A Home for Christmas: Leaving Prison amidst a National Housing Crisis

Helen Kosc

Helen is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Oxford, Department of Sociology. For the last 18 months, Helen has conducted a long-term and large-scale ethnographic study of prison resettlement. She has shadowed the resettlement journeys of 150 men released from one, local category B prison over the course of 1.5 years. In both her participant observation and her qualitative, sequential interviews with the men, she hears men saying time and time again:

In here, at least I’m a number. Out there I am no one.

There is nothing for me to look forward to out there. I’d rather be in here.

I’ll do anything, anything to get me back inside the warm for a few nights.

She writes this piece, not as a work of fiction, but as a true story. Rather, as a culmination of 150 true stories. Heartbreaking, almost unbelievable, but all true. Behind her text and her summary are the men’s voices, thoughts, sentiments.

Inspired by her most recent conversation with a prison leaver who told her “I would rather be here for Christmas”, Helen hopes that through this short, thought-provoking piece, you reflect on the men and women released homeless from prison, wishing for a home for Christmas.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

You are released amidst a national housing and cost of living crisis in this country. On any given night in England this year, there are an estimated 309,550 people and 72,320 households experiencing homelessness. This number, including 123,000 children, is a 14% jump from last year alone.

4 in 10 adults in Great Britain are reporting a difficulty affording their rent and mortgage payments, average house prices in cities like Oxford are a soaring 18 times the UK average yearly household income, and the number of available social housing units is at a remarkable low – the lowest rate in decades.

You are released during a time where divestment in social homes and care for the vulnerable in this country is at an all-time low. With food prices become unaffordable, the hope of a roof over your head unimaginable, and the chances of getting a job in this economy with a criminal record near-impossible, poor timing, you think to yourself as your release date approaches.

Research shows financial crises and periods of austerity ‘disproportionately affect the marginalized and the vulnerable’[1] you’re not one for academic studies, but this one seems pretty true to you.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

You are not alone, in a country that incarcerates more individuals than any other country in Western Europe, you are part of an ever-growing prison population. The prison population in England and Wales has risen by 80% in the last 30 years, and you’re currently part of an 80,659 individuals, expected to rise by another 7,400 by early 2024.

With 61% of you committing a non-violent offence and 2 in 5 serving six months or less, you are not the only prison leaver coming out homeless this cold and chilling December. 

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

Historically studies have consistently shown that housing upon release can significantly reduce reoffending by at least 20%, with those having accommodation arranged being four times more likely to gain meaningful employment, education and training [2]. The research is not in your favor.

More than three-quarters (79%) of prison leavers in your position – homeless upon release – are reconvicted within the first year of release. This is compared to the 48% of general prison leavers who return in one year, and one-third who return in one month.

The statistics are not in your favor.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

So what are your options?

Council housing? There is a current wait list of 2780 people on your council’s housing registrar and a wait time of 10-20 years.

Rough sleeping? Where you’re at elevated risk of developing respiratory disease, dental problems, skin diseases, asthma, bronchitis, epilepsy, and have a higher likelihood of experiencing heart problems, stroke, diabetes, anxiety, severe depression, suicidal tendencies, self-harming behavior and violent and/or sexual assault [3]. 

Sofa surfing? Categorized as a ‘hidden homelessness’[4] that actually effects 8 times as many people as rough sleeping [5]. A state of ‘permanent impermanence’ where you lack privacy and personal space, and are often forced to rely on the very same contacts you hope to – and the ones desistence textbooks urge you to – avoid.

So whether you hope you are deemed ‘priority’ need and offered a spot in temporary council accommodation, have a means of securing a floor or sofa to sleep on with an old acquaintance you hope you can trust, or are going to try to find somewhere quiet (and hopefully safe) to sleep on the streets, you are going to be homeless.[6] Each ‘choice’ is temporary and not ideal, each requires taking on its own unique set of risks. Not much of a choice really. Is prison still an option?

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

Where am I going to sleep tonight? Who do I still know in the area? Who owes me a favor? What can I eat for less than £1.50 these days? How cold is it going to be? Do I need a blanket? Will I be safe? When I run out of money, how will I eat? What supermarket will be easiest to steal from?

Of all the questions going through your mind as you walk through the prison gates, the question of whether or not to desist from crime is likely not of much importance. But, in subtle and nuanced ways, it lingers behind every question above.

To desist or not desist? Or better yet, to desist but for how long? Until night 5 on the street? Until you’re starving and out of money? Until you get a bottle smashed over your head while sleeping on the streets? Until you get assaulted by your neighbor in council housing? Until your only option left is to stay at an abusive ex partner’s? Until you are thrown out of the hospital bed for ‘abusing’ the services?

Desisting from crime, like any other behavioral change, is active and effortful – not just a passive event that takes place overnight. It is a negotiation that takes place every single day – not to pick up that drink, not to ingest that substance, not to call up an old friend, not to visit that ex-partner, not to resort to theft when your stomach is rumbling, not to breakdown when you’re sleeping on the streets. It is an active decision made every day to take one more step away from the ‘old version’ of yourself until he or she is eventually abandoned altogether.

However, when no new friends exist, when alcohol is the only way to make your concrete bed comfortable, when your prescription runs out and drugs are the only escape from your inner demons, when you’ve been rejected from council housing and received yet another ‘no’ from a job application, the negotiation becomes more challenging.

You are a prison leaver released to Southeast England in December 2023 without a place to stay.

And while some prison leavers will manage to stick it out, at the cost of their mental, physical, or social wellbeing, many will not. Many will return to prison. And those that return to prison will have to face the same choices again the next time they are released; and the next time; and the next time…until we dramatically change the housing landscape and resettlement policy in this country.

So at some point, starving, freezing and abandoned, you decide you cannot survive another night in the cold. You know of men who have self-harmed to ‘buy’ a night or two in a hospital bed, but one or two nights doesn’t feel like enough for you. You dawn your balaclava and enter your exclusion zone, waiting, hoping, to get caught. I’ll be home for Christmas, you think, as you’re handcuffed and walked over to the police car. I’ll have a home for Christmas, you repeat to yourself as you are driven to the prison gates. And surely enough, the next day as you awake in a warm bed, with a roof over your head, a cellmate, and three meals a day, you knew your Christmas wish had come true.

---

[1] Stubbs et al., 2022; Armando, 2021; Hastings et al., 2017

[2] Niven & Stewart, 2005

[3] Crisis, 2012; Theodorou & Johnsen, 2017; Homeless Link, 2014; Keogh et al., 2015; Brett et al., 2014; Bines, 1994; Beijer et al., 2016; Lewer at el., 2019.

[4] Minich et al., 2011; Peters, 2012; Crawley et al., 2013; Findlay et al., 2013; Mayock and Corr, 2013; Elwell-Sutton et al., 2017; Mayock and Parker, 2019

[5] Fitzpatrick et al., 2021; Barton & Wilson, 2021

[6] Reeve & Batty, 2011

About the author

Helen Kosc is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Oxford, Department of Sociology. For her Doctoral research, Helen is conducting a long-term and large-scale ethnographic study of prison resettlement, shadowing the resettlement journeys of 150 prison-leavers over 18 month.

Contact

@HelenKosc

www.linkedin.com/in/helen-kosc-561b9a149/

www.helenkosc.com

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the British Society of Criminology or the institution they work for.

‘Social Justice Research: Making change happen?’

A Report on the BSC Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Group Meeting – 8th March 2023, Sheffield Hallam University.

I’d like to start by thanking Sheffield Hallam for collaborating with us and supporting the event and particularly to Dr Alex Black. The theme of the day’s discussion was social justice practice: making change happen. As researchers working in universities, we are encouraged to look beyond the walls of institutions, to seek out collaborations and to work with practitioners, policymakers, and service users to help understand problems, explore new initiatives and we hope to make change in our sphere of criminological practice. However, whilst such endeavours offer a significant amount of opportunity, they are not without their challenges and the set of papers presented at this workshop draw on scholars attempts to and reflections upon on how we as researchers work to change, make impact with or influence a whole range of organisations that operate within our field of criminology and criminal justice. 

We opened the day with a fascinating panel showcasing the extensive research in the field of Probation by colleagues at Sheffield Hallam. Entitled ‘Dealing with defensiveness: managing the challenges and pushing for policy changes in probation’, each paper on the panel reflected research on the following themes: deaths after probation (Jake Phillips), desistance focused practice (Sam Ainslie), emotional labour in probation work (Chalen Westaby, Sam Ainslie, Andrew Fowler and Jake Phillips), and working with people with sexual convictions and emotional labour in probation work (Andrew Fowler, Madhumita Pandey, Charlotte Oliver). Collectively these papers reflected on the challenges and tensions of working to seek change, even when there is recognition that change, or reform needs to occur. The starting point for research is often the identification of some kind of weakness in the system or way of operating and this generates tension between the researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Each panel member discussed their own experiences of undertaking such research which has been met – to varying degrees – with resistance from policymakers and other interested stakeholders but also reflected upon the ways in which to break down defensiveness, approach difficulties and work with the challenges this presents.

Alex Black (SHU) presented research undertaken with Vicky Heap (SHU) on attempting to secure support for anti-social behaviour policy reform from national stakeholders. She discussed the problem of street homelessness, and this was increasingly being impacted by anti-social behaviour tools and powers within the use of Public Spaces Protection Orders. This paper drew attention to the myriad of actors and range of ‘policing’ bodies involved in the regulation of such civil orders enforced by local authorities.  The purpose of the research was to shape guidance in this field, to ensure that where powers were used, they were not being used disproportionately and to encourage cross-partner agreements on the most productive and least harmful practices surrounded the use of such orders.

Kirsty Teague (Derby) picked up on some of the themes raised by the earlier paper in discussing ‘barriers to and recommendations for, evidence-informed ‘change’ in researching and collaboratively working with men who have a sexual conviction’.  She explored the contentious nature of working with or researching people who have a sexual conviction but the importance and necessity of this in working toward preventing such offences or reoffences in the future.  Teague discussed the increasing number of barriers/challenges to doing this work which can then threaten preventative and rehabilitative efforts. She also drew on her experiences as a Trustee of the Safer Living Foundation – a charity which is focused on reducing sexual offending and re-offending through rehabilitative and preventative initiatives, and how these challenges impact upon those with a sexual conviction and stifling for those pushing for ‘change’ in this field. Drawing upon the importance of public criminology and social justice she offered recommendations for change to some of the barriers to well-meaning change.

Sarah Tatton (SHU) drew on one aspect of her research on police responses to coercive and controlling behaviour, speaking about the impact of researcher-analyst subjectivity in research with the police and drawing upon her own experiences as a survivor-researcher and someone who has experience of working in domestic violence support services. She discussed her own positionality as well as the need for co-production of material with police officers through interviews and observations of those groups undergoing domestic abuse training and the careful navigation of the balance between academic integrity and trust with participants as the research progresses. To this end she promotes a reflexive and transparent approach, acknowledging multiple ‘selves’, researcher subjectivity and power of academic in constructing ‘knowledge’ in working towards improved police responses to victim-survivors.

The focus of Katy Snell’s (Hull) paper was campaigning groups or charities, a group that has collectively been essential to change in the criminal justice sphere and most importantly to public awareness of a range of harms or injustices. She reflected upon the relationship between academia and campaigning groups and charities within research on crime of the powerful. Often the motivation for such campaigns or charitable organisations is to ensure that the harm caused is not repeated or experienced by anyone else. In the last 30 years various studies of the powerful have worked with such groups and the paper explored the challenges and opportunities for doing so, as well as advocating what a social harm perspective might offer these groups. It also argued that engagement with such groups should not be shied away from to resist the effects of power in the counter-hegemonic struggle (Tombs & Whyte, 2003).

The final paper of the day by Tom Brown (SHU), took us back to probation and drew on current research by ‘prac-academics’ researching and teaching the post-qualifying qualifications in probation. Currently there is a significant gap in recruitment and retention to the Probation Service, but there are also issues relating to diversity as frontline jobs are highly represented by female staff, yet the vast majority of supervisees are male. This research is seeking to illuminate ways into probation and how people become aware of the service as a career aspiration and specifically how this compares to other CJS agencies at FE stage in low socioeconomic areas. Are there gender differences in aspirations to HE and specifically the probation service as a career? What are the barriers that need to be overcome by Sheffield Hallam University to begin to ‘widen participation’ into the probation qualifying route?

The papers provided much food for thought as well as fruitful discussion on how researchers have overcome challenges in this field, how they have developed strategies and approaches to keep discussions with external partners or stakeholders ongoing and have shared tactics for approaching some of this important area of our work. Thank you to all the participants and discussants, the next Yorkshire & Humberside regional group meeting will ne at the University of Hull – dates and theme to follow.

About the author

Helen Johnston, Professor of Criminology, is the current BSC regional group lead for Yorkshire and Humberside and works at the University of Hull.

Contact

Helen Johnston
Professor of Criminology
University of Hull
H.Johnston@hull.ac.uk
@cccjhull

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the British Society of Criminology or the institution they work for.

A Day for Probation

Kyros Hadjisergis

On the 18^th of January 2023, the University of Wolverhampton’s School of Social Science and Humanities (Criminology and Criminal Justice) in association with the British Society of Criminology (BSC) – Midlands Regional Group hosted the Reimagining Probation and the Rehabilitation of Offenders conference at the University of Wolverhampton (City Campus). The conference explored new developments, research, and practices in probation and the rehabilitation of offenders with the aim to celebrate and disseminate recent work undertaken in probation in both academia and practice. The event was open to academics, practitioners, trainees, students, the public, and anyone interested in probation and the rehabilitation of offenders.

A successful event, which many described as a ‘day for probation’, that included a wide range of speakers and topics about current research and practices in probation from ethics, generative justice, and emotional labour to probation objects and insights from senior and frontline probation officers. The conference programme included keynote talks, panel discussions, a roundtable, academic posters, and a proposal for a BSC Probation and Community Justice Network. Delegates also enjoyed the networking opportunity the conference provided as academics as well as practitioners from criminal justice and non-criminal justice agencies were in attendance. Highly praised and fantastic to see were the posters of Wolverhampton Criminology students which showcased their brilliant work and expert knowledge on the topic. The proposal for a BSC Probation and Community Justice Network that the conference timely accommodated was also warmly welcomed and generated overwhelming interest by delegates. It was also invaluable that a roundtable made of senior, frontline, and trainee probation officers based in both custody and community settings was part of the conference. The roundtable provided insights and perspectives from three generations of probation as Amy, Becky, Hayley, Lauren, and Steph from HMPPS raised the voice of unsung aspects of probation through their probation officer experiences (from custody, trainee, and senior perspectives).

On the matter of ethics in probation, Jane Dominey from the University of Cambridge explored the values of the Service and how these have in one respect followed the various phases of Probation in England and Wales, but more recently they now appear rooted in public commitment and accountability in an effort to respond to organisational expectations and defensible decisions. In this context, we were reminded of Care and Control and how probation has always found itself in the middle of this debate. Probation has never solely been about controlling crime, and care ethics aim at a reconciliation where Probation becomes a relational activity, one determined by the supervisory relationship, tailored interventions, and social networks (Dominey and Canton, 2022): a ‘care-full reimagining’ that does not see Care and Control as opposites but rather as synergists trying to do the right thing in a caring way.

This reconciliation may create promising opportunities for Probation, but it also begs the question of what form of justice would be best suited to accommodate this ‘care-full reimagining’. In the conference, Mary Corcoran from Keele University viewed the prospect of generative justice as a harm-focused, forward-looking alternative bridging criminal and social (in)justices. This form of justice thereby commits and invests in the individual and the remaking of relationships in view of a sustainable rebuilding of collective welfare and security. Generative justice in probation then agrees with the ability of people to change but also promotes change that goes beyond the individual and to the core of the Service’s culture and practices. This reintroduces a familiar friend of probation, namely dialogue. The Generative Justice Project in the present context means that communication and participation are core concerns for probation and even more so in its changing, multi-agency landscape, where the much-coveted dialogue rather becomes a ‘multilogue’ among offenders, victims, practitioners, and the community. In the renationalisation phase, this need for shared meanings of justice and desistance founded more in a commitment to relationships than risk assessments thus becomes central to the reimagining of modern probation.

Equally important in the reimagining task is to cast a forgotten player on the probation stage, that is its occupational culture. The enthusiasts of occupational cultures in criminal justice are well aware that probation’s version has regrettably not received the academic attention and interest that cop culture has, and that Mawby and Worral’s report on the matter remains the most noteworthy effort. Andrew Fowler, Tom Brown, and Charlotte Oliver from Sheffield Hallam University are in the course of changing this by what they introduced in the conference as ‘probation in objects’. Probation’s language, socio-penal character, and visibility have long been contested both in public and organisational terms (Robinson, 2016), so the way people understand and think about probation can be instrumental for its future. The images and objects commonly associated with the Service may be telling of public expectations, cultural values, or even personal experiences. This also agrees with how probation is a relational activity and an experiential enterprise that does not take place in a vacuum but rather happens in community with others.

What the conference collectively highlighted then is that a wider window to probation is at stake. This is not only about reconfiguring the meaning of justice in this context, but even long-established probation imperatives, such as rehabilitation, desistance, and emotion. Nicola Carr from the University of Nottingham and Amy Thornton from the Probation Service reminded us of the ‘rehabilitative endeavour’ and the discourse move from rehabilitation to desistance both in academia and practice, and how desistance begins with that communicating of experiences of trauma and attention to personal and social problems (Burke et al, 2022; Wilkinson, 2009). In the renationalisation era of the Service, how the journeys of rehabilitation and desistance are experienced, communicated, shared, and understood by the stakeholders of probation is part and parcel of its reimagining. This treasure hunt for meaning is not about making new labels or recycling old ones but rather forming meaningful relationships in a probation culture of collective identity.

Probation is nothing but relational, and that makes emotion an ever-present constant of its practices and values. Jake Phillips, Chalen Westaby, Samantha Ainslie, and Andrew Fowler from Sheffield Hallam University unravelled the multifaceted concept of emotional labour which echoed how probation remains an emotionally charged agency where a plethora of emotions meet, coexist, collide. In this case, emotional labour of frontline and senior probation officers becomes yet another set of expectations they respond to alongside structural rules and uncharted occupational cultures (Phillips et al, 2020).

These quests for meaning, purpose, and emotion are therefore key not only in reimagining probation, but even more so in navigating the offender-practitioner relationship as well as the path to desistance.

This event was the first of its kind in dedicating an entire conference on probation and as such to create a space for the voice of academics, students, and practitioners working on this area to be heard and celebrated. It provided a fruitful opportunity for discussion and exchange of ideas among delegates about the roles of rehabilitation and desistance and the meaning of justice within probation. We are honoured to have hosted this event at a time when Probation is undergoing a pivotal restructuring phase and thereby contribute to understanding what the current challenges and priorities facing the Service are. We are deeply grateful to the speakers, students, the British Society of Criminology, our marketing and public engagement teams, and everybody who was in attendance and made this event possible at a time when acknowledging and reimagining probation in academia and practice is more crucial than ever.

Reference list

Burke, L., Carr, N., Cluley, E., Collett, S. & McNeill, F. (2022) Reimagining Probation Practice: Re-forming Rehabilitation in an Age of Penal Excess. London: Routledge.

Dominey, J., & Canton, R. (2022). Probation and the ethics of care. Probation Journal, 69(4) pp.417–433.

Phillips, J., Waters, J., Westaby, C. & Fowler, A. (2020) Emotional Labour in Criminal Justice and Criminology. London: Routledge.

Robinson, G. (2016). The Cinderella Complex: Punishment, Society and Community Sanctions. Punishment & Society, 18(1) pp.95–112. 

Wilkinson, K. (2009) The Doncaster desistance study. Project Report. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.

About the author

Dr Kyros Hadjisergis is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Wolverhampton. He has conducted research in probation and human rights, rehabilitation, organised crime and community justice, human trafficking, and has expertise in qualitative methods. His wider research interests relate to probation, rehabilitation and desistance, penology, and human rights. He teaches across all undergraduate and postgraduate levels in Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Contact

Dr Kyros Hadjisergis FHEA
Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice
University of Wolverhampton
k.hadjisergis2@wlv.ac.uk

This article gives the views of the author, not the position of the British Society of Criminology or the institution they work for.