Abstract

Social scientists agree that interpersonal-trust is an essential and key feature of successful relationships. However, previous research has not fully explored how interpersonal-trust functions between employers and ex-offenders in the desistance process. Therefore his project explores four interconnected and neglected aspects of the literature through semi-structured interviews. Namely, what role interpersonal-trust plays in securing employment, how workplace-trust and employment affects desistance, what underlying issues erode interpersonal-trust and how does it influence the key factors involved in the reintegration of ex-offenders. The collected evidence showed that bidirectional interpersonal-trust functions as a gatekeeping mechanism, where distrust holds the gate closed from both side of the employment relationship. Furthermore, several underlying issues and adversities affecting people with convictions, restraining and pulling them away from any potential ‘turning points’ linked to desistance and reintegration process are observed. Amongst these negative reinforcements, interpersonal-trust inequality is the most significant. Meaning, if the ex-offender has society’s trust, he or she will highly likely have a positive outcome, while distrust will indicate adverse outcomes for the individual. The study revealed that if trust is not present at the beginning of the desistance process, it can be built through transparency and honesty, which besides employment can enhance the desistance and reintegration process.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter will present the subject of the Honours Project by introducing the topics of interpersonal-trust, desistance process and recidivism. Furthermore, it will link the previous notions to employment, highlight key issues respectively and consolidate these into the next chapter of literature review.

Interpersonal-Trust

Interpersonal-trust is a vital of the dynamics of interactions between individuals and organisations, but its measurement is challenging. According to Castaldo (2003) trust is defined through the perception of a subject, as an assumption of a behaviour, as a feeling towards someone or a situation, and through expectation and future action, which is expressed and articulated via intuition or conscious decision (Borum, 2010). Furthermore, very importantly it positively contributes to social capital (World Bank, 2006; Algan and Cahuc, 2013), crime (Sampson, 2012), health (Kawachi and Berkman, 2000; Stafford et al., 2004) and life satisfaction (Algan and Cahuc, 2013; Boriani et al., 2012). The temporal component plays a unique and key role amongst its characteristics as it interweaves past behaviour, which influence contemporary decisions and actions, and anticipates the future outcome. In addition, interdependence, voluntary risk taking and vulnerability predicated on expectations of future behaviour are common themes in the literature defining trust (Borum, 2010). When Lewicki et al. (1998) compared trust to distrust in relation cognitive and behavioural features,  they have found that trust is correlated to positive outcomes and distrust to negative expectations (Grovier, 1994), which factors indirectly influence re-offending and the desistance process.

Desistance-process and Recidivism

Observing desistance is difficult, as it is not an occurring (criminal) event, but the continued absence of such events (Maruna, 2001). According to Maruna and Immarigeon (2004), desistance is a ‘termination point’, which means crime is not committed constantly and criminals do not offend consistently. This termination of criminal behaviour occurs repetitively, an individual may not offend for days, years or even the rest of their life. This being one of the restraining factors when studying desistance as the potential of reoffending persisting throughout the desister’s lifetime (Hearn, 2010). However, this ‘termination point’ is not a final break from offending, as new offences may occur in the future.

Laub and Sampson (2001) identified several different ‘turning points’ associated with the desistance process, a few of the most important being marriage, employment and housing. Hughes (1998) refers these ‘turning points’ as social bonds or social capital, which functions as a ‘pathway’ from crime to desistance. She identified ‘age, respect, fear from imprisonment and physical harm, benevolence, contemplation, support, mentoring and employment as influencing factors in the desistance-process. A particularly important element in the process of desistance is employment, which is fundamental and essential for the desister to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society (Johnson, 2013), as it provides a means to the ex-offender to pay for basic necessities like food, accommodation and bills. Similarly, housing, social class, substance misuse and mental health are interlinked and significantly impact the process (Ministry of Justice, 2013).

According to Langan and Levin (2002) and Wartna et al. (2011), there is a high risk of re-offending amongst people with convictions (PWC) after liberation from prison. The rapid change in their life and the accompanying uncertainty  might explain the high re-offending rate, however there other factors that contribute, such as housing, financial stability, health (Dirkzwager, Nieuwbeerta and Fiselier, 2009; Visher and Travis, 2001), and employment and education (Visher and Lattimore, 2007). As a criticism of desistance research, Graham and McNeil (2017) argued that it is focused on men’s experiences, therefore it is ‘male centric’ and individualistic approach, while it disregards intersectional issues, like gender, class and race. In order to capture a more accurate picture of the topic, the next chapter will explore past research and related issues.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The chapter will critically evaluate previous academic research, regarding inter-personal trust, in the context of recidivism, desistance process, employment and housing, education, stigma, class issues and legislation. It will discuss potential gaps and concerns in the literature, policy issues and potential developments. Furthermore, it will present the dissertation’s research questions in relationship to these past studies, which will engage some of the neglected aspects of the literature.

Previous Studies

Within contemporary research regarding desistence, the role of interpersonal-trust has not received extensive treatment. With a few exception (Farrall et al., 2014; Ugelvik, 2021), scholars have focused on the criminal justice system (CJS) and the probation service (McNeil, 2006; McNeil and Weaver, 2010; King, 2013; McNeil 2016; Villeneuve et al., 2021). Farrall and colleagues (2014) have found that in the context of employment, trust and belonging are not present at the beginning of the desistence-process, but as ex-offenders begin to rebuild their ‘trusting relationships’, it begins to manifest more commonly. However, trust is not something that ‘arrives’ automatically, but it is a product of a process of co-operation and negotiation between the desister and society. Uglevik’s (2021) paper explored trust between prison officers and (ex-) prisoners in relation to their desistance and found that interpersonal-trust has a positive impact on the process. Tertiary desistance and ‘recognition’ have been widely discussed in the literature, while the theoretical concept of trust has not been explored in depth, with the exception of Liebling and colleagues work’s (Liebling and Arnold, 2012; Liebling, 2016; Liebling et al., 2019) within the field of prison sociology.

There is a consensus amongst social scientists that interpersonal-trust is essential and key feature of successful relationships. Perhaps owning to the limited available data, previous studies have not fully examined how interpersonal-trust, between PWC and employers, functions in the desistence-process. This paper aims to address this striking gap in the literature through a study of employment, housing, education, stigmatisation, class issues and legislation.

Employment and Housing

According to Holzer (1996), two-third of employers would not consider hiring ex-offenders (Schmitt and Warner, 2010) as they view them as ‘untrustworthy and a risk factor to their organisation (Brown et al., 2007, Haslewood‐Pócsik et al. 2008, Stoll and Bushway, 2009). However, the link between the two notions has not been studied extensively, especially with regards to the role of interpersonal-trust, therefore this paper will aim to narrow this gap in the literature.

PWC have often been barred from employment as a consequence of criminal background checks (Stoll and Bushway, 2009; Uggen et al., 2014) or lack of education and occupational skills (Nally et al., 2014). Contemporary research does not reveal any substantial change in the hiring practices and attitudes towards ex-offenders (Batastini et al., 2017; Varghese et al., 2010). Several papers have argued that employment after liberation from prison may function as a vital mechanism to prevent recidivism during the desistence process (Nally et al., 2014; Trimbur, 2009). Substantial evidence indicates that PWC are more likely to re-offend if they are unemployed after leaving prison (Allen, 1988; Batiuk, 1997; Blomberg, et al., 2012; Burke & Vivian, 2001; Fabelo 2002; Harlow, 2003; Nuttall, et al., 2003; Vacca, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2000). However, finding employers who are willing to hire PWC is difficult and this presents a significant barrier to ex-offenders (National Technical Assistance Center, 2008).

Trasler (1979) has found that ‘situational changes’, like employment, family, accommodation and social circles are enablers and enhancers of the desistance-process. Conversely, data indicates that periods of unemployment leads to higher crime-rate (Farrington et al. 1986), while the prisoner’s prospects of occupational progression after liberation from prison is ‘unrealistic’ due to their limited employment history and lack of occupational skills.  In addition to the structural barriers mentioned above, these are the largest obstacles for ex-prisoners to find employment, therefore this uncertainty is interconnected with re-offending (Glaser, 1969).

Regardless these barriers mentioned above, extensive literature shows PWC are willing to work after liberation from prison (Brown et al., 2007, Burchfield and Mingus, 2008; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Tarlow, 2011). However, according to Ministry of Justice, in 2020 only 17% of PWC were employed within one year after liberation. Some professions are closed to PWC, especially violent and sex-offenders (Tarlow, 2011, Petersilia, 2000). Furthermore, several jobs require background checks, which may prompt systematic discrimination (Holzer, et al., 2004; Pettit & Lyons, 2007; Stoll and Bushway, 2008; Travis, 2005). Additionally, offenders are not engaging with professional activities and are not in contact with employers during their sentence (Solomon et al., 2004), therefore they are not cultivating their professional experience and relationships, which may hinder their ability to re-enter the workplace.

Attaining housing and employment after liberation is extremely difficult for ex-offenders, which makes their desistance-process even more challenging (Kubrin and Stewart, 2006, Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Zgoba et al., 2009). Lack of savings and/or no access to benefits (Petersilia, 2000) means PWC are high likely need community support in their rehabilitation and desistance-process (Kubrin and Stewart, 2006). Evans and Porter (2015) noted that unemployment, financial instability and homelessness are increasing the possibility of re-offending, therefore securing those assets is essential for PWC, however it is very difficult to obtain any of those without the other.

Ex-offenders previous convictions may limit or forbid where they can access accommodation (Visher, La Vigne and Travis, 2004). According to Helfgott (1997) and Evans and Porter (2015), violent and sex-offenders are high likely to be denied of housing. Clark (2007) argues, that this bias and discrimination may be connected to the nature of the crimes of PWC and to the possible hostile reaction from the community. Even after ex-offenders manage to find housing, they are likely to be subject of exclusion, discrimination and various adverse behaviours from their neighbours (Leverson and Cotter, 2005). As a consequence of these restrictions, it may create micro-communities of ex-offenders (Gordon, 2013), where ‘legal cynicism and criminal behaviours’ might be accepted and normalised, and PWC may become each other’s negative support circle (Braithwaite, 1989, Corsaro et al., 2015). While social support and engagement with the community are widely accepted crime prevention factors, socialising with other PWC and living in ‘disorganised communities’ are likely to increase the risk of recidivism (Kurbin and Stewart, 2006; Petersilia, 2000-2003). According to Gordon (2013). Indeed sex-offenders often residing in poor neighbourhoods, which implies that violent-offenders also stay in similar areas after liberation (Helfgott, 1997) as they face similar adversities discussed above. In these areas, uneducated and illiterate ex-offenders are disproportionally unemployed, therefore education is a substantial challenge for PWC in their reintegration to society (Nally et al., 2014).

Education

According to Solomon and colleagues (2004), around 40% of PWC have not finished high school and the majority of them lack ‘work related skills and experience’ (Graffam et al., 2008; Kubrin and Stewart, 2006; Petersilia, 2000). Nally and colleagues (2012) have found that PWC with worse education had a higher re-offending and unemployment-rate. Furthermore, with low levels of attainment PWC are more likely to re-offend and be imprisoned earlier than individuals with higher levels of education. Correctional education programs are meant to aid and improve offenders’ job-related skills and education level. Conversely, Steurer and his colleagues (2001) found that PWC’s finances are more impactful and relevant than such courses.

According to Obatusin and Ritter-Williams (2019), stakeholders recognised that ex-offenders ‘lack of basic work readiness skills’ and they need support in their desistance, in order to successfully reintegrate into the community, while there is no dedicated and operational support system available. They highlighted the importance of trust when considering ex-offenders for employment, furthermore they were concerned about recidivism as a risk factor, which could negatively impact the company’s reputation and revenues. This observation is key, as it brings together education, workplace-trust, employment and desistence, an interrelationship that constitutes one of the present paper’s research questions.

Interpersonal relations and previous experiences are the most influential factors in the decision process of hiring an ex-offender. Therefore, in the desistence process interpersonal-trust plays a key role as it is essential to form a meaningful and successful employment relationship between PWC and employers, which is interlinked with recidivism and one’s ability to reintegrate into society (de Jong, Schalk, and Croon, 2009; Searle, Hope-Hailey, and Dietz, 2012). According to Searle et al. (2012), (workplace) trust is a combination of optimistic expectations and accepted vulnerability, also it is a compromise between the perceived risk factors and the dependability and reliability of the employer. But, when PWC is labelled as an ex-offender, he or she is viewed as a ‘deviant’ who is untrustworthy and high likely to re-offend. This stigmatisation might undermine the individual’s prospects.

Stigma

During the job application process, PWC immediately receive the stigma and label of ex-offender, if they are required to provide criminal history (Chiricos et al., 2007). From a societal point of view, labelling PWC functions a defence mechanism by identifying someone who is ‘deviant’ and might re-offend (Tewksbury and Lees, 2006), and it also can be seen as further punishment and exclusion from the community (Chiricos et al., 2007). Regardless of the veracity and the validity of the label, the community perceives and identifies the individual by that label, according to the labelling theory (Chiricos et al., 2007; Gold and Richards, 2012), furthermore it creates public dislike, abhorrence and aversion towards the labelled PWC (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009).

In general, people with criminal records face stigmatisation due to their criminal past and their link to the CJS (Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Goffman, 1963; LeBel, 2008, 12a; Winnick and Bodkin, 2008). Furthermore, society views PWC as ‘dangerous and dishonest individuals (Gaubatz, 1995; Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010), which severely impacts their ability to reintegrate into society upon liberation from prison (Chiricos et al., 2007; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010; LeBel, 2008; Leverentz, 2011; Schultz, 2014). Labelling theory states that labelling sex-offenders may unintentionally contribute to recidivism by exacerbating their internal self-perception as a ‘deviant, unwanted and untreatable’ (Schultz, 2014), which has a reaffirming effect (Mingus and Burchfield, 2012). Amongst PWC, sexual and violent-offenders receive disproportionally adverse behaviours from society, because the nature of the crimes they committed (Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Mingus and Burchfield, 2012). This stigmatisation is expressed through ‘employment, housing discrimination, general community exclusion and resentment’ (Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010).

The underlying reasons behind the stigmatisation of sexual and violent criminals are slightly different. The stigma surrounds violent-offenders primarily as a direct consequence of disproportionate media coverage, as the media sensationalise such crimes (Jimoh et al., 2007; Marsh, 1991; Beale, 2006; Pfeiffer et al., 2005), for instance homicide (Beale, 2006). As the media is the main source for the public to get informed regarding crime, exaggerated journalism is high likely to influence the perceptions of the community regarding criminals and violent-offenders (Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011) and also affects behaviours towards them (Edwards and Mottarella, 2014). Winnick and Bodkin (2008) argues, that social distancing from violent-offenders may indicate ‘social exclusion’, which may increase the risk of reoffending. Violent-offenders’ reputation and position in society may be improved and repaired, while the stigma around sex-offenders is exceptionally strong, even in prison (Crewe, 2012; James, 2007, Liebling and Arnold, 2012; Tewksbury, 2012; Viki et al., 2012). This stigmatisation may cause various mistreatments and harm to the offender while in prison (Liebling and Arnold, 2012; Schwaebe, 2005), and also according to Robbers (2009) and Tewksbury (2012) it creates a strong barrier to desistance and reintegration into society. The study of Viki et al. (2012) showed that participants with severe dehumanising attitudes towards sex-offenders were less likely to favour rehabilitation and more likely to support longer imprisonment and their exclusion from the community. Furthermore, sex-offenders are very conscious of their stigmatisation (LeBel, 2012b), their exclusion from the community (Mingus and Burchfield, 2012) and employment (Brown et al., 2007).

Class Issues

According to past research, ‘social inequality’ and ‘socio-economic’ circumstances significantly influencing criminality on both individual and societal levels. The rise of crime in the 1950’s, which lasted four decades questioned previous assumptions that a society’s increasing ‘prosperity’ decreasing crime rates, furthermore the contemporary decline of crime also showed no definitive link between economic issues and criminality (Newburn, 2016). Elgar and Aitken’s research (2011) indicated a strong link between income inequality and homicide, which they associated with poor interpersonal-trust in societies where economic inequality was comparatively high, which resembles to the Chicago-School based criminological theory, in terms of ‘social organisation, population turnover and the milieu of residential areas’ as influencing factors of violent crime rates (Shaw and McKay, 1942; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; Sampson et al., 2005). Becker’s (1968) rational choice approach suggested higher level of inequality would mean a higher crime-rate as it would alter the ‘costs and benefits’ of committing crime. Kelly (2000) demonstrated that violent crime is strongly influenced by inequality and less affected by poverty, while property crime is inversely influenced by those factors, therefore he discarded Becker’s (1968) theory and implied that strain and control theories are more useful as they are addressing social differences, goals and relationships.

Apart from the structural and socio-economic factors of criminality, there are risk, promotive and protective elements that need to be considered. These aspects predictive of the likelihood of future offending, the lack of offending and the desistance of ex-offenders respectively, while they also interact on various societal levels (Newburn, 2016). According to Farrington (1992), a difficult financial situation and insufficient housing are predictive factors of offending. Residing in a disadvantaged and poor area with high criminality also considered as a risk factor (Fabio et al., 2011; Wikström and Loeber, 2000).

In terms of demographic disparities, Sampson and colleagues (2005) have found that the neighbourhood social context of an area is significant and explains the racial differences in terms of criminality in a socioeconomic context. The direction of causality between crime and social (dis)advantage has always been a controversial topic amongst criminologists (Newburn, 2016). ‘Left realists’ argued that ‘relative deprivation’ is essential to ‘understand crime and victimisation’ (Young, 2002), therefore they were more concerned about institutional and structural issues; while right realists and underclass theorists argued that criminality was a consequence of individual characteristics, responsibilities and decisions (Murray, 1990).

Policy and Strategy

The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies highlighted the issues between the supply and demand-side of labour (Grimshaw, et al., 2014). On the supply-side, there is a low skilled population (Dominguez and Loureiro 2012), with declining skills (Sabol, 2007) and deteriorating social and professional networks (Lyons and Pettit 2011). While among the demand-side issues, we can find ‘statutory restrictions’ (Apel and Sweeten, 2010), discrimination (Apel and Sweeten 2010; Geller et al., 2006) and localised ‘labour demand (Sabol, 2007). The consequences of these issues is that PWC are inexperienced with the job application process and ‘discouraged’ from pursuing employment (Apel and Sweeten, 2010). Therefore, ex-offenders are highly likely remain unemployed and drift deeper into this negative reinforcing cycle.

Overall, the majority of prisoners will be liberated at some point, but the social issues like poverty, lack of societal trust, housing and health are not amongst the concerns of the CJS regarding PWC once their desistance has begun. Past institution-based programmes have failed to address several social-economic issues of offenders, irrespective the provided occupational and soft skills trainings. For instance, the adverse effects of poverty, inequality or (mental) health issues cannot be eased via such programs alone (Stacey, 2015; Bushway and Apel, 2012).

The criminal record of an individual rarely goes away, but more often cause predicaments, especially for minor crimes. Procedures to erase such stigma should be implemented as current measures to screen minor offenders from certain job applications are insufficient. Contemporary job application mechanisms and/or legislation does not screen out discrimination against PWC. For instance, while the rehabilitation period has decreased, it still takes significant time until one’s conviction becomes spent according to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Therefore, the legislation does not support PWC after liberation, particularly in their first years in their desistence process when they are most vulnerable to recidivism (Langan and Levin, 2002; Wartna et al., 2011). One might want to consider the possibility of a process which would allow PWC to prove that they are rehabilitated and a route to erase criminal record well before it happens automatically. For instance, the French legal system implemented the procedures of ‘judicial deletion and rehabilitation’, to allow criminal records to be erased under certain conditions (Herzog-Evans, 2011). Additionally, companies should embrace more progressive and positive hiring attitudes, such as the Ban the Box which enables PWC to apply for employment without potential discrimination.

Conclusion

The chapter critically evaluated past academic literature, regarding inter-personal trust, in the context of recidivism, desistance-process, employment and housing, education, stigma, class issues and legislation. During this process, several gaps have been identified. First, previous research did not explored extensively how interpersonal-trust affects the desistence process (Farrall et al., 2014; Ugelvik, 2021), when referring to the issue of employment (Obatusin and Ritter-Williams, 2019). Prior research focused on the CJS and the probation service (McNeil, 2006; McNeil and Weaver, 2010; King, 2013; McNeil 2016; Villeneuve et al., 2021). Furthermore, the role of workplace-trust was neglected in previous desistance-research. Finally, the review showed lack of interest in the literature about how interpersonal-trust affects reintegration of ex-offenders. Therefore, this project formulated research questions to attempt to contribute to previous research and decrease the existing gaps in the literature.

Research Questions

1) What role does interpersonal-trust play in finding and retaining employment?

2) What impact does workplace trust and employment have in the desistance-process?

3) What are the underlying issues that undermine interpersonal-trust in relation to ex-offenders?

4) How does interpersonal-trust affect the key factors required for the reintegration of an ex-offender?

Chapter 3: Research Methods

This section will describe the methodology used in this study. It will discuss the sampling method used, positionality and the participants, argue for the use of semi-structured interviews and describe the thematic analytical process. In addition, it will elaborate on ethical considerations, validity and reliability of the study.  

Sampling and Participants

This study implemented purposive sampling, which is a non-probability sampling technique in order to acquire participants whom are relevant to the core research questions (Bryman, 2012) and to attain diverse data, experience and opinions regarding interpersonal-trust in the context of employing PWC. The exclusionary criteria included participants aged less than 18 and previous conviction/prison experience. The sample was drawn from online lists of employers and organisations with positive attitudes to hiring and supporting PWC, such as Ex-Seed Recruitment Network (2022) and Back into Society (2021). The companies were randomly selected and approached, the foremost 8 volunteers who agreed to participate became the sample for the research. Furthermore, chain sampling was applied after the interviews, which involved asking the participants to identify new potential candidates for the research who are suitable for the selection criteria.  As this method risked the diversity of the sample, the researcher specified further the required characteristics by asking the interviewees to identify candidates whom are dissimilar to them, for instance working in a different role or organisation.

Due to the poor response rate from potential participants, only 5 interviews have been conducted. One potential participant who primarily expressed interest in the study, withdrew from the process when the interviews were about to start. Furthermore, one of the participants is not an employer directly, but someone who is working with PWC to enhance their employability.

Methodology

Using qualitative research strategy was the most appropriate method for this research for several reasons. Firstly, the method allowed the researcher to explore the relationship between research and theory from an inductive point of view, which may provide analytical insights into uncharted territories of the academic field (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). From an interpretivist position, the emphasis lies on understanding the perspective of the participants by examining their interpretation of the social world. Moreover, the social constructionist approach implies that the interactions between individuals construct ‘social properties’, such as interpersonal-trust. In contrast to quantitative methods, the qualitative approach explores, measures and contextualises complex or delicate social processes in a more authentic, realistic and in-depth form in order to provide the required understanding (Bryman, 2012; May, 2011; Ritchie, 2003; Silverman, 2010).  

Within qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews were applied as data collection strategy in this research due its versatility, reliability and comparability. This data collection method facilitated reciprocity between the participant and the researcher within an unrestricted discussion (Galletta, 2012; Bryman, 2012), included follow-up questions (Rubin and Rubin, 2005) and allowed participants to express their own opinions (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2008). These attributes enabled the researcher to examine the participants’ perceptions, thoughts, emotions and knowledge exhaustively, while a quantitative method would have only given a broad view of these. Furthermore, the interviewer was able to abide by the central research questions (CRQ), but at the same time he was flexible and open-minded in order to discover and discuss any themes surfaced by the participants (Bryman, 2012).

Positionality

The notion of positionality reflects on the researcher’s perspective and position regarding the research and its social and political climate (Foote and Bartell, 2011; Savin-Baden and Major, 2013; Rowe, 2014). These are affected by the researcher’s own values and beliefs, which are influenced by for instance political views, religion, gender, social-class and status (Sikes, 2004; Wellington et al., 2005; Marsh et al. 2018). Therefore, positionality shows the researcher’s position in relation to the research, it affects how the study is conducted also influences the outcome and the results (Savin-Baden and Major, 2012; Rowe, 2014).

Positionality Statement

I am a 36 years old Hungarian male and I have lived in the United Kingdom (UK) for the last 12 years. I’m from a working-class non-religious family, with moderate political beliefs and stoic values. Prior to conducting this research, I started to volunteer as an Independent Prison Monitor, which led to my interest to learn more about the desistence process. Through my conversations with prisoners, prison officers and social workers, it came to my attention what challenges and barriers residents encounter when looking for employment inside and outside the institution.

In terms of the researcher’s pre-determined position regarding to the participants, his class, occupation, nationality and age need to be addressed. First, the researcher coming from a working-class background, compared to some of the participants’ middle-class, also he is an international student, which makes him an outsider as all the participants were UK citizens. In respect of occupation the researcher and the participants are directly or indirectly working with (ex) offenders through their career or volunteer role, which would imply that the researcher is an insider. However, because they are not exactly in the same profession or organisation therefore, the researcher may be perceived as an outsider. Being an outsider, allowed the researcher an external perspective, however it also required him to study the context of the research extensively. Being an insider created credibility, good understanding and relationship with the participants. However, it might compromised the researcher’s objectivity and neutrality (Chavez, 2008). To address this, the researcher carefully implemented the data collection methods and analysis, reflected on the ethical considerations and validity in the following sections.

Data Collection

The interviews were arranged with the participants individually, to accommodate a suitable time-slot for them to be interviewed using WebEx online platform. Throughout the interview process the participants were asked about their perception, concerns and experiences regarding hiring and working with PWC in the light of interpersonal-trust and the desistance-process (See Appendix A). The questions were designed to accumulate relevant data for the CRQ, organised and planned in the interview guide, and arranged tentatively. Furthermore, the questions were open ended, unambiguous, and short, but also specific, without leading the participants and also non-judgmental, honest and genuine in order to allow the researcher to remain neutral and objective (Adams, 2015; Bryman, 2012). The interviews were recorded and transcribed individually, with the intention of preventing data loss and misinterpretation. This enabled the researcher to analyse the data vigorously and in depth, also created a transparent and scrutinizable dataset (Burnard, 1991).

Data Analysis

After the interviews were obtained, a thematic analysis was applied through an inductive approach. The data was examined in order to identify prevalent and recurring themes, topics, notions and patterns relevant to the CRQ (Wilson and McLean, 2011). A six-step process was conducted during this thematic analysis: first, the researcher familiarised himself with the data by transcribing and comprehending the text. Then, the transcribed text was coded by labels referring to different sections (relevant phrases and/or sentences) in the data (Taylor-Powell and Renner, 2003). Among these codes, themes were identified through recurring patterns. In the fourth step, these themes were compared to the dataset, in order to identify potential gaps or discrepancy, which allowed the researcher to make amendments to improve accuracy and validity. In the fifth stage, the researcher defined and named the recognised themes by clearly stating their properties and how they contribute understanding the data. The last step of the analysis the researcher reported and described the findings (Braun and Clarke, 2013).

Ethical Considerations

During the recruitment process, the potential participants received the recruitment email (See Appendix B) and the participant information sheet (See Appendix C), which informed them about the nature of the study, the participation requirements, risks and benefits and how their personal data will be protected (Crow and Semmens, 2008; Research & Innovation Office 2018). The participants whom expressed their intention and interest participating in the research were recruited on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, the participants were informed how to raise their concerns and complain regarding the study, their right to withdraw consent and how to seek support if needed. The informed and voluntary consent was attained from every participant in writing, also after the transcription of the interviews, the participants were assigned a number and any remaining identifying information was deleted in order to anonymise the participant’s identity.

Validity

In qualitative research (internal and external) validity reflects on the appropriateness, trustworthiness of the tools and the processes applied, the assembled data and whether the findings are accurate and meaningful. It relates to the CRQ, choice of methodology, the research design, sampling and data analysis, and the outcome of the study (Leung, 2015). Internal validity relates to the structure and the implementation of the research, while the external validity is the extent to which the study can be generalised and applied to a wider context (Arksey and Knight, 1999, LeCompte and Goetz, 1982), such as to PWC and employers in the UK. However, the research’s small sample size limits the generalisability of the findings in a statistical sense. According to Ritchie (2003), because the data is collected through semi-structured interviews, the theoretical perspectives are more significant than the statistical interpretations. Therefore, theoretical generalisation is more appropriate and applicable for this study, than quantitative generalisation to the population researched.

Another limitation of this study might be that the research has been conducted by one individual, which may have affected the objectivity and neutrality of the analysis by the researcher’s biases and assumptions (Maxwell, 2013). In order to evade ‘anecdotalism’ (which is the researcher’s preference to seemingly interesting but irrelevant statements) during the data analysis and increase validity, the researcher used triangulation in which the data and theory was compared to other data and theories in order to validate and verify the findings (Ranney et al., 2015; Denzin, 1070), which also increase consistency. Also, unique and outstanding findings were compared to the common and dominant responses, which helped reducing the influence of the researcher’s bias and improved the validity of the findings (Silverman, 2010).

Reliability

According to Gilbert (2008) reliability stands for the replicability of the research findings, which requires that a researcher by using the same method, would be able to attain the same results as the previous research. Reproducing qualitative design is a difficult task due to the nature of the data and process, the presentation and the researcher’s own capability (Lacompte and Goetz, 1982). Holstein and Gubrium (1997) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued the degree of which a qualitative research can be replicated, considering the complexity and dynamism of the social phenomena studied. The researcher presented a precise, transparent and self-reflective process and methodology above, which allows the replication of this study (Burnard et al., 2008). Furthermore, this process increased the reliability of the study as the dataset is consistent, trustworthy and dependable (Lewis and Ritchie, 2003)

Conclusion

The chapter has described the chosen research methods, explained the process of semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis applied, and justified the researcher’s choice in using those qualitative methods, considering the advantages and disadvantages especially regarding validity and reliability. The next chapter will present and discuss the findings of the study.

Chapter 4: Research Findings

This chapter will present the main findings of the research and elaborate how it contributes to and reflects to previous studies and existing literature. First, it will explore how interpersonal-trust plays a role in finding and retaining employment, then it will discuss the impact of workplace trust and employment in relation to the desistance-process. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the underlying issues that undermine interpersonal-trust and the way it affects the key requirements of the reintegration process. In relation to the CRQ, four key themes emerged from the conducted interviews and they will provide a framework for this section of the dissertation.

Prospects

Participants described ex-offenders as people with great potential and prospects, who are willing to return to work, re-integrate and desist from crime. This positive attitude and approach was a recurring theme amongst the interviewees.  

“They want to go out in the workplace and show that they are different people”. (Participant 1)

“They want to show that they are happy to have this job, so they work a lot harder. They are grateful, they want to succeed and they want to work their way up”. (Participant 5)

This correlates with previous literature regarding ex-offenders’ willingness and interest in finding employment (Brown et al., 2007, Burchfield and Mingus, 2008; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Tarlow, 2011). However, participants acknowledged that PWC are often lacking sufficient occupational and soft skills, as well as experience (Obatusin and Ritter-Williams, 2019; Fashey, et al., 2006; Hollin & Palmer, 2009; Rossman & Roman, 2003; Vacca, 2004) due to their separation from the workplace and professional activities (Solomon et al., 2004).

Furthermore, PWC have different needs and face different challenges after liberation. Some struggle to find housing, employment, while others have (mental) health or substance misuse issues, and are also challenged by various forms of discrimination, bias and stigma. All of these issues impede their efforts to begin their reintegration into society (Johnson, 2013; Ministry of Justice, 2013; Petersilia, 2000; Visher, La Vigne and Travis, 2004) are making them highly likely to need community support (Kubrin and Stewart, 2006).

“I suppose you got about 7,000 people in Scottish prisons at the moment. So 7,000 different sets of needs”. (Participant 3)

“We always try to explore different ways of working with individuals. So it’s not one size fits all”. (Participant 4)

This observation above is significant, as it highlights the fact that ex-offenders are not a homogenous group of people, therefore no findings should be applied or generalised to this diverse group without further considerations, especially in qualitative studies where the objective is to contextualise a high detail of a specific experience of individual(s) through case studies.

Additionally, PWC often adopt unrealistic expectations (Glaser, 1969) regarding their chances of finding the desired employment, which may lead to disappointment, financial struggles and re-offending.

“Some of them feel that the money is not worth it. It is about managing expectations. Yeah, fair enough, everyone’s got issues in their life time, but you’ve got to learn that sometimes you have to kind of make sacrifices and make compromises”. (Participant 5)

When these unrealistic expectations are combined with the ex-offenders’ desire to find employment, it often results to PWC exaggerating their skills and experience to compensate and try to get ahead.

“When they come out they need to stability, they need to earn money. The pressure usually is, they don’t have any money. They can’t get a job and they do whatever they can, to make the money”. (Participant 5)

“So another problem that we also have is sometimes some people oversell the qualifications or the ability”. (Participant 4)

However, this behaviour reinforces the societal view of ex-offenders as dishonest people (Gaubatz, 1995; Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010) and undermines their chances to be viewed as trustworthy and honest individuals, which hinders their efforts to reintegrate and find work upon liberation (Chiricos et al., 2007; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010; LeBel, 2008; Leverentz, 2011; Schultz, 2014). Therefore in relation to the first research question, interpersonal-trust is significant for PWC to secure employment. 

Trust Issues

In practice, regardless of the ex-offenders’ previous position or qualification and according to the participants, employers tend to start the new employees at the bottom.

“They might see it as a trust issue and reality is it’s a legislation issue. So health and safety issue, and that’s the whole reason why, we couldn’t allow them to do what they had previously done on another site”. (Participant 4)

This response reflects on Solomon et al. (2004) paper, which argues imprisonment impose a setback on PWC’s career (Lyons and Pettit, 2011; Sabol, 2007). Conversely, starting from zero can be equally beneficial and positive for the ex-offenders’ reintegration and rehabilitation process.

“We are trying to create an opportunity for you and you’ll get that opportunity to develop if you aren’t good. And if you are serious about what it is you’re trying to do … the competencies will come with that. You will begin”. (Participant 4)

Another common theme described by the participants is PWC losing trust in the system, dropping out of education (Solomon et al., 2004) and engaging with the CJS from very young age. This results in lack of occupational skills and experience (Graffam et al., 2008; Kubrin and Stewart, 2006; Petersilia, 2000), potential substance misuse, financial and health issues.

“They’ve left school with very little if any formal qualifications, and then they’ve got themselves in trouble with a criminal justice system, but by that time they’ve lost all faith, and or trust in anybody who is perceived to be part of the system”. (Participant 1)

The process of distrust continues in prison and has a long time effect thereafter, which shows that interpersonal-trust is bi-directional, which means not just the community and employers distrust PWC, but vice versa ex-offenders also lost trust in society.

“The concept of trust is actually flipped on its head in prison … the one way that a lot of people will get through prison sentences by trusting nobody. And that’s a leap of faith when they need to actually change that opinion when it’s outside…when you get out, obviously you have to feel slightly different. Otherwise you won’t get any further”. (Participant 3)

This quote above shows, that being in prison conditions prisoners into distrust, which hinders their ability to rebuild their trusting relationships. Participants recognised that class and authority presents an additional difficulty regarding interpersonal-trust, when it comes to approaching PWC in the context of desistance-process, employment and support. 

“But we are all figures of authority to some people, because we have a middle class approach, a middle class accent where we’re educated. We are difficult to relate to, and sometimes the hardest. ….but I think the only thing you can do is be persistent and consistent”. (Participant 3)

Apart from being ‘persistent and consistent’, participants engaging in active listening and proving their intent to help through actions, managed (re)gain ex-offenders trust in them and in society. 

“I always try and do something for them at the beginning. Something simple…and once you’ve done that a couple of times … then they start building trust with you. And once they start building a level of trust, that’s when they open up and they explain some of these situations they’ve been in”. (Participant 1)

The quote above, reflects on the fact that after liberation ex-offenders are in a very fragile and vulnerable state where they are susceptible to various discrimination, labelling, bias and exploitation due to their criminal history, financial instability, lack of housing and employment, (mental) health issues (Dirkzwager, Nieuwbeerta and Fiselier, 2009; Visher and Travis, 2001; Visher and Lattimore, 2007). Furthermore, it shows that trust is the first step into desistence, which resonates with the second research question.

After the traumatising experience of imprisonment, liberation could be just as distressing for ex-offenders. These severe impediments are making it difficult to establish ‘turning points’ (Laub and Sampson, 2001) and to take the ‘pathway’ towards desistence (Hughes, 1998), therefore these impediments are suggesting high risk of re-offending (Langan and Levin, 2002; Wartna et al., 2011). The following quote shows these turning points of PWC.

“Some individuals come out and have all the right ideas and then quickly side-tracked by being in the community. …You can easily be drawn into easy money. Because that’s what a lot of time crime is, its easy money …You actually can make really good amount of money a week, which will then actually benefit you. The problem is when they aren’t making that money, that’s why a lot of them leave”. (Participant 4)

Previous literature indicates and signals distrust from employers towards PWC, through hiring practices (Batastini et al., 2017; Holzer, 1996; Haslewood‐Pócsik et al., 2008; Varghese et al., 2010) and via criminal background checks (Holzer, et al., 2004; Pettit & Lyons, 2007; Travis, 2005). Furthermore, society’s views ex-offenders as ‘dishonest’ individuals (Gaubatz, 1995; Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010), which is the opposite of the main characteristic of a trustworthy individual according to the participants. The previous theme of ex-offenders’ distrust in the system continues after liberation from prison and meets the distrust of employers. Participants echoed the findings from the literature (Farrall et al., 2014), that trust is not present at the start of the desistance-process, but it can be rebuilt through collaboration and negotiation.

“There’s a lack of trust in that sense, because you could have just been open and honest and said, oh, I woke up late or I’m still transitioning into a community or something along those lines. And that’s where it begins to for the partnership, or the relationship with that particular individual”. (Participant 4)

“We give them the opportunity to express what their crime was, why they did it. Allow them to be open and honest, we can build a trust relationship from the beginning. Obviously, a lot of them do try to lie about it and that’s that … (but) we already know why you’re here. It’s always good start being honest. But then the rest of it, we can then work with you”. (Participant 5)

“So that honest conversation in itself, breeds trust … they’ve been open with me, they’ve been honest with me and actually, you know, that shows strength of character”. (Participant 2)

Apart from honesty, the participants identified several different behaviours as indicators of a trustworthy individual, such as attitude, openness, communicativeness, vulnerability, accountability, ownership, responsibility and reflexivity.

“Being open and honest enough to tell us all of those (licence) conditions and allowing for a support package in place because yes, you might turn up late, your attitude might be not the greatest. That’s not where you’re talking about trust that stuff that we can actually work on together and that’s the kind of communication you do”. (Participant 4)

“Vulnerability definitely 100% breeds trust and respect, but then in the workplace, I would expect to see accountability so, you taking ownership over work and having responsibility and then obviously the accountability if something goes wrong. And that creates trust.” (Participant 2)

Glass Shackles

Apart from the impediments (housing, employment, health issues, discrimination, stigma and bias) mentioned above, there are several institutional, social, legal and economic obstacles hindering and undermining ex-offenders’ chances to reintegrate and rehabilitate into society.  Furthermore, the available support for PWC is often insufficient, counterproductive or unavailable. These factors create glass shackles around PWC which drags the individual away from taking the ‘pathway’ towards desistence (Hughes, 1998).

“I’ve got a battle with the council to try and get them on the housing register. I struggle to do it and an ex-offender who is homeless has got no chance whatsoever of doing it by themselves. It’s just the complexity of the bureaucracy and paperwork.A lot of the guys I work with are dyslexic, they have got ADHD, underdiagnosed. They haven’t got the social skills to interact with other people properly… they can’t read, can’t write”. (Participant 1)

The above quote highlights the struggles of some PWC after liberation from prison, especially how multi-layered and difficult the issues they facing. The bureaucracy creates an almost an impenetrable barrier, which is a ‘struggle’ even for the participants who have access to resources and are not disadvantaged in any way. Furthermore, when these literacy issues are paired with lack of information about the recruitment process and when companies are using ambiguous application forms, ex-offenders are high likely going to disqualify themselves and fail the application for employment.

“Application forms, for example … basically discriminate against anybody with a criminal record. (Participant 1)

Participants reflected on the differences between industries in terms of hiring practices. In general, two-third of employers would not consider employing ex-offenders at all (Holzer, 1996), and PWC are repeatedly discriminated and rejected from employment due to their past conviction  (Holzer, et al., 2004; Pettit & Lyons, 2007; Travis, 2005, Tarlow, 2011, Petersilia, 2000).

“It depends on what sector it is I think …the building sector construction industry, they seem okay with it. They don’t ask for previous offense histories. A lot of the supermarkets are a nightmare. The big name supermarkets, they wouldn’t employ ex- offenders”. (Participant 1)

Employers with transparent hiring processes are showing a diverse picture in terms of willingness of employing PWC (Uggen et al., 2014; Tarlow, 2011). The quote below shows that employers introduced positive initiatives in their hiring mechanisms.

“For example, we do the Ban the Box, which means people don’t tell us if they’ve got a conviction when they apply for a job. We would only ask at the point … when they have been successful”. (Participant 2)

Regardless this fairer application process, the participant still concerned and hesitant hiring ex-offenders because of the risks and liability they present.

“If someone has a serious a conviction for serious crime. How is that going to look? We have to then consider the implications to us as a business. They include reputation, they risk and they also include internally how we would integrate them into the business … and how we would communicate that. But it’s not as easy as we just we will recruit someone with convictions”. (Participant 2)

As a consequence of this discriminative and biased job market, paired with the ex-offenders’ desire to work (Brown et al., 2007, Burchfield and Mingus, 2008; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Tarlow, 2011), several PWC took the initiative and found ways into employment regardless the systematic barriers.

“A lot of the guys I work with end up doing they end up going self-employed. Because it’s, it’s easier to set up your own business then is to try and apply for a job and go through all the hassle and disclosing your offense and then not getting the job”. (Participant 1)

Another barrier to find employment is housing. Lack of it could mean an even more difficult process to find work, however securing accommodation for PWC does not necessarily mean better opportunity. Location of the accommodation is also a significant factor, as PWC are restricted where they can access housing (Visher, La Vigne and Travis, 2004), hence their job opportunities are limited accordingly. Employers also struggle due to these restrictions and legislations in place.

“We are very restricted because of the Section 106, post codes and boroughs. So, individuals at times don’t know where they’re being released to. So that does create barriers to actually offering them opportunities or employment … to the right candidate at the right time”. (Participant 4)

Another common issue is mentioned by a participant, is the CJS’s interruption to the ex-offender’s reintegration process.

“One of the main (barriers) that we have to deal with is when offenders come out, they have probation and lot of time probation officers are not as helpful as they should be. A lot of them will schedule their probation meeting every week in the middle of the day”. (Participant 5)

This disruption undermines the interpersonal-trust with their co-workers, also negatively affects PWC financially due the lost hours of work. Therefore it does not help the individual to reintegrate, but rather functions as another glass shackle.

Another barrier participants mentioned is stigma, which affects violent and sex-offenders disproportionally, which can manifest in distrust, discrimination and unemployment (Brown et al., 2007). This glass shackle alienates the ex-offender from society and may lead to social exclusion and recidivism (Bodkin, 2008).

“If you’re a sex offender in this country, you gonna struggle big time to get a job, regardless of what your offense is. … The perception of anybody that’s on the sex offenders list that employers won’t touch them, regardless of their history, how much a person changed”. (Participant 1)

Furthermore, participants reflected on and challenged the widely held view of the public, namely that offenders should be imprisoned and excluded from the community, and not rehabilitated (Viki et al., 2012).

“People generally believe that you should be punished, you know, you commit a crime, you should be punished. And we are saying, hold on! If you commit a crime, what went wrong? What happened to you and let’s try and fix that so you don’t go on to commit another crime”. (Participant 2)

Ex-offenders are not the concern of the CJS after liberation, however they are just as vulnerable to adverse and harmful behaviour (Leverson and Cotter, 2005) as other people with acknowledged protected characteristics, especially within the first year of liberation. Ex-offenders socio-economic struggles are multiplied due to the discrimination, stigma and prejudice towards them, and currently there is no sufficient mechanism in place to ease those disadvantages – like in the French legal system (Herzog-Evans, 2011) – therefore their chances to reintegrate into society are narrow, while on the other hand the risk of recidivism is significantly higher.

“Having a criminal record, or being a prison leaver, or anything like that it’s not a protected characteristic, but it’s arguable whether, this should be the 10th,… but while it is not It blows in the wind, it blows at the whim of people’s own personal prejudices or preferences what they read in the newspaper” (Participant 3)

Participants also commented on the poor ‘work readiness skills’ of ex-offenders (Obatusin and Ritter-Williams, 2019), lack of education and experience (Graffam et al., 2008; Kubrin and Stewart, 2006; Petersilia, 2000), hence these glass shackles undermine PWC’s ability to find employment.

“It is incredibly hard to employ someone who has no employment history and if you don’t have … competency… and networks… then you’re at a disadvantage, major disadvantage”. (Participant 2)

As a result of a follow-up question, the importance of one’s social-network (Trasler, 1979) has been emphasised by a participant in relation to finding employment. However after liberation, most ex-offenders do not have strong social and professional networks available for them (Lyons and Pettit, 2011).

“Networks. Huge! You know, that old, if you know someone who knows someone who could get you an interview there or coach for you and these networks, I mean, you can’t really avoid the kind of class barriers”. (Participant 2)

A number of participants discussed the adverse effects of discrimination, bias and stigma affecting PWC (Blumstein and Nakamura, 2009; Chiricos et al., 2007; Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; LeBel, 2008, 12a; Winnick and Bodkin, 2008). These negative effects manifest trough societal exclusion, distrust, employment and housing inequity, prejudice and resentment, which severely undermine their ability to redeem themselves and join society (Chiricos et al., 2007; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010; LeBel, 2008; Leverentz, 2011; Schultz, 2014). The following quote shows how stigma undermine trust in the workplace.

“As soon as they find out, that person is an ex-offender, they’re watching them … to make sure that they’re doing everything right and not doing anything wrong. … Ex-offenders are just lacking society and looked down upon unfortunately and to some extent, understandably, you’ve done something wrong. You kind of need to repent for your sins and so straight away people don’t want ex-offenders to be given the best opportunities”. (Participant 4)

Furthermore, participants highlighted that sex-offenders are more disadvantaged, mistreated (Mingus and Burchfield, 2012) and stigmatised (Crewe, 2012), which makes them less likely to successfully desist, reintegrate (Tewksbury, 2012) and find employment (Brown et al., 2012).

“You can multiply that (bias) by a hundred when it comes to people with sex-offenses … clients going to run away because it’s too hot to handle,  too much to get their head around, too much reputational risk”.(Participant 3)

Participants’ observations were consistent with the literature, that previous commitments to employ PWC does not affect the ‘hiring decision in practice’ (Pager and Quillian, 2005), but background checks and ambiguous hiring practices are affecting the outcome by deterring potential applicants with criminal record (Bushway, 2009; Grossi, 2017; Uggen et al, 2014). 

“Most organizations, the government included … have a case by case bullet policy where, if someone applies, then they would review that case, but actually, it rarely happens because they don’t actively attract people to apply … and someone who has been in prison, or has convictions would think the government aren’t going to employ me. So I wouldn’t even bother and that’s part of the problem is people de-select themselves”. (Participant 2)

“A lot of the guys that have been turned down for an interview, they would be brilliant. They work hard, good work ethic, et cetera, but they don’t even get a chance to get to an interview”. (Participant 1)

Another recurring theme emerged when participants discussed authorities and stakeholders. Institution-based and community programs (Tarlow, 2011; Visher et al., 2005) that supposed to address socio-economic issues of offenders are often inefficient and do not accomplish the desired goals, such as reducing recidivism, poverty, or helping with housing and employment (Bushway and Apel, 2012; Stacey, 2015; Visher et al., 2005).

“There is no support from the government … and I would say that the government are probably one of the worst in implementing it themselves”. (Participant 2)

“I think the common theme is inconsistency, obviously. The common theme perhaps is a lack of leading by example from local authorities, government, and public sector”. (Participant 3)

Participants expressed their gratitude, good working relations with and dependence on third sector organisations. According to their point of view, charities are the main driving force and effective support mechanism that helps PWC to reintegrate into society. Without their essential contribution and trust-building between PWC and employers, there would be significantly less transition from criminality to desistance and reintegration.

“A lot of support we get is from the charities what we work with…because trying to go to the government… it’s just a very long process”. (Participant 5)

“More importantly, we rely on the supporting agency to actually provide that higher level of trust … because there’s individuals that they will refer to us and they would be quite honest and say this person isn’t quite ready. But let’s take them through training, let’s do a bit more with them in the community before we actually try to place them on one of your sites. That’s the kind of trust that we need as an employer”. (Participant 4)

Breaking Through

Participants echoed previous research, which showed that ex-offenders desire employment, regardless of the myriad barriers they face (Brown et al., 2007, Burchfield and Mingus, 2008; Shinkfield and Graffam, 2009; Tarlow, 2011) and there are several case studies (HARCO, 2019; Paulk, 2016) which prove that the glass shackles can be broken and that PWC can succeed and desist from crime if they get the opportunity.

“They work harder than a lot of the other people in the workplace. Why? Because they try to prove and show that, they appreciate the opportunity they have got”. (Participant 5)

However, breaking the glass shackles of ex-offenders, requires patience, reliability, honesty, interpersonal-trust and external support. Employers recognised these factors and implemented them in their hiring process, company policies and everyday practices. Reliable and consistent employment after liberation functions as a key mechanism for desistance and facilitates the prevention of recidivism (Glaser, 1969; Nally, 2014)

“When a person is in prison, you have a routine, we will able to capitalize (on that) once you come out. At least offer them some sort of routine, they’re going to be less likely to re-offend, less likely to get, pull up in trouble, and get back to prison”. (Participant 5)

“I think the role (employment) is key to be honest with you, because, especially if you’re working in the construction industry, you go home, you are tired and you don’t want to do anything after you’ve worked for one of our sites. (Participant 4)

Furthermore, transparency and honesty can create interpersonal-trust between PWC and employers, which is essential to maintain a successful relationship (employment) between the parties and also help ex-offenders to reintegrate into society (de Jong, Schalk, and Croon, 2009; Searle, Hope-Hailey, and Dietz, 2012).

“We see transparency of the key, basically for supporting these individuals…. there’s a zero tolerance to and drugs and alcohol, and if it’s in your system and you test positive, you won’t be allowed onto our site, and that’s the reason why you would lose your job”. (Participant 4)

When the rules are upfront, it allows the desister to prove that he or she is responsible, taking ownership and determined to change (Lalonde and Cho, 2008), which are the characteristics and behaviours of a trustworthy individual.

“It’s just making sure that we’re putting enough things in place that we’re not setting up any individual for failure. It’s making sure that we’re quite clear and quite transparent and trying to get an honest dialogue going on with the individuals … and the person that’s going to be transitioning to the community, is making sure that we support them”. (Participant 4)

When employment is established for the ex-offender, it is essential to provide the necessary and tailored support system for the individual (Swinton, Carlisle and Oliver, 2001), in order to facilitate employment as ‘turning point’ (Laub and Sampson, 2001) into a ‘pathway’ (Hughes, 1998) which leads the ex-offender towards desistence and reintegration into society.

“It comes down to attitude, it comes down to how serious you are, a bit of patience, because there are gonna be times where people do perceive you as an ex-offender and treat you as the ex-offender and it’s on us, myself and our team to actually support you.” (Participant 4)

The participant above made an important point, that apart from the stakeholders’ effort, the PWC also need to have the right attitude, the motivation and will to reintegrate into society. This reflects to rational choice theory (Becker, 1968), however Kelly (2000) argued that strain and control theories are more relevant as they are addressing social differences, goals and relationships. Participants also highlighted the impact of employment for ex-offenders in the desistance-process.

“It’s very taxing on the body. You start at 7 o’clock in the morning you finish at 6. By the time you get home you don’t actually want to go out. You want to eat something and go to sleep.You don’t want to get out and get mixed up in anything because you’re too tired”. (Participant 5)

“Employment is really important, but you need to make sure they are ready to go into employment first. Once they are in employment, that is probably the most important thing, we integrate them into society. They basically come off benefits, they work for themselves, they have a social circle, and they have meaning to life”. (Participant 1)

Conclusion

There are several underlying issues and predicaments affecting PWC and these obstacles restrain and drown the individual with glass shackles. Similarly to the ‘glass ceiling’ (Stephen and Kumar, 2018; Cotter, Hermsen, Ovadia and Vanneman, 2001), glass shackles restrict PWC from reaching their goals, however instead of creating an impenetrable upper limit, glass shackles pulls the ex-offender away from any progress they made and any potential ‘turning points’ linked to desistance and reintegration (Laub and Sampson, 2001). Furthermore, the shackles are made of glass, because PWC usually not aware of their existence until they pull back the individual from the ‘pathway’ (Hughes, 1998). To break away, it is a difficult and painful process, but not impossible. The ex-offender has to overcome his or her unique obstacles – often with external support – in order to successfully rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This honours project explored four interconnected and neglected aspects of the literature. Namely, what role interpersonal-trust plays in securing employment, how workplace-trust and employment affects desistance, what underlying issues erode interpersonal-trust and how does the modality in which interpersonal-trust influences the key factors of the reintegration of ex-offenders. This section will summarise the main findings of this project, propose future research regarding interpersonal-trust and recommend policy developments.

The role of interpersonal-trust in finding and retaining employment

The collected evidence showed, that bidirectional interpersonal-trust functions as a gatekeeping mechanism. From the employer’s point of view, they are somewhat reserved towards ex-offenders, but are also providing them with opportunities to prove themselves and build trusting relationships. On the other hand, most ex-offenders’ attitude is distrusting by default due to their previous experiences, therefore they are distant and disbelieving which undermines their opportunities. These observations align with previous research, which shows employers reluctance to hire PWC (Holzer, 1996) and their view of this populations as untrustworthy and risk factor (Brown et al., 2007, Haslewood‐Pócsik et al. 2008, Stoll and Bushway, 2009). However, the dissertation found that, the connection between the notions above is more complex and nuanced, as distrust holds the gate closed from both side of the employment relationship.

The impact of the workplace-trust and employment to the desistance-process

The project has found that, trust is not present at the beginning of the desistance-process, however through actions it can be built (Farrel et al., 2014). Participants argued that transparency and honesty can create workplace-trust between them and ex-offenders, which besides employment are the main catalyst to the desistance and reintegration process. Furthermore, participants recognised that ex-offenders ‘lack of basic work readiness skills’ and they need support, in order to successfully rehabilitate into the community (Obatusin and Ritter-Williams, 2019). Overall, the findings showed consistency with the literature, but also highlighted the importance and underlying role of interpersonal-trust, which was mostly neglected in past research.

Issues that undermine interpersonal-trust

The collected data suggest, that there are more underlying issues exist than the literature indicates (Gaubatz, 1995; Grovier, 1994; Edwards and Mottarella, 2014; Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010), in terms of undermining factors of interpersonal-trust. Participants highlighted several circumstantial aspects, such as stigma, background checks, bureaucracy, institutional inconsistency and disruptions; and personal issues, like criminal history, (mental) health, poverty and class that breeds distrust. Therefore, future research could investigate the relationship between these factors and interpersonal-trust, as the latter plays a significant role in the offenders’ reintegration to society.

Effects of interpersonal-trust on key factors in reintegration to society

Participants reflected on the different needs and challenges of ex-offenders, for instance housing, employment, (mental) health or substance misuse and various forms of discrimination. The findings of the research shows that as trust associated with positive outcomes and distrust with negative expectations (Lewicki et al., 1998), it influences various aspects of ex-offenders’ life and the reintegration process accordingly. Meaning, if the ex-offender has society’s trust, he or she will highly likely have a positive outcome, while distrust will indicate adverse outcome for the individual. Therefore, potential research could explore further how trust inequality affects society and how PWC can overcome this adversity.

Word count: 10992

References

Adams, W.C. (2015) ‘Conducting semi-structured interviews’. In Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P., Wholey, J.S. (eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation, Fourth Edition, Jossey-Bass, pp. 492-505.

Algan, Y. and Cahuc, P. (2013) Trust, growth and well-being: New evidence and policy implications, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 7464.

Allen, J. (1988) ‘Administering quality education in an adult correctional facility’.
Community Services Catalyst, 18(4), 28-29.

Apel, R. and Sweeten, G. (2010) ‘The Impact of Incarceration on Employment during the Transition to Adulthood’, Social Problems, 57 (3), 448-79.

Arksey, H. and Knight, P.T. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists. Sage
Publications: London. Chapter 1 Interviews and Research in the Social Sciences, pp.
1-21

Back into Society (2021) ‘UK companies that employ ex-offenders – Find Vacancies’. Back into Society. Available at https://backintosociety.co.uk/2021/02/09/uk-companies-that-employ-ex-offenders-find-vacancies/ (last accessed 26/01/22).

Barry, M., (2010) Youth Offending and Youth Transitions: The Power of Capital in Influencing Change. Critical Criminology 15(2), pp.185-198.

Batastini, A. B. et al. (2017) ‘Bias in Hiring Applicants With Mental Illness and Criminal Justice Involvement: A Follow-Up Study With Employers’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(6), pp. 777–795. doi: 10.1177/0093854817693663.

Batiuk, M. (1997) ‘The state of post secondary correctional education in Ohio’, Journal of
Correctional Education, 48(2), 70-72

Beale, S.S. (2006) The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How market-driven news promotes punitiveness. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 48, p.397.

Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W. D. and Piquero, A. R. (2012) ‘Is educational achievement a
turning point for incarcerated delinquents across race and sex?’, Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 41(2), 202-216.

Blumstein, A. and Nakamura, K. (2009). ‘Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks’, Criminology, 47(2), 327–359.

Boarini, R. et al. (2012) What makes for a better life? The determinants of subjective well-being in OECD countries: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll, OECD Statistics Working Paper, No. 2012/03, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Borum, R. (2010) ‘The Science of Interpersonal Trust’, Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. 574.

Bottoms, A.E., (2014) Desistance from Crime in Ashmore, Z., and Shuker, R., (eds.). Forensic Practice in the Community. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge pp.251-273

Bouman, Y.H., de Ruiter, C. and Schene, A.H. (2008). ‘Quality of life of violent and sexual offenders in community-based forensic psychiatric treatment’. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19(4), pp.484-501.

Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, K., Spencer, J. and Deakin, J. (2007) ‘The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(1), pp.32-42.

Bryan, J. L., Haldipur, J., and Williams, N. (2008) ‘I’m worth more than that! race and ethnic conflict among low-wage workers after incarceration’. Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA (2008, July).

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edition. Oxford University Press. Part Three Qualitative Research Methods, pp.377-468

Burke, L. and Vivian, J. (2001) ‘The effect of college programming on recidivism rates at the Hampden County House of Correction: A 5-year study’, Journal of Correctional Education, 52(4), 160-162.

Burchfield, K.B. and Mingus, W. (2008) ‘Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), pp.356-374.

Bushway, S.D. and Apel, R. (2012) A signaling perspective on employment‐based reentry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology & public policy, 11(1), pp.21-50.

Burnard, (1991) “A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research”.
Nurse Education Today, 11, (6), 461-466.

Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. and Chadwick, B. (2008) “Analysing
and presenting qualitative data”. British Dental Journal, 204, 429 – 432.

Castaldo, S. (2003) Trust variety conceptual nature, dimensions and typologies. Paper presented at IMP Conference Lugano, Switzerland, 4-6 September 2003.

Chavez, C. (2008) ‘Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality’. The Qualitative Report, 13, 474–494.

Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., and Bontrager, S. (2007). ‘The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism’, Criminology, 45(3), 547–581.

Clark, L.M. (2007) Landlord attitudes toward renting to released offenders. Fed. Probation, 71, p.20.

Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2013) Teaching thematic analysis: Over- coming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26 (2).
pp. 120-123. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cloward, R. A. & Ohlin, L. E. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs, The Free Press, New York.

Corsaro, N., Frank, J. and Ozer, M. (2015) ‘Perceptions of police practice, cynicism of police performance, and persistent neighborhood violence: An intersecting relationship’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), pp.1-11.

Cotter, D., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S. and Vanneman, R. (2001). ‘The Glass Ceiling Effect’. Social Forces. 80. 655-681.

Cox, R. (2010). ‘Crime, incarceration, and employment in light of the great recession’,
The Review of Black Political Economy, 37(3-4), 283-294.

Crewe, B. (2012) The prisoner society: Power, adaptation and social life in an English prison. OUP Oxford.

Crow, I. and Semmens, N. (2008) Researching Criminology. Open University Press: Berkshire. Chapter 3 Designing criminological research: Researching criminology
ethically, pp. 50-55

de Jong, J., Schalk, R., & Croon, M. (2009) ‘The role of trust in secure and insecure employment situations: A multiple-group analysis’, Democracy Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(4), 510–538.

Diener, E. and Suh, E. (1997). ‘Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators’. Social indicators research, 40(1), pp.189-216.

Dirks K. T. (1999). ‘The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance’. The Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 445–455.

Dirkzwager, A. J. E., Nieuwbeerta, P. and Fiselier, J. P. S. (2009) ‘Onbedoelde gevolgen van vrijheidsstraffen [Unintended consequences of imprisonment]’, Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 51, 21-41.

Dominguez, A. and Loureiro, M. (2012) ‘Stigma, Ex-convicts and Labour Markets’, German Economic Review, 13 (4), pp. 470-86.

Edwards, E. R. and Mottarella, K. (2015) ‘Perceptions of the Previously Convicted: The Influence of Conviction Type and Therapy Participation’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(12), pp. 1358–1377. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14536899.

Elgar, F.J. and Aitken, N. (2011) ‘Income inequality, trust and homicide in 33 countries’, European Journal of Public Health, 21, 2, 241-6.

Evans, D.N. and Porter, J.R. (2015) ‘Criminal history and landlord rental decisions: A New York quasi-experimental study’, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(1), pp.21-42.

Ex-seed (2022) ‘Recommended Employers’. Ex-seed. Available online at https://www.ex-seed.co.uk/recommended-companies.html (last accessed 26/01/22).

Fabelo, T. (2002) ‘The impact of prison education on community reintegration of
inmates: The Texas case’, Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 106-110.

Fabio, A., Li-Chuan, T., Loeber, R. and Cohen, J. (2011) ‘Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and the shape of the age-crime curve’, American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1, 325-332

Farrall, S. et al. (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context of Desistance from Crime. Oxford University Press.

Farrington, D. P., Bernard G., Lynda M., Raymond J. St. Ledger, and Donald J. W. (1986) “Unemployment, School Leaving, and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology, 26, 335-56.

Farrington, D.P. (1992) Explaining the beginning, progress and ending of antisocial behaviour from birth to adulthood, in McCord, J. (ed) Facts, Frameworks and Forecasts: Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 3, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Foote, M. Q. and Bartell, T. G. (2011) Pathways to equity in mathematics education: how life experiences impact researcher positionality. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 45–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41485940

Fashey, J., Roberts, C., and Engel, L. (2006) Employment of ex-offenders: Employer perspectives. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety: Crime & Justice Institute.

Galletta, A. (2012) Mastering the Semi-structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication. New York University Press, New York.

Gaubatz, K.T., 1995. Crime in the public mind (pp. 5-8). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., and Western, B. (2006) ‘The Effects of Incarceration on Employment and Wages. An Analysis of the Fragile Families Survey’, (Center for Research on Child Wellbeing).

Glaser, D. (1969) The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Abridged
(ed.) Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Gold, M. E., and Richards, H. (2012). ‘To label or not to label: The special education question for African Americans’, Educational Foundations, 26(1/2), 143–156.

Gordon, K.E. (2013) ‘The registered sex offender population as a marker of social disorganisation’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(5), pp.527-542.

GOV.UK Service Manual. (2018) Getting informed consent for user research. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/getting-users-consent-for-research#related-guides (last accessed 31/01/22).

Gilbert, N. (2008), Researching Social Life, Third Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Chapter 20 pp. 398-406

Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A.J. and Hardcastle, L. (2008) ‘The perceived employability of ex-prisoners and offenders’, International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 52(6), pp.673-685.

Graham, H. and McNeill, F. (2017) Desistance: Envisioning Futures. In: Carlen P, França LA (ed.). Alternative Criminologies, London: Routledge, pp. 433-451.

Grimshaw, R., Roberts, R., Bebbington, P., Dowling, M., and Hougham, C. (2014), Institutional care and poverty: evidence and policy review, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Grossi, L. M. (2017) Sexual offenders, violent offenders, and community reentry: Challenges and treatment considerations. Aggression and violent behavior. [Online] 3459–67.

HARCO. (2019). Ex-offender success stories: Derek Jones from prison to entrepreneur. Available at: https://hacro.org.uk/ex-offender-success-stories-derek-jones-from-prison-to-entrepreneur/ (last accessed: 20/04/22)

Harer, M. D. (1994) “Recidivism among federal prisoners released in 1987”. Journal of Correctional Education, 46, 98-127.

Harlow, C. (2003) Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Haslewood‐Pócsik, I, Brown, S. and Spencer, J. (2008) ‘A not so Well‐Lit Path: Employers’ Perspectives on Employing Ex‐offenders’, The Howard journal of criminal justice, 47(1), pp.18-30.

Hearn, H. (2010) “Theory of Desistance”. Internet Journal of Criminology.

Helfgott, J. (1997) Ex-offender needs versus community opportunity in Seattle, Washington. Fed. Probation, 61, p.12.

Herzog-Evans, M. (2011) ‘Judicial Rehabilitation in France: Helping with the Desisting Process and Acknowledging Achieved Desistance’, European Journal of Probation, 3(1), pp. 4–19.

Hirschfield, P.J. and Piquero, A.R. (2010) ‘Normalization and Legitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders’, Criminology, 48: 27-55.

Home Office (2014), ‘Number of nominal records held on the PNC’, Freedom of Information Response, 13 November.

Hollin, C. R. and Palmer, E. J. (2009) “Cognitive skills programmes for offenders”. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2&3), 147-164

Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (1997) Active interviewing, in Silverman, D. (ed.)
Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice Sage Publications: London,
Chapter 8. Pp. 113-129

Holzer, H. (1996) What employers want: Job prospects for less-educated workers. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S. and Stoll, M. A. (2004) How willing are employers to hire ex-offenders? Focus, 23, 2.

Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S. and Stoll, M. A. (2006) “Perceived criminality, criminal
background checks, and the racial hiring practices of employers”, Journal of Law and
Economics, 49(2), 451-480.

Hughes, M. (1998) ‘Turning Points in the Lives of Young Inner-city Men Forgoing
Destructive Criminal Behaviours: A Qualitative Study’, Social Work Research 22(3):
143–51.

James, E. (2007) There’s no justice in a ‘jugging’. The Guardian.

James, M.S. (2003) Prison is ‘living hell’for pedophiles. ABC news.

Jimoh, A., Julius, A.A. and Akanji, O.R (2007) ‘The print media and crime: Values and issues’, International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2, pp. 63-75

Johnson, K. F. (2013) “Preparing ex-offenders for work: Applying the self-determination theory to social cognitive career counselling”. Journal of Employment Counselling, 50, 83-93.

Kawachi, I. and L. Berkman (eds.) (2000) Social Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, New York.

Kelly, M. (2000) ‘Inequality and crime’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 4, 530-539.

King, S. (2013) “Assisted Desistance and Experiences of Probation Supervision” Probation Journal, 60: 136–51.

Kubrin, C.E. and Stewart, E.A. (2006) Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), pp.165-197.

Lalonde, R. J. and Cho, R. M. (2008) “The impact of incarceration in state prison on the employment prospects of women”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(3), 243–265.

Langan, P. A. and Levin, D. J. (2002) ‘Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15, 58-65.

Laub, J.H, & Sampson, R.J. (2001) ‘Understanding Desistance From Crime’ Crime & justice, 28: 1-58

LeBel, T.P. (2008) Perceptions of and Responses to Stigma. Sociology Compass, 2: 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00081.x

LeBel, T.P. (2012a) Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons’ Perceptions of Stigma, Deviant Behavior, 33:2, 89-107, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2010.538365

LeBel, T. P. (2012b) ‘If One Doesn’t Get You Another One Will: Formerly Incarcerated Persons’ Perceptions of Discrimination’, The Prison Journal, 92(1), pp. 63–87.

LeCompte, M.D. and Goetz, J. (1982) “Problems of Reliability and Validity in
Ethnographic research”. Review of Educational Research, 52, (1), 31-60.

Leung L. (2015) “Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research”. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306

Leverentz, A. (2011) Barriers to Reintegration. In: 2011. Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 359-382.

Levenson, J. S. and Cotter, L. P. (2005) ‘The Effect of Megan’s Law on Sex Offender Reintegration’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), pp. 49–66

Liebling, A. (2016) “The Dalai Lama, Prisons, and Prisons Research: A Call for Trust, a “Proper Sense of Fear”, Dialogue, Curiosity and Love”. Prison Service Journal, 255, 58–63.

Liebling, A. and Arnold, H. (2012) “Social Relationships between Prisoners in a Maximum Security Prison: Violence, Faith, and the Declining Nature of Trust”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 413–24.

Liebling, A. et al. (2019) “Are Hope and Possibility Achievable in Prison?”. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 58, 104–26.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, G.E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications:
Beverley Hills, CA. Chapter 5 The Only Generalisation Is: There Is No
Generalizability, pp. 92-110

Lyons, C. J. and Pettit, B. (2011) ‘Compounded Disadvantage: Race, Incarceration, and Wage Growth’, Social Problems, 58 (2), 257-80.

Marsh, H.L. (1991) ‘A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United States and other countries from 1960–1989: A review of the literature’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp.67-79

Marsh, D, A. Ercan, S. and Furlong, P. (2017) A skin not a sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. in V Lowndes, D Marsh & G Stroker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science. 4th edn, Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom, pp. 177-198.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1999) Designing Qualitative Research: Third Edition. Sage Publications: London. Chapter 2 The What of the Study, pp. 21-54

Maruna, S., (1997) Going Straight: Desistance from Crime and Life Narratives of Reform in
Lieblich, A., and Josselson, R., (eds.). The Narrative Study of Lives, 5, pp.59-93.

Maruna, S.(2001) Making Good: How Ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological society. Washington DC. USA

Maruna, S. & Immarigeon, R. (2004) After Crime and Punishment; Pathways to offender reintegration USA & Canada: Willan Publishing

May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process: Fourth Edition. Open
University Press: Berkshire, England, Chapter 6 Interviewing: methods and process,
pp. 131-160

Maxwell, J. (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: Third
Edition. Sage: London. Chapter 6 Validity: how might you be wrong? Pp. 121-125

McNeill, F. (2006) “A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management”. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 39–62.

McNeill, F. and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management. Scottish Centre for Criminal Justice Research.

McNeill, F. (2016) ‘The Fuel in the Tank or the Hole in the Boat? Can Sanctions Support Desistance’, in J. Shapland, S. Farrall and A. Bottoms (eds.), Global Perspectives on Desistance: Rethinking What We Know and Looking to the Future. Routledge.

Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, IL: Free Press

Mesters, G., van der Geest, V. R., and Bijleveld, C. C. J. H. (2014) Crime, employment and social welfare: An individual-level study on disadvantaged males. (TI Discussion Paper; No. 14-091/III). Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute.

Ministry of Justice (2013) ‘Transforming rehabilitation: A summary of evidence on reducing reoffending [Ministry of JusticeAnalytical Series]’. Available online at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243718/evidence-reduce-reoffending.pdf (last accessed 10/02/22)

Ministry of Justice. (2020a). Employing prisoners and ex-offenders. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unlock-opportunity-employer-information-pack-and-case-studies/employing-prisoners-and-ex-offenders (last accessed: 01/03/22)

Ministry of Justice. (2020b). Community Performance Quarterly release to March 2020. Available online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/905187/1920_Q4_CPT_publication.pdf (last accessed: 20/04/22).

Mingus, W. and Burchfield K.B. (2012) ‘From prison to integration: applying modified labeling theory to sex offenders’, Criminal Justice Studies, 25:1, 97-109

Murray, C. (1990) ‘The British underclass’, Public Interest, 99(1), pp. 4-28.

Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S. R., Ho, T. and Knutson, K. (2012) The post-release
employment and recidivism among different types of offenders with a different level of education: A 5-year follow-up study in Indiana. Justice Policy Journal, 9(1), 1-29.

Nally, J.M., Lockwood, S., Ho, T., and Knutson, K. (2014). Post-Release Recidivism and Employment among Different Types of Released Offenders: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9, 16.

National Technical Assistance Center, Virginia Commonwealth University. (2008) Ex-offenders and employment. Homeless veterans reintegration program. Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Education and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Available online at: https://worksupport.com/documents/HVRPFactsheet6.pdf (last accessed 28/02/22)

Newburn, Tim (2016) Social disadvantage, crime, and punishment. In: Dean, Hartley and Platt, Lucinda, (eds.) Social Advantage and Disadvantage. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 322-340. ISBN 9780198737070

Nuttall, J., Hollmen, L. and Staley, M. (2003) ‘The effect of earning a GED on recidivism rates’, Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 90-94.

Obatusin, O. and Ritter-Williams, D. (2019) A phenomenological study of employer perspectives on hiring ex- offenders. Cogent social sciences. [Online] 5 (1), 1571730.

Pager, D. and Quillian, L. (2005) ‘Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do’, American Sociological Review, 70(3), pp. 355–380.

Pandeli, J. and O’Regan, N. (2020) ‘Risky Business? The Value of Employing Offenders and Ex-Offenders: An Interview With James Timpson, Chief Executive of Timpson’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(2), pp. 240–247.

Paulk, P. D. (2016) The Johns Hopkins Hospital Success in Hiring Ex-Offenders. Available at: https://www.diversityincbestpractices.com/medialib/uploads/2016/09/Paulk-Presentation-Hiring-Ex-Offenders-09142016.pdf (last accessed: 20/04/22).

Petersilia, J. (2000) When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences (No. 9). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Petersilia, J., 2003. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.

Pettit, B., and Lyons, C. J. (2007) “Status and the stigma of incarceration: The labor-market effects of incarceration, by race, class, and criminal involvement”. In S. Bushway & M. A. Stoll (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 203-226). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Pfeiffer, C., Windzio, M. and Kleimann, M. (2005) ‘Media use and its impacts on crime perception, sentencing attitudes and crime policy’, European journal of criminology, 2(3), pp.259-285.

Ranney, M. L. et al. (2015) Interview‐based Qualitative Research in Emergency Care Part II: Data Collection, Analysis and Results Reporting. Academic emergency medicine. [Online] 22 (9), 1103–1112.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53). London: The Stationery Office.

Research & Innovation Office. (2018) Code of Practice on Research Integrity. Available online at: https://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/research-innovation-office/policies/Documents/2018%2009%2018%20-%20%20CoP%20version%203.pdf (last accessed 31/01/22).

Ritchie, J. (2003) The Application of Qualitative Methods to Social Research, in
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practise: A Guide for Social
Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE. Chapter 2, Pp. 24-46

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2022) ‘Semi-structured interviews’. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Available online at http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html (last accessed 26/01/22).

Robbers, M.L. (2009) ‘Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), pp.5-28.

Rosenberger, J.S. and Callanan, V.J. (2011) ‘The influence of media on penal attitudes’, Criminal Justice Review, 36(4), pp.435-455.

Rossman, S. and Roman, C. (2003) Case-managed reentry and employment: Lessons from the opportunity to succeed program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Justice Police Center.

Rowe, W. E. (2014) ‘Positionality’ in Coghlan, D. and Brydon-Miller, M. (ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp 628-30.

Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sabol, W. (2007) ‘Local labor-market conditions and post-prison employment experiences of offenders released from Ohio State prisons’, in Shawn D. Bushway, Michael. Stoll, and David. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post Industrial America (Russell Sage Foundation Press), 257-303.

Sampson, R.J. (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R., and Laub, J. (1997) “A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency”. Advances in Criminological Theory, 7, 133-161.

Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D. and Raudenbush, S.W. (2005) ‘Social Anatomy of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Violence’, American Journal of Public Health, 95: 224-232.

Sampson, R.J. and Wilson, W.J. (1995) Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality, in Hagan, J. and Peterson, R. (eds) Crime and Inequality, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H. (2012) Qualitative Research: The essential guide to theory and practice.

Shaw, C. and McKay, H. (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Schmitt, J. and Warner, K. (2010) Ex-offenders and the labor market. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Available online at: http://cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf (last accessed: 15/02/22).

Schultz, C. (2014) ‘The Stigmatization of Individuals Convicted of Sex Offenses: Labeling Theory and The Sex Offense Registry’, Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science: Vol. 2, Article 4.

Shinkfield, A.J. and Graffam, J. (2009) ‘Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegration’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), pp.29-42.

Searle, R., Hope-Hailey, V. and Dietz, G. (2012) Who do you trust? Understanding how to repair organizational trust. London: CIPD.

Shinkfield, A.J. and Graffam, J. (2009) ‘Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree of change in variables influencing successful reintegration’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(1), pp.29-42.

Sikes, P. (2004) ‘Methodology, Procedures and Ethical Concerns’ in Doing educational research: A Guide to First Time Researchers , (ed.) C. Opie, Sage Publications Ltd., London, pp. 15-33.

Silverman, D. (2010) Doing Qualitative Research: Third Edition. Sage Publications:
London. Chapter 2 What you can (and Can’t) do with Qualitative Research, pp. 5-14
and Chapter 15 Quality in Qualitative Research, pp. 268-289

Solomon, A.L. (2004) From prison to work: The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Solomon, A., Visher, C., La Vigne, N. and Osbourne, J. (2006). Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry: Research findings from the Urban Institute’s prisoner re-entry portfolio. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Stacey, C. (2015) ‘Looking beyond re-offending: criminal records and poverty’, Criminal Justice Matters, 99 (1), 4-5.

Stafford, M. et al. (2004) Neighbourhood social cohesion and health: Investigating associations and possible mechanisms in A. Morgan & C. Swann (Eds.), Social Capital for Health: Issues of Definition, Measurement and Links to Health, pp. 11-132, London: Health Development Agency

Steurer, S.J. and Smith, L.G. (2003) Education reduces crime: Three-state inmate recidivism study. Lantham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Steurer, S. J., Smith, L. and Tracy, A. (2001) Three state recidivism study. Lantham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Stephen, A. and Kumar M. S. (2018). A study on the glass ceiling effect on women at workplace.

Stoll, M. A. and Bushway, S. D. (2008) ‘The effect of criminal background checks on
hiring ex-offenders’, Criminology & Public Policy, 7(3), 371-404.

Swinton, M., Carlisle, J. and Oliver, J. (2001) ‘Quality of life for patients with a personality disorder–comparison of patients in two settings: an English special hospital and a Dutch TBS clinic’. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11(3), pp.131-143.

Tarlow, M.S. (2011) Employment barriers to reintegration. Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, & reintegration, pp.329-358.

Taylor-Powell, E. and Renner, M. (2003) Analysing Qualitative Data. Program
Development and Evaluation, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp. 1-12
http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/g3658-12.pdf

Tewksbury, R., and Lees, M. (2006). ‘Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences’, Sociological Spectrum, 26(1), 309–334.

Tewksbury, R. (2012) ‘Stigmatization of sex offenders’, Deviant Behavior, 33(8), pp.606-623.

Thiessen, V. (1970) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Edited by Norman K. Denzin. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. 590 pp. $4.95. Social Forces. [Online] 49 (2), 314–315.

Travis, J. (2005) But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Trasler, G. (1979) “Delinquency, Recidivism and Desistance.” British Journal of Criminology, 19, 314-22.

Ugelvik, T. (2021) “The Transformative Power of Trust: Exploring Tertiary Desistance in Reinventive Prisons”. The British Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab076

Uggen, C., Vuolo, M., Lageson, S., Ruhland, E. and K. Whitham, H. (2014) The edge of stigma: An experimental audit of the effects of low‐level criminal records on employment. Criminology, 52(4), pp.627-654.

Uggen, C. (2000) ‘Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration
model of age, employment, and recidivism’, American Sociological Review, 67(3), 529-546.
Uggen, C. and Staff, J. (2001) ‘Work as a turning point for criminal offenders’, Corrections Management Quarterly, 37(4), 347-368.

Tewksbury, R. (2005) ‘Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Registration’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67–81.

Trimbur, L. (2009) “Me and the law is not friends: How former prisoners make sense of re-entry”. Qualitative Sociology, 32(3), 259–277

Vacca, J. (2004) “Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison”. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.

Varghese, F. P., Hardin, E. E., Bauer, R. L., & Morgan, R. D. (2010) “Attitudes toward hiring offenders: The roles of criminal history, job qualifications, and race”. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 769-782.

Viki, G.T., Fullerton, I., Raggett, H., Tait, F. and Wiltshire, S. (2012) ‘The role of dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex offenders’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), pp.2349-2367.

Villeneuve, M.-P., I. F.-Dufour and S. Farrall (2021) “Assisted Desistance in Formal Settings: A Scoping Review”. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60, 75–100

Visher, C. (2004) Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry: Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore.

Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., and Coggeshall, M. B. (2005) “Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A metaanalysis”. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295-315.

Visher, C. A. and Lattimore, P. K. (2007) ‘Major study examines prisoners and their reentry needs’, National Institute of Justice, 258, 30-33.

Visher, C., Bebus, S. and Yahner, J. (2008) Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releases in three states. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Visher, C. A. and Travis, J. (2011) ‘Life on the outside: Returning home after incarceration’, The Prison Journal, 91, 102-119.

Wartna, B. S. J., Tollenaar, N., Blom, M., Alma, S. M., Bregman, I. M., Essers, A. A. M. and van Straalen, E. K. (2011) Recidivism report 2002-2008. Trends in the reconviction rate of Dutch offenders. Factsheet 2011-5a. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Research and Documentation Centre.

Weaver, B. (2019) ‘Understanding desistance: a critical review of theories of desistance, Psychology’, Crime & Law, 25:6, 641-658.

Wellington, J. J. (2005) Succeeding with your doctorate. London: SAGE.

Western, B. and Pettit, B. (2010) ‘Incarceration and social inequality’, Daedalus, 139 (3), pp. 8-19.

Wikström, P-O. and Loeber, R. (2000) ‘Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile serious offending, risk and protective factors, and neighborhood context’, Criminology, 38: 1109–1142

Williams, D.J. (2003) “Quality of life” as perceived by sex offenders on early release in a halfway house: Implications for treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 38(2), pp.77-93.

Williams, K. R. and Houghton, A. B. (2004) “Assessing the risk of domestic violence reoffending: a validation study”. Law and human behavior, 28(4), 437–455.

Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A. and MacKenzi e, D. L. (2000) ‘A meta-analysis of
correction-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347-368.

Winnick, T.A. and Bodkin, M. (2008) Anticipated Stigma and Stigma Management Among Those to be Labeled “Ex-con”, Deviant Behavior, 29:4, 295-333.

World Bank. (2006) Where is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, World Bank, Washington DC.

Young, J. (2002) Critical criminology in the twenty-first century: critique, irony and the always unfinished in Hogg, R., & Carrington, K. (Eds.). (2002). Critical Criminology (1st ed.). Willan. (11), 24.

Zgoba, K.M., Levenson, J. and McKee, T. (2009) ‘Examining the impact of sex offender residence restrictions on housing availability’, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), pp.91-110.