Content area
Full text
The advent of desistance theory in contemporary forensic psychology and criminology has brought important and pertinent questions to the table. Intervention with offenders has seen a long-standing focus on offender risk, need and responsivity (RNR), utilising empirical evidence of "what works" (see Andrews and Bonta, 2006). This was a much needed response to a former position where "nothing worked" (Martinson, 1974). RNR are important and necessary components of intervention with offenders. We do know that some RNR methods are evidenced to work, but we don't know why they work. This is a gap that has led to considerable debate and frustration at a perceived exclusivity and over-reliance on evidence based practice and a question that had rarely been posed. "How " does an offender successfully rehabilitate and desist from offending? New Labour's crime advisor Louise Casey famously remarked; "If No. 10 says b****y 'evidence-based policy' to me one more time, I'll deck them" (Bowcott, 2005).
Researchers have begun to explore the process of why offenders abstain from crime in what has become known as the "desistance paradigm". The desistance paradigm focuses less on evaluation evidence of "what works", and draws instead from criminological research on "how change works" (McNeill, 2006; Porporino, 2010). It has resulted in a move away from a static model of an enduring offender, to encouraging understanding of changes in personal identities and a process of desistance (McNeill et al. , 2012). Farrall (2004) usefully distinguishes "desistance-focused" perspectives from "offending-related" approaches on the basis that offending-related approaches concentrate on targeting or correcting offender deficits, and desistance-focused perspectives seek to promote those things thought to be associated with desistance (such as strong social bonds, pro-social involvements and social capital). Desistance research has been pitted against traditional cognitive behavioural approaches in contemporary research with a "what works" versus a "how it works" oppositional position. However, can the two be complementary? Can desistance enable a greater understanding of how the process of reducing recidivism works? An intuitively sensible integrative approach seems viable with the two stances complementing and informing each other; desistance research providing insight into processes of change and RNR research evidencing the outcomes of change? The methodology and content of each may differ, but surely this does not result...