How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it?

ARTICLES Criminology & Criminal Justice 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi) and the British Society of Criminology. www.sagepublications.com ISSN 1748 8958; Vol: 6(1): 19 38 DOI: 10.1177/1748895806060665 How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it? MIKE MAGUIRE AND PETER RAYNOR Cardiff University, UK and Swansea University, UK Abstract The article considers current developments in the resettlement of prisoners in the light of recent theory and research on factors promoting desistance from crime. While recognizing improvements promised by the Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan and the concept of end-to-end offender management, it is argued that these are unlikely to reduce re-offending significantly without greater attention to individual offenders mental processes and levels of selfmotivation, which are identified by the desistance literature (as well as much of the what works literature) as critical factors in personal change. An account is given of a promising approach adopted in the Resettlement Pathfinders, where a cognitive-motivational programme was combined with practical services, with encouraging early results. However, concerns are expressed that even the most innovative approaches may be undermined by features of the broader context within which correctional services are delivered, including an excessive emphasis on enforcement (which makes no allowance for the zigzag nature of desistance) and the potentially negative impact of contestability on relational continuity. Key Words desistance NOMS offender management probation resettlement 19

20 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) This article explores convergences and divergences between two concepts that have rapidly become prominent in criminological and criminal justice literature over the past few years: resettlement and desistance. It identifies a shift in thinking about both the nature and the significance of work with prisoners who are making the transition from custody to community, which is increasingly being regarded as of central importance to the Government s agenda of reducing re-offending. In the light of the new expectations they carry, it examines current and planned resettlement strategies and initiatives in England and Wales, and asks to what extent these are compatible with insights from theory and research about how and why most offenders eventually desist from crime. The article begins with a brief overview of traditional approaches to what is now generally known as resettlement, the decline of such work in the 1980s and 1990s, and its recent revival in new forms as part of a broader crime reduction agenda. This is followed by an outline of some of the main conclusions from recent literature on desistance and a discussion of lessons these may contain for emerging resettlement strategies, in particular the National Action Plan being developed by the new National Offender Management Service. It is argued that, while the plan rightly focuses on efforts to deliver (for the first time) effective practical services to large numbers of ex-prisoners, it is important also to maintain sensitivity to the mental processes involved in serious attempts to desist from crime, the problem of sustaining motivation and the need for support in the face of setbacks. An account is then given of an approach which combines attention to both the practical and psychological dimensions of avoidance of re-offending, namely the use of the FOR A Change cognitivemotivational programme in a number of experimental schemes which were funded under the National Probation Service s Resettlement Pathfinders and evaluated by a research team led by the authors of this article (Lewis et al., 2003a, 2003b; Clancy et al., 2006). This approach, it will be argued, offers a potentially effective way of incorporating lessons about desistance into mainstream resettlement practice. Resettlement: old and new agendas Interventions with prisoners leaving custody have a long history, though they have been called by different names and undertaken by different organizations with a variety of ostensible aims. Traditionally, such work has had relatively modest ambitions. Although the hope of rehabilitation has always been present, the main focus of attention has understandably been on the pressing practical problems faced by many ex-prisoners, and interventions have been driven as much by the charitable aim of helping people in need, as by criminal justice goals. However, as will be discussed later, the Government has recently come to see interventions with prisoners through the gate as an important element of its wider strategies to reduce

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 21 crime, and resettlement strategies which have consequently attracted a revival of interest and new funding after a period of decline will increasingly be judged in terms of the extent to which they appear to reduce reconviction rates. Before 1969, assistance to adult offenders leaving prison (apart from lifers) was provided on a sporadic and purely voluntary basis, much of it by charitable and voluntary agencies notably the Discharged Prisoners Aid Societies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and latterly organizations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (see, for example, NACRO, 2000). The Probation Service, too, continued a tradition of voluntary aftercare, which had its roots in the prison gate missions run by religious groups in the late 19th century (see Vanstone, 2004 for a historical overview). Generally speaking, all these groups offered advice and assistance with immediate practical problems, and sometimes simply someone to talk to for ex-prisoners who had become socially isolated. Typically, they would help them to search for accommodation or employment, or to claim benefits, in many cases acting as an advocate on their behalf with the relevant agencies. While some close and productive relationships were developed with individual offenders, overall the assistance provided was variable in availability, quality and effectiveness, and contact was often maintained only for short periods (Maguire et al., 2000). Following the introduction of parole under the Criminal Justice Act 1968, a growing proportion (but always a minority) of prisoners were granted early release on licence and, while they had to comply with the conditions of licence, many of these also benefited from practical advice and assistance from their supervising officers, who could generally draw on probation resources more easily than in the case of voluntary aftercare. However, during the 1980s, post-release work as a whole (except in relation to high-risk offenders) began to slip down the priorities of the Probation Service. 1 The introduction of Automatic Conditional Release (ACR) in 1992, under which all prisoners serving 12 months or over became subject to statutory supervision post-release, further diluted the level of service that the Probation Service could provide, turning the socalled throughcare process for many into an impersonal and bureaucratic exercise, characterized by poor preparation for release, lack of effective communication between prison and probation, limited practical assistance and a strong focus on the enforcement of attendance requirements to satisfy the new National Standards (Maguire and Raynor, 1997). At the same time, the Probation Service tradition of offering voluntary aftercare to prisoners not subject to statutory supervision was fast disappearing, meaning that adults sentenced to less than 12 months were largely left to negotiate on their own the problems of re-entering the community (Maguire et al., 2000). The case for more government attention to these issues was built up through a combination of academic research findings (Maguire et al., 1998,

22 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) 2000), campaigning by agencies such as NACRO (2000) and a joint report on the problems of prisoners leaving custody by HM Inspectorates of Prison and Probation (2001). All documented the high levels of social need found among ex-prisoners, exacerbated by reluctance on the part of some service agencies to meet their needs (including, in some cases, deliberate policies to exclude them from local authority housing), as well as the difficulties faced in obtaining jobs or accommodation caused by the stigma of having been in prison. Ironically, it was pointed out, the group which received the least attention or assistance short-term prisoners was the group with both the highest levels of social need and the highest rates of reconviction. The key stimulus for the sudden elevation of resettlement to a position of relatively high priority in penal policy was provided by a report by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU, 2002), Reducing Re-offending by Exprisoners. The location of the SEU within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister not only enhanced the political influence of this report, but gave its authors the opportunity to adopt a cross-departmental approach in devising solutions: for example, seeking to engage departments such as Education, Health and Housing which had previously regarded exprisoners as of low priority at the core of its suggested strategy. The SEU report attached particular weight to the needs of short-term prisoners noting, for example, that two-thirds had been unemployed before going to prison, nearly a third had no accommodation to return to after release, over half had no qualifications and well over half were involved in substance misuse and linked these explicitly to their exceptionally high rates of reconviction, arguing that failures by mainstream agencies to meet such needs constituted a major obstacle to their rehabilitation. Many of the recommendations of the SEU report were translated into policy in the Government s Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan (Home Office, 2004), which, though also relating to offenders on community sentences, had as its core focus the resettlement of prisoners after release. 2 The National Action Plan required the production by April 2006 of regional Reducing Re-offending Strategies and corresponding Action Plans for the delivery of key services. These plans are divided into seven distinct service Pathways : Accommodation; Education, Training and Employment (ETE); Mental and Physical Health; Drugs and Alcohol; Finance, Benefit and Debt; Children and Families of Offenders; and Attitudes, Thinking and Behaviour. 3 Their development and implementation are being undertaken by regional partnerships of relevant agencies, overseen by the nine Regional Offender Managers (ROMs) in England, and the Wales Offender Manager, who are employed by the new National Offender Management Service (NOMS). While the overall lead has been taken by the Home Office, efforts have been made to ensure the commitment and cooperation of other government departments and service agencies: each Pathway has an identified lead agency at both national and regional level,

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 23 and the delivery of its plans will be underpinned by performance targets and monitoring systems. It is important to note also that the delivery of these services will take place within a dramatically changed and changing organizational environment. The most important of these changes (which there is no space to discuss here in detail) include: the creation of NOMS itself, whereby current prison and probation functions are to be merged under one management system, but a formal separation is to be made between offender management and interventions, either or both eventually being subjected to contestability (whereby other public sector, private or voluntary agencies may bid to supply the service); 4 the imminent introduction by NOMS of a new system of so-called end-toend offender management, whereby in theory, at least lack of coordination between prison and probation will be removed and each offender will be the responsibility of one manager throughout the whole of his or her sentence (NOMS, 2005); the use nationally of a standardized Offender Assessment System (OASys), intended to produce formal assessments of risk and need on which to base decisions about the allocation of service resources to individual offenders; 5 the availability to sentencers from 2007 of custody plus, which combines a short prison term with a substantial period of supervision on licence; under this sentence (introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003), shortterm prisoners will be subject to statutory supervision after release, offering for the first time again, in theory the opportunity for interventions to be delivered to this group on a systematic basis. It is still early days in the development of the Reducing Re-offending initiatives (the first official launch of a regional strategy took place in November 2004 and several other regions had not yet launched their strategies at the time of writing in late autumn 2005), but their general shape and character are fairly clear. Most of the Pathways focus strongly on the provision of practical services, such as assistance in entering education or training, getting a job, finding accommodation, accessing drug treatment and so on. In this, the new strategies are ostensibly within the long tradition of work with prisoners through the gate, in which (as mentioned earlier) even probation officers have tended to concentrate on immediate welfare concerns rather than engaging in the more directly offending-related work typical of supervision in community sentences. At the same time, they offer major innovations in terms of the systematic assessment of need (through OASys), the end-to-end offender management and the close involvement of partner agencies in service planning and provision, all of which should improve effectiveness and efficiency. What is less clear, however, is the underlying theory of how they will result in a reduction in re-offending. It is in relation to this issue that

24 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) recent research on desistance can provide some valuable insights, and we now summarize some of the relevant findings. Current models of desistance As other contributors to this Special Issue have expounded in more depth, recent research has resulted in some new important insights into the processes by which offenders desist from crime. Those which appear to be most relevant to the discussion here may be summarized as follows: Agency is as important as if not more important than structure in promoting or inhibiting desistance. Perhaps the most important, and most widely agreed, insight has been that future offending is likely to be influenced by offenders thinking as well as their circumstances. For example, Zamble and Quinsey concluded from a study of released male prisoners in Ontario that factors in the social environment seem influential determinants of initial delinquency for a substantial proportion of offenders... but habitual offending is better predicted by looking at an individual s acquired ways of reacting to common situations (1997: 146 7): for many ex-prisoners, the latter include negative or pessimistic reactions to practical problems, which lead them to give up on attempts to avoid re-offending. Maruna s interview-based study of offenders in Liverpool added the insight that people may react differently depending upon their personal understandings or accounts of their situations and behaviour what he calls different kinds of narrative, some of which support continued offending and some of which support desistance. A key element of desistance narratives was a belief by the offender that s/he had begun to take control of his or her own life: Whereas active offenders... seemed to have little vision of what the future might hold, desisting interviewees had a plan and were optimistic that they could make it work (Maruna, 2000: 147; see also Giordano et al., 2002; Farrall and Calverley, 2005: ch. 8). Individuals differ greatly in their readiness to contemplate and begin the process of change. Their readiness can be affected by a wide range of factors, including age, major life events or transitions, physical and social circumstances and social bonds. Moreover, these factors interact in a complex fashion, making it difficult both to predict and to identify when a person is likely to be in a frame of mind receptive to narratives of change (Farrall and Bowling, 1999; Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002, 2004). DiClemente and Prochaska (1982) identify a broad cycle of change with identifiable stages (Pre-contemplation Contemplation Action Maintenance) through which people may be expected to pass in changing a variety of habitual behaviours. Desistance is a difficult and often lengthy process, not an event, and reversals and relapses are common. Burnett (2004) refers to a zigzag rather than a linear process, and Maruna and Farrall (2004) to one

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 25 involving complex progression from primary to secondary desistance (akin to the notions of primary and secondary deviance in labelling theory). Prochaska and DiClemente (1992), too, emphasize that individuals do not move through their cycle of change in a regular, predictable fashion, nor is the process irreversible. Generating and sustaining motivation is vital to the maintenance of processes of change. This is a central point made by virtually all writers on desistance (see, for example, Maruna, 2000; Farrall, 2002; Maruna and Immarigeon, 2004). While overcoming social problems is often insufficient on its own to promote desistance, it may be a necessary condition for further progress. Burnett and Maruna (2004) show that, however strong an offender s narrative for change, his or her motivation can be seriously undermined by, for example, persistent financial or accommodation problems. As people change they need new skills and capacities appropriate to their new lifestyle, and access to opportunities to use them. Another way of putting this is that they need to acquire both human capital and social capital (Farrall, 2004; McNeill, this issue). The main implications of these observations for probation officers or others involved in resettlement, inasmuch as the intention is to foster change and reduce re-offending, are that: It is important to understand and respond to offenders individual circumstances, including where they are in terms of readiness to change, rather than applying a one size fits all set of interventions. As far as possible, the process of change should be led by the offender, or at a minimum be understood as a joint enterprise in which the role of the penal professional is to assist the process of desistance: what McNeill (this issue) calls a desistance paradigm for probation practice. One of the most important contributions of those assisting offenders is empathetic support to sustain motivation, particularly in the face of setbacks. Also important is help in acquiring relevant skills and taking advantage of opportunities to improve lifestyle. Help in overcoming social and practical problems can be important in terms of maintaining motivation (or hope ), and hence removing obstacles to progress. It is to be expected that relapses into prior patterns of behaviour will occur, and these should not be taken to indicate that the desistance process has failed. To these can be added a number of more practical points concerning actions which previous research on throughcare suggests may increase the chances of interventions being effective (see, for example, Maguire and Raynor, 1997; Lewis et al., 2003b): Early planning and preparation for release. Establishment of a close relationship with the offender while he or she is still in prison.

26 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) Continuity between work with individuals in custody and that undertaken after release, including reinforcement of specific learning. Provision of any required services, such as drug treatment, as soon as possible after release. Resettlement and desistance: convergence or divergence? The remainder of the article discusses past, current and emerging approaches to resettlement in the light of the above research evidence. As noted earlier, the services provided to ex-prisoners through both throughcare systems and voluntary aftercare declined in scale and quality during the 1990s, and ambitious plans are being developed to improve the situation. The main weaknesses that they hope to address include: Lack of continuity between prison and probation interventions. Poor (and increasingly impersonal) case management of offenders on licence. Lack of individual tailoring of plans and interventions. Relatively low priority by probation services to ACR prisoners in comparison to those on community sentences. Little or no attention to prisoners serving under 12 months. Reluctant assistance to (and sometimes discrimination against) ex-prisoners by major service providers. Little attention to thinking, attitudes and motivation. Clearly, a system with these characteristics is unlikely to provide much assistance to indeed, is likely to impede the kinds of desistance processes outlined earlier. What remains to be seen is whether the reforms underway will not only solve the basic organizational and resource problems and deliver services effectively, but will create a system that is likely to result in reductions in re-offending. In answering the latter question it is important both to look for any theories of change that underlie the reforms and to examine these in the light of the desistance literature. It is worth noting that the architects of some other recent innovations in penal policy have paid serious attention to theories of why and how they should work in terms of reducing re-offending. Indeed, the introduction of offending behaviour programmes was accompanied by the appointment of an expert panel of academics and others (the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel) whose tasks included close scrutiny of both the models of change underpinning the programmes and of evidence put forward by programme designers to support claims that they would have an impact on reconviction (see, for example, CSAP, 2004). By contrast, such discussions have been largely absent from the plans for changes in resettlement practice, which for very understandable reasons have focused much more on practicalities than theory.

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 27 Nevertheless, even without many explicit statements, it is possible to tease out what one of the authors has described in an earlier essay (Raynor, 2004a) as the implicit criminologies behind different models of how to provide a resettlement service. That essay argued that although policymakers and practitioners do not necessarily articulate them, different approaches to resettlement carry embedded within them different assumptions about why people offend, why they stop offending and how the service provided is intended to influence offending (2004a: 222). Inasmuch as they can be ascertained, the implicit criminologies behind traditional approaches to through the gate interventions seem to be generally positivist/determinist in character, reflecting a view that individual offenders are largely the victims of social circumstances and problems beyond their control. This contains the corresponding assumption that if prisoners can be helped to get back on their feet in practical terms, their chances of avoiding new offending will be reduced. At first sight, too, the new Reducing Re-offending strategies reflect similar thinking: the plans outlined under most of the Pathways seem to take it for granted that good service provision will result in less re-offending, though the precise mechanisms by which this will occur are not articulated. It also seems to be assumed that offenders who are assessed as needing services (for example, because they are under-educated, have a poor employment record or are addicted to drugs) are also likely to want them, and hence that they largely share the goals of those assisting them: they want to attain a crime-free life, improve their skills, find a job, free themselves from drugs and so on. In other words, the general message to emerge from a reading of these plans appears to be that the heart of the resettlement problem (and by implication, of the problem of re-offending) is located primarily in the exclusion of ex-prisoners from effective services to meet their practical needs. However, the seventh Pathway, Attitudes, Thinking and Behaviour contains a different implicit criminology, which recognizes that criminal behaviour may also involve cognition and choice on the part of the individual. The main interventions planned and delivered under this Pathway include cognitive-behavioural programmes, which are intended to help offenders see the value of a crime-free life and increase their motivation and thinking skills to achieve this at the same time equipping them to make better use of the improved services offered under the other Pathways. Looked at in this way, the Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan seems to go beyond traditional welfare approaches to resettlement (or aftercare or throughcare, as it was called in earlier incarnations) and to reflect a multi-causal explanation of offending, neither a purely deterministic view (external problems and forces acting on the helpless individual) nor one based entirely on individuals exercising free will or agency in choosing to offend. Similarly, the new National Offender Management Model (NOMM) being introduced by NOMS includes provisions for the systematic assessment and referral of offenders to a variety of interventions, some intended to address thinking deficits, others more practical needs

28 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) (NOMS, 2005). Importantly, the NOMM also incorporates the notion of end-to-end offender management, whereby one practitioner maintains ownership of a case throughout the whole of a sentence (whether beginning in custody or in the community), with the aim of providing continuity and coherence between the different interventions, as well as sustaining motivation. However, while these developments appear to be substantially in accord with the principles suggested by research as conducive to desistance, a closer look raises doubts. First of all, it is likely that as now probation officers or others managing through the gate cases will place far less emphasis on addressing thinking and attitudes issues than they do with offenders on community sentences. This is partly because of the pressing nature of the practical problems that tend to confront people coming out of prison, and partly because there is often insufficient time on licence for them to undertake a formal programme. Of course, many will have undertaken programmes in prison, but the what works literature suggests that unless the learning from these is reinforced after completion, much of the benefit may be lost. 6 It should also be noted that the NOMM limits the use of rehabilitative interventions (as opposed to thsoe delivering punishment or help ) mainly to offenders assessed as medium to high risk. Second, the complex structure and potentially bureaucratic processes of the NOMM, together with the formal separation of offender management and interventions under NOMS, create a danger that insufficient attention is paid to the interactive effects of different kinds of needs, problems and feelings in other words, that sight is lost of the whole person. The importance of such interactions is illustrated by Burnett and Maruna (2004) in a discussion of the impact of social problems on hope and hence on motivation to change (see also Farrall and Calverley, 2005: ch. 5). Under the new NOMS systems, individual offenders assessed needs will increasingly be divided up into separate categories and addressed in isolation through visits to a variety of specialist providers. In theory, all service providers will be part of an offender management team built around each individual (NOMS, 2005), but as the members of this notional team are unlikely to meet as such, and as communication within the correctional system has a discouraging history, it is difficult to envisage it as an integrative system in practice (for a more comprehensive critique, see Raynor and Maguire, 2006). The main hope is that the offender manager (or supervisor, who may be the same or a different person) will be able to maintain a coherent overview of the dynamics of any evolving rehabilitative process and splice together any benefits from the disparate interventions. Most importantly, however, there are doubts around the ability of the new system to address the more subtle aspects of desistance identified in the literature, such as the difficulties offenders experience in sustaining positive narratives and motivation and, by implication, the importance of trusting relationships with practitioners who understand and support offenders

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 29 own efforts to overcome setbacks and disillusionment. Certainly, this need is recognized to some extent in the NOMM documentation, which sets out a vision of a human service involving a reasonable degree of continuity of relationship (enhanced through motivational interviewing and pro-social modelling) and supported by effective delivery of commissioned services (NOMS, 2005: 4 6). However, as discussed in Raynor and Maguire (2006), the potential fragmentation of the system, together with poor staff morale in the face of contestability, confusion over officers roles and a continuing focus on organizational change rather than the necessary staff skills development, make the generalized establishment of close supportive relationships an unlikely prospect in the near future at least. The Resettlement Pathfinders and the FOR programme Of course, the plans for resettlement reform discussed to date are still in their infancy, and as yet one can only speculate about how effective (or not) they will be. By contrast, there is substantial evidence concerning the effectiveness of a number of experiments with new approaches to resettlement that were carried out under the Probation Pathfinders initiative. The Resettlement Pathfinders, which focused mainly on short-term prisoners, ran between 1999 and 2005 and were evaluated as part of the Crime Reduction Programme. Full accounts of the findings from these studies can be found elsewhere (Lewis et al., 2003b; Lewis, 2004; Raynor, 2004a; Clancy et al., 2006), and this summary concentrates on those aspects which are important for the purposes of this article. The first phase of the study, involving seven Pathfinder projects, was intended to improve the availability and take-up of appropriate post-release services for short-term prisoners, and to help them to make a better transition back into the community, with eventual reductions in offending. In addition, the first phase was designed to test and compare a number of different approaches to providing resettlement services. Three voluntary sector projects were to concentrate on welfare needs while four probation-led projects would concentrate more on addressing offending behaviour. Although other differences between projects emerged in the course of the research, the main intended difference in approach remained, and showed itself in a number of ways: for example, OASys assessments in the probation-led projects were more likely than in the voluntary sector projects to identify thinking problems, even though (at least in the six projects involving male prisoners) the target populations appeared very similar. Moreover, not only did they undertake a considerable amount of informal work with individuals on problems of thinking and attitudes, but by the end of the study all four probation-led projects were using a form of group programme to address these issues. In three cases this was a cognitive-motivational programme, FOR A Change,

30 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) designed specifically for pre-release use with short-term prisoners (Fabiano and Porporino, 2002). 7 While an interest in offenders attitudes and thinking and in the possible contribution of these to offending has been a characteristic of probation practice over many decades, more structured and systematic approaches to these issues notably the development of highly structured offending behaviour programmes have been a feature of the what works movement of the last 10 years (Raynor and Vanstone, 2002; CSAP, 2004). The use of the FOR programme in three of the male prisons was clearly in line with this trend, but it should be noted that the programme was rather different in aims and content to the majority of accredited offending behaviour programmes. A cognitive-motivational programme designed for delivery in the weeks preceding release, FOR consisted of twelve group sessions and one individual session. The group sessions concentrated on developing motivation and setting goals, and included a market-place session attended by representatives of agencies likely to be of use to prisoners on the outside, in accordance with the long-standing observation that the appointments most likely to be kept on release are those arranged before release (see, for example, Maguire et al., 2000). The rationale of the whole programme was closely based on established principles of motivational interviewing (Miller and Rollnick, 1991, 2002) and was designed to be followed up through continuing contact with resettlement workers after release. The motivational approach can be summed up as attempting to develop discrepancy, in other words promoting awareness of gaps between what prisoners want or aspire to be, and their current situations or behaviour. As people become aware of such gaps and are motivated to close them, work proceeds on setting achievable goals and developing concrete plans. The assumption is that prisoners will face obstacles on release, and will need motivation, resourcefulness and determination to overcome them even with the assistance of available support and services: motivated prisoners are likely to make more and better use of whatever help is available. Group leaders are trained to show empathy, recognize discrepancies (for example between previous and current statements) and promote self-efficacy; approaches to be specifically avoided include confrontation, arguing, warning, lecturing, judging and ridiculing. In analysis of the results of the seven first-phase pathfinders, it was difficult to distinguish between the results of the programme itself and of other features of the services provided in the probation-led projects, and some offenders would have been exposed to both. However, it was possible to compare some outcomes of probation-led projects with voluntary organization-led projects, and here the results were fairly clear (see Lewis et al., 2003a, 2003b). Probation-led projects achieved significantly higher levels of continuity of contact with offenders after release, and in most cases also achieved significantly higher levels of positive change in attitudes and beliefs and in self-reported life problems as measured by repeat administration of the CRIME-PICS II questionnaire (Frude et al., 1994).

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 31 Although the numbers were small and the findings must be treated with caution, subsequent analysis indicated that when other factors were controlled for, participants in two of the probation-led projects had significantly lower reconviction rates than those in the other projects. In addition, continuity of contact with project workers (especially volunteer mentors) through the gate was significantly associated with lower reconviction rates (Clancy et al., 2006). 8 The importance of continuity lies not simply in the fact that offenders are more likely to keep appointments with and take advice from somebody they know and in whom they have some confidence: the challenging of discrepancy and the maintenance of motivation are also easier in the context of a relationship. Put at its simplest, we mostly find it easier to break a promise to a stranger than to let down someone we know. Some projects achieved useful levels of continuity by using professional staff; others relied on volunteer mentors, who may have more time to offer and sometimes also a more unconditional commitment to helping. Models of desistance in the Pathfinders We are now in a position to make some further brief comments on resettlement and desistance in the light of results from the Pathfinder evaluations. In terms of the earlier discussion of structure and agency, the more successful projects laid considerable emphasis on agency, but agency within the particular context of offenders lives and problems. They assumed that obstacles would be encountered and various kinds of helping services might be needed, but that obstacles could be overcome and help used more effectively if offenders were motivated, with clear goals and plans to achieve them. The contrast can be described as between an opportunity deficit model (which sees offending as a problem caused by lack of access to resources, to be solved by making resources available) and an offender responsibility model. Responsibility models recognize obstacles, disadvantage and exclusion faced by offenders, but also see that offenders have some choices about how to respond to circumstances, and may need to focus on habits of thinking, beliefs and motivation in order to make more successful choices. Such approaches may sometimes run the risk of underestimating the extreme difficulties many offenders encounter, but they have the merit that they present further offending as avoidable, and offenders as capable of desisting. In the results of the resettlement Pathfinder evaluations, there are strong indications that the responsibility model offers a more successful basis for resettlement strategies. In this, clearly, the results broadly support the conclusions of most of the recent literature on desistance referred to earlier. More concretely, they lend further support to the idea that rehabilitative services should address both opportunities and thinking: in other words, that they should aim to reinforce and support plausible narratives of desistance. There may even be dangers in an exclusive focus on problems of access to resources and

32 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) opportunities, as if crime were nothing more than a response to environmental difficulties: this may run the risk of reinforcing recidivist narratives in which offenders cast themselves as victims of circumstance who cannot help re-offending. Conclusion: good news and bad news? What can we reasonably conclude from this attempt to set empirical research and experience of resettlement alongside the developing literature of desistance? First, and perhaps most importantly, we can point to some convergence. There is evidence that it is possible to provide resettlement services in a way which is consistent with some important aspects of the desistance literature, particularly where these are concerned with avoidable exclusion from access to services and with positive goals, motivation and self-belief on the part of released prisoners. In addition, in spite of the methodological problems and limitations which affected many of the projects evaluated under the Crime Reduction Programme, including all the Pathfinder studies (Maguire, 2004; Raynor, 2004b), there is at least the basis for a defensible claim that such approaches to resettlement could help to reduce re-offending. This complementarity of evaluative research and more theoretical approaches to desistance is particularly welcome because the what works literature and the desistance literature have historically developed along largely separate paths. Bringing them more closely together appears a promising approach for future research. Much more caution, however, is needed when we consider the likely practical and policy consequences of the research reviewed in this article. Although the best practice we observed in the Pathfinders showed a degree of consistency with desistance theory, much of the practice in the projects was less good and was also beset by practical problems. We also know that effectiveness is often reduced when demonstration projects are rolled out as routine practice (Lipsey, 1999), and that good implementation plays a central role in the development and maintenance of effectiveness (Gendreau et al., 1999; Raynor, 2004c). The generalization of good practice from Pathfinder resettlement projects into new patterns of regional provision promises to be patchy, difficult and in need of constant evaluation and research input which, in many cases, is unlikely to be available. The Home Office s lack of interest in disseminating the findings of the second phase of the Pathfinder study is not a promising sign. There are also indications that some of the critical ingredients in effectiveness depend on interagency collaboration of a kind that will not be easy to reproduce. For example, the evidence reported to the Home Office indicated that the positive effects of the FOR programme were found mainly among prisoners who also experienced good continuity of services after release, and this cannot be guaranteed by concentrating simply on delivery of the programme within the prison. In theory such continuity

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 33 issues may be more easily addressed as NOMS becomes a reality, but this needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed. A related concern is that although current ideas about the practice of resettlement may be developing in ways that show some consistency with desistance theory, there is little sign that the wider policy and legislative frameworks will do so. One example of this is what seems to be a disproportionate preoccupation with enforcement. Nearly 10 years ago, in our evaluation of what were then new arrangements for Automatic Conditional Release (Maguire et al., 1996), we suggested that the emergence of more rigid and prescriptive approaches to enforcement of licence conditions was making it difficult for probation officers to adapt their style of supervision to the lifestyles and circumstances of some offenders. Since then, expectations and requirements about enforcement have become, largely for political and presentational reasons, considerably more rigid and demanding, to the extent that many observers (for example Hedderman and Hough, 2004) regard them as counter-productive in relation to the effectiveness of supervision. Such rigid requirements are also particularly inappropriate in relation to the zigzag pattern of the desistance process discussed in the first part of this article. The proportion of prisoners supervised on licence that is returned to prison for breaches of licence requirements is now so high as to constitute a significant additional pressure on prison numbers (Solomon, 2005). When custody plus is implemented, short-term prisoners will in effect be subject to enforceable post-release supervision in the same way as current longer-term prisoners, adding many tens of thousands to community supervision caseloads. Will they then be returned to prison in their thousands for technical breaches of supervision requirements? If they are, we will not so much be promoting desistance as making the revolving door an official requirement. Further reasons for concern include the possible impact of the new offender management arrangements being introduced by NOMS (Raynor and Maguire, 2006) and the current uncertainties about how contestability will work (Rumgay, 2005). We argued above that continuity of contact appeared to be an important feature of effective practice in resettlement. While some aspects of the NOMS proposals clearly recognize this, there remain a number of unresolved issues about the relative priority to be given to maintaining relational continuity in the supervision process, as opposed to diversifying the range of service providers by dividing up service provision. Resettlement services are particularly affected by proposals which change the relationship between custodial and non-custodial provision, and much will depend on the concrete arrangements which are still, regrettably, quite unclear. But perhaps the most fundamental question is not whether society can resettle prisoners (probably it can), but whether it really wants to. Attempts to reduce the social exclusion of released prisoners need to be informed by

34 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) a positive approach to their value as human beings and their potential contribution as participants in society, as argued in the emerging literature on strengths-based approaches to rehabilitation (Maruna and LeBel, 2003; Raynor and Robinson, 2005). Such attitudes and approaches are not easily cultivated in a context of public hostility and vindictiveness towards offenders, fed by the populist rhetoric of politicians preoccupied with a need to appear tough. A real and sustained improvement in resettlement services to prisoners would require a significant degree of political leadership, and only time will tell whether this will be forthcoming. Notes 1 This was made explicit especially in relation to short-term prisoners in the Probation Service s Statement of National Objectives and Priorities (Home Office, 1984), which announced a policy of lower priority to social work for offenders released from custody. 2 This term has now replaced throughcare in virtually all official discourse on the topic. For a discussion of the changes in terminology and their implications, see Raynor (2004a). 3 Two additional Pathways of a different kind focusing on specific types of offender, rather than types of service are also incorporated. These relate to Public Protection and Prolific Offenders. 4 NOMS was introduced in response to the Correctional Services Review by Patrick Carter (Home Office, 2003). For more details see http:/ /www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/org/dob/direct/noms.html 5 The Offender Assessment System developed by the Home Office is a comprehensive instrument designed to assess criminogenic needs risk of harm, and probabilities of reconviction for all offenders undergoing imprisonment or community sentences (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ workingoffenders14.htm). 6 There is the possibility of referral to a booster programme, but these have been implemented and used far less than initially expected. 7 The other project which used a group programme was based at a women s prison, where local practitioners had devised a modular programme. Unfortunately, in spite of some promising results, no other women s project was available for comparison, so this became yet another study in which the findings are derived mainly from, and applicable mainly to male offenders (Kendall, 2002). Much of what we say in this article therefore shares the same limitation. 8 Obviously there are likely to be selection effects involved here, since those who remain in contact may also be those most likely to avoid re-offending, but the different rates of continuity achieved with rather similar offender populations suggest that some projects were indeed motivating offenders rather more effectively than others.

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 35 References Burnett, R. (2004) To Reoffend or Not to Reoffend? The Ambivalence of Convicted Property Offenders, in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration, pp. 152 80. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Burnett, R. and S. Maruna (2004) So Prison Works, Does It? The Criminal Careers of 130 Men Released from Prison under Home Secretary, Michael Howard, Howard Journal 33(4): 390 404. Clancy, A., K. Hudson, M. Maguire, R. Peake, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (2006) Getting Out and Staying Out: Results of the Prisoner Resettlement Pathfinders. Bristol: Policy Press. CSAP (2004) The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel Report 2003 4. London: Home Office (http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/ CSAP_report03to04.pdf). DiClemente, C. and J. Prochaska (1982) Self Change and Therapy Change of Smoking Behavior: A Comparison of Processes of Change in Cessation and Maintenance, Addictive Behavior 7: 133 42. Fabiano, E. and F. Porporino (2002) Focus on Resettlement a Change. Canada: T3 Associates. Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Farrall, S. (2004) Social Capital and Offender Re-integration: Making Probation Desistance Focused, in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration, pp. 57 84. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Farrall, S. and B. Bowling (1999) Structuration, Human Development and Criminal Careers, British Journal of Criminology 39(2): 252 67. Farrall, S. and A. Calverley (2005) Understanding Desistance from Crime: New Theoretical Directions in Resettlement and Rehabilitation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Frude, N., T. Honess and M. Maguire (1994) CRIME-PICS II Manual. Cardiff: Michael & Associates. Gendreau, P., C. Goggin and P. Smith (1999) The Forgotten Issue in Effective Correctional Treatment: Program Implementation, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43(2): 180 7. Giordano, P., S. Cernkovich and J. Rudolph (2002) Gender, Crime and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation, American Journal of Sociology 107(4): 990 1064. Hedderman, C. and M. Hough (2004) Getting Tough or Being Effective: What Matters?, in G. Mair (ed.) What Matters in Probation, pp. 146 69. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Her Majesty s Inspectorates of Prison and Probation (2001) Through the Prison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review. London: Home Office. Home Office (1984) Probation Service in England and Wales: Statement of National Objectives and Priorities. London: Home Office.

36 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) Home Office (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime a New Approach: Correctional Services Review by Patrick Carter. London: Prime Minister s Strategy Unit. Home Office (2004) Reducing Re-offending: National Action Plan. London: Home Office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/5505reoffending.pdf). Kendall, K. (2002) Time to Think Again about Cognitive-Behavioural Programmes, in P. Carlen (ed.) Women and Punishment, pp. 182 98. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Lewis, S. (2004) What Works in the Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners?, VISTA 8(3): 163 70. Lewis, S., M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Vennard (2003a) The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinder Programmes. Research Findings 200. London: Home Office. Lewis, S., J. Vennard, M. Maguire, P. Raynor, M. Vanstone, S. Raybould and A. Rix (2003b) The Resettlement of Short-Term Prisoners: An Evaluation of Seven Pathfinders. RDS Occasional Paper 83. London: Home Office. Lipsey, M. (1999) Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs, Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 6(3): 611 41. Maguire, M. (2004) The Crime Reduction Programme: Reflections on the Vision and the Reality, Criminal Justice 4(3): 213 38. Maguire, M. and P. Raynor (1997) The Revival of Throughcare: Rhetoric and Reality in Automatic Conditional Release, British Journal of Criminology 37(1): 1 14. Maguire, M., B. Perroud and P. Raynor (1996) Automatic Conditional Release: The First Two Years. Research Study 156. London: Home Office. Maguire, M., P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (1998) Voluntary After- Care. Research Findings 73. London: Home Office. Maguire, M., P. Raynor, M. Vanstone and J. Kynch (2000) Voluntary After- Care and the Probation Service: A Case of Diminishing Responsibility, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 39(3): 234 48. Maruna, S. (2000) Making Good. Washington: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S. and S. Farrall (2004) Desistance from Crime: A Theoretical Reformulation, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 43: 171 94. Maruna, S. and R. Immarigeon (eds) (2004) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Maruna, S. and T. LeBel (2003) Welcome Home? Examining the Re-entry Court Concept from a Strengths-Based Perspective, Western Criminology Review 4: 91 107 (http://wcr.sonoma.edu). Miller, W.R. and S. Rollnick (1991) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behaviours. New York: Guilford Press. Miller, W.R. and S. Rollnick (2002) Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press. NACRO (2000) The Forgotten Majority: The Resettlement of Short Term

Maguire & Raynor The resettlement of prisoners 37 Prisoners. London: National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. NOMS (2005) The NOMS Offender Management Model. London: National Offender Management Service (http://www.probation2000.com/documents/ NOMS%20Offender%20Management%20Model.pdf). Prochaska, J. and C. DiClemente (1992) Stages of Change in the Modification of Problem Behavior, in M. Herson, R. Eisler and P. Miller (eds) Progress in Behavior Modification, Volume 28, pp. 154 206. Illinois: Sycamore. Raynor, P. (2004a) Opportunity, Motivation and Change: Some Findings from Research on Resettlement, in R. Burnett and C. Roberts (eds) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice, pp. 217 33. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Raynor, P. (2004b) The Probation Service Pathfinders : Finding the Path and Losing the Way?, Criminal Justice 4(3): 309 25. Raynor, P. (2004c) Rehabilitative and Reintegrative Approaches, in A. Bottoms, S. Rex and G. Robinson (eds) Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society, pp. 195 223. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Raynor, P. and M. Maguire (2006) End-to-End or End in Tears? Prospects for the Effectiveness of the National Offender Management Model, in M. Hough, R. Allen and U. Padel (eds) Reshaping Probation and Prisons: The Implications of NOMS. Bristol: Policy Press. Raynor, P. and G. Robinson (2005) Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Raynor, P. and M. Vanstone (2002) Understanding Community Penalties. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rumgay, J. (2005) Counterblast: NOMS Bombs, Howard Journal 44(2): 206 8. Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Solomon, E. (2005) Returning to Punishment: Prison Recalls, Criminal Justice Matters 60: 24 5. Vanstone, M. (2004) Supervising Offenders in the Community: A History of Probation Theory and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Zamble, E. and V. Quinsey (1997) The Criminal Recidivism Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MIKE MAGUIRE is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Cardiff University. He has published widely on criminal justice issues and was involved in several studies under the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme, including an evaluation of the Resettlement Pathfinders. He is a co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (OUP, 2002). He was formerly a member of the Parole Board and currently of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel. PETER RAYNOR is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Swansea University. A former probation officer, his research over the last 30 years has included work on drugs, youth justice, pre-sentence reports, the

38 Criminology & Criminal Justice 6(1) effectiveness of programmes, the resettlement of prisoners, risk and need assessment and the impact of probation on minority ethnic offenders. He is a member of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel for England and Wales and the Community Justice Accreditation Panel for Scotland.