By Hazel Kemshall, Kieran McCartan, & Joy Doal
On the afternoon of the 16th
November we presented a session for the Academy of Social Justice on our new
HMI Probation research insight paper called “Desistance, recovery, and justice
capital: Putting it all together”. After the presentation there where several
conversations and discussions, most of which were responded to at the time, but
not all were. This blog is a response to some of those additional or detailed
comments and questions that we did not have time to discuss fully on the day in
question. The blog is broken down into four main themes, each of which will be
answered in turn;
Role of the probation officer
The role of Probation officers and
their responsibilities align with a focus on desistance, recovery, and justice
capital. His Majesties Prison and
Probation Service
(HMPPS) emphasise “Preventing victims by changing lives”, and works to
enhance access to pro-social capital, increasing skills, and enabling more
positive decision making are all shown as contributors to desistance over the
long term (Kemshall 2021, and Kemshall et al, 2021). What kind of activities work well? The following
practices are supported by research:
- Modelling
and encouraging reciprocity, that is, mutual exchange rather than merely
appropriating things. Social norms and the smooth running of society is
rooted in reciprocity so it is important service users can implement it
(Best, Musgrove and Hall, 2018; Kemshall, 2021; Weaver, 2015).
- Identifying
and accessing routes to building trust between the service user and
others, and between the service user and the key groups that can afford
opportunities to change (Christakis and Fowler, 2009).
- Providing
dignity and value to the service user combined with appropriate boundaries
on conduct and behaviour (Bush et al., 2016; Rex and Hosking, 2016).
- Fairness and
justice in applying legitimate sanctions and the appropriate use of
‘supportive authority’ (Bush et al., 2016; Maruna, 2012).
- Hearing the
service user ‘voice’ and offering individualised service delivery based on
a comprehensive and holistic assessment (McNeill, 2006).
- Partnership
with the service user where possible, realistically recognising the
barriers to joint working, and accepting that, at times, particularly in
the early stages of supervision, the practitioner may have to be the
‘senior partner’. The practitioner should be an ‘enabler’ not a ‘rescuer’
(Kemshall, 2022b; Rex and Hosking, 2016).
- Creation of
positive networks of opportunity and routes to change (Christakis and
Fowler, 2009; Kemshall, 2021; McKnight and Block, 2010).
- The
importance of recognising trauma and adverse experiences in the lives of
service users; taking a trauma-informed approach recognises the importance
of the life course in people’s pathways into and out of criminogenic
behaviour practice (McCartan, 2020).
- Recognition
of the impact of stigma, marginalisation, structural disadvantage, and
intersectionality on service users (Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk,
2017; Barlow and Weare, 2019; Byrne and Trew, 2008; Farrall, 2019). It is
important to see the individual in the socio-ecological environment that
they exist in, and to understand that the different levels of this
environment all contribute to preventing reoffending, successful risk
management, and desistance.
(
See Kemshall & McCartan,
2022 for
information and full references)
Community Engagement
Statutory
agencies like Probation and more broadly HMPPS may struggle with community
engagement, not least because of their statutory role and dependence on
government funding. However, there are
good examples of community engagement and community wide initiatives, often by
the third sector, that have demonstrated effectiveness in this area. Some not only raise public awareness but also
innovate new approaches to crime reduction.
Most use Public Health methodologies to crime reduction, and most
notable in the UK are:
The Cure Violence
(2022) public health initiative on a criminal justice
issue has now spread to over 20 countries worldwide. The initiative takes a
health-based approach to prevent and respond to violence, as well as violent
crime, working at individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels.
The approach importantly contextualises the causes and responses to violence
and then works to change individual and social norms around it. In recent years, Cure violence has developed to the
point where it sees violence as a global epidemic that requires a
structured population-level response. In addition, interventions at the
societal level, particularly through social and criminal justice policies, have
more recently focused on developmental factors and the reduction of adverse
life events (Public Health England, 2019; Public Health Wales, 2015; Scottish
Government, 2018); and interventions targeted at life-course events and
mitigating crime trajectories (McCartan, 2020).
Although we
all, professionals and members of the public, recognise the need for greater
messaging and a stronger community engagement strategy regarding the prevention
of and response to criminogenic behaviour, especially sexual and violent
offending, what strategies work best in communicating with the society at a
broader level;
(See
Kemshall, and Moulden, 2016 for information and full references)
Improving the focus on prevention
One of the main challenges in reducing
crime, especially first-time offending, is the lack of a systematic approach to
crime prevention strategies. Quite often crime prevention strategies are
piecemeal and bespoke with different regions and cities in the UK taking
different approaches, often spearheaded at a local level by innovative and well-intentioned
individuals. Which poses a challenge to a national, or country level, as there
is often not a clear evidence base or consistent approach, which means that
when HMPSS OR Ministry of Justice look to engage with the preventative
intentions they cannot do so from a well-informed position. The reality of
preventive approaches is that they are “practice informed” rather than
“evidence based” which means that you are taking a calculated gamble on an
innovation which you think will work. This is a challenge at the best of times,
but especially in the current economic climate. Therefore, what do we do? The
solution seems to be emerging through work that is linking public health and
criminal justice together in new, innovative approaches to preventing criminogenic
behaviour (i.e., the Together for Childhood project spearhead headed by the
NSPCC which looks to create a city wide placed based approach to the prevention
of child abuse). The development of closer ties between public health and the
prevention of criminogenic behaviour means that we can reconceptualise
offending behaviour, re-establish it in a developmental frame and think about
it across the socio-ecological approach (i.e., individual, interpersonal,
community and societal) which means that prevention of first time offending
(primary and secondary prevention) is as relevant as prevention of repeat
offending (tertiary and quaternary prevention), thereby opening the door to a
reasoned debate about the potential for a systematic and sustainable approach
to prevention. We have seen this in the development of new policies like the
Council of Europe’s Recent Recommendations on “the assessment, treatment and
management of people accessed or convicted of a sexual offence”.
(see McCartan, 2021, 2022; McCartan & Kemshall, 2021
for information and full references)
Responding to diversity and
exclusion
Practice focused on the
delivery of positive, ethical, and person-centred assessment and interventions
that are trauma-informed, compassionate, and cognisant of the contextual issues
surrounding the person, including issues of multiple disadvantage, are the most
likely to respond effectively to diversity and exclusion. Anawim provided an excellent example of this,
with attention to culturally relevant interventions and activities (often
including food), person centred assessments, skill building, and practices
aimed at enabling service users to become fully functioning and well-embedded
citizens. Anawim and women’s centres more broadly, by working alongside Police
or Probation can address women’s intersectional needs holistically and as staff
tend to represent the communities the women are from, can relate better. As
they are not in the enforcement role they can build more genuine relationships
which can also (funding allowing) continue those relationships after court
Orders are completed. The social relationships and peer support gained by
interacting in the centres and attending groupwork and courses also extend
outside of the confines of the Orders.
Conclusion
This blog has been a response
to questions and issues raised in regard to our HMI Probation insights paper
and resulting talk, it looks to expand upon what we have said and clarify some
main theses. The important thing to remember is that desistence is being
promoted as part of the recovery capital being delivered by HMPPS through their
good, effective, and engaged practice (justice capital) but that we are often
not good at recognising it and highlighting it. Justice capital is essential to
good, effective engagement which results in desistance but in order to achieve
it as a system wide level we need to highlight it in training, recognise it in
practice and discuss it in public.