Difficulties in using desistance approaches

When undertaking research and expanding ASPT awareness of desistance, I appreciate that it may have been easier for me advocate the desistance principles when not being in a role or having the responsibilities of a role within Offender Management.  Therefore, on the eve of returning to working as a Probation Officer in an Offender Management Team, I find myself reflecting on what difficulties there may be in retaining a desistance focus in this role?

I've found that desistance research provides a way of thinking for practitioners that encourages them to make decisions and use approaches that retain consideration of how these would impact on an individual’s desistance process.  However, there are a number of pressures that a probation staff face in terms of applying desistance approaches to working practices. 

Targets and deadlines to complete tasks, or paperwork, are pressures that may make it more difficult to take a step back and think creatively about an individual case.  At times of these pressures, is it possible to spend more time on supporting someone strengthening their social capital, when there are three assessment targets that need to be completed that day?  It is a constant battle (I use this word deliberately) for a Probation Officer to make these decisions on a daily basis.  Prioritising time and resources isn't what someone wants to hear when they come to their PO asking for support that they desperately need.  However, as with many job roles, this is something that is done on a daily basis when there are the conflicting demands.

There has been an increasingly risk adverse culture in probation practice, which is well discussed and I've blogged about it previously, that can make it more difficult to, for instance, issue a warning instead of a recall.  The challenge in these circumstances, I think, is to take into account the whole situation and not just react to any changes in the situation in isolation.  A return to prison could hinder the desistance process, possibly in terms of the loss of accommodation.  However, this would need to be balanced against whether the risk of serious harm was manageable, or whether there was a long period of non-compliance.   

Returning to an Offender Management Team in these uncertain times, brings with it some challenges.  I will be starting to form working relationships with people in a climate where I cannot say that I would be the allocated Probation Officer for the duration of their sentence, licence or order.  I wouldn't want to presume the impact that this could have on the people I’ll be working with, but it may make it more difficult to develop a working relationship.  Desisting can be a difficult process to embark on, and opening up to a member of staff can involve putting a certain level of trust in them.  This could be a more precarious prospect if there is uncertainty about how long the relationship would continue for.

I‘m confident that having a desistance focus in probation work can contribute to supporting change in people’s lives which also reduces the risk of re-offending and harm.  This confidence is in part based on the literature review and speaking to the experts in this field.  However, most of all the confidence I have that desistance approaches work is from speaking with a number of desisters who consistently state that it is these approaches that have contributed to the changes that they have made.  The test will be to what extent these approaches can be applied in the PO role given all the other pressures that exist.