1. (with Helen Atkinson, Andrew Costello and Deborah Holmes)
Promoting Desistance among Young Adult Recidivists Presentation to SCoPiC Conference, December 2007
Anthony Bottoms
Joanna Shapland
Grant Muir
Deirdre Healy
Angela Sorsby
(with Helen Atkinson, Andrew Costello and Deborah Holmes)
Introduce people who are there and briefly say Angela’s role (data bases and analysis), Jeremy’s role (costs and benefits), and that NFO will be doing some of the interviews. Say there will be other researchers as well. Give them A4 sheets.
Say who will be concentrating on their scheme:
Joanna for JRC London
Jenny for JRC Northumbria
Marie for Bullingdon
Joanna for TV probation
Jim/Joanna for REMEDI
Joanna/Rachel for ILPS 1

2. A longitudinal age-crime curve for recidivist offenders2

3. The Sheffield Pathways Out Of Crime Study
A longitudinal study of desistance:
following 113 male persistent offenders born in (first interviewed at age 19-22)
for 3-4 years - four interviews at around 11 month intervals (second interview recontact rate 87%, third 78%, fourth 78% of initial sample [3rd or 4th 86% of initial sample]).
Results presented today are mostly from 1st, 2nd and 3rd interviews.
Taken from a population of
773 offenders (male and female) born in
convicted of a standard list offence on at least two occasions. 3

4. Sheffield Study interviews
First interview:
113 interviewed
Second interview:
98 interviewed
(26 continuously in prison since first interview)
Average time from first interview = 13 months
Third interview:
88 interviewed
(21 continuously in prison since second interview; 10 continuously in prison since first interview)
Average time from second interview = 11 months
Fourth interview:
(14 continuously in prison since third interview; none continuously in prison since first interview)
Average time from third interview = 11 months 4

5. Mean number of conviction occasions and numbers of offences prior to the first interview (n=113)
This was a highly offending sample. Because people generally had to be approached in prison, the sample was more seriously criminal than the population.
Hence, Sheffield sample has 909 conviction occasions for standard list offences by age c.21; compare Cambridge Study, 686 by age 50. 5

6. Offender Group Reconviction Score (OGRS)
(Version 2.01)
Predictive factors:
Current offence category
No. of conviction occasions
No. of previous custodial sentences when under 21
Age at first conviction
Age at current conviction
Any current or previous burglary conviction
Any current or previous court appearances for breach
Sheffield sample:
(N = 113)
Mean OGRS score:
Median OGRS score: 83.00 6

7. Age at first disposal (mean 13.5, SD 2.0, n=113)7

8. Total number of self-reported offences, in 12 months before first interview, adjusted for time at liberty (N = 112)
40 (36%)
Low active (< 50 offences)
23 (20%)
Moderately active (50 < 100 offences)
49 (44%)
Extremely active (100+ offences) 8

9. Views on desistance from crime
Most, even at the first interview, said they did want to try to desist. That proportion
increased over time and started to include some who said they had stopped committing
crime. But some people varied between interviews. Desistance intentions were
not just intentions - they were strongly related to levels of self-reported recent
criminality (see later slide).
1st interview nd interview rd interview th interview
Have stopped % % %
Definitely intend to stop 56% % % %
Sub-total % % % %
Would like to stop, but
unlikely/won’t stop % % % %
Total % % % %
(n) (112) (97) (88) (86)
Note: although the n differs over time, more detailed analysis shows that the ‘shift towards
desistance’ is not an interview selection effect. 9

10. What about drugs? Is this a dependent group?
At the first interview (n=112):
35% admitted to taking hard drugs and said this was problematic
8% to taking soft drugs and said this was problematic
41% said that they had felt dependent on drugs in the recent past
Overall, 47% were identified as ‘drug problem’ offenders;
i.e. those who either took hard drugs and saw this as a problematic or had felt dependent on drugs 10

11. The social contexts of living at interview 1
Current living circumstances:
living with parents %
living with girlfriend/partner 21%
other living arrangements (friends, alone, hostel, etc.) 23%
Girlfriend/partner:
currently in a steady relationship 42%
previous steady relationship 35%
(63% of partners disapproved of offending)
father of one or more children 31%
Mates (and whether they have been in trouble with the police) (n=108)
Most respondents (63%) said their mates were very important to them, and they often said they trusted them. But nearly 70% said that at least three-quarters of their mates had a criminal record. 11

12. The social contexts of living at interview 1 (cont.)
Employment (n=112):
no job of any kind in last year 58%
‘regular’ job at some time in last year 24%
(10% for full year)
cash in hand/casual jobs only 18%
Qualifications and schooling (n=108):
Excluded from school at some point 93%
Excluded permanently or for more than a month 46%
Left school without qualifications 86%
Obtained qualifications since school 51%
Driving (n=112 except licences: n=110):
licences held (1 full licence, 5 provisional licences) 5%
victim of offence of taking vehicle/theft from vehicle 24% 12

13. Three dependent variables
(i) Intention to desist (the Desistance Trichotomy)
(ii) Self-reported criminality
(iii) Official convictions 13

14. 1. The Desistance Trichotomy at Interview 3
Group 1 – “I have stopped offending” (n=28)
Group 2 – “I have made a definite decision to try to stop” (n=26)
Group 3 – “I would like to stop but I’m not sure if I can” OR “I am unlikely to stop” (n=34)
At interview 3, totals of self-reported offending were strongly related to desistance intentions (as was official criminality).
However, the three ‘desistance at 3’ groups showed no significant differences in self-reported offending levels at Interview 1.
Thus, the three ‘desistance trichotomy’ groups are diverging over time in self-reported offending.
Stopping also often appears to be a gradual process.
Mean number of self-report offences, adjusted for time at risk (n = 87)
Have Trying Unlikely Sig (ANOVA)
stopped to stop to stop
Interview ns
Interview p = 0.01
Interview p = 0.008 14

15. The Desistance Trichotomy at 3 and drug problems at interviews 1, 2 and 3
There was a similar pattern for serious drug problems –
those who stopped offending had progressively fewer drug problems
the three trichotomy groups showed greater divergence over time
% of each trichotomy group being dependent on drugs or having a drug problem
Have Trying Unlikely Sig. (X2)
stopped to stop to stop
Interview 1 (n=87) % % % ns
Interview 2 (n=82) % % % ns
Interview 3 (n=88) 7% % % p < 0.01 15

16. What is related to desistance intention?
Ordinal Regression Analysis with the Desistance Trichotomy at 3 as the dependent variable (variance accounted for (Nagelkerke Pseudo R2) = 0.551) . The significant factors are:
Wald Sig.
Parental attachment at interview p < 0.001
(greater if stopped offending)
Employment at first interview p < 0.001
(more likely if stopped offending)
Impulsivity at first interview p < 0.01
(lower if stopped offending)
Age at first interview p < 0.02
(higher if stopped offending)
Drug dependency/problem at p < 0.05
(less likely if stopped offending)
Other variables considered but not significant include: Criminality risk score (OGRS 2); Early disadvantage; Mates being important; Being in a relationship; Hopelessness; Age at first official criminality; Self-report offending at interview 1. 16

17. 2. Patterns of self-reported criminality prior to first and fourth interviews
[Comparison restricted to respondents interviewed at 4 and “at risk” between 3 and 4 (N=71). Data adjusted for time at risk] 17

18. What is related to self-reported offending?
Ordinal regression on S-R offending at Interviews 2 and 3,
in three categories (<50, 50<100, 100+)
Wald
Sig
At interview 2
(for period between 1 and 2)
[PsR2 = ]
Perceived obstacles to going straight (at 2)
Drug dependency/problem (at 2)
Age at first conviction
10.116
6.942
4.931
P<.001
P<.008
P<.05
At interview 3
(for period between 2 and 3)
[PsR2 = 0.350]
Perceived obstacles to going straight (at 3)
Drug dependency/problem (at 3)
10.422
5.371
P<.02 18

19. Perceived obstacles to going straight/staying straight
The same possible factors were put to respondents at each interview. Data from the third interview are given below, with, in parentheses, equivalent data from the first interview for the same respondents (n = 88).
Taking drugs
43% (46%)
Lack of money
67% (77%)
Alcohol
33% (35%)
Opportunity for easy money
66% (69%)
Anger/Stress/Depression
43% (44%)
No real alternative
29% (37%)
Need for excitement
50% (61%)
Lack of work
49% (60%)
Family problems
29% (28%)
Where I live
37% (41%)
Pressure from mates
25% (33%)
Having a record
36% (54%)
Pressure from partner
18% (18%)
Police harassment
27% (42%) 19

20. 3. Official offending (reconvictions)
Of the 98 respondents who were interviewed at least twice, ten were continuously in prison from Interview 1 to Interview 3.
Of the remaining 88, a total of 67 (= 76.1%) were reconvicted during this period (= 24 months).
The 67 reconvicted offenders each had, on average, ‘offence transactions’ for which they were convicted during these two years (excluding breaches). 20

21. What is related to official offending?
Dependent variable = no. of offence transactions (standard list or otherwise), per year at risk [includes only offences occurring in risk period; excludes breaches ]. Ordinal regression using three categories: none; below median; above median.
Wald
Sig
At interview 2
(for period between 1 and 2)
[PsR = ]
OGRS2 Score
‘Unsettled lifestyle’ factor
Whether offending due to drugs/alcohol
9.185
6.800
6.176
0.002
0.009
0.013
At interview 3
(for period between 2 and 3)
[PsR2 = 0.514]
Self-efficacy at 2
Partner attachment at 2
‘Perceived obstacles’ score at 2
9.129
6.628
5.240
3.889
0.003
0.010
0.022
0.049
(for period between 1 and 3)
[PsR2 = 0.460]
Employment status at 2
11.177
4.771
4.135
0.001
0.029
0.042 21

22. A hypothetical and tentative model of process towards desistance
EVENTS
Beginning to think about oneself differently
Belief that criminal career can be avoided
Decision to try to desist
Discouragement
(e.g. not getting job/courses)
Reinforcement
(e.g. get work/course)
Gives up, returns to crime 22

23. What about the criminal justice system?
Prison
Most of these offenders had been in prison. We asked ‘Does prison make you think hard about your life?
65% said yes, definitely; 18% yes, a little; 18% not really or no - it may provide an opportunity for change
But prison also has negative effects. It makes it harder to keep up outside relationships and people make new (criminal) friends - 27% of our sample were keeping up with these new mates outside. 23

24. Community criminal justice agencies
Desisting means working out a non-offending life outside prison.
When asked what might help you go straight, the main responses were:
getting a job (25%); moving out of the area (13%); a partner (6%) or your family
(5%); staying off drugs (4%).
Only 2% said probation and 2% an educational or prison programme.
People’s experience of probation supervision: asked what they had to do, both those on licence and those on community sentences said ‘attend probation’.
Asked how long they spent with their probation officer on each visit (n=45):
42% said 5-15 minutes; 42% said minutes; 7% said minutes
9% said over 45 minutes
Offenders in general claimed that probation officers’ talk tended to be about
‘general stuff’ and ‘how I am managing’, rather than specific elements 24

25. What role did offenders think probation could play?
Asked what else probation staff could have done to help, 58% could think
of nothing else - but others mentioned specific practical areas, such as
finding accommodation, financial difficulties, help with courses or
employment.
At second interview, only 33% said they had asked probation to sort out a specific problem in the last 9 months - though probation sorted it out in 47% of these cases.
Healy (2006), looking at Irish male persistent offender probationers (aged
18 to 35) found what was appreciated about probation was practical
assistance and creating a good relationship with their officer, so that
offenders’ problems could be sorted as they arose. Treating offenders
with respect, being approachable and caring were important.
This mirrors our own findings about what is seen as fair and helpful in
criminal justice. Probation supervision is a real opportunity to provide
practical assistance and help - but our own offenders’ views were very
mixed: 9% very useful; 25% fairly useful; 19% a little useful; 45% not
at all useful. 25

26. ‘A Second Start’?
Could Probation be key change agents for a new initiative to provide a ‘second start’ for offenders in their early 20s? This might include:
showing understanding of the ‘desistance process’ that offenders are going through;
support, guidance and practical advice on practical difficulties, particularly in relation to employment, qualifications and accommodation;
encouraging new skills and qualifications, including driving courses/tests (would mean reviewing driving bans);
supporting positive relationships (e.g. with parents, where our data show often surprisingly strong continuing links);
as well as monitoring and enforcement; and, where appropriate, courses such as offending behaviour programmes.
These are primarily case management tasks. They require a continuing relationship
based on time spent with one skilled probation officer.
‘Second Start’ programmes could thus be a complement to early intervention
programmes such as Surestart. 26