All about APs

Approved Premises (APs), previously known as probation hostels, play a vital role in managing the Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) of individuals released from prison, particularly those posing a risk to the public, known victims, or themselves. Eligibility for AP residency is based on an assessment of high or very high risk of reoffending and/or RoSH, as well as a lack of appropriate and safe accommodation options.

There are 104 APs across England and Wales, most of which are men-only, with eight dedicated to women. Fourteen APs are independently run by third sector providers. Twelve APs operate as psychologically informed planned environments (PIPEs), co-commissioned with NHS England. PIPEs accommodate people likely to have a personality disorder and focus on maintaining rehabilitative gains secured in custody, by fostering a supportive environment and delivering targeted interventions.

Additionally, there are eight APs exclusively for women, five of which are independently managed, and two of which are PIPEs.

All the APs provide 24/7 staffed, highly supervised residential environments for residents. Most placements last 12 weeks; a smaller proportion last for eight weeks. Placements in specialist APs (such as PIPEs) are typically longer (six months), and placements for enhanced security cases last for 52 weeks.

APs are under-researched generally, and little is known about their impact on residents’ resettlement or longer-term desistance outcomes, or those factors that support or enable these outcomes. The current research aimed to address this gap in the literature developing understanding into the AP environment, successes, and barriers to the safe integration of residents into local communities.

Key findings

The report identifies twelve themes related to the success of APs in supporting the safe integration of residents into the community. These themes have been categorised as contextual factors, system-level factors, key practices, and social and relational factors.

Contextual factors

APs are a unique environment, accommodating a high-risk and high-need cohort, and acting as a ‘bridge’ for adjusting from custody to community living. They are seen as distinct from prison, and independent from mainstream probation, and are sometimes misunderstood and undervalued within the wider Service.

System-level factors

For APs to effectively support integration and longer-term desistance, this research suggests three system-level factors are important. Integration- and desistance-supporting policies; sufficient funding and resources and accessible well-resourced rehabilitative community services.

Key practices

Key practices identified by the research include: cohesive and collaborative teamworking; a safe and rehabilitative culture; rehabilitative relationships between staff and residents and balancing expectations of engagement with promoting resident independence and autonomy.

Barriers to effective reintegration

APs face a range of challenges that hinder their effectiveness in supporting rehabilitation and resettlement. These include inappropriate or late placements, short placement lengths, and rigid application of national policies. There is widespread misunderstanding of AP roles (including the specialist units) among stakeholders and residents. Resource constraints, staffing difficulties, and limited access and availability of essential community services (particularly move-on accommodation and mental health support) present further challenges.

Enablers of effective reintegration

Effective APs are characterised by the presence of good relationships and effective operational practice. Key enablers include 24-hour staff presence and meaningful engagement with residents, collaborative leadership, and cohesive teamworking. A diverse range of activities, access to specialist support, and protected time for staff development further contribute to better outcomes. Strong partnerships with local services, post-placement service accessibility, and shared behavioural expectations amongst residents also impact successful reintegration.

Recommendations

The research makes a number of recommendations including:

• A better understanding of the purpose of APs with all groups including the probation service itself, partner organisations and the general public.
• Better resourcing.
• More autonomy for AP managers.
• Strengthening partnerships with local authorities
• Dedicated support in helping residents find employment.
• Better links between APs and community probation officers.

Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here