Public or private sector prisons

Transcription

1 Public or private sector prisons Professor Alison Liebling and Dr Ben Crewe Cambridge Institute of Criminology 6 March

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

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 adaptation] [Drugs and exploitation] Conditions and Family Contact Regime decency Family contact Wellbeing and Development Personal development Personal autonomy Wellbeing 3

4 Dimensions with the most significant variation between prisons Staff professionalism (p) Organisation and consistency) (p) Staff-prisoner relationships (h) Fairness Decency Help and assistance (h) Bureaucratic legitimacy (p) Well being (w) Personal development (w)

5 Private Trainer A Poor B Average C Good D Very Good Private Trainer Private Local Public Local Public Trainer Private Trainer Private Local Dovegate Rye Hill Forest Bank Bullingdon Garth Respect/ courtesy Respect/ courtesy 3.07 Care for the vulnerable Drugs and exploitation 3.02 Respect/ courtesy 3.18 Care for the vulnerable 3.10 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.10 Staff professionalism Respect/ courtesy 3.24 Care for the vulnerable 3.27 Staff-prisoner relationships 3.15 Help and assistance 3.22 Staff professionalism 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 Policing and security 3.26 Personal development 3.04 Personal autonomy 3.04 Lowdham Grange 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 Policing and security 3.22 Drugs and exploitation 3.22 Personal development 3.07 Personal autonomy 3.14 Wellbeing 3.19 Altcourse 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 Policing and security 3.27 Personal development 3.28 Personal autonomy 3.22 Wellbeing 3.07

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 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

7 Figure 4. Personal Development: An in-prison model 1 BUREAUCRATIC LEGITIMACY HUMANITY AN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISED BY KIND REGARD AND CONCERN FOR THE PERSON (3.27) 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) THE TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIVITY OF THE PRISON/PRISON SYSTEM AND ITS MORAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL (3.97).166 ***.145 ***.413 ***.144 ***.101 *** PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ( HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL ) (3.28) ORGANISATION + CONSISTENCY R 2 = Controlling for function, + public/private ownership/management THE CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PRISON (3.08) 7

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.

9 Harmony Dimensions Lowest Highest Mean Prison Mean Prison Diff. Rank Entry into Custody 2.78 DG 3.21 LG Respect/Courtesy 3.01 DG 3.48 ALT Staff-Prisoner Relationships 2.74 RH 3.45 ALT.71 4 Humanity 2.79 RH 3.27 ALT Decency 2.72 DG 3.38 ALT.66 6 Care for the Vulnerable 2.89 DG 3.44 ALT 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 Prisoner Safety 3.24 DG 3.57 LG Prisoner Adaptation 3.25 FB 3.77 LG Drugs and Exploitation 2.46 FB 3.22 LG.76 3

10 Harmony Dimensions Lowest Highest Mean Prison Mean Prison Diff. Rank Entry into Custody 2.78 DG 3.21 LG Respect/Courtesy 3.01 DG 3.48 ALT Staff-Prisoner Relationships 2.74 RH 3.45 ALT.71 4 Humanity 2.79 RH 3.27 ALT Decency 2.72 DG 3.38 ALT.66 6 Care for the Vulnerable 2.89 DG 3.44 ALT 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 Prisoner Safety 3.24 DG 3.57 LG Prisoner Adaptation 3.25 FB 3.77 LG Drugs and Exploitation 2.46 FB 3.22 LG.76 3

11 HEAVY/LIGHT ABSENT-PRESENT US supermax Heavy traditional - cynical Garth (public) Oppressive Albany 1980s (public) Absent Whitemoor Powerless- Altcourse (private) professional Lowdham Grange (private) Long Lartin 1980s (public) Bullingdon (public) traditionalprofessional Whitemoor late 90s (public) Present Dovegate/Rye Hill (private) Insecure naïve-permissive Light

12 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 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) 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 :