how the resettlement of prisioners promotes desistance from crime

8/11/2019 How the Resettlement of Prisioners Promotes Desistance From Crime

1/21

http://crj.sagepub.com

Criminology and Criminal Justice

DOI: 10.1177/17488958060606652006; 6; 19Criminology and Criminal Justice

Mike Maguire and Peter Raynordoes it?

How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or

http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/19 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Criminology and Criminal JusticeAdditional services and information for

http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://crj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/1/19SAG E Journals Online and HighWire Press platfor ms):

(this article cites 13 articles hosted on theCitations

2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Joao Almeida on October 31, 2007http://crj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://crj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/1/19http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/1/19http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/1/19http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://crj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://crj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/21

How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistancefrom crime:

Or does it?

MIK E MAG UIR E AND PETER RAYNO RCardiff University, UK and Swansea University,UK

Abstract

The article considers current developments in the resettlement of prisoners in the light of recent theory and research on factorspromoting desistance from crime. While recognizing improvementspromised by the Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan andthe concept of end-to-end offender management, it is argued thatthese are unlikely to reduce re-offending signi cantly without greater attention to individual offenders mental processes and levels of self-motivation, which are identi ed by the desistance literature (as wellas much of the what works literature) as critical factors in personalchange. An account is given of a promising approach adopted in theResettlement Path nders , where a cognitive-motivationalprogramme was combined with practical services, with encouragingearly results. However, concerns are expressed that even the mostinnovative approaches may be undermined by features of thebroader context within which correctional services are delivered,including an excessive emphasis on enforcement (which makes noallowance for the zigzag nature of desistance) and the potentiallynegative impact of contestability on relational continuity.

Key Words

desistance NOMS offender management probation resettlement

A R T I C L E S

19

Criminology & Criminal Justice 2006 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi)and the British Society of Criminology.

www.sagepublications.comISSN 1748 8958; Vol: 6(1): 19 38

DOI: 10.1177/1748895806060665

http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/http://crj.sagepub.com/


3/21

This article explores convergences and divergences between two conceptsthat have rapidly become prominent in criminological and criminal justiceliterature over the past few years: resettlement and desistance . It identi- es a shift in thinking about both the nature and the signi cance of workwith prisoners who are making the transition from custody to community,which is increasingly being regarded as of central importance to theGovernment s agenda of reducing re-offending. In the light of the newexpectations they carry, it examines current and planned resettlementstrategies and initiatives in England and Wales, and asks to what extentthese are compatible with insights from theory and research about how andwhy most offenders eventually desist from crime.

The article begins with a brief overview of traditional approaches towhat is now generally known as resettlement , the decline of such work inthe 1980s and 1990s, and its recent revival in new forms as part of abroader crime reduction agenda. This is followed by an outline of some of the main conclusions from recent literature on desistance and a discussionof lessons these may contain for emerging resettlement strategies, inparticular the National Action Plan being developed by the new NationalOffender Management Service. It is argued that, while the plan rightlyfocuses on efforts to deliver (for the rst time) effective practical services tolarge numbers of ex-prisoners, it is important also to maintain sensitivity tothe mental processes involved in serious attempts to desist from crime, theproblem of sustaining motivation and the need for support in the face of

setbacks. An account is then given of an approach which combinesattention to both the practical and psychological dimensions of avoidanceof re-offending, namely the use of the FOR A Change cognitive-motivational programme in a number of experimental schemes which werefunded under the National Probation Service s Resettlement Path nders and evaluated by a research team led by the authors of this article (Lewis etal., 2003a, 2003b; Clancy et al., 2006). This approach, it will be argued,offers a potentially effective way of incorporating lessons about desistanceinto mainstream resettlement practice.

Resettlement: old and new agendas

Interventions with prisoners leaving custody have a long history, thoughthey have been called by different names and undertaken by differentorganizations with a variety of ostensible aims. Traditionally, such workhas had relatively modest ambitions. Although the hope of rehabilitation has always been present, the main focus of attention has understandablybeen on the pressing practical problems faced by many ex-prisoners, andinterventions have been driven as much by the charitable aim of helpingpeople in need, as by criminal justice goals. However, as will be discussedlater, the Government has recently come to see interventions with prisonersthrough the gate as an important element of its wider strategies to reduce

Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1)20



4/21

crime, and resettlement strategies which have consequently attracted arevival of interest and new funding after a period of decline will increas-ingly be judged in terms of the extent to which they appear to reducereconviction rates.

Before 1969, assistance to adult offenders leaving prison (apart fromlifers) was provided on a sporadic and purely voluntary basis, much of it bycharitable and voluntary agencies notably the Discharged Prisoners AidSocieties in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and latterly organizationssuch as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offen-ders (see, for example, NACRO, 2000). The Probation Service, too,continued a tradition of voluntary aftercare , which had its roots in theprison gate missions run by religious groups in the late 19th century (seeVanstone, 2004 for a historical overview). Generally speaking, all thesegroups offered advice and assistance with immediate practical problems,and sometimes simply someone to talk to for ex-prisoners who hadbecome socially isolated. Typically, they would help them to search foraccommodation or employment, or to claim bene ts, in many cases actingas an advocate on their behalf with the relevant agencies. While some closeand productive relationships were developed with individual offenders,overall the assistance provided was variable in availability, quality andeffectiveness, and contact was often maintained only for short periods(Maguire et al., 2000).

Following the introduction of parole under the Criminal Justice Act

1968, a growing proportion (but always a minority) of prisoners weregranted early release on licence and, while they had to comply with theconditions of licence, many of these also bene ted from practical adviceand assistance from their supervising of cers, who could generally draw onprobation resources more easily than in the case of voluntary aftercare.However, during the 1980s, post-release work as a whole (except inrelation to high-risk offenders) began to slip down the priorities of theProbation Service. 1 The introduction of Automatic Conditional Release(ACR) in 1992, under which all prisoners serving 12 months or over

became subject to statutory supervision post-release, further diluted thelevel of service that the Probation Service could provide, turning the so-called throughcare process for many into an impersonal and bureaucraticexercise, characterized by poor preparation for release, lack of effectivecommunication between prison and probation, limited practical assistanceand a strong focus on the enforcement of attendance requirements tosatisfy the new National Standards (Maguire and Raynor, 1997). At thesame time, the Probation Service tradition of offering voluntary aftercare to prisoners not subject to statutory supervision was fast disappearing,meaning that adults sentenced to less than 12 months were largely left tonegotiate on their own the problems of re-entering the community(Maguire et al., 2000).

The case for more government attention to these issues was built upthrough a combination of academic research ndings (Maguire et al., 1998,

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 21



5/21

2000), campaigning by agencies such as NACRO (2000) and a joint reporton the problems of prisoners leaving custody by HM Inspectorates of Prison and Probation (2001). All documented the high levels of social needfound among ex-prisoners, exacerbated by reluctance on the part of some

service agencies to meet their needs (including, in some cases, deliberatepolicies to exclude them from local authority housing), as well as thedif culties faced in obtaining jobs or accommodation caused by the stigmaof having been in prison. Ironically, it was pointed out, the group whichreceived the least attention or assistance short-term prisoners was thegroup with both the highest levels of social need and the highest rates of reconviction.

The key stimulus for the sudden elevation of resettlement to a positionof relatively high priority in penal policy was provided by a report by theSocial Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2002), Reducing Re-offending by Ex-

prisoners . The location of the SEU within the Of ce of the Deputy PrimeMinister not only enhanced the political in uence of this report, but gaveits authors the opportunity to adopt a cross-departmental approach indevising solutions: for example, seeking to engage departments such asEducation, Health and Housing which had previously regarded ex-prisoners as of low priority at the core of its suggested strategy. The SEUreport attached particular weight to the needs of short-term prisoners noting, for example, that two-thirds had been unemployed before going toprison, nearly a third had no accommodation to return to after release,over half had no quali cations and well over half were involved insubstance misuse and linked these explicitly to their exceptionally highrates of reconviction, arguing that failures by mainstream agencies to meetsuch needs constituted a major obstacle to their rehabilitation.

Many of the recommendations of the SEU report were translated intopolicy in the Government s Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan(Home Of ce, 2004), which, though also relating to offenders on commu-nity sentences, had as its core focus the resettlement of prisoners afterrelease. 2 The National Action Plan required the production by April 2006of regional Reducing Re-offending Strategies and corresponding ActionPlans for the delivery of key services. These plans are divided into sevendistinct service Pathways : Accommodation; Education, Training and Em-ployment (ETE); Mental and Physical Health; Drugs and Alcohol; Finance,Bene t and Debt; Children and Families of Offenders; and Attitudes,Thinking and Behaviour. 3 Their development and implementation are beingundertaken by regional partnerships of relevant agencies, overseen by thenine Regional Offender Managers (ROMs) in England, and the WalesOffender Manager, who are employed by the new National OffenderManagement Service (NOMS). While the overall lead has been taken by theHome Of ce, efforts have been made to ensure the commitment and co-operation of other government departments and service agencies: eachPathway has an identi ed lead agency at both national and regional level,




6/21


7/21

recent research on desistance can provide some valuable insights, and wenow summarize some of the relevant ndings.

Current models of desistance

As other contributors to this Special Issue have expounded in more depth,recent research has resulted in some new important insights into theprocesses by which offenders desist from crime. Those which appear to bemost relevant to the discussion here may be summarized as follows:

Agency is as important as if not more important than structure in promoting or inhibiting desistance. Perhaps the most important, and mostwidely agreed, insight has been that future offending is likely to bein uenced by offenders thinking as well as their circumstances. Forexample, Zamble and Quinsey concluded from a study of released maleprisoners in Ontario that factors in the social environment seem in uentialdeterminants of initial delinquency for a substantial proportion of offen-ders . . . but habitual offending is better predicted by looking at anindividual s acquired ways of reacting to common situations (1997:146 7): for many ex-prisoners, the latter include negative or pessimisticreactions to practical problems, which lead them to give up on attempts toavoid re-offending. Maruna s interview-based study of offenders in Liver-pool added the insight that people may react differently depending upon

their personal understandings or accounts of their situations andbehaviour what he calls different kinds of narrative , some of whichsupport continued offending and some of which support desistance. A keyelement of desistance narratives was a belief by the offender that s/he hadbegun to take control of his or her own life: Whereas active offenders . . .seemed to have little vision of what the future might hold, desistinginterviewees had a plan and were optimistic that they could make it work (Maruna, 2000: 147; see also Giordano et al., 2002; Farrall and Calverley,2005: ch. 8).

Individuals differ greatly in their readiness to contemplate and beginthe process of change. Their readiness can be affected by a wide range of factors, including age, major life events or transitions , physical and socialcircumstances and social bonds. Moreover, these factors interact in acomplex fashion, making it dif cult both to predict and to identify whena person is likely to be in a frame of mind receptive to narratives of change (Farrall and Bowling, 1999; Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002, 2004).DiClemente and Prochaska (1982) identify a broad cycle of change withidenti able stages (Pre-contemplation Contemplation Action Maintenance) through which people may be expected to pass in changinga variety of habitual behaviours.

Desistance is a dif cult and often lengthy process, not an event , and reversals and relapses are common. Burnett (2004) refers to a zigzagrather than a linear process, and Maruna and Farrall (2004) to one




8/21

involving complex progression from primary to secondary desistance(akin to the notions of primary and secondary deviance in labelling theory).Prochaska and DiClemente (1992), too, emphasize that individuals do notmove through their cycle of change in a regular, predictable fashion, nor isthe process irreversible.

Generating and sustaining motivation is vital to the maintenance of processes of change. This is a central point made by virtually all writers ondesistance (see, for example, Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002; Maruna andImmarigeon, 2004).

While overcoming social problems is often insuf cient on its own to promote desistance, it may be a necessary condition for further progress.Burnett and Maruna (2004) show that, however strong an offender snarrative for change, his or her motivation can be seriously underminedby, for example, persistent nancial or accommodation problems.

As people change they need new skills and capacities appropriate to theirnew lifestyle, and access to opportunities to use them. Another way of putting this is that they need to acquire both human capital and socialcapital (Farrall, 2004; McNeill, this issue).

The main implications of these observations for probation of cers orothers involved in resettlement , inasmuch as the intention is to fosterchange and reduce re-offending, are that: It is important to understand and respond to offenders individual circum-

stances, including where they are in terms of readiness to change, ratherthan applying a one size ts all set of interventions.

As far as possible, the process of change should be led by the offender, or ata minimum be understood as a joint enterprise in which the role of thepenal professional is to assist the process of desistance: what McNeill (thisissue) calls a desistance paradigm for probation practice.

One of the most important contributions of those assisting offenders isempathetic support to sustain motivation, particularly in the face of set-backs. Also important is help in acquiring relevant skills and takingadvantage of opportunities to improve lifestyle.

Help in overcoming social and practical problems can be important in termsof maintaining motivation (or hope ), and hence removing obstacles toprogress.

It is to be expected that relapses into prior patterns of behaviour willoccur, and these should not be taken to indicate that the desistance processhas failed .

To these can be added a number of more practical points concerningactions which previous research on throughcare suggests may increase thechances of interventions being effective (see, for example, Maguire andRaynor, 1997; Lewis et al., 2003b): Early planning and preparation for release. Establishment of a close relationship with the offender while he or she is

still in prison.




9/21

Continuity between work with individuals in custody and that undertakenafter release, including reinforcement of speci c learning.

Provision of any required services, such as drug treatment, as soon aspossible after release.

Resettlement and desistance: convergence or divergence?

The remainder of the article discusses past, current and emerging ap-proaches to resettlement in the light of the above research evidence.

As noted earlier, the services provided to ex-prisoners through boththroughcare systems and voluntary aftercare declined in scale andquality during the 1990s, and ambitious plans are being developed toimprove the situation. The main weaknesses that they hope to addressinclude: Lack of continuity between prison and probation interventions. Poor (and increasingly impersonal) case management of offenders on

licence. Lack of individual tailoring of plans and interventions. Relatively low priority by probation services to ACR prisoners in compar-

ison to those on community sentences. Little or no attention to prisoners serving under 12 months. Reluctant assistance to (and sometimes discrimination against) ex-prisoners

by major service providers. Little attention to thinking, attitudes and motivation.

Clearly, a system with these characteristics is unlikely to provide muchassistance to indeed, is likely to impede the kinds of desistance processesoutlined earlier. What remains to be seen is whether the reforms underwaywill not only solve the basic organizational and resource problems anddeliver services effectively, but will create a system that is likely to result inreductions in re-offending. In answering the latter question it is important

both to look for any theories of change that underlie the reforms and toexamine these in the light of the desistance literature.It is worth noting that the architects of some other recent innovations in

penal policy have paid serious attention to theories of why and how theyshould work in terms of reducing re-offending. Indeed, the introduction of offending behaviour programmes was accompanied by the appointment of an expert panel of academics and others (the Correctional Services Accred-itation Panel) whose tasks included close scrutiny of both the models of change underpinning the programmes and of evidence put forward byprogramme designers to support claims that they would have an impact onreconviction (see, for example, CSAP, 2004). By contrast, such discussionshave been largely absent from the plans for changes in resettlementpractice, which for very understandable reasons have focused muchmore on practicalities than theory.




10/21

Nevertheless, even without many explicit statements, it is possible totease out what one of the authors has described in an earlier essay (Raynor,2004a) as the implicit criminologies behind different models of how toprovide a resettlement service. That essay argued that although policy-makers and practitioners do not necessarily articulate them, differentapproaches to resettlement carry embedded within them different assump-tions about why people offend, why they stop offending and how theservice provided is intended to in uence offending (2004a: 222).

Inasmuch as they can be ascertained, the implicit criminologies behindtraditional approaches to through the gate interventions seem to begenerally positivist/determinist in character, re ecting a view that individualoffenders are largely the victims of social circumstances and problemsbeyond their control. This contains the corresponding assumption that if prisoners can be helped to get back on their feet in practical terms, theirchances of avoiding new offending will be reduced. At rst sight, too, thenew Reducing Re-offending strategies re ect similar thinking: the plansoutlined under most of the Pathways seem to take it for granted that goodservice provision will result in less re-offending, though the precise mecha-nisms by which this will occur are not articulated. It also seems to beassumed that offenders who are assessed as needing services (for example,because they are under-educated, have a poor employment record or areaddicted to drugs) are also likely to want them, and hence that they largelyshare the goals of those assisting them: they want to attain a crime-free life,

improve their skills, nd a job, free themselves from drugs and so on. Inother words, the general message to emerge from a reading of these plansappears to be that the heart of the resettlement problem (and by implica-tion, of the problem of re-offending) is located primarily in the exclusion of ex-prisoners from effective services to meet their practical needs.

However, the seventh Pathway, Attitudes, Thinking and Behaviour contains a different implicit criminology , which recognizes that criminalbehaviour may also involve cognition and choice on the part of theindividual. The main interventions planned and delivered under this Path-

way include cognitive-behavioural programmes, which are intended to helpoffenders see the value of a crime-free life and increase their motivation andthinking skills to achieve this at the same time equipping them to makebetter use of the improved services offered under the other Pathways.

Looked at in this way, the Reducing Re-offending National Action Planseems to go beyond traditional welfare approaches to resettlement (oraftercare or throughcare , as it was called in earlier incarnations) and tore ect a multi-causal explanation of offending, neither a purely determi-nistic view (external problems and forces acting on the helpless individual)nor one based entirely on individuals exercising free will or agency inchoosing to offend. Similarly, the new National Offender ManagementModel (NOMM) being introduced by NOMS includes provisions for thesystematic assessment and referral of offenders to a variety of interventions,some intended to address thinking de cits, others more practical needs




11/21

(NOMS, 2005). Importantly, the NOMM also incorporates the notion of end-to-end offender management, whereby one practitioner maintainsownership of a case throughout the whole of a sentence (whether beginningin custody or in the community), with the aim of providing continuity andcoherence between the different interventions, as well as sustaining motiva-tion. However, while these developments appear to be substantially inaccord with the principles suggested by research as conducive to desistance,a closer look raises doubts.

First of all, it is likely that as now probation of cers or othersmanaging through the gate cases will place far less emphasis onaddressing thinking and attitudes issues than they do with offenders oncommunity sentences. This is partly because of the pressing nature of thepractical problems that tend to confront people coming out of prison, andpartly because there is often insuf cient time on licence for them toundertake a formal programme. Of course, many will have undertakenprogrammes in prison, but the what works literature suggests that unlessthe learning from these is reinforced after completion, much of the bene tmay be lost. 6 It should also be noted that the NOMM limits the use of rehabilitative interventions (as opposed to thsoe delivering punishment or help ) mainly to offenders assessed as medium to high risk.

Second, the complex structure and potentially bureaucratic processes of the NOMM, together with the formal separation of offender manage-ment and interventions under NOMS, create a danger that insuf cient

attention is paid to the interactive effects of different kinds of needs,problems and feelings in other words, that sight is lost of the wholeperson . The importance of such interactions is illustrated by Burnett andMaruna (2004) in a discussion of the impact of social problems on hope and hence on motivation to change (see also Farrall and Calverley, 2005:ch. 5). Under the new NOMS systems, individual offenders assessedneeds will increasingly be divided up into separate categories and ad-dressed in isolation through visits to a variety of specialist providers. Intheory, all service providers will be part of an offender management team

built around each individual (NOMS, 2005), but as the members of thisnotional team are unlikely to meet as such, and as communication withinthe correctional system has a discouraging history, it is dif cult toenvisage it as an integrative system in practice (for a more comprehensivecritique, see Raynor and Maguire, 2006). The main hope is that theoffender manager (or supervisor , who may be the same or a differentperson) will be able to maintain a coherent overview of the dynamics of any evolving rehabilitative process and splice together any bene ts fromthe disparate interventions.

Most importantly, however, there are doubts around the ability of thenew system to address the more subtle aspects of desistance identi ed in theliterature, such as the dif culties offenders experience in sustaining positivenarratives and motivation and, by implication, the importance of trust-ing relationships with practitioners who understand and support offenders




12/21

own efforts to overcome setbacks and disillusionment. Certainly, this needis recognized to some extent in the NOMM documentation, which sets outa vision of a human service involving a reasonable degree of continuity of relationship (enhanced through motivational interviewing and pro-social

modelling) and supported by effective delivery of commissioned services(NOMS, 2005: 4 6). However, as discussed in Raynor and Maguire(2006), the potential fragmentation of the system, together with poor staff morale in the face of contestability, confusion over of cers roles and acontinuing focus on organizational change rather than the necessary staff skills development, make the generalized establishment of close supportiverelationships an unlikely prospect in the near future at least.

The Resettlement Pathnders and the FOR programmeOf course, the plans for resettlement reform discussed to date are still intheir infancy, and as yet one can only speculate about how effective (or not)they will be. By contrast, there is substantial evidence concerning theeffectiveness of a number of experiments with new approaches to resettle-ment that were carried out under the Probation Path nders initiative. TheResettlement Path nders, which focused mainly on short-term prisoners,ran between 1999 and 2005 and were evaluated as part of the Crime

Reduction Programme.Full accounts of the ndings from these studies can be found elsewhere(Lewis et al., 2003b; Lewis, 2004; Raynor, 2004a; Clancy et al., 2006), andthis summary concentrates on those aspects which are important for thepurposes of this article. The rst phase of the study, involving sevenPath nder projects, was intended to improve the availability and take-upof appropriate post-release services for short-term prisoners, and to helpthem to make a better transition back into the community, with eventualreductions in offending. In addition, the rst phase was designed to test andcompare a number of different approaches to providing resettlementservices. Three voluntary sector projects were to concentrate on welfareneeds while four probation-led projects would concentrate more on ad-dressing offending behaviour. Although other differences between projectsemerged in the course of the research, the main intended difference inapproach remained, and showed itself in a number of ways: for example,OASys assessments in the probation-led projects were more likely than inthe voluntary sector projects to identify thinking problems, even though(at least in the six projects involving male prisoners) the target populationsappeared very similar. Moreover, not only did they undertake a consider-able amount of informal work with individuals on problems of thinkingand attitudes, but by the end of the study all four probation-led projectswere using a form of group programme to address these issues. In threecases this was a cognitive-motivational programme, FOR A Change ,




13/21

designed speci cally for pre-release use with short-term prisoners (Fabianoand Porporino, 2002). 7

While an interest in offenders attitudes and thinking and in the possiblecontribution of these to offending has been a characteristic of probationpractice over many decades, more structured and systematic approaches tothese issues notably the development of highly structured offending be-haviour programmes have been a feature of the what works movementof the last 10 years (Raynor and Vanstone, 2002; CSAP, 2004). The use of the FOR programme in three of the male prisons was clearly in line withthis trend, but it should be noted that the programme was rather differentin aims and content to the majority of accredited offending behaviourprogrammes. A cognitive-motivational programme designed for delivery inthe weeks preceding release, FOR consisted of twelve group sessions andone individual session. The group sessions concentrated on developingmotivation and setting goals, and included a market-place session at-tended by representatives of agencies likely to be of use to prisoners on theoutside, in accordance with the long-standing observation that the appoint-ments most likely to be kept on release are those arranged before release(see, for example, Maguire et al., 2000).

The rationale of the whole programme was closely based on establishedprinciples of motivational interviewing (Miller and Rollnick, 1991, 2002)and was designed to be followed up through continuing contact withresettlement workers after release. The motivational approach can be

summed up as attempting to develop discrepancy , in other words promot-ing awareness of gaps between what prisoners want or aspire to be, andtheir current situations or behaviour. As people become aware of such gapsand are motivated to close them, work proceeds on setting achievable goalsand developing concrete plans. The assumption is that prisoners will faceobstacles on release, and will need motivation, resourcefulness and deter-mination to overcome them even with the assistance of available supportand services: motivated prisoners are likely to make more and better use of whatever help is available. Group leaders are trained to show empathy,

recognize discrepancies (for example between previous and current state-ments) and promote self-ef cacy; approaches to be speci cally avoidedinclude confrontation, arguing, warning, lecturing, judging and ridiculing.

In analysis of the results of the seven rst-phase path nders, it wasdif cult to distinguish between the results of the programme itself and of other features of the services provided in the probation-led projects, andsome offenders would have been exposed to both. However, it was possibleto compare some outcomes of probation-led projects with voluntaryorganization-led projects, and here the results were fairly clear (see Lewis etal., 2003a, 2003b). Probation-led projects achieved signi cantly higherlevels of continuity of contact with offenders after release, and in mostcases also achieved signi cantly higher levels of positive change in attitudesand beliefs and in self-reported life problems as measured by repeatadministration of the CRIME-PICS II questionnaire (Frude et al., 1994).




14/21

Although the numbers were small and the ndings must be treated withcaution, subsequent analysis indicated that when other factors were con-trolled for, participants in two of the probation-led projects had sig-ni cantly lower reconviction rates than those in the other projects. Inaddition, continuity of contact with project workers (especially volunteermentors) through the gate was signi cantly associated with lower re-conviction rates (Clancy et al., 2006). 8 The importance of continuity liesnot simply in the fact that offenders are more likely to keep appointmentswith and take advice from somebody they know and in whom they havesome con dence: the challenging of discrepancy and the maintenance of motivation are also easier in the context of a relationship. Put at itssimplest, we mostly nd it easier to break a promise to a stranger than tolet down someone we know. Some projects achieved useful levels of continuity by using professional staff; others relied on volunteer mentors,who may have more time to offer and sometimes also a more unconditionalcommitment to helping.

Models of desistance in the Pathnders

We are now in a position to make some further brief comments onresettlement and desistance in the light of results from the Path nderevaluations. In terms of the earlier discussion of structure and agency, themore successful projects laid considerable emphasis on agency, but agency

within the particular context of offenders lives and problems. Theyassumed that obstacles would be encountered and various kinds of helpingservices might be needed, but that obstacles could be overcome and helpused more effectively if offenders were motivated, with clear goals andplans to achieve them. The contrast can be described as between anopportunity de cit model (which sees offending as a problem caused bylack of access to resources, to be solved by making resources available) andan offender responsibility model. Responsibility models recognize ob-stacles, disadvantage and exclusion faced by offenders, but also see that

offenders have some choices about how to respond to circumstances, andmay need to focus on habits of thinking, beliefs and motivation in order tomake more successful choices. Such approaches may sometimes run the riskof underestimating the extreme dif culties many offenders encounter, butthey have the merit that they present further offending as avoidable, andoffenders as capable of desisting. In the results of the resettlement Path- nder evaluations, there are strong indications that the responsibility modeloffers a more successful basis for resettlement strategies.

In this, clearly, the results broadly support the conclusions of most of therecent literature on desistance referred to earlier. More concretely, they lendfurther support to the idea that rehabilitative services should address bothopportunities and thinking: in other words, that they should aim toreinforce and support plausible narratives of desistance . There may evenbe dangers in an exclusive focus on problems of access to resources and




15/21

opportunities, as if crime were nothing more than a response to environ-mental dif culties: this may run the risk of reinforcing recidivist narratives in which offenders cast themselves as victims of circumstance who cannothelp re-offending.

Conclusion: good news and bad news?

What can we reasonably conclude from this attempt to set empiricalresearch and experience of resettlement alongside the developing literatureof desistance? First, and perhaps most importantly, we can point to someconvergence. There is evidence that it is possible to provide resettlementservices in a way which is consistent with some important aspects of thedesistance literature, particularly where these are concerned with avoidableexclusion from access to services and with positive goals, motivation andself-belief on the part of released prisoners. In addition, in spite of themethodological problems and limitations which affected many of theprojects evaluated under the Crime Reduction Programme, including allthe Path nder studies (Maguire, 2004; Raynor, 2004b), there is at least thebasis for a defensible claim that such approaches to resettlement could helpto reduce re-offending. This complementarity of evaluative research andmore theoretical approaches to desistance is particularly welcome becausethe what works literature and the desistance literature have historically

developed along largely separate paths. Bringing them more closely to-gether appears a promising approach for future research.

Much more caution, however, is needed when we consider the likelypractical and policy consequences of the research reviewed in this article.Although the best practice we observed in the Path nders showed adegree of consistency with desistance theory, much of the practice in theprojects was less good and was also beset by practical problems. We alsoknow that effectiveness is often reduced when demonstration projects arerolled out as routine practice (Lipsey, 1999), and that good implementa-

tion plays a central role in the development and maintenance of effective-ness (Gendreau et al., 1999; Raynor, 2004c). The generalization of goodpractice from Path nder resettlement projects into new patterns of regional provision promises to be patchy, dif cult and in need of constantevaluation and research input which, in many cases, is unlikely to beavailable. The Home Of ces lack of interest in disseminating the ndingsof the second phase of the Path nder study is not a promising sign. Thereare also indications that some of the critical ingredients in effectivenessdepend on interagency collaboration of a kind that will not be easy toreproduce. For example, the evidence reported to the Home Of ceindicated that the positive effects of the FOR programme were foundmainly among prisoners who also experienced good continuity of servicesafter release, and this cannot be guaranteed by concentrating simply ondelivery of the programme within the prison. In theory such continuity




16/21

issues may be more easily addressed as NOMS becomes a reality, but thisneeds to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

A related concern is that although current ideas about the practice of resettlement may be developing in ways that show some consistency with

desistance theory, there is little sign that the wider policy and legislativeframeworks will do so. One example of this is what seems to be adisproportionate preoccupation with enforcement. Nearly 10 years ago, inour evaluation of what were then new arrangements for Automatic Condi-tional Release (Maguire et al., 1996), we suggested that the emergence of more rigid and prescriptive approaches to enforcement of licence condi-tions was making it dif cult for probation of cers to adapt their style of supervision to the lifestyles and circumstances of some offenders. Sincethen, expectations and requirements about enforcement have become,largely for political and presentational reasons, considerably more rigidand demanding, to the extent that many observers (for exampleHedderman and Hough, 2004) regard them as counter-productive inrelation to the effectiveness of supervision.

Such rigid requirements are also particularly inappropriate in relation tothe zigzag pattern of the desistance process discussed in the rst part of this article. The proportion of prisoners supervised on licence that isreturned to prison for breaches of licence requirements is now so high as toconstitute a signi cant additional pressure on prison numbers (Solomon,2005). When custody plus is implemented, short-term prisoners will ineffect be subject to enforceable post-release supervision in the same way ascurrent longer-term prisoners, adding many tens of thousands to commu-nity supervision caseloads. Will they then be returned to prison in theirthousands for technical breaches of supervision requirements? If they are,we will not so much be promoting desistance as making the revolvingdoor an of cial requirement.

Further reasons for concern include the possible impact of the newoffender management arrangements being introduced by NOMS (Raynorand Maguire, 2006) and the current uncertainties about how contest-ability will work (Rumgay, 2005). We argued above that continuity of contact appeared to be an important feature of effective practice inresettlement. While some aspects of the NOMS proposals clearly recognizethis, there remain a number of unresolved issues about the relative priorityto be given to maintaining relational continuity in the supervision process,as opposed to diversifying the range of service providers by dividing upservice provision. Resettlement services are particularly affected by pro-posals which change the relationship between custodial and non-custodialprovision, and much will depend on the concrete arrangements which arestill, regrettably, quite unclear.

But perhaps the most fundamental question is not whether society canresettle prisoners (probably it can), but whether it really wants to. Attemptsto reduce the social exclusion of released prisoners need to be informed by




17/21

a positive approach to their value as human beings and their potentialcontribution as participants in society, as argued in the emerging literatureon strengths-based approaches to rehabilitation (Maruna and LeBel,2003; Raynor and Robinson, 2005). Such attitudes and approaches are not

easily cultivated in a context of public hostility and vindictiveness towardsoffenders, fed by the populist rhetoric of politicians preoccupied with aneed to appear tough . A real and sustained improvement in resettlementservices to prisoners would require a signi cant degree of political leader-ship, and only time will tell whether this will be forthcoming.

Notes

1 This was made explicit especially in relation to short-term prisoners inthe Probation Service s Statement of National Objectives and Priorities(Home Of ce, 1984), which announced a policy of lower priority to socialwork for offenders released from custody.

2 This term has now replaced throughcare in virtually all of cial discourse onthe topic. For a discussion of the changes in terminology and their implica-tions, see Raynor (2004a).

3 Two additional Pathways of a different kind focusing on speci c types of offender, rather than types of service are also incorporated. These relate to

Public Protection and Proli c Offenders.4 NOMS was introduced in response to the Correctional Services Review by

Patrick Carter (Home Of ce, 2003). For more details see http:/ /www.homeof ce.gov.uk/inside/org/dob/direct/noms.html

5 The Offender Assessment System developed by the Home Of ce is acomprehensive instrument designed to assess criminogenic needs risk of harm, and probabilities of reconviction for all offenders undergoing impris-onment or community sentences (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ workingoffenders14.htm).

6 There is the possibility of referral to a booster programme, but these havebeen implemented and used far less than initially expected.7 The other project which used a group programme was based at a women s

prison, where local practitioners had devised a modular programme. Un-fortunately, in spite of some promising results, no other women s project wasavailable for comparison, so this became yet another study in which the ndings are derived mainly from, and applicable mainly to male offenders(Kendall, 2002). Much of what we say in this article therefore shares thesame limitation.

8 Obviously there are likely to be selection effects involved here, since thosewho remain in contact may also be those most likely to avoid re-offending,but the different rates of continuity achieved with rather similar offenderpopulations suggest that some projects were indeed motivating offendersrather more effectively than others.




18/21

References

Burnett, R. (2004) To Reoffend or Not to Reoffend? The Ambivalence of Convicted Property Offenders , in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds) AfterCrime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration , pp. 152 80.Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Burnett, R. and S. Maruna (2004) So Prison Works, Does It? The CriminalCareers of 130 Men Released from Prison under Home Secretary, MichaelHoward , Howard Journal 33(4): 390 404.

Clancy, A., K. Hudson, M. Maguire, R. Peake, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J.Kynch (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out: Results of the Prisoner Resettle-ment Path nders . Bristol: Policy Press.

CSAP (2004) The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel Report 2003 4.London: Home Of ce (http://www.probation.homeof ce.gov.uk/ les/pdf/ CSAP_report03to04.pdf).

DiClemente, C. and J. Prochaska (1982) Self Change and Therapy Change of Smoking Behavior: A Comparison of Processes of Change in Cessation andMaintenance , Addictive Behavior 7: 133 42.

Fabiano, E. and F. Porporino (2002) Focus on Resettlement a Change .Canada: T3 Associates.

Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders . Cullompton,Devon: Willan.

Farrall, S. (2004) Social Capital and Offender Re-integration: Making Proba-

tion Desistance Focused , in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds) After Crimeand Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration , pp. 57 84. Cull-ompton, Devon: Willan.

Farrall, S. and B. Bowling (1999) Structuration, Human Development andCriminal Careers , British Journal of Criminology 39(2): 252 67.

Farrall, S. and A. Calverley (2005) Understanding Desistance from Crime:New Theoretical Directions in Resettlement and Rehabilitation . MiltonKeynes: Open University Press.

Frude, N., T. Honess and M. Maguire (1994) CRIME-PICS II Manual .

Cardiff: Michael & Associates.Gendreau, P., C. Goggin and P. Smith (1999) The Forgotten Issue in EffectiveCorrectional Treatment: Program Implementation , International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43(2): 180 7.

Giordano, P., S. Cernkovich and J. Rudolph (2002) Gender, Crime andDesistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation , American Jour-nal of Sociology 107(4): 990 1064.

Hedderman, C. and M. Hough (2004) Getting Tough or Being Effective: WhatMatters? , in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation , pp. 146 69. Cull-ompton, Devon: Willan.

Her Majesty s Inspectorates of Prison and Probation (2001) Through thePrison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review . London: Home Of ce.

Home Of ce (1984) Probation Service in England and Wales: Statement of National Objectives and Priorities . London: Home Of ce.




19/21

Home Of ce (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime a New Approach:Correctional Services Review by Patrick Carter . London: Prime Minister sStrategy Unit.

Home Of ce (2004) Reducing Re-offending: National Action Plan . London:Home Of ce (http://www.homeof ce.gov.uk/docs3/5505reoffending.pdf).

Kendall, K. (2002) Time to Think Again about Cognitive-Behavioural Pro-grammes , in P. Carlen (ed.) Women and Punishment , pp. 182 98. Cull-ompton, Devon: Willan.

Lewis, S. (2004) What Works in the Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners? ,VISTA 8(3): 163 70.

Lewis, S., M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Vennard (2003a) TheResettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Path nderProgrammes . Research Findings 200. London: Home Of ce.

Lewis, S., J. Vennard, M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone, S. Raybould andA. Rix (2003b) The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Path nders . RDS Occasional Paper 83. London: Home Of ce.

Lipsey, M. (1999) Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs ,Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 6(3): 611 41.

Maguire, M. (2004) The Crime Reduction Programme: Re ections on theVision and the Reality , Criminal Justice 4(3): 213 38.

Maguire, M. and P. Raynor (1997) The Revival of Throughcare: Rhetoric andReality in Automatic Conditional Release , British Journal of Criminology

37(1): 1 14.Maguire, M., B. Perroud and P. Raynor (1996) Automatic Conditional Release:

The First Two Years . Research Study 156. London: Home Of ce.Maguire, M., P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (1998) Voluntary After-

Care . Research Findings 73. London: Home Of ce.Maguire, M., P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (2000) Voluntary After-

Care and the Probation Service: A Case of Diminishing Responsibility ,Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 39(3): 234 48.

Maruna, S. (2000) Making Good . Washington: American Psychological As-

sociation.Maruna, S. and S. Farrall (2004) Desistance from Crime: A TheoreticalReformulation , K olner Zeitschrift f ur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 43:171 94.

Maruna, S. and R. Immarigeon (eds) (2004) After Crime and Punishment:Pathways to Offender Reintegration . Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Maruna, S. and T. LeBel (2003) Welcome Home? Examining the Re-entryCourt Concept from a Strengths-Based Perspective , Western CriminologyReview 4: 91 107 (http://wcr.sonoma.edu).

Miller, W.R. and S. Rollnick (1991) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behaviours . New York: Guilford Press.

Miller, W.R. and S. Rollnick (2002) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change , 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press.

NACRO (2000) The Forgotten Majority: The Resettlement of Short Term




20/21

Prisoners . London: National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

NOMS (2005) The NOMS Offender Management Model . London: NationalOffender Management Service (http://www.probation2000.com/documents/ NOMS%20Offender%20Management%20Model.pdf).

Prochaska, J. and C. DiClemente (1992) Stages of Change in the Modi cationof Problem Behavior , in M. Herson, R. Eisler and P. Miller (eds) Progress inBehavior Modi cation, Volume 28 , pp. 154 206. Illinois: Sycamore.

Raynor, P. (2004a) Opportunity, Motivation and Change: Some Findings fromResearch on Resettlement , in R. Burnett and C. Roberts (eds) What Worksin Probation and Youth Justice , pp. 217 33. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Raynor, P. (2004b) The Probation Service Path nders : Finding the Path andLosing the Way? , Criminal Justice 4(3): 309 25.

Raynor, P. (2004c) Rehabilitative and Reintegrative Approaches , inA. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds) Alternatives to Prison: Optionsfor an Insecure Society , pp. 195 223. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Raynor, P. and M. Maguire (2006) End-to-End or End in Tears? Prospects forthe Effectiveness of the National Offender Management Model , inM. Hough, R. Allen and U. Padel (eds) Reshaping Probation and Prisons:The Implications of NOMS . Bristol: Policy Press.

Raynor, P. and G. Robinson (2005) Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice . Basing-stoke: Palgrave.

Raynor, P. and M. Vanstone (2002) Understanding Community Penalties .

Buckingham: Open University Press.Rumgay, J. (2005) Counterblast: NOMS Bombs , Howard Journal 44(2):206 8.

Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners . London:Of ce of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Solomon, E. (2005) Returning to Punishment: Prison Recalls , Criminal JusticeMatters 60: 24 5.

Vanstone, M. (2004) Supervising Offenders in the Community: A History of Probation Theory and Practice . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Zamble, E. and V. Quinsey (1997) The Criminal Recidivism Process . Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

MIKE MAGUIRE is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Cardiff University. He has published widely on criminal justice issues and wasinvolved in several studies under the Home Of ce Crime ReductionProgramme, including an evaluation of the Resettlement Path nders. He isa co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (OUP, 2002). He was

formerly a member of the Parole Board and currently of the Correctional

Services Accreditation Panel.PETER RAYNOR is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at SwanseaUniversity. A former probation of cer, his research over the last 30 yearshas included work on drugs, youth justice, pre-sentence reports, the




21/21

effectiveness of programmes, the resettlement of prisoners, risk and needassessment and the impact of probation on minority ethnic offenders. He isa member of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel for England and

Wales and the Community Justice Accreditation Panel for Scotland.


how the resettlement of prisioners promotes desistance from crime

Documents