Maintaining desistance in risk management

I previously blogged on 8^th February about “High risk of serious harm and desistance”, but my thoughts in this area have been stirred again after I recently completed the developmental training Risk of harm assessment and management – improving practice.  The focus of the training was looking at discussions to explore approaches to risk and how it could be improved.  This was my first risk practice based training since completing the desistance research and it was interesting to see that some of my perspectives were altered.

In devising robust risk management plans, the focus does remain that there are many aspects of the plan that are being “done to” an individual.  Certain controls will remain external and remote to an individual, but the desistance research could inform and strengthen risk management.

The thing about desistance and risk management is that it isn’t an either or approach; you don’t manage risk or support desistance.  In fact managing risk and supporting desistance can go nicely hand in hand.  A good example of this is the importance of the perceptions that an individual has on aspects of their life.  For instance a strong attachment to a person who is a positive influence on an individual, would be more effective in supporting desistance than if the individual was indifferent to this person.  Exploring the perceptions can provide more information that can inform and strengthen the risk management, but also provide a forum whereby worker and service user could collaboratively devise risk management plans.  Therefore, by incorporating the perceptions of an individual, the plan may be more effective because it more accurately reflects the risks involved in harm and re-offending.

More robust and effective risk management plans can be devised if the desistance process of the individual is taken into account.  This tailors the assessments, opportunities and controls to the process which is unique to that person.  For instance, this could be in terms of considering how the existing social bonds could be developing informal social controls that help an individual to manage risks themselves.  Especially given that informal social controls such as the expectations of the family may be more effective than the formal controls (e.g. Downes, 1997).

It can be more comfortable to use restrictions, especially with the increase focus on risk management in probation practice (Farrall, et. al 2010). Although restrictive approaches may produce a form of instrumental compliance, it may not affect the internal values (Bottoms, 2001).  For me, this highlights the importance of trying to understand and work with someone to support change because arguably some of the most effective risk management comes from the internal changes of an individual.

Throughout the training I found myself thinking about how the management of risk could impact on the desistance process of people; in particular there are aspects of managing risk that could support or frustrate the process.  Therefore, my conclusion, after a period of reflection, is that in formulating risk management plans and actions, the individual’s desistance process must be considered and supported wherever possible.  This of course does not negate the importance of protecting the public.

Bottoms, A.E. (2001). Compliance and Community Penalties. In A. Bottoms, L. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullumpton: Willan.

Burnett, R., and McNeill, F. (2005).  The Place of the Officer-Offender Relationship in assisting Offenders to Desist from Crime.  Probation Journal, Vol 52 (3), pp.221-242.

Downes, D. (1997). What the next government should do about crime, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1) pp. 1-13

Farrall, S., Bottoms, A., and Shapland, J. (2010). Social Structures and Desistance from Crime. European Journal of Criminology, 7 (6), pp. 546-570.