engagements linked one way
or another to the OEP.
Firstly, I’ve been fortunate to be invited to speak at many recent events and to provide some input on desistance. The clear impression I have formed is that the revision of national standards to enable professional judgement has created a new urgency in the search not just for evidence, but also for theory, for new ways of thinking, and for rethinking old questions and arguments about values and purposes.
Secondly, I’ve been involved with the team from Sheffield both in the ‘Quality in Probation Supervision’ study and in the evaluation of the SEED programme. These projects, as well as reviewing existing evidence (in the case of the quality study), are beginning to produce new evidence not just about ‘what works?’ but also about ‘what matters?’ in supervision.
Thirdly, I’ve been working hard (with Steve Farrall, Claire Lightowler, Shadd Maruna and many others) on the Desistance Knowledge Exchange project. If you don’t know about this, please visit our blog: http://blogs.iriss.org. uk/discoveringdesistance/
Simply put, the blog is another kind of opportunity to engage practitioners, ex-offenders, service users and researchers in dialogue about what desistance-supporting justice might look like.
Each of these three kinds of engagement speaks in some
way to the article I’m writing; as a result, it’s a paper that takes what might seem to some a slightly unusual path. Rather than trying to present that latest evidence from research into evidence- based practices and issuing academic advice on what policies or practices to adopt, I have tried instead to respect Beccaria’s injunction and to open up new vantage points from which we might examine the claims of evidence on policy and practice. I focus on three sets of questions about the links between evidence and purposes, about the different forms of evidence relevant to rehabilitation, and about the different voices and experiences that might be needed to ‘co-produce’ a more broadly-based and reconceived range of practices.
In relation to this venture, Beccaria again has some wise words for us:
‘Ignorance may be less fatal than a small degree of knowledge, because this adds, to the evils of ignorance, the inevitable errors of a confined view of things…’ (Priestley and Vanstone, 2010: 12).
We are all vulnerable to developing ‘a confined view’; to privileging our own perspective; to preferring to rely on the small degrees of knowledge that we accrue as individuals. And we all stand the best chance of avoiding the errors attendant on taking such ‘a confined view’ by exposing ourselves to the views of others – and by being open not just to new kinds of evidence but also to new kinds of questions. This is not to suggest that all forms of knowledge should be assessed and used in the same ways – and, of course, it is not to refute the need to expose and reject policies and practices based in ignorance or error, whatever their source.
But it is to argue for the learning that comes from mutually respectful dialogue, since it is in that dialogue that the prospects for progressive justice resides. The OEP represents a critically important contribution to that dialogue at a critically important moment for probation, in particular through its emphasis on investing in the skills and qualities of probation staff, and in building these qualities and skills through continual learning, development and support. Please read this newsletter and follow the links for more information.
Here’s a post mainly for the MSt students at Cambridge that I’m teaching today and tomorrow (though I hope others will find it interesting too…). What follows is the conclusion of chapter that Gwen Robinson and I wrote for a book on Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice, edited by Adam Crawford and Anthea Hucklesby (published soon by Routhedge).
In a recent book which has attempted to conceptualise and evaluate prisons using a framework informed by prisoners’ and prison staff members’ views about the aspects of prison life which they value, Alison Liebling introduces the notion of ‘moral performance’ (Liebling 2004). The concept of moral performance brings together a number of dimensions of prison life, among them justice, fairness, safety, order, humanity, trust, and opportunities for personal development. Liebling presents this notion of moral performance as an alternative and more meaningful measure of ‘what matters’ in the prison context, and of the quality of prison life, than those measures which have arisen from the managerialist ‘performance agenda’ of the 1980s and 90s.
Although the specific measures of ‘moral performance’ developed by Liebling do not translate unproblematically to the community sanctions context, we nonetheless think that the concept of moral performance is a potentially very useful one, and it is one which chimes with the limited research which has, to date, been conducted on offenders’ views of statutory supervision. Like good sociologies of prison life (most recently Crewe, 2009), studies of offenders’ experiences of community sanctions reveal that structures and systems are only part of the story of how justice or punishment works out in practice. The narratives of supervision collected for the oral history study discussed above, for example, ultimately reveal the extent to which the meanings and natures of such sanctions are negotiated between the people involved (McNeill, 2009).
As we noted at the outset, if community sanctions have a definable form or architecture it is much less obvious than that of the prison. It is not just that legitimacy can ebb and flow for all of the reasons discussed above; the shape of the sanction itself is malleable. It is true that there are places and times where those on such sanctions must be and, perhaps more importantly, where they are expected to do something (whether unpaid work or participation in programmes or individual supervision) or even to be a particular kind of someone (a willing worker paying back, a remorseful offender making good, a recovering drug user staying clean). There may be no locks and keys, but there are borders and checkpoints to negotiate here, each of which opens up the possibility of interactions perceived as legitimate and illegitimate (Rose, 2000). The sentencing process is the first of these, in which the would-be subject of such a sanction must yield to (or better still facilitate) their construction as a suitable subject for a community sanction (perhaps even a suitable subject for leniency) – and hence for passage into the community sanction and, by implication away from the prison door (McNeill et al., 2009). Once in the process of the community sanction, there are important and subtle forms and rituals to be observed in the numerous disciplinary passages through which the subject must pass in the process of supervision. The supervisor is the ‘key-holder’; each point of passage involves them in disciplinary judgments about the offender’s successful negotiation of assessment, intervention and review processes.
Probation law or ‘rules’, like prison law or ‘rules’, may represent other forms of ‘code’ (Lessig, 1999) or architecture (Jones, 2006) that lend a certain form to the experience of community sanctions. In any jurisdiction the law may determine the formal parameters of obligations (and perhaps entitlements) that community sanctions create. But beyond this legal scaffold, community sanctions have remarkable malleability and thus vulnerability in their character; whereas the prison physically frames the lived experience of imprisonment, the community sanction has no such obvious ‘frame’, except in the interactions between its executor (the probation officer) and its subject (the probationer). Thus it is in these interactions that such sanctions are continually invented and reinvented. The physical locus of such interpersonal engagement is important, but it is not in and of itself definitive of the experience of the sanctions that these actors co-construct (however equally or unequally).
But equally importantly, the probation officer or social worker is influenced in their crucial contribution to the construction of the sanction by the political, social, cultural and professional worlds that they inhabit. As we have noted throughout, where these conditions generate pressures to pursue external legitimacy or credibility (e.g. McNeill et al, 2009), they may impact adversely on the internal quest for those same qualities (cf. Ugwudike, 2010 forthcoming). A key message of our analysis is that, particularly where sanctions aim to elicit change, the skills of the practitioner in bridging the social distance between the ‘punished’ and the ‘punishers’ are likely to be critical to the process. However, the conditions under which the ‘punishers’ labour can create countervailing forces, driving the parties apart. Especially in this context, the quality and the authenticity of the practitioner’s moral performance seem likely to lie at the heart of the matter, since these moral qualities will profoundly affect the meaning, nature and experience of the sanction. Within this context, the legitimacy of the practitioner – on which his or her influence depends — is hard-won, easily lost, and almost impossible to recover. Put another way, it is as difficult to enable legitimacy to flow into a community sanction as it is easy to let it ebb away.
Our colleague, Shadd Maruna, has been busy this month talking about desistance at Safe Ground’s Symposium held at the House of Lords. Click here for further information and to listen to his talk.
He is clearly too modest to post this himself or to point out how clear and interesting this is.
Shadd begins by talking about the importance of aging for the desistance process. He goes on to explore how desistance is associated with feelings of self-efficacy and hope. Further, he highlights the importance of having a sense of being ‘better’ than one’s offences or more than just an ‘offender’. However, Shadd argues that people are being released back into a community where perceptions of prisoners are overwhelmingly negative, which is likely to create an additional obstacle on the road to ‘going straight’.
Like all good rock and roll outfits (and a few less good ones!) we’re adding extra dates! Wembley arena was booked, so these will be hosted by the London Area probation Trust.
The London dates are:
May 11th and June 11th.
All those who are from the London/Southern area will be invited to ‘switch’ to the London seminars (we’re not just going to transfer people as we’re aware that some people may have other committments which mean that May/June 11th won’t work for them). Any one who has been confirmed as having a place at the Sheffield seminars will still be able to come to Sheffield if they wish.
This is all around fab news; it means that we’ll be able to invite more people from the London area (which means more policy makers and pressure groups etc) and therefore we’re expecting to be able to offer more places to those who are currently on the Sheffield reserve list.
Lisa Burns will be in touch with people to see if they’d prefer to switch to the London dates ad then with those on the Sheffield reserve list.
Thanks to everyone who has sent us supportive comments and been patient whilst we’ve tried to fix up the London dates – and thanks also, of course to LAPT for agreeing to host us.
Looking forward to Easter and lying down in a darken room.
I recently received this email (punishment, it is proposed, be included in every community sentence). (This following on from Fergus’ recent post …).
All the best,
The plans will ensure community sentences are a tough and credible punishment that better tackles reoffending, supported by modernising reforms to probation to cut crime. We aim to make better use of the innovation, capacity and diversity of voluntary private providers, in partnership with the probation service.
The consultations propose:
• Intensive Community Punishment sentence – a rigorous new community order for criminals who deserve a serious penalty but can be sensibly dealt with in the community. It will include a package of punishments including unpaid work, significant restrictions on liberty through a curfew with tagging, exclusion from certain areas, a foreign travel ban, driving ban, and a fine.
• At least one form of punishment element in every sentence – for the first time every community sentence will include one form of punishment from the list outlined above;
• Greater and more creative use of electronic monitoring – using technology, such as GPS, to monitor offenders’ compliance with their sentence and to track their movements.
• Seizing criminal assets – a new power for bailiffs to seize criminals’ possessions.
• Alcohol bans – new power to trial a scheme to ban offenders convicted of alcohol-fuelled crime from drinking as part of a community sentence or suspended sentences using new monitoring technology.
• The Public Sector Probation Service will retain control of the management of offenders who pose the highest risk, including the most serious and violent criminals to protect the public. They will continue to provide advice to court, and take public interest decisions over all offenders including initially assessing levels of risk, resolving action where sentences are breached, and decisions on the recalls of offenders to prison.
• Greater effectiveness and quality in probation services – extending competition, including for lower-risk offenders, to ensure that probation services are delivered by those best equipped to tackle crime and reoffending, and encourage the most effective rehabilitation measures, whether they are in the public, voluntary, or private sectors. Where possible we will pay providers by measured results
• Devolving accountability and responsibility – giving Probation Trusts control of local budgets, including, for example electronic monitoring of curfews, so they can deliver programmes targeted at local needs and reducing reoffending.
The Community Sentencing consultation also includes proposals to improve the use of fines by getting better, more accurate information about offenders’ means, to empower offender managers to deal more swiftly with minor breaches, and to encourage greater use of restorative justice and more effective use of compensation orders, which are paid to victims of crime.
Extending the partnership between the Probation Service and the private, public and voluntary sectors, and giving Probation Trusts more control of local budgets of offender management services like electronic monitoring of curfews and joint commissioning for drug and mental health treatment, will help cut crime by driving down reoffending. This will better support the Government’s priorities for wider reform of the justice sector, including the development of payment by measured results in cutting reoffending.
The proposals set out in the two consultations build on the reforms already being taken forward in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which include extending the maximum length of a curfew from 12 hours a day to 16 hours a day, from six months to 12 months and introducing foreign travel bans. They are a significant extension of the policy launched by the Offender Management Act 2007 and will speed up the use of the legal powers in that Act.