Public or private sector prisons Professor Alison Liebling and Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Dec 04, 2023 320 likes •463 views

Public or private sector prisons Professor Alison Liebling and Dr Ben Crewe Cambridge Institute of Criminology 6 March 2012 1 ESRC-funded 30 month study of public and private sector prisons FOREST BANK (Sept-Oct 07) Local, private

SLIDE 1

Public or private sector prisons

Professor Alison Liebling and Dr Ben Crewe Cambridge Institute of Criminology 6 March 2012

SLIDE 2

ESRC-funded 30 month study of public and private sector prisons

 FOREST BANK (Sept-Oct 07) – Local, private (Kalyx)  BULLINGDON (April-May 08) – Local, public  DOVEGATE (Nov 07-Jan 08) – Cat B training, private

(Serco)

 GARTH (Sept-Nov 08) -- Cat B training, public

 Several weeks of observation, informal conversation, shadowing, interviews,

plus staff quality of life (SQL) and prisoner quality of life (MQPL) surveys

 RYE HILL (Sept 08) – G4S  LOWDHAM Grange (Jan 09) – Serco  ALTCOURSE (April 09) – G4S

In total: 1145 prisoner surveys, 957 staff surveys, 114 prisoner interviews, 133 staff interviews

SLIDE 3

Revised MQPL dimensions measuring the moral quality of prison life (Liebling, Crewe and Hulley 2011)

 Harmony  Entry into custody  Respect/courtesy  Staff-Prisoner relationships  Humanity  Decency  Care for the vulnerable  Help and assistance  Professionalism  Staff professionalism  Bureaucratic legitimacy  Fairness  Organisation and consistency  Security  Policing and security  Prisoner safety  [Prisoner adaptation]  [Drugs and exploitation]  Conditions and Family

Contact

 Regime decency  Family contact  Wellbeing and Development  Personal development  Personal autonomy  Wellbeing

SLIDE 4

Dimensions with the most significant variation between prisons Staff professionalism (p) 2.62 - 3.53 .91 Organisation and consistency) (p) 2.23 - 3.08 .85 Staff-prisoner relationships (h) 2.74 - 3.45 .71 Fairness 2.46 - 3.15 .69 Decency 2.72 – 3.38 .66 Help and assistance (h) 2.74 - 3.37 .63 Bureaucratic legitimacy (p) 2.35 - 3.97 .62 Well being (w) 2.57 – 3.19 .62 Personal development (w) 2.69 – 3.28 .59

SLIDE 5

A – ‘Poor’ B – ‘Average’ C – ‘Good’ D – ‘Very Good’ Private Trainer Private Trainer Private Local Public Local Public Trainer Private Trainer Private Local

Dovegate Rye Hill Forest Bank Bullingdon Garth Lowdham Grange Altcourse

Respect/ courtesy 3.01 Prisoner safety 3.24 Respect/ courtesy 3.07 Care for the vulnerable 3.01 Prisoner safety 3.32 Drugs and exploitation 3.02 Respect/ courtesy 3.18 Care for the vulnerable 3.10 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.10 Staff professionalism 3.18 Prisoner safety 3.32 Respect/ courtesy 3.24 Care for the vulnerable 3.27 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.15 Help and assistance 3.22 Staff professionalism 3.24 Prisoner safety 3.46 Policing and security 3.35 Respect/ courtesy 3.29 Care for the vulnerable 3.15 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.17 Help and assistance 3.05 Humanity 3.08 Staff professionalism 3.25 Prisoner safety 3.36 Policing and security 3.26 Personal development 3.04 Personal autonomy 3.04 Respect/courtesy 3.47 Care for the vulnerable 3.24 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.27 Help and assistance 3.20 Humanity 3.17 Entry into custody 3.21 Decency 3.30 Staff professionalism 3.27 Prisoner safety 3.57 Policing and security 3.22 Drugs and exploitation 3.22 Personal development 3.07 Personal autonomy 3.14 Wellbeing 3.19 Respect/courtesy 3.48 Care for the vulnerable 3.44 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.45 Help and assistance 3.37 Humanity 3.27 Entry into custody 3.10 Decency 3.38 Staff professionalism 3.53 Fairness 3.15 Organisation and consistency 3.08 Prisoner safety 3.48 Policing and security 3.27 Personal development 3.28 Personal autonomy 3.22 Wellbeing 3.07

SLIDE 6

Personal development

Definition: ‘an environment that helps prisoners with offending behaviour, preparation for release and the development of their potential’

 My needs are being addressed in this prison  I am encouraged to work towards goals and targets in this prison  I am being helped to lead a law abiding life on release in the

community

 Every effort is made by this prison to stop offenders committing

ffences on release from custody

 The regime in this prison is constructive  My time in here seems like a chance to change  This regime encourages me to think about and plan for my release  On the whole I am doing time rather than using time (reverse scored)

SLIDE 7

Figure 4. Personal Development: An in-prison model 1

1 Controlling for function, + public/private ownership/management

HUMANITY

‘AN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISED BY KIND REGARD AND CONCERN FOR THE PERSON’

(3.27)

BUREAUCRATIC LEGITIMACY

‘THE TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIVITY OF THE PRISON/PRISON SYSTEM AND ITS MORAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL’

(3.97)

STAFF PROFESSIONALISM

‘STAFF CONFIDENCE AND COMPETENCE IN THE USE OF AUTHORITY’

(3.53)

HELP AND ASSISTANCE

‘SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT FOR PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DRUGS, HEALTHCARE + PROGRESSION’

(3.37)

ORGANISATION + CONSISTENCY

‘THE CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PRISON’

(3.08)

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

(‘HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL’)

(3.28)

R2 = 69.2 .144 *** .166 *** .145 *** .413 *** .101 ***

SLIDE 8

Authority, policing and safety

They don’t want to upset anybody, which is in my book all wrong, because they’re supposed to be the ones in power. No one really takes any notice of them. They try […] but no-one really

listens. They bang you up and that’s that. […] You can back-chat the

staff and nothing really happens. It’s very vague the rules, so if you start [to] step over the line a bit, it’s not like they’ll go, ‘Hey, don’t do that’. [...] So you don’t really know where you’re going wrong. It’s all first names and they’re trying to be your friend and they’re chatting [...] I think there’s a lot of confusion for inmates. A lot of them think they can get away with a bit more because they’re more friendly, the staff, so [prisoners are] not as well behaved, it is a bit confusing.

SLIDE 9

Lowest Highest Diff. Mean Prison Mean Prison Rank Harmony Dimensions Entry into Custody 2.78 DG 3.21 LG .43 15 Respect/Courtesy 3.01 DG 3.48 ALT .47 14 Staff-Prisoner Relationships 2.74 RH 3.45 ALT .71 4 Humanity 2.79 RH 3.27 ALT .48 13 Decency 2.72 DG 3.38 ALT .66 6 Care for the Vulnerable 2.89 DG 3.44 ALT .55 10 Help and Assistance 2.74 DG 3.37 ALT .63 7 Professionalism Dimensions Staff Professionalism 2.62 RH 3.53 ALT .91 1 Bureaucratic Legitimacy 2.35 DG 2.97 ALT .62 8 Fairness 2.46 RH 3.15 ALT .69 5 Organisation and Consistency 2.23 DG 3.08 ALT .85 2 Security Dimensions Policing and Security 2.94 DG 3.35 BN .41 17 Prisoner Safety 3.24 DG 3.57 LG .33 20 Prisoner Adaptation 3.25 FB 3.77 LG .52 11 Drugs and Exploitation 2.46 FB 3.22 LG .76 3

SLIDE 10

SLIDE 11

Heavy Light Present Absent

Garth (public) Bullingdon (public) Whitemoor late 90s (public) Altcourse (private) Lowdham Grange (private) Dovegate/Rye Hill (private)

Oppressive Insecure HEAVY/LIGHT ABSENT-PRESENT

Whitemoor 2009-10 US supermax Albany 1980s (public) Long Lartin 1980s (public)

naïve-permissive Powerless- professional traditional - cynical traditional- professional

SLIDE 12