Knott (2004) states that there is a mass of evidence to suggest that most offenders have limited basic skills, many dropped out of school due to their own unruly behaviour therefore only ever likely to get manual labour jobs. However there has been a drive to improve this situation and partnerships were formed between the Learning and Skills Councils with £30 million being made available for offender education. Currently the Probation Service and Learning skills council have targets to meet to improve the basic skills of offenders. With there being a close correlation between reducing reoffending and employment, the Probation Service also have close connections with employment advocacies including Job centre plus. To address the importance of an effective accommodation strategy, Probation also has ‘approved premises’ which provide accommodation for high risk offenders and newly released prisoners.
Although evidence suggests that intervention strategies which focus on the offender’s social context and conditions support change Maruna (2002) there are still researches who disagree. Coleman and Moynihan (1996: 131) explain complications when demonstrating the relationship between crime and unemployment. They feel statistics from collective studies do not show a strong correlation between the rates of crime and unemployment and feel research should be focussed on individual studies. In addition other economic variables such as conditions of work, future employment prospects etc may be linked to crime. Issues such as marriage were recognized as a protective factor.
Easton (2007: 6) found those engaging with Probation supervision reported a lack of employment opportunities. Findings also showed housing needs weren’t met but they had priority access to drug services. These difficulties have been linked to financial and other resource constraints as well as lack of commitment and accountability by other agencies (e.g. housing).
I find that as a Trainee Probation Officer I am always aware of the discrimination and hopelessness that many offenders have to face. I am able to recognise the differences between offender’s general attitudes who have adequate housing, basic skills and employment to the offenders that don’t. The offenders who don’t have these opportunities are often negative; feel hopeless and often feel the only way to survive is to continue to commit offences. I combat this by using motivational interviewing which is helpful in addressing issues of inadequacy and hopelessness by promoting self efficacy Millner and Rollnick (1992). I also make referrals to our partnership agencies such as housing, employment and education. However due to lack of resources they often have to prioritise and so many of my offenders are unable to get the assistance they need.
It does therefore appear that the strain theory does offer effective intervention strategies to prevent crime but the degree of effectiveness is influenced by other variables such as resource constraints McGuire (2003: 27-28).
It also lacks conviction in that it doesn’t address many issues such as white- collar crime, female offenders or crime committed by the middle class. These do not follow the strain theory as people whom commit white collar crime are not usually faced with discrimination and inequalities. In terms of female offenders they often face inequalities and discrimination but do not commit as many crimes as men.
The rational choice theory argues that crime is an everyday occurrence in society and adopts a straightforward and logical way of explaining criminal behaviour. The decision to commit offences is based on the individual’s appraisal of the costs and benefits (Cornish and Clark, 1990, cited in Palmer, 2003). This therefore assumes that offenders choose to commit specific offences for the benefits that they bring. Prevention should therefore be aimed at altering decision making process so as to increase the risks or effort involved in the commission of crime and decrease any rewards associated with it Crawford (2007: 878).
Rex (1999) and Maruna (2000) emphasises the role of Probation officers in promoting desistance. Rex found that in their experiences of supervision, probationers could discern and appreciate efforts to improve their reasoning and decision making. (Ross & Fabiano, 1985 cited in OASys Manual 2002), indicate that many offenders cope poorly with life because they exhibit various cognitive deficits, including lack of impulse control, poor problem solving, inability to see other’s views and rigid inflexible thinking. Deficits in these areas have been found to be predictive of the likelihood of reconviction.
Though it does not draw directly on desistance research, perhaps the best known model of intervention focussed on the supervisory relationship developed in Australia by Chris Trotter (1999). Trotter suggests that effective work with offenders is characterised by clear, honest and frequent discussions about the role of the worker and the client. The worker should focus on modelling and encouraging pro-social expressions and actions by the client; and that by using a collaborative problem solving approach the clients definitions of their problems and goals are valued. Another central principle includes Problem – solving which involves the survey, ranking and exploration of problems, goal setting and contracting, the development of strategies and ongoing monitoring. Trotter identifies pro-social modelling as one skill of engagement, which in conjunction with others will provide effective approaches reducing the risks of problems and re-offending.
Farrall (2002) argued that Probation interventions may develop human capital with regards to enhanced cognitive skills or employability but they cannot bring about the social capital that is necessary for inclusion.
To some extent the rational choice theory may explain how people may reach a decision to commit a criminal act. But it does not reveal the motivation as to why people commit crimes. Unfortunately it also assumes that all offenders are rational thinkers and do not possess limited rationality and fails to acknowledge that many people face limited opportunities but do not commit crimes.
One of the most important approaches to the understanding of criminality is the labelling theory. This perspective diverts away from the individual and focuses on the operation of the criminal justice system itself. It is members of the criminal justice system (police, social workers, probation officers) that can make matters worse by negatively labelling offenders. This process may bestow upon individuals a deviant label that could help to maintain deviance rather than reduce it.
Howard Becker (1963) was one of the initiators of the labelling theory; he stated that “Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infractions constitute deviance, and by applying these rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders.” By this Becker means that society create the rules which when broken form deviance. Therefore the generating of rules is the cause for crime and deviance. He says that deviance is not a distinctive form of behaviour but behaviour which breaks these certain outlined rules. Becker presents well the idea that in some contexts certain behaviour is seen as deviant whereas in others it is not. For this he uses the example of injecting heroine, “The act of injecting heroine into a vein is not inherently deviant. If a nurse gives patient drugs under a doctor’s orders, it is perfectly fine. It is when it is done in a way that is not publicly defined as proper that it becomes deviant.” The act is only made deviant in a situation when society views it as inappropriate; the act itself is not illegal.
This perspective therefore forces us to reflect on how we interact with offenders and the impact of our language, judgements and decisions. Baldoc et al (2003: 530) add that the theory advocates for interventions which are non-criminalising and keep offenders out of the criminal justice system.
Individuals whom have been involved within the criminal justice system often experienced discrimination within employment, insurance and the courts. This is because their criminal records portray them as criminals even when they have desisted. Rayner and Robinson (2005). They felt that this involvement within the criminal justice system is characterised as “stigmatic shaming” which adopts social exclusion. The offender can then take on this criminal identity which can result in recidivism.
Within my practice when I write Pre sentence reports writer I can try to adjust this by giving fines to first time offenders when appropriate, this could then divert them away from the criminal justice system.
Having to face constant discrimination as a result of labelling is sure to have negative effects on the offender’s self identity and self conceptualization. These are important factors that have been linked with desistance from crime. Developing a pro social identity for offenders is of utmost importance; this can be encouraged and developed within my current practice. In a study conducted by Rex (1999: 375) reinforcing pro-social behaviour was another prominent feature of probationer’s accounts of positive supervision.
I find that within my practice I often use motivational interviewing and pro-social modelling with my offenders this is because research indicates that engaging in interviewing this way encourages higher levels of compliance with supervision and may also lower re-offending rates. In engaging in pro-social modelling it is important that I identify the behaviour which needs to be learned and practiced. I encourage mutual respect, being punctual, reliable, courteous, friendly, open and honest. These characteristics are of high value and may encourage individuals to begin a process of change. Farrall (2002) does challenge this to some degree. He found that desistance could be attributed to specific interventions by the probation officer only in few cases; he did acknowledge however the importance of Probation with regards to finding work and addressing family relationships. He felt that desistance seemed to relate more clearly to the probationers’ motivations and to the social and personal contexts in which various obstacles to desistance were addressed.
The labelling theory is important in that it begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. However labelling theorists neglect the process that lead to acts defined as deviant. For labelling certain activities as defiant is not completely arbitrary; differences in socialization, attitudes and opportunities influence how far people engage in behaviour likely to be labelled as deviant. It is also not clear whether labelling actually does have the effect of increasing deviant conduct. Delinquent behaviour tends to increase following a conviction, but is this the result of the labelling itself? Giddens (2001: 210-211). It must also be acknowledged that this theory also portrays the offenders as victims and neglects the needs of the real victims.
When crime is viewed in its full complexity, crime prevention programs can address prevention at a general level, with programs aimed at everyone. It can address prevention in more vulnerable contexts by reducing the attractiveness of crime or the generators of crime in those contexts; or address the immediate needs of extant crime problems by reducing reoccurrence. These three categories are usually called primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention Brantingham and Faust (1976);
Primary prevention is concerned with reducing the opportunities to offend it also consists of three theories which include the rational choice theory, the routine activities theory and the lifestyle theory. The rational choice theory as stated earlier is based on the assumption that offenders weigh up the costs of committing the crime against the benefits, and then come to a rational decision whether to commit the crime or not. Therefore in order to prevent rational choice offences we need to increase the costs of committing a crime and reduce the benefits Pease (1997.)
The routine activities theory originally only covered predatory crime but since has been altered to include other types of crime. This theory states that three key factors have to be present at the same time for a crime to be committed. These being ‘a motivated offender, a suitable victim and the absence of a capable guardian’ Pease (1997). Unfortunately modern day life means that targets have increased, and an individual’s routine activities means guardianship of targets has been decreased. The lifestyle theory looks at the variation in rates of victimization according to factors such as age, sex and occupation. It concludes that the risk of being a victim of crime is directly influenced by the lifestyle of the victim Pease (1997).
Situational crime prevention is very much the same as primary prevention; Poyner (1983) described it as ‘attempts to prevent crime by changing the situations in which crime occurs.’ Clarke (1997) looked at 12 techniques of situational crime prevention which are effective. They include a wide diversity of methods including steering column locks, CCTV, vehicle licensing and drinking age laws. However it is important to realise that not all methods of crime prevention prove to be successful.
Primary crime prevention is directed at stopping the problem before it happens. This could involve reducing opportunities for crime and strengthening community and social structures.
Primary prevention focuses on social and situational factors. Social crime prevention addresses factors that influence an individual's likelihood of committing a crime, such as poverty, unemployment and low educational performance. Examples of prevention include school-based programs (for example, truancy initiatives)
Situational prevention addresses the environment (for example, the design of buildings and landscapes, and the products we purchase).
Farrington (2001:182) suggests that logically, it must be better to prevent offending by intervening early in life than to wait until someone has committed many offences and then intervene — many victims will be spared. And yet most crime reduction resources are devoted to the police, court, prison and probation services and very few to prevention.
Secondary crime prevention seeks to change people, typically those at high risk of embarking on a criminal career. The focus can be on rapid and effective early interventions for example, youth programs or it can focus on high-risk neighbourhoods for example neighbourhood dispute centers.
Tertiary crime prevention focuses on the operation of the criminal justice system and deals with offending after it has happened. The primary focus is on intervention in the lives of known offenders in an attempt to prevent them re-offending. Examples include community incapacitation, individual deterrence through community-based sanctions, and treatment interventions. AICrime Reduction Matters (2003).
This essay has examined anomie/strain, labelling and rational choice theories with the aim of assessing how these theories offer effective strategies for intervention and crime reduction. Whilst using research aimed at desistance I also looked at its assistance and relevance to probation officers.
It is in my opinion that not all types of crime may be accounted for successfully with any one theory, and theories tend to be pitched at different 'Levels of Explanation' (e.g., McGuire et al., 2000). What is important to bear in mind is that no one theory is necessarily better than another when simply compared. Each may be better suited to explaining crime at a certain level, be that the inherited biological aspects of certain individuals, the social groupings that people mix with, aspects of rational choice which everybody is said to share, or structural relations within society that may encourage certain forms of crime.
I feel that the way forward within this area and what needs to be addressed is the inequalities and discrimination that many offenders still have to face. Within my practice there is often lack of resources to help address offenders’ needs that are not classed as ‘high risk’. If this was addressed and more funding could be focussed on areas such as housing for offenders, I feel this would help the reduction of crime.
Although difficult I also feel that new research should be conducted with regards to crime prevention and effective interventions so that it is more recent and up to date.
Bibliography
Australian Institute of Criminology. (2003) Crime Prevention. (Online) Available at (Accessed 12th March 2008)
Baldock, J., Manning, N. & Vickerstaff, S. (2003) Social policy. (2nd edn). United States: Oxford University Press.
Becker, H. S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press
Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2002) Racism, crime and justice. London: Longman Criminology series
Coleman, C. and Moynihan, J. (1996) Understanding crime data: Haunted by the dark figure. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Crawford, A. (2007) “Crime prevention and community safety” In Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (4th edn) The oxford handbook of criminology. United States: Oxford University Press.
Easton, H. (2007) “An evaluation of the prolific and priority offender scheme in four London boroughs”. Final Report to London Probation. CRCSRG London: South Bank University.
Farrall, S. (2000) “The termination of criminal careers”. The international library of criminology, criminal justice and penology. United Kingdom: Ashgate publishing Ltd
Farrall, S. (2002) Rethinking what works with offenders: Probation, social context and desistance form crime. Cullompton: Willan
Gelsthorpe, L. (2003) “Theories of Crime” in Chui, W.H and Nellis, M. Moving
Probation Forward: Evidence Arguments and Practice. (1st edn) Essex: Pearson.
Giddens, A. (2001) Sociology. 4th edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2003) Sociology. 5th edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Knott, C. (2004) Evidence -based practice in the National Probation Service
Maruna, S (2003) Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. (3rd ed) Washinton: American Psychological Association
May, C. (1999) Exploring reconviction following a community sentence: The role of social factors. Home Office Research Study No 191, London: Home Office
McGuire, J., Mason, T. & O’Kane, A. (2000) Behaviour, Crime and Legal
Processes. edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd
Miller, R. and Rollnick, S. (1991) “Motivational interviewing:Preparing people to change addictive behaviour”. New York: Guildford.
Offenders Assessment System OASys Manual Vol 2 (2002).
Palmer, E.J. (2003) Offending behaviour: Moral reasoning, criminal conduct and the rehabilitation of offenders. USA: Willan Publishing
Rex, S. (1999) “Desistance form offending: Experiences of Probation”. The Howard Journal Vol 38 (4), 366-383.
Trotter, C. (1999) Working with involuntary clients: A Guide to Practice. London: Sage.
