High risk of serious harm and desistance

I’ve been speaking to people in a variety of roles in the Criminal Justice System and also with partner groups who work with people who have committed offences.  The reaction to the desistance theories and desistance informed practices has been met at times with hesitation for how it can be incorporated into some aspects of their work.  In particular concerns have been raised into how this can be implemented in working with individuals who pose a high risk of serious harm, in particular those with convictions for sexual offences or domestic abuse. 
I’m not going to review all of the desistance research and how it applies to working with people assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm, but instead I have some thoughts on what I think highlights how the research is already effective in this type of work.

A significant aspect of desistance research highlights that there needs to be a balance between discussing risks and needs but this should be done alongside the strengths of an individual (McNeill, 2010).  If there is a concentration on negatives this could frustrate desistance as it doesn’t encourage an individual to look forward.  However, strength based approaches can encourage individuals to develop new narratives and therefore they are more likely to desist (Maruna, 2004).  It’s important to state that a strength based approach does not involve ignoring the criminogenic needs or the offending, it is more about having a balance in this area and not just focusing on the negative aspects of the behaviour.

In particular it has been raised with me that working with individuals who have committed domestic abuse or sexual offences require a different approach which may not fit in with desistance principles.  However, in these cases it has been argued that the “near miss” or avoidance of offending can indicate increasing self awareness (Farrall, 2002) and it’s not necessarily a purely negative change.  What strikes me from this is that generally, for someone to report to their officer that there was a near miss or avoidance of offending, there would need to be a good working relationship, where they feel able to discuss this without being judged, or risk immediate breach action.  I would suggest that a purely deterrent based approach, that doesn’t include a good supervisory relationship, would be less effective in encouraging an individual to communicate any near misses.

The development of social ties has been found to be important in desistance especially for sexual offenders due to the difficulties that many have in forming relationships.  In particular, developing positive, reciprocal, adult relationships may be important for those convicted of sexual offences against children (Marshall, 1989, as cited in Farmer and Beech, 2012).  Individuals who were considered to be desisting showed that this was related to agency, belief in a capability to exercise control over life, availability of turning points, sense of optimism, and ability to see positives in negative situations (Farmer and Beech, 2012).  Utilising the desistance informed approaches can encourage the development of these factors, which it could be argued that a purely control based approach would not.   

Understanding that desistance is an individualised process that takes time and involves vacillation (McNeill et al. 2005) can support working with individuals with a history of abuse against a partner.  One reason for this is that although the behaviour can involve different types of abuse, it’s argued that only a small minority of these are described as criminal (Dobash et al, 1996).  Therefore, a desistance approach does not focus on just stopping the criminal behaviour, it instead encourages exploration of a persons overall behaviour, and encourages change for the better.

The importance of utilising desistance research with individuals assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm is that it can support more effective relationships and better assessments.  For instance, it’s more difficult for Probation staff to assess, manage risks and to support changes, unless there is an understanding of the context in which an individual lives (Burke and Collett, 2010).  The research demonstrating how to support desistance enables staff to do this.

What strikes me most is that utilising the desistance research requires workers to make suitable applications of the theories, based on the individual case, at that time, based on the current circumstances and dependant on the nature and level of risks.  The very essence of desistance theories is that one size does not fit all and therefore, aspects of supporting desistance can be applied regardless of the level of risks.