The notion of 'desistance' (or 'going straight') is becoming a more prominent one in criminological discourse, and the Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this process from the perspective of the individuals taking this life path. However, the LDS was not intended to address how the research might be applied in practice. This article therefore briefly outlines the research and discusses some of the policy implications, in order to open a debate with practitioners and others about the way that the research might be relevant to everyday practice with people who offend. The papers that follow this article were written in response to the challenge of applying the findings of the LDS in probation practice.Keywords desistance, generativity, narrative, reintegration, strengths-based W e want to start by thanking the editor and editorial board of the Probation Journal for this opportunity to reflect on the findings of the Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) and in particular their implications for probation practice in the UK. The LDS was not an applied study of probation practice. We never set out to determine 'what works' in offender reintegration or to evaluate the effectiveness of any specific efforts. The goal, as we understood it at the time, was to provide a deeper understanding of the process of 'desistance' (or 'going straight') from the perspective of the individuals taking this life path. The work emerged out of our reading of the literature on 'crime and the life course' emerging in the early 1990s (Moffitt, 1993;Sampson and Laub, 1993) and was intended to Nonetheless, we have been surprised and impressed with the response that the study has had outside the walls of academia. Since the publication of the book Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives (Maruna, 2001) detailing the major findings from our research, the first author has received a steady stream of extremely gratifying letters and emails from ex-prisoners, probation officers, and other practitioners and activists. Many of these correspondents have asked us to spell out more clearly exactly what the implications of the LDS research might be for resettlement practice. We had been reluctant to include such a direct policy discussion in Making Good, preferring that the findings of the research speak for themselves. In our view, practitioners have the greatest insight into their own clients' needs and the particular environmental context they face. As such, decisions about how research such as ours is best put into practice should largely be left to these ground-level experts.Nonetheless, since the publication of Making Good, we have made some effort to enter the academic debate about 'best practices' for reintegrating ex-prisoners (e.g. see Maruna, Immarigeon, and LeBel, 2004;Maruna and LeBel, 2002;Maruna, LeBel, and Lanier, 2004;Maruna and Ramsden, 2004; Maruna, LeBel, Mitchel and Naples, forthcoming). In an effort to draw on both academic research and real world expertise in these a...