Staff-resident relationships in Approved Premises
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Keir Irwin-Rogers |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517728785 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Staff-resident
relationships in
Approved Premises:
What a difference
a door makes
Keir Irwin-Rogers
Open University, UK
Abstract
Whilst the majority of people released from prison in England and Wales return to
private places of residence, a significant minority are required to live in Approved
Premises as part of their post-custodial licence conditions. The purpose of this paper is
twofold: first, it provides an insight into life inside Approved Premises. This subject
has largely been neglected in research to date, despite Approved Premises being
important sites of supervision for many people leaving prison. Second, it explores the
quality and dynamics of supervisory relationships between members of hostel staff and
residents. Based on fieldwork in two Approved Premises, the findings indicate that,
although formally equivalent, people subject to penal sanctions may experience and
view these sanctions in markedly different ways. Seemingly innocuous variation in
policies and practices at a local level, such as open or closed staff office door policies
in Approved Premises, can in fact play a pivotal role in the facilitation or hindrance
of constructive supervisory relationships, in shaping rehabilitative regimes, and ulti-
mately in supporting people’s successful transitions from prisons to the community.
Keywords
Approved Premises, probation, licence, supervision, relationships, desistance,
rehabilitation
Corresponding Author:
Keir Irwin-Rogers, Open University, Room 115, Gardiner Building 2, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK.
Email: keir.irwin-rogers@open.ac.uk
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2017, Vol. 64(4) 388–404
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517728785
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
Introduction
Most people released from prison in England and Wales return to private places of
residence. Some, however, as part of their post-custodial licence conditions, are
required to live in Approved Premises (APs; also referred to as ‘hostels’ throughout
this paper). With a combined capacity of over 2000 bed spaces situated over more
than 100 sites across England and Wales, APs play an important role in the rein-
tegration of thousands of people leaving prison every year (National Approved
Premises Association, 2016; Stevens et al., 2011). Whilst they have a long and
varied history, APs are now primarily reserved for those people leaving prison
whom the National Probation Service (NPS) considers to pose a high risk of serious
harm to the public. Although the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda
has introduced sweeping changes across the penal estate (Burke and Collett,2016),
APs remain relatively unaffected, at least for the time being, with no noticeable
change to their practical functioning or purpose within the criminal justice system
(Williams, 2016).
The primary purpose of APs remains the provision of an enhanced level of
supervision of people leaving custody, which aims to reduce reoffending
and better protect the public (National Approved Premises Association, 2016).
However, it is worth noting that professionals working in the AP estate have
reported a perceived shift in residents’ ‘mood and motivation’ in recent years,
attributed in part to increasing frustration at not being able to access meaningful
rehabilitation in custody; the prevalence of drug use, particularly regarding legal
highs; and greater diffic ulties in accessing benefits upon leaving prison ( Williams,
personal communication).
Unlike prisons, the term for a resident’s private space in APs is a ‘room’, not a
‘cell’. During daytime hours, residents are free to enter and leave the AP as they
please. Yet, unlike other people who live in their own accommodation whilst
subject to a post-custodial licence, hostel residents are subject to a number of
additional conditions that place further restrictions on their liberty. These include
the requirement for residents to remain in the building during curfew hours, to take
drug and alcohol tests on request, to allow staff to search private rooms and
personal belongings, to undertake reasonable activities related to the running
and upkeep of the AP, and to ‘behave in a way that is not violent, threatening,
disruptive, racist, sexist or in any way offensive or prejudiced’ (Ministry of Justice,
2014).
With no bars on the doors and no guards to physically coerce residents into
compliance, the effective functioning of APs depends primarily on the voluntary
cooperation of the residents. ‘Success’ in its most basic sense, therefore, might
constitute a licensee completing their AP residency period and moving on to a
further place of residence without being recalled to custody for licence breach or
having their bed withdrawn due to a breach of AP rules. Defined in these terms,
successful move-on rates vary both across geographic regions and over time; in
Manchester, for example, AP success rates increased from 57 per cent in 2008–9 to
76 per cent in 2012–13 (Williams, 2016).
Irwin-Rogers 389
To continue reading
Request your trial