Behaviour in the Ir Irish Prison Service: An Examination of f - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Violent and Disruptive Prisoner Behaviour in the Ir Irish Prison Service: An Examination of f Current Management

Orla Gallagher

PhD student at University College Dublin (UCD) & the Irish Prison Service (IPS)

Supervised by Prof. Gary O’ Reilly (UCD) & Dr Emma Black (IPS)

Ir Irish Prison Service         high security medium security open centre female

Ir Irish Prison Population

51 51 78 78 140 140 114 114 655 655

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Finland Ireland England & Wales Canada USA

Pri rison Popula latio ion per r 100,000 Nati tional l Popula latio ion

Violent & Disruptive Prisoners – ‘VDPs’

IP IPS S Defi finit itio ion

• Serious repetitive violence towards staff &/or
• ther prisoners
• Significant risk of violence towards others
• Operational issues for the prison system
• 5 prisoners (<1% ) in the IPS meet this criteria

VDP Poli licy

• Isolated locations
• Limited interaction
• Restricted regimes
• Increased security

‘Barrier Handling’

VDP Policy Aims

1.

• 1. Protect staff

f fr from vio viole lence

• Reduced opportunities for violence

➢But … can still happen

• Protection from physical harm:

➢But … what about ‘other’ harms? ➢ psychological, e.g. stress ➢ occupational, e.g. job satisfaction

2. . In Interv rvene & reduce ris risk of f vio viole lence

• Limited scope for intervention
• Lack of progression
• Harm to the individual:

➢Psychological, e.g. self-harm ➢Physical , e.g. weakness

Changing Practice

Inspector of Prisons calls for change Working group established Implementation group established National Violence Reduction Unit (NVRU)

Research

4-Year Rese search Projec ject Cu Curr rrent stu tudy - Aim ims

• 1. Describe and the experiences of:

(a) staff managing prisoners under the VDP policy (b) prisoners managed under the VDP policy 2. Inform the NVRU: (a) guide practice and policy (b) generate baseline data

Meth thodolo logy

• Qualitative
• Quantitative

1.

• 1. Current man

anagement (V (VDP pol

• licy)

2.

• 2. Fu

Future management (NV (NVRU) 3.

• 3. In

Incid ident an analysis 4.

• 4. Systematic review

Sample Demographics

27% 27% 55% 55% 18% 18%

Age (y (years)

36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50

In Involv lvement with ith VDP poli licy

• N = 11 Prison Officers
• Current = 7 Prison Officers (17%)
• Previous = 4 Prison Officers (27%)

Pris rison Se Settin ing

• Prison A = 5 Prison Officers
• Prison B = 4 Prison Officers
• Other = 2 Prison Officers

Gender

• All participants were male

Sample Demographics

9% 9% 36 36% 46 46% 9% 9%

Years of Se Serv rvic ice in in IP IPS

6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25

64 64% 36 36%

Years Managin ing Pri risoners under th the VDP Polic licy

0 - 5 6 - 10

Quantitative Scales

So Socia ial l Clim Climate – EssenCES

• 15 items, 3 sub-scales:
• 1. Inmate Cohesion
• 2. Experienced Safety
• 3. Hold & Support
• Correctional environments have distinct

social climates

• Influences outcomes for:

➢ Prisoners, e.g. treatment engagement ➢ Staff, e.g. morale ➢ Organisation, e.g. violence levels

Occupatio ional l Well llbein ing – Management St Standards In Indic icator Tool

• 35 items, 7 sub-scales:
• 1. Role
• 2. Control
• 3. Demands
• 4. Peer Support
• 5. Manager Support
• 6. Relationships
• 7. Change
• Prison Officers fare worse then the ‘average’

employee in the UK

• Influences outcomes for:

➢ Staff, e.g. psychological distress ➢ Organisation, e.g. staff turnover

Social Climate

6.36 2.91 9.00 10.90 10.90 15.20 10.20 12.60 13.70 8.10 9.70 11.70 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Inmates Cohesion Experienced Safety Hold & Support

Ess ssenCES – Mean an Sc Scores

Current Study UK Prison Norms German Prison Norms Australian Prison Norms

Occupational Wellbeing & Stress

3.73 2.65 2.90 3.64 2.76 3.34 2.61 4.15 3.27 3.18 3.65 3.45 3.70 2.99 3.58 2.39 1.88 3.46 2.57 2.75 2.21 4.74 3.35 3.57 3.99 3.75 4.18 3.54

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Role Control Demands Peer Support Manager Support Relationships Change

Management t St Standards In Indic icator Tool l - Mean Sc Scores

Current Study Bevan et al. (2010) Kinman et al. (2016) HSE National Survey (2010)

Content Analysis

1. . What does s curr rrent management lo look li like? 2. . Why is is curr rrent management li like this is? 3. . How is is curr rrent management work rkin ing? 4. . How could ld curr rrent management change?

1. . What are th the social characteristics of f current management?

Pris risoner In Interactio ion

• Generally “restricted”
• But … varies based on prisoner behaviour

Pris rison Offic ficer-Pris isoner Interactio ion

• Generally “minimal”
• A desire to show humanity
• But … inhibited by social norms

“He gets to talk to fellas through the doors, that’s it”. “So that he can see […] beyond the blue shirt, that he can see beyond the suit, that we’re people too”. “He’s on a landing […] with two other guys that are […] good for his mental health and stuff, and he has progressed”. “The environment in the prison is that staff stick together, and you don’t want to be seen to be socialising with the fella that broke [his] nose”

1. . What are th the social characteristics of f current management?

Pris rison Offic ficer In Interactio ion

• “Comradery” within groups
• But … varies between groups

Prison Officer & ‘Other’ Staff Interactio ion

• “Kept in the dark”
• Desire for collaboration

“You kind of get into a tight group

where you come so dependent on each other” “We’re working with these people every day of the week, and that’s not utilised near as much as it should be”. “If certain people are working, there’s no talk like that [re: mental health]” “Knowledge is power, just some people don’t give up the knowledge”.

2(a (a). Why are some pri risoners managed under th the VDP policy?

• Prisoner behaviour
• Safety

2(b (b). What is is th the aim of f th the VDP policy?

What the policy cu currently aims to do vs What the policy sh should ld or cou

• uld aim to do

“Pure and simple, they’re a danger to staff” “At the moment the purpose of the regime is safety of everyone, but in an ideal world with a bit

• f training and support it could

be more of an intervention role and a helping role” “Prisoners fight, and that’s the environment we’re in […] when they’re placed on the policy they have a history of it”.

2(c (c). ). What are th the ris risk factors for violence/disruption?

Envir ironmental l le level

• Lack of structured activity

Organis isatio ional l le level l

• Managerial inconsistency with prisoners:

➢Rules ➢False promises

“If you have a Governor or a Chief or person who’s managing the area telling the prisoner that they’re going to do this, that, or the

• ther, and not following

through on that, that causes huge issues”. “There has to be structured activities put in place to help them because they’re never going to get better, their aggression is

• nly going to increase, and the

way they treat the staff and think about the staff is only going to get worse”.

2 (c (c). ). What are th the ri risk factors for violence/d /disruption?

In Indiv ivid idual l le level l

• Mental illness
• Adverse upbringings

In Interactio ional l le level l

• Inconsistent staff approaches:

➢Enforcing the rules ➢Communication style

• Negative peer influences

“Life I think for most of those kind of guys it’s obviously not

• ur lives, they came up in a

complete different environment all together. So what’s normal for them is not normal for us” “[other prisoners] telling him ‘you got to go, and you got to do this’, so then they have to show face”. “The mode of delivery, how you speak to someone, how you interact with someone, can essentially dictate whether someone gets hurt

• r not”.

3. . What im impact has your role had on you?

Perso sonal l im impact

• Stress
• Feeling unsafe
• De-sensitisation
• Caution

Co Copin ing str trategie ies

• Comradery with staff
• Good family life
• Talking about issues
• But … lack of organisational support

“You feel more fatigued, and I think that’s from concentrating more and focusing more. Just because you know who and what you’re dealing with and the potential that is there”. “Instead of them saying ‘hang

• n, you started the row, and

you attacked staff […] they’re saying ‘well here’s a Category A form, do you want to make a complaint’”

4. . What is is your understanding of f th the new unit it?

Hopes

• Potential for progression
• Safe environment
• Unit invested in
• Staff needs addressed
• Prisoner needs addressed

Concerns

• Prisoners not progressing
• Poor organisational commitment
• Poor staff selection
• Operational vs. Psychology staff

“They’ll both be coming from very different standpoints” “Prisoners lash out for certain reasons, and you have to identify […] and try to go after those reasons”

Conclusion

So …

• 1. What does current management look like?
• 2. Why is current management like this?
• 3. How is current management working?
• 4. How can current management change?

Next xt St Steps

• Prisoner perspectives
• In-depth analysis
• Inform NVRU

References

• Bevan, A., Houdmont, J. & Menear, N. (2010). The management standards indicator tool and the estimation of
• risk. Occupational Medicine, 60, 525-531.
• HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. (2017). Report on an announced thematic follow-up inspection of the close

supervision system. London: HMIP.

• Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2018). Behind the door: Solitary confinement in the Irish penal system. Ireland: IPRT
• Kinman, G., Clements, A.J. & Hart, J. (2016). Work-related wellbeing in UK prison officers: A benchmarking
• approach. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(3), 290-307.
• Liebling, A. & Maruna, S. (2011). The effects of imprisonment. UK: Taylor & Francis.
• Schalast, N. & Tonkin, M. (2016). The Essen Climate Evaluation Schema: EssenCES. Göttingen, Boston, Toronto:

Hogrefe Publishing.

• State Claims Agency. (2016). Review of assaults on operational prison staff by prisoners. Ireland: State Claims

Agency.

• Tonkin, M. (2016). A review of questionnaire measures for assessing the social climate in prisons and forensic

psychiatric hospitals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(12), 1376-1405.

• Tonkin, M., Howells, K., Ferguson, E., Clark, A., Newberry, M. & Schalast, N. (2012). Lost in translation?

Psychometric properties an construct validity of the English essen climate evaluation schema (EssenCES) social climate questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 573-580.

• http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate