Legitimacy on Licence: Why and How it Matters
| Author | KEIR IRWIN‐ROGERS |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12191 |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12191
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 53–71
Legitimacy on Licence: Why and
How it Matters
KEIR IRWIN-ROGERS
Lecturer in Criminology, Open University
Abstract: People leaving prison typically face numerous barriers to successful reinte-
gration – a situation reflected by high reoffending rates in many countries throughout
the world. To support people to overcome these barriers, criminal justice systems often
provide some form of post-custodial supervision. Based on a multisite ethnographic
study, this article provides an insight into post-custodial supervision in England and
Wales. It introduces a novel theoretical framework for understanding the dynamics
of supervisory relationships, which at its core distinguishes between legitimacy based
on processes and legitimacy based on outcomes. While both sources of legitimacy are
desirable, the former is particularly important because the latter is largely dependent
upon it. In short, constructive relationships between licencees and supervisors fail to
develop when processes are neglected, which, in turn, prevents probation and hostel
workers from fulfilling their supervisory roles effectively.
Keywords: legitimacy; licence; offender supervision; post-custody; probation;
reintegration
The period during which people leave prison and return to the commu-
nity is very often a difficult time of transition. People released from prison
typically face numerous obstacles to successful reintegration, including a
lack of access to suitable housing, financial insecurity, challenges around
rebuilding familial and personal relationships, a problematic history
of drug and alcohol dependency, and a ‘colossal stigma’ (Padfield and
Maruna 2006, p.337; Petersilia 2003; Travis and Crayton 2009; Travis
and Petersilia 2001). Reoffending rates partly reflect this grim reality in
England and Wales, as elsewhere. The latest data show a 34% proven re-
offending rate for people serving determinate sentences of twelve months
or more within a one-year follow-up period, and a significantly higher
reconviction rate of 60% for those serving sentences of less than twelve
months (Ministry of Justice 2016b). To support people to reintegrate into
the community and reduce rates of reoffending, all people leaving prison
in England and Wales are subject to at least twelve months post-custodial
supervision; for some, depending on the length of the prison term, this
supervision period can be considerably longer (Padfield 2016).
53
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol56 No 1. March 2017
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 53–71
As indicated by previous research, the success of sanctions implemented
in the community often turns on the quality of relationships between
offenders and their supervisors who are responsible for implementing
these sanctions (Burnett and McNeill 2005; Mair and Mills 2009; McIvor
1992; Raynor,Ugwudike and Vanstone 2014; Shapland et al. 2012; Weaver
and Barry 2014; Wood et al. 2015). In short, this seems to be because
positive supervisory relationships elicit compliance with licence conditions
and enable supervisors to provide help with practical issues such as
accommodation, employment, education, training, and drug and alcohol
treatment, as well as advice and support around relationships with family
and friends. In addition, the success of prosocial modelling techniques
used by supervisors in England and Wales is largelydependent on positive
relationships between offenders and their supervisors (McCulloch 2010;
Trotter 2009). While much of the research that highlights the centrality of
supervisory relationships focuses on community sanctions as opposed to
post-custodial supervision (which is technically a component of a sentence
of immediate imprisonment), in reality, the content and implementation
of the licence period closely parallels that of a community sanction.
Given the central role of supervisory relationships to successful reset-
tlement, it is important to understand how constructive relationships are
established and maintained, as well as the reasons why some supervisory
relationships break down. To this end, this article has a twofold purpose:
first, to provide an insight into the dynamics of supervisory relationships
by presenting the findings of an empirical study into post-custodial
supervision in England and Wales; and second, to introduce a theoretical
framework for better understanding these supervisory relationships. The
theoretical framework is based on the concept of legitimacy and was devel-
oped using an adaptive theory approach to data collection and analysis –
an approach that constitutes a middle way between pure forms of inductive
and deductive reasoning (Layder 1998). The framework distinguishes
between two main sources of supervisor legitimacy: legitimacy based on
the procedures used by supervisors, and legitimacy based on the outcomes
for which supervisors are responsible, as perceived by those on licence.
I argue that licencees’ perceptions of procedure-based legitimacy are
fundamentally important, since they form the basis for constructive super-
visory relationships. In turn, these relationships are integral to the pursuit
of positive outcomes, whether these relate to employment, education,
personal relationships, general well-being, or desistance from offending.
Post-custodial Supervision in England and Wales
The origins of post-custodial supervision in England and Wales can be
traced back to the 19th Century, when people leaving prison were offered
help on a voluntary basis from a small number of Discharged Prisoners’
Aid Societies (Maguire et al. 2000). It was not until the 1990s, however,that
parliament made post-custodial supervision mandatory for large numbers
of released prisoners under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act
1991 (Maguire, Peroud and Raynor 1996). The number of people subject
54
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial