DESISTANCE AND SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
Dr. Kerry Baker＊

I. INTRODUCTION
Today’s topics are the focus and goal of all the work that we have looked at in the last two lectures.
Making assessments, building quality relationships with young people, planning and delivering diverse andeffective interventions — the desired end result of all this activity is that young offenders should stop
offending and be able to live constructive lives and contribute positively to their local communities. Yet attimes this can seem almost impossible given what we know about the difficulties that many young people
face — poverty, gangs, poor education, substance use and so on — and the often limited resources thatyoung justice services have to work with.
We also know from experience, however, that some young offenders do succeed in changing their lives.
What can we learn from their example? How is it that some young people manage to desist from offending
but others don’t? Yesterday we looked at the case management and programmes elements of thisdiagram and today we will look at the outer two components of desistance and community integration.
For a long time, criminological research and theorising focused on trying to understand why people
started offending, but it is only relatively recently that more attention has been given to the equallyimportant question of why people stop offending. The role of age and maturity in the desistance process
has long been recognised but current research focuses more on the interactive effects of life experiences,self-identity, choices, social networks and opportunities (Maruna et al, 2004).
It is important because, as McNeill et al (2012) argue, ‘desistance forces us away from static models of
people as ‘offenders’, ‘criminals’ or ‘prisoners’ and encourages an understanding of change(s) in personal
identities. It also brings to our attention the fact that today’s ‘young offender’ is more likely to become
tomorrow’s ‘new father’ than tomorrow’s ‘habitual criminal’. As such, it implies valuing people for who
they are and for what they could become, rather than judging, rejecting or containing them for what they
have done’.1

II. UNDERSTANDING DESISTANCE
If the onset and continuation of offending behaviour is due to a complex interaction of different factors,
it is no surprise that the process of stopping offending will often be a complex process also.
A. ‘Definition’ and Types of Desistance
The expanding desistance research literature contains different theories and explanations of how thisprocess might occur (for example Farrall and Calverly, 2006) which we don’t have time to fully explore
today so we will focus on the core commonly agreed components.
Maruna provides a useful definition of desistance: ‘the long-term abstinence from crime among individuals who had previously engaged in persistent patterns of criminal offending’ (2001: 26). This highlights theneed to look at a long-term perspective and it also hints at the need to be realistic about the circumstances of life — if people have previously engaged in persistent patterns of criminal offending it is likely that
there are some entrenched problems that will take time to resolve.

Senior Lecturer, London South Bank University, United Kingdom.

＊1 http://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/how-and-why-people-stop-offending-discovering-desistance43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
It is also useful to distinguish between different types of desistance. ‘Primary desistance’ has been
defined as ‘any lull or crime-free gap in the course of a criminal career’ (Maruna et al 2004: 274) and thefocus here is on the young person’s visible/observable behaviour — have they been arrested or charged
for example? Primary desistance can refer to any time period, including short ones e.g. during a period ofsupervision. It may not reflect significant change in attitudes e.g. it could be due to illness or knowing they
were being closely monitored. Maruna et al describe ‘secondary desistance’ as adopting a new ‘non-offender’ identity. This occurs when a young person no long seems themselves primarily as an offender but
develops a new sense of self-identity e.g. as a worker, a student, a partner or a father. Tertiary desistanceis a broader concept based on the recognition by others that one has changed and the development of asense of belonging and acceptance within society.
B. The Desistance Process
A recurring theme in the desistance literature is that desistance should be viewed as a process rather
than a one-off event. Whilst there are some offenders who manage to stop very abruptly, for many others
the process will take a long time and there will be ups and downs along the way — periods of desistance,
followed by relapses into offending and so on — until hopefully reaching the stage of tertiary desistance.
Understanding desistance involves taking account of both individual and social factors as illustrated inthis diagram. Age and maturity will affect a young person’s ability to make choices, to understand consequences, to compare costs and benefits, to empathise with victims. Social bonds refers to the relationships
and networks that a young person may have with family, friends, community groups or institutions. The
third section relates to a young person’s self-identity (linking to the secondary desistance concept
described earlier), their own narratives e.g. the stories they tell themselves about their life and their hopes
and goals for the future. The final category of opportunities and resources includes the opportunities
available to a young person in their community for leisure, work or training and also whether they arereceiving help and support from statutory or voluntary services. Desistance can occur somewhere in theintersection of these different factors.
Farrall helpfully summarise this by referring to the ‘relationships between ‘objective’ changes in theoffender’s life and his or her ‘subjective’ assessment of the value or significance of these changes:’ . . . thedesistance literature has pointed to a range of factors associated with the ending of active involvement inoffending. Most of these factors are related to acquiring ‘something’ (most commonly employment, a life
partner or a family) which the desister values in some way and which initiates a reevaluation of his or her
own life . . .’ (Farrall, 2002: 11, emphasis added)
C. Desistance and Young People
The literature on desistance amongst young people is not as extensive as the research relating to adultoffenders, but there are some studies that help us to understand the factors that young people themselves
identify as being important for stopping offending. For example, Monica Barry conducted two small-scalestudies with young people in Scotland who were involved (or had previously been) with offending with afocus on asking for their views about what helped or hindered the desistance process (Barry, 2006). They
identified a variety of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. ‘Push’ factors were generally related to the negative consequences and general hassle of involvement in offending, for example, spending time in police cells, or
damage to health caused by drug use. There was a sense that the young people reached a point where
they were fed up with these experiences and offending just didn’t seem worth the hassle any more.
‘You could get away with it when you’re under 15,16. You can get away with crime and that. But after
that, you can’t get away…it’s not worth going to all the hassle of being in jail’ (22-year-old male, Barry
2006)‘Pull’ factors were to do with the positive elements/attraction of other lifestyles and ways of spending
time. This could be a relationship, new leisure activities or gaining employment. Some gender differenceswere evident with young women more likely to cite relationship factors as being important for desistanceand young men more likely to refer to work or training opportunities.
More research is needed specifically on young people, but it is already clear practitioners and organisations working with young people need to account of young people’s perspectives and the interplay
44

164TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
between individual, social and structural factors.

III. SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
Many criminal justice interventions are weak in this area, even though they may be effective in otherareas. For example, restorative justice interventions with young people in the UK have focused onachieving the ‘3 Rs’ — promoting responsibility, reparation and reintegration. Evidence suggests that they
are generally much better at achieving the first two but weaker at enabling reintegration (Crawford and
Newburn, 2003).
Some of the key building blocks for achieving reintegration will be familiar and core aspects of correctional services, such as the provision of education and skills/employment training within prisons to equip
offenders for life after release. For today, however, we will look as some other important aspects of thisprocess.
A. Community Collaboration
In yesterday’s lecture, we looked briefly at this diagram as part of the general picture of working effectively with young people and now I want to focus more specifically on this third circle of ‘collaboration’.
This can encompass a range of work with charities, volunteers, ex-offenders, mentors, local businesses, thepublic and so on.
One of the key benefits of such work is in breaking down barriers between offenders and wider
society, helping to move away from the perception of ‘them and us’. A small but powerful example of thisin the UK is a project involving young people from a private fee-paying school (Bryanston) and young
offenders from HMYOI Portland. The school pupils went into the prison and collaborated with the young
offenders on creative projects e.g. poetry, drawing, writing short stories. These have been published in avery interesting collection showing both similarities and differences in their perspectives on life. One of
the fruits of the project was in breaking down stereotypes about young offenders. For example, one of theschool pupils writes about how he was nervous of meeting the prisoners but after working together withthem he said ‘...there were many similarities in our ambitions, aspirations and desire for success. I guessthey are just ‘normal’ people after all. We all desire to reach our full potential and live peaceful, fulfilling
lives. It’s just how we achieve it that differs.’ (p90). Another example would be a relatively new charity
operating in Scotland (Vox Liminis) that uses the creative arts to assist with reintegration by helping
people to build new relationships through collaborative music-making.
Some of the most innovative approaches to rehabilitation and reintegration in the UK have come fromcharities. One of the most well-known is The Clink, a charity that works in partnership with HM Prison
Service to provide training for prisoners in catering and hospitality. They run restaurants at four prisons(two are inside the prison walls and two are just outside) which are fully staffed by prisoners i.e. they do
all the cooking, serving and front of house roles. It is different from some other prison training programmes in that, not only do the prisoners learn new skills, but they also obtain experience of working ina restaurant. There is an option for employers to sponsor a prisoner to complete the training and then tooffer them a job once they are released. The public can also be involved by booking a table at the restaurant for a meal. So far, evidence suggests that the projects are successful in reducing reoffending rates. At
the moment, these particular opportunities are for over 18s only, but it is a great example of how charities
can bring fresh ideas, energy and new approaches to rehabilitation.
An area now receiving an increasing amount of attention is the role of faith based organisations. Thishas been a relatively neglected area of research in the UK until recently (compared to the USA where
there is much more evidence and debate about the role of faith based services) but is now attracting more
attention. One significant example in the UK is that of Community Chaplaincy. These are organisations
that draw on volunteers from different faith communities who can act as mentors to offenders on theirrelease from prison. They seek to complement the work of statutory services (but not replace it) and will
work with offenders of any faith or none. There are now over 20 community chaplaincy schemes
operating around the UK — they vary in size and in the services offered but all aim to provide both
emotional and practical support to offenders as they re-settle into the community. An example of a projectworking specifically with young people would be the Feltham Community Chaplaincy. Feltham is a Young
45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
Offender’s Institution in west London. It can hold 210 young men aged 15-18 and 340 in the 18-21 agegroup. The Chaplaincy team recruit volunteers from churches, mosques and other faith groups who start
to build a relationship with the offenders whilst they are still in prison and then act as mentors after
release for as long as is needed/the young person wants to continue.
There are controversies and debates around the role of faith based groups in the criminal justicesystem (O’Connor and Pallone, 2002) which we don’t have time to really explore today, except to say that
obviously great care needs to be taken in areas such as recruitment and training of volunteers. There
have been initial evaluations of Community Chaplaincy projects although much more research is needed.
A recent interim report from the University of Cambridge2, however, explores how the projects contribute to the desistance process. The report highlights key factors such as:⿟⿟ The focus on authentic relationships
⿟⿟ Building trust and hope⿟⿟ Ability to provide a flexible and individualised service
The role that faith groups can play will obviously vary across different countries and cultures, but it isa useful example to think about how statutory services can collaborate with different groups to help
offenders establish and maintain links in the community.
B. Criminal Records — Wiping the Slate Clean?
One of the key obstacles young offenders face when trying to move on if their lives is that having acriminal record makes it very much more difficult to obtain employment. In the UK, the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 specified the length of time after which an offence becomes ‘spent’ i.e. after that timeit does not need to be declared on many job applications (although it would still need to be declared forcertain roles e.g. working with children or vulnerable adults, the police, prisons, security services etc).
These timescales have recently been amended by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) which allows offences to become spent more quickly. This slide shows thesignificant effect of the changes for young people under 18, for example, a short prison sentence of lessthan 6 months now becomes spent after 18 months whereas previously it would have taken 3.5 years.
For adults, including young offenders in the 18-25 age group, the timescales are longer but the 2012
legislation has also led to significant changes (as shown by this next slide). There is a careful balance
between keeping some information on record to protect the public whilst also needed to allow offenders tomove on with their lives. Overall, the recent changes in the UK are viewed as a positive development
which should help to promote rehabilitation and reintegration.

IV. POSITIVE RISK TAKING
In the lecture on Tuesday we looked at how risk has come to be seen in predominantly negative
terms, particularly in criminal justice, even though there are examples where it is viewed more positively
in society (e.g. entrepreneurs, some sports). There is now a developing literature, however, on the conceptof positive risk taking which challenges us to think in different ways (Titterton, 2011).
Titterton argues that the typical negative focus on risk assumes overlooks the importance of ‘competence, coping, capacity and capital’ (p 33). He argues that we need to give more attention to people’s
different reactions to difficulties and seek to develop plans that empower them to take more responsibility
for their own lives and decisions. He is writing primarily about health and social care settings are but
some of the ideas can be transferred to criminal justice.
This concept can be applied to the decisions that professionals take, but also to the choices that young
people make. For example, ‘many young people seen as ‘at risk’ quite often tend to be ‘risk averse’, in thesense that they can be unwilling or unable to take the risk of leaving their present situation, their
immediate networks of family and friends and the locale in which they live. Being able to take actions to
2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0JgMrOj7EUpYkhvdldLUVRZUzA/view?pref=2&pli=1

46

164TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
loosen such ties can be crucial for ‘pathways out of crime’’ (Boeck and Fleming, 2011). This suggests aneed for youth justice workers to help young people take positive risks in order to reduce future offending.
There may be a reluctance to try such an approach as it seems as if you are asking people to ‘trust
the untrustworthy’. Is this realistic? It can be if we use this definition of risk taking as ‘a course of purposeful action based on informed decisions concerning the possibility of positive and negative outcomes oftypes and levels of risk appropriate in certain situations’ (Titterton, 2005: 25, emphasis added).
One example from the UK (similar schemes exist in other countries) is Release on Temporary Licence.
This allows an offender to be released from prison for a short temporary period to help prepare for theirresettlement into the community once their sentence is completed. It provides an opportunity to dopractical tasks, such as looking for accommodation, opening a bank account, attending training or looking
for employment, as well as to help strengthen family connections. It fits with Titterton’s definition in that
it will be based on an informed decision — it is only open to those who are assessed as suitable and not
posing a security risk — and there is a clear purpose of preparing for reintegration after release.
A different example from the UK would be a scheme run by this company, Timpson’s. Earlier welooked at the role of charities and faith based groups, but there are also innovative projects coming fromthe business sector. Timpson’s provide a shoe repair and key cutting service. They run workshops inprisons and then employ selected offenders on day release schemes in the months leading up to release. If
this goes well, the offender can be offered a job immediately on release. One of the key features of theschemes is trust as the Chief Executive commented: “One of the first things we do is give them themoney to bank. If you give someone £2,500, it’s a sign we trust them.” The scheme has been running forover 12 years and currently has 400 ex-offenders working at all levels of the business, including 10 shop
managers. Other businesses are also now developing schemes to give ex-offenders a second chance i.e.
take a deliberate and positive risk with them.3

V. DESISTANCE-FOCUSED WORK WITH YOUNG OFFENDERS
What implications does all this have for the practicalities of day-to-day working with young offenders?
A. General Practice Principles
Weaver and McNeill (2007) suggest the following general principles which I will quote in full as they
are so clear and helpful:1.		 Be realistic: it takes time to change entrenched behaviours and the problems that underlie them, so
lapses and relapses should be expected and effectively managed.
2.		 Favour informal approaches: labelling and stigmatising children and young people as ‘offenders’runs the serious risk of establishing criminal identities rather than diminishing then, so it should be
avoided as much as possible by favouring informal measures.
3.		 Use prisons sparingly: stopping offending is aided by strong and positive social ties, by seeing
beyond the label ‘offender’ and by reducing or avoiding contacts with other ‘offenders’. Prison makes
all of these things much more difficult.
4.		 Build positive relationships: like everyone else, offenders are most influenced to change (and not tochange) by those whose advice they respect and whose support they value. Personal and professional relationships are key to change.
5.		 Respect individuality: since the process of giving up crime is different for each person, criminal
justice responses need to be properly individualised. One size fits all approaches runs the risk offitting no one.
6.		 Recognise the significance of social context: giving up crime requires new networks of support and
3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/11512614/Giving-ex-offenders-a-second-chance.html

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
opportunity in local communities and a new attitude towards the integration of offenders.
7.		 Mind our language: if the language we use in policy and practice causes both individuals and communities to give up on offenders, if it confirms and cements the negative perceptions of people whohave offended as risky, dangerous, feckless, hopeless or helpless, then it will be harder for thosepeople to give up crime.
8.		 Promote redemption: criminal justice policy and practice has to recognise and reward efforts togive up crime. For ex-offenders, there has to be an ending to their punishment and some means ofsignalling their redemption and re-inclusion within their communities.
B. Pathways Out of Offending
There is an increasing focus on using ‘strengths’ in a young person’s life to help create pathways out ofoffending. There is some debate as to how exactly strengths or protective factors operate but someagreement that they can work either by:⿟⿟ helping to prevent offending or anti-social behaviour — for example, reducing sensitivity to risk
factors or reducing the impact of risk factors;
⿟⿟ helping to achieve positive outcomes — for example promoting self-efficacy or providing new opportunities (YJB, 2008).
One approach for developing pathways out of offending for young people is the Good Lives Model(GLM) (Ward and Brown, 2004). This suggests that everyone has a need to obtain primary human goods
such as a sense of belonging or knowledge and skills (Ward and Maruna, 2007). The GLM also suggeststhat people pursue secondary goals — such as friendships or work, for example - as means to achievethese primary goods. If young people find it difficult to achieve these goods through pro-social means they
may try to obtain them through offending or antisocial behaviour (McNeill, 2009). The GLM is a relatively new approach and there is a need for more research as to its effectiveness with young people in particular, but it does provide a useful perspective for thinking about intervention planning.
In applying this to practice, McNeill argues that practitioners should aim to ‘balance the promotion of
personal goods (for the offender) with the reduction of risk (for society). Too strong a focus on personal
goods may produce a happy but dangerous offender; but equally too strong a focus on risk may produce a
dangerously defiant or disengaged offender’ (McNeill, 2009: 85).
C. Implications for Assessment and Intervention Planning
We can now add some more points to the material covered in the previous two lectures on assessment
and intervention planning.
⿟⿟ Assessment is not a one-off event but needs to be ongoing to reflect the fact that desistanceprocess takes time;⿟⿟ Need to assess ‘desistance-readiness’ (McNeill and Weaver, 2010: 8).
We need to recognise that at the point of intervention, some young people won’t be ready and so it
may be better to avoid putting them into programmes. In such cases, working on awareness-raising orbuilding motivation may need to come first.
⿟⿟ Need to have a clear focus on the aims and aspirations of an intervention (Farrall and Maruna,2004) and understand how it will contribute to desistance and reintegration;
⿟⿟ Understand young people’s perspectives on the change process
Desistance is difficult because it may involve a young person going in the opposite direction in life totheir friends and this is particularly challenging at an age when the influence of peer groups is so strong.
Therefore, it is important to try to understand their hopes and fears, their view of the costs and benefits,48

164TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
and the barriers to change which they identify.
D. Managing Transitions
Transition points can be one of the key times for promoting desistance but they can also be times atwhich things go wrong. For example, a young person may leave prison with good intentions to avoid
offending, but without adequate support they may drift back into old patterns of behaviour. These arepoints at which careful planning is required to help a young person maintain a path to progress. It also
requires practical steps such as sharing information. Studies in the UK (e.g. Cooper et al 2007) have foundthat the transfer of data about young people between different parts of the criminal justice system is often
poor and more needs to be done to ensure that information is shared between prison and community
settings or between youth and young adult services.

VI. DESISTANCE AND ASSETPLUS
One of the aims in the design of the new AssetPlus assessment framework used in England and Wales
was to incorporate desistance principles into each stage of the assessment and interventions cycle. This isdone in a number of ways, but I will focus on some key points.
A. Information Collection
The first part of the information gathering quadrant covers many areas of a young person’s life —family, education, friends, substance use, mental health and so on. A key point here is that practitioners
are encouraged to record positive aspects of the young person’s life, not just problems. Also, there areprompts to record significant life events and again these can be positive or negative (e.g. getting a qualification or experiencing a relationship breakdown). I will come back to these in a moment to show how thisinformation is used.
The second section focuses on offending behaviour and the emphasis is on looking at patterns ofoffending over time. There will be specific detailed information about the current offence/s and then there
are questions that prompt the assessor to compare this with other instances — more or less serious?
Different or same type? More or less frequent?
The software programmes will automatically generate a visual timeline showing this pattern. The realversion that practitioners will see looks much better than this prototype draft! However, it illustrates thata young person’s offending goes up and down over time.
The Foundations for Change section, as the name suggests, is a key part of assessing ‘desistance-readiness’ (McNeill and Weaver, 2010). This is the place in AssetPlus to record things such as a young person’s
coping ability and coping strategies, what meaning they attach to relationships or education, whether they
are aware of opportunities available to them and how motivated they are.
In the previous two lectures, we have looked at the principle of including the voices of young people
and parents in decision-making processes through self-assessment. There are some questions in AssetPlus
for young people that clearly link to the desistance concept, such as ‘what things will make it hard to foryou avoid offending?’, ‘who can help you avoid offending?’.
B. Synthesis and Understanding
Having done the analysis and broken down all the specific components, the next stage is to put
together picture of the young person as a whole. One of the key features of AssetPlus designed to help
practitioners with this is the young person’s timeline or story. The software systems will overlay additional information onto the basic timeline that we saw earlier — where significant life events (the red flags)
have been recorded these will be located on the timeline at the relevant points and it will also show up
any previous recorded interventions by criminal justice or social care services. As already mentioned, thisdiagram is just an example and the real ones look much more sophisticated.
So, for example, here we see that there was an intervention and a period of stability (albeit with someminor offending), then a negative life event (e.g. bereavement) and the upward spike shows that the young
person reacted to this stress by further offending. Then there is a drop and a period of desistance linked
49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
to a positive life event and a further period of intervention. After the intervention ends, there is a further
increase in offending and so. Having a visual display is helpful not only for the practitioner, but also totalk through with the young person and perhaps a parent or carer. It might help them to see patterns
that they were not previously aware of. It can also be used as a creative way of working with the young
person during supervision e.g. if this is your story so far, what happens next? What do you want theending to be? If this is the journey, where do you want to go? What needs to be done to get there?
Very briefly, other examples are that there are sections where practitioners are specifically asked to
explain the interconnections between different factors in a young person’s life. There is a table where they
can rate the relative strength of different factors in terms of whether they help or hinder desistance. The
aim of these questions is to help staff develop ‘individualised theories of change’ about each young person.
C. Planning and Interventions
The specific desistance related points built into this section included questions asking practitioners to
identify which of the young person’s needs could be addressed through involvement with a community or
voluntary group. Rather than statutory services delivering everything, the aim is to get young people
linked into wider networks as much as possible to promote reintegration. There are also specific sections
for preparing for the transition from custody to community and for developing an ‘exit plan’ so that there
is a phased reduction of support rather than a sudden cut-off point at the end of the sentence.

VII. CONCLUSION
AssetPlus is by no means a perfect example. It is currently being implemented and has not yet been
evaluated. There may well be problems that need to be dealt with and changes to the tool required. Thiswas our best attempt at designing a framework with more emphasis on desistance and social reintegration based on the evidence and resources available at the time, but there will be other ways of doing
similar things with different tools. My aim in outlining AssetPlus today, however, has been to give an
example that will hopefully prompt further discussion about incorporating these important issues into
practice.
Over these lectures, we have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the work of individual practitioners and the tools they use. Effective work by staff usually depends on also having organisationscommitted to developing high quality practice and we looked at some aspects of this yesterday. As wehave seen today, achieving desistance and reintegration also relies on wider circles of local communities,
the media, politicians and governments in developing a culture that allows offenders to have a second
chance. Some of this is outside our control but developing links with charities, businesses and faith groups
as in today’s examples can be part of the process of changing social attitudes towards young offenders.
To conclude, there have been recurring themes across the three lectures and we can see how someseemingly mundane or technical tasks around assessment, planning and delivering programmes all contribute to the overall goal of enabling and empowering young people to move towards tertiary desistanceand make positive contributions to society.

References
Action for Prisoners’ Families (2009) Outside In: New Art and Writing from HMYOI Portland andBryanston School.
Barry, M. (2006) Youth Offending in Transition: The Search for Social Recognition, Abingdon: Routledge.
Boeck, T., Fleming, J., and Kemshall, H. (2006) ‘The Context of Risk Decisions: Does Social Capital Make a
Difference?’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1).
Cooper, K., Sutherland, A. and Roberts, C. (2007) Keeping Young People Engaged: Improving education,
training and employment opportunities for serious and persistent young offenders. London: Youth
Justice Board.

50

164TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice, London: Routledge.
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from
Crime, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Farrall, S. and Calverley, A. (2006) Understanding Desistance from Crime, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill
Farrall, S. and Maruna, S. (2004) ‘Desistance-Focused Criminal Justice Policy Research’ Howard Journal, 43:
358-367.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives, American
Psychological Association Books, Washington DC.
Maruna, S. et al (2004) ‘Pygmalion in the Reintegration Process: Desistance from Crime through the
Looking Glass’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 10: 271-281.
Mason, P. and Prior, D. (2008) Engaging Young People who Offend (Source Document), London: Youth
Justice Board.
McNeill, F. (2009) ‘Young People, Serious Offending and Managing Risk: A Scottish Perspective’ in K.
Baker and A. Sutherland (eds) Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and Youth Justice,
Bristol: The Policy Press.
McNeill, F. and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing lives? Desistance research and offender management, Glasgow:
The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
McNeill et al (2012) How and Why People Stop Offending: Discovering Desistance (blog)
http://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/how-and-why-people-stop-offending-discovering-desistance
O’Connor, T. and Pallone, N. (2002) Religion, The Community and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders,
New York: The Haworth Press.
Titterton, M. 2005 ‘Risk and Risk Taking in Health and Social Welfare’, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Titterton, M. (2011) ‘Positive Risk Taking with People at Risk of Harm, in H. Kemshall and B. Wilkinson(eds) Good Practice in Assessing Risk: Current Knowledge, Issues and Approaches, London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Ward, T. and Brown, M. (2004) ‘The Good Lives Model and Conceptual Issues in Offender Rehabilitation’,
Psychology, Crime and Law, 10: 243-257.
Weaver, B. and McNeill, F. (2007) Giving Up Crime: Directions for Policy, Edinburgh: Scottish Consortiumfor Crime and Criminal Justice.
Youth Justice Board (2008) Assessment, Planning Interventions and Supervision: Source Document, London:
Youth Justice Board.

51