1

Candidate Number: Pen-1310

An exploratory study into the carceral texture of Approved Premises

(APs)

Number of Words: 18,261

Diploma in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management

2014-2015

2

An exploratory study into the carceral texture of Approved Premises (APs)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to identify if the characteristics of the ‘pains of imprisonment’,

translated into a more modern context of ‘depth’, ‘weight’, ‘tightness’ and ‘breadth’, are

present within a non-custodial setting – Approved Premises (APs) – given the increased focus by

the policy makers on public protection, surveillance and control.

This was an exploratory study with a qualitative design: focus groups were conducted with

residents in six APs distributed across the Midlands Probation Region. The research participants

were all male residents within an AP, aged 18 and over, who had served a custodial sentence,

with their post-release licence supervision served in the community. The participants were

assessed as being predominantly a high risk of harm to the public. Six focus groups, consisting

of 26 residents, in total were conducted to learn about their experiences of living in APs and

whether they experienced ‘pains of AP residency’ similar to those identified with imprisonment

and the extent to which such pains were considered to impede their resettlement into the

community.

The results indicated the presence of the ‘pains’ within this environment, with ‘depth’ and

‘tightness’ being the strongest pains felt by the participants. They considered the AP

environment to be similar to imprisonment and found the management of residents in APs to

be oppressive and unpredictable. These findings of this small-scale study raise questions about

3

APs’ capacity to reintegrate offenders into the community after a custodial sentence which

merit further inquiry. Whilst the sample size does not reflect the overall size of the AP

population, the consistency in the themes identified across the groups provides some indication

that they may be applicable to the wider AP male population.

4

Chapter 1 Introduction

In their present form Approved Premises (APs) remain a somewhat hidden resource, currently

managing the highest risk offenders within the community, with their purpose changing

significantly since their creation. They have been shaped by numerous legislative and policy

changes since they were introduced shortly after the creation of the Probation Service in 1907.

Today NOMS (2014) describe APs as a public protection measure with the main purpose to

provide intensive supervision for offenders or defendants who present a high or very high risk

of serious harm.

Whilst the AP estate is small, Reeves (2011) suggests it forms a vital part of the wider role of the

Probation Service and has developed a specialism in dealing with high-risk offenders, by

providing semi-secure accommodation for those released from prison or whilst subject to bail

conditions. Cherry and Cheston (2006) refer to APs being a vital component in the delivery of

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPAs), providing a high level of surveillance

within a rehabilitative context.

My interest in this topic has been stimulated by personal experiences as an AP manager and a

desire to examine the use of APs within the criminal justice system. Similar to custody, a period

of residency in an AP environment places physical restrictions on individuals within the

5

community. What is of particular interest is the psychological impact such environments have

upon those residing in them.

Several forms of terminology have been used to describe APs, which has led to a mixed identity

or ambiguity regarding their role, both for those who work within them, for other professionals

within the criminal justice system and for those who reside in them. They have more commonly

been referred to as ‘bail or probation hostels’ and ‘half way houses’. Burnet and Eaton (2004)

refer to ‘halfway houses’ as a name more commonly used in Canada and the USA, which refers

to their function as a place for offenders making the transition from custody into the

community.

However, this transitionary function was not the reason for their inception. Burnett and Eaton

(2004) date the creation of the hostel system in England to the Criminal Justice Administration

Act 1914, where they were focused on the welfare needs of offenders, boys and young men. A

plethora of legislation and policies have shaped APs’ development since this time, such as The

Criminal Justice Act (1948), The Children and Young Persons Act (1969), Probation Circular

37/2005: The Role and Purpose of Approved Premises, National Standards (1995 and 2005),

The Carter Report, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach (2003) and

Probation Hostels: Control, Help and Change?: A Joint Inspection of Probation Approved

Premises (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection 2008). Nevertheless the purpose of APs remained

unclear during these times, with their aims appearing contradictory; veering between providing

6

immediate aid and assistance, containing ‘problem’ offenders, and rehabilitation (Burnett et al,

2007; Haxby, 1978).

Historical role of APs

The hostel system has strong philanthropic roots; the first hostels were managed by

charities/voluntary sectors accommodating young offenders aged 15-21, with the Criminal

Justice Act (1914) paving the way for a condition of residence to be attached as part of a

probation order.

The Approved Probation Hostel and Home Rules introduced a requirement to provide training

schemes. Barry (1991) cites the importance of the introduction of training within this setting as

a significant move away from providing an alternative to family accommodation to one of a

much more structured institution, with the power to exercise significant intrusions on the

personal lives of the residents.

The Morrison Committee in 1962 wished to retain hostels for the use of under 21s; however,

some years later a Home Office working party associated homelessness with further offending,

hence providing a rationale for the expansion of the hostel estate. Other significant legislative

changes which influenced the landscape of hostels can be attributed to The Children and Young

Person Act (1969) which removed the power of the courts to place people under the age of 17

years on probation, with the responsibility for their care transferred to social services. This

resulted in a decrease in the demand for and use of hostel beds. The Criminal Justice Act (1972)

7

placed the management and responsibility of hostels with Probation and After-Care Services

rather than the voluntary sector. This brought about a significant expansion of the hostel

estate. Probation Committees had the power to establish bail and probation hostels, with the

aim to relieve the prison population of petty offenders. The development of APs from this

period is described by Worrall (1997) as being linked to a further concern about the impact of

poor or no accommodation on recidivism.

Whilst APs have traditionally been perceived as rehabilitative in their intention, Barry (1991)

recognised at the time of his study that they were undergoing transition into a high-tariff

alternative to custody. This was as a consequence of papers and policies such as ‘Punishment,

Custody and the Community’ (1988), in which the Government proposed to divert large groups

of persistent, non-violent offenders from custody. This Green Paper introduced three

principles: “punishment by some deprivation of liberty, action to reduce the risk of offending

and recompense to victim and public” (p.3). This also set a new agenda for the Probation

Service, to one of control and punishment. The additional changes to the function of APs were

driven largely by increasing pressure on prison places and the need for an alternative provision

within the community.

In 1995, the purposes of hostels were clearly defined within The National Standards for the

Supervision of Offenders in the Community. Their role has since continued to be driven by the

focus on managing high-risk offenders. The establishment of the National Probation Service in

2001 sought to bring standardisation to the work of managing offenders, with the responsibility

8

of hostels placed within the Public Protection Unit. The Probation Circular 37/2005 was a key

document that redefined the role and purpose of APs as

The provision of enhanced supervision as contribution to risk management of offenders who pose a significant risk of harm to the public... with the delivery of enhanced supervision encompasses security, staffing arrangements, restrictive measures and rehabilitative components. (p.1)

The creation of MAPPAs via the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (2000) was a key move which

further shaped the role of APs, by placing a requirement on the local criminal justice agencies –

primarily police, probation and prisons – to manage serious risk of harm, violent and sexual

offenders. Reeves (2011) asserts that hostels have since developed a specialism in dealing with

high-risk cases intended to support MAPPA.

Criminal justice system context

Traditionally APs were aligned with the courts, supporting residency requirements for the

purposes of bail and probation orders. However, as a result of the various policy and legislative

changes the target profile of residents shifted significantly to those released from prison.

Following the creation of NOMS in 2004, APs became aligned more closely with prisons. They

are now used primarily for accommodating offenders on post-release licence supervision or

release on temporary licence (ROTL) where specific testing and monitoring in the community is

required prior to release. Burnett and Eaton (2004) consider APs are best placed within the

criminal justice system to provide the continuing surveillance and monitoring necessary for risk

management. They further highlight APs’ value as a resource linked throughout the criminal

9

justice system, from arrest (in those circumstances of bail) to resettlement on release from

prison.

Current role of APs

Today APs provide intensive supervision by way of monitoring curfews, interactions and levels

of compliance, CCTV surveillance, and undertaking drug and alcohol testing. There is also a

requirement for staff to undertake one-to-one and group interventions – programmes of

‘purposeful activity’ which focus upon developing life skills, employability and offender

behaviour work.

Following the implementation of the Transforming Rehabilitation Agenda in June 2014, the role

of APs has been defined as ‘primarily a public protection measure for offenders released from

prison on licence’ (NOMs 2014: 2). This probation instruction supersedes PC37/2005, The Role

and Purpose of Approved Premises, by providing guidance for staff and further defining the role

of APs in the context of public protection. This instruction clearly illustrates the requirements

for offenders to be placed in an AP, when presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm,

where their risk cannot be safely managed unless in a restrictive community setting. What is

interesting to note is that there had been no further instructions or circulars issued between

2005 and 2014. This could be reflective of a period of stability within the AP estate during this

time, or indicate that APs were not part of the political agenda, or reflect the fact that APs were

not included in the Carter review in 2003. The current instruction seeks to avoid any ambiguity

regarding who they are for and how they should be used.

10

Today, across England and Wales there are 101 APs with approximately 2200 beds, 112 of these

for females. All APs are managed in accordance with the Service Specification for Approved

Premises (2013). APs are an expensive resource based on the required staffing ratios and the

numbers of residents that can be safely managed within an AP location. NOMs (2014) recognise

that APs have a limited capacity, resulting in pressure on beds, hence the need to reserve

spaces for those who pose the highest levels of risk.

Media exposure has also had a significant influence on APs. Cherry and Cheston (2006) highlight

a negative campaign led by the News of the World newspaper concerning sex offenders being

housed in APs. This resulted in negative campaigns towards APs on a national and local level. In

November 2006, the Panorama TV programme, ‘Exposed: The Bail Hostel Scandal‘, made a

number of allegations about the capacity of hostel staff to manage offenders, claiming that the

Probation Service were failing in keeping the public safe (HMIP, 2007). High-profile media

exposure raised the public’s awareness of the existence of APs and in some cases their

locations, thus creating tension in some local communities. As a result, it has since been

difficult to obtain planning permission to build further APs. It has also placed restrictions on

their capacity to accommodate child sex offenders following a Home Office ruling in 2006,

barring 14 APs located in close proximity to nurseries or schools from accepting such offenders.

11

Aims of rehabilitation

The Probation of Offenders Act (1907) introduced the appointment of probation officers whose

job was to advise, assist and befriend offenders under their supervision. This has been

significant in terms of setting the foundations for the rehabilitative ethos and values of the

Probation Service and the way in which they worked with offenders. Rottman (1990) describes

rehabilitation as the potential for humanising and civilising society’s reaction against crime, to

provide the opportunity for these individuals to make improvements in their lives. These

principles for rehabilitation underpinned probation work for much of the twentieth century.

Probation staff related rehabilitation to the ability to form individualised, rehabilitative

relationships with offenders to support them in leading better lives and refraining from crime.

This approach has been somewhat reduced following standardisation and the focus on risk

management processes. Van Kalmthout and Durnescu (2008) describe probation work as

becoming “public protection work”, where the probationer is no longer called “client” but

“offender”, and the welfare approach is replaced with one of risk assessment. Supervision now

included control; it was related to all decisions taken by the competent authorities involved in

the conditions with which the offender had to comply. Policy and legislative changes have

continued to influence the ongoing tension in the role of probation staff, between caring for

the offender and controlling their criminal behaviour (Worrall, 1997).

12

Previous research on APs

Despite the policy changes in the functions of APs, there has been little detailed research on

their work in practice. The last significant study was conducted by Sinclair (1971), who explored

the extent of AP regimes on reconviction rates of residents, highlighting that the quality of the

regimes were linked to the wardens’/staff styles of leadership and regimes that adopted

emotional warmth and transparency regarding the expectations of the residents resulted in a

higher success rate.

The limited studies conducted since have focused on different issues such as the effectiveness

of APs and the impact of regime styles (Barry, 1991; Fisher and Wilson, 1982). Barry (1991)

employed questionnaires and interviews in his study of regime styles across 21 APs and found

little support that the courts were more attracted to APS with rigorous and restrictive regimes

than those with more liberal ones, when deciding to send serious offenders to APs rather than

custody. Fisher and Wilson (1982) also focused upon regime styles described as liberal and

authoritarian, finding that residents within liberal regimes successfully completed their period

of residency whilst those with more authoritarian regime had higher rates of absconding.

The nature of staff/resident interactions have been explored by Loney et al (2000) and Reeves

(2011). Loney et al (2000) evaluated staff working within APs who had completed pro-social

modelling training via questionnaires and interviews; despite approximately half of the sample

not returning their questionnaires, they found that the training had improved how staff related

13

to residents. Reeves (2011) employed a fieldwork approach over 21 months, including

observation and interviews, finding that staff and residents had different opinions regarding the

purpose of APs. Burnett and Eaton (2004) conducted a literature review on relevant research

and literature relating to bails hostels and APs with the purpose of illustrating factors

associated with effective practice in APs to inform consistency in terms of their development.

If APs are defined as alternatives to custody, which appears to have been their primary purpose

over the last few decades, is this in the form of a prison in the community or as a resource to

facilitate the transition of offenders between prison and the community, akin to the halfway

house model used in Canada? Do the pains of imprisonment exist within this setting or does it

feel more of a rehabilitative environment? This study aims to provide insight into the

experiences of those residing within an AP environment today and how it compares to their

experiences of custody. These insights are important from two perspectives: from a sociological

perspective they will inform our understanding of how transitional spaces between custody and

the community are experienced by people in the criminal justice system. From a policy

perspective it will provide an indication of the current potential of APs for supporting

rehabilitation and resettlement in the community.

14

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This chapter considers findings from previous research on the role and function of APs. It

discusses what is known about their role as a transitionary space between custody and the

community and the extent to which they may be experienced as places of rehabilitation or as

extensions of custody with modified ‘pains’ of imprisonment.

The changing role and function of APs

HMIP (1993) noted how the social context in which the hostel system was created, with roots in

philanthropic movements between the two World Wars, is now very different, with its original

rationale as temporary accommodation for young out of work, petty offenders no longer valid.

The publication of the Green Paper: ‘Punishment, Custody and the Community’ (Home Office,

1988), and ‘Supervision and Punishment in the Community’ (Home Office, 1990) brought about

a new agenda with a focus on punishment, control and just deserts. It was part of the

Government’s strategy to divert large numbers of persistent non-violent offenders from

custody by improving the standards of probation and introducing the notion that offenders

could be punished in the community thus providing sentencers with a credible alternative

sentencing option to custody.

This fundamentally transformed the role of APs, bringing about the demise of what some may

regard as its rehabilitative roots. APs can be considered as one of ‘the mechanisms of social

control’ highlighted by Cohen (1985), and illustrative of the coercive apparatus of the state and

15

the punitive hidden elements contained within state social policy. The Punishment, Custody

and Community Green Paper provided a new vocabulary for the Probation Service that has

continued to dominate its agenda and language (Barry 1991). However, Kemshall (2008) asserts

that penal policy shifted during the late 1980s-1990s from rehabilitative to retributive

sentencing, based on the perceptions that the justice model was ineffective in lowering crime

rates and preventing high-risk crime: “The maturation of the concept of dangerousness from

persistence to physical and psychological harm, necessitated a transition from habitual

offender legislation to dangerous offender legislation” (Connolly and Williamson, 2000 :85).

APs as a transitionary space between prison and the community

Burnett and Eaton (2004) assert that APs have been described as providing a level of

supervision and surveillance between that provided by custodial institutions and oversight

provided by other forms of community supervision. They are characterised as ‘halfway houses’,

as they provide a place for offenders making the transition from custody into the community.

Cohen (1985) asserts that alternatives to custody actually expand the scope and reach of the

system if the alternatives are not real alternatives but supplements of what is already in

existence. He draws on the example of half-way houses to argue that, in most cases, offenders

are being exposed to a new system of control in addition to the traditional ones. In these

circumstances Greenberg (1977) argues that “the contrast between the brutality of the prison

and the alleged humanitarianism of community corrections is beside the point, because the

community institution is not used to replace the prison; instead the offender is exposed to both

prison and the community ‘alternatives’”. Owen (2007) suggests that this revised approach is a

16

feature of late modernity, where controlling less fortunate citizens has become a priority:

offenders are no longer seen as individuals in need of care and support but as responsible and

undeserving.

Reeves’s (2011) study found that both staff and residents identified the APs’ function in terms

of rehabilitation, reintegration, supervision, control of residents, risk management and public

protection. It also found that some staff did not understand the work of their colleagues and

that residents did not appreciate the purpose of their residency at the AP, thus being negative

about or resistant to the supportive practices provided within them. This may support Cohen’s

(1985) proposition that the boundaries are no longer clear in the new world of community

corrections and that it is difficult to tell where prison ends and the community begins. APs are

at the centre of this tension and there is confusion over what the institution is and how it is

positioned.

Kemshall (2008) suggests that the increased attention to formal assessment is a means of

targeting risk in light of scarce resources and a need for increased effectiveness of

interventions. Foucault (1977) considers that, once the human soul enters justice, the

‘disciplinary’ or ‘carceral’ society arrives and general forms of discipline such as surveillance,

classification, examination and ordering are diffused further within the shadow of the prison. In

today’s context these are the processes of risk assessment, the use of APs, tiering and other

systems that have been introduced in the Probation Service, which have changed the way in

which they work with offenders.

17

APs as spaces for rehabilitation and resettlement

Sinclair’s (1971) study of APs was conducted at a time when the management of APs and profile

of their residents were significantly different than today. He found that placing boundaries and

emotionally engaging with the residents were successful strategies for reducing reconvictions

and supporting rehabilitation. Barry (1991) also examined the regime styles within APs, with

some regimes reflecting the traditional ethos of probation, considered non-authoritarian, with

the privacy, freedom and individuality of the resident respected and valued; this is reflective of

a rehabilitative approach.

The introduction of a core regime across APs is defined in ‘The Role and Purpose of Approved

Premises’ (PC37/2005), which sought to retain a rehabilitative element. Rehabilitative

components within this circular were defined as the delivery of a range of services which

include health, education, life skills, employment and resettlement. These would be

determined by the probation officer, in the interests of effective rehabilitation, as part of the

sentence/supervision plan. In her study Reeves (2011) indicated that the majority of staff

considered a large part of the role of hostels, if not the sole purpose, to be rehabilitation and

reintegration of offenders into the community, using pro-social modelling and motivational

interviewing techniques.

Over time there has been a shift in language, moving away from the terminology of ‘regimes’ to

‘purposeful activity’. All residents must have a programme of purposeful activity aimed at

reintegration and a focus on improving life skills and establishing connections outside prison

18

(NOMS, 2014). The old term ‘character building’ can be related to the current terminology of

‘pro-social modelling’ and motivational techniques to encourage positive changes and

responses by offenders. In practice these changes in terminology have taken time to become

embedded and are still perceived by most staff and residents as a ‘regime’, more a case of ‘old

wine in new bottles’, using the same approaches to demonstrate constructively filling the

residents’ time.

Cowe (2008) suggests that, to protect the public, the hostels need to work towards

reintegrating offenders into society as useful and less risky citizens, but a major question is

raised regarding the rehabilitative impact of APs to evoke behavioural changes when they are

attached to punitive sanctions. Robinson (2008) highlights how rehabilitation has rebranded

itself. By speaking the language of risk, offenders are no longer being considered the main

beneficiaries of rehabilitative interventions; the beneficiaries are now communities and

potential victims. Rehabilitation can be found in the guise of cognitive behavioural approaches

and targeted interventions, which can be translated into ‘purposeful activities’. Garland (2001)

supports the view that rehabilitative interventions have earned legitimacy by virtue of their

contribution to the wider remit of risk management:

…Rehabilitation is thus represented as a targeted intervention inculcating self-controls, reducing danger, enhancing security of the public. In the new framework rehabilitation is viewed as a means of managing risk, not a welfarist end in itself. (p.176).

Garland’s comment resonates with the assertion by NOMs (2014) that, whilst APs provide some

life skills input and other means of reintegrating offenders into the community, this is not their

primary purpose.

19

Whilst APs do not profess to be Therapeutic Communities (TCs), they do bear some similarities

in attempting to reconcile the conflicting roles of treatment (in the guise of rehabilitation) and

punishment. Smith (2008) cites the example of HMP Grendon, a Therapeutic Prison (TP) that

has deviated from a purely medical model and uses community-type responses to security

issues, which results in the need for less coercion. However Gunn and Robertson (2000) found

this resource had a disappointing impact upon recidivism. Therefore, when these factors are

considered in the context of APs, the high level of security and coercion in addition to average

lengths of stay being approximately three months, indicate that they have a somewhat minimal

potential for rehabilitation. It remains debatable whether rehabilitative abilities are present

within an AP.

APs: more an extension of prison than a base in the community?

It is important to note that the term ‘alternatives to custody’ may mean two different things.

Pratt and Bray (1985) highlight that the initial use of APs was as an alternative to remands in

custody for humanitarian reasons. It was felt that the main causes for prison overcrowding at

this time were linked to the incarceration of specific offenders who did not need to be there,

e.g. drunks, vagrants and fine defaulters. Using APs as an alternative to custody served as a

diversionary method, which at the time maintained the ethos of supporting and rehabilitating

less risky offenders. However, today they are considered as an alternative to custody in the

sense that they are akin to the prison environment albeit in a community setting. NOMs (2014)

recognise the restrictive nature of APs given that they are designed to manage high-risk

20

offenders who need close monitoring and management. However, NOMs are clear that the

restrictive environment of APs is a means of testing offenders’ compliance within the

community.

Since 2000 an unprecedented volume of official guidance has been provided to criminal justice

agencies focusing on the assessment and management of high-risk offenders. High-risk

offenders have dominated contemporary penal policy, the media and politics. High-profile

cases of offenders committing murder whilst subject to probation licence supervision – such as

those of Hanson and White in 2006 – have illustrated practice and process deficiencies in the

assessment and management of risk (Kemshall, 2008). Kemshall asserts that such cases evoke

anxiety, fear and distrust of experts in the public and bring into disrepute policy-makers and

professionals who are responsible for its delivery. As a result the role and responsibility of the

probation service have shifted to a greater focus on risky offenders. This can be translated as

the catalyst of change within APs.

It is clear that APs continue to provide physical restrictions within the community; however,

what is of interest is their psychological impacts. Cohen (1985) refers to the historical transition

of symbolised punishment with a move away from public and physical torture, and a transfer of

the object of penal repression from the body to the mind. This shift reflects a more coercive,

solitary and secret mode of punishment. Whilst probation has historically been a means of

reintegrating offenders into the community, Feeley and Simon (1992) highlight how it is now

21

perceived as a cost-effective way of imposing long-term management and constraint on those

deemed dangerous.

The ‘pains’ of approved premises

With this in mind Sykes’ (1958) five psychological ‘pains of imprisonment’ – deprivation of

liberty, of goods and services, of heterosexual relationships, of autonomy and of security – may

be considered relevant to the experience of living in APs.

Deprivation of liberty

Sykes (1958) describes the prisoners’ loss of liberty, with restrictions placed on their

movements, as one of confinement to the institution and one of confinement within the

institution being one of the most painful conditions imposed on inmates. Residents within an

AP are subjected to restrictions on their movements within the community and within the AP

itself due to licence conditions and AP rules. However, they still remain free in the community

and have access to friends and family.

Deprivation of goods and services

Sykes (1958) considers this in terms of the loss of material standards or possessions of living

within the free community, where control and possession of the material environment are

considered indicators of a man’s worth. Sykes admits that there are problems in comparing

standards of living in the community to those in prison: this is not relevant for residents within

in an AP as they have the ability to access possessions within the community.

22

Deprivation of heterosexual relationships

Sykes (1958) refers to the inmate being “figuratively castrated by his involuntary celibacy”

(p.70), with the lack of heterosexual intercourse being a frustrating experience for the prisoner

during his prolonged confinement. AP residents, in contrast to prisoners, are not totally

deprived of intimate relationships. They are able to form close relationships with others, but

these relationships are subject to restrictions. Visitors are permitted on site only subject to

permission and not allowed to stay overnight or go into the residents’ rooms.

Deprivation of autonomy

In Sykes’ (1958) work, this is described as an inmate being subjected to a vast array of rules and

commands, designed to control behaviour in minute detail. The prisoners’ dependency on the

decisions of their captors leads to feelings of frustration and expressions of hostility towards

the captors: “the restricted ability to make choices must be included amongst the pains of

imprisonment’ (p.73). Although AP residents are not as physically restricted, it is possible that

residents may experience similar pains to those of prisoners through the deprivation of

autonomy, due to the requirement to comply with the decisions of staff, the AP rules, and

licence conditions.

Deprivation of security

Sykes (1958) describes the prisoner being thrown into prolonged intimacy with other men with

histories of violent and aggressive behaviour, which is an anxiety-provoking situation. Whilst

residents are placed in a setting where they must reside with those who have committed a

23

variety of high-risk offences, given the temporary nature of their placements they remain

relatively free to spend time outside the AP; therefore, the nature of this contact could not be

described as prolonged. However, they may experience moments of anxiety similar to the

experiences of the prisoners in Sykes’s study.

Given that Sykes’s ‘pains’ were based on the experiences of prisoners in maximum-security

jails, their application and transferability to a community setting meant that they could not be

used in their entirety within this study. Various writers have since considered the relevance of

Sykes’s original concept of the ‘pains’ within prison settings, predominantly high-security

establishments both within the United Kingdom and within Europe. However, Crewe (2011)

describes the need for the revision of the ‘pains’ based on the fact that they no longer reflect

the current prison environment or the ‘pains’ of modern imprisonment. He argues that the

‘pains’ of modern incarceration require a different conceptual vocabulary of ‘Depth’, ‘Weight’,

‘Tightness’ and ‘Breadth’ (Crewe 2014).

Depth

The pain associated with the ‘depth’ of incarceration has been described by Downes (1988),

King and McDermott (1995) and Crewe (2011). Downes (1988), in his comparative study of

prison systems in the Netherlands and England and Wales, characterised the pain of ‘depth’ of

imprisonment as the degree to which the psychological invasion of incarceration was

experienced as damaging to the humanity and survivability of a prison sentence. Downes felt

that the experience of ‘depth’ was exacerbated or ameliorated by relations with staff; relations

24

with prisoners; the existence of rights and privileges; material standards and conditions; and a

sense of the overall quality of life which the prison regime made possible or withheld.

King and McDermott (1995) noted that security did not feature in Downes’s concept of depth

and therefore sought to focus on the degree to which prisons are oppressive as well as

psychologically invasive and the levels of humanity and survivability. In his description of ‘deep

end’ imprisonment, Crewe (2014) relates this to being in highly-controlled conditions, with a

sense of being buried away from the surface of freedom. He refers to the polarity between

prison and the outside world in terms of the degrees of physical freedom and bodily autonomy.

The experience of security and control measures in the highly controlled environment of the AP

may also be psychologically oppressive. Examples include the requirement for all residents to

sign in and out of the premises, adhere to National AP rules, and abide by the national curfew

from 23:00–06:00 hours. All premises have extensive CCTV surveillance systems which monitor

most areas of the building with the exception of residents’ rooms, toilets and bathrooms. The

residents’ rooms are also subject to random searches. King and McDermott (1995) found that

this was perceived by prisoners as one of the most intrusive security procedures.

Weight

King and McDermott (1995) depict ‘weight’ as the physical sense of burden experienced by

prisoners as a consequence of poor relationships, and low standards and unsanitary conditions

of imprisonment. They refer to the “weight on their shoulders” which they found “heavy and

25

oppressive” and which “bore down on them”, giving rise to a sense that they could “no longer

cope”. Crewe (2014) argues that many aspects of King and McDermott’s concept of ‘depth’

would be better translated to the metaphor of ‘weight’. ‘Weight’ also focuses upon the

standards and conditions of the environment and the quality of relationships with staff, for

example the ways in which staff exercise their authority.

The nature of the relationships between staff and residents has shifted, with AP staff having

little autonomy to deviate from processes and procedures when managing risk. This has

resulted in their having more power with regard to the enforcement of conditions. In turn this

creates suspicion from residents towards staff, given the more formalised nature of this

relationship. AP residents do not encounter punishing or unsanitary conditions as originally

highlighted in King and McDermott’s (1995) description of ‘weight’, as the standards and

conditions within these environments remain high. However, some residents may have to share

a room which may generate the experience of ‘weight’, albeit on a smaller scale. Sykes (1958)

asserts that, whilst the prisons are now habitable, the modern prison corrodes the inmate’s

sense of moral worth. To what extent may this be relevant for AP residents?

Tightness

Crewe (2009) refers to ‘tightness’ as the feeling of tension and anxiety generated by

uncertainty and experiences of power as both, firm and soft, oppressive yet light. Foucault’s

(1977) assertion may also be relevant in considering the experiences of residents where power

is diffused and decentralized, operating in a manner that is ‘light’ but anonymous. It is

26

demanding without seeming coercive, everywhere but nowhere. Residents in APs may

experience ‘tightness’ primarily through the threat of recall. Padfield and Maruna (2006) refer

to the ‘revolving door’ trend of prisoners who are recalled to prison during the licence period of

their sentence. They note that the individual does not need to commit a further offence for this

to be instigated but can returned to prison for breaching the conditions of their licence.

Padfield (2013), in her study of understanding the recall process, found that prisoners felt that

more could be done within the community to help them gain employment, accommodation

and provide support generally. Turnbull and Hannah-Moffat (2009) refer to “unspoken

expectations for reintegration”, with conditions imposed on prisoners for their own good

without any discussion or debate. Kemshall (2008) refers to supervision and monitoring being

key activities in community protection, with the focus on high-risk offenders, their behaviour,

enforcement of conditions, assessment, and encouragement of change along with any required

interventions or treatment. This resonates with Padfield’s findings of offenders perceiving that

the conditions were imposed on them from the outside by a ‘system’ which appeared try to fit

them into ‘boxes’ with little regard to their individuality.

Feeley and Simon (1992) considered the high rate of parolees being returned to custody as

evidence of efficiency and effectiveness, where periods of licence supervision within the

community can be regarded as a control apparatus. From a protection perspective, recalling a

resident can be regarded as a positive step to reduce risk to the public, and a cost-effective way

to police and sanction a troublesome population. Petersilia and Turner (1993), in their study of

27

intensive probation supervision, found evidence that increased surveillance led to greater

numbers of violations, which is the consequence faced by those within an AP under increased

monitoring. However, they also found that this had no relationship to increasing public safety.

Padfield and Maruna (2006) attribute the change in recall rates to enforcement practices rather

than the behaviour of the individual on licence. They highlight that the change from court-

based processes to one of an executive function has resulted in prison recalls being easier to

process. In addition, the impact of what they regard as surveillance technologies – for example

drug testing and electronic monitoring – have made it easier to detect breaches. Further, Nellis

and Chui (2003) highlight how enhanced levels of multi-agency work, particularly with the

police, have improved surveillance capabilities in terms of managing those on release or licence

supervision.

Crewe (2009) relates ‘tightness’ to the demands of self-regulation, for being held responsible

for all aspects of behaviour, and the feeling that power is inescapable and hard to predict or

decipher. Crewe further refers to the displacement of power from one form to another with the

consequence that prisoners’ lives are structured and determined by others.

The residents in an AP feel that they not only must adhere to their licence conditions but also

must comply with AP national rules and with AP specific local rules which can result in the

resident having to adhere to three different sets of conditions and rules for the duration of

their stay. Compliance with these and any local house rules is regarded as an inherent part of

the residence licence condition; failure to comply can result in the bed being withdrawn or

28

recalled in its own right. NOMs consider that the high levels of staff supervision enabling the

residents to be under constant watch make APs a valuable public protection resource (NOMS,

2014).

Breadth

A further concept related to the pains of modern imprisonment is ‘breadth’, introduced by

Crewe (2011, 2014). It is concerned with the dispersal of disciplinary mechanisms within non-

custodial settings and within civil society such as in APs. Crewe defines ‘breadth’ as the reach

and impact of penal sanctions where the impact of the sentence does not end for the individual

upon release. This is relevant when considering how residency in an AP will affect residents’

ability to formi and maintain relationships, and their re-entry into society, for example gaining

employment, given that a period of residency within an AP is now regarded as an extension of

the prison sentence. Moran (2012:571) recognised that the embodied experience of

incarceration exists within a context of general anxiety of release and ‘re-entry’ for those

released into society. Maruna (2009) asserts that the process of ‘reintegration’ or ‘re-entry’

involves not only physical resettlement into society such as accommodation or obtaining a

source of income, but also a symbolic element such as forgiveness, redemption and

reconciliation. Crewe (2014) refers to the less visible aspects of breadth which are internalised,

such as anxieties about public stigma and ostracism by family and friends.

As a consequence of maintaining community relations and limiting exposure and risks to

residents, NOMS (2014) highlight that, in addition to restrictions on accepting sex offenders at

29

14 APs nationally, other APs have specific local restrictions or temporarily adopt restrictions in

response to public concerns. These factors clearly will have an impact on residents and their

ability to reintegrate into the local community. Crewe (2014) relates the social and legal

attitude towards former offenders as another component of breadth.

Crewe (2011) highlights how lack of attendance or non-attendance of voluntary offending

behaviour programmes can have significant consequences for the prisoner. Day et al (2004)

describe this as “pressured rehabilitation”. Residents must engage with ‘purposeful activities’

as part of the AP rules.

Given the policy shift in APs towards more controlling, containing and coercive environments, it

is possible to see in theory how the pains of imprisonment may be transmuted into ‘pains of

Approved Premises’ and how they might impede rehabilitation. The following chapter describes

how the current study explored the relevance of these concepts to the experiences of residents

in APs and their impact on residents’ attitudes towards resettlement.

30

Chapter 3 Research Design and Methods

To gain greater clarity about the function of APs in practice and the ‘lived experience’ of their

residents, the following three research questions were developed:

1) Does an AP feel more like a prison than we think due to the constraints and focus on

control, surveillance and risk management?

2) To what extent do the ‘pains of imprisonment’ – weight, tightness, depth and breadth –

translate to the experiences of residents within an AP?

3) Do any of these factors impinge upon the residents’ perception of their ability to

rehabilitate?

Research design

Given that little is known about the pains of imprisonment and their impact on residents in an

AP setting, an exploratory research design using focus groups as the key research method was

chosen. Robson (2002) notes that qualitative research enables the researcher to discover what

is happening in little-understood situations, to seek new insights and generate

ideas/hypotheses for future research. Bachman and Schutt (2011) further suggest that this

approach allows the researcher to investigate social phenomena without expectations, with no

pre-formulated hypotheses to test, enabling the discovery of how individuals within those

settings think and act.

31

A quantitative research approach such as a survey was discounted as there was a risk that it

may not capture the themes or insights intended. Support for this is found in Mishler’s (1991)

assertion that there are differences in respondents asking and answering questions in naturally

occurring and contextually grounded conversations and the question–response process that

occurs in surveys, with the latter decontextualising the meanings of responses. Bachman and

Schutt (2011) suggest that qualitative methods have the greatest appeal in exploratory

research, as they capture the social reality of the participants in their own words rather than

answering predetermined categories. Crewe (2014) also illustrates how an attempt to

understand nuances of the prisoner experience will only go so far using standardised and

quantifiable measures.

To ensure the quality of this research, the four basic principles of qualitative research – defined

by Spencer et al (2003) – guided the research design, to ensure that it contributes to advancing

wider knowledge or understanding about policy, practice, theory or a particular substantive

field. These principles ensured that the research could address the evaluative questions posed

via the use of rigorous techniques such as systematic and transparent collection analysis and

interpretation of qualitative data, to ensure that the findings are credible in claim, offering well-

founded and plausible arguments about the significance of the evidence generated.

Target sample population

The participants were derived from a sample group across 11 APs, consisting of male offenders,

aged 18 and upwards, all of whom were subject to a period of post-release licence supervision

32

and currently residing in APs geographically spread across a particular section of the Midlands

division of the National Probation Service.1 To determine whether the pains of imprisonment

are present in an AP, it was essential that the respondent had spent time within a prison;

therefore those residents subject to bail conditions or a community order were excluded from

the sample. By specifying that the resident must be on post-release licence supervision, a

theoretical sampling approach has been adopted, as this relies on participants being primarily

selected, as Barbour (2012) asserts, by virtue of their characteristics the researcher believes will

have some bearing upon the participant’s perceptions and experiences.

Whilst it is anticipated that the respondents will be classified as a high to very high risk of harm,

medium-risk offenders subject to post-release licence supervision were not excluded. Whilst AP

admission criteria are primarily reserved for those who pose the highest levels of risk, the

resident profile will vary based on the number of vacancies for each AP. These risk-level criteria

also ensure that residents such as lifers or those on IPP sentences who would be deemed

medium risk to be granted release, would not be excluded. As this study is focused upon the

experiences of custody, such individuals’ experiences will add richness to the data.

Two APs were excluded from the sample due to the following factors: one specialised in female

offenders, whilst the other specialised in male mentally disordered offenders, thus representing

specific segments of the offender population whose experiences may differ significantly to

those of the general male population. Furthermore, there are ethical considerations for those

1 See Appendix 1 for a map of AP locations; research focused on Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands and

Staffordshire.

33

residents with mental health issues in light of their particular vulnerabilities. Robson (2002)

highlights such issues when working with vulnerable groups such as those with mental illness,

one of which is their ability to rationally, knowingly and freely give their informed consent to

participate.

Participant recruitment

In total 11 male APs were approached. The AP managers were asked to place a copy of the

poster around the communal areas of the AP in addition to providing a copy to each resident on

an individual basis. It cannot be guaranteed that this request was carried out by all of the AP

staff and therefore needs to be acknowledged that this was a limitation in the design and in the

recruitment of participants. It was made clear to the managers that the only AP resource

required would be a room to facilitate the focus group and a member of staff to co-ordinate the

names which would be provided on the day the groups would take place. Staff were informed

that they would have no involvement in the facilitation of the focus groups to ensure that the

participants felt comfortable to discuss any issues.

Given the dual nature of the role of the researcher – an AP manager and also a student – the

decision to provide limited information to staff was to avoid conflicts of interest and to limit the

opportunity for AP staff to provide incorrect information to the participants. Brookman’s (2010)

study illustrated the importance of those who solicit participants, as this can affect participants’

decision to agree to participate, in addition to the risk that the member of staff may

34

inadvertently skew the selection process, as the participants may think they will be at an

advantage or disadvantage if they do or don’t participate.

Sample limitations

All the participants were self-selecting in that they chose freely to participate in the focus

groups. Limitations of this approach were that those who had agreed to participate may have

done so to alleviate boredom, felt non-compliance might affect them negatively, or to meet

their own personal agendas This was apparent in one particular group, FG5, where the

participants sought to personalise the questions to their own specific needs and at times

became rather challenging.

Only two participants were from ethnic minorities (Black Caribbean); therefore the research

may not have captured the full experiences of this particular group nor those of other ethnic

minorities. Whilst the demographics of the participants were predominantly white male, their

experiences were rather broad in terms of the time participants had spent in different prison

establishments, including one lifer and two IPP participants (this was based on their own

disclosure within the groups), and the length of time spent in APs which provided a good

contrast between both environments. Bachman and Schutt (2011) suggest that, whilst there

are no formal procedures for determining generalisability of focus-group answers, conducting

several focus groups on the same topic, with checks for consistency in the findings, acts as a

partial test for generalisability.

35

Of the 11 APs approached, in two of the APs no interest was generated from the residents to

participate. Given that the recruitment process was dependent on staff ability within the AP to

engage residents, the staff member’s lack of knowledge or understanding about the nature of

the study may have had an influence upon this. Due to time constraints it was not possible to

attend one of the APs, given the consistency in the emerging themes, where it became

apparent from FG5 and FG6 the focus groups seemed to yield no additional information.

Bachman and Schutt (2011) refer to this as reaching a saturation point with no new information

being uncovered; therefore the decision was made not to conduct any further groups.

Therefore, whilst the sample may not be considered representative of the national AP male

estate, reaching saturation point during the focus groups indicates that generalisations could be

made from the emerging themes.

Ethics

The AP managers were provided with a participant information sheet (see Appendix 2) and a

poster that provided basic details of the nature of the study. Each AP then appointed a member

of staff to act as the specific point of contact to co-ordinate the focus groups and take the lead

in distributing the information. Brookman (2010) suggests that this approach helps to ensure

that participants are able to make informed decisions about whether to participate when given

clear, concise and honest information. For the participants of the focus groups, informed

consent was sought at two stages, based on the principles of informed consent described by

Milne (2005) as “knowledgeable, exercised in a non-coercive situation, and made by competent

individuals” (2005:para 26).

36

Firstly for those residents who had agreed to participate, AP staff were advised to provide them

with a copy of the participant consent form (see Appendix 3). Secondly, prior to the start of

each focus group all participants were asked if they had been provided with a copy of the

consent form; the response was mixed and the form not provided to all residents. This was a

limitation of the research design. They were then all provided with a copy and the details were

read out to them; this was to ensure that those with undisclosed literacy issues were not

disadvantaged. They were also provided with the opportunity to decline further participation in

the research; only one resident in FG4 chose to leave at this point, and those who wished to

continue signed the participant consent form prior to the focus group commencing. The

consent form covered key aspects to ensure that ethics and confidentiality were maintained; it

also highlighted supportive factors available to those who may experience any discomfort from

the issues that were discussed during the focus group.

All participants were advised of the aims of the research with a focus upon its academic

contribution and its ability to inform NOMs with regard to structuring future policies or

processes within the AP environment.

The participants were informed that information pertaining to specific individuals or the

content of the discussion during the group would not be shared with AP staff or the manager,

reinforcing that what was disclosed would remain confidential, unless it breached the

confidentiality points indicated on the consent sheet; their identities would remain anonymous

37

in the final write-up of the research. All focus groups were scheduled to take place between

9.30-10.00 am to ensure that the participants encountered no further disruption or

inconvenience to their day as a result of their involvement in the group.

Research methods

To capture rich data, the research employed a qualitative approach via the use of focus groups.

Morgan (1997) defines focus groups “as a research technique that collects data via group

interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (p.6). A series of six focus groups were

conducted with a total of 26 participants. Within the original design it was intended to conduct

one pilot focus group, which would consist of four to eight participants. Unfortunately, given

time constraints it was not possible to use a pilot focus group to test the questions that would

be employed across the remainder of the focus groups. The focus group questions (see

Appendix 4) were carefully constructed to stimulate thoughts and discussion within the groups.

Twenty-five questions were formulated in total, which focused on particular themes such as

levels of security, differences between prison and living in APs, and rehabilitation and anxiety

about recall as these were considered to be the key factors relevant to understanding the

potential pains of living in APs. The first four questions were closed and more factual: for

example ‘how long have you been here?’ The remaining questions were open-ended to elicit a

more detailed response and facilitate discussion among the participants. This approach is

reinforced by Brookman (2010), highlighting how the ordering and types of questions can have

a significant impact upon the quality of information received, and suggesting that it may be

more appropriate to commence with less emotive issues and lead up to the sensitive topics.

38

Robson (2002) suggests that one of the disadvantages of focus groups is the limitation on the

number of questions that can be covered (approximately 10 questions in an hour). However, it

was apparent from facilitating the groups that many questions were answered by the

participants in their responses to previous questions or in discussions that occurred naturally

during the groups. This resulted in the questions not always being presented or answered in the

logical order that they had been prepared. This, however, is a strength of adopting such a

method. Robinson (1999) asserts that group dynamics focus on the most important topics: the

participants are empowered to make comments in their own words, whilst being stimulated by

thoughts and comments of the other participants, with the flow of the discussion facilitated by

the researcher. As a result of the flexibility in this approach, the length of time the sessions

lasted ranged from 40 to 93 minutes.

During the focus groups there were no overt signs of power struggles or frictions between the

participants. Whilst some individuals had more to say regarding their experiences, this can be

related to the richness of their experiences and time residing in the AP and time spent in

custody. Given that the groups were homogeneous, having commonality in terms of their

backgrounds and experiences, this served as a positive factor in terms of the openness with

which participants shared information. Morgan (1997) asserts that homogeneity in focus

groups encourages free-flowing conversations amongst the participants and allows for analyses

that examine different perspectives amongst the groups.

39

One of the issues which may have had an impact on the facilitation of the focus groups was the

decision to disclose at the beginning of each session the dual nature of the researcher’s role,

that of student and AP manager. This was to ensure that transparency and honesty were

maintained with the participants so they could chose if they wanted to continue and how much

they wished to disclose. It was made clear that the groups were there to inform research and

the researcher was not there as a spy to feed back information to management about particular

individuals.

It is also relevant to consider the gender differences, with the researcher being female. Gurney

(1991) suggests that being a female researcher in a male-dominated environment, such as a

hostel, can aid formal and informal access, as women are perceived to be ‘warmer’ and less

threatening than men (Gurney, 1991:379). There were no apparent issues regarding the

researcher’s gender in the facilitation of any of the focus groups: a decision was made to dress

more informally on each occasion to avoid being perceived as more authoritative.

It was felt necessary as part of the research design to refrain from obtaining any information

pertaining to the participants’ offending history or other personal information; no enquiries

were made after the groups for such information. For all groups, the participants’ names were

unknown until the researcher arrived on site to conduct the groups. It was clear within some of

the groups that the participants were frustrated by certain processes and a lack of

understanding of these; given the level of operational knowledge the researcher held, these

issues were deferred until after the groups had finished, when the participants were advised

40

that questions would be answered at the end of the session. In one particularly challenging

group, FG5, the researcher frequently shifted between two modes, one as a student and the

other as a manager. It was made clear in which role the issues were being discussed to avoid

disruption and to keep the flow of the group going, which felt rather conflicting. In hindsight

this may have been a result of the disclosure of being an AP manager where the participants

sought to challenge particular processes which may not have occurred if the researcher had

been from a purely academic background.

Data analysis

All of the focus groups were recorded, rather than using a session summary sheet. The

researcher took notes during the groups to capture the key themes. The recordings were later

transcribed. Brookman (2010) notes that this process is common practice, seeking to rely on

the data to conduct analysis at a later stage.

On completion of transcription, as a majority of the questions were linked to the dimensions of

depth, weight, tightness and breadth, all the data were initially analysed for each focus group

and placed within a provisional coding frame, using first-level coding, to match the themes from

the participants’ narratives to the dimensions of the pains of imprisonment.

An iterative approach was adopted for the data analysis (Robson, 2002). This approach enabled

the use of the pains of imprisonment to form the outline analytical frame and allowed for new

ideas and themes to emerge from the data. Crewe’s (2011) revision of the pains, placed within

a framework of Depth, Weight and Tightness, formed the main analytical frame for the coding.

41

During this process it was apparent that some of the narratives did not fit neatly into one

dimension and could in some instances be applied across two or three of the dimensions. It was

also not always clear to what dimension some of the narratives related: Barbour (2012) refers

to the need for a flexible frame to account for the iterative nature of the data analysis process

when researchers must move back and forth between coding frames and transcripts.

Within each dimension, second-level coding was applied, where the narratives were further

coded into smaller themes: for example, using the dimension of tightness, the narratives were

categorised and analysed as follows:

i) Tension, anxiety generated by uncertainty,

ii) Power as firm and soft, oppressive yet light.

As a result of adopting this approach, a theory surrounding the ‘pains of AP residency’ has

emerged to reflect the experiences that are felt, certainly by the participants within the focus

groups, which may well be applicable to residents within the wider AP population.

42

Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion

This chapter will present the findings gathered from the six focus groups conducted in APs

across the Midlands National Probation Service Region. It will describe participants’ experiences

of residing in an AP in relation to the framework of the ‘pains’: ‘depth’,’ weight’, ‘tightness’ and

‘breadth’ (Crewe, 2009, 2011, 2014; Downes, 1988; King and McDermott, 1995). This chapter

will highlight to what extent the introduction of greater control and monitoring in APs has

served to generate the ‘pains’ within this environment for residents and the extent to which

residents feel that these ‘pains’ affect their capacity to settle back into the community.

The research participants

In total 26 male residents participated in the focus group discussions. They represent

approximately 6.12 per cent2 of the overall AP male estate. The participants were resident in six

APs across the West Midlands Probation Region. This represents approximately 31.36 per cent

of the APs across the region.3 These premises varied in location, size and layout.

The age range of the participants was between 18 and 65 years. Of those who participated,

92.1 per cent were predominantly of a W14 ethnic background and 7.7 per cent from a B15

ethnic background. Unfortunately NOMs do not collate data regarding the percentage of males

residing in APs based on their ethnicity; data are collated only as a snapshot of the residents in

2 There are 98 male AP across England and Wales, the female APs have been excluded from this sample.

3 There are 18 male APs across the West Midlands Division.

4 Self-defined ethnicity code W1, denotes White British (Home Office, 2001).

5 Self-defined ethnicity code B!, denotes, Black or Black British (Home Office, 2001).

43

each AP on the last day of the month, and is not carried over to quarterly or annual figures.

Therefore it is not possible to provide analysis or comparison on how this figure compares to

the national ethnicity of the male population within APs at the time of conducting the research.

Focus group number Number of participants

1 5

2 4

3 3

4 4

5 7

6 9

Total: 26

All participants were on a period of post-release licence supervision and represented a varying

level of risk from ‘medium’ to ‘high’. The length of time the participants had resided within the

AP ranged from 2 days to 12 months. The mean length of stay for the participants was 12 weeks

which concurs with figures from NOMs (2014) who indicate that the national average length of

stay for residents during 2013–2014 was 57 days. Whilst NOMs suggest residence In an AP is

temporary, the average length of stay should be approximately three months. Nonetheless,

there is no typical length of stay or set expectation; the decision regarding moving on is driven

by assessments of the resident’s risk of harm and suitability of move to accommodation.

44

Overall, given the range in differences regarding the length of time that participants had

resided within an AP, their experiences and perceptions of the environment and how they

translated into the ‘pains’ that were being explored were fairly consistent across all groups. This

indicates that the length of stay within an AP did not affect the pains experienced by the

residents.

For 17 of the sample this was their first experience residing in an AP environment and nine

participants had resided previously. In some instances, participants who had been in an AP

before reflected on experiences from their previous stays. However, their views and feelings

remained fairly consistent with those of the first-timers, indicating that previous residency

periods in APs did not significantly influence the themes generated from the focus groups. For

those who had resided in an AP before, this had been as part of the ROTL process from prison

45

or, in a few cases, for a period of bail prior to receiving their custodial sentence and later

returning on licence. Within the sample there were four participants who had returned to an AP

following a period of recall.

The ‘pains’ of APs

Depth

In here I have never felt like a little school kid and I was waiting for someone to slap my legs. (FG6-3)

In the original characterisation of ‘depth’ of imprisonment, Downes (1988) referred to it as the

extent to which the oppressive psychologically invasive nature of prison was experienced as

damaging. However, it is felt more appropriate to use King and McDermott’s (1995) and

Crewe’s (2011 and 2014) concept of ‘depth’, which considers the degree to which prisons are

oppressive and psychologically invasive, the levels of humanity and survivability, and the impact

of security and control measures. Crewe (2011) identifies the impact of security and control

upon the prisoner’s sense of remoteness of their existence and the degree of their physical

freedom. These definitions are more likely to be attributable to the experiences of AP residents

as well as prisoners.

Physical environment

Comments generated from the focus groups reflect the experiences of the environment being

oppressive and psychologically invasive:

46

The building itself is repressive, erm because it reminds you of a prison basically. (FG1-3) What you’re actually saying is, you’re being released from prison, you’re in a worse environment than being in prison, ‘cause you can’t associate with anybody. (FG2-1)

The comment from FG1-3 illustrates how the physical features of the building stimulate feelings

of being in prison, despite being in the community. The second quotation refers to the

participant’s belief that residence within an AP environment is actually worse than being in

prison. One of the issues frequently highlighted during the focus groups was the restriction

placed on residents to refrain from associating with other residents outside the AP

environment. This is not an issue in prison. This is somewhat interesting, as the levels of control

within APs affect residents’ ability to socialise with other individuals, which may be seen as an

additional form of oppression.

They love sitting there watching, don’t they? (FG2-2) I still feel that feeling that you get inside, like someone’s over you, someone’s on you all the time. (FG3-1)

The above comments illustrate that residents feel that they are constantly being watched by

the staff. The comment from FG2-2 suggests residents’ beliefs that staff may enjoy watching

them, gaining a somewhat ‘voyeuristic’ pleasure from their position.

Survivability

I think if you hadn’t been in a prison environment for so long then you wouldn’t be able to switch off, but because you have you can tolerate it a bit more. (FG5-3) The doors constantly banging, staff walking around, keys jangling, it feels the same. (FG5-1)

47

The above comments illustrate how the participants have made psychological connections

between their time spent in prison and their residence in the AP in terms of finding a way to

cope within both environments, to survive/tolerate their time there. FG5-1’s comment

highlights the impact of the physical movement of doors and staff walking around, which can be

considered as mundane and insignificant actions occurring on a daily basis within the AP and

prison environment; however, they clearly have the ability to trigger emotional resonance.

Yeah, you think you’ve done your sentence, say you’ve got a two-year sentence and you’ve done a year and you think you’ve done your sentence; then you get here, you’re still persecuted. (FG3-3)

The comment from FG3-3 refers to feelings of persecution being triggered within an AP,

indicating psychological suffering and a sense of being treated unfairly. Crewe’s (2014) view of

the moral status of the individual being profoundly altered and of the minimal schism between

freedom and captivity is relevant here. FG3-3’s comments also suggest the pain associated with

the ‘breadth’ of imprisonment (as discussed later).

In considering humanity and survivability, relations between staff and residents, the severity of

discipline and punishment, the quality of rights and the extent to which life within the AP can

be characterised as an ‘ordeal’ and an ‘assault on the self’ will be applied, (Downes 1988:179).

Relations between staff in the context of Downes’s study explored an absence of humanity or

normal human relations.

You can earn trust from officers and inmates in custody, show them like, you know, you are reliable and help them out, you know you can build quite good relationships. I am not saying that you can’t with staff here but… It’s not the same, it’s different. (FG1-P5)

48

Yes there is a difference, because here, yes you have got curfews, dates, times to actually be in by, but you haven’t got like officers on your back 24 hours a day, they leave you alone. If you have got a problem and you want to try and sort it out they are here to help you try to sort it out. (FG2-2)

These comments indicate the ability for positive relations to exist between staff and residents

in an AP in contrast to their experiences within prison, thus minimising the experience of

‘depth’. The comments reflect a sense of being ‘left alone’, indicating that the residents have a

degree of autonomy and freedom within the AP environment despite the focus of security and

control. Sykes’s ‘deprivation of autonomy’ as one of the pains of imprisonment is therefore less

applicable to the AP context. Some participants referred to the ability to access help and to

form relationships with staff:

You do get more trust regardless of what’s said. It’s still not ideal but in comparison to prison there is a bigger trust barrier there, I think. You’re walking out of here and you could be bringing anything you want in and out of here all the time. I’m not saying there’s no security here, but there’s obviously less security than there would be in a prison. I’m not saying I do that either, I’m just saying the way that the set-up is there’s a bigger trust here. (FG3-1)

The comment from FG3-1 reflects a positive side of the survivability of the AP environment ,

despite the restrictions and levels of control, trust levels are perceived to be higher than in

prison. However, this feeling was mixed across the focus groups, with some participants feeling

trusted by staff within the AP environment, and others considering that there were higher

levels of trust afforded to them in prison. In some of the groups residents referred to

restrictions placed on their ability to have certain items in their rooms – such as kettles and

toasters (things they would be allowed to have in prison) – which resulted in their perceptions

of being afforded more trust by staff in prisons.

49

Several factors can influence the differences in views. Firstly, the positive experiences of trust

within APs were predominantly held by the older participants and for those for whom it was

their first experience within the criminal justice system. Other influential factors, such as the

personalities and working patterns of staff,6 the differences in regimes adopted within the APs,

and the physical design and amenities of the building, had an impact on the interactions

between residents and staff. Those who found the levels of trust to be more positive within

prisons tended to be participants who had served lengthy custodial sentences, had more

entrenched experiences of prison, or who were subjected to high levels of restrictions as part of

their licence conditions to manage risk in the community. The sense of not feeling ‘trusted by

staff’ may also be associated with the pain associated with the ‘tightness’ of imprisonment.

There were mixed views from the participants regarding levels of support from the staff .This is

an important factor that would contribute towards the survivability of the AP environment:

There is a good side to it as well, and the good side is if you have ever got a problem, like feeling depressed, er you got the guys around ya that know ya, so they will instantly, ‘cause we are on top of each other every day, so they will virtually know if something’s wrong. I know if he is in a bad mood or he’s having a bad day, and vice versa. (FG1-3) I don’t think I've seen the same member of staff twice in the week I’ve been here; it’s been different staff all the time. I don’t know who’s who or who I am supposed to speak to or go to; I don’t know none of this. I have had more support of... [resident] than anyone else in here. He’s like a link, it’s more like the cons, if you like, that try to help each other out than the staff. (FG3-3)

6 With regards to working patterns of staff, this is linked in some APs to the rota shift pattern of staff which made it

difficult for some residents to form relationships. Also, some shifts were filled by casual members of staff due to staff shortages.

50

Again, the more positive comments towards staff support were generated from the older

residents and those with a high level of support needs. The more negative comments were

generated from the younger participants or those who had been recalled from APs previously.

Security and control

It’s like the big brother house this is, might as well send it live to the community. (FG3-2)

The most painful element of ‘depth’ of confinement/residency in the AP environment was the

mechanisms of security and control. Here all groups consistently made reference to the

frequency and levels of intrusion of the checks they encountered, along with CCTV surveillance

They likened it to the ‘Big Brother house’, and most of the participants felt these measures

were unnecessary:

But we come out of prison, we have had all these restrictions on us, and then all of sudden we coming to these thinking we gonna have a little more leeway, and then you’re locked in your own yards and you know what I mean… its… they got cameras like R said everywhere, they can see whether you are going in or out, right, there’s signing in and out... one way in, one way out. (FG1-2)

The comment from FG1-2 indicates an expectation by the residents that, on release to an AP,

they would be afforded more freedom compared to the restrictive environment of prison.

Several participants across the groups referred to what they considered the nonsensical nature

of the frequency of signing in and out. For some residents this meant signing several books,

which they felt was unnecessary duplication. There was also a theme regarding the processes

followed by staff, and their reluctance to be flexible as to how this was conducted in reality.

51

Since 2005, APs have been required to have a number of security systems: CCTV, exits alarmed

during curfew hours, window restrictors, facilities for electronic monitoring, and personal

alarms, to facilitate the management of high-risk offenders (Home Office, 2013). NOMs (2014)

define the role of APs as protecting the public and, as such, APs are required to have extensive

security equipment, which includes cameras, physical measures and at least two members of

staff on duty at all times.

But I think it is the case of, erm, all the doors are alarmed, this gate here has got an alarm on it, the one around the back has got an alarm on it, you got to log in and out, there’s only one in and out ain’t there? Yeah, that’s it. That’s the restriction that we find because you have to wait for someone to open the door to let you out, you can’t just sign the book, open the door and walk out yourself. (FG1-3)

Not only were the high levels of surveillance and the lack of control one of the key experiences

of the participants, there was a sense of strong resentment towards the lack of control they had

about the co-ordination of their days, due to the requirement to attend and participate in

‘purposeful activities’ such as in-house programmes. These experiences can also be related to

the breadth of imprisonment. Kemshall (2008) illustrates that an overemphasis on restrictive

conditions can be problematic when considering reintegration, and can also prove counter-

productive to long-term change and self-risk management, with practitioners reporting that

offenders lack incentive to change when their needs are unmet or when restrictions are overly

intrusive.

The intensity of the levels of surveillance is indicative in the comments regarding CCTV:

I’ve been in cat B jails, proper lifer jails that have got less cameras than this place. (FG2-2)

52

The intensity of surveillance reflects a shift in focus from rehabilitation to control, with what

Wood (2006) refers to as a surveillance society. As society and the Government are becoming

more concerned with risks and dangers, some aspects of surveillance now intentionally seek to

limit and control behaviour and movements, whereas some aspects of surveillance can create

such effects unintentionally. In its current sense, surveillance processes and practices create a

feeling of mistrust, suggesting that surveillance fosters suspicion:

It’s just like a cat D; I spent the last part of my sentence in cat D so this is just exactly the same. (FG3-1)

There was also a common theme across all of the focus groups about the similarities of an AP

environment to that of a Category D/open prison. In some instances the AP was described as

being a Category E prison. Crewe (2014) has proposed that levels of security and ‘depth’ should

not focus solely upon the limitations on free movement and communication, but should also be

considered in the context of the ‘shallow end’ of the prison system and how asymmetric open

prisons/Cat D prisons are in establishing life in the community.

When a more specific question was posed to the participants regarding how different they felt

an AP was to prison, limited positive differences were highlighted, with the majority of the

participants describing it as the same:

The participants’ comments about APs being like category D or category E prisons resonate with

Shamma’s (2014) view that open prisons offer a temporary taste of freedom which is a long

way from freedom itself. The comments of feelings of ‘persecution’ and ‘not being free’ may be

53

indicative of what Shammas refers to as ‘cognitive confusion’ over a prisoner’s status, when

they are placed in an environment where they should feel free but they do not:

I am more like house arrested, may as well be in prison. (FG6-1) It’s to make sure you tow the line in this place; it’s a bit of control. It’s just an extension of prison, this place really. (FG4-4)

NOMs (2014) recognise the tension that the restrictive nature of APs can create, certainly for

those who have spent time in an open prison and are likely to consider residency within an AP

as a retrograde step. Shammas (2014) further highlights that, while there is an increased

opportunity to have contact with family, it can serve to increase feelings of powerlessness

rather than reduce them. In addition, residents similar to prisoners in a category D environment

face the temptations of substance misuse and have exposure to other realities/social burdens

within the community.

There is something to be said about the level of intrusion and what level is appropriate or

relevant to be placed on residents in an AP. Given the lack of knowledge regarding the nature

of participants’ index offences, in some respects the high level of monitoring and surveillance

could be linked to their risk management plans: whilst it feels restrictive to the individual, such

decisions would have been made with the protection of the public in mind. NOMs (2014) have

suggested that AP residents are free to leave and move around the surrounding area; this

freedom, however, is subject to constraints within their licence conditions. Further,

programmes also used to restrict the residents’ movements. Whilst the primary purpose of AP

54

residency is not to replicate custody but to manage risk, it was apparent that this is not

reflected in the residents’ experiences.

Weight

King and McDermott’s (1995) concept of ‘weight’ depicts the experience of prison and how this

‘bears down’ upon the prisoner, essentially placing a ‘weight on their shoulders’. They also

focused on the standards and conditions of the prison environment, along with the burden of

‘regimes’, with staff being petty or provocative. On reflection, ‘weight’ appeared to be the least

apparent ‘pain’, based upon the participants’ overall responses.

AP environment

The residents held positive views about the physical conditions of the APs, all of which were

reported to be clean, comfortable and habitable. However, in the few APs where participants

had to share a room, this factor appeared to place a burden upon them by restricting their

ability to have their own space.

In all fairness, from coming from prison, from a double where you’re sharing to a double where you’re sharing kind of pees you off. You’ve had all that time with somebody and you just want time on your own. (FG6-3)

Burden

The majority of participants did not want family or friends to visit them in the AP, with most

making arrangements to see them elsewhere, even those in APs away from their home areas.

This response illustrates the similarities of prison and subjecting family to further searches, and

the burden/weight this places upon the resident:

55

What you would be doing to them is, we were at a level and we have climbed up from that level, and if you was to let your family come in here you bring them back down to that level. (FG1-P2)

The ‘weight’ of being in the AP affected participants in different ways; the comments on this

dimension varied across the groups:

...you know what I mean, ‘cause yum always thinking I gotta er, you know what I mean, which it could be a good thing but then yum in another way yum thinking to yourself you’re suppressing your own spirit if you know what I mean. (FG1-1)

Overall, the research participants’ comments support Padfield’s (2013) findings that those who

were released into hostels (APs) often felt that the weight of conditions designed to ‘protect

the public’ outweighed the support participants needed to reintegrate successfully.

Staff

Participants commented on the quality of relationships between staff and residents and the

manner in which they exercise their authority, enact processes and decisions which contributes

to the residents’ feelings of burden within this environment:

The only thing I don’t like about signing in and out is when I have had appointments before, erm, I have been waiting outside of the office; you know, staff are busy doing their own little thing talking…, and I am waiting there, time is ticking by, I could miss my bus miss, could miss my train, I could be late for that appointment you know… and... basically my life is in their hands outside of this place and inside of this but outside of this place, if I want to go somewhere my life is in their hands, and if they decide to have you know a fag outside the back and there is nobody in the building or do whatever like they normally do… then it’s just taking the piss for me, really, ‘cause I’ve got to wait longer. (FG1-5)

56

This comment reflects the feeling that residents’ lives are not under their control. Overall the

residents’ views reflected a negative tone; however, this is not uncommon in such an

environment where staff have a dual role – one of enforcer, the other providing assistance.

With regard to the role of staff, Harris (1980) describes this as ‘operational dissonance’, where

they are faced with managing a caring yet controlling function. This monitoring role makes it

difficult for participants to trust staff or be willing to approach them for help. Participants

expressed feelings of their lives not being their own, which reinforces the levels of control

placed upon them by staff; this may be a further example of what Shamma (2014) describes as

‘cognitive confusion’.

Regimes

King and McDermott (1995), in exploring the levels of degradation prisoners experienced,

considered the quality of regimes. Crewe (2014) has reservations about their views on this,

particularly in using terms such as ‘purposeful activity’, given that it [what is ‘it’? CEB] regards

all activities in prison as equally purposeful. However, within the AP environment the term

‘purposeful activity’ is also used. NOMs (2014) define ‘purposeful activity’ with all residents

having a programme of ‘purposeful activity’ aimed at resettlement, reintegration with a focus

on improving life skills, and establishing connections outside prison.

….they’ve got these courses that don’t really do anything, for most of the people who are actually coming through these AP’s are obviously of an age 25-45 or what have you; they already have their life skills, they have gone out and done that what life is like outside. (FG4-3)

57

Participants’ comments were wholly negative regarding the ‘purposeful activities’ provided

within the APs, finding them ineffective and impinging upon their time to reintegrate into the

community. This is also explored within the dimension of ‘breadth’, given its association with

rehabilitation.

Tightness

It was apparent that ‘tightness’ was one of the residents’ most keenly felt pains. Crewe (2009)

relates this to the feelings of tension and anxiety generated by uncertainty, and experiencing

power as both, firm and soft, oppressive yet light. This resonated strongly with the participants

in the study, who spoke of ‘treading on egg shells’ and feeling as if they were unable to relax

while residing in an AP. Whilst some of these feelings related to uncertainty about the length of

their stay, along with the level and frequency of checks conducted by members of staff, the

predominant views were related to the threat of recall and not adhering to curfews or signing-

in times.

I just feel like I’m walking on eggshells, like, find it uncomfortable being in society. I find it kind of hard to move forward, you make a mistake and you’re back inside. I find it, it’s always when you sort yourself out, something brings you back down, do you know what I mean? So yeah, I just feel like that basically. I just find it like walking on eggshells. I try and I do what I need to do but, erm, it’s just like how it is. (FG4-1)

Padfield (2013) has highlighted some of the challenges experienced by those on licence in the

community, with most of the 46 prisoners interviewed feeling the ‘tightness’ of their conditions

and some suggesting that it was easier to serve time in prison than being on licence, particularly

if they were placed in an AP. Some stated that they would prefer to do time in prison; this

58

resonates with the findings of Crouch (1993), Spellman (1995), and Petersilia and Deschenes

(1994), where offenders had a preference for prison rather than probation. These views are

reflected in the feelings of some participants in this study:

In prison... [laughter]… out here there’s more temptations, if you know what I mean, to mess up than in prison…it’s like walking on eggshells out here. In there you’re comfortable, not comfortable, but it’s one less worry, do you know what I mean? You know where you are, it’s hard out here man, I don’t in certain situations see it as resettlement to be fair, I don’t feel like I need to be in here. (FG4-1)

This comment reflects a common theme amongst the participants of feeling under threat and

being fearful of the consequences, which implies an element of mind-games inflicted on them.

McDermott and King (1998) describe this as control and restraint measures, being more

controlled, with ‘bits of paper’ replacing ‘physical beatings’ as the basis of control, which can be

related to the lighter aspects of power: “...they don’t beat us anymore – they don’t have to.

They can win by using bits of paper. It’s all a mind game now” (McDermott and King, 1988:373).

Self-regulation

Crewe (2014) associates the feelings of ‘tightness’ with passing responsibility on to prisoners to

self-regulate their desires, behaviour and interactions with other prisoners and staff, in addition

to the feeling that power is inescapable, hard to predict or decipher (Crewe 2009). NOMS

(2014) reinforce this view: they state that a high proportion of responsibility is assigned to the

resident, in terms of adhering to the rules and conditions of their licences and ultimately

refraining from further offending.

One time I thought I was late, I was in that much shock that I thought I was gonna be late, I was sweating, I was on the tram yeah... ha ha I was sweating, it was dripping off me you know, like I had just come out of a swimming pool or something, and that’s just

59

through shock, ‘cause I was thinking I was gonna get back late. I should not be feel like that out here, you know what I mean, I should not feel like that at all. That’s bad, that is. (FG4-1)

Kemshall (2008) refers to governmentality theorists who “explore risk in the context of

surveillance, discipline and regulation of populations, and how concepts of risk construct

particular norms of behaviour which are used to encourage individuals to engage voluntarily in

self-regulation in response to these norms” (Lupton 1999:25). Further, Kemshall refers to Rose

(1996) and the notion of responsibilisation, where as a mechanism of social regulation

individuals are responsible for their own actions. Wood (2006) relates most new techniques of

surveillance, predominantly electronic, to governmentality theorists as a means of social

regulation.

In some instances, the participants would refer to staff as ‘they’; however, it wasn’t clear

whether they were referring to AP staff, their probation officer or the system in general. When

this was probed further, it was apparent that participants themselves were unclear. This is

linked to the experiences of power, where it can be firm and soft, oppressive yet light. Crewe

(2014) relates this to power being pushed to higher levels within a faceless organisation and

conveying a ‘grip’ of a faceless bureaucratic system.

The old system was better, it was easier, everyone knew where they stood. It didn’t matter if there was a bit of lateness and that, as long as you had a reason; whatever the situation, there was that attitude of relaxation towards it. Now you haven’t got nothing like that, now it’s all like, you’re just a number, each person is like a value, like on a Monopoly board. (FG6-1)

60

Uncertainty

Many of the residents across the groups made reference to the uncertainty of being able to

associate with other residents inside or outside the AP. Some mentioned that they had a

specific condition in their licences and felt that this was unclear. This seemed to cause anxiety

amongst most residents in terms of how they could interact with other residents and whether it

would place them at risk of recall:

Erm, because I suppose that could be linked to the recalling bit. I don’t want to offend anybody but I don’t want to start getting caught up in anything, that’s why I’d say all right ... and that, and go up to my room and keep myself to myself. (FG4-1)

There were some variations in the experience of ‘tightness’ across the focus groups. For one

lifer who had spent approximately 20 years in custody, it was important that he was given clear

timescales and information about how he would progress from the AP into his own

accommodation. This can be related to the way in which lifers manage or survive lengthy

sentences by breaking down the time into time-specific goals:

How long is a piece of string? But it’s the uncertainty because you are used to hitting targets: right, I will go for that and if I don’t get my parole I know I got to do another two years before my next one comes up, and if that doesn’t happen then they’ll move me from this prison to that prison. And then two years after that I got to go to there, so you’re moving along all the time. At the minute I’m stuck... and you’re going why, so how long do they want me to stay here for, ‘cause no one has actually said. (FG1-3 lifer).

All participants were asked if they understood why they had been placed in an AP. Whilst the

majority of the participants answered yes, overall their responses were varied and somewhat

vague:

61

Probation officer never told me, just told us ‘you’re going to a AP and this is where you’re going’. When you get here they only say, ‘these are our rules’; they don’t say why you’ve come here and I’ve been to two, and neither of them, just said ‘we’ve been expecting you blah blah blah, here’s the rules and here’s what you’ve got to do’ (FG6-2)

Kemshall (2008) presents the purpose of monitoring as a means to assess compliance with

supervision and conditions, to assess the offender’s functioning and to monitor problematic

behaviours for escalation and deterioration. In the context of managing risk, these objectives

are appropriate. However, when considering that these men residie in an environment which,

for some, is the only form of accommodation available to them, the lack of clarity or

communication regarding their placements and expectations within APs creates a great deal of

uncertainty for them. This resonates with the findings by the CJJI (2008) who noted how many

residents had not known about their release to an AP or found out very close to release. They

suggest that this illustrates the reality of the sentence being served partly in prison and the rest

in the community.

Overall participants’ experiences and practice of the quality of the information provided by

their probation officers about why they had been placed in an AP was insufficient. There were

also vast differences in the information provided to them prior to arrival, particularly about

what they were to expect when they arrived and what would be expected of them whilst they

were there. In discussing why they had been placed in an AP, it was clear some were frustrated

by the lack of knowledge regarding their placement, and some accepted it as another part of

the process they were in. The above represents a risk in terms of facilitating compliance and

reducing the risk of recall for residents: Kemshall and Wood (2007) indicate that those

62

offenders who felt a strong reluctance to comply tended to report a lack of understanding

about the reasons for the restrictions imposed.

Breadth

Introduced by Crewe (2014, 2011), ‘breadth’ is concerned with the dispersal of disciplinary

mechanisms within non-custodial settings, as a sentence does not end for the individual upon

release from prison.

Control beyond prison

Within this dimension there was an emerging theme regarding the opportunities residents had

to establish new lives beyond prison. They often saw the conditions imposed on them by staff

as obstacles to their resettlement:

So on one hand they are saying to us, they want you to be independent; on the other hand ‘we still want to control you’, and it can’t work. (FG5-2) I feel like I’m still being resettled, like he said, there are still some problems with it, it just feels a bit mechanical to be honest with ya. It’s like everything is processed. (FG2-2)

These included restrictions placed on the residents to obtain employment or accommodation:

Because I’ve been told, erm, I’ve done my rail track course when I was in custody PTS so I can get a job on the railway; I’ve been told there’s plenty of jobs out there, but they tend to start you on nights because with the rail tracks it’s so much thousands of pounds a minute to close it down, so they tend to close it down when the trains aren’t going and I’ve been told I’m not allowed to work nights, so if I get a job next week I can’t accept that job because of this place. (FG3-1)

This issue is reflected in Padfield (2013), who found that, whilst many of those interviewed had

the offer of a legitimate job, they had been informed by their probation officers that they were

63

unable to take them, particularly jobs within the construction industry which would require

them to work away. She also found that cost of public transport and having to travel to

appointments problematic. This was also a major issue for the participants across the groups.

Padfield and Maruna (2006) note that there have been numerous calls for reform to prisoner

release/resettlement processes over the last century, given that the process for prisoner

reintegration continues to be complicated. The system of incarceration removes individuals

from their homes, families and legal means of employment; it places them in an environment

where they are surrounded by others in similar circumstances, then they are released with a

discharge grant and colossal stigma. This is similar to residents’ experiences in APs.

The reach and impact of penal sanctions beyond the prison

The courses that they do have here are completely useless, money management, cooking skills, skills for life, you know, there’s certain people in here that have already got them skills... I don’t need them skills, I have already got them skills, but they should be focusing on, especially in a AP like this, is CV building, things like that that are actually going to help you once you leave this establishment. None of it, what we are doing makes sense; I’ve done a drug and alcohol course, I’ve never touched drugs or alcohol in my life but they’ve made me thingy sit and do the course, (FG6-2) I haven’t even met my daughter yet and she is 15 weeks old today because of all these stupid meetings. (FG5-1)

This statement reflects the feelings of many of the participants regarding the unsuitability of

the ‘purposeful activities’ provided within the APs to help reintegrate or rehabilitate them, with

most feeling that such activities were inappropriate for their needs and more of a hindrance

than a help.

64

There were also comments about the location where most participants had been placed. Many

were away from their local communities; however, some participants recognised that it was on

a short-term basis, to avoid negative influences and help them to get their lives on track.

The residents’ aggravations were exacerbated by the fact that they had not been given any

timeframe regarding their length of stay. Overall they remained unhappy with the location of

the APs, highlighting how this affected negatively their ability to maintain family ties and

reintegrate back into their communities. Given the geographical spread of the APs, it was not

always possible to place individuals closer to their homes: for some this would be a result of

geographical exclusions linked to their offending. However, it was unclear how much had been

explained to the participant. It should also be recognized, given the group environment, that

this was something the participants might not feel comfortable sharing.

Similarly to the theme highlighted in tightness, with regard to the ‘grip of a bureaucratic

faceless system’, it was evident for those participants who were subject to MAPPA

management that they had only a vague understand of what this meant. They did not

necessarily know who made decisions or how decisions were made that determined how they

were managed within the community and the subsequent restrictions placed upon them. Their

comments resonate with the findings of Downes (1988:187) about “the extent to which penal

agents continue to exercise supervision over the lives of those released from custody and

beyond normal limits” and with Crewe’s (2014) concept of ‘breadth’. Padfield (2013) asserts

that the MAPPA process sits invisibly behind the probation officer, which they can hide behind

65

to explain difficult decisions. Some prisoners interviewed in her study considered it to be an

important status, having both a positive or negative impact upon them. Padfield further notes

that, given the nature of intelligence discussed at MAPPA, it is not possible to share information

with the offender; however, the lack of openness and transparency can be counterproductive.

There was a common view across the groups about the impersonal nature of the process of

assessment. They saw it as a something of a ‘paper exercise’, with information being ‘pulled

through’ from previous assessments, providing little opportunity to illustrate any positive

changes that have occurred. This view was strongest amongst those participants who had

served lengthy or several custodial sentences. Padfield (2013) refers to prisoners from her

study commenting on the dominance of statistical risk predictions, such as OASYS. This was also

a common theme amongst the focus groups. Crewe (2011) refers to the fact that paperwork of

various forms plays a pivotal role in shaping sentences and aiding decision-making within the

prison, which is continued within the community.

Sentence not ending

Further components of ‘breadth’ related strongly to the comments from most participants

about not being free. Most recognized that they were still serving their sentence within the

community and as a result were more accepting of the restrictions that they had, whilst others

were not as accepting:

What some people do forget, you know, ‘cause they they finished their sentences they are not free... just means being released from custody but they haven’t finished their sentence; we are actually still serving our sentences. I am on licence, I am not free, I haven’t finished my sentence till next year, so I got to abide by certain things and

66

whatever I’m told, I’ve been released... but you’re not ‘cause you’re still serving your sentence. everyone thinks once you’re released that’s your lot, but it’s not is it? (FG1-P4)

As highlighted in the dimension of ‘depth’, the mechanisms of control and security result in the

participants facing barriers in maintaining relationships with other residents, family and friends

in several ways, such as curfews, attendance on ‘purposeful activities’ programmes, and the

location of the premises:

Well, you are restricted in terms of the places you can go and stuff like that, some of the pubs down here have banned you from the pub, they don’t want anybody from here in the pub. (FG1-3) Researcher: but how would they know that you are from here? You’re a stranger in the area. (FG1-2)

The impact of community response as a component of the ‘breadth’ of their imprisonment

featured very strongly for one AP in particular, but was an issue identified across several

groups. The comment from FG1-3 indicates that the mere mention of the address presented a

barrier for residents, as it identified where they were living and the fact that they had a criminal

history. This is something that may not be recognised as an issue when it comes to

rehabilitation and integration into society. NOMs state that “another common use of APs is to

help offenders to reintegrate into the community” (2014:11). However, due to local community

tensions some APs can introduce more specific local restrictions and as a result may implement

local movement restrictions or daytime curfews in response to public concerns. The non-

association condition to which the participants referred, and explored under the dimension of

tightness, were highlighted by the groups as a matter of confusion. Some found that this

67

restriction increased their risk of further social isolation, particularly those for whom other

residents within the AP were the only forms of social support they had.

Overall, it was evident that ‘depth’ and ‘tightness’ were the most dominant pains experienced;

however, the participants appeared to be rather resilient in coping with all the pains identified.

It was apparent to those who wanted to move on and establish a life in the community away

from the gaze of monitoring and control that they would have to put up with the restrictions.

Most accepted that this was their life until their licence supervision expired. They expressed a

sense of hopelessness that little could be done to change their current situation. Once they left

the AP environment they would have an opportunity to lead a relatively normal life. There was

a strong sense of camaraderie and support between the residents in all of the groups, looking

out for each other, certainly for those with health issues, taking the newer and younger

residents under their wing to show them the ropes. There was a sense of ‘them and us’

between residents and staff, which related to the more authoritarian element of staff roles in

terms of monitoring curfews and their power with regard to decisions on warnings and

ultimately recall.

68

Chapter 5 Conclusion

I’m still in prison, but breathing fresh air, that’s the only difference really. (FG3-3)

Overall the findings of this study suggest that there are ‘pains of residency’ present within the

AP environment, predominantly ‘depth’ and ‘tightness’. This concluding section will summarise

the study’s main findings with regard to the following research questions:

1. Is an AP more like a prison than we think due to the constraints and focus on control, surveillance and risk management?

The participants in the study strongly indicated that they found an AP similar to, if not the same

as, being in prison. APs were strongly associated within the pain of ‘depth’ and the high levels

of security, monitoring and restrictions the AP residents encountered on a daily basis. CCTV,

signing in and out and the levels of checks that staff conducted, reinforced this feeling.

Participants frequently described APs as being ‘like a cat D prison’. Some commented that it

was worse because of the increased levels of surveillance and restrictions. Some said they

would prefer to be in prison. King and McDermott (1995) noted the shift towards greater

security category D prisons, which suggests the high levels of security and control that the men

experienced in APs.

Cherry and Cheston (2006) highlight that the use of technology in monitoring and surveillance

means that staff retreat to an office, opting to observe behaviour from afar, thus minimising

interaction with the residents. This can also have the secondary impact with residents adapting

their behaviour to ensure that it is not captured on CCTV. The feelings from the participants of

69

‘big brother watching’ indicated a high level of awareness regarding their behaviour and the

ability to allow staff to observe only that behaviour they wanted them to see. NOMs (2014)

recognise that APs provide an artificial environment which will produce information only on

how the resident behaves in AP conditions. This could be a limitation of its contribution to the

risk assessment process, given that it is likely that the individual will behave better or worse in

the community once they have moved away from the surveillance and restrictions placed upon

them by staff.

2. If so, how do the ‘pains of imprisonment’, weight, tightness, depth and breadth translate to the experiences for residents within an AP?

All participants in the study experienced ‘pains of residency’ to varying degrees. Listwan et al

(2011) argue that the ‘pains’ of imprisonment affects psychological wellbeing negatively. It is a

matter for further consideration how the experiences within an AP affect residents

psychologically. Although no specific psychological measures were taken, comments from the

residents about ‘treading on egg shells’ and the anxiety that this provoked at the thought of

being late for curfews or facing the threat of recall clearly suggest the psychological burden that

the environment can generate. It has been suggested that the coercive nature of attendance at

‘purposeful activities’ may limit their effectiveness. The research participants indicated that

these ‘purposeful activities’ or interventions had little effect upon them, and for most restricted

their time with family or opportunities to make the connections with society that NOMs refer

to. In considering factors associated with desistence, Maruna (2011) indicates that families,

jobs or age cannot change a person who does not want to make the effort to change, with the

individual needing to make a purposeful decision to find work to sustain the bonds of

desistence. A majority of the participants felt that that being in an AP impinged on their ability

70

to sustain these bonds, being blocked by the restrictions placed on them via AP rules and

restrictions.

It is clear that residents struggle with the level of control that staff have over their lives whilst

within APs. This contributes to the weight or burden of living in APs. From participants’

comments, it would appear that an AP feels like a semi-penal institution rather than a

rehabilitative one, which suggests that APs are more like a prison within the community.

However, the feedback from some participants highlighted that there is the potential to form

positive working relationships with staff.

3. Do any of these factors impinge upon the residents’ perception of their ability to rehabilitate?

There is evidence to suggest from these findings that experiences of the ‘pains’ will likely

impede an individual’s capacity to move forward and reintegrate into the community. Within

the dimension of tightness, the participants appeared resigned to the fact that their lives were

‘on hold’ whilst they were in the AP. They felt they had little ability to move forwards whilst

they were subjected to such high levels of restrictions and control. Communication from staff,

in particular their probation officers, about the AP environment would help to alleviate some of

these ‘pains’. Residents would know in advance what to expect and what would be expected

from them upon their arrival. This may assist with their understanding of and adaptation to the

environment they will encounter. Some comments from the participants of not feeling free, or

expecting that the AP would be like a halfway house, where they would be afforded more

freedom, indicate the confusion regarding the role of the AP. In narrating desistence, Maruna

(1999) refers to ex-offenders attributing their lifestyle change usually to the generosity of

71

forgiving or unforgiving persons who could overlook their past mistakes and allow the ex-

offender to finally become their ‘true self’ (a good or not criminal person). With this in mind,

the restrictive nature of APs, which serves as a symbolic, physical and psychological reminder to

residents of their offences, is unlikely to encourage such changes.

It cannot be overlooked that APs continue to serve a critical function in protecting the public

from offenders who pose the highest levels of serious risk. However, this presents a conflict of

interest to some extent between the AP’s role of enforcer and that of providing rehabilitative

assistance. It is time for APs to define their purpose clearly within the criminal justice system

and to remove any ambiguity or misconceptions, to reassert themselves for what they appear

to have become, a semi-penal institution within the community. By doing this, residents would

gain a clear understanding of what they are to expect, and the way is open to NOMs to

implement processes and to put protective factors in place to recognise and address the pains

residents are likely to experience. This way, residents will have a clear understanding of what

they are to expect, with NOMs having the ability to implement processes and protective factors

to address the pains they are likely to experience. In this instance a tool similar to the

Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) (Liebling et al, 2011) could be developed to

measure the quality of life in APs.

Given the distribution of the sample size, it may not be sufficient to form generalisations nor to

make assumptions that the views generated from the focus groups are experienced by the AP

resident population overall. A further caveat would need to be attached to these findings, given

72

that the regimes and fabric of the environments vary widely across the AP estate. These, along

with other factors, will serve as significant influences to shape residents’ perceptions of their

experiences within an AP. The themes and views obtained were from a sample size that

consisted predominantly of white males. Given that only two residents from B1 ethnic

backgrounds participated, it is difficult to ascertain whether their experiences of AP may be

different.

It is hoped that this study will encourage further research on the impact of the ‘pains’ within

this environment and contribute to wider theoretical knowledge regarding the transferability of

the ‘pains’ to environments other than prison for which they were originally formulated. Given

that this study was conducted with a limited sample size of AP residents, it would be beneficial

to conduct future research on a larger scale to discover whether the ‘pains’ are prevalent across

the wider AP estate. There would also be merit in conducting research for specific minority

groups within the criminal justice system, such as women and ethnic minorities, to highlight any

similarities or differences. A greater focus upon the rehabilitative aspects of APs would also be

beneficial to discover their potential within a more controlled and coercive environment.

73

References

Bachman, R. and Schutt. R., (2011). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice,

4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Barbour, R. (2012). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage Publications.

Barry, K. J. (1991). Probation Hostels and Their Regimes: A Comparative Study. Institute of

Criminology: University of Cambridge.

Brookman, F. (2010). ‘Beyond the Interview: complementing and validating accounts of

incarcerated violent offenders’. In Bernasco, W. (ed.). Offenders on Offending: Learning

about crime from criminals. Cullompton: Willian Publishing.

Burnett, R., Baker, K. and Roberts, C. (2007). ‘Assessment, Supervision and Intervention:

Fundamental Practice in Probation.’ In Gelsthorpe, L. and Morgan, R. (eds.). The Probation

Handbook. Cullompton: Willan.

Burnett, R. and Eaton, G. (2004) Factors Associated with effective practice in Approved

Premises: A literature review. Home Office Online Report 65/04. Home Office: London.

Carter, P. (2003). Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach. London: Home Office.

Cherry , S. and Cheston, L. (2006). ‘Towards a Model Regime for Approved Premises.’ Probation

Journal 53: 248-264.

Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of Social Control. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Connelly, C. and Williamson, S. (2000). A Review of the Research Literature on Serious Violent

and Sexual Offenders. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Cowe, F. (2008). ‘From Probation Hostels to Approved Premises: A Rehabilitative Thermometer

– Where Next?’. In Senior, P. (ed.). Moments in Probation, Celebrating the Century of

Probation. Crayford: Shaw and Sons Ltd.

Crewe, B. (2009). The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaption and Social Life in an English Prison.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crewe. B. (2011). ‘Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisting the pains of imprisonment’. Punishment

and Society 13: 509-529.

74

Crewe, B. (2014) Inside the Belly of the Penal Beast: Understanding the experience of

imprisonment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2008). Probation Hostels: Control, Help and Change? A Joint

Inspection of Probation Approved Premises. Joint Inspection by HMI Probation, HMI Prisons

and HMI Constabulary. HMI Probation: London.

Crouch, B. M. (1993). ‘Is Incarceration Really Worse: Analysis of offenders’ preferences for

prison over probation’. Justice Quarterly, 10(1): 67-88.

Day, A., Tucker, K. and Howells, K. (2004). ‘Coerced Offender Rehabilitation – a defensible

practice?’ Psychology, Crime and Law 1: 259-269.

Downes, D. (1988). Contrasts in Tolerance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Feeley. M. M. and Simon. J. (1992). ‘The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of

Corrections and its Implications’. Criminology. Vol 30 (4): 449-474.

Fisher, R. and Wilson, C. (1982). Authority or Freedom? London: Gower.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, D. F.(1977). "’The Correctional Effects of Corrections: A Survey of Evaluations'. In

Greenberg, D. F. (ed), Corrections and Punishment. Sage Criminal Justice System Annuals,

Vol. 8, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gunn, J. and Robertson, G. (2000). ‘An Evaluation of Grendon Prison’. In Shine, J. (ed.), HMP

Grendon: A Compilation of Grendon Research. Grendon Underwood: HMP Grendon.

Gurney, J. N. (1991) ‘Female Researchers in Male-Dominated Settings’. In M. Pogrebin (ed.)

(2002). Qualitative Approaches to Criminal Justice: Perspectives from the Field. London:

Sage.

Harris, R. J. (1977). ‘The Probation Officer as Social Worker’. British Journal of Social Work 7(4):

433-442.

Haxby, D. (1978). Probation: A Changing Service. London: Constable.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (1993). Approved Probation and Bail Hostel, Report of a

Thematic Inspection.

75

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (2007). ‘Not Locked up but Subject to Rules’; An inquiry

into managing offenders in Approved Premises (hostels)’ following the Panorama

programme broadcast on 8 November 2006. COI.

Home Office (1962). Second Report of the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service

(The Morrison Report), Cmnd. 1800, London: HMSO.

Home Office (1988). Punishment, Custody and the Community. CMD.424 HMSO 1988.

Home Office (1990). Supervision and Punishment in the Community. HMSO 1990.

Home Office (1995). National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community.

London: Home Office.

Kemshall, H. (2008). Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders. Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.

Kemshall, H. and Wood, J. (2007). ‘High Risk Offenders and Public Protection’. In Gelsthorpe, L.

and Morgan, R. (eds), Handbook of Probation. Cullompton: Willan.

King, R. and McDermott, K. (1995). The State of Our Prisons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Liebling, A., Hulley, S. and Crewe, B. (2011). ‘Conceptualising and Measuring the Quality of

Prison Life’, in Gadd, D., Karstedt, S. and Messner, S. F. (eds) Sage Handbook of

Criminological Research Methods. London: Sage.

Listwan, S. J., Sullivan, C, J., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T. and Colvin, M. (2011). ‘The Pains of

Imprisonment Revisted: The Impact of Strain on Inmate Recidivism’. Justice Quarterly 30(1):

144-168.

Loney, K., Peaden, A., Wallace, J. and Stephens, K. (2000). Pro-social Modeling: Report on

implementation in hostels. London: National Probation Service.

Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. London: Routledge.

Maruna. S. (1999). Desistance and Development: ‘The Psychosocial Process of “Going Straight”’.

British Society of Criminology 2: 1-25.

Maruna. S. (2011). ‘Reentry as a Rite of Passage’. Punishment & Society 13 (1): 3-28.

Milne, C. (2005). ‘Overseeing Research: Ethics and the Institutional Review Board [33

paragraphs], 6 (1), Art. 41.

76

Mishler, E. G. (1991) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Moran, D. (2012). ‘Prisoner Reintegration and the Stigma of Prison Time Inscribed on the Body’.

Punishment and Society 14(5): 564-583.

Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Qualitative Research

Methods Series. Vol. 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Offender Management Service (2013). Service Specification for Approved Premises:

Public Protection Regimes. National Offender Management Service: London.

National Offender Management Service, (2014). Probation Instruction 32/2014, Annex A.

National Offender Management Service: London.

National Probation Directorate (2005). National Standards 2005. London: Home Office.

Nellis, M. and Chui, W. H. (eds) (2003). Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Arguments and

Practice. Harlow: Longman.

Owen, T. (2007). ‘Culture of Crime Control: Through a Post-Foucauldian Lens’. Internet Journal

of Criminology. Accessed at: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/.

Padfield, N. (2013). Understanding Recall 2011. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper

No.2/2013. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law.

Padfield, N. and Maruna, S. (2006). ‘The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate: Exploring the

dramatic increase in recalls to prison’. Criminology and Criminal Justice 6:329-352.

Petersilia, J. and Deschenes, E. P. (1994a). ‘Perceptions of Punishment: Inmates and staff rank

severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions’. Prison Journal 74(3): 306-329.

Petersilla.J and Turner, S. (1993). ‘Intensive Probation and Parole’. In M. Tonry (ed.) Crime and

Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 19, pp. 281-335. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Pratt, J. and Bray. , K. (1985). ‘Bail Hostels – alternatives to custody’? British Journal of

Criminology 25(2): 160-171.

Reeves, C. (2011). ‘The Changing Role of Probation Hostels: Voices from the inside’. British

Journal of Community Justice 9(3): 51-64.

77

Robinson, G. (2008). ‘Late-modern Rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy’.

Punishment & Society 10(4): 429-445.

Robinson. N. (1999). ‘The Use of Focus Group Methodology- – with selected examples from

sexual health research’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 29(4): 905-913.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practioner-

Research. Second Edition2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rose, N. (1996). ‘Governing Advanced Liberal Democracies’, in Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose,

N. (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of

Government. London: University College London Press.

Rottman, E. (1990). ‘Beyond Punishment: A New View on the Rehabilitation of Criminal

Offenders’. Contributions in Criminology and Penology, Issue 26. Evesham: Greenwood

Press.

Shammas, V.L (2014). ‘The Pains of Freedom: Assessing the ambiguity of Scandinavian penal

exceptionalism on Norway’s Prison Island’, Punishment & Society 16(1): 104-123.

Sinclair, I. (1971). Hostels for Probationers: A study of the aims, working and variations in

effectiveness of male probation hostels with special reference to the influence of

environment on delinquency. Home Office Research Studies No. 6, London: HMSO.

Smith. B. (2008). The Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders in England and Wales:

Philosophical Justifications and Current Practice. Clare College: Cambridge University.

Cambridge.

Spellman, W. (1995). ‘The Severity of Intermediate Sanctions’. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 32(2): 107-135.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., and Dillion, L. (2003). Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A

Framework for assessing research evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher’s

Office. London.

Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Turnbull, S. and Hanah-Moffat, K. (2009) ‘Under These Conditions: Gender, parole and the

governance of reintegration’. British Journal of Criminology 49(4): 532-551.

78

Van Kalmthout, A. M. and Durnescu, I. (2008). European Probation Service Systems: A

Comparative Overview. Nijmegen: aOLf Legal Publishers.

Wood, D. (ed). (2006). A Report on the Surveillance Society. London: The Information

Commissioner.

Worrall, A. (1997). Punishment in the Community: The Future of Criminal Justice. New York:

Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.

79

Appendices

80