Understanding the ‘walk of shame’: exploring the experiences of individuals with sexual convictions who have been recalled from open conditions in England and Wales

ABSTRACT

Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of people sent to prison for a sexual offence, yet there is a lack of research exploring the experiences of those with sexual convictions within the prison system, and the factors that help or hinder their progression towards release. This research aimed to explore the experiences of individuals with sexual convictions who have progressed to an open prison but have been recalled back to a closed prison. The research took a qualitative approach, undertaking semi-structured interviews with 10 individuals who had moved back to a closed prison. Thematic analysis was used, eliciting two main themes. First, failure was the only option, relays how participants felt they were bound to fail at open conditions, largely due to a lack of information which meant they did not know what to expect, and a lack of support upon arrival. They also felt stigmatised because of their convictions. A different world centres around participants reporting entering into an unfamiliar environment in open conditions, leaving them unsettled. It also describes the difficulties participants had adjusting to the freedom of open conditions but also the delays they experienced. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexual conviction
• open conditions
• closed conditions
• recall
• reintegration
• thematic analysis

Introduction

The number of individuals in prison convicted of a sexual offence has increased significantly in the last decade, with this group now representing 18% of the entire sentenced prison population (Ministry of Justice [MOJ], 2018; MOJ, 2021a). Furthermore, the average custodial sentence length for sexual offences has also increased by around 11% since 2010, with this reported to be 52.4 months in 2021 (MOJ, 2010; MOJ, 2021b). Despite Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences being abolished in 2012, in June 2021 there were 1722 individuals in prison serving an IPP sentence, 96% of whom were over tariff (MOJ, 2021a). IPP sentences were introduced in England and Wales in 2005 and just like a life sentence, an IPP sentence has a tariff (a minimum amount of time the individual must spend in custody), an unspecified release date (which is only determined when the individual is deemed to no longer pose a risk to the public), and release back into the community on licence (with the potential to be returned to custody if they breach any of their licence conditions) (Prison Reform Trust, 2022a). The IPP sentence was designed for individuals whose offences did not warrant a life sentence but who were considered dangerous, such as those who have committed violent or sexual offences (Padfield, 2012; Prison Reform Trust, 2022a). However, this, along with the large proportion of individuals with sexual convictions serving other indeterminate sentences (e.g. life imprisonment) being over their minimum tariff, highlights a need to help this group to progress through the prison system to prevent them from getting stuck in the system.

Individuals should be prepared for release as they move through the prison system, and the mind-set an individual is in when they are about to leave prison is a predictor of post-imprisonment outcomes (LeBel et al., 2008), so it is believed reintegration should start in prison (Luther et al., 2011). Willis and Grace (2008) stress the importance of pre-release planning and planning for the transition back into life in the community as they found that poor reintegration planning is a risk factor for recidivism for individuals with sexual convictions. Reintegration can be problematic for anyone who has spent time in custody, especially those convicted of sexual offences, as they are likely to face more restrictions upon release, for example due to having to be on the sex offenders register and having extra licence conditions such as restrictions on mobile phones and access to the internet, having to disclose developing relationships, and not being allowed to engage in certain hobbies or forms of employment (Nacro, 2018; Prison Reform Trust, 2022b).

To support desistance, individuals should have access to services and opportunities which will enhance their prospects and help them make better life choices, so it is important that they can access the relevant support to help with this, before their release (Millings et al., 2019). This is particularly important for individuals who commit sexual offences, especially those who offend against children, as they may be predisposed to experience feelings of shame and low self-esteem, which can make it hard for them to prepare for reintegration as they may struggle to look forward and think positively about the future (Proeve & Howells, 2002). This is also important because research has shown that poor reintegration could potentially undermine treatment gains from any offending behaviour programmes completed, thus threatening work addressing risk factors linked to sexual offending (Willis & Grace, 2009).

A key stepping stone between prison and release (and thus a gateway to progression) is an open (Category D) prison, commonly referred to as ‘open conditions’ (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). In England and Wales, the prison service adopts a categorisation system which facilitates risk management, with Category A prisons being the highest security category and Category D prisons being the lowest (Micklethwaite & Earle, 2021). When categorising someone, all available information is considered, including the individual’s previous custodial history, offending behaviour, current identified risks, and information about their ability to cause harm or to continue to engage in criminal activity whilst in custody (MOJ & Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service [HMPPS], 2021). Individuals residing in open (Category D) prisons have been assessed as presenting a low risk of abscond and harm to the public, unlikely to continue to engage in criminal behaviour in custody, and unlikely to disrupt the good order of an open prison (MOJ & HMPPS, 2021). Those convicted of the most serious offences (including sexual offences), may be considered for a transfer to open conditions towards the end of their sentence if their risk level is deemed low (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, 2019; Prison Reform Trust, 2021). Anyone serving an indeterminate sentence must be granted authorisation by the Parole Board, for example following a parole hearing, before they can transfer to open conditions (Prison Reform Trust, 2015).

Open conditions are designed to help individuals with resettlement, which is particularly beneficial for those who have been in prison a long time and who may have worked their way down through the security categories (Micklethwaite & Earle, 2021). Open conditions provide an opportunity for individuals to prepare for release, testing them and their newly-acquired skills in more realistic conditions akin to what they will face in the community, and to improve their long-term prospects in relation to housing and employment. Furthermore, processes at open conditions, including release on temporary licence (ROTL), are central to an individual’s resettlement and have been linked to reductions in reoffending (Hillier & Mews, 2018; Prison Reform Trust, 2015). ROTL aims to further rehabilitation by enabling individuals to engage in activities outside of prison which will contribute to their resettlement (Hillier & Mews, 2018). For example, individuals may be granted day release to attend work, training or education, or to visit family, or may be granted overnight release, enabling them to stay overnight at the place they will be living at when they are released (Hillier & Mews, 2018). As such, ROTL requires them to take some degree of responsibility for their reintegration and to begin their desistance journey before their final release (Göbbels et al., 2012; Prison Reform Trust, 2015). Ultimately, an individual’s desistance from sexual offending is likely to be a gradual process, mediated by their reconciliation with family, friends, and the wider community, and by society’s investment in their reintegration (Walton et al., 2017), all of which they can be supported with whilst at open conditions. Additionally, open conditions are considered an effective way of supervising individuals before release, ensuring they are released having had their risk thoroughly assessed (Hillier & Mews, 2018; Luther et al., 2011; Osborne, 2017).

Despite open conditions being a way for many individuals with sexual convictions to move towards release, not all individuals are released back into the community from open conditions (Sandall, 2017). If individuals are unable to progress through the prison system and are returning to closed conditions, for example, if a change in circumstances affects their security risk, or information comes to light which demonstrates that their risk cannot be safely managed at open conditions (MOJ & HMPPS, 2021), then they are spending more time in prison, placing a strain on economic and logistical resources, and exacerbating the current overcrowding problem (Padfield, 2012; Prison Reform Trust, 2017). Further, it can be difficult to determine which prison an individual should be returned to, as prisons which have a focus on delivering offending behaviour programmes will not cater for their needs if for example, they have already completed the required interventions. Ultimately, being returned to closed conditions could cause individuals with sexual convictions to lose hope, which is significant as hope promotes motivation to change and is linked to successful rehabilitation (Polivy & Herman, 2000; Woldgabreal et al., 2016). This in turn aids the protection of the public (McAlinden, 2006).

To our knowledge, there is an absence of research looking at the process of individuals with sexual convictions being recalled back to closed conditions, with previous research focusing on the recall of individuals with sexual convictions to prison from the community (see Croft & Winder, 2018; Digard, 2010). It is also important to explore their experiences whilst in open conditions and the process of being transferred to open conditions to understand their journeys. In addition, limited statistics are demonstrating the number of individuals with sexual convictions being recalled from open conditions. Figures available at one prison show that between September 2015 and September 2016, 25 individuals (3% of the population of the prison they returned to) returned from open conditions for reasons including substance use, further charges, and being disobedient/disruptive (Justice, 2017; Sandall, 2017). Therefore, the current research represents an important contribution to the literature in establishing what is contributing to the recall from open to closed conditions. Specifically, the current research aims to explore the experiences of those who have been to, and subsequently returned from, open conditions. This will help to develop an understanding of not only how they found their time there, but also the process of transitioning to open conditions and their subsequent recall back to closed conditions. Developing such knowledge about what helped or hindered their experience will guide recommendations for helping individuals get the most out of open conditions, and give them the best chance of successfully reintegrating into society.

Materials and methods

Context

The research was undertaken at a large prison that exclusively houses individuals with sexual convictions and which prioritises the delivery of interventions, such as offending behaviour programmes. This is a closed prison, where the return of individuals from open conditions is something which has been observed and is considered to be something which needs to be better understood, as at any one time approximately 35–40 individuals have returned, equating to 4.76% of the population (Sandall, 2017). Therefore, a long-term strategy of the prison is to help individuals prepare for their transition to open conditions (Sandall, 2017), thus providing a suitable site for the current research to be able to inform and support this strategy.

Participants

The sample comprised ten white British males with a mean age of 49 (SD = 14.9; range = 30–76), each serving a custodial sentence for a sexual offence (or an offence with a sexual element). Eight participants had been to open conditions once, with the remaining two participants having been twice, with the average time spent there being 13.6 months (range = 2.5 months – 4 years 10 months). All participants were serving an indeterminate sentence (life or IPP) and were an average of 5 years over tariff (range = 3 years – 8 years 7 months). Table 1 provides additional participant information.

Table 1. Participant information.

Participant	Age	Index offence	Sentence type	Amount of time over tariff ^1	Number of times been to open conditions	Length of time in closed conditions before going to open prison^2	Length of time at open prison^3	Reason for recall
1	30	Rape (adult) x4, Attempted burglary (dwelling)	IPP	3 years 11 months	1	7 years 6 months	13 months	Allegations of further sexual offence whilst at open prison and breach of ROTL licence
2	76	Rape (child) x3	Life	5 years 5 months	1	13 years	14 months	Offence-paralleling behaviour
3	63	Rape and Murder	Life	6 years	2	4 years	4 years 10 months	Possession of inappropriate materials; Inappropriate sexual behaviours
4	50	Rape (child) x5	Life	3 years 3 months	1	10 years 9 months	7.5 months	Offence-paralleling behaviour; Self-harm.
5	30	Sexual assault by penetration (child)	IPP	8 years 7 months	2	2 years 3 months	8 months	Risk-related behaviour
6	46	Sexual activity with a child x10, Sexual assault of a child under 13, Causing/inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity x4, Taking indecent photographs of a child x10	Life	3 years 7 months	1	8 years 7 months	7 months	Offence-paralleling behaviour
7	64	Rape of child U13 x6, Sexual assault of child U13 x2, Attempted rape (child)	IPP	3 years	1	8 years	8 months	Pending investigation into possible further charges (for alleged sexual offences against family member)
8	36	Indecent assault (child) x20, Rape (child), Sexual activity with a child	IPP	5 years 8 months	1	9 years 9 months	9 months	Possession of inappropriate materials; Perceived risk of sexual reoffending and also absconding
9	37	Robbery, Sexual assault – intentionally touch male – no penetration (adult), Battery	IPP	3 years 3 months	1	7 years	2.5 months	Suspected substance use
10	55	Sexual activity with male child under 13 offender 18 or over – no penetration, Sexual assault of male child under 13 x2, Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child	IPP	6 years 5 months	1	9 years 5 months	9 months	Risk perceived to have increased - Suicidal tendencies; Offence-paralleling sexual fantasies; Disengagement from support

Data collection

Before commencement, the research was approved by the prison Governor and gained ethical approval from HMPPS and a UK university.

Potential participants were identified by a prison-based gatekeeper and included all individuals who had returned to the closed (Cat C) prison (the research site) from open conditions. Information was distributed to all potential participants, and a one-to-one meeting was arranged for all those who expressed an interest, where further details regarding the research were provided and individuals were allowed to ask questions. Individuals were advised that their participation was voluntary and they would not lose anything if they chose to decline. Following this process, all individuals consented to participate and provided written consent.

Data were collected through one to one semi-structured interviews lasting an average of 75 min (61–89 min). The interview schedule was structured into three broad areas: introductory information; experiences of open conditions, including their transfer to open conditions, their time there, and their return to closed conditions; and any recommendations they feel could aid the progression of individuals with sexual convictions at open conditions. Following the interview, participants were debriefed in line with the BPS ethical guidelines. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, with identifiable data removed.

Analysis

The research implemented the use of thematic analysis for ‘identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). Thematic analysis was the chosen method as it is recommended for use in qualitative research involving interviews of 6–10 participants (Fugard & Potts, 2015), which fits with the sample size of the current study. It allows the development of a detailed, rich and complex account, without deviating too far from the data in the interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This was important to illicit an understanding surrounding why individuals are returning from open conditions. It also enables novel insights to be generated which had not previously been considered (Braun & Clarke, 2006), broadening the scope of the research and enhancing understanding of participants’ experiences. Finally, adopting this approach can inform the development of policies and practices (Mays et al., 2005) which, in light of the current concerns regarding those returning from open conditions, would be extremely beneficial.

The analysis adopted the process of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) which involved transcription, increasing familiarisation through repeated reading, and generating initial codes to reflect aspects of the data that appeared particularly interesting and meaningful for each transcript. Following this, the codes were reviewed and organised into themes and sub-themes. During this process, the importance and meaning of codes, as well as the frequency, were considered ensuring the most significant and relevant points were captured even if they were not the most prevalent, a process referred to as saliency analysis (Buetow, 2010). Themes were then reviewed and checked against the original data, and initial themes were combined, separated, altered or discarded as necessary, to ensure the final set of themes fit together and reflected the data.

Results and discussion

In presenting our data, we incorporate supporting literature throughout. We do this to demonstrate where there are links between the experiences of our participants and the existing evidence base, rather than to retrospectively fit our data to past research. We subsequently present a conclusion to the study after this analysis to demonstrate the broader take-home messages within the dataset.

Two main themes were identified from the narratives provided by participants (see Table 2 for descriptions of all themes).

Table 2. Superordinate and sub-themes.

Superordinate themes	Sub-themes
Failure was the only option	Fail to prepare, prepare to fail Us v them
A different world	A less forgiving environment There’s nothing to do but wait Frightened by freedom

Superordinate theme 1: failure was the only option

Participants spoke about various things contributing to them feeling like they were bound to fail at open conditions, primarily a lack of information and preparation before transferring to open conditions which left them not knowing what to expect. There was also a sense that staff at open conditions could do more to support them, and a strong belief that they are judged, stigmatised and generally treated differently to others, simply because they have a sexual conviction.

Sub-theme 1.1: fail to prepare, prepare to fail

When discussing their experiences of open conditions, all participants highlighted a lack of information as being problematic, particularly information about open conditions prior to transfer. Some also described how they felt staff at open conditions could have done more to support them on arrival. Consequently, participants felt a lack of preparation and support contributed to them struggling to adjust to life in open conditions.

Participants described receiving little or no information about open conditions before they transferred:

… it was going in blind coz there was no information whatsoever (2).

I asked er I think it was my Offender Supervisor here if she’d give me some information … all she gave me was a leaflet … it just basically tells you about the prison it doesn’t tell you about the rules of the prison or what to expect … (4).

The use of the word ‘blind’ by Participant 2 creates the impression he was entering the unknown and could not see what lay ahead of him. Open conditions are designed to help prepare individuals for reintegration (Hillier & Mews, 2018; Prison Reform Trust, 2015) and successful reintegration requires planning (Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009). Therefore, if individuals do not know what to expect or what opportunities are available in open conditions, it is difficult for them to set goals to work towards to aid reintegration, so they may not make the most of their time there. Several participants found themselves transferring to open conditions with no expectations. This links with the comment by Participant 4, describing how the information he received was limited and left him unsure about what to expect. While it is standard procedure for individuals to be made aware of the rules when entering an establishment (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.), the comment by Participant 4 suggests he was unfamiliar with the rules. Not knowing what to expect could make it difficult for someone to contemplate what setbacks they might face. It is important to consider potential setbacks and identify ways of coping with them to succeed (Polivy & Herman, 2000). This is particularly important for those with sexual convictions who often face additional obstacles (Nacro, 2018).

As participants had little information to guide expectations, some discussed the utility of speaking to individuals from open conditions before they transfer, as it provides an opportunity to see others ‘succeeding … and learn off their experiences’ (1). It also helps overcome the reliance on ‘horror stories’ (8) from those who have been recalled from open conditions. However, not everyone spoke positively of this opportunity:

… they’re sitting there telling people you know after three months you’ll get parole … I put me hand up and I says can you not tell people the truth so people here aren’t going there and expecting they’ll have their parole after three months … be honest with them he says ok … you could wait longer than three months … why not just say that to people instead of promising this and promising that at least people then know like ok it might take longer than three months … the more honest you are with people the more they can work through it and come to terms with it … I’m not going into a single cell I’m going into a dorm ok I’ll deal with that (4).

This comment reflects the discrepancy between what individuals in closed conditions were told, and what Participant 4 witnessed in open conditions. He appears to stress the importance of individuals being told the ‘truth’ about open conditions to help structure their expectations, as otherwise they are at risk of transferring with ‘unrealistic expectations’ (4) and false hope, which could lead them to set unachievable goals (Polivy & Herman, 2000). If they are then unable to achieve their goals they may feel hopeless and frustrated, like failure was the only option, so may lose hope and motivation to change (Polivy & Herman, 2000). It is therefore important that individuals have realistic expectations and goals and ‘genuine hope’ (Moulden & Marshall, 2005, p. 330). His use of the phrase ‘work through it and come to terms with it’ acknowledges the process individuals go through when adjusting to change, and how the change from closed to open conditions is a significant one, especially for those who have served a long time in closed conditions.

Having to go into a dormitory was a popular topic amongst participants, and when asked when they found out about this, responses included ‘when I got there’ (1), highlighting they were unaware before arriving at open conditions. Significant life events can affect wellbeing and when an individual deviates from their routine this can adversely affect their wellbeing if the change is perceived negatively (Headey & Wearing, 1992). Therefore, having to share a room after having a single room for years could be detrimental to psychological wellbeing, especially if they have no time to prepare for this change:

… since being in prison I’ve always been single celled er but then all of a sudden it changes er they say well your risk has lowered your cell sharing has lowered I said it’s ok for you to say that but you don’t know what’s going off up in here [points to head] and I think a lot of people don’t take it on board … (4).

… I got bullied when I was a kid so I don’t like being around that many people … (1).

The first comment highlights how things changed for Participant 4 when he got to open conditions and his use of the word ‘sudden’ creates the sense that this was abrupt. This comment also reflects how Participant 4 believes staff do not take into account an individual’s needs or background when assigning accommodation. The second comment provides an example of how an individual’s past can affect them in open conditions. Individuals in prison are more likely to have experienced some form of trauma than the average population (National Audit Office, 2017). Additionally, research suggests that the presence of complex issues such as trauma, and the prison environment itself, contributes to those in prison being more likely to develop mental health problems than people in the community, which can have a detrimental impact on someone’s ability to make positive life transitions, for example to life at open conditions (Graffam et al., 2004; National Audit Office, 2017). Therefore, following fail to prepare, prepare to fail, preparation is key to successfully managing this and so thought should be given to an individual’s responsivity needs when they arrive at open conditions, if not before, such as their physical and mental health, and past experiences. This will help individuals succeed not only in open conditions but in life generally.

Some participants expressed how they felt like the way the closed (Cat C) prison is run did not help prepare them for their transition to open conditions:

… you don’t feel like you’re in a C Cat here you don’t feel like you are more responsible for your own actions … this place doesn’t feel like a stepping stone it almost feels like you’re leaping off a board into a D Cat (8).

This extract creates the impression that for Participant 8 there is a vast difference between the closed (Cat C) prison he is in and open conditions. This was echoed by Participant 7, who likened the closed (Cat C) prison to a ‘B Cat’ due to its restrictions. This may suggest it would be beneficial to enhance the level of responsibility individuals have in closed conditions and lessen restrictions to help ease the transition. Consequently, this would lessen the perception of change when individuals arrive at open conditions and could help maintain wellbeing. Linking with this, participants spoke about how at their current closed (Cat C) prison (the research site) there is a wing designed to give individuals an idea of how open conditions work:

… they lock the door at night time so you can’t get off the building but you can still walk around the building up until like eleven o clock at night … it gives you that experience (5).

This depicts the wing as providing individuals with the experience of an enhanced level of freedom, akin to open conditions, however not everyone has the chance to access this:

… I was finding it very difficult to settle at [open prison] er coz I’d never had the opportunity to go to [wing] before leaving … you need to give them that experience first … to see what it’s going to feel like and maybe adjust to it … (4).

When asked why he did not go to this wing he speaks so highly of, Participant 4 said he was ‘overlooked’. His comment reflects how he believes this lack of experience contributed to the difficulty he had settling at open conditions, linking with the sense of fail to prepare, prepare to fail. It seems this wing provides valuable experience for individuals to help prepare them for open conditions, which would go some way to combating the apparent fear of the unknown. This experience would be particularly helpful for those who have been in prison a long time and could have become institutionalised (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). Such individuals are likely to have become dependent on the routine of closed conditions (Haney, 2001), so may struggle to adapt to open conditions. This experience would be invaluable, however, with only one wing places are limited.

Sub-theme 1.2: us v them

There were different ways in which participants described being distinguished from other individuals at open conditions, however, the main distinction was between individuals with sexual convictions and those without sexual convictions, often referred to by participants as ‘mains’ or ‘normals’. Participants described how this distinction left them feeling judged by both prisoners and staff.

It was reported by participants that at open conditions ‘you’re not allowed’ (1) to tell other people which prison you have come from and that is ‘one of the rules’ (1). Participant 1 said this is designed to ‘help prevent bullying’. However, this rule was deemed by some to be ineffective for different reasons:

… when I left here the bus was full of other prisoners from [mainstream Cat C prison] … so from that minute on until I came back my life was shit … I wanted to end it all (7).

When you went into reception it was the main erm orderlies they saw where you came from which prison and it went round the prison faster than a telephone call … it left you feeling very vulnerable (2).

The first comment demonstrates how for some, difficulties started before they arrived at open conditions, whereas the second comment identifies that how individuals are greeted at open conditions is also problematic, as it was made clear which prison they had come from. Both of these scenarios create the sense of us v them. The use of the word ‘vulnerable’ by Participant 2 illustrates how this experience affected his well-being and appears to echo what Participant 7 said about how his life in open conditions was ‘shit’ and how he ‘wanted to end it all’. This is significant as there is a high prevalence of suicide within male prisons in the UK (Hemming et al., 2020).

Klein et al. (2018) report that individuals with sexual convictions experience stigmatisation within their communities and are physically isolated because of the label they are given. It appears this is being mirrored within open conditions. Identifying those with sexual convictions in the ways described by Participants 2 and 7 mirrors the media’s decision to ‘name and shame’ those convicted of sexual offences, an act which sparked public outcry and vigilante actions (McAlinden, 2005). Not only does this put them at risk of harm, but it could also exacerbate their already high levels of shame (Marshall et al., 2009).

Stigmatisation has also been found to be closely associated with feelings of shame, particularly in those who have offended against children (Proeve & Howells, 2002), as it strips an individual of their identity whilst giving them a new identity, a new label, as a ‘sex offender’, which can be hard to move away from (Evans & Cubellis, 2015). This has been found to result in decreased self-efficacy, maladaptive coping and personal distress (Proeve & Howells, 2002; Tangney et al., 2011). Participants provided an overwhelming sense that they felt judged, stigmatised and victimised whilst in open conditions due to their convictions, which is significant, as a sense of being stigmatised is predictive of reoffending and a return to prison (LeBel et al., 2008). In contrast, the regret of past crimes and self-identification as a ‘family man’ both promote desistance (LeBel et al., 2008). Therefore, if an individual can identify as a ‘family man’, then they are moving away from the ‘sex offender’ label and seeing themselves in a more positive light, whereas those focused on being stigmatised or judged by others are likely to feel anxious and powerless (LeBel et al., 2008). This could then make it harder for them to cope with any challenges they face in open conditions as a decrease in self-efficacy, for example, may lead to feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness or powerlessness, all of which could hurt an individual’s motivation to change and could ultimately increase the likelihood of reoffending (Pivetti et al., 2016; Tangney et al., 2011). This is because hope plays an important role in an individual’s ability to desist from crime because with a sense of hope, and some self-belief, an individual is more likely to take advantage of prosocial opportunities such as employment, and may also be in a stronger position to overcome any setbacks they may face (LeBel et al., 2008).

There was an absence of peer support described by participants and a sense that they were alienated:

I had worries the first week there was more normals there than there was sex offenders … the normal the mains they didn’t want to help you (2).

… you might see some faces there that you may recognise but they don’t want you to come near them you know shun you you know don’t come near me coz then people will know you know me and where we’ve been … (4).

Both comments highlight the us v them distinction. The first comment describes how those without sexual convictions were seemingly unwilling to help those with sexual convictions. The use of the word ‘normals’, by Participant 2 to describe individuals without sexual convictions implies that those with sexual convictions are abnormal, further reinforcing the label and the idea of us v them. The second comment reflects how Participant 4 was treated by people he had known before going to open conditions. It also fits with an observation made by Participant 7, in that some individuals would associate with those who had sexual convictions privately but then ‘didn’t wanna know’ when others were around. This suggests that peer support for those with sexual convictions was superficial, if present at all. Some participants described how they have a negative self-image, with Participant 9 calling himself a ‘wrong’un’. Individuals experiencing shame frequently expect to be abandoned (Kivisto et al., 2011). Consequently, being treated in such ways by their peers could reinforce their negative self-image which could make it hard for them to promote a positive self-identity (Göbbels et al., 2012). This could ultimately lead to a return to risk-related behaviour either in a form of a self-fulfilling prophecy or in an attempt to cope (Luther et al., 2011; McAlinden, 2005; Merton, 1948).

Linking with the perceived distinction between those with and without sexual convictions, participants described how they felt individuals with sexual convictions were treated differently by staff:

… when people were caught smoking spice when people were nicked for being having wrong medication in their system … those people didn’t get recalled … we haven’t got a clue what to do … we’re gonna have to recall him just in case it’s an issue … it was just a kneejerk reaction … not only do they assume that it’s a risk of sexual reoffending … they then assume that … assumed risk of sexual reoffending indicates a risk of absconding (8).

… for em to just kick me out at the soonest opportunity as possible it seems that was their goal … you’re a sex offender we’re just gonna get you out (5).

The first extract refers to being ‘nicked’, a term used to describe being placed on report for breaking a prison rule (Prion Reform Trust, 2019). This extract suggests that from the perspective of Participant 8, there was a lack of understanding amongst staff at open conditions about his behaviour and whether it was risk-related. He describes how he was recalled, yet others who were ‘nicked’ for using drugs were not, which he believes was due to the nature of his conviction. The phrase ‘just in case’ implies that to him, their decision to recall him was overly cautious, and the way he says ‘assume’ twice emphasises that in his eyes, their conclusions were not evidence-based. The overly cautious and seemingly uncertain approach was also reflected in comments made by other participants, including Participant 5, who talked about a slower ROTL process for those with sexual convictions which he attributed to staff not wanting to ‘sign off’ on it ‘in case something happened’. Digard (2010) studied a group of individuals with sexual convictions who had been recalled to prison from the community. Participants experienced feelings of frustration, and perceptions of procedures being unfair when they observed discrepancies between the treatment and punishment of individuals (Digard, 2010). A sense of unfairness is also echoed by Croft and Winder (2018) in their study of individuals with sexual convictions who have been recalled to prison from the community, although in this instance it was the entire Criminal Justice System which was considered to be unfair. Therefore seemingly slower ROTL processes for individuals with sexual convictions could lead to similar feelings of frustration and a sense of unfairness. If such an overly cautious approach becomes engrained in prison procedures and policies, it will shape entire prison experiences (Ricciardelli & Moir, 2013). This seems to be what is happening, albeit inadvertently, in open conditions.

The comment by Participant 8 also states that the ‘kneejerk reaction’ regarding his recall was in his eyes, disproportionate to others who broke the rules at open conditions, such as those misusing substances, and he appears to attribute this to the fact he has a sexual conviction. Research has shown that individuals in prison are more likely to comply with rules if they perceive those in authority to be treating them fairly (Reisig & Mesko, 2009). Therefore, for Participant 8 this could affect how he engages with those working with him in open conditions and his general compliance (Digard, 2010), which could impact his sentence progression.

The comment by Participant 5 suggests that he believes that staff at open conditions had an agenda, and were looking for a reason to remove him from the prison, which he felt was due to his conviction, feeding into the labelling process and the idea of us v them. The use of the term ‘sex offender’ in the comment also reinforces the idea of such individuals being labelled and defined by the nature of their offence. This creates the impression that for him, failure was the only option, as no matter what he does, he can never change the fact he has a sexual conviction. This fits with literature highlighting how the stigma attached to those with sexual convictions is not only condemning but also long-lasting (Klein et al., 2018; Waldram, 2007).

As a result of the perceived animosity from staff, participants described having strained relationships with them. Research has highlighted the importance of working relationships within prisons being characterised by trust and collaboration (Fitzalan Howard, 2019), as well as the need for prison staff to hold positive attitudes towards individuals with sexual convictions as these attitudes, along with a belief that such individuals can change, play a significant role in rehabilitation (Blagden et al., 2016). If an individual thinks staff believe they can change, this can reinforce their own beliefs they can change, moving them away from their label as a ‘sex offender’ and promoting desistance (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009).

Superordinate theme 2: a different world

Participants spoke about how moving to open conditions felt like they were entering an unfamiliar environment due to having a lack of support, experiencing a sense of unease, being faced with restrictions and delays, and feeling overwhelmed by the freedom they were given. Consequently, they found it hard to adjust to open conditions.

Sub-theme 2.1: a less forgiving environment

One way in which open conditions were perceived to be a different world was the impression participants had of it being a less forgiving environment than closed conditions.

A popular talking point was the presence of substance misuse in open conditions, which was a different world for many participants:

… people who are like easily led they could find it hard to resist and they could just get under their under their spell … as soon as I got there I was getting offered it I was getting offered spice cannabis heroin … (1).

… they pushed in and said right … we know you got your tramadol this morning so hand it over … and one of them threatened me with a knife … I didn’t report it there was no point … there’s three of them to my word … I came off the tramadol … even though I was in pain (2).

These comments highlight that the problems were not just with illegal drugs but also with the misuse of prescribed medication. These statements create the impression that for some, time at open conditions could be counter-productive and could lead to a return to offending behaviour. Substance use has been shown to impact an individual’s ability to successfully reintegrate into the community (Luther et al., 2011), so being exposed to substances in open conditions could not only affect individuals in prison but also their longer-term future. The phrases used by Participant 1 such as ‘easily led’ and ‘under their spell’ create an impression of some individuals having the ability to influence and control others, which fits with research highlighting how social hierarchies operate within prison (South & Wood, 2006). Additionally, the influence of peers in prison has been found to affect post-release behaviour and reintegration (Luther et al., 2011; Visher & Travis, 2003). The second comment describes a less forgiving environment, as not only was Participant 2 having to contend with the psychological effects of being bullied and threatened with a knife, but he was also having to deal with the physical effects of being in pain as a result of stopping his medication. Research has highlighted the importance of individuals feeling safe within the prison environment as this provides them with headspace for self-reflection which aids rehabilitation (Blagden et al., 2016).

Some participants described how they felt staff at open conditions did not listen to them:

… when you go down the categories it just seems to be don’t want to help you anymore you’re on your own don’t want to listen to you … I just needed them to take me seriously and listen and to understand (6).

In this comment, it is interesting that Participant 6 has not said there is less help, but rather that people ‘don’t want to help,’ suggesting he sees staff as being unwilling to help individuals in lower-category prisons. This reinforces the notion that it is a different world from what he has been used to at previous prisons. The comment reflects how he felt he was not listened to, and felt alone, with such feelings of isolation being linked to sexual offending (McAlinden, 2005). Individuals must be given access to the support they require, as those who experience a lack of custody support are more likely to re-offend (Maguire & Raynor, 2006). One explanation is that not securing help could be disheartening, reducing an individual’s motivation to try and access help again in the future. Instead, they may try and deal with things alone and find alternative solutions, potentially leading them back to previously problematic behaviours in an attempt to cope (Luther et al., 2011).

Participant 6 also says that he needed to be taken seriously, implying that by not being listened to, he felt he was not believed, therefore staff would have been unable to understand him and his needs, making it difficult to support him. This appears to link with points raised within the us v them sub-theme, about how staff at open conditions were seen to have a limited understanding of risk-related behaviour associated with sexual offending. This is significant as risk management is vital in reducing an individual’s level of risk and the likelihood they will re-offend (Coid et al., 2007). Consequently, if staff do not fully understand the behaviour of those with sexual convictions, the risk factors associated with sexual offending, or the areas in which they need support, it will be difficult for them to accurately judge the level of risk individuals pose and adopt relevant risk management strategies.

Some participants also described how fear of recall was a barrier for them in open conditions. Participant 5 described how he would not talk to anyone in the community whilst on ROTL:

I’m not reintegrating I’m not talking to anyone … because of my crime against a child a sixteen year old if I was stood next to someone I didn’t know who turned out to be fifteen I could be recalled … so I thought … I’m not gonna try and get myself into trouble I’m just not going to speak to anyone (5).

This comment conveys a sense of caution in that Participant 5 was trying to avoid any negative repercussions of his ROTL experience. However, it also highlights that by not talking to anyone he felt he was not reintegrating into the community, which as previously mentioned is a key aim of ROTL. The fact he was too worried about being recalled to actively try and reintegrate is important, as re-establishing relationships with members of the community is one factor which mediates desistance from sexual offending (Göbbels et al., 2012; Walton et al., 2017). Consequently, not maximising such opportunities could make desistance harder.

About the recall process itself, multiple participants described how they were not told why they were being recalled until they were on their way back to closed conditions or in some cases back in closed conditions:

I went to reception they put me in a car … then put handcuffs on me I was like what’s going on they were like oh we can’t tell ya just get in the car we’ve gotta go (1).

This depicts a seemingly abrupt recall process, and his questioning of what was going on suggests he felt confused. Participant 10 also stated that he was given ‘no information’ when officers arrived at his door to recall him, also creating a sense of being kept in the dark. This echoes the findings of Croft and Winder (2018) where individuals with sexual convictions who were recalled from the community back into prison found the process to be stressful, and most participants were unaware that they were going to be recalled until the Police arrived. Participant 10 described the recall process as a ‘horrible,’ unexpected event dubbed the ‘walk of shame’. Digard (2010) discovered individuals with sexual convictions recalled to prison found the experience traumatic, as they had been trying to progress with their lives, so being recalled was a step backwards which led to feelings of depression and hopelessness. Therefore it is likely that being recalled from open to closed conditions could be perceived similarly, a notion supported by the fact that participants in the current study recognised that open conditions are the final step before release. Additionally, emotions triggered by the recall process are likely to be exaggerated when individuals are handcuffed, something representative of being ‘a criminal’ (7).

Sub-theme 2.2: there’s nothing to do but wait

At open conditions, participants were routinely faced with various limitations, restrictions and delays.

Participant 8 spoke about how one of the main restrictions he faced was about the employment opportunities available to him at open conditions, which he felt mirrors real life:

… in [open prison] there was only about eight different places you could work outside of the prison and only one of them would accept you if you were a child sex offender … the information you get in the booklet it just states that there are nine different companies that will take people on work from the prison working outside of the prison … it does in a way reflect already reflect the reality of outside life there are too many companies who will not employ a sex offender let alone a child sex offender (8).

This comment shows how Participant 8 had been given information about all of the potential places which employ individuals from open conditions but was not made aware of the limitations of this for him. This, therefore, appears to link to the unrealistic expectations described within the failure was the only option theme. It has been found that those who want to change their life should be given the chance to do so (Gideon, 2010), which does not appear to fit with the restrictions being faced at open conditions for people with sexual convictions. Two-thirds of people lose their job whilst they are in prison, a factor associated with reoffending (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). Additionally, individuals who have convictions are significantly discriminated against in the employment world, which has a knock-on effect on their rehabilitation and reintegration (Luther et al., 2011; Prison Reform Trust, 2015), and can reinforce the stigma previously mentioned within the us v them sub-theme. Therefore, giving individuals the opportunity to readjust to working in the community and to show potential employers how they could be a valued addition to their company is vital. The comment particularly highlights the severe lack of community employment opportunities for individuals with sexual convictions against children, restricting their chances of gaining work experience and reintegrating within the community, creating the sense that there’s nothing to do but wait. Participant 8 seems to be aware of the barriers he might face to successfully gaining employment upon release, however, his comment also reflects a sense of hopelessness. Genuine hope is key for self-change (Polivy & Herman, 2000), but it sounds as though he has resigned himself to the fact that it will be very difficult for him to get a job because he is a ‘child sex offender’, thus in some way defining himself by his offending (Maruna, 2001). Individuals with sexual convictions against children have been found to have particularly low self-esteem (Marshall & Mazzucco, 1995), so there must be opportunities available to them in open conditions to support their sense of self-efficacy.

Another obstacle which participants encountered at open conditions was significant delays about their progression through the system, potentially slowing down their reintegration into society. This ties in with participants’ unrealistic expectations and perceived false hope previously described within the failure was the only option theme, as individuals found they were unable to achieve the things they hoped they would whilst in open conditions. There are not many open prisons in England which accept individuals with sexual convictions, which itself has the potential to delay individuals in reaching open conditions and reintegrating back into the community. If ROTL processes at open conditions are also delayed, this will have a knock-on effect on each individual’s parole eligibility, and ultimately their release. This means that individuals stay in open conditions for longer, which makes it harder for others with sexual convictions to obtain a place in such establishments.

The delays at one of the open prisons the participants had been to were so significant, the prison had been given a nickname by the individuals there to reflect the delays, and new arrivals were informed of this when they got there. Participant 5 described how this was ‘deflating’ and left him wondering ‘well what’s the point?’ This suggests that being greeted by the knowledge of such delays led him to question his motivation and created a sense of being ‘stuck’ (5) from the outset of his stay, as though there’s nothing to do but wait. Research into the experiences of individuals with drug addictions in a prison-based therapeutic community has highlighted how motivation is a key part of rehabilitation, and also significantly helps individuals overcome obstacles they might face (Gideon, 2010). Therefore, having such delays which significantly knock an individual’s motivation could be detrimental in the long run to the efforts of interventions, with subsequent implications for their desistance journeys.

A common concern highlighted by participants was the delays they faced in accessing ROTL opportunities, such as town visits and home leaves:

I was expecting it to be more relaxed … more encouragement than I actually got … it took me nine months to get accepted for my first town visit … get released and start my life again that’s all I wanted to do (7).

This comment by Participant 7 firstly highlights the discrepancy between his expectations of open conditions and the reality and demonstrates that he did not feel as encouraged as he expected to be. This is important, as research has shown that if an individual feels as though other people believe they can change and have high expectations of them, they develop greater self-belief which in turn leads to a more positive outcome (Maruna et al., 2009). This has been termed the Pygmalion effect and has been linked to improved reintegration outcomes for people who have committed offences (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). ROTL processes have been found to play a central role in resettlement and reductions in reoffending, and help individuals rebuild links with the community (Hillier & Mews, 2018; Prison Reform Trust, 2015). Therefore, delays could prevent individuals from benefiting from the full potential of ROTL and could thus have a knock-on effect on an individual’s ability to successfully reintegrate and desist from crime. The way Participant 7 talks about how all he wanted to do was start his life again creates a sense of desperation and sadness, in the sense that he wants to make a fresh start but feels that he is being held back.

Sub-theme 2.3: frightened by freedom

Another way in which open conditions were perceived to be a different world relates to how the enhanced level of freedom in open conditions was quite scary for participants, as the structure, routine and restrictions of closed conditions had become the normality.

Participants spoke about the increased power, freedom and responsibility they had at open conditions:

… after being in a set routine for several years of being in jail like bang up this time x y z and going there and there’s no bang up … it was scary at first … I like being banged up (1).

… I think because of the length of time some of us serve in closed conditions we get familiarised with it … it’s a system with a routine there when you go to a Cat D there’s no routine you have to make that routine yourselves there’s nobody telling you what to do … I’m used to being told … when to go to bed when to get behind my door … not hearing them doors being locked at night … knowing that you’re in control of that door you’re the one that locks that door staff don’t lock it … you’re in control of that situation … you were given back more power and I think that frightened me … you become a system within a system (4).

Both participants talk about not being locked up by staff in open conditions, which for Participant 1 was ‘scary’ as this is something he likes and has got used to. This may seem counterintuitive but demonstrates that for him, being locked up became normality. His comment links with that of Participant 4 who was ‘frightened’ by the power he was ‘given back’ under open conditions, implying that this was taken from him when he was imprisoned. Furthermore, he uses the phrase ‘you’re in control’ to depict how in open conditions the roles change, in that individuals are no longer dictated to by Officers to the same extent as in closed conditions. The comment by Participant 4 depicts a sense of familiarity with the routines provided by closed conditions, a sentiment particularly emphasised within his final comment about how ‘you become a system within a system’. It appears both Participants 1 and 4 were frightened by freedom in open conditions as this was something new to them, a different world, which they initially struggled to cope with. The sense of open conditions being a different world due to the level of responsibility afforded to individuals was also echoed in a comment by another participant:

… if you’ve been in prison a number of years, you’re so used to somebody else basically being at your door you should be at work you know come on go, and ten minutes later you’re there whereas on the out in the outside world if somebody eventually gets through to you you’re already two hours late for work and it’s gonna take you another half an hour to get there you’re docked two and a half hours pay … (8).

This comment highlights how individuals in prison become accustomed to staff motivating them and ensuring they get to where they need to be, for example work, which could lead individuals to develop a reliance on staff. Institutionalisation is characterised by a reliance on the routine of the establishment and the support available within it, which can leave individuals unable to deal with the outside world (Haney, 2001). This appears to link with the way Participant 1 found not being locked up ‘scary’, and how Participant 4 was left feeling ‘frightened’ by the level of power he had in open conditions. It also links with how Participant 8 got used to having members of staff prompting him to go to work. If individuals are heavily reliant on staff in custody and thus struggle to exercise responsibility, it is likely that they will also struggle to exercise responsibility when released into the community (Edgar et al., 2012). The comment by Participant 8 also highlights that if an individual is late for work in custody, the perceived consequences are less than if they were late for work in the community, which also reinforces the importance of individuals being fully prepared to reintegrate into society. The previously mentioned comment about the need to give individuals a chance to experience a greater level of freedom and responsibility at closed conditions before transfer, to help ease the transition, could go a long way to help with this, as it could help individuals learn how to deal with increasing levels of responsibility.

Conclusion

The research aimed to explore the experiences of those with sexual convictions who have been to and returned from open conditions, to help understand their perceptions of the transition to open conditions, their time there and the recall process. While participants agreed that open conditions provide an ‘excellent middle ground’ (8) between closed conditions and the community and a chance to ‘see the world first with help and support’ (6), they did not progress to the community. As such, this study is important in understanding the reasons why individuals with sexual convictions feel they did not progress from open conditions and the factors they believe contributed to their return to closed conditions.

Recommendations

The results highlight factors in open and closed conditions which participants feel contributed to their failure to progress and so recommendations can be made for both contexts.

The most frequently discussed problem was a lack of information and preparation before transferring to open conditions and a resulting sense of uncertainty. It is therefore important to devise a way of enabling individuals to gain an understanding of what it is really like in open conditions. Individuals would benefit from receiving accurate information before transfer about the open prison they are going to (e.g. through booklets, or visits from individuals in open conditions with first-hand experience). Information should include things such as practical information, for example about living conditions, timescales, rules, and what behaviour could lead to recall, as well as opportunities available. One way of addressing this could be within a group environment, in which several individuals who are due to go to open conditions could be invited to attend sessions in which they are provided with the necessary support and information to ease the transition. Also within a group environment, it would be helpful for individuals to be allowed to discuss any worries or fears they have about open conditions. This would allow individuals to know they are not alone, whilst allowing engagement in group-based problem-solving activities, such as discussing how they would deal with various situations they might face in open conditions.

A chance for individuals to access an enhanced level of freedom in closed conditions before transfer, for example with a move to a progressive wing with fewer restrictions and minimal staff supervision, with priority given to those serving longer sentences, would also help prepare individuals and guide expectations. It would also be beneficial for staff at both open and closed conditions to signpost the support available to individuals at open conditions, to help ease the transition. Additionally, individuals at a specialist site for those convicted of sexual offences should be picked up by their transport first to prevent others from knowing the nature of their offending, thus reducing their stigmatisation and victimisation in open conditions. One major problem encountered within open conditions specifically was the perception of limited support, and how participants described being labelled a ‘sex offender’. All individuals must be treated equally and consistently. It would therefore be beneficial for open conditions to consider the role that prisoner orderlies play on reception and ways to monitor their behaviour. Consideration of individual needs is vital, and staff must work collaboratively with individuals, listening to concerns and ensuring relevant support can be accessed promptly. To add to this, each individual’s suitability to go into a dormitory should be assessed upon arrival, or beforehand if possible. Additionally, it is recommended that there is scope within the induction process to identify those who are potentially vulnerable, for example to substance misuse or bullying. To further support individuals, consideration should be given to how information is communicated, for example by using prison radio or television, newspapers/magazines, or wing representatives.

A feeling of trepidation and fear of recall were also described. If staff at open conditions communicate openly and transparently with those they are supporting, for example about what could lead to recall, and also when concerns arise about their behaviour, some of these worries could potentially be alleviated. Also, there is a need for staff in open conditions, particularly Offender Supervisors, to receive training regarding risk factors associated with sexual offending to inform decision making and aid their understanding of those they are supporting. It would also be beneficial to increase the number of job opportunities available for individuals with sexual convictions, including those against children. Linked to this, it is recommended that steps are taken to help avoid ROTL activities being cancelled or delayed. Having stricter guidelines to adhere to regarding timeframes for access to ROTL opportunities could help. There are clear policies in place regarding ROTL and when individuals should be considered eligible for ROTL, however, unsurprisingly it is a very complex process, with lots of steps which need to be taken before someone can be granted ROTL (MOJ, 2021c). The process could therefore potentially be held up at any of these stages, so everyone involved must work together to ensure that ROTL applications are processed efficiently. Finally, if an individual is recalled from open conditions, they should be provided with information about why at the earliest opportunity.

Strengths and limitations

All of the participants are serving some form of indeterminate sentence. This was not intentional but is beneficial, shedding light on the problems indeterminate sentenced individuals are experiencing, resulting in them becoming stuck in the system (Parole Board, 2017). Additionally, not all participants had transferred to open conditions from the same closed (Cat C) prison, which shows that the issues raised are not specific to one prison. The qualitative method enabled an in-depth exploration of the topic which as well as providing an understanding of the area, can guide future practice and research. This is important as there is little research within this area. However, qualitative research is subjective, due to the integral role the author plays in data gathering and interpretation (Galdas, 2017). The authors, however, entered into the study with no preconceptions and ensured themes linked back to the original data, helping overcome such limitations. Another potential limitation is that participants could have provided socially desirable responses, so the data may not accurately reflect their experiences. Due to the sample population, and the fact that the lead author works at the prison, it cannot be ruled out that answers given were what participants felt the lead author wanted in an attempt to be helpful or aid their progression, or alternatively, they could have worried about saying something that would get them into trouble. However, time spent establishing rapport with participants, explanation of the lead author’s role, ensuring participants understood the aims and implications of the research, the use of exploratory questions, and exclusion of anyone the lead author had directly worked with, helped minimise this.

Future directions

Having first-hand accounts of what it is like in open conditions for individuals with sexual convictions is vital to aid decision making regarding who is ready to go there and what needs to be done to prepare and support people for the transition to open conditions. This research aimed to specifically explore the experiences of recall for those with sexual convictions, however, we currently do not know how this translates to other offence types. Therefore, it could be beneficial for future research to replicate this in other offending populations. Furthermore, to identify a greater breadth of data, future research could take a quantitative approach, for example measuring factors which contributed to and therefore could predict failure in open conditions. Alternatively, adopting a qualitative method like interviews with those who are succeeding at open conditions, or post-release, to focus more on what helped them progress, would be interesting. Some participants in this research expressed that they do not wish to return to open conditions, which could delay their progression if they are not deemed ready for release. Therefore, having an understanding of why individuals are returning from open conditions and putting things in place to help prevent this, may alleviate concerns about returning, helping people progress more effectively. Although some participants acknowledged the role they played in their recall by taking responsibility for their actions, participants generally focused on external factors which led to their recall. Consequently, it would be useful for future research to further explore the role that participants play in their recall back to closed conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Governor at the research site for supporting the research and allowing it to take place at the prison. Thanks also go to the participants for sharing their experiences.

Disclosure statement

As discussed within the limitations section, the lead author works at the research site, however as previously outlined, steps were taken to mitigate any potential conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research and the site at which it was conducted, supporting data is not available.

Notes

1 If the participant has been to open conditions more than once, this is how far they were over tariff when they went to open conditions the most recent time.

2 If the participant has been to open conditions more than once, this is the time they spent in closed conditions prior to their most recent visit to open conditions, inclusive of time spent on remand.

3 If the participant has been to open conditions more than once, this is the time they spent there on their most recent visit.