Does "Transforming Rehabilitation" have room for desistance?

The Transforming Rehabilitation: A revolution in the way we manage offenders (see link), consultation document has given many of us interested in this area much to think about. 
Today on Twitter there have been numerous comments about the decline of Probation and the huge impact that this document could have on the work and even more importantly the lives of those we supervise, their families and the public.  I’m not going to have a blog today about all of the (many) issues I have with the document, because as I wouldn’t want to be (too) reactive to it.  Instead, after reading the document I’m considering what I think are the significant aspects of desistance research that I think are all too often overlooked.  These are contained in Eight Principles for Supporting Desistance in Criminal Justice (Giving up Crime link).

Measuring desistance is difficult to do.  Empirically desistance is the observed termination of offending such as in reconviction rates, but as a theoretical construct desistance more often encompasses the frequency, variety or seriousness of offending (Farrington, 2007).  Therefore, we cannot be sure that someone has desisted because not all crime is detected (Gadd and Farrall, 2004).  Therefore, simple binary measures, don’t necessary reflect the desistance process, because desistance takes time and there can be (re-)lapses along the way (1. be realistic). 

The supervisory relationship is important in supporting desistance (Burnett and McNeill, 2005).  However, if the probationer is seen by multiple individuals it’s not helpful in nurturing the development of changing antisocial beliefs and attitudes (Farrall 2002).  If there is a movement between different supervisors or workers, this can hinder desistance (4. Build positive relationships and 8. Promote redemption).

Desistance is a process that’s different for each person and a one size fits all approach to addressing offending behaviour won’t work (McNeill, 2010).  The individual approach rather than distributing resources and workers by arbitrary measures can impede the individual approach (5. Respect individuality).

As part of the research I’ve carried out, the individuals who are desisting have also asked for advice from me “as a Probation Officer”.  I think this is because they know where they stand with the role, and that they know what perspective the advice is coming from.  For me, the research that I’m undertaking is demonstrating to how important the role of Probation is.  Of course there are always ways that we can improve as individual workers and organisationally, but I’m proud to be a Probation Officer and long may it last.