The Common Practice of Assisted Desistance - Case Study Example

 The Complex Needs of Offenders and Rehabilitative Practices that promote Desistance Introduction Desistance is the practice of abstaining from crime among people that had been previously involved in a sustained form of offending. In the past years, criminologists have tried to comprehend the dynamics of desistance while identifying factors, which seemingly support and tolerate it. Additionally, there is the common practice of assisted desistance where organisations and people assist people caught up in cycles of crimes to successfully desist lives of crime (Farrall 2006). While offenders are not a homogenous group, there is an array of needs, which promote reoffending. These may include substance abuse problems, unemployment or financial problems, difficult family backgrounds, homelessness, or even psychiatrist problems. It is important for the institutions management to acknowledge that these factors are interlinked in most cases and will vary mostly along age and gender lines (David 2004; Warr 2002). Theoretical evidence affirms that a combination of individual and social factors can be linked to an increased probability of reoffending and should be routinely reassessed. Also referred to as ‘criminogenic’ needs, they can be attributed to certain types of crime. For example, heroin use is closely linked with shoplifting and other acquisitive offending while alcohol binge drinking is often associated with violence and other petty crimes. These factors can be further classified into static or dynamic. Factors such as employment, drug misuse, or education are subject to change and are thus, classified under dynamic while strong predictors of reoffending such as gender, age, or criminal history are static. So, what helps individuals stay away from crime? Maruna et al (2008) propose that desistance can only work out if the complex needs of the offenders are met. As such, there is a strong correlation between the social or external aspects of an offender’s life (such as the support of those around them), as well as, the psychological or internal (what they subscribe to and what they want to achieve with their lives) and relapsing or desisting. Factors that might work in favour of desistance are such as: i) Family and relationships: studies have suggested that establishing supportive bonds with spouse or family members appears to boost chances of desisting from crime on condition that the family members are not involved in crime or substance abuse themselves. These good relationships are crucial to recidivism owing to a number of reasons. First, they minimise the amount of time and interactions spent with peers, which is an established factor for offending. Most importantly, these relationships afford the individual with something to lose should they return to prison, as well as, giving their lives direction, purpose, and a sense of belonging (Mastrigt & Farrington 2009). ii) Employment: offenders who get steady employment, especially when it offers a sense of achievement or satisfaction are most likely to stop offending. However, this is not the answer to all crimes. White-collar offending is a clear indication that employment will not always prevent crime in the same manner that a romantic relationship is not the solution to a domestic violence offender (Warr 2002). iii) Hope and motivation: research points out that a considerable number of people who desist from crimes are usually motivated to change their lives and feel hopeful that they could change their lives around. For example, offenders who are offenders will be motivated to stay away from crime by their children and being there for them. Juvenile offenders may also be motivated by factors such as their future prospects. Other factors include not having a criminal record, having a place within a social group and being trusted. One theoretical approach towards rehabilitation practice and promotion of desistance is as discussed by Bottoms and McWilliams (Bottoms & Shapland 2010). The two reject the ‘objectification’ of offenders whereby, the offender becomes the object to be cured, treated, or managed through social policy and professional practice. A consequence of this, they suggested, is that formulation of rehabilitation falls squarely on the experts making it essentially officer-centred. A change in paradigm was suggested as such: A) Treatment becomes help. B) Diagnosis becomes a shared assessment. C) Client’s dependent need as the basis of social work action becomes collaboratively defined task as the basis for social work action. In this approach, help is inclusive of but not limited to material help and probation may continue in order to address emotional and psychological distress (Bottoms 2000). However, the approach proved to be inconclusive, as it did not highlight non-treatment variables. It was adopted in an initiative inculcating the imposition from an inherent “what works” paradigm for probation practice (Farrall 2006; Farrall 2002). In light of the aforementioned factors, their revision was suggested as follows: i) Help consistent with a commitment to the reduction of harm becomes the intervention necessary to minimise reoffending and protecting the public. ii) Explicit dialogue and the negotiations proposing opportunities for informed consent to involvement in a routine of change would become the professional assessment of the risk and needs subject to the application of controlled assessment tools. iii) The collaboratively defined tasks significant to criminogenic needs and probably effective in meeting them would be compulsory engagement in the structured programs and the case management processes to combat criminogenic needs as the required elements of legal orders imposed regardless of consent. Arguably, desistance exists somewhere in the interface between developing and promoting personal maturity, the willingness to give up social bonds linked with certain life transitions as well as the individual subjective constructions that offenders may build around these changes and events. According to this approach, it is not just about the events and changes, it is also about what the changes and events would mean to the people involved clearly implying that desistance or rehabilitation is a process and that desistance is essentially about ceasing offending and further refraining from further offending over a long period of time (David 2004). In a study on assisted desistance, the experiences of 60 probationers were followed. The research found that for those that owed changes in their behaviour to the probation supervision, they described it as both active and participatory. These comments seemed to be generated by the professional and personal comment exhibited by the probation officers whose fairness, reasonableness, as well as, encouragement seemed to endear a sense of personal loyalty and encouragement. This evidence strongly emphasizes on the pivotal role, which relationships play in the effective interventions. For secondary desistance, or rather those that are involved in persistent offending, a narrative reconstruction of identity is necessary further exemplifying the significance of relational aspects of practice [ CITATION Min12 \l 2057 ] In understanding the best rehabilitative practice, it is important to highlight the variability of characteristics and the criminogenic needs among offenders. For instance, in England and Wales, it shows that men are more likely to reoffend as compared to women. It is also observed that reoffending peaks in the mid-teens and then declines steadily with the highest reoffending rates among those whose last offence was an acquisitive one. In terms of criminogenic needs, analysis indicated that drug use patterns vary by age and area. There was also evidence to show that a great number of criminogenic needs such as alcohol and drug misuse problems, training, education and employment needs, and accommodation problems (Minisitry of Justice, 2015). In addition, to consider are the principles of risk, need and responsively, which are known to be important tools for the management of offenders. With such, as earlier suggested, there is up-to-date assessment of the individual offenders’ needs thus providing tailor-made responses. The approaches will thus cushion against over-treatment of the low-risk offenders and ensure that the interventions are channelled where they are most needed and likely to be useful (David 2004; Farrall 2002). Of course, this involves identifying different styles of delivery since different offender groups are likely to have unique needs. For example, women offenders, others with learning disability or sometimes psychiatrist issues or the LGBT offenders. The approach of offenders needs can also be seen through a holistic and sequenced manner. Here, multimodal interventions that address a range of problems are viewed as crucial to reducing reoffending (Bottoms 2000). This sequencing of the interventions is also fundamental to achieving and supporting successful outcomes. At their core, they include ensuring that services and the interventions are provided in such a way that it optimize the offender’s ability to engage in the desired change. For instance, it includes taking steps to stabilise a chaotic drug dependent offender via the appropriate treatment before engaging them in an offender behaviour program. It is also inclusive of ensuring continuity of services through provision of end-to-end and through the gate services that encourage and support the transition of offenders from prison to the community (Farrington & Mastrigt 2009). In integrated case management and multi-agency partnerships, there are indications of the potential benefits from the joint working at a local level and adopting a case management approach that addresses individual circumstances. Useful evidence that supports this approach involves the police, probation, health services, local authorities, and other partners at the local level. The examples include evaluations of the Drug Interventions Program, the Integrated Offender Management, and the prison-based Ministry of Justice Payment by Results pilots. Delivering an intervention in its designated form, otherwise known as program integrity, includes features of high quality delivery such as mutualized treatment protocols, structured sessions, specific treatment models and staff possessing general interpersonal skills [ CITATION Min13 \l 2057 ]. There are pilots of the payment by results such as the Peterborough and the Doncaster pilots. The Peterborough pilot based at HMP Peterborough affords support to prisoners on their short sentences who would not have been subject to statutory supervision on release from custody. The pilot is funded by the Social Impact Bond and delivered by the Social finance Ltd with the voluntary sector organizations including St Giles Trust. The pilot is an example of the practical ways addressing the specific needs of prisoners thus enabling them to access the resources and support, which they require in a bid to break the cycle of offending once they are out of prison [ CITATION Com10 \l 2057 ]. Based in HMP Doncaster, the Doncaster pilot is a privately run prison managed by Serco. The pilot operates an end-to-end case management approach that entails a community-based team of caseworkers. This pilot thus aims at supporting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending through provision of continued support to the prisoners as they make the transition from prisons to the community. These pilots work in that Social Finance will only be rewarded when it achieves a greater than ten per cent decline in reconviction events based on offences committed within 12 months of release from prison as compared to another control group of comparable offenders drawn from other prisons (Bottoms & Shapland 2010). As earlier mentioned, offenders have complex needs. This study will narrow down to an example that is addressing drug misuse. There is evidence of the significance of both prison and community based drugs interventions in reducing reoffending, desistance and promoting recidivism. The prison-based approach includes abstinence-oriented approaches such as the 12-step, substitute prescribing like prescribing methadone for the opiate users as well as psycho-social approaches including cognitive behavioural programs (Bottoms & Shapland 2010). Varied approaches have been used in community settings including early interventions like those aiming to divert offenders with drug dependence into treatment as well as the residential and the community-based treatment interventions. There is presence of evidence that a wide range of drug interventions have a positive impact on reducing reoffending. These include drug courts, parole supervision, and probation. In conclusion, it is important to set limits on the intrusions of rehabilitation in terms of proportionality and maximising voluntarism in the process. In promotion of desistance, it can be advisable to use prison only as a last resort as it tends to have more detrimental effects on the offenders (Warr 2002). Thus, desistance is the process through which offender management strives to promote and support the approaches to intervention. It is also important to focus on the strong and meaningful relationships, give strong and optimistic messages that avoid labelling, recognize, and mark the achievements towards desistance. For instance, the end of a prison sentence is a tremendous achievement and the way that this is handled can make the difference between desisting and reoffending among people (David 2004). References Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J., 2010. ‘Steps toward desistance among male young adult recidivists’, in Farrall, Sparks, Maruna & Hough (Eds) Escape Routes: Contemporary perspectives on life after punishment, London: Routledge. Bottoms, A. 2000. Compliance and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, L. Gels Thorpe, and S. Rex (Eds.), Community penalties: Change and challenges. Cullompton: Willan Press. Comptroller and Auditor General, 2010. Managing Offenders on short custodial sentences. [Online] Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0910431.pdf [Accessed 22 April 2015]. David, B. 2004. Reducing Crime –Changing Lives: The Government’s Plans for Transforming the Management of offenders. London: Home Office. Farrall, S., 2002. Rethinking What Works with Offenders, Cullompton, UK, Willan Press; Ministry of Justice (2013) Analysis of the impact of employment on re-offending following release from custody, using Propensity Score Matching. London: Ministry of Justice. Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. 2006. Understanding desistance from crime: Theoretical directions in resettlement and rehabilitation. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. 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), pp. 131-59. Ministry of Justice, 2012. Proven re-offending statistics: dfinitions and measurement. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192407/proven-reoffending-definitions-measurement.pdf [Accessed 22 April 2015]. Minsitry of Justice, 2015. Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin April 2012 to March 2013, England and Wales. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399300/proven-reoffending-apr12-mar13.pdf [Accessed 22 April 2015]. CITATION Min12 \l 2057 : , (Ministry of Justice, 2012), CITATION Min13 \l 2057 : , (Minsitry of Justice, 2013), CITATION Com10 \l 2057 : , (Comptroller and Auditor General, 2010), Van Mastrigt, S. B., & Farrington, D. P., 2009. Co-offending, age, gender, and crime type: implications for criminal justice policy. British Journal of Criminology, 49: pp. 552-573. Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime. Cambridge University Press. Read More