Through the Gate: The implementation, management and delivery of resettlement service provision for short-term prisoners

Abstract

This paper draws upon research documenting the implementation, management and delivery of Through the Gate service provision in one case study area across an 18-month period. In referring to interviews and focus groups with professionals, male prisoners, and the families of these men, the paper provides a critical examination of the practice implications of administering Through the Gate provision in a resettlement prison. In doing so we reflect upon the changes in organisational structures, the evolution of occupational culture(s), and on the impact on multi-agency partnership working practice evident within this Transforming Rehabilitation led period of transitional change.

‘Tightness’, recognition and penal power

“…In her research on men in open prison conditions serving indeterminate sentences, Pennington (2015) includes examples of prisoners being delayed in their progression or release for a host of reasons that are reflective of systemic inefficiency: being unable to access courses that their sentence plans required them to undertake; being required to complete courses that no longer existed; or waiting years to be assessed for interventions for which they were then deemed unsuitable. A number of official reports corroborate this picture of systemic shortcomings in the delivery of offender management (see, for example, HM Inspectorates of Probation and Prisons, 2013; HMI Prisons, 2019; HMI Probation, 2019; see also Millings et al., 2019a). These include missing, poor-quality and overdue sentence plans, insufficient face-to-face contact between prisoners and offender supervisors, poor comprehension among prisoners of ‘what they had to do to achieve the objectives set for them’ (HM Inspectorates of Probation and Prisons, 2013, p. 28), the delivery of interventions not in accordance with sentence plan objectives, ‘no alternative offence-focussed work […] for prisoners deemed too low risk for accredited programmes for sex offenders’ (HMI Prisons, 2019, p. 42), and a lack of access to accredited courses.…”

Post-sentence supervision: A case study of the extension of community resettlement support for short sentence prisoners

“…Empirical research and academic commentary regarding the experiences of resettlement under TR has primarily focused on Through-the-Gate elements that concern the immediate transition between prison and the community, and not the more community-based element of PSS (see e.g. Burke et al, 2020; Maguire and Raynor, 2017; Millings et al, 2019; Moore and Hamilton, 2016; Taylor et al, 2017). Moore and Hamilton (2016) describe the ‘silo mentalities’ of prison practitioners operating within the reoffending pathways, which lead to insular working practices regarding how the resettlement ‘jigsaw’ comes together.…”

“…Maguire and Raynor (2017) also paint a despondent picture of resettlement outcomes that fail to provide a meaningful level of continuity between prison and probation actors. This has led to Millings et al (2019: 92) suggesting that mandating post-release support to an extra 45,000 people without the requisite resources or organisational support – ‘…has not only placed extra pressure on an already overwrought system but was only ever likely to enhance feelings of resentment and disconnection among those delivering services and those requiring them’. A subsequent Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate (CJJI) thematic report on Through-the-Gate provisions (CJJI, 2016) further supports the above findings, highlighting a catalogue of failings.…”

Resettlement and the case for women

“…The provisions of ORA 2014 were implemented at the same time as the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms which abolished the existing probation trusts replacing them with a new public sector National Probation Service and 21 regional Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to be sold (through a process of competitive tendering) to new providers (Canton and Dominey, 2018; Ministry of Justice, 2013). The CRCs assumed responsibility for (among other work) the supervision of all those people assessed as posing a low or medium risk of causing serious harm and the delivery of ‘through the gate’ (TTG) services intended to support the process of leaving prison and returning to the community (Millings et al, 2019).…”

“…Millings et al (2019) observed that CRCs lacked both the resources and the organisational means to ensure that TTG would provide a good-quality resettlement service. TTG must also be understood in the context of the UK Government’s austerity agenda, which saw public spending cuts affecting not just the criminal justice system but also the housing, welfare and health services that play a part in successful community reintegration (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015).…”