Collaborative working to support desistance

Today I was discussing my desistance research with the Somerset Reducing Re-offending Board.  These meetings devise approaches and strategies to addressing crime in the local areas.  An appreciation of the local needs and collaborative working is important in supporting desistance;
there needs to be an understanding of social contexts such as appreciating local issues and opportunities available or lacking in order to support change.  What this can provide is an understanding to target resources where they are most needed or could be most effective.  Given the cuts to the budgets across the board, this is unfortunately an increasing priority for us all.

My research is indicating that addressing re-offending is best approached through collaboration because no one intervention, or agency or worker can support reducing re-offending in isolation.  Another aspect of this is that local strategies need to work in pulling people towards desistance instead of contributing to pulling people away from it.  For instance, there could be effective work carried out by one agency that is counteracted by the approaches of another.  The collaborative working and communication can reduce the risk of this happening.

There are common goals in reducing re-offending; fewer victims, less harm, fewer financial impact, and improved lives for individuals and communities.  So to achieve this, the expertise can be effectively shared and implementation planned in forums such as Reducing Re-offending boards. 

When I think of the individuals that I have worked with who have made significant changes, a lot of this has involved collaborative working.  There are some barriers to this collaboration though.  Since the economic crisis, there has appeared at times to be a reduction in what agencies can do in terms of their collaborative work.  In particular I’m thinking of working with people or completing tasks that are technically just outside of an agency’s criteria or remit.  The problem with this is that there will be people who need interventions and support but do not receive it and this could compound future difficulties.  Instead, I would suggest that if there are common goals, such as reducing re-offending, that agencies may benefit from considering the long term success from short term investment even if that individual doesn’t technically meet the criteria.  This approach may not be possible at the moment because there is simply too much work and not enough resources, but I do think that it is worth considering.