The Liverpool Desistance Study and Probation Practice: Opening the Dialogue

Abstract

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...

Deconstructing Probation: Risk and Developments in Practice

“…(Horsfield, 2003, p. 375) Maruna et al (2004) in the Liverpool Desistance Study, go further and make the point that the success or failure of programmes aimed at producing desistance is to a large extent determined by the issues not so much of appropriate programme referral based on the correct assessment of client as a risk but of stressing the client's strengths and future potential [see Taylor (2006Taylor ( , p. 1424 for related discussion regarding explicitly discussing risk taking with service users]. One of the key differences between desisting and active offenders in the Liverpool Desistance Study was the lack of a future orientation, Especially in efforts to reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society, it may make sense to balance such talk of risks and needs with an emphasis on the person's potential 'strengths'.…”

Risk analysis and the new practitioner

“…As Horsfield bluntly puts it: I would suggest that the officer needs little help in deciding which of the available programmes of intervention is most suited to the young man across the desk and most likely to have a constructive impact on his 'criminogenic needs': it is the one he can be persuaded to attend and engage with. (2003: 375) In the Liverpool Desistance Study, Maruna et al (2004) go further and make the point that the success or failure of programmes aimed at producing desistance is to a large extent determined by the issues not so much of appropriate programme referral based FITZGIBBON Risk analysis and the new practitioner on the correct assessment of client as a risk, but of stressing the client's strengths and future potential. One of the key differences between desisting and active offenders in the Liverpool Desistance Study was the lack of a future orientation:…”

Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers

“…In the chaotic, uncertain times of primary desistance, their long-term goals may become temporarily sidelined. Maruna, Porter and Carvalho (2004) claimed that personal stories that focus on strengths, empowerment and generativity are powerful instruments for change and that practitioners should adopt these narratives in their work with offenders. Yet, contemporary probation practice in England and Wales is informed by a correctionalist discourse that emphasizes risk, needs and deficits and may be inimical to desistance.…”