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 (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
Revised MQPL dimensions measuring the moral quality of prison life (Liebling, Crewe and Hulley 2011) Security Harmony Policing and security Entry into custody Prisoner safety Respect/courtesy [Prisoner adaptation] Staff-Prisoner relationships [Drugs and exploitation] Humanity Decency Conditions and Family Care for the vulnerable Contact Help and assistance Regime decency Family contact Professionalism Staff professionalism Wellbeing and Development Bureaucratic legitimacy Personal development Fairness Personal autonomy Organisation and consistency Wellbeing 3
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
A – ‘Poor’ B – ‘Average’ C – ‘Good’ D – ‘Very Good’ Private Private Private Local Public Local Public Trainer Private Trainer Private Local Trainer Trainer Lowdham Dovegate Rye Hill Forest Bank Bullingdon Garth Altcourse Grange Respect/ Respect/ Respect/ Respect/ Respect/ Respect/courtesy Respect/courtesy courtesy 3.01 courtesy 3.07 courtesy 3.18 courtesy 3.24 courtesy 3.29 3.47 3.48 Prisoner safety Care for the Care for the Care for the Care for the Care for the Care for the 3.24 vulnerable vulnerable 3.10 vulnerable 3.27 vulnerable 3.15 vulnerable 3.24 vulnerable 3.44 3.01 Staff-prisoner Staff-prisoner Staff-prisoner Staff-prisoner Staff-prisoner Prisoner safety relationships relationships relationships relationships relationships 3.32 3.10 3.15 3.17 3.27 3.45 Drugs and Staff Help and Help and Help and Help and exploitation professionalism assistance 3.22 assistance 3.05 assistance 3.20 assistance 3.37 3.02 3.18 Staff Humanity 3.08 Humanity 3.17 Humanity 3.27 Prisoner safety professionalism Staff Entry into custody Entry into custody 3.32 3.24 professionalism 3 .21 3.10 Prisoner safety 3.25 Decency 3.30 Decency 3.38 3.46 Prisoner safety Staff Staff Policing and 3.36 professionalism professionalism security 3.35 Policing and 3.27 3.53 security 3.26 Prisoner safety Fairness 3.15 Personal 3.57 Organisation and development Policing and consistency 3.08 3.04 security 3.22 Prisoner safety Personal Drugs and 3.48 autonomy 3.04 exploitation 3.22 Policing and Personal security 3.27 development 3.07 Personal Personal development 3.28 autonomy 3.14 Personal Wellbeing 3.19 autonomy 3.22 Wellbeing 3.07
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 offences 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) 6
Figure 4. Personal Development: An in-prison model 1 BUREAUCRATIC LEGITIMACY ‘THE TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIVITY OF THE PRISON/PRISON SYSTEM AND ITS HUMANITY MORAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL’ (3.97) ‘AN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISED .144 *** BY KIND REGARD AND CONCERN FOR THE PERSON’ (3.27) .166 *** STAFF PROFESSIONALISM PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ‘STAFF CONFIDENCE AND R 2 = 69.2 COMPETENCE IN THE USE OF .145 *** (‘HELP WITH THE AUTHORITY’ DEVELOPMENT OF (3.53) POTENTIAL’) (3.28) HELP AND ASSISTANCE .413 *** ‘SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT FOR PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DRUGS, .101 *** HEALTHCARE + PROGRESSION’ (3.37) ORGANISATION + CONSISTENCY ‘THE CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PRISON’ (3.08) 7 1 Controlling for function, + public/private ownership/management
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.
Lowest Highest Rank Mean Prison Mean Prison Diff. 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
Lowest Highest Rank Mean Prison Mean Prison Diff. 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
HEAVY/LIGHT Oppressive ABSENT-PRESENT Heavy US supermax Albany 1980s (public) traditional - cynical Garth (public) Bullingdon (public) Whitemoor 2009-10 traditional- professional Whitemoor late 90s (public) Absent Present Long Lartin 1980s (public) Powerless- Altcourse (private) professional Lowdham Grange (private) Dovegate/Rye Hill (private) naïve-permissive Light Insecure
Further reading Liebling, A; assisted by Arnold, H (2004) Prisons and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liebling, A., Crewe, B. and Hulley, S. (2011) ‘Values and Practices in Public and Private Sector Prisons: A Summary of Key Findings from an Evaluation’, Prison Service Journal No. 196, pp. 55-58. Liebling, A; Hulley, S and Crewe, B (2011) ‘Conceptualising and Measuring the Quality of Prison Life’, in Gadd, D. (ed) Handbook of Criminological Research Methods Sage. Crewe, B., Liebling, A. and Hulley. S. (2011) ‘Staff culture, the use of authority, and prisoner outcomes in public and private prisons’ Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44(1) 94–115 Hulley, S., Liebling, A. and Crewe, B. (2012) ‘Respect in prisons: Prisoners’ experiences of respect in public and private sector prisons’ Criminology and Criminal Justice February 2012 12: 3-23 12
Recommend
More recommend
