Assisted desistance and experiences of probation supervision

Abstract

The impact of probation interventions upon processes of desistance has become an area of increased interest in recent years. Much of this research has been focused upon the longer term processes of secondary desistance, often to the relative neglect of processes associated with primary desistance. Some authors have recently begun to examine in closer detail the nature of initial transitions towards desistance, and this article aims to contribute to this area of research by examining the impact of probation interventions on these early transitions. The findings show that experiences of probation can have a positive impact upon these desistance transitions yet, in keeping with much recent research, probation offers little support for the socio-structural aspects of desistance. The article concludes that these structural factors are likely to be dealt with by external agencies, but that even these may not provide the necessary support to facilitate longer term processes of desistance.

Resilience of Dutch probation officers: A critical need for a critical profession

“…To do this, it is essential that the offender has interactions with people that want to make a difference in his life (Maruna, 2001). POs are in such a position and they have chosen their profession to do exactly that (King, 2013). POs must show and use their resilience qualities in their work with offenders.…”

Penal and welfare conditionality: Discipline or degradation?

“…Fitzgibbon and Healy's () review of research on how supervision is experienced in England and Wales paints a mixed picture. Although King's () respondents reported that supervision increased their sense of agency, their motivation to change, and their problem‐solving skills, encouraging them to focus on their futures, they were demoralised by the frequency with which they were referred to external agencies for practical help. Probationers in Shapland, Bottoms, and Muir's () study did not see their supervisors as likely sources of help.…”

Revising Wolff’s support for retribution in theories of punishment: desistance, rehabilitation, and accommodating individual and social accounts of responsibility

“…That is, provided these strategies are underpinned by both individual and social accounts of responsibility in the ways described in this paper. 6 In the last decade or so there has been an emerging literature on desistance which is theoretical and empirically based, offering encouraging signs for policy and practice development (Laub and Sampson 2001;Kazemian and Maruna 2009;Maruna and LeBel 2010;King 2013;Rocque 2015). In addition, there is evidence that some probation practice is akin to 'desistance-type' intervention, given it is reactive and needs-based, rather than proactive and 'treatment based', with many practitioners being disposed towards the former types of intervention (Deering 2011;Vanstone 2004).…”

“…Desistance, then, recognises that any change and rehabilitation is derived, at least in part, from a social relational process which reflect notions of individual and social responsibility, where state representatives, and others, play a positive role in encouraging change in offender behaviour while helping and supporting the offender (Maruna and LeBel 2010, 81). For example, King (2013) has argued that probation's efficacy in the early stage of desistance is important, as well as cultivating good quality long-term relationships between worker and offender. A healthy relationship is facilitated by empathy, genuine engagement and interest, pro-social approaches and the proper use of authority.…”