Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365183068_Getting_Out_for_Good_phase_Two_Evaluation

The Getting Out for Good (GOFG) project was funded by Comic Relief between 2017 and 2020 as a multi-partner, collaborative approach to affect change in the lives of gang affected girls and young women (G&YW) and their families and communities. This is a report of the evaluation of the second phase of GoFG with a focus on the emotional and mental health and associated needs of G&YW. The research was conducted between October 2020 and March 2022.

The ‘I Define Me’ Programme (IDM) was funded by Comic Relief between 2017 and 2020 and each of its projects implemented multi-partner, collaborative approaches to affect change in the lives of gang affected girls and young women (G&YW) and their families and communities. The evaluation is an exploratory and thematic evaluation of the consortium of IDM projects in the UK with a focus on emotional and mental health and associated needs of girls and young women.

Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2021/10/Academic-Insights-Girls-and-gangs.pdf

This report was kindly produced by Deborah Jump and Rachel Horan, summarising the research evidence on girls and gangs, and how this has been utilised to develop the ‘Getting out for Good’ (GOFG) project which combines gender-specific mentoring with sporting and cultural activities. The girls and young women (aged 14-21 years) involved in the project were found to be marginalised and increasingly vulnerable, with frequent issues of parental neglect, care experience, school exclusion, drugs and alcohol misuse, and significant mental health and emotional needs. The theory of change for the project was revised over time, encompassing a focus on improving (i) emotional skills and agency (individual level), and (ii) social skills and capital (community level). The need for a bespoke approach (aligning to the need for a personalised approach set out in the inspection standards for youth offending services) was fully recognised, ensuring that girls and young women are enabled and assisted in their own unique journeys, particularly at vulnerable points in their lives.

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/932353/Hackney_Contextual_Safeguarding.pdf

Opt-in, open-ended mentoring for people with convictions, allowing them to dip in and out of services without sanction arguably offers a service configuration to match the paradigm of the zig-zag, nomadic desistance journey. Balancing supporting individual’s agency while avoiding fostering dependency is tricky. What are the conditions which support the former and avoid the latter? We aim to answer this question by drawing on the lived experience of mentees and mentors collected during the evaluation of a mentoring scheme in England. We consider whether mentoring is unequivocally a ‘good thing’. Despite its ubiquity, the evidence for its effectiveness is mixed. We suggest that it is possible to get too much mentoring, and advance the evidence base in the United Kingdom and internationally in other jurisdictions by proposing enhancements to the ‘effectiveness framework’ set out by the prison and probation service in England and Wales.

Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2021/03/Academic-Insights-Needs-assessment-risk-desistance-and-engagement-Wong-and-Horan.pdf

This report was kindly produced by Kevin Wong and Rachel Horan, recognising the importance of effective and robust assessment for planning and service delivery. The

focus of the paper is upon the potential for improvements to assessment processes.

The possibilities from integrating Risk-Needs-Responsivity and desistance principles are highlighted, while stressing that it is essential for such integration to provide additionality and avoid dilution (which should be subject to testing). Attention is then given to the role that assessment can play in facilitating effective engagement. Crucially, the assessment process itself can serve a purpose that goes beyond identifying the support an individual may require and what risks need to be considered. It offers opportunities for co-production, the demonstration of care, and the starting point for building a relationship. Within our inspections of probation services, we will continue to examine whether assessment focuses sufficiently on all the key areas of engagement, desistance and keeping other people safe.

We argue for the potential for needs assessment and sentence planning to transcend their core justice functions and set the tone for effective engagement between probation supervisee and supervisor. We draw on lived experience – analysis of interview and observational data from probation supervisors and supervisees, collected during the testing of a new needs assessment and sentence planning tool which aims to integrate the risk, needs, responsivity (RNR) model with desistance principles. After testing the findings against established models and principles of effective engagement, counter‐intuitively, we found that: disagreement can lead to agreement and more effective engagement. Additionally, that attention should be paid to the potential for the physical case management and supervision environment to positively influence the needs assessment and sentence planning process. These and the other findings have implications for policy and practice in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions where probation is a core criminal justice function.

This article examines the extent to which the risk needs responsivity (RNR) model and desistance principles have been integrated and operationalised in the development of the Enablers of Change assessment and sentence planning tool developed by a Community Rehabilitation Company provider in England. We consider the constructs that underpin the tool, identifying points of departure and similarity between RNR principles (Andrews and Bonta, 2007), the ‘good lives’ model (Ward and Maruna, 2007) and desistance principles (McNeil and Weaver, 2010) and their integration. We examine how these constructs have been operationalised in the tool, which aims to assess needs, strengths, protective factors and contribute to risk assessment. Given the tool’s innovation, this article is of international significance and will make an original contribution to the evidence base on operationalising desistance in the management of people with convictions in England and Wales and other jurisdictions.

The Enablers of Change assessment and sentence planning tool has been designed to assess the risks, needs, strengths and protective factors of adults with convictions. Developed by Interserve, a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) provider in England, the tool is an innovation. The first of its kind in the United Kingdom (UK) to operationalise the risk needs and responsivity model with the ‘good lives’ model and desistance principles for the general adult population of low to medium risk of harm individuals managed by CRCs. This article reports the development, early testing and formative evaluation of the tool and recommendations for its onward development. Given that such integration is regarded by many as the ‘holy grail’ of probation practice, this article is of international significance and will make an original contribution to the limited evidence base on operationalising desistance in the management of adults with convictions in the UK and other jurisdictions.

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818633/identity-matters-intervention-for-group-and-gang-related-offenders.pdf

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has developed Identity Matters (IM), an intervention designed to be delivered to those whose offending is ‘group/gang’ related to address issues related to their offending. It is delivered to adults in both custody and community settings across England and Wales.

This small-scale process study explored the experience of the piloting of IM intervention for participants and staff in custody and community and examined preliminary short-term outcomes of the intervention.

Available at: https://bettercarenetwork.org/library/social-welfare-systems/social-protection-policies-and-programmes/todays-children-are-tomorrows-parents-children-deprived-of-liberty

Children deprived of their liberty as a result of offending have complex needs. The content of intervention delivered with these children whilst they are deprived of their liberty needs to meet the complexity of their need, their risk and support their positive reintegration into communi- ties. This position paper explores the literature regarding psychosocial maturity, psycho-social de- velopment, psychological development, their interplay and their link to offending and offending cessation to highlight the need for integrated and holistic intervention with children deprived of their liberty. In this position paper, I consider desistance theory in relation to adolescent development. I explore the process of desistance for incarcerated adolescents, looking particularly at the con- tent and approach of interventions that are delivered to these young people within a custodial establishment. The inter-play between human and social capital development and the process of desistance for an incarcerated adolescent is explored. It is argued that criminal justice practice that confers safeguarding and upholds the rights of every child deprived of their liberty as a result of offending should include desistance led approaches. This will support children’s de- sistance from crime and build their social and human capital and will complement empirically supported, risk led approaches that develop skills. I suggest that such an integration of approach will better uphold a child’s rights, minimising the labelling of children and adolescents who do offend to enable their move on and away from incarceration towards a positive future.

This is a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of educational programmes delivered within prison. Included in this review are evaluations of vocational, academic, basic skills, accredited and unaccredited educational provision in prison where recidivism and/or employment were measured as outcomes. Initial searches returned 4304 titles and abstracts. Of these, 28 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Only 18 papers provided sufficient information and robust enough research design to be included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis on 18 reoffending studies identified that delivering education in prison settings has a positive impact on recidivism. Overall, the pooled odds ratio indicates a reduction in the likelihood of recidivating of approximately one-third (0.64 = 64%∼2/3). Meta-analysis on five employment studies identified that education in prison settings has a positive impact on employment. Overall, odds ratios indicated a 24 per cent increase in likelihood of gaining employment if the prisoner engages in prison education. However, this is based on a small number of papers with statistical findings being less robust and evidence drawn largely from the USA.

When considering how violence can be reduced in prisons, it is important that violence committed by groups is acknowledged and understood. Violence may be committed by individuals affiliated with various types of group, such as extremist or terrorist groups, organized crime groups or criminal gangs. The focus of this article is on understanding and reducing violence committed by criminal gangs in custody. To establish how such violence can be reduced, this article will outline and explore some key issues which help to address this question: What do we mean when we talk about ‘gangs’? How is gang- affiliated violence different to other violence? Why do people join gangs? Why do they leave? What role can prison staff, policies, environments and interventions play in reducing violence?

The purpose of this position paper is to assess the contribution of restorative justice to the desistance paradigm with a particular focus upon the psychology of these approaches. Design/methodology/approach – Risk, need and responsivity approaches to offender intervention are discussed and compared with the desistance paradigm. An integrative approach of the two methods is proposed and the value of desistance approaches is highlighted in understanding processes of change and how restorative justice approaches can best contribute. Findings – Discussion of desistance theory and the consideration of primary, secondary and tertiary desistance stages leads to the exploration of interplays in social and the human capital and the contribution of restorative justice to the desistance process. A desistance process that belongs to the desister is proposed to be supported by restorative justice processes.