Door: Malou van den Berg

You will be one of the speakers on the NVK Congress in Leiden. What will you be talking about?

‘The NVK has very kindly invited me to make a presentation about Desistance , which is a main theme of this year’s Congress. As my understanding of desistance is very much shaped by my recent experience in conducting the Sheffield Desistance Study, I shall be focusing on that study, and in particular – on this occasion – on some of the results from the qualitative part of the study.’

You are the principal investigator of the Sheffield Pathways Out Of Crime Study. What is this study about?

‘Actually, I am the joint principal investigator with Joanna Shapland. The study was conducted at Sheffield University as part of a major Research Network called Social Contexts of Pathways in Crime (SCoPiC), funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council and led from Cambridge University by Per-Olof Wikström. The overall aim of the Network is, as its name implies, to improve our understanding of pathways in [and out of] crime, not only in terms of individuals and their functioning, but also taking full account of the social contexts within which individuals find themselves. The two principal empirical studies within SCoPiC have been Wikström’s Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study, and the smaller Sheffield Desistance Study.

The initial impetus for the Sheffield study arose from papers that I wrote ten years ago about modes of compliance (Bottoms 2001, 2002). In summary, in those papers I argued that there are four - and only four - principal mechanisms underpinning legal compliance: these are instrumental/prudential (deterrence,etc); normative; situational; and habitual. I was and am convinced that all four of these mechanisms are important, and so I am not attracted to criminological theories that restrict their focus to only one mechanism, like rational choice theory.

Given this theoretical background, and the existence of the well-known age-crime curve, the central idea underpinning the research design of the Sheffield study was to take a sample of repeat offenders at about the age of 20 (that is, near the peak of the age-crime curve), and then to conduct a prospective study, with repeated interviews. The aim was to try to understand what processes were occurring as the frequency of offending in the sample diminished; in other words, how would offenders be adjusting their lives to become more compliant?’

What did your sample consist of?

‘In practice, we found it hard to recruit a large sample, and impossible to recruit enough females to constitute a researchable group. Also, for various reasons it proved easier to recruit people in prison than those on probation. So the eventual sample consists of 113 recidivist male offenders, with a large number of convictions. Indeed, at the start of our study the total number of convictions of this sample, at average age 20, already exceeded the total convictions by age 40 of the 411 men in the well-known Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development. But despite the very recidivistic nature of the sample, we were fortunate in securing a good retention rate. We aimed to interview each man four times, at intervals of 9-12 months, and we succeeded in getting a 78% response at both the third and the fourth interviews, with 86% of the sample completing either a third or a fourth interview.’

What are the principal findings?

‘Well, four-fifths of the total sample were reconvicted in the follow-up period of 3-4 years, and we know from self-report studies that some of the other 20% were also continuing to offend, but were not caught. So there is very little immediate desistance here. On the other hand, for most of the sample there was a reduction in the frequency of their offending over the 3-4 years that we studied them. That is why, in the overview paper that we have written on some of the main results of the study, Joanna Shapland and I described it as a study of people taking steps towards desistance, rather than fully desisting (see Bottoms and Shapland 2011).

The regression analyses in that paper suggest that, quantitatively, two kinds of factors were especially important in differentiating between those who had begun to desist and those who had not. These factors were, first, the sheer extent of prior criminality (more past crime predicted more future crime); and secondly, various matters that were occurring during the period of our study. In other words, both historic variables and current circumstances seemed to be shaping the outcomes. That is, of course, consistent with the results of other research on criminal careers, including that of Arjan Blokland (2005) in The Netherlands.

The Sheffield study deliberately adopted a mixed quantitative and qualitative research approach. So the question that naturally arises from the results I have just described is: and how does this mixture of historic variables and current circumstances work out in the self-understandings of the men themselves? We have addressed this question by looking in detail at the interview transcripts of 18 men who are broadly representative of the whole sample, and in my talk at the NVK Congress I will be looking especially at some of these qualitative data.’

The Sheffield study refers to active maturation in the process of desistance. What does it mean and how is it different from the concept of maturation that was used as the primary explanation of a reduction in crime?

‘The concept of maturation as an explanation for desistance was used by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (1974, chapter 13) in an earlier era of criminology. They were clear that maturation did not just mean aging, but their attempts to explain exactly what it did mean were not completely successful. In fact, the principal evidence for maturation appeared to be the reduction of offending, and - as many people have pointed out - that is unhelpful because it is tautological. So maturation as an explanation for desistance lost credibility within criminology.

But Joanna Shapland and I think that this concept needs to be reconsidered. After all, the most rapid decline in the age-crime curve comes in the early twenties, and most people in their early twenties (offenders or not) would describe themselves as having matured a good deal in the last few years, as they move away from their family of origin and begin to have to shape their adult life – for example, deciding what sort of employment to try to enter, perhaps forming a long-term partnership, and so on. So it’s really not much of a surprise that many of the Sheffield offenders, when in the final interview we asked them an open-ended question about changes in their lives since we first met them, said things such as that they had grown up, or were taking more responsibility for themselves now.’

What exactly does this mean in relation to desistance?

‘An important clue to this lies in Britta Kyvsgaard’s (2003, p.241) comment that, until recently, the criminal career literature ‘has paid little attention to the subjective aspects of maturation in terms of personal philosophy or one’s perception of one’s place in the world and the potential connection that such changes might have to changes in offending’ (emphasis added). In the Sheffield study, this subjective perception of one’s place in the world, and the actions taken on the basis of such perceptions, seemed crucial.

For example, Joanna Shapland and I currently have an article in press showing, among other things, that the aspirations of most of the Sheffield sample are remarkably conventional – they would like to see themselves settled in a nice but modest house in a reasonable (but not wealthy) area of the city, with a partner, a steady job, and so on (Shapland and Bottoms 2011). However, although these goals are in one sense modest, they are a very long way from the lifestyle of the average member of the Sheffield sample at the start of the research. And, as I shall illustrate at the NVK Congress, there are important individual differences within the sample concerning how they respond to this dissonance between hoped-for futures and present realities. Some take very active steps to try to move towards their aspirations, and as they do so they typically become more aware of the needs and wishes of others. This is the process that can, we think, be reasonably described as active maturation. Others, however, are much more ambivalent, nominally desiring a changed lifestyle, but doing little to achieve it. Additionally, and as Shadd Maruna’s (2001) Liverpool Desistance Study also found, those who were continuing in crime were the least agentic and purposeful in the way they saw themselves; instead, they tended to see reoffending as something that just ‘happens’ to them.

Active maturation can also be understood through the mechanisms of compliance (see above). Instrumental considerations were certainly influential in nudging people towards desistance in various ways, especially through fear of another prison sentence or fear of losing a valued relationship with a partner. Situational mechanisms were also often present, usually activated by would-be desisters themselves, as they consciously tried to restrict their movements so as to avoid particular places or people (especially their former friends) in an effort to avoid being tempted into further crime. But there is no doubt that, in addition to these instrumental and situational factors, normative attachments were very frequently of special importance in the process of taking steps towards desistance. Positively, the attachments that were valued were sometimes with partners, sometimes with children, and sometimes with parents as former breakdowns of parent-son relationships were overcome. Negatively, also, many would-be desisters tried to move away from previously important close and trusting relationships with criminal peers. Overall, then, the Sheffield research results strongly support the emphasis placed by our SCoPiC colleague Per-Olof Wikström on the importance of normative considerations in the explanation of offending (and non-offending).’

In the Sheffield study you mention that desistance is perceived as difficult. What exactly makes it difficult for offenders to desist from crime?

‘Well, obviously drugtaking is an important issue here, but to make the point more strongly let’s leave drugtaking aside. Now please imagine yourself as a typical member of the Sheffield sample. You are in your early 20s, but you left school without any qualifications and your work record is poor. You also have several criminal convictions. For the last few years you have obtained a lot of money by stealing, capitalising on the fact that detection rates are low, and your standard response to a cash shortage is to go and steal. What’s more, you have quite a few male friends who you trust a lot, and who you enjoy being with; but almost all of them have a criminal record, and committing crimes is often discussed when your group gets together.

Now you have decided that you want to settle down, and to avoid offending, perhaps because you have found a female partner who means a lot to you, and she has just given birth to your child. You can see the possibilities here for a much more stable future, closer to your aspirations. But with your lack of qualifications, poor work record, and criminal background, getting a job is not easy. Sooner or later, there will be a financial crisis, and the temptation then will be to solve it by stealing, as you have done so often in the past. Also, you will still probably be spending time with some of your old friends, and that can easily lead to situations where you will finish up committing an offence together.

During one of our many conversations about desistance, Joanna Shapland used the phrase: Desistance is learning to live a non-offending life, when you have been in the habit of living an offending life. I hope you can see, from what I have said above, how difficult that learning process can be for some recidivist offenders. That is why desistance, for such offenders, is hardly ever a sudden matter – it evolves gradually over time, often with obstacles and setbacks along the way.’

How would you describe ‘desistance’?

‘There is an ongoing and lively debate about how to define desistance. I am inclined to take a broad view of this matter, and not to focus too much on issues such as whether there has or has not been a change in identity. The reason for my approach goes back to what brought me into the field of desistance in the first place – that is, a particular interest in theories of compliance. So I think that it is well worth paying attention to partial compliance (for example, stopping committing most offences but continuing to drive while disqualified), and also to temporary compliance (for example, crime-free gaps in the career of a persistent offender). Indeed, my former teacher Donald West (1963) demonstrated the importance of crime-free gaps nearly half a century ago.’

Do we need separate theories in order to explain desistance or are existing criminological theories sufficient in explaining desistance?

‘No and yes. Of course it’s the case that insights from standard criminological theories are often of relevance in studying desistance. But we know from various studies (for example, Stouthamer-Loeber et al 2004) that factors associated with desistance are not simply the converse of factors associated with the start of a criminal career, and this phenomenon has been aptly called asymmetrical causation (Uggen and Piliavin 1998). We know too from the work of Laub and Sampson (2003) and others - including indeed the Sheffield study - that desistance can’t be wholly predicted by historical variables; new factors can and do emerge that help to change the apparent trajectory of people’s lives. So desistance certainly deserves some special explanatory attention from criminologists.’

Which characteristics does an event need to have in order to make an event a turning point in someone’s life?

‘I am aware, of course, that the concept of a turning point is part of the standard vocabulary of desistance studies, but I do think it needs to be treated rather cautiously. For a start, to talk about a turning point as an event, as your question does, can be misleading because it seems to take it out of the trajectory of the offender’s life, and turn it into an objective, external matter. In reality, so-called turning points only have that character because a given person regards the event as significant, and begins to act differently - and a simliar external event can be reacted to very differently by different people. You also have to remember that, at least for very recidivistic offenders, desistance is usually a gradual process (see above), while the language of a turning point might suggest more of a sudden transformation.’

A more useful concept, I think, has been introduced by Paternoster and Bushway (2009) in their important recent overview article on desistance. This is the idea, borrowed from Roy Baumeister, of crystallization of discontent with one’s present way of life – a gestalt judgment that leads to a motivation to change. This kind of concept can, of course, include both push factors, things one wants to avoid – in the present context, things like future prison sentences and frequent attention from the police and pull factors, things that are attractive about an alternative way of life, leading to a dissatisfaction with the present situation. But it is important to note that forming a motivation to change may not be the end of the story; even when such a motivation has been formed, it can later be overridden as obstacles and setbacks are encountered; see Figure 2.4 on p. 70 of Bottoms and Shapland 2011.’

The lives of the youth become less and less traditional (finishing school, getting married, getting children etc.) and important events take place in a later stadium of someone’s life than before. To what extent do you expect these changes to influence the process of desistance?

‘This is a very good question. It is certainly the case that desistance (or persistence) always takes place within a particular social context, and that social-structural aspects of those contexts can potentially influence processes of desistance. For example, at present the rise in youth unemployment in many European countries seems very likely to hinder desistance. But rather than continue with this answer, I’ll refer your readers to a recent article in the European Journal of Criminology, where Stephen Farrall, Joanna Shapland and I discuss these structural issues in some depth (Farrall et al. 2010).’

What role would the government (authorities) have to have in order to support desistance from crime. What should they do and what not?

‘We could have a whole interview devoted just to this subject! Let me begin by telling you that in the Sheffield study we asked respondents to identify, from a pre-coded list, factors which they regarded as potential obstacles to going straight or staying straight. Consistently across the four interviews, four obstacles in particular were identified by sample members as particularly problematic: they were lack of money, lack of work, opportunities for easy money and a need for excitement or to avoid boredom. The first two of these identified obstacles point clearly to the need for good employment prospects for would-be desisters, but most of the Sheffield sample lacked qualifications and also lacked much work experience. In such a situation there is perhaps a need for some radical thinking. Two possibilities that seem worth considering are: first, some kind of sheltered workshop provision so that would-be desisters can gain needed employment experience; and secondly, given that many of the Sheffield sample enjoyed driving, perhaps some special focus on vehicle-related employment. The second possibility, if taken seriously, would however also require some attention to be given - in appropriate circumstances - to early terminations of driving bans (which were very frequent among the Sheffield sample).

The other two most frequently identified obstacles to desistance (the need for excitement and the potential temptations of ‘easy money’ - see above) are really another way of saying that Sheffield sample members realised how easily they might succumb to the temptation of committing a spontaneous, spur of the moment, offence. There is of course no easy solution to this, but it was sad that, in the Sheffield sample, while offenders quite frequently praised probation officers for particular practical interventions (such as finding accommodation, or helping them get off drugs), they also very often thought that officers’ general supervision style was not helpful, because they too often just asked about general stuff. It seems clear that, given the very real difficulties of the process of desistance from persistent offending, there is much merit in offenders being able to turn to an official who really understands those difficulties, and is ready to support the offender sympathetically but not uncritically as he tries to tackle them. Partly influenced by the Sheffield Desistance Study, there are now moves afoot in England to focus more research and policy attention on the way that probation officers engage with offenders.’

Finally, what would the study of desistance ideally look like? What should criminologists do (differently) in the future?

‘For brevity, I’ll make only one point here, and that concerns age. One of my main criticisms of Paternoster and Bushway’s (2009) generally excellent overview article is that it tries to present a single, unified, theory of desistance, with little reference to the age at which desistance occurs. That is surely a mistake. When one reads the transcripts of the interviews of Sheffield sample, it is abundantly clear that they are on the threshold of what one scholar has called emerging adulthood. They talk about themselves as being calmer than they used to be only a year or two ago, less inclined to get very drunk or drugged, less inclined to go for wild car rides, and so on. There’s also frequently a tension for offenders’ attention between their girlfriends and their criminal mates, with parents also very often still in the picture. That particular three-way configuration of types of relationship is unique to this age-group, and it is in many ways central to desistance processes at this age. I can’t speak from empirical evidence about other ages, but it seems highly likely to me that desistance in one’s 30s has some significantly different features. So I would strongly urge criminological colleagues not to be too quick to build unified theories of desistance until we have more evidence about how desistance works at different ages.’

References

Blokland, A. (2005) Crime Over The Life Span. Leiden: NSCR.
Bottoms, A. E. (2001) ‘Compliance and community penalties’, in A. E. Bottoms, L. R. Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (Eds.) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
Bottoms, A. E. (2002) ‘Morality, crime, compliance and public policy’, in A. E. Bottoms and M. Tonry (Eds.) Ideology, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Symposium in Honour of Sir Leon Radzinowicz. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
Bottoms, A. E. and Shapland, J. (2011) ‘Steps towards desistance among male young adult offenders’, in S. Farrall, M. Hough, S. Maruna and R. Sparks (Eds.) Escape Routes: Contemporary Perspectives on Life After Punishment. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.
Farrall, S., Bottoms, A. E. and Shapland, J. (2010) ‘Social structures and desistance from crime’, European Journal of Criminology, 7: 546-570.
Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. (1974) Of Delinquency and Crime. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Kyvsgaard, B. (2003) The Criminal Career: The Danish Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laub, J. H. and Sampson, R. J. (2003) Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Maruna, S. (2000) Making Good. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Paternoster, R. and Bushway, S. (2009) ‘Desistance and the “feared self”: toward an identity theory of criminal desistance’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99: 1103-1156.
Shapland, J. and Bottoms, A.E. (2011) ‘Reflections on social values, offending and desistance among young adult recidivists’, Punishment and Society, 13 [in press].
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Wei, E., Loeber, R. and Master, A. S. (2004) ‘Desistance from persistent serious delinquency in the transition to adulthood’, Development and Psychopathology, 16: 897-918.
Uggen, C. and Piliavin, I. (1998) ‘Asymmetrical causation and criminal desistance’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88: 1399-1422.
West, D. J. (1963) The Habitual Prisoner. London: Macmillan.