Transforming rehabilitation: evidence, values and ideology

Abstract

I'm writing this at Heathrow, on my way home from the first World Probation Congress in London on 8-10 October 2013. For me, it was a bittersweet event. Sweet to learn about and to celebrate what probation is and can be - at its best; bitter to be doing that at the very moment that the UK Government dismantles a world-leading, globally-renowned, award-winning public service with such a proud history.On the first day of the conference - but at a separate event organised by User Voice -1 was asked what my fears are about Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), specifically from a research-informed or evidence-based perspective. In one sense, that's a difficult question to answer. Since Transforming Rehabilitation is really about disestablishing probation, it is quite hard to advance a strictly 'evidence-based' response. It is impossible to experiment (in the strict sense) with criminal justice institutional arrangements, so there is no 'evidence-based' organisational structure for probation. That said, there are many arguments that can be made about which structures might best facilitate or impede desistance. And that's where my fears arise.Firstly, TR seems to me to be based on several fundamental misconceptions about risk. Many informed commentators have noted the dangers of creating an organisational structure that reifies risk classifications; that assumes people can be easily or sensibly classified for any period of time as high, medium or low risk. They have also pointed out - repeatedly - that most 'serious further offences' by people under supervision are carried out by those classified as low or medium risk - not necessarily because the assessment and classification was wrong, but often because risk is dynamic and situational; it is always changing.My concern with risk is a slightly different one. Ever since NOMS has elected to pursue a policy that resources should follow risk, it has slipped into the assumption that people who present a high risk of harm require the most intensive supervision. In one sense they do - public safety demands that they be closely monitored. But the 'risk principle' in the 'what works' research said something quite different; i.e. that people who presented a high risk of reoffending - whatever the likely gravity of their crimes - required (and benefited most from) intensive interventions. The reason was obvious. People who offend persistently tend to have very complex personal and social problems and it takes considerable time and skill to address those problems in a way that reduces risk. Yet TR seems to me to be built on the assumption that people who represent a low or medium risk of harm (but who often represent a high risk of reoffending) don't need skilled and intensive support - that their supervision can be safely delegated to less experienced, less skilled and less qualified supervisors or supporters. While desistance research certainly does suggest a potentially important role for peer mentors, other volunteers, friends and family in supporting change, it also makes abundantly clear that for people who have offended persistently (but not necessarily seriously) desistance is a complex and uncertain process - a long and winding road that requires skilled navigation. TR diminishes the likelihood of skilled navigation (for reasons I'll elaborate further below) at the same time as making the route between services more complex and elaborate.My second major fear also flows directly from research evidence. Skilled navigators can't enable and support change by themselves. First and foremost they need to be able to engage with the people doing the changing. That sounds simple, but it is no small task to develop relationships of trust with people whose relationships with others - often especially with authority figures - have often been, at worst, abusive and traumatic and, at best, inconsistent and difficult. In those circumstances, the process of building trust is hard enough for those with shared experience or with professional skills. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.