Conceptualising ‘success’ among Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentenced offenders with personality-related difficulties

Abstract

This paper explores conceptualisations of ‘success’ by men on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence licence screened into the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway. ‘Success’ was defined as a process of having ‘survived’ the perceived injustices associated with the IPP sentence. Participants’ discussed ‘internal factors’ enabling them to make use of ‘external facilitators’ of self-change; ‘success’ was embedded in the development of interpersonal relationships with professionals. We propose a model of reciprocal anxiety existing within the criminal justice system in relation to the management of individuals on IPP sentence.

Keywords

Imprisonment for Public Protection interpretive phenomenological analysis personality disorder probation licence

Introduction

Imprisonment for Public Protection

The Criminal Justice Act (2003) introduced the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) for individuals convicted of serious sexual and violent crimes. Implemented in April 2005, the sentence was later deemed ‘a systemic failure’ by a High Court ruling in 2008 (R v Secretary of State for Justice), and abolished in May 2012 (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, 2012). At its peak in 2012, approximately 6,000 males were sentenced to an IPP (House of Commons, 2019), with a need for them to satisfy a Parole Board that they no longer pose a significant risk to the public in order for them to be released after their set minimum term (tariff).

This influx of people being incarcerated contributed substantially to prison resources being overstretched, particularly in relation to the availability of rehabilitative and resettlement programmes (House of Commons, 2019). This poses significant problems for IPP prisoners, since Parole Boards recommend such programmes as a means to demonstrate reduction in risk (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016; House of Commons, 2019). Although initiatives were put in place to support the progression of IPP sentenced prisoners towards release, such initiatives occur in the context of a rising prison population, constrained resources and diminishing staffing levels (Annison, 2018; Ministry of Justice, 2016). Consequently, IPP sentenced offenders serving relatively short tariffs found themselves ‘stuck’, often remaining in prison for a lengthy period of time post-tariff expiry, with even the Justice Secretary who implemented the 2003 act, Kenneth Clarke, admitting it was ‘almost impossible’ for a prisoner to prove that they were no longer a risk to the public (Conway, 2014). As of December 2019, there remained 2,134 prisoners serving IPP sentences, with rates of recall to custody increasing by 24% from the previous year to 1,260 (Ministry of Justice, 2020). Furthermore, between July-September 2019, only 91 individuals on IPP sentence were released from custody, a decrease of 32% from the previous year (House of Commons, 2019).

Once released into the community on licence, IPP sentenced individuals experience high levels of recall to custody, with the majority of cases (51%) recalled not for having committed further offences but for non-compliance with licence conditions (Ministry of Justice, 2018; Webster, 2017). This represents a proactive measure by the National Probation Service (NPS) in response to perceptions of escalating risk and is not unexpected given the level of risk and dangerousness inherent in those subject to IPP. It may also indicate a level of anxiety in relation to IPPs, leading to tighter controls in the form of licence conditions and stricter management of these conditions, within the system charged with the management of this sentence that has been described as a ‘stain on the criminal justice system’ (Conway, 2014).

The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (Rutherford et al., 2008) highlighted that individuals with pre-existing mental health difficulties were more likely to receive an IPP sentence and that the IPP sentence itself can lead to an exacerbation or development of mental health and emotional difficulties. In 2010, the Prison Reform Trust (Jacobson and Hough, 2010) highlighted that IPP sentences have a negative impact on the mental health and wellbeing of those subjected to them. IPP prisoners have been found to experience high levels of anxiety and an increased risk of self-harm (Howard League for Penal Reform, 2007, 2013) as well as reporting general feelings of stress and depression, particularly in relation to the indeterminate nature of their sentence and being uncertain as to whether efforts made in prison would have any bearing on the Parole Board’s considerations to release them (Rutherford et al., 2008). Although the IPP sentence can be experienced as a motivation to desist from offending (Merola, 2015), this is weighted against feeling hopeless, victimised and unfairly treated, and being unable to cope.

Existing literature exploring experiences of IPP prisoners focuses on the negative impact of the sentence on the mental health and wellbeing of those subjected to them and although this provides valuable insight into the difficulties they face and the impact of their experiences, little is known about their views of a successful outcome.

Currently, there is a risk of defining ‘success’ in the absence of the views and opinions of service users and equating ‘success’ to desistance from future offending (Ministry of Justice, 2010). Although this may be viewed as a successful outcome for the CJS, it dismisses the multifaceted nature of a self-defined successful outcome, since desistance is not the sole indicator of success among those who have offended (Heidemann et al., 2016). Personal motivation and a readiness to change have been increasingly recognised as important influences to ‘success’ post prison release (McMurran, 2002). Research has identified factors associated with ‘successful’ release including supportive probation officers, access to appropriate services, maintaining sobriety, remaining free of dependency, reunifying with families, integrating with positive support networks, avoiding negative social networks, obtaining stable housing and legitimate employment, avoiding illegal activity, complying with mandatory reporting and addressing basic educational and training needs (Cobbina, 2010; Graffam et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2001). However, the above research is not specifically in relation to the experiences, views and opinions of those on IPP, who are at a high risk of recall.

The Offender Personality Disorder Pathway

Initiated in 2011, the ‘Offender Personality Disorder Pathway’ (OPDP) is a joint criminal justice and health response to the issue of personality difficulties in offenders that contribute to increased risk and serious offending. The OPDP promotes a formulation-led, psychologically informed approach to working with personality difficulties, aiming to influence practice at a systemic level, leading to increased understanding, competence and confidence in the criminal justice workforce (Ramsden et al., 2016). Individuals are screened for high risk traits that may be associated with personality difficulties through the ‘Offender Assessment System’ (OASys) criminal justice risk assessment tool. As well as direct intervention, the OPDP offers psychological support for staff working with these individuals to help understand presenting problems and risky behaviours.

Evidence suggests that a higher number of prisoners on IPP sentences ‘screen in’ to the OPDP (Rutherford, 2008). This is not in itself surprising, given the pathway focusses on those prisoners deemed ‘high’ or ‘very high’ risk and the IPP is a sentence developed to incarcerate those convicted of serious offences where risk to the public is deemed elevated. The notion of ‘dangerousness’ that is so fundamental in the IPP approach to sentencing was also the underpinning of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder programme across criminal justice and health settings that was the precursor to the OPDP (Tyrer et al., 2015). Therefore there is both theoretical and practical overlap between the IPP and OPDP populations that strengthen the need for robust research to understand the experiences of individuals’ encapsulated in both arenas.

Crosswaite et al. (2020) conducted research to ascertain those variables associated with pathway outcome for men sentenced to IPP who ‘screen in’ to the OPDP. Their research highlighted that relational difficulties with professionals proved a significant barrier to release for such individuals. Specifically, those who experience significant relational difficulties with professionals were more likely to have a deferred parole hearing or be awaiting parole, in comparison to men released into the community or serving an open prison sentence; completion of offending behaviour programmes was not associated with pathway outcomes. These results are not surprising given the challenges experienced by criminal justice staff with individuals who ‘screen in’ to the OPDP are often around issues of engagement and other relational difficulties (Ramsden et al., 2016). Anecdotal evidence of the authors, supported by empirical research (Smart, 2018), suggests that relationships with key professionals are important in managing both time in custody and life on probation licence, which would suggest this would be an important factor in defining ‘successful’ release. We might also expect the political pressure on probation staff of managing such individuals, often with complex mental health needs (Smart, 2018) and following lengthy incarceration will be significant, especially once ‘sufficiently reduced dangerousness’ has appeared to have been demonstrated.

Rationale for current study

Much investigation into ‘success’ for people on IPP has focused on quantitative measures of release from custody and reduced reoffending. Although desistance from offending may be viewed as a ‘successful’ outcome for the criminal justice system (CJS), it fails to embrace the multifaceted nature of a self-defined ‘successful’ outcome, since desistance is not the sole indicator of ‘success’ among ‘offenders’ (Heidemann et al., 2016). This empirical research study aimed to explore how service users on IPP licence define a ‘successful’ release, in order to inform the psychologically-informed management of this cohort.

Uncertainty around release has been evidenced in IPP prisoners who continue to be imprisoned post-tariff (Merola, 2015). Anecdotal evidence by the authors, working in the context of National Probation Service (NPS) environments with IPP men screened into the OPDP, suggests that anxiety and uncertainty around recall are potentially damaging to mental and emotional wellbeing when on licence in the community. This may suggest that the mere fact of being released from custody on licence is not sufficient for individuals to feel this is a ‘successful’ outcome. Much of the available literature pertaining to the mental health of those serving IPPs is related to their incarceration. The present study aims to expand the evidence base around the mental wellbeing of IPP men released on licence, identify the factors that are important to them on release and consider whether a systemic definition of ‘success’ as sufficient risk reduction and desistence from offending, aligns with their own views of ‘success’. It is hoped that the findings of this paper will support working practices of those within the criminal justice system tasked with supporting and managing those of IPP licence and will influence systemic approaches around release, including but not limited to the work of those in core offender management work on the OPD Pathway.

Methods

Design

An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology was utilised and qualitative data from individual semi-structured interviews were analysed according to this model. In accordance with IPA’s ‘double hermeneutic’ level of interpretation, an inductive understanding of ‘success’ from the perspective of IPP men who experience personality-related difficulties was gathered and interpreted with reference to established psychological concepts (Larkin and Thompson, 2012; Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2014; Smith et al., 2009).

Recruitment procedure

Administration staff identified prospective participants who met the inclusion criteria using the NPS database ‘nDelius’. Once identified, researchers discussed the research with offender managers (OMs) prior to a joint meeting with the prospective participant. Information about the research was provided and personal contact details gained from consenting prospective participants. After 24 hours, prospective participants were re-contacted to obtain informed consent. Interviews then took place at mutually convenient opportunities.

Participants and sample size

Participants were identified and recruited during May 2018 using homogeneous purposive sampling from a subgroup of individuals who share similar characteristics (Saunders et al., 2012):

– Male;

– Aged 18 years+;

– Screen into the OPDP;

– Post-tariff expiry on licence in the community; and

– Sentenced to an IPP under the supervision of NPS OMs in the specified region.

The idiographic emphasis of IPA inevitably impacts sample size (Eatough and Smith, 2008). Recommendations of sample sizes vary from 1 to 15, to allow for in-depth examination of rich and meaningful data (Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2014; Turpin et al., 1997). For the current study, 18 participants were contacted, 11 initially agreed to participate and eight participants were interviewed. Details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant information.

Pseudonym	Age range	Tariff length	Time since tariff expiry	Length of time in community
Ryan	55-60	3-5 years	4-5 years	1-2 years
Tom	40-45	3-5 years	<1 year	<1 year
Mark	22-30	1-3 years	6-7 years	<1 year
Graham	55-60	1-3 years	>7 years	>3 years
Alex	30-35	1-3years	5-6 years	2-3 years
Brian	30-35	3-5 years	>7 years	1-2 years
Phillip	60-65	1-3 years	6-7 years	1-2 years
Connor	30-35	Over 5 years	<1 year	1-2 years

Data collection

Interviews were conducted by the lead researcher within regional NPS offices, lasted approximately one hour and were audio recorded. Some participants were interviewed more than once due to the depth of responses given taking longer than one hour. A semi-structured interview asked participants about their experiences of the IPP sentence and in particular focused on release experiences, support from others and feelings in association with the process. Interviews were transcribed verbatim by the lead researcher. Identifiable information was removed and participants given pseudonyms for confidentiality.

Ethical considerations

Access to participant data was inherent in the host organisation’s contract for providing core offender management OPD services, which includes relevant practice-based research to improve service delivery. Participants were provided with a participant information sheet detailing the research objectives, right to withdraw and the confidentiality of the research. Informed consent was obtained in the absence of OMs to manage any perceived coercion. No participants withdrew from the research. Ethical approval was received from National Research Council of HMPPS.

Interviews took place in staffed NPS offices familiar to participants, in order to adhere to risk management policies and ensure safety of researcher and participant. Rooms contained video camera monitoring and alarm systems. Participants were made aware that concerns in relation to risk of harm to themselves or others would be recorded and communicated to their OMs, who would continue to hold overarching responsibility for the implementation of NPS safeguarding procedures. Interviews were recorded via Dictaphone and manually transcribed.

Researchers complied with the Data Protection Act (2018) with regard to the collection, storage, processing and disclosure of personal information.

Data analysis

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used to analyse the qualitative data derived from interview transcripts (Smith and Osborn, 2015). This approach aims to give individuals in a particular context a voice and understand how they make sense of their experiences (Eatough and Smith, 2008; Larkin and Thompson, 2012; Larkin et al., 2006). This enabled the researchers to derive an in-depth bottom-up understanding of ‘success’ from the perspective of participants, which will provide an idiographic mode of enquiry, rather than a nomothetic approach (Smith, 1995). For the IPA analysis, each transcript was read and re-read to develop familiarity and ensure a keen focus on participants accounts (Smith et al., 2009). Initial comments were made on each transcript and emergent themes were generated and refined by identifying connections between emergent themes. Given the iterative nature of IPA, once emergent themes were developed these were checked against transcribed extracts in their original context and clustered into superordinate themes.

Themes derived from the transcripts were coded by the lead researcher, in collaboration with the co-researcher and supervisor, using IPA with qualitative research software NVivo. The themes reflected participants’ experiences and the reflections and observations of researchers.

Limitations

Findings from qualitative research have limited generalisability, however findings in this study may be transferable to IPP men with personality-related difficulties across different NPS jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the sample of participants itself may have been non-representative, and subject to selection bias, attracting participants with particular characteristics which made them more likely to participate.

Although steps were taken to reduce participant anxiety regarding confidentiality of responses, they may have felt compelled to consent through fear of negative impact on the relationship with their OM, their progression, treatment by probation and/or legal rights. Additionally, locating interviews in NPS offices monitored by video recording equipment and alarm systems, may have made it difficult for participants to detach from their involvement with probation; possibly influencing their responses to questions through concerns that professionals outside of the research team would have access to the content of the interviews.

Results and analysis

The derived themes can be organised into three superordinate themes; a sense of success as survival, relating to overcoming significant obstacles and making it through a traumatic process; secondly, factors relating to internal change mechanisms that the participants experienced; and thirdly external influences, provided to them from others sources, enabling them to be successful. These superordinate themes are described and evidenced below with relevant subthemes extracted.

‘Success’ is survival

‘Success’ was conceptualised as a process of ‘survival’ and self-change. Rather than focusing on the system-defined ‘successful’ release, narratives were dominated by recounts of traumatic experiences relating to the sentence, of perceptions of injustice, persecution and punishment and an inability of the system to adequately meet core needs. Themes present in these accounts may be seen as paralleling the often traumatic accounts of the early experiences of those who meet the criteria for diagnosis of ‘personality disorder’ (Wood et al., 2014); those who have ‘survived’ early trauma being subjected to (at least perceived) repetition of abusive experiences.

You get back in your cell and that door shuts, all you’re thinking about is…’how am I going to survive this? (Ryan).

Emotional impact

Participant’s disclosed feeling stripped of their humanity and reduced to ‘just a prison number’ (Mark). They felt ‘forgotten about [by] the whole system’ (Mark) and ‘like life had ended’ (Tom):

We’re wrong the moment we’re sentenced…we don’t have a life, we’re not treated as human beings, we’re a number, we’re…Can’t think of the word I really really hate…Oh, ‘offender’. (Ryan)

This inability of the system to respond to need and treat people as individuals led participants to identify themselves as victims of a sentence that negatively impacts their mental health; equating the experience to ‘a mental game of tug-of-war’ (Ryan):

[It was] Hell. Totally unfair. Mentally and physically and emotionally. Complete turmoil. (Ryan)

Participants struggled to keep their ‘mental health on a balanced level’ (Connor), supporting existing evidence that the experience of the IPP results in ‘exacerbated’ and ‘exaggerated’ (Ryan) pre-existing mental health difficulties:

I was struggling mentally anyway when I went to prison…[It] sent me pretty much downhill when I got sentenced. (Connor)

Suicidal ideation emphasised participants’ desperation and lack of ‘hope’ (Alex):

I was suicidal. There’s no point. I wasn’t the only one, virtually every IPP that I came across felt exactly the same. (Ryan)

Participants experienced prolonged anxiety and hypervigilance; ‘you feel like you’re watching your back all the time’ (Alex). In prison, this manifested as fear of release decisions being revoked while in the community participants felt ‘vulnerable’ (Alex) fearing recall:

[It’s] a nightmare. They’re saying you’ve been released but you can’t get out…you’re always on tenterhooks…If somebody starts or says anything to you and you get into trouble then you’ve lost your parole even though you’ve got released. (Tom)

I’m constantly on my guard and making sure I’m not in any position or predicament that can backfire on me…[The IPP] still hangs over your head…I’m sitting on a file waiting to shred, waiting for it to go down. It’s raw. Still raw. (Ryan)

Limbo

Participants perceived a ‘lack of information’ (Alex) and ‘lack of clarity’ (Ryan) within the CJS, equating their experiences to ‘walking through a fog’ (Phillip), ‘taking a leap into the unknown in the dark’ (Phillip), and ‘limbo’ (Brian) where ‘everything just stood still’ (Mark). They articulated being ‘just slung in a cell and left to wrinkle’ (Graham) and ‘basically sat there rotting and wallowing’ (Ryan):

Nobody in the prison system had a clue what to do with us…They didn’t do nothing. They left [us] in limbo…Honest. There was nothing. (Graham)

The indeterminate nature of the IPP contributed towards feelings of despair and hopelessness. Participants likened it to a ‘life sentence’ (Connor) that ‘doesn’t finish’ (Phillip). This was particularly evident when discussing the lack of progression within the CJS and a perceived continuity of feeling ‘punished’ (Phillip) post release:

People who are on IPP will never see light at the end of the tunnel. Whether its release, parole or even maintaining in the community. (Alex)

As a result, participants expressed resentment towards not having received a determinate sentence:

Horrendous. Absolutely soul shattering…I’ve seen people come in after me, get longer sentences than me and get out before me because they’re on a normal sentence and I’m on IPP. (Alex)

Lack of control

Participants described how the IPP induced feelings of powerlessness, particularly in relation to imbalanced power dynamics with professionals, reducing the ability for them to develop the necessary personal agency to accept responsibility (Wood, et. al., 2014):

They took complete control “oh we know best, we’ve done this so many times,” “yea but it’s my life you’re playing with”…It does make you angry when people make mistakes with your life. (Phillip)

Frustrations that ‘decisions were in other people’s hands’ (Connor) resonated among participants. Despite regaining their liberty, participants did not feel free:

I might as well have stayed in prison ‘cos I got more freedom. (Ryan)

It takes a lot of power off me…I call [my OM] the boss because she has the most control…[She] holds the keys to most decisions at the end of the day and that’s something I’ve had to get used to…not being able to make a decision for myself. (Connor)

The parole process itself epitomised this sense of powerlessness and a lack of control, resulting in heightened anxiety among participants:

It’s like Dragon’s Den…You’ve gotta go in there you’ve gotta sell yourself you’ve gotta do your pitch and then it’s up to them…You go in with that fear to the parole board, especially as an IPP. (Connor)

Systemic anxiety

Perceived systemic anxiety occasioned participants to feel ‘under a lot of pressure’ (Connor) to ‘prove’ (Alex) themselves to parole boards that were perceived as not giving IPPs the ‘opportunity’ (Alex) or ‘chance for release’ (Mark).

Participants experienced an emphasis on engagement with, and completion of, courses despite an apparent ‘lack of resources’, ‘lack of courses’ and ‘backlog’ (Alex). Frustrations resonated from perceptions that this precluded participants’ ability to sufficiently demonstrate risk reduction:

You start doing your courses and then you realise…the work you’re expected to do on your offending behaviour, you can’t possibly do in your time. (Graham)

Once on licence in the community, participants continued to experience the perceived consequences of heightened systemic anxiety. Their licence conditions were perceived as ‘too cautious’ (Connor), ‘strict’ (Connor) and ‘restrictive’ (Alex):

My backs up straight away…First thought was ‘…the bastards are gonna try stitch me up for something’…What they’re doing is a deliberate ploy to get me back in prison ‘cos they feel safer with me being in there. (Ryan)

The government wants [IPPs] to live an honest, respectable life…[But] I can’t because of this IPP. (Alex)

How to survive: Internal factors of self-change

Participants’ IPP experiences allowed them to uncover, and strengthen, intrinsic characteristics that facilitate ‘success’. The IPP encouraged a process of ‘self-reflect[ion]’ (Alex) and self-change:

[I] was learning to understand me as a person…I’m learning to grow up, I’m learning to be a human again. (Graham)

[The IPP is] a mental journey…of getting to know yourself…You could say IPP is a life sentence learning about life. (Phillip)

Resilience

Participants highlighted the difficulties associated with release, reporting that ‘adjusting to the world again’ (Brian) felt ‘overwhelming’ (Brian) and ‘frightening’ (Graham). They articulated feeling ‘scared all the time’ (Alex) and walking under ‘a big black cloud’ (Ryan); perceiving themselves to have been ‘thrown in a cup without the oars’ (Ryan) while ‘not really knowing what you’re supposed to be doing’ (Phillip). Despite this, participants spoke of increasing resilience by developing a ‘high tolerance’ (Connor), and a capacity to ‘cope’ and ‘adjust really quickly’ (Mark), which were key features of ‘success’.

Intrinsic cognitive processes

In the face of a perceived lack of power and control, participants’ described having ‘motivation’ (Graham) and ‘willpower’ (Phillip) which appeared key to ‘success’:

It’s the attitude you have towards the sentence. If you wanna change, you’ll change. It’s down to the individuals and I wanted to change. (Phillip)

[The IPP has] been a success for me the fact that I’ve changed my life. I’ve done that because I’ve wanted to. (Tom)

Participants emphasised being ‘determined’ (Ryan) to regain a sense of autonomy upon release:

You’ve gotta get used to being in charge of your own life again. And that’s what’s so good to get back…The control. But it’s also one of the scariest things…You’re completely on your own…[It’s like] being a rabbit caught in headlights. (Phillip)

Meaning and purpose

Having ‘responsibilities’ (Graham) provided participants with a sense of meaning and ‘purpose’ (Ryan). This enabled them to ‘continue day-by-day’ (Ryan) in prison and provided them with ‘a foundation…to build myself and keep myself alive’ (Ryan). However, what helped them to ‘survive’ in prison prevented them from being able to view themselves as ‘successful’ in the community:

I never wanted to be released from prison. Never. [I had] responsibilities…I was doing something useful…When I got out of jail I didn’t have nothing useful to do…Coming out, my life is worthless…I’ve got no job prospects, I’ve got nothing. So, how am I gonna survive? And I thought “what’s the point? I might as well have stayed in [prison].” (Graham)

Willingness to engage

Participants identifies a change in their willingness to ‘engage’ (Phillip) with professionals and ‘talk to the system’ (Phillip), which proved integral to experiences of ‘success’:

When I understood what was wrong with me as a person I wasn’t scared of talking to professionals…If I hadn’t have had my help in the prison system, I wouldn’t have succeeded. Not a chance. (Graham)

Before prison I didn’t engage with anybody…Now it’s essential to engage…If you wanna get yourself sorted and keep yourself on the straight and narrow and stop yourself going back to the person that you used to be then you’ve gotta work with these people. (Connor)

Characteristics of others and of the external environment that facilitated self-change contributed towards participants’ definitions of ‘success’.

Safety and containment

Prison provided participants with a sense or ‘safety’ (Mark), while the IPP acted as a ‘safety net’ (Phillip) that ‘saved’ (Graham) participants from the ‘turmoil’ (Ryan) of living in the community:

I didn’t wanna walk out of that gate. [Prison was] a safe haven…I couldn’t drink, I couldn’t lose my temper, I couldn’t do anything…I don’t wanna go out there. (Graham)

Relationships

Developing and maintaining relationships with professionals, whom participants could ‘trust’ (Brian), was paramount in conceptualisations of ‘success’: This was seen as the reciprocal part of an internal willingness to engage; having professionals willing and able to develop meaningful connections and true ‘human’ relationships.

[My OMs] never made me feel anything other than a proper human being and a person…They’ll like just talk to me and I’ll just talk to them and it’s not like “them” and “us.” (Phillip)

They give me the understanding and trust that I can talk to them and go to them about anything, anytime…I’ve got confidence in them, they’ve got confidence in me. (Alex)

Professionals characterised as ‘genuine’ (Ryan) and ‘human’ (Graham), as opposed to ‘Robotic. Unfeeling. Uncaring. Insensitive’ (Ryan), and who demonstrated compassion and ‘understanding’ (Alex) fostered ‘success’:

She learnt me to believe in people. It’s the way she tret me…until she sat me down and said this is what has happened to you and it’s not your fault what’s going on in your head…that was the day I stopped being scared of myself. (Graham)

This gave participants a sense of feeling ‘listen[ed] to’ (Connor) and having a ‘voice’ (Mark):

It felt like somebody’s took about a million tons off my shoulders. (Graham)

Conversely, a lack of ‘success’ was associated with a perceived lack of compassion with regard to the context within which negative emotional arousal occurred in prison:

It’s very hard…To not let some of that out sometimes…You let it out in prison and an officer might put something…like “he’s shown temper and it needs to be controlled.” Well actually he might have been showing temper because he’s just had a two year knock back…It’s a normal human reaction but it’s not a normal human situation and that’s the difference…IPP sentences were not normal human situations. (Phillip)

Communication

Participants emphasised the importance of ‘open and honest’ (Tom) communication with professionals who were ‘willing to talk’ (Connor) and ‘straight talking’ (Ryan). This appeared to promote positive self-change, foster mutual ‘respect’ (Graham), and add to participants’ sense of ‘success’:

[My OM] told me how it is. Told me what she wanted. Told me what to expect…I do respect her, she does a good job, she’s open and honest with me. (Ryan)

Support network

Having a network of ‘emotional support’ (Connor) appeared pivotal to notions of ‘success’:

If I didn’t have family, by god, I wouldn’t have been able to do any of what I did…I don’t think I would have been where I am now. (Alex)

Peer support from others on IPP with perceived shared experiences facilitated participants’ ability to ‘survive’ the IPP sentence:

The people with the IPP were very supportive…They knew what I was going through…Only people that have been through it understand what it’s like. (Connor)

[In prison] you hit your buffers, you hit your low points…By talking things over with other IPPs that you trusted…That have been through things you were going through or feeling…it became easier to deal with. (Phillip)

Luck

Despite identifying internal and external factors, participants continued to perceive ‘success’ as the result of chance:

I’ve been very lucky…While I was in prison but also while I’ve been out of prison…I’ve been pretty lucky with being able to get things done pretty quickly. (Connor)

I’ve been really lucky. All my probation people…they were really good with me…There’s a lot of things that have fallen right into place since I’ve come out. (Phillip)

Discussion

This research aimed to explore ‘success’ from the perspective of IPP men screened into the OPDP. Participants’ narratives highlight the disparity between systemic and individual definitions of ‘success’. Their conceptualisation deviated from viewing ‘success’ as an objectively measurable outcome and instead emphasised a process of ‘survival’ and self-change. Participants’ uncovered intrinsic characteristics and cognitive processes that enabled them to make use of external facilitators of self-change. This was achieved in such a way that participants’ ‘survival’, and hence ‘success’, was embedded in the development of interpersonal relationships with professionals.

Participants emphasised the context; feeling dehumanised by virtue of being an IPP ‘offender’. The lack of progression and control, and the indeterminateness of the sentence manifested in prolonged feelings of anxiety, frustration and hopelessness. Previous research has suggested that indeterminately sentenced prisoners feel ‘stuck in the system’; experiencing ‘prison pain’ and the ‘stress of helplessness’ in relation to the impact of uncertainty, indeterminacy and ‘not knowing’ (Liebling, 2011; Liebling and Price, 2001; Liebling et al., 2019; Merola, 2015; Rutherford et al., 2008). Synonymous with the theme ‘limbo’, Nurse et al. (2003), linked a lack of communication within the CJS to heightened anxiety among staff, while reciprocal negative attitudes among staff and prisoners reinforced a ‘circle of stress’ throughout the CJS. It is our hypothesis that the early traumatic experiences of individuals heightens the negative impact of organisational anxiety, which is projected into individuals and experienced as victimisation and injustice.

Research has highlighted the importance of internal cognitive processes in ‘success’ and self-change (Graffam et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2001). Participants narratives illustrated that resilience, motivation and willpower gave hope that they could ‘survive’ the perceived injustices associated with the IPP sentence to facilitate self-change and ‘success’. A key component of this was finding a sense of meaning and purpose, found to facilitate psychological survival in prison (Liebling, 2011). Participants spoke of the need for them as individuals to react to the impact of the IPP sentence by a process of self-change and self-reflection. This goes beyond the notion of the IPP as desistence (Merola, 2015) and suggests that in order to ‘succeed’, IPP men must uncover an inner strength, which may be hypothesised to be related to previous experiences of ‘surviving’ trauma. It may be that the ability to view themselves as someone who can ‘survive’ is one component of what distinguishes those who ‘succeed’ in IPP and those who do not.

However, despite acknowledgement of these cognitive processes, participants demonstrated a reluctance to internalise and take ownership of their own ‘success’. Their emphasis on ‘luck’ as a key component of ‘success’ suggests an external locus of control among participants, previously implicated as a key feature of personality disorder (Hope et al., 2018). Perhaps, given participants’ experiences of early neglect, abuse and trauma, when these experiences are reinforced by the CJS, it becomes difficult to believe that they are responsible for their own ‘success’.

Internal cognitive processes mediated participants’ ability to make use of external facilitators of ‘success’ and develop a more coherent sense of self, self-determination and autonomy such that participants’ ‘success’ was embedded in the prisoner-staff relationship (Crewe, 2007; Liebling, 2011; Liebling et al., 2019). Professionals who were perceived as authentic and trustworthy, who treated participants with compassion and respect, nurtured the development of a sense of self-determination and a more coherent sense of self among participants. From what is known about supporting individuals with personality disorders, it is not surprising that such characteristics are perceived features of professionals that support ‘success’ (Cooke, 2016; Craissati et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2014). Previous research has suggested that differences in prison experiences, and hence the survivability of prison, is linked to difference in interpersonal relationships with, and treatment by, professionals; such that prison life is ‘all about relationships’ (Crosswaite et al., 2020; Liebling, 2011; Liebling and Arnold, 2004; Liebling et al., 2019).

However, it should be acknowledged that developing relationships of this nature in a culture which promotes toughness over perceived displays of weakness (including emotionality) may conflict with the social defences employed by CJS staff to manage institutional anxiety (Brown, 2003; Hinshelwood, 1996). Achieving such staff-prisoner relationships within systems bound by ‘bureaucratic legitimacy’ is challenging at best; particularly since the IPP sentence is so tightly intertwined with national level policies and sentencing decisions (Liebling et al., 2019). Nevertheless, acknowledging the importance of staff-prisoner relationships in mediating the impact of systemic anxiety, and hence facilitating ‘success’ among those on IPP with personality-related difficulties, is crucial.

A model of reciprocal anxiety

The findings in this paper suggest a reciprocal relationship between ‘offender-level’ manifestations of organisational anxiety and organisational-level manifestations of offender anxiety and personality-pathology (see Figure 1). Crewe (2009) linked high levels of institutional anxiety about security, levels of trust and the indeterminacy of sentencing structures to prisoners feeling trapped, vulnerable and hopeless. Liebling et al. (2011), suggested that ‘offender’-level frustrations emanate from an emphasis on ‘responsibilitisation’, in which those with an IPP are placed under enormous pressure to drive their own ‘success’. As the current research indicates, participants’ attempts at adherence to parole board recommendations to complete courses in a climate of insufficient resources rendered efforts for ‘responsibilitation’ futile. This highlights the redistribution of anxiety within the CJS; raising the issue of social defences systems (Jaques, 1955; Menzies-Lyth, [1959] 1988). The anxiety experienced at the individual level is projected into the system reinforcing the use of defence mechanisms to preserve a sense of self and control (Hinshelwood, 1993). This can be seen in the tension between projections of responsibility, with the CJS projecting responsibility downwardly to the offenders, who equally project responsibility upwardly to the CJS, to manage their anxieties (Menzies-Lyth, [1959] 1988).

Figure 1.

The cycle of reinforced manifestations of anxiety within the CJS, highlighting the importance of the staff-prisoner relationship in mediating the impact of heightened systemic anxiety. Some arrows illustrate what can be deduced from this research, other arrows illustrate what is hypothesised to occur.

The victimisation and injustices experienced by participants can be hypothesised, therefore, to be intrinsically linked to heightened systemic anxiety (see Figure 1).

In line with past experiences of trauma associated with personality-related difficulties, it is likely that participants experienced a re-traumatisation as a consequence of perceiving injustice; leading to negative core beliefs and perceptions of self and other being maintained and reinforced (Willmot and Gordon, 2011). The replication of trauma histories by punitive aspects of the CJS is not a new concept (Fellowes, 2014); themes of lacking power and control that stem from adverse early experiences follow through and are replicated by a loss of power and control in relation to the IPP sentence. What can hypothesised, but which warrants further investigation, is that the personality-related difficulties of this cohort of IPP men reinforces the anxiety at a systemic level; creating a cycle of anxiety throughout the CJS. Acknowledging the experiences of this population, in particular what they are ‘surviving’, is acknowledging how anxiety manifests within the CJS.

As the model suggests, it is the probation practitioners who are in the centre of this revolving anxiety. Faced with traumatised, complex individuals with significant relational difficulties and significantly ‘dangerous’ offending presentations, and in the absence of effective organisational containment of political pressure and systemic anxiety (Fellowes, 2018) the probation practitioner is pushed towards utilising social defence mechanisms as a way to cope. This undermines the relational work that is known to be so fundamental to successful outcomes in terms of offender management (Crosswaite et al., 2020). The participants in this study have clearly evidenced that, when probation practitioners successfully mediate this anxiety and develop compassionate and positive relationships, this is fundamental to service users experiencing their pathways as successful.

Building in structures through which the criminal justice system can better understand how service users, practitioners and the organisation as a whole respond to such anxiety, and developing robust measures for containing responses, would better equip the CJS to facilitate ‘success’ among this population.

Conclusion

The findings from this research support circularity circle of anxiety within CJS institutions. Such that, ‘success’ was defined as having ‘survived’ the perceived injustices associated with the IPP sentence among participants. The impact of heightened systemic anxiety manifested at the level of individuals in terms of poor mental health outcomes, experiences of perceived injustices and increased pressure to be ‘successful’ despite insufficient resources within the CJS. Despite this, participants emphasised the importance of developing internal cognitive processes that enabled them to make use of external facilitators of self-change in such a way that illustrated the importance of staff-prisoner relationships in mediating the impact of heightened systemic anxiety and, in doing so, facilitating the development of a more coherent sense of self, self-autonomy, self-change and hence ‘success’ in an unjust system.

Implications

The current findings have the capacity to inform practice with indeterminately sentenced individuals, suggesting that better understanding of individual experiences can inform the development of appropriate pathways and support provisions to facilitate progress and prevent recall. This can positively impact on prison overcrowding and resource-intensive recalls. Increasing the psychological understanding of the processes by which the transference of pathological personality characteristics within a system working with this cohort occurs, can improve relationships with service users. The Offender Personality Disorder Pathway emphasis on developing relational models for working with individuals is supported. We would assert that highlighting the impact of systemic anxiety can promote explicit mindfulness, increase compassion and influence decision-making at the highest levels of an organisation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Bryony Crisp

References

Annison

(2018) Tracing the Gordian knot: indeterminate-sentenced prisoners and the pathologies of English penal politics. The Political Quarterly 89(2): 197–205.

Brown

(2003) From individual to social defences in psychosocial criminology. Theoretical Criminology 7(4): 421–437.

Cobbina

(2010) Reintegration success and failure: factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49(3): 210–232.

Conway

(2014) David Blunkett ‘regrets injustices’ for indeterminate sentences. BBC Newsnight. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26561380 (accessed 23 November 2020).

Cooke

(2016) Working with offenders with personality disorder: it’s more than just the offender. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK. Available at: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/7055/1/Cooke16ForenPsyD_Redacted.pdf (accessed 23 May 2019).

Craissati

Joseph

Skett

(2015) Working with offenders with personality disorder: a practitioners guide. NHS England Publication Gateway (Ref 04004). Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/10/work-offndrs-persnlty-disorder-oct15.pdf (accessed 14 March 2019).

Crewe

(2007) Power, adaptation and resistance in a late-modern men’s prison. British Journal of Criminology 47(2): 256–275.

Crewe

(2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation, and Social Life in an English Prison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Criminal Justice Act (2003) (ukpga 2003/44). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/contents/data.pdf (accessed 19 October 2019).

10.

Crosswaite

Freestone

Ramsden

(2020) Indefinite detention or supervision for public protection when a life sentence is not available: pathway outcomes among prisoners in one region. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 30(2–3): 95–104.

11.

Data Protection Act (2018) (ukpga 1998/29). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/part/2/chapter/2 (accessed 19 October 2019).

12.

Eatough

Smith

(2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Willig

Stainton-Rogers

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 193–211.

13.

Fellowes

(2014) ‘What’s needed as part of probation practice when working with personality disordered offenders? The importance of avoiding errors of logic’ – a practitioner response. Probation Journal 61(2): 192–199.

14.

Fellowes

(2018) The ultimate shock absorber: probation officers’ experience of working with male service users on the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway. Probation Journal 65(2): 152–169.

15.

Graffam

Shinkfield

Lavelle

, et al. (2004) Variables affecting successful reintegration as perceived by offenders and professionals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 40( 1–2): 147–171.

16.

Heidemann

Cederbaum

Martinez

(2016) Beyond recidivism: how formerly incarcerated women define success. Affilia 31(1): 24–40.

17.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (2016) Unintended Consequences: Finding a Way Forward for Prisoners Serving Sentenced of Imprisonment for Public Protection: A Thematic Review. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf (accessed 6 February 2018).

18.

Hinshelwood

(1993) Locked in role: a psychotherapist within the social defence system of a prison. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 4(3): 427–440.

19.

Hinshelwood

(1996) Changing prisons: the unconscious dimension. In: Cordess

Cox

(eds) Forensic Psychotherapy: Crime, Psychodynamics and the Offender Patient (Vol. 1: Mainly Theory). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 465–474.

20.

Hope

Wakefield

Northey

, et al. (2018) The association between locus of control, emotion regulation and borderline personality disorder features. Personality and Mental Health 12(3): 241–251.

21.

House of Commons (2019) Sentencing of Imprisonment for Public Protection: Briefing Paper (6086).

22.

Howard League for Penal Reform (2007) Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection. London: Howard League for Penal Reform. Available at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IPP-report.pdf (accessed 6 February 2018).

23.

Howard League for Penal Reform (2013) The Never Ending Story: Indeterminate Sentencing and the Prison Regime. London: Howard League for Penal Reform. Available at: https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/never-ending-story-IPP.pdf (accessed 6 February 2018).

24.

Jacobson

Hough

(2010) Unjust Desserts: Imprisonment for Public Protection. London: The Prison Reform Trust.

25.

Jaques

(1955) Social systems as a defence against persecutory and depressive anxiety. In: Klein

Heimann

Money-Kyrle

(eds) New Directions in Psycho-Analysis. London: Tavistock Publications; New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 478–498.

26.

Larkin

Thompson

(2012) Interpretative phenomenological analysis in mental health and psychotherapy research. In: Harper

Thompson

(eds) Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 101–116.

27.

Larkin

Watts

Clifton

(2006) Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 102–120.

28.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012) (ukpga 2012/10). Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents/enacted (accessed 19 October 2019).

29.

Liebling

(2011) Moral performance, inhuman and degrading treatment and prison pain. Punishment and Society 13(5): 530–550.

30.

Liebling

Arnold

(2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

31.

Liebling

Hulley

Crewe

(2011) Conceptualising and measuring the quality of prison life. In: Gadd

Karstedt

Messner

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, pp. 358–372.

32.

Liebling

Laws

Lieber

, et al. (2019) Are hope and possibility achievable in prison? The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 58(1): 104–126.

33.

Liebling

Price

(2001) The Prison Officer, Leyhill: Prison Service and Waterside Press.

34.

McMurran

(2002) Motivation to change: selection criterion or treatment need. In: McMurran

(ed.), Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide to Enhancing Engagement in Therapy. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 3–13.

35.

Menzies-Lyth

([1959] 1988) The functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety: a report on a study of the nursing service of a general hospital. In: Menzies-Lyth

(ed.), Containing Anxiety in Institutions, Selected Essays: Volume 1. London: Free Association Books, pp. 43–85.

36.

Merola

(2015) Young offenders’ experiences of an indeterminate sentence. Journal of Forensic Practice 17(1): 55–68.

37.

Ministry of Justice (2010) Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/185947/green-paper-evidence-a.pdf (accessed 6 February 2018).

38.

Ministry of Justice (2016) Correspondence Between the Secretary of State and the Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission. London: House of Commons. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/Justice/correspondence/Letter-dated-20-April-2016-from-Michael-Gove-on-prison-reform.pdf (accessed 6 February 2018).

39.

Ministry of Justice (2018) Prison Population: 31 December 2017, National Offender Management Statistics. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2017 (accessed 12 February 2019).

40.

Ministry of Justice (2020) Offender Management Statistics Bulletin England and Wales: Quarterly July to September 2019 Prison population: 31 December 2019. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/861889/Offender_Management_Statistics_Quarterly_Q3_2019.pdf (accessed 23 November 2020).

41.

Nurse

Woodcock

Ormsby

(2003) Influence of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: focus group study. British Medical Journal 327(7413): 480.

42.

Pietkiewicz

Smith

(2014) A practical guide to using interpretative phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal 20(1): 7–14.

43.

R (Walker) v Secretary of State for Justice (Parole Board intervening) (2008) EWCA Civ 30. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090506/james-1.htm (accessed 19 October 2019).

44.

Ramsden

Joyes

Gordon

, et al. (2016) How working with psychologists has influenced probation practice: attempting to capture some of the impact and the learning from the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway project. Probation Journal 63(1): 54–71.

45.

Rutherford

(2008) Imprisonment for public protection: genesis and mental health implications. Mental Health Review Journal 13(2): 47–55.

46.

Rutherford

Keil

Bruton

, et al. (2008) In the Dark: The Mental Health Implications of Imprisonment for Public Protection. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. Available at: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/in_the_dark.pdf (accessed 12 March 2019).

47.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2012) Research Methods for Business Studies Students. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

48.

Smart

(2018) Too Many Bends in the Tunnel? Women Serving Indeterminate Sentences of IPP – What Are the Barriers to Risk Reduction, Release and Resettlement? London: The Griffins Society.

49.

Smith

Flowers

Larkin

(2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage Publications.

50.

Smith

(1995) Idiography and the case study. In: Smith

Harre

Van Langenhove

(eds) Rethinking Psychology. London: Sage, pp. 59–69.

51.

Smith

Osborn

(2015) Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain 9(1): 41–42.

52.

Solomon

Gouvis

Waul

(2001) Summary of Focus Group with Ex-Prisoners in the District: Ingredients for Successful Reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center. Available at: http://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410492_ExPrisoners.pdf (accessed 6 February 2020).

53.

Turpin

Barley

Beail

, et al. (1997) Standards for research projects and theses involving qualitative methods: suggested guidelines for trainees and courses. Clinical Psychology Forum 108: 3–7.

54.

Tyrer

Duggan

Cooper

, et al. (2015) The lessons and legacy of the programme for dangerous and severe personality disorders. Personality and Mental Health 9(2): 96–106.

55.

Webster

(2017) Why are offenders recalled to prison? Russell Webster. Available at: https://www.russellwebster.com/recalls/ (accessed 23 November 2020).

56.

Willmot

Gordon

(2011) Working Positively with Personality Disorder in Secure Settings: A Practitioner’s Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

57.

Wood

Bolton

Lovell

, et al. (2014) Meeting the challenge, making a difference: working effectively to support people with personality disorder in the community. Department of Health. Available at: http://repository.tavistockandportman.ac.uk/864/ (accessed 18 April 2019).