PSJ November 2011 No. 198.pdf

JPRISON SERVICEOURNALNovember January 2010 2011 No 187 198

Contents2Editorial CommentProfessor Alison Liebling is Directorof the Prison Research Centre at theInstitute of Criminology,University of Cambridge.3Perrie Lecture: The cost to prison legitimacy of cutsProfessor Alison LieblingMichael Spurr is Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the National OffenderManagement Service.12Perrie Lecture: Reducing costs andmaintaining valuesMichael SpurrAmy Ludlow is a PhD candidate inlaw and is based at the Faculty ofLaw and Institute of Criminology atthe University of Cambridge. She iscurrently conducting fieldwork atHMP Birmingham.17Regulating Prison Strikes and Industrial ConflictAmy LudlowLars Thuesen and Laura Schmidt-Hansen work for the Danish Prisonand Probation Service.22Learning from the behaviour of inmates and guardshelps solving wicked challenges in the Danish Prisonand Probation ServiceLars Thuesen and Laura Schmidt-HansenDr Kimmett Edgar is Head ofResearch at the Prison Reform Trustand Chris Bath is theDirector of Projects at UNLOCK.27Time is Money: The role of personal finance inreducing re-offendingDr Kimmett Edgar and Chris BathDr Liz Hales is a Senior ResearchAssociate at the Institute ofCriminology, University of Cambridge.Professor Loraine Gelsthorpe isUniversity Professor in Criminologyand Criminal Justice at the Institute ofCriminology, University of Cambridge.33 Research on Criminalisation of Migrant WomenDr Liz Hales and Professor Loraine GelsthorpeMargaret AdamsDr Rachel BellHMYOI FelthamMaggie BolgerPrison Service College, Newbold RevelAlan ConstableHMP WinchesterDr Ben CreweUniversity of CambridgePaul CrosseyHMYOI PortlandEileen Fennerty-LyonsNorth West Regional OfficeDr Michael FiddlerUniversity of GreenwichEditorial BoardJamie Bennett (Editor)IRC Morton HallSteve HallSERCODr Karen HarrisonUniversity of HullProfessor Yvonne JewkesUniversity of LeicesterDr Helen JohnstonUniversity of HullMartin KettleHM Inspectorate of PrisonsMonica LloydRehabilitation Services Group NOMSAlan LongwellCriminal Justice Division, Northern Ireland Prison ServiceWilliam PaynePublic Sector Bids UnitDr Basia SpalekUniversity of BirminghamChristopher StaceyUnlockRay TaylorHMP PentonvilleDr Azrini WahidinQueens University, BelfastMike WheatleyDirectorate of High SecurityRay Hazzard and Steve WilliamsHMP LeyhillPrison Service JournalIssue 198

November 2011Alexander Maconochie’s ‘Mark System’38 John Moore is a Senior Lecturer inCriminology and Deputy Director ofJohn Moorethe Criminal Justice Unit at theDepartment of Health and AppliedSocial Sciences, University of the Westof England.47 The English Prison during the First and SecondWorld Wars: Hidden Lived Experiences of WarProfessor Yvonne Jewkes and Dr Helen JohnstonYvonne Jewkes is Professor ofCriminology at the University ofLeicester and Helen Johnstonis Lecturer in Criminology at theUniversity of Hull.52Book ReviewThe power of positive deviance: How unlikelyinnovators solve the world’s toughest problemsJamie BennettJamie Bennett is Centre Manager ofIRC Morton Hall.52Book ReviewDebating for a Change: Improving prison lifethrough prisoner/staff working groupsTim NewellTim Newell is a retired prisongovernor.53 Book ReviewVictims and Policy Making: a comparativeperspectiveDr. Rachel BellDr. Rachel Bell is a senior officer atHMYOI Feltham.54 Book ReviewOffending Women: Power, Punishment, and theRegulation of DesireAylwyn WalshAylwyn Walsh is based at theUniversity of Northampton and haspreviously worked as a Writer inResidence at HMP Lowdham Grangeand HMP Ashwell.55Interview: Danny DorlingJamie BennettCover photograph by Brian Locklin,Health Care Officer, HMP Gartree.The Editorial Board wishes to make clear that the views expressed by contributors are their own and donot necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Prison Service.Printed at HMP Leyhill on 115 gsm Claro SilkSet in 10 on 13 pt Frutiger LightCirculation approx 6,000ISSN 0300-3558© Crown Copyright 2011Issue 198Prison Service Journal1

Editorial CommentPrison Service Journal and the Perrie Lectures have along-standing partnership. The Editorial Board are proudto be publishing two of the lectures from June 2011.These lectures took the theme: ‘Imprisonment and itsvalues: the cost of cuts’. The Perrie Lectures Committee isto be applauded for taking on such a theme and situatingthe crisis of public finances in a social and moral context.The lectures published here are by Professor AlisonLiebling, a world-renowned prison researcher, andMichael Spurr, Chief Executive Officer of the NationalOffender Management Service. Spurr takes anoperational perspective, arguing that tighter managerialand financial control has enabled improvements inprisons, the experience of prisoners and re-offendingrates. He also argues that whilst practitioners cannotchoose how much finances are reduced by, they do havechoices about what is cut and how this is done andthrough this discretion there is a space in which they canact with values. In contrast, Liebling argues that‘economic rationality’ is becoming a pervasive way ofviewing the world, excluding moral perspectives. Sheargues that in prisons this is pushing a move towardsmore commercially-informed practices includingmanagerial monitoring and the increasing size of prisons.She argues instead for practices that are attuned to thehuman experiences of imprisonment, work and societyat large. These two contributions are fascinating inthemselves, but they also illuminate critical questions forthe contemporary prison system. Most obviously, thesequestions are economic. How can expenditure of prisonsbe controlled or reduced? Can the expansion of theprison population be halted or reduced in order tostabilise costs? How can the market contribute towardseconomy either directly through competition or indirectlythrough importing ideas and practices? However, thequestions facing prisons are also moral and go to theissue of legitimacy. How will the experience of prisonersand staff be affected? What do the public want andexpect from the prison system? The system is at aparticular time and place and a particular juncture wherethe future will be forged. These articles invite the readernot only to reflect upon those issues but also to activelyparticipate in creating that future.In the rest of this edition, there are articles on arange of issues. Amy Ludlow makes an importantcontribution to the analysis of prison unions, charting theregulation of their ability to take strike action. The articlerightly ends by highlighting that the current challengesplace the union at a critical juncture as much as the restof the prison system. In their article, Kimmett Edgar andChris Bath summarise the findings of research carried outfor the ex-prisoner charity UNLOCK, which addresses theneed to help people managing what are often alreadylimited finances. This article explores the individual effectsof poverty and economic recession for those in prison.Another area where economics and social policyintersect in a highly charged way is in the approach tomigration. Liz Hales and Loraine Gelsthorpe contributean article that sets out the expansion of migrant womenin custody and outlines a research project focussing onthe experiences and circumstances of these women. Thisis an example of how research can inform and challengepublic policy, highlighting hidden issues such astrafficking. Although this is a work in progress, it isnevertheless a valuable insight into an unexplored world.Other articles in this edition address how prison criseshave been addressed at different times and in differentplaces. Lars Thuesen and Laura Schmidt-Hansen describework carried out in Denmark using a technique known aspositive deviance which, like appreciative inquiry used inthe UK, focuses on examples of good practice as a meansof understanding and solving problems. The articledescribes how this approach has been used in order tounderstand and improve the practice of front-line prisonworkers. John Moore contributes a fascinating account ofthe innovative work of Alexander Maconochie, a prisongovernor on the Norfolk Island penal settlement inAustralia, and at Birmingham prison in the mid 19thcentury. Many of his ideas, including conditional rewards,reducing offending on release, and developingmeaningful work, can be seen echoing down the years tothis very day. His eventual failure also stands as a poignantwarning to those who follow in his footsteps.Another fascinating historical piece is YvonneJewkes and Helen Johnson’s emerging work on prisonsduring the two world wars. Their article is a tantalisingglimpse of a forgotten history, delving into the impact onimprisonment and crime, the particular effects of warincluding air raids on prisons and questioning how theeveryday world of the prison changed during those years.Their article introduces a research project they aredeveloping and ends with a call to those who chart thehistory of individual establishments to contribute.This edition closes with an interview with DannyDorling, a professor of human geography who has agrowing public profile. In this interview, he discussesinequality and wealth in the UK and its effects on societyincluding crime and punishment. These are crucial issuesthat directly return to the questions posed in the PerrieLectures.There is a spread of articles in this edition, rangingfrom the narrow to the broad, from contemporary tohistorical and from the local to the global. What theyhave in common is the ability to challenge and excite thereader with the ideas, debates and controversies thatcharacterise prison life.2 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

lose when we reduce certainty? Richard Sennettsuggests we lose ‘character’ as the virtues of theefficient workplace become different from the virtues ofgood character 7 . Sennett argues that the humanconsequences of the ‘new flexibility’ are profound. Ournew high-risk, low-loyalty, lean workplaces corrode ourmoral identity, as we are forced to abandon habits ofdependability, service and routine and the concept of‘the career’, and must embrace a modern work identityconsisting of short-term, short-notice, outcomes-driven‘projects’ 8 . Such an environment breeds anxiety andbrings in its wake new controls which are hard tounderstand. Character, a term linking personality tocivic or public ties, is lost in this new short term, nonlinearenvironment. Loyalties and commitments cannotbe fostered. The iron cage of bureaucracy with itsreward of upward social mobilityfor the diligent time-servingworker, has given way to a lesspredictable and individualisedform of work, where, ‘thequalities of good work are notthe qualities of good character’ 9 .Rapid institutional change is partof this dynamic, redefinable,flexible and flatter world of work.This environment is notconducive to trust, loyalty andcommitment and may bedysfunctional for the individualand for the organisation.Are there any alternativemethods for getting more prisonofficers to look like the outstanding ones? Is thereanything, in POA resistance to current trends, whichshould be preserved? Some of you may have seen oursummary of the findings of our public-private sectorcomparison in the Prison Service Journal 10 . In it we saythat the public sector have unappreciated strengths inthe use of authority. Compared to the private sector,public sector prison officers get this right more often.They also get it wrong — there is a heaviness to publicsector officer culture — but when they are at their best,public sector prison officers are better atprofessionalism. This is important, and might be worthpaying for 11 .. . . when they areat their best, publicsector prisonofficers are better atprofessionalism.This is important,and might be worthpaying for.This brings me to my second favourite book, alsoby Richard Sennett. Sennett’s ‘Culture of the NewCapitalism’ 12 argues that apparently rapid economicgrowth has come at a high price: ever greater economicinequality and social instability. He asks, ‘what valuesand practices can hold people together as theinstitutions in which they live fragment?’ (p. 3). Hisreply to himself: ‘Only a certain kind of human beingcan flourish in unstable, fragmentary social conditions’.Most people need a ‘sustaining life narrative’. Ourorganisations are increasingly future-oriented, so thatpotential results, potential ability is gambled on abovepast experience and track record. I like to think that my20+ years of serious hard work in prisons researchcounts for something in my work place. What seems tocount more is the research income I might bring in nextyear. There will soon be fewpeople above or around me whohave witnessed this performance.This dispensing with memory isespecially existentially troublingfor people working in prisons,where experience — doing thingsthe way they were doneyesterday — is trusted, andknown to be related to safety.Officers with experience getassaulted less often than officerswith little experience. This isprecisely because they havelearned to use their authoritywell.The values of the neweconomy are in conflict with our nature. There is somuch unstable energy about, many of us just want tostand still and breathe. One of the features of thenew economy, Sennett explains, is that ‘transactions’have replaced ‘relationships’ in people’s dealings withone another. There were problems with the oldmodel. As Sennett puts it: ‘The political and socialrationale of fat bureaucracy is inclusion rather thanefficiency’, loyalty is rewarded, bureaucracies teachdelayed gratification. They risk stagnation. We can nolonger afford these luxuries, but we need to reflecton what we are giving up, and what the unintendedconsequences might be.7. Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, New York: W. W. Norton andCompany, Ltd.8. Sennett (1998) see n.7; see also Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, New York:Oxford University Press.9. Sennett (1998): 21, see n.7; and see Liebling, A.; assisted by Arnold, H. (2004) Prisons and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values,Quality and Prison Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, chapter 8.10. Liebling, A., Crewe, B. and Hulley, S. (2011) Values and Practices in Public and Private Sector Prisons: A Summary of Key Findings froman Evaluation, Prison Service Journal No.x p.x.11. See also Crewe, B., Liebling, A. and Hulley, S. (2011) Staff culture, use of authority and prisoner quality of life in public and privatesector prisons, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(1): 94-115.12. Sennett (2006) see n.7.4 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Short-term labour alters how workers worktogether. There may be problems of exaggerated ordysfunctional peer loyalty among officers in somepublic sector prisons, but in private sector prisons,where turnover is higher, and in public sector prisonswith large numbers of new generation recruits, staffrelationships are ‘thin’ and less reliable than they usedto be. We have been in prisons recently where staff donot seem to come to each other’s assistance when thetemperature changes. This might be a function of newworking conditions.To illustrate a new risk of lack of accountability,Sennett uses the example of Harvard academic JeffreySachs, a consultant to the Polish state ministry, whoapparently treated Poland as a free-market experiment,but who did not remain in Poland as a governmentofficial. ‘Having reorganised theeconomy, which is still trying torecover from this experiment,Sachs returned to the UnitedStates and moved on toproblems in the environment’ (p.58). Does this make anyone elsein this room think about prisonswe might name? There issomething to be said forcommitment to the organisation.The three structural deficitscaused by the new capitalistmodel are ‘low institutionalloyalty’, a reduction in ‘informal trust among workers’,and a ‘weakening of institutional knowledge’ (p. 63).Accumulating knowledge about how the institutionworks means ‘knowing when to make exceptions tothe rules’, as well as knowing when attractive lookingstrategies are likely to backfire. It is just possible thatprison officers who get the use of authority right —neither avoiding it, incapable of it, or over-using it, havethe kind of identity that makes this part of their jobmake sense.Let me talk a bit more about prisoners, and thequality of prison life. How might cuts impact directly onprison quality? One important issue is prison size, andanother is numbers.Lord Carter’s 2007 Report ‘Proposals for theefficient and sustainable use of custody in England andWales’ 13 , was commissioned to explore ways of savingmoney, and building new prison capacity in Englandand Wales. You will all remember, I am sure, that itrecommended the building of two to three ‘larger, stateof the art’ or ‘Titan’ prisons accommodating aroundHow might cutsimpact directly onprison quality? Oneimportant issue isprison size, andanother is numbers.2500 prisoners each. Considerable problems wereforeseen, and I think, some problems experienced insecuring sites. What seems to have happened instead isthe speedy emergence of the large, cluster concept,alongside the commissioning of 3 (?) new prisons of1500 places each. These prisons will allow for aprogramme of closures of old, inefficient, andineffective prisons offering better value for money andmuch improved chances of reducing reoffending andcrime’ (p.1). Carter’s Report, we should note, has thesub-title, ‘Proposals for the efficient and sustainable useof custody in England and Wales’, not ‘Proposals for thelegitimate use and operations of custody in Englandand Wales’. Much yearned for cost effectiveness isdriving these policy choices. 14 What matters in prisonquality, according to Carter, are staff culture,management processes,buildings, and crowding. Aspectsof existing practice are not ideal,and ‘we are not living in an idealworld’ 15 . We are hearing thismantra a lot at the moment: ‘thisis the real world’. Thiscommentator suggested that‘smaller communities, or prisonsof around 400 prisoners, aremore successful but about fourtimes more expensive’. This is ‘notfeasible in the current politicalclimate’, or acceptable to thecontemporary tax payer.This efficiency-utilitarian position is a seductive anddangerous one. Swansea was the smallest prison of 12we included in a study of suicide prevention and it wasbetter on almost all measures of moral performancethan any other prison in the study, despite itsdilapidated (and therefore expensive) buildings. Theother small prison in the study, Eastwood Park, wassuccessfully improved by a performance test process aswell as being the most successful implementer of thenew suicide prevention strategy. Swansea housed 366prisoners in old and expensive accommodation in aresearch study conducted in 2002-4 (it was built in1861), had the major advantage that it was staffeddisproportionately by local people, and prisonersaccommodated there were not too far away from theirhomes. It was a high risk prison with fewer than theexpected number of suicides, given its population. Italso had good staff-prisoner relationships, and wasdescribed as unusually safe by prisoners. They ‘trustedin the environment’ and felt that staff cared about13. Carter, Lord (2007) Securing the Future: Proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales, Lord Carter’sReview of Prisons, London: HMSO.14. There is a feeling that the Prison Service was treated generously in the past, with high expectations about the returns on this additionalinvestment in programmes and regimes. These expectations (which were not directly about legitimacy either) have not been met.15. Member of the Carter Working Group, personal communication (2008).Issue 198 Prison Service Journal5

them, for example on entry into custody 16 . We have justfound Shrewsbury prison to be significantly better thanits comparator prisons on everything. We could do toexplore more systematically the evidence on size,quality and outcomes. It is possible that small isbeautiful — or at least less cumbersome, complex andresistant. I shall return to this possibility below.There may be a case for the replacement of someold prisons with new facilities. Governors argue thatdilapidated, Victorian, prisons are ‘almostunmanageable’. They generally mean the larger, innercity prisons. Other jurisdictions,such as Western Australia andsome American states, havingadopted our Victorian designs,have closed their oldest prisonsand turned them into museums.There is a need for somethingbetter than police cells, orBrixton, and new prisons offerthe opportunity to experimentwith potentially better designand facilities. New prisons haveseveral advantages including: thechance to establish a specificideology or culture, to design insafety, to unite staff aroundpositive goals and to takeadvantage of new thinking aboutfirst night centres, and to locateprisoners closer to home. Newprisons are notoriously difficult toopen, however, so attentionneeds to be paid to ways ofaccomplishing stability in theearly years. Our smaller olderprisons may have hiddenstrengths — relationships trump buildings in Swanseaand Shrewsbury.The Isle of Sheppey cluster currently houses 2,224prisoners and is expected to house a new houseblockshortly, so scale is increasing to around this size. 17 Themain rationale for moving upwards in size, overtlyacknowledged by all, is economies of scale rather thanprison management philosophy. The ‘operationalchallenges’ associated with large prisons include thepossibility of large scale disturbances, difficulties inmeeting the needs of specific groups of prisoners, ormanaging prisoners of different types on the same site,There are some goodreasons to bepursuing thisagenda, andlegitimate reasons tobe considering therole, pay andprofessional standingof prison officers. Butit is not clear whatthe right balance is,or what the vision isthat is drivingthese changes.and the ‘management complexities associated with alarge staff complement’. There is also a widespreadconsensus that most existing old Victorian local prisons‘need reinventing’ 18 . But this is true of large Victorianlocals, not necessarily of smaller ones. The clusteringprocess is relatively new, and I have not seen anyindependent evaluations of its implementation oreffects. The Prison Service is still learning about thecomplexities of shared services, facilities, and multiplefunction sites. The claim made in the Carter Report wasthat larger prisons ‘should improve the prisonerexperience’ 19 . Concerns discussedby the Workgroup include‘management grip, order andcontrol, and the (distinctive, tight)style of governing necessary tosuccessfully manage this kind ofestablishment’ 20 :‘Our strategy is to have ourbest people, the bestprocesses, to get it right,initially … we need moreevidence on what works andwhat doesn’t work inrunning prisons 21 .I worry that ‘number 1Governors’ will be remote, andless experienced or competentGovernors will actually governthe satellite sites. Privatecompanies favour the largeprison model (they argued thatthe Titan concept was workable).There are some measures to‘moderate the use of custody’,and efforts being made to modernise (that is, lower thecost of) prison by reducing the cost of the workforce,supported by a market testing of new capacity, as wellas of existing prisons. So we have some new, largeprisons, all awarded to the private sector, I think, and aplan to reduce the ‘costly, outdated and inflexible payand grading structure’ applied to prison officers up to2010. There are some good reasons to be pursuing thisagenda, and legitimate reasons to be considering therole, pay and professional standing of prison officers.But it is not clear what the right balance is, or what thevision is that is driving these changes. There is talk of16. Liebling, A., Durie, L., Stiles, A. and Tait, S. (2005) ‘Revisiting prison suicide: the role of fairness and distress’, in A. Liebling and S.Maruna (eds) The Effects of Imprisonment, Cullompton: Willan, pp 209-31.17. Clusters exist on the Isle of Wight (1,617) and in Redditch (1,427).18. Personal communication.19. Personal communication (2008).20. Personal communication (2008).21. Personal communication (2008.)6 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

‘modest’ sentence control and some closures of olderand more inefficient prisons. As I said in my openingremarks, some inefficiency is not all bad. We could savea lot more money by reducing the prison population towhat it was in 1992 — half of what it is now. Reversingthe fetish for long and indeterminate sentences wouldachieve that, if we really wanted change.Scholars of the prison have used a wide range oflanguage with which to talk about the use ofimprisonment. Nils Christie refers to the ‘carceraltexture’ of society, arguing that prison population size isa policy choice 22 . We shouldremember that examples exist ofdeliberate and successfuldecarceration (Finland, and WestGermany) and of countriesmaintaining exceptionally lowand ‘liberal’ penal regimes(Norway, Sweden, Denmark).David Downes talked of the‘depth of imprisonment’ whencomparing penal policy in TheNetherlands with that of Englandand Wales 23 . Attitudes towards,and practices relating to,normalisation, welfare, discipline,punishment and rehabilitation,the role of prison staff, and rightsand privileges including homeleave and visits, impact on howpsychologically invasive anddamaging prison sentences are.These attitudes and practicesdiffer between jurisdictions inways that are indicative of visionsof the offender and broadersocial and cultural relations. RoyKing and Kathleen McDermott talked later of the‘weight’, or psychological burden of a prison sentence,reserving the term ‘depth’ for practices relating tosecurity and control 24 . Their preferred term, ‘weight’included the quality of staff-prisoner relationships,material conditions, rights and privileges, and thenature and quality of staff-prisoner relationships. Thesediffer between jurisdictions but also between prisonswithin a jurisdiction. Recently Ben Crewe has referred tothe increasing ‘grip’ or ‘tightness’ of imprisonment, asprisoners are required to actively engage with theThere is increasingand oftenincoherent politicaluse made ofwhimsical penalstrategies, whichoften have farreaching effects onthe tricky business ofgetting through theday peacefully. Astrategy is neededthat will address allof these problems.complex requirements of new sentences 25 . DavidGarland referred to this phenomenon as‘responsibilisation’. On all measures, then, quantity,depth, weight and tightness, the prison has grown anddeepened in England and Wales since the early 1990s 26 .We are the highest user of imprisonment in WesternEurope, and hold more life sentenced prisoners than allof the rest of Western Europe put together.Let me recap on where I think we are, so you don’tthink I am arguing for the status quo. Problems facedby contemporary prisons in England and Wales includeovercrowding and unpredictablepopulation growth, the need tocontrol costs, expensive andunsuitable accommodation,prisoners located in the wrongparts of the country far awayfrom their homes, high levels ofrisk of disorder and suicide,cultural resistance to change andin some cases, care for prisonersamong (some public sector) staff,industrial unrest, and pooroutcomes. We are assured thatthe private sector can ‘do better’but the evidence suggests theirperformance is very variable 27 .There is continuing uncertaintyabout what is required of thecontemporary prison: safe care,drug treatment, punishment,containment or future crimeprevention. There is increasingand often incoherent political usemade of whimsical penalstrategies, which often have farreaching effects on the trickybusiness of getting through the day peacefully. Astrategy is needed that will address all of theseproblems.There are some ‘essential features’ of Britishprisons which are enduring and which emergecontinually in research. One of these is that prison staffidentify strongly with their landing or houseblock andalso very powerfully with ‘their prison’. They have faithin ‘what worked yesterday’, but are perturbed byfuture-oriented reorganisations of their work, and theyneed to feel safe in order to care for prisoners 28 . But22. Christie, N. (1993) Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style? London: Routledge.23. Downes, D. (1988) Contrasts in Tolerance: Post-War Penal Policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.24. King, R.D. and McDermott, K. (1995) The State of Our Prisons, Oxford: Oxford University Press.25. Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English Prison, Clarendon Studies in Criminology,Oxford: Oxford University Press.26. Liebling assisted by Arnold (2004) see n.927. Liebling et al (2011) see n.10.28. Liebling, A. and Price, D. (2001) The Prison Officer, Leyhill: Prison Service (and Waterside Press).Issue 198 Prison Service Journal7

there are good and bad models of safety, and differentstaff cultures favour different visions of it. Prisons arespecial, place-based communities whose form is shapedby social and political ideas held about crime,punishment, social order and human nature. Theysuffer from an ‘inherent legitimacy deficit’ 29 and aresusceptible to brutality, indifference to human needs,abuses of power and breakdowns in order. Prison staffhave always been difficult to manage, and somewhatoddly represented by the POA (why is this?), and theyengage in ‘low visibility work’. Prisons pose daily moraland management problems, and getting thorough theday peacefully is a difficult and contingent task whichhas to be continually worked at.Staff and prisoners frequentlyexpress the need to beindividually known. Highlycompetent Governors capable ofleading and motivating staff,keeping an eye on the detail,orchestrating an effective seniormanagement team, of ensuringthat sometimes competingtargets are reached in ways thatmake sense, and who manage tobe visible to staff, are in shortsupply. So things could be better.So let me come to my last‘favourite book of the moment’,Michael Pusey on ‘economicrationalism’ and its risks. Puseyargues that an older generationof economists, who typicallycome from modest socialbackgrounds, who had somehistorical memory of the GreatDepression, and who learned a kind of economic setswithin a liberal arts framework and thus within aphilosophically informed view of society, the state, andthe human condition, came to be replaced by a newgeneration of more socially privileged economists witha trained incapacity to be social or think socially. Thenew ‘economic rationalism’ reduces the norms of pubicpolicy to those of private enterprise. This ‘whizz kids’accumulated disproportionate power in the Treasuryand Cabinet an killed off their elders by ‘branding themwith accusations’ of being ‘not sufficiently hard nosed’,of being ‘inconsolable value-intellectuals’, not properlyequipped for life in the ‘real world’. This developmentcame at a cost to civil society, culture and identity inAustralia. The economy takes precedence over ‘theThe case for new,larger and competedprisons isconstructed as alegitimate outcomeof contemporaryfiscal and socialcircumstances.Previous analyseshave shown that theconcept of efficiencyis ‘ethically blind’.political order’, and even social order, and society isrepresented as some sort of resisting sludge, anopponent of the economy. The state loses itsdeliberative capacity, and instead, decontextualisedgoals are pursued in ways that seem to ignore ‘realtasks and situations’ 30 . A ‘technocratic positivism’reigns, and what Pusey calls the ‘manipulative sciences’:psychology, accountancy and neoclassical economics,rise to power. He says:In a shakeout that is more like an organisedforgetting, whole departments have lost notonly their dead wood but also, and not byaccident, their wise men andtheir corporate memories, inreforms that have beendepoliticised in the name of‘flexibility, responsivenessand effectiveness’ 31 .He raises some importantquestions about what the boundsof legitimate economic behaviourand reasoning might be. What heseems to be saying is that when‘captains of business’ and topcivil servants think only asbusinessmen, and not as socialcitizens, we run into trouble.What looks like a ‘fiscal crisis’might be a ‘legitimation crisis’, oran ‘overload crisis’, or a‘modernisation crisis’, or a ‘crisisof society’. If we organise labouronly according to this narrowrationality, we violate somethingin our culture and identity.The risks inherent in the concept of efficiencyThe case for new, larger and competed prisons isconstructed as a legitimate outcome of contemporaryfiscal and social circumstances. Previous analyses haveshown that the concept of efficiency is ‘ethically blind’.American scholars Feeley and Simon identified an‘emerging constellation of discourses and practices,knowledge and power’ known as ‘actuarial justice’ inthe 1990s, which promotes the concept of efficiencyand provides a rationale for it. Actuarial models ofjustice risk neglecting the moral agency of persons 32 .They prioritise the identification, classification,29. Sparks, R. (1994) ‘Can Prisons be Legitimate?’, in R. King and M. McGuire (eds) Prisons in Context, Oxford: Clarendon Press.30. Pusey, M. (1998) ‘Economic Rationalism, Human Rights and Civil Society’, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 4 (2): 131-153.31. Pusey, M. (1992) Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A National Building State Changes its Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.32. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) ‘The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications’, Criminology,30: 449–74.8 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

incapacitation and management of unruly risk groupsrather than the understanding or handling of them asmoral, psychological or economic agents. According toFeeley and Simon, actuarial justice invites new forms ofcustody and surveillance, including ‘no frills’ varieties ofprison use and high parole revocation rates 33 . Itemphasises utilitarian purposes over moralconsiderations.We need to be very wary of a preoccupation withefficiency that brings in its wake, moral indifference.There are of course good moral arguments for beingcareful with and held accountable for publicexpenditure. But general questions of value have cometo be replaced, rather than restrained, by questions oftechnical efficacy 34 . Bureaucracy and its framing ofproblems in a technicist language, geared towards thetwin (internal) goals of efficiency and efficacy, ‘kills’morality 35 . There can be a sinister edge to large,efficient, bureaucratic organisations, which can becomeimpersonal or at worst, horrifying 36 37 . The question ofwhat kind of institutions, indeed prisons, we design,shapes the state of our society, civilisation and culture.Larger, cheaper prisons are likely to become the newnorm 38 . The warning we should heed, already noted byclassic prison scholars, is that large bureaucraticinstitutions tend to displace external goals with internal,self-maintenance purposes: internal order and securityare prioritised over any rehabilitative aspirations.Richard Sennett has provided a persuasive analysis ofthe speeded up ‘new economy’ and its threats toinstitutional loyalty, informal trust, and the build-up ofinstitutional knowledge 39 , as I have argued earlier. In thenew economy, he argues, politicians behave likeconsumers rather than craftsmen. They lack directionand commitment, favouring consultants, and workingto a shortened time-frame. Institutional life becomessuperficial. These are dangers we should heed. As wellas innovation, employees need a ‘mental and emotionalanchor; they need values which assess whetherchanges in work … are worthwhile’ 40 . Without such ananchor, some form of revolt against the new economicimperative and its ‘fragile politics’ is likely 41 . Efficiency isone important value. It should be balanced againstothers, like the building and safeguarding of justinstitutions.The Carter Review recommended an ‘aggressiveprogramme of cost and activity profiling across thepublic sector estate’ resulting in an ‘efficient cost’ foreach prison 42 . It is clear that the financial managementof prisons is going to become much tighter. We heartalk of ‘the Tesco’s model’: that is, large and cheap.Personally, I prefer Waitrose. Governors are expressingconcern about the search for cost savings being toosavage. There is an important distinction to be madebetween reducing inefficiencies and doing business onthe cheap. Prison staff turnover is low in public sectorprisons and high in private sector prisons: what doesthis tell us and where is the optimum rate?Conversations about whether prison officers receiveenough training for their increasingly complex roleincreasingly raise the question of cost: ‘if we providedmore professional training, we would have to pay themmore’. These are moral as well as policy choices.Imprisoning less rather than more cheaply is onealternative policy option.More and larger prisons means more prison staffrecruitment and training. Addressing the ‘costly,outdated and inflexible pay and grading structure thatcurrently exists’ in the public sector is important, butwe should also look closely at whether staff working inthe private sector are too loosely bonded to theirorganisations and whether an unintended price is beingpaid for cheaper, high turnover labour 43Prisons are inherently complex, morally dangerous,and unstable institutions, with other less obvious orinstrumental purposes besides reducing reoffending,such as the expression of public rage, the demarcationof moral boundaries, the realisation of political33. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1994) ‘Actuarial justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law’, in D. Nelken (ed) The Futures of Criminology,Sage, London, pp. 173-201.34. Garland, D. (1990) Punishment and Modern Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press.35. Boutellier, H. (2001) Crime and Morality: The Significance of Criminal Justice in Post-Modern Culture, Dordrecht, Boston, and London:Kluwer Academic; see also Daems, T. (2008) Making Sense of Penal Change, Clarendon Studies in Criminology, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.36. Bauman, Z. (1992) Modernity and the Holocaust, Cambridge: Polity Press passim.)37. Bauman argues that atrocities can emerge in modern societies when old, unresolved tensions (such as fears and conflicts) meet the‘powerful instruments of rational and effective action that modern development itself brought into being’ (p. xiv). His warning is thatapparently civilised, modern, bureaucratic social and technological developments used for social engineering have hidden within themthe potential to dehumanise as well as the potential to enhance life (p.1-9). The Holocaust, he argues, ‘was a legitimate resident in thehouse of modernity’ (p. 17). Modern bureaucracies have the ability ‘to coordinate the action of a great number of moral individuals inthe pursuit of any, also immoral, ends’ (p. 18). He reminds us, after Elias, that ‘right policies’ do not mean the elimination of humanproblems (p. 12).38. As Bauman starkly warns us, it was budget balancing, means-ends calculus, and expert advice, that led to a decision to exterminaterather than export the Jews (p15-19).39. Sennett (2006) see n.7.40. Sennett 2006: 185, see n.7.41. Sennett 2006: 197 see n.7.42. Carter (2007: 36) see n.13.43. See Liebling et al (2011) see n.10; Crewe, Liebling and Hulley (2011) see n.11.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal9

authority, and the shaping of values 44 . Prisons differ,their cultures range from constructive and pro-social toindifferent or at worst, brutal. To forget that prisonssuffer from an inherent legitimacy deficit, that order hasto be worked at, or that their moral performance differssignificantly, is to invite catastrophe. As Woolf argued in1991, prisoners have legitimate expectations of certainstandards of treatment including fairness, openness indecision-making and respect 45 . Very few prisons meethigh standards of legitimacy, and most establishmentssuffer from ‘value imbalance’ of one kind or another.Our understanding of what makes prisons more ratherthan less legitimate, the role ofculture, management, and valuesThe combinedeffects of this new‘economicrationalism’, with are-emerging‘scientism’ andunrestrainedpunitiveness inpublic and politicalthinking aboutoffenders, is ‘alteringthe contours of thepenal realm’ in waysthat are troubling.in shaping this equation, and thepossible links between ‘interiorlegitimacy’ and prisoners’ wellbeingor other importantoutcomes, has only just begun 46 .We actually don’t know what theimpact will be of cheaper prisonson these important dynamics.Prisoners are beginning toexpress hopelessness andfrustration with longer and morearduous sentences, which aredifficult to manage one’s waythrough. The requirementsplaced on prisoners to obtaindeclassification, parole and homeleave, are increasingly stringent(and in many cases,unobtainable). As Richard Sparksargues in his article, ‘Can Prisonsbe Legitimate?’ 47 , there is acomplex interplay between thematerial (I would add, emotionaland moral) conditions of prisonlife, and the external, ideological,structural and economic conditions in which suchprisons exist. Increasing sentence lengths, a harsheningclimate, and continued population growth, make theprison experience feel less legitimate in the eyes ofprisoners, even if the interior conditions are reasonable.Questions of exterior legitimacy include the fairness andtransparency of policy decision-making (including anybidding process), accountability, and the extent ofdemocratic deliberation involved in such decisionmaking.Current penal discourse risks sweeping theconcept of legitimacy under the carpet, privileging‘economic efficiency’ over morality. The combinedeffects of this new ‘economic rationalism’ 48 , with a reemerging‘scientism’ and unrestrained punitiveness inpublic and political thinking about offenders, is ‘alteringthe contours of the penal realm’ 49 in ways that aretroubling.ConclusionThe Carter report ended by reminding us that therise in the size of the prisonpopulation since 1945 has beenconstant and steady, saying:There is therefore a need fora focussed and informedpublic debate about penalpolicy. It will be important toconsider whether tocontinue to have one of thelargest prison populationsper capita in the world andto devote increasing sums ofpublic expenditure tobuilding and running prisonsand responding tofluctuating pressures as theyemerge. Not only is it costly,inefficient and a demand onscarce land, but the sporadicway in which the pressuresemerge and are respondedto inhibits the delivery ofeffective offendermanagement andrehabilitation 50 .Many critics would prefer to see a thorough andwell-informed re-evaluation of the role of the prison,and a diversion of these funds into ‘justicereinvestment’. How problems are defined limits thedialogue or possibilities of authentic communicationand then policies are crafted out of these limitedrationalities. More prison, achieved cheaply, is onepolicy option but it fails to take account of DavidGarland’s critique that the prison is a ‘tragic’ option,44. See for example, Garland (1990) see n. 34.45. Woolf, H. and Tumim, S. (1991) Prison Disturbances April 1990: Report of an Inquiry London: HMSO .46. See for example, Liebling assisted by Arnold (2004) see n.9; Drake, D. H. (2007) A comparison of Quality of Life, Legitimacy, and Orderin Two Maximum-Security Prisons. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Cambridge University, Tait, S. (2008) Prison officer care for prisoners in onemen’s and one women’s prison, unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.47. See Sparks (1994) see n.29.48. Pusey (1992) see n.31.49. Sparks (1994: 24) see n. 29.50. Carter (2007: 30) see n.13.10 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

eset by irresolvable tensions and symbolising brokensocial relations. The ‘conditions which do most toinduce conformity … lie outside the jurisdiction ofpenal institutions’ 51 . Even if we were to agree that newprisons, with better designs are desirable, in opting forlarger, cheaper prisons and more clusters we areprivileging a certain economic kind of understanding ofthe problems faced. We risk forgetting there are othershared aims (such as social justice, crime prevention andinclusion, or legitimate prison communities) and there isa moral language which has been excluded from thisdebate 52 .What does it mean for us socially, morally andpolitically when the main determinant of policy is theloaded and now frequently used term, ‘we have to berealistic’? 53 There are different visions of what is realistic.I come back to a distinction we may wish to pursuefurther between utopian realism versus cynical orpragmatic realism. Jonathan Sacks and Hans Boutellierboth remind us there are meant to be limits to legalsanctions — they put ‘seal on the wax of moralsentiments’. In other words, methods of social controlshould be embedded in social arrangements, with thelaw only stepping in at the margins 54 . We are placingthe law and the prison centre stage, and it simplycannot do, nor was it ever intended to do, this amountof work. What we are seeing is the politics of fearoverriding the politics of hope 55 . This suggests a changein our values, from maximum freedom for all, tomaximum security, and at the lowest cost. I proposethat we think again. The question we should bear inmind is what ‘image of society’ lies behind our decisionmaking?How is power being reorganised? What arewe choosing to spend our limited resources on? Cutsare not a threat in themselves. Economic rationalism,punitiveness, and lack of intelligent deliberation, posethe real dangers.51. Garland (1990: 289) see n. 34.52. An ‘instrumental rationality’ dominates; see Dryzek, J (1995) ‘Critical theory as a research program’, in S. K. White (ed) The CambridgeCompanion to Habermas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-119.53. Some ‘facts’ are really values.54. Boutellier (2001) see n. 35.55. Sacks, J. (2000) The Politics of Hope, Vintage Press.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal11

Perrie LectureReducing costs and maintaining valuesMichael Spurr is Chief Executive Officer of the National Offender Management Service.IntroductionImprisonment and valuesThe title of this year’s lectures ‘Imprisonment andits values: the cost of cuts’ is not one that I myselfwould have chosen. My immediate reaction wasto respond (rather pedantically) by asserting thatimprisonment itself cannot have values — andthat the debate should therefore be about thevalues which we seek to uphold whenimprisoning our fellow citizens and whether theyare at risk from the public spending cuts which areimpacting on the Prison Service. This is theapproach I intend to take and as this is a‘practitioner’ rather than an ‘academic’perspective I will spend rather less time on thevalues themselves and rather more on thepotential impact of the spending cuts — focusingon what we can do to maintain and improve theexperience of prison in England and Walesnotwithstanding the financial challenges we face.However, I should begin, at least for the record,by setting out the values which are core todelivery of offender management — includingimprisonment — within the National OffenderManagement Service (NOMS). The AgencyFramework Agreement sets these out as follows: Be objective and take full account of publicprotection when assessing risk; Be open, honest and transparent; Incorporate equality and diversity in all we do; Value, empower and support staff, and workcollaboratively with others; Treat offenders with decency and respect; Embrace change, innovation and localempowerment; Use our resources in the most effective way,focusing on outcomes and delivering value formoney for the taxpayer.Values such as integrity, honesty and transparencyare generic to all reputable organisations — but withinour particular sector there are key values which definehow we deal with individual offenders and the natureof imprisonment. In his speech to the NOMS AgencyConference in 2009 my predecessor, Phil Wheatley,provided a clear and compelling exposition of therelevance and importance of these values to our work.I do not intend to rehearse the arguments again today,other than to summarise what they mean for prisonsand for prisoners. For prisons, our values mean runningsecure, safe, decent (legitimate and fair)establishments, managing risk, maintaining publicprotection and providing opportunity for rehabilitation.For individuals, our values mean a commitment totreating prisoners in the way we would expect our ownson or daughter to be treated were they in custody.These values are now generally well understoodand accepted across the Prison Service and haveunderpinned the real and sustained improvementswhich have been achieved over the last decade.Prisons TodayBefore moving on to consider the impact of publicspending cuts, it is important to briefly set out wherewe are today in order to be clear about what we mustpreserve and where we need to do more.Despite the well documented, sustained, year onyear growth in the prison population, prisons today aremore ordered, secure and decent than they have everbeen. Riots and escapes can and do occur — that goeswith the territory, but since the mid 1990s these havebecome relatively rare events — in stark contrast to theprevious two decades. There were only 2 escapes last year(the lowest total ever recorded) and the level of abscondsfrom open prisons has reduced from 1310 in 2003/04 to240 last year. These are incredibly good outcomes.The population has become more challenging,characterised by longer sentenced, more violent offenders,with a substantial increase in indeterminate sentences butoffences of prison violence (measured by ‘offences ofviolence punished per 100 prisoners) have remained fairlyconstant and (despite a worrying rise in recent weeks) therate of self inflicted deaths at 68/100,000 1 remains at itslowest level since the mid 1980s.Overall levels of purposeful activity have beenmaintained and the level and range of educationprovision, offending behaviour programmes,interventions and resettlement activity provided inprisons has been substantially increased. Outsideagencies and community groups now operate routinelyin all establishments, with multi-agency partnershipworking the accepted ‘norm’. Transfer of responsibilityto the NHS has resulted in sustained improvement inhealth care provision, and whilst availability of drugs in1. 3 year average rolling rate.12 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

prison is unacceptable and a major current issue, therate of drug use has been reduced from 18.3 per centin 1998/99 to 7.8 per cent last year. And whilst I doaccept that MDT figures probably understate usage —this has always been the case — and the improvementsachieved should not be undersold.Analysis from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons(HMCIP) reports confirms that overall quality of deliveryagainst the ‘healthy prison tests’ has been consistentlyimproved. Specifically, the proportion of prisons/Unitsinspected which achieve outcomes which are ‘good’ or‘reasonably good’ for each of the four healthy prisontests has improved over the last five years Note 1 :-HP TestPrisons/Units Achieving Goodor Reasonably Good2006/7 2010/11Safety 61% 78%Respect 61% 73%Purposeful Activity 49% 70%Resettlement 64% 77%This level of progress would not have been possiblewithout targeted investment in key areas such aseducation, health, drug treatment, offendermanagement and interventions, combined with reallyeffective management of resources and budgets, whichhas enabled not only improved outputs, but genuineefficiency improvements including an overall reductionin unit costs per prisoner (from £41,000 in 2008/09 to£40,000 in 2009/10).These changes have contributed to significantimprovements in the rate of re-offending. The figurespublished in March record that the 12 month actualreconviction rate for all offenders in 2009 was 39.3 percent compared to 43 per cent in 2000, an improvementof 8.5 per cent. When controlled for offendercharacteristics the improvement is 10.4 per cent, and interms of the frequency rate (number of offencesactually committed) the improvement is 24 per cent.For custody cases the improvements are 10.7 per cent(actual reconviction rate) and 16.6 per cent (frequencyrate) Note 2 .The full data for each of the years is set out below:-HMCIP Safety2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/114 16% 18% 19% 22% 25%3 45% 49% 48% 53% 53%2 34% 31% 30% 23% 20%1 4% 2% 3% 2% 2%HMCIP Respect2006/07 20070/8 2008/09 2009/10 2010/114 10% 9% 9% 12% 14%3 51% 56% 58% 61% 59%2 35% 32% 30% 26% 26%1 3% 3% 3% 1% 1%HMCIP Purposeful Activity2006/07 20070/8 2008/09 2009/10 2010/114 4% 9% 14% 18% 18%3 45% 45% 49% 50% 52%2 41% 36% 30% 28% 26%1 10% 9% 7% 5% 4%HMCIP Resettlement2006/07 20070/8 2008/09 2009/10 2010/114 4% 6% 10% 12% 18%3 60% 63% 62% 61% 59%2 33% 29% 26% 26% 23%1 3% 1% 2% 2% 1%Re-conviction FrequencyRate RateCourt Orders/ProbationSupervision -9.4% -24.3%Custody -10.7% -16.6%Less than 12 months -6.5% -5.1%12 months to less than 2 years -12.4% -26.0%2 years to less than 4 years -23.0% -33.6%4 years and over -25.6% -32.5%TOTAL -10.4% -24.0%These are really encouraging figures — muchbetter than we might have anticipated — making a realdifference to peoples’ lives, contributing significantly tothe overall reduction in crime and translating into manyfewer victims.Today there are no ‘hell hole’ prisons — and Iwould argue, with a strong evidence base, that theprisons, in a real sense, have been transformed. Butthat doesn’t mean they are where we would want themto be. I am conscious of the former Chief Inspector’scomment some time ago that Governors can run a‘virtual prison’, believing that things are much morerosy than the reality on the ground. This is not a goodstate and one where no Governor wants to be. EquallyI don’t want to live in a virtual Prison Service world andI certainly would not want to pretend that our prisonsNote 1: The proportion of Prisons/Units given each 1-4 rating for HMIP Safety, Respect, Purposeful Activity and Resettlement since 2005/06.4: outcomes for prisoners are good against this healthy prison test3: outcomes for prisoners are reasonably good against this healthy prison test2: outcomes for prisoners are not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test1: outcomes for prisoners are poor against this healthy prison testNote 2: Extract from National Statistics Audit reconvictions: results from the 2009 cohort, England and Wales. MoJ Published 2011.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal13

are where, ideally we would want them to be. As ourMinister and our new Chief Inspector point out —whilst the improvements I have recorded are real, therestill remain significant issues to tackle:-prisons are insufficiently purposeful — with toomany prisoners still having too little to dodrugs and mobile phones are too freely available reoffending rates in general and for shortsentenced prisoners in particular remainunacceptably high conditions in some of the older/ageing parts of theestate are unsuitable for a modern Prison Service.These would be substantial challenges toovercome at any time — but theyare made even more daunting bythe real cuts in funding — whichwe now face — amounting to 23per cent of the Ministry of Justice(MoJ) budget over the spendingreview period.There is an understandablefear that over the next few years— not only will we be unable totackle the deficiencies identified— but that the Service will sufferreal decline — impactingadversely on the experience ofimprisonment for individuals,undermining our values andreversing the progress we havemade in reducing re-offendingand in maintaining safe, secureand decent prisons.I do not under-estimate thechallenge — life is going to be tough — but I am notfatalistic and believe we can navigate our way throughthe next few years maintaining the key gains we havemade, whilst driving forward the Government’s agenda tocreate more purposeful prisons focusing on rehabilitation.Reducing costs and maintaining valuesThere are three reasons why I would argue that the‘cost of cuts’ will not undermine our core values andour ability to run secure, safe and decent prisons,providing opportunities for prisoners to reform.First, savings requirements are being properlytargeted with acknowledgement that the costs ofimprisonment will only reduce substantially if thepopulation stabilises and reduces. The Secretary ofState has been clear about the Government’s ambitionto improve rehabilitation outcomes so that the prisonpopulation stops growing — and then reduces byaround 3000 over the next four years. This is not a hugereduction in the prison population — it would mean inThere are threereasons why I wouldargue that the ‘costof cuts’ will notundermine our corevalues and ourability to run secure,safe and decentprisons, providingopportunities forprisoners to reform.effect a prison population of 82,000 (the level in 2008)— but it would be a significant change of approachwhich, if successful, will allow savings to be made byclosing capacity we no longer require. This is a keyplanning assumption on which savings identified forNOMS have been made. If this is deliverable — if wecan cut crime by more effective sentencing and betterrehabilitation outcomes — which is the objectivebehind the Breaking the Cycle Green Paper — then thisis surely good news which all of us would welcome.There are also real financial benefits. We have notyet completed the new prison capacity programme.Additional places come on stream over the next 12months at Moorland, Featherstone II and BelmarshWest. But over the last year theprison population has beenrelatively stable. BetweenDecember 2009 and December2010 the population increased byonly 0.38 per cent. This meansthat we can now look to closehigh cost, poor, unsuitableaccommodation and makesavings, improving the overallstandard of the estate at thesame time. We have already beenable to close two high costprisons (Lancaster Castle andAshwell) and convert a third(Morton Hall) for use as anImmigration Removal Centre. Inaddition on this occasion we havebeen able to reduceovercrowding across the estate byterminating the option topurchase additional crowdedplaces in private sector prisons. If we can deliver on theambition set out in Breaking the Cycle we will have theopportunity to close more capacity that is costly or nolonger fit for purpose — achieving cost reduction andvalue for money for the tax payer at the same time.The Government has made clear its commitmentto provide the places required to accommodate allthose sent to custody by the courts. So if the populationdoes not stabilise or reduce there is anacknowledgement that funding will have to be foundto provide the necessary places. This is a realisticapproach and one which incentivises us to improverehabilitation outcomes to make it work. That for me isvery welcome.Second, efficiency savings of 10 per cent fromprison operating budgets over the four year spendingreview period are challenging but deliverable. The realtest for individual prisons will be delivering around 10per cent cost reduction over the next four years.Achieving this without damaging the improvements we14 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

have made, whilst driving forward a new and ambitiousreform agenda will be difficult — but I am increasinglyconfident that, with a determined focus where wetarget resources effectively and where we rigorouslybenchmark processes and costs to maximise efficiency— this can be done. This would be an example ofdelivering cost reduction without impact on the overallquality of service.Whilst the recent competition announcementswere uncomfortable for many in the public sector —the outcome does reinforce the argument that 10 percent cost reduction without adverse impact onperformance, is achievable over the spending reviewperiod. It is important to be clearthat this is not about simplytaking the lowest cost option. Aquality threshold was set for eachof the competitions. Not allbidders met the threshold andonly those who did progressed tothe final stage. At that final stageall bidders — including the publicsector — committed to deliveringbetter outcomes withsignificantly reduced costs. Thiswas true for Buckley Hall. Alreadyan efficient low costestablishment, as well as forBirmingham, where the size ofthe establishment and thepotential for efficiencies meantthat the scope for savings wasgreater. Of course I recognisethat at this stage — we simplyhave bid commitments — andwe will need to monitor delivery,performance and outcomes both against contractrequirements and for individual prisoners very closely toensure that the quality requirements are met andmaintained. But the fact is that experiencedprofessional prison operators are confident that theycan deliver a positive, decent regime — in line with ourvalues, at considerably less cost — with a significantlevel of innovation, for example in terms of developingsubstantially more purposeful activity at Buckley Hall, orbetter resettlement opportunities through partnershipwork at Birmingham. The viability of the bids has beenproperly and carefully evaluated by competent,experienced, operational staff and this provides a goodlevel of assurance and delivery confidence.In addition, at Doncaster we have commitment todeliver not only to the current operating standards butto put at risk a proportion of the contract price — withpayment only being made if re-offending is reduced.This is an exciting development and the fact is that theprison will now have to work ‘through the gate’ with. . . there is evidencethat the 10 per centlevel of savingsrequired in prisons isachievable throughefficiency andeffectiveprioritisation ofresources — ratherthan from simplycutting services. Thismust be our aim.partner organisations to achieve a minimum 5 per centreduction in reoffending (actual 12 month reconvictionrate). If this is not achieved, 10 per cent of the contractprice will not be payable. If it is achieved, the contractwill have significantly reduced crime for a cost at least£1m below what we currently pay. Payment by resultsis a developing concept and requires careful piloting —but the model does have real potential to incentivise agenuinely different, integrated ‘through the gate’approach which could have a marked impact onreoffending, particularly for those serving short termprison sentences.We can debate these issues in more detail later on— but my point here is that theactual savings challenge forprisons over the next four years isachievable — without detrimentto the control, care and work wedo with prisoners. It will requireus to re-think and re-configurewhat we do to achieve the mostcost effective model of delivery inevery establishment. It will requireus to think differently. But there isevidence that the 10 per centlevel of savings required inprisons is achievable throughefficiency and effectiveprioritisation of resources —rather than from simply cuttingservices. This must be our aim.Third, the focus onrehabilitation set out in theBreaking the Cycle Green Papercombined with a commitment todevolved decision making andlocal flexibility in delivery provides a positive policyframework to develop prison regimes — despite thecuts. The challenge to develop more purposeful regimesincorporating initiatives such as ‘Drug Recovery Wings’and the ‘Working Prison’ concept provides a necessaryand appropriate balance to the requirement to cutcosts. As previously stated, the focus on rehabilitation isright and welcome.Over recent years a positive performance culturehas been embedded within prisons — which is a keyreason why in the last 12 months we were able to meetor exceed all key performance measures, whilst alsoexceeding our cost reduction targets. This is a strongfoundation on which to go forward. The nature ofimprisonment and the level of risk being managedmeans that prisons will always have to operate within aclearly prescribed framework — but there is scope formuch greater local initiative and flexibility to respondto the policy agenda and this is something which Ibelieve governors will welcome and respond to. IndeedIssue 198 Prison Service Journal15

I know from my own visits to establishments and fromfeedback from my Board colleagues that many prisonsare already stepping up to the challenge.A stable or reducing prison population, which doesnot require constant managerial attention, and removesthe need to constantly increase capacity creates a verydifferent operating environment. It will provideopportunity to develop more stable senior managementteams with the scope to increase the tenure ofGoverning Governors and to develop more effective longterm planning at establishment level, creating greaterlocal ownership and accountability for decision making.This must be welcome and provides a much betteropportunity for local development and innovation.We will continue to monitor and to measureperformance — prisons cannot be allowed to ‘fail’. Butthere will be an increasing level of local flexibility todetermine ‘how’ things should be done, with much moreemphasis on outcome measures, including thedevelopment of reliable re-offending data for eachindividual prison which will incentivise establishments tomaintain a focus on rehabilitation including effectivework with partners. This policy is an important counter tothe potential for simplistic ‘cuts’ philosophy whichfocuses only on the short term without regard to futureconsequences and impact. A prison which is committedto developing a purposeful regime and working tosupport effective rehabilitation is much more likely toremain decent and true to our values.This is the policy challenge we face. It is not justabout cuts — it is about developing even more effectiveregimes and, whilst that is a significant challenge, it isone that I believe the Prison Service can rise to.ConclusionIn conclusion, I do not want to understate the risksand difficulties we are likely to face over the next fewyears. I am very conscious that the pace of change, thefinancial pressures and the operating context areimmensely challenging, but in times such as these,having values, sticking to them and living by them,becomes even more important. We will have to takesome very difficult decisions but the choices we makemust be consistent with our purpose, our vision and ourvalues.I am proud that we have made the prisons moredecent, more humane and more effective than they haveevery previously been. I am determined that we will notlose the gains we have made and convinced that, despitethe difficulties, we can do more. I’m sure that mydetermination to maintain our values and to keepimproving is shared by Governors, managers and staffacross the Service. That gives me confidence that theService will rise to the challenge and the ‘cost of cuts’ willbe painful but not fatal.16 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Regulating Prison Strikes andIndustrial ConflictAmy Ludlow is a PhD candidate in law and is based at the Faculty of Law and Institute of Criminology at theUniversity of Cambridge. She is currently conducting fieldwork at HMP Birmingham.Black describes industrial relations in the UKprison service as the ‘Jurassic Park’ of public sectorindustrial relations. 1 Despite industrial relationsbeing identified as an obstacle to goodperformance or a contributory factor to a crisis innumerous reports, an industrial relations problempersists. In fact, Black argues that many penalreforms, including prison market testing andprivatisation, can be ‘construed as aimed more atdiversification in order to resolve the industrialrelations crisis, than to enhance penal reform andidentify levels of accountability’. 2The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) lies at theheart of any industrial relations discussion. The unionhas been described as a ‘narrow, outdated and militantrelic’. 3 In response, the POA argues that the removal oftheir right to take lawful industrial action renders themunfairly limited in the face of new and increasingchallenges for their members. The POA argues that theindustrial action ban is symptomatic of a broader lack ofunderstanding, respect and trust from their employerand more strongly, a determination by the governmentto oppress the union and their members. 4This article reviews the law and practice ofmanaging social conflict between prison officers andtheir employer. It concludes by discussing the future ofconflict management in light of recent estaterestructuring and workforce changes.Why is it unlawful for prison officers to takeindustrial action?Unlike many continental legal systems, the law inEngland and Wales does not provide any workers witha right to take industrial action. 5 The law insteadprovides for a limited immunity for trade unions fromliability in tort where their conduct is in contemplationor furtherance of a trade dispute (s. 219 Trade Unionand Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992[TULR(C)A 1992]). Employees who are dismissed whileparticipating in official industrial action which isprotected within s. 219 (that is, industrial action whichis in contemplation or furtherance of a trade disputeand which has been appropriately balloted for andnotified to the employer) may also claim automaticunfair dismissal (s. 238A TULR(C)A 1992).However, in England and Wales prison officers andthe trade unions representing them may not takeindustrial action: they do not enjoy any immunity fromliability. In Home Office v. Evans [1993] (unreported),the Court confirmed that since prison officers enjoy ‘allthe powers, authority, protection and privileges of aconstable’ under s. 8 Prison Act 1952, they share thesame status as police officers and therefore may nottake industrial action. The Criminal Justice and PublicOrder Act 1994 (CJPOA 1994) made this ban explicit ins. 127 by creating an actionable duty which was owedto the Secretary of State not to induce a prison officer(1) to withhold his services as such an officer or (2)commit a breach of discipline. For the purpose of thissection, the definition of prison officer includes prisoncustody officers — prison officers who work in prisonswhich are managed by private companies.In 2001, New Labour announced plans to repeal s.127 CJPOA 1994 and replace it with a legallyenforceable voluntary agreement with the trade unions(which retained the restriction on industrial action),coupled with an independent pay review body. 6 On thebasis of trade union agreement, s. 127 was disappliedon 21st March 2005 by order under the RegulatoryReform Act 2001. 7 However, after the trade unionsgave notice to terminate the agreement on 8th May2007, and following the first ever national strike byprison officers on 29th August 2007, the government1. Black, J. (1995) ‘Industrial Relations in the UK Prison Service: The ‘Jurassic Park’ of public sector industrial relations’, EmployeeRelations, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 64-88.2. Ibid. p. 87.3. Bennett, J. and Wahidin, A. (2008) ‘Industrial Relations in Prisons’ in Understanding Prison Staff, Bennett, J., Crewe, B, and Wahidin, A.(eds), Cullompton: Willan Publishing, p. 117.4. See especially the former General Secretary of the POA, Brian Caton, speaking at the 2008 Trades Union Congress. For extracts, see Evans,D. and Cohen, S. The Everlasting Staircase: A History of the Prison Officers’ Association 1939-2009, London: Pluto Press, pp. 247-249.5. For further on the distinction between immunities and positive rights, see Wedderburn, K.W. (1995) Labour Law and Freedom,London: Lawrence & Wishart.6. For further see Home Office (2004) ‘Further Consultation Document: The proposed amendment of section 127 of the Criminal Justiceand Public Order Act 1994 by Order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001’, London: HMSO.7. The constitutionality of using so-called ‘Henry VII’ clauses to amend the law in this way has been questioned. See further Barber, N.W.and Young, A.L. (2003) ‘The rise of prospective Henry VIII clauses and their implications for sovereignty’, Public Law, pp. 112-127.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal17

einstated the statutory ban in s. 127 via the CriminalJustice and Immigration Act 2008. 8Challenging the statutory banIn August 2004, the POA, which has solerecognition rights for collective bargaining in respect ofmost prison staff, lodged a complaint before theCommittee on Freedom of Association (CFA) of theInternational Labour Organisation (ILO), relying uponConventions 87 and 98 on freedom of association andcollective bargaining. 9 The POA argued first that prisonservices are not essential servicesdemanding a prohibition ofindustrial action and secondly,that prison officers do not enjoyadequate compensatoryguarantees to protect theirinterests in the absence of a rightto strike. While the two limbs oftheir argument are closely related,the second limb is discussedinstead below in reference to thePrison Service Pay Review Body.As for the first limb of thePOA’s argument, that prisonservices are not essential servicesdemanding a prohibition onindustrial action, the CFAreiterated that ‘[t]he right tostrike is one of the essentialmeans through which workersand their organizations maypromote and defend theireconomic and social interests’. 10However, it followed previousdecisions in recognising that theprinciple of freedom ofassociation in the case of public servants does notnecessarily imply the right to take industrial action. 11Moreover, industrial action by public sector workersmay be prohibited or restricted in services which areessential or in the civil service with respect to officialsacting in their capacity as agents of the publicauthorities. Essential services are defined as ‘services theinterruption of which would endanger the life, personalsafety or health of the whole or part of the. . . drawing upon alist of dutiesperformed by prisonofficers, the CFAconcluded that‘interruption of thisservice wouldendanger the life,personal safety orhealth of part of thepopulation —primarily, theprisoners but alsothe wider public’.population’. 12 The POA argued that service interruptionmerely causes discomfort and inconvenience. However,drawing upon a list of duties performed by prisonofficers, the CFA concluded that ‘interruption of thisservice would endanger the life, personal safety orhealth of part of the population — primarily, theprisoners but also the wider public’. 13 Prison services aretherefore essential and it follows that prohibitions orrestrictions upon industrial action are permissible.While the CFA has accepted that industrial action byprison staff may be prohibited or restricted, it does notfollow that the government has been given a carteblanche or that prison staff arenow not entitled to have theirPrison Service Pay Review Body). 14grievances redressed. Given thatthe government has opted for atotal ban on industrial action,rather than pursuing a minimumservice delivery approach as is inplace in most European states, theCFA made clear that it must workhard to demonstrate that prisonstaff are adequately protected.The CFA last met in early 2011.Despite the CFA having given itsview of the case on the merits, thePOA’s complaint is not yet closed.The CFA will only do so once it issatisfied that its recommendationsconcerning worker protection inthe absence of a right to takeindustrial action have beenadequately responded to by thegovernment. It seems clear thenthat as of early this year, the CFAwas not sufficiently satisfied withthe government’s response (seefurther below for discussion of theHow is social conflict managed?Despite not enjoying a right (or more accurately,immunity from liability) to take lawful industrial action,prison staff retain the right to organise themselvescollectively, that is to form a trade union or otherrepresentative body. 15 Prison officers are represented for8. For the statement to the House of Commons see Straw, J. (2008) ‘Oral statement to the House of Commons — Prison Service:Industrial Relations’.9. The UK ratified these conventions on 27.06.1949 and 30.06.1950 respectively.10. ILO CFA Digest of Decisions 2006, para. 522.11. ILO CFA Digest of Decisions 2006, para. 572.12. LO CFA Digest of Decisions 2006, para. 576.13. ILO CFA (2005), Vol. LXXXVIII, Series B, No. 1, Report 336, Case No. 2383, para. 767.14. ILO CFA (2011), Vol. XCIV, Series B, No. 1, Report 359, Case No. 2383.15. ILO CFA Digest of Decisions 2006, para. 232. See also Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of theCharter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.18 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

collective bargaining purposes principally by the POA. 16The POA’s role is generally more limited however in theeleven privately managed prisons in England and Wales,where other trade unions or staff associations fulfil thestaff representation function (such as the Prison ServiceUnion or the Public and Commercial Services Union). 17Prior to 2007, prison officers enjoyed specificdispute resolution procedures which guaranteed theirtrade union representatives access to those withbargaining power and a process through which socialconflicts could be redressed. Dispute resolutionprocedures were first provided for in the CubbonFormula of 1987, then in the1993 Industrial RelationsProcedure Agreement (IRPA),thirdly in the VoluntaryAgreement (VA) of 2001 andfinally in the Joint IndustrialRelations Procedure Agreement(JIRPA) of 2004. The VA and JIRPAprovided for binding arbitrationof disputes on a pendulum basisby arbitrators which wereappointed by the Advisory,Conciliation and ArbitrationService (ACAS). 18 Thisencouraged early settlementsince any gains made in the initialnegotiation stage would be lost ifthe parties failed to agree andthe dispute had to be escalatedfor final resolution. However, theagreements suffered from a lackof clarity in definition of theirscope, which led to a constanttension about whether an issuewas policy or terms andconditions and whether it fellinside or outside the procedure. In 2007 the POA gavenotice that they would withdraw from the JIRPA. Therehas not been a formal national dispute resolutionmechanism since the JIRPA although some localarrangements remain in place. Negotiations for a newnational mechanism are currently on-going.In March 2001, a statutory pay review body, thePrison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) was established(The Prison Service (Pay Review Body) Regulations 2001(SI 2001 No. 1161)). The Body’s remit is to examine andPrior to 2007, prisonofficers enjoyedspecific disputeresolutionprocedures whichguaranteed theirtrade unionrepresentativesaccess to those withbargaining powerand a processthrough which socialconflicts could beredressed.report on matters relating to the rates of pay andallowances to be applied in the prison services ofEngland and Wales and Northern Ireland. The PSPRBwas established as part of the Voluntary Agreementpackage, in compensation for the industrial actionprohibition. However, in 2002 and 2007, theGovernment staged implementation of the Body’srecommended pay awards, arguing that therecommended pay rises were unaffordable. It was this2002 pay award process and decision which led thePOA to argue that the PSPRB lacks the necessaryindependence and power.As was explained above, the2002 pay award staging led thePOA to make a complaint beforethe ILO CFA that the PSPRB is aninadequate compensatoryguarantee of worker protection.The POA argued that thegovernment’s staging of payawards was unjustified and that aconcern for independence andimpartiality was inadequatelyreflected in the qualities whichare required for appointment tothe PSPRB. Furthermore, theyargued that the power of theSecretary of State (underRegulation 4 of the PSPRBRegulations) to give the PSPRBdirections in the form of a remitletter as to considerations towhich they must have regard, isan unwarranted fetter on theBody’s discretion. Finally, theyhighlighted the position of prisoncustody officers working in theprivate sector, who do not fallwithin the PSPRB’s remit and yet are in the sameposition as public sector prison officers in respect of theindustrial action prohibition.The POA’s arguments have been relativelysuccessful before the ILO CFA. For compensatoryguarantees to be adequate there must be ‘impartial andspeedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings inwhich the parties concerned can take part at everystage and in which the awards, once made, are fullyand promptly implemented’. 19 The Committee held that16. For further on the history of prison officers obtaining the right to organise, see especially Evans, D. and Cohen, S. The EverlastingStaircase: A History of the Prison Officers’ Association 1939-2009, London: Pluto Press and Bennett, J. and Wahidin, A. (2008)‘Industrial Relations in Prisons’ in Understanding Prison Staff, Bennett, J., Crewe, B, and Wahidin, A. (eds), Cullompton: WillanPublishing.17. The private management of prisons was enabled by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The first private prison in England and Wales wasHMP Wolds which opened in 1992 under the management of Group 4 (Remand Services) Limited.18. ACAS is a non-departmental body which helps with employment relations by supplying information, independent advice and training,and working with employers and employees to resolve employment problems.19. ILO CFA Digest of Decisions 2006, para. 596.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal19

the following rules should apply: ‘i) the awards of thePrison Service Pay Review Body are binding on theparties and may be departed from only in exceptionalcircumstances; and (ii) the members of the PrisonService Pay Review Body are independent and impartial,are appointed on the basis of specific guidance orcriteria and have the confidence of all partiesconcerned’. 20 As yet, the CFA has not been persuadedthat the PSPRB meet these criteria. The NationalOffender Management Service (NOMS) has agreed tosuspend use of the remit letter unless specific reasonsrequire it to be used and in such an event, has agreedto write to the POA to explain itsreasons. However, in its mostrecent decision, the CFA ‘noteswith regret that the complainanthas not been able to obtainrepresentation on selection panelfor the Board, despite theGovernment’s previous declaredintention to satisfactorily respondto the POA’s request’. 21 TheCommittee also urges NOMS toreinitiate consultation aboutreforms to the PSPRB to ensurethe Body’s impartiality andrequests information about theprocurement provision made forcompensatory guarantees inrespect of private sector prisoncustody officers. 22It would therefore appearthat further reform of the PSPRBis due. However, the governmentmight be reticent to grant theBody greater independence andpower at a time of public sectorspending cuts and fiscal crisis. Moreover, if thegovernment were minded to ignore the CFA’srecommendations, the Committee does not have anyenforcement powers upon which it might draw. Whileit might therefore be politically embarrassing for the UKto remain in disfavour with the CFA, it is possible forgovernment to ignore the Committee’srecommendations with little consequence. 23Current sources of social conflictStrikes by prison officers, in the sense of a totalwithdrawal of labour by staff, are rare in England andWhile it mighttherefore bepoliticallyembarrassing for theUK to remain indisfavour with theCFA, it is possible forgovernment toignore theCommittee’srecommendationswith littleconsequence.Wales. The first and only national strike by prisonofficers occurred on 29th August 2007 in response to adispute over Contract Supplementary Hours (CSH) (ascheme whereby prison officers could voluntarily enterinto contracts for additional working hours) and theGovernment’s decision to stage implementation of thePrison Service Pay Review Body recommendation forthe 2007 pay award. The government responded byobtaining an interim injunction. However, significantdamage was incurred at some establishments,especially at YOI Lancaster Farms, and the cancellationof court appearances, prisoner transfers and the use ofpolice cells caused disruption andexpense.Lower level industrial actionby prison officers, such asovertime bans and working torule is more common althoughsuch action is mostly still unlawfulas it is either a breach of contractor interferes with contractualperformance and therefore fallswithin s. 219 TULR(C)A 1992.Disputes have generallyconcerned staffing levels, pay andovertime and more recently, themarket testing and privatisationof prisons. Working conditionsfor prison officers have beensubject to much recent change. In2008, the government cameclose to agreement with the tradeunions on a package of changecalled‘WorkforceModernisation’. The Governmentprovided a £50 million fundingincentive but the package wasrejected by unions in 2009 in the final stages ofnegotiations. 24Since 2009 many of the reforms to prisonworking conditions which were proposed in theWorkforce Modernisation package have in any eventbeen implemented. These changes include theintroduction of a two-tier prison officer workforce,with a new pay structure and terms and conditionsand the closure of the Principal Officer grade, whichwas the most senior uniformed prison staff grade. AJob Evaluation Scheme has commenced and in March2011, the Government accepted Lord Hutton’sproposals in relation to the reform of public sector20. ILO CFA (2005), Vol. LXXXVIII, Series B, No. 1, Report 336, Case No. 2383, para. 773.21. ILO CFA (2011), Vol. XCIV, Series B, No. 1, Report 359, Case No. 2383, para. 182.22. ILO CFA (2011), Vol. XCIV, Series B, No. 1, Report 359, Case No. 2383, paras. 183-184.23. See further Gravel, E., Duplessis, I. and Gernigon, B. (2001), The Committee on Freedom of Association: Its impact over 50 years,Geneva: International Labour Office.24. For a brief summary of Workforce Modernisation see http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/prison_service_group/workforce-reform-andrestructuring/achive/workforce-modernisation-wfm.cfm.20 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

worker pensions. 25 These changes have of coursecaused tension although industrial action hasremained isolated and low-level. Highly significantly,one outcome of union rejection of WorkforceModernisation has been the further market testing ofpublic sector prisons with the consequence that inMarch 2011, it was announced that HMP Birminghamwould be transferred to private sector managementunder G4S from October 2011. This will be the firsttransfer of an operational public prison to the privatesector. It is noteworthy however that the POA’s recentballot for industrial action in the wake of this decisionproduced a negative result. 26 It may be that the recentchange in POA leadership on the National ExecutiveCommittee and the shockwaves sent by the decisionto privatise HMP Birmingham, are heralding in a newphase in prison industrial relations.DiscussionPrison officers and the unions which represent themcurrently find themselves in the middle of a huge amountof change. Prison privatisation was introduced in the1990’s in part to break the power of the POA, which hasbeen seen as a powerful obstacle to change. It might beoverstating the case to describe the POA as broken, butprivatisation, and particularly the recent decision totransfer HMP Birmingham to the private sector, appearsto have weakened the union. The market testing andprivatisation agenda has proved divisive betweennational union policy and local union branches. Whilenational union policy remains one of total opposition anddisengagement, local establishments have had to engagewith the process or else forfeit the right to bid to retainpublic sector management of their prison. This hastended to undermine the union’s relevance in the eyes ofits membership at establishments which are subject tomarket testing. Moreover, the POA’s inability to haveprevented a public sector establishment being taken overby the private sector, might serve to undermineperceptions of the union’s credibility and power. This maybe compounded by the on-going renegotiation offacilities’ agreements between NOMS and all relevanttrade unions. These agreements define the number ofunion hours and extent of establishment facilities whichare paid for by NOMS. A reduction in the POA’s facilityseems likely. This may redistribute power between thedifferent unions in the prison sector and, coupled withthe private sector’s recognition of unions other than thePOA, challenge the POA’s dominance among unions andpower vis-à-vis management.Privatisation and the broader employment changeswhich have been described above have combined tocreate huge occupational and industrial uncertainty. ThePOA is struggling to find a meaningful voice in the midstof this change and this may have been exacerbated bythe absence of any formalised dispute resolution process.With hindsight, their withdrawal from the JIRPA isperhaps regrettable. While the formal legal position withrespect to industrial action remained the same under theJIRPA (prohibited on a contractual basis) as s. 127 CJPOA1994 (prohibited on a statutory basis), the voluntarinessof the contractual model set a less combative andconflictive tone for industrial relations. Furthermore,continuation of the JIRPA may have staved off orsoftened the privatisation and market testingprogramme.The absence of recourse to industrial action is animportant symbol of the balance of power betweenemployer and employee and will inevitably influence atrade union’s bargaining strategy. However, given thevulnerable state of many prisoners, some limitation uponindustrial action to ensure that prisoners’ basic needs aremet appears both morally and legally justified. In anyevent, since prison officers are such a highly unionisedworkforce, the impact of the statutory ban in practiceappears limited. Moreover, progress is still possiblethrough negotiation, compromise and dialogue, even inthe absence of industrial action as the ultimate threat.The ILO CFA’s approach to the POA’s complaint isencouraging. The Committee has taken a robust andsearching attitude and some progress, particularly inrespect of the use of remit letters in the PSPRB, has beenmade. However, the length of time the case has taken,coupled with the CFA’s lack of enforcement powers,means that the ILO process is unlikely to significantly alterthe management of prison staff social conflict in Englandand Wales. There are limits to what law can achieve. It isperhaps now time for the POA to leave behind itstraditional baggage and move beyond law and industrialaction towards a more professional, conciliatory andrealistic future.25. For further on pensions see http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indreview_johnhutton_pensions.htm.26. 8,312 voted against and 4,078 in favour of industrial action. See POA circular 94, 16.06.2011.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal21

Learning from the behaviour of inmatesand guards helps solving wicked challengesin the Danish Prison and Probation ServiceLars Thuesen and Laura Schmidt-Hansen work for the Danish Prison and Probation Service. 1Once upon a time in the little Kingdom ofDenmark the Prison and Probation Serviceexperienced a set of really complicated andwicked problems. Many things indicated a toughand stressful environment — both for the inmatesand the front line staff. Though most of theinmates and guards stuck to the common, dailyroutines, there were a few local, hidden heroes. Afew inmates and guards managed to behave indistinct, different ways than the others, therebysucceeding in coping with and overcoming thechallenges of the system environment. They ledlives that were more meaningful than the others,thus being able to avoid stress, burn-out andalienation.This is the story of the hidden local heroes, theirsuccessful behaviours and coping mechanisms, andhow we all — finally — began to learn from them. Thisstory evolves from a process that began in the DanishPrison and Probation Service two years ago. It was aprocess that started out with an ambition of findingnew ways to solve wicked problems in the DanishPrison and Probation Service, to add new perspectivesto the way we deal with problem solving initiatives, andto initiate social changes.A large inspiration in the process has been thePositive Deviance Approach, as well as collaborate anduser-driven methodologies. This means, among otherthings, that it has been a process characterized bypractical field work with inmates and front-line staff.And a process that has taken place out in our facilities— out where the wicked problems are, and among thepeople who know the problems, work with theproblems, experience the problems and are the trueexperts on the problems.The description in this paper is not based onacademic research, but on actual fieldwork. The paperentails the notes and reflections as a changepractitioner working within our system.In brief, Positive Deviance is a method used tosolve wicked problems by discovering uncommon andsuccessful behavioral strategies of individuals.According to Sternin and others 2 Positive Deviance canbe summed up as follows:The basic premise is this: 1) Solutions toseemingly intractable problems already exist,2) they have been discovered by members ofthe community itself, and 3) these innovators(individual positive deviants) have succeededeven though they share the same constraintsand barriers as others 3The origin of the Positive Deviance approach isfound in different theoretically approaches andmethodologies. Firstly, there is inspiration fromanthropology, which requires a new role from thefacilitating team, for example mastering neutralobservation, understanding behavioral patterns, askinggood questions and active listening by the facilitators.Secondly some roots come from positive psychology,because focus is on assets rather than problems andbehavior that already exists and works well. ThenPositive Deviance is an evidence based approach, whichimplies being driven by facts, data and measurablebehavior. Finally the approach is holistic, aiming atunderstanding the whole of the system, and focusingnot just the usual suspects but the whole community infinding solutions to the wicked challenges.According to this approach, positive deviation is:… the uncommon behaviour that holds a keyto success and the behavioural difference thathelps a person or a group to overcome thesame adversities that overwhelm most of theneighbours.In other words the Positive Deviance approach triesto discover uncommon, successful coping strategiesthat individual use to survive under conditions that isoften seen as impossible by traditional experts. Theapproach seeks out the latent behaviour and design1. Our facilitating team and the facilities have been really helpful. The team consists of Mads Fly-Hansen, Laura Schmidt-Hansen, PeterDexters and Anne Bunimowicz.2. Pascal, Richard Tanner, Sternin, Monique and Sterning, Jerry. The Power of Positive Deviance: How Unlikely Innovators Solve theWorld´s Toughest Problems, Harvard Business Press 2010.3. See the end of the paper for a more detailed description of the method Positive Deviance.22 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

interventions that enable others to practice thebehavioural strategies as well. It is different fromtraditional problem solving, where you move fromproblem analysis towards solutions. In positive devianceyou flow from problem identification and analysis ofsuccessful solution to solving the problem. It is suitablefor complex changes that can be seen as adaptive,which means it is not suitable for technical changeswhere best practices are useful and applicable. Also it issuitable, when problems are wicked and intractable andneed new approaches. The problems and solutionsshare are rooted in the local community, which meansthat solutions are to be found among local communitymembers.Positive Deviance has been applied all over theworld within various fields, for example Vietnamesechild nutrition, HIV in Thailand, MRSA in the USA, andgang-related crime in the USA.Thus this approach differentiates itself fromtraditional best-practice, expert-driven approaches,where externally imposed solutions often meetresistance and rejection. Traditionally it is argued thatknowledge will change behaviour, but such anapproach often produces poor results. In PositiveDeviance the solution is born in the community andbehavioural patterns are analysed and then trainedand spread to others in the group. It is easier to actyour way into a new way of thinking than to thinkyour way into a new way of acting. In other wordsthere should be a change in behaviour then values,instead of trying to change values and attitudes first.It is practice oriented rather than knowledgeoriented. Another important factor is that the deviantpractice one identifies must be transferable to othersor in other words a resource that is available toeveryone 4 .The wicked challenges in the Danish Prisonand Probation ServiceThe Danish prison system is acknowledgedworldwide for low rates of recidivism, high numbers ofinmate re-socialisation, high security standards, and ahealthy working environment. Nevertheless severesocial challenges in fulfilling overall goals of reducingcriminality by balancing between tough and softapproaches exist. The nature of the challenges is oftensystemic, complicated, and rife with dilemmas in thedaily working routines. It is a system that, on one handentails a lot of control and regulatory mechanisms and,on the other requires a lot of both system flexibility andindividual judgement in order to function effectively(see Table 1).Table 1:Balancing dilemmas in daily working routinesSecurityStrictPunishDecideStickNoDistanceProfessionalJudicial principlesRulesBrainRe-socialisationSoftSupportListenCarrotYesClosenessPersonalPedagogical principlesCreativityHeartThe dual purpose of the prison service missionmakes it complicated to manoeuvre at the operationallevel. The Staff constantly needs to balance betweenstrict and soft approaches in tackling their work withthe inmates. Accordingly, the inmates need to adoptand accept a variety of behaviours from guards thatmight seem conflicting, though necessary to pursue thegoals. Over the last decade there has been a ‘tough oncrime’ policy due to government decisions. Combinedwith a clearly stated political goal of reducingrecidivism, this is complicating mastering the balancebetween strict and soft approaches even more.At the same time the nature of crime has changeddramatically, as has the profile of the inmatepopulation. Previously the inmates could becharacterised as relatively homogenous which is nolonger the case, mainly due to globalisation of crimeand rise in gang-related criminality. The fact thatalternatives to sentencing have been introduced,further adds to the complexity of the clients.Human resource issues are also complex anddeeply connected to the system dynamics. Many frontlineofficers feel a lack of meaningful work, and theyoften fear and sometimes experience threats andviolent incidents. Furthermore the tone among staffand in relation to inmates can be harsh, and one out offive employees has recently experienced some kind ofharassment from either colleagues or immediatemanagers. The front-line staff also experience thatmanagement do not handle conflicts adequately. Inshort, the system lacks social capital, and the level ofthrust and confidence needs to be improved. The resultis too often stress and burn-out among guards, anaverage rate of absenteeism of over one month peryear in the maximum security sector, and an averageretirement age of 48, which is alarming compared toworking places in Denmark.4. See Pascale, Richard Tanner and Sternin Jerry, Your Company’s Secret Change Agents, Harvard Business Review, pp.1-11, May 2005 froa brief descpition of the approach and cases.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal23

The process of social changes in the DanishPrison and Probation ServiceAs mentioned the social change process wasinitiated about two years ago, just after we met JerrySternin during management programme at OxfordUniversity. During the course we worked together onthe prison case as an example of how to apply thepositive deviance methodology in a complex systemfacing wicked problems. Shortly after, we began toplan the processes in the Danish Prison Service.Unfortunately Jerry got seriously ill and died inDecember 2008. His friend and colleague Mark T.Munger was very generous and took over and hassince then helped us understanding and applying themethodology in the Danish Prison Service. It has beena long journey, and senior management has beenimpatient and eager to see results. But exactly theslowness of the process is maybe one of thestrengths. Or as Jerry puts it: ‘You have to go slow togo fast’.Only recently over the last six months we have seendistinct individual behaviours among, what we call oursecret local heroes — that is the front-line staff workingdaily in several facilities with inmates and clients. It is anemerging journey and we do not claim to have solidhardcore results yet, though some interesting patternshave been discovered among staff and inmates thatothers just like them can learn from.Design of the Positive Deviance InitiativeIt is crucial to design the positive devianceprocesses the right way. We did three things at ageneral level.Firstly, we decided to train a team of internalpositive deviance facilitators. The facilitatorsparticipated in a program that was a mixture of theoryand practice. Their role is to facilitate rather thanattempt to be experts — the real experts are the peoplein the facilities, and the people who own and feel theproblems. This has been crucial in the progress of ourinitiative, because internally trained staff have muchmore street credibility than external consultants.Secondly, we designed and initiated LivingUniversities, where facilitators and practitioners couldmeet and share experience of all kind. We have had fivehalf-day sessions during the process, where reflections,knowledge sharing and burning questions were on theagenda. External practitioners and other interestedpartners have been invited to participate throughoutthe process. We named these sessions ‘kitchen table’discussions, because you usually have good and usefuldiscussion, while you eat together. Often we askedTable 2:Approaches to ChangeTRADITIONAL APPROACHLeadership as a Path BreakerTop Down approachOutside inExpert and best practise drivenDeficit BasedDeconstruction of problems and design of bestpractice solutions. Implication: ‘Why aren’t you asgood as your peers?’Logic drivenThink, then actVulnerable to Transplant RejectionResistance to imported ideasFlows from Problem Solving to SolutionIdentificationBest practice applied to problems within the contextof existing parametersFocused on ProtagonistsEngages stakeholders who would be conventionallyassociated with the problemPOSITIVE DEVIANCE APPROACHLeadership as InquiryCommunity takes ownership of the quest forchange — bottom upInside outCommunity identifies pre-existing solutionsAsset basedCommunity leverage pre-existing solutions practisedby those who succeed against odds.Learning drivenAct into new thinkingOpen to Self-replicationLatent wisdom is tappedFlows from Solution Identification toProblem SolvingSolution space is expanded through the discovery ofnew parametersFocused on Enlarging the NetworkIdentifies stakeholders beyond those directlyinvolved with the problem24 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

ourselves ‘who else should be at the kitchen table’ withthe result of enlarging the group and enriching theknowledge sharing.Thirdly, we decided not to manage the initiative ina traditional top-down manner from the central office.It was decided to develop a framework and a set ofprocesses that could facilitate local initiatives instead ofcoming up with solutions to their problems. Thischange in mental model has proven very effective, andwas a bit frightening, because there was an expectationof the usual management style where the central levelfinds solutions finds solutions to problems (not thatthey always work in practice). On the other hands thecentral level had to give up control, which has been achallenge, especially, when things and processes gettough.inmates and staff. People within our system from otherfacilities are now beginning to question their practicesand want to learn from the initiative.Another maximum security facility facing highrates of harassment and a harsh tone among staff andin relation to inmates discussed the behaviours of‘softeners’ and tighteners’ among the guards. Theyfound out that the ‘softeners’ had distinctThe secret behaviour of the local heroes— three storiesAt one maximum security prison facing exactly thewicked challenges mentioned above, we starting auser-driven process where inmates together withguards began discovering the secrets of a meaningfuldaily routines. Both inmates and staff were bored, but afew inmates and guards were more active during theday than the others. These individuals managed to copeand get by despite the inherent systemic barriers.Together with a group of both other inmates andguards they began applying and developing newbehavioural routines and activities during the day thatcreated more energy and life in the prison, for examplea 12 week health and nutrition programme includingphysical training — together. Though this might seembanal and almost simplistic, it was not done before in awider scale for larger groups of inmates and staff. It hascreated new energy and meaningfulness for bothOften situations get tense— the new initiatives helpimprove the relations. Aninmate is holding a guardon the shoulder.communicative behaviours that were very differentfrom the others. Interestingly enough there is atendency that the ‘softeners’ experience fewerincidents with threats and violence. This is social proofthat their behaviour is successful in coping with thedifficulties of the system logic. Together the staff foundout that the ‘softeners’ are using distinctcommunication and feedback techniques that helpimprove the psycho-social environment of the prison.Now the others are learning how to apply thetechniques.A third maximum security prison with the samechallenges as mentioned above and additionally a highturnover rate of inmates and a lot of first timers hasbeen working on lowering stress, burn-out and the rateThe left picture illustrates the life of a prisonerbefore the initiative, where an ashtray, an emptycoffee cup and a play station were a major part oflife. The right picture illustrate the life after theinitiative was launched, where inmates and staff —together — engage in psychical training, health andnutrition counselling, and various sport activities.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal25

of absenteeism among guards. They began a process ofidentifying staff with less than five days of absenteeismover the last two years. The behaviour of these guardsturned out to be very interesting. Three distinctbehavioural patterns emerged. Firstly the deviants allhave some kind of a helper gene. They are warmheartedpeople, who want to help others in getting abetter life and getting out of criminality. While being atwork, though, they are able to manage and controltheir desire to help in order to keep the rightprofessional distance. In their spare time though, theyare very active in the social sphere, involving themselvesin sport club, NGO’s etc. This helps them survive thesystem dynamics that might result in stress, burn-outand higher absenteeism. Secondly, another deviantbehaviour is that some guards throughout the processadmitted that they stopped reading the dossiers of theinmates in order to meet the inmate as an equal humanbeing and without prejudice. This behaviour is closelyrelated to human respect and is named ‘kill yourcuriosity’. Thirdly, the deviants are able to ask for help instress-full and painful situations, so the problembecomes a working place and common probleminstead of only an individual one. This pattern is called‘swallow your pride’.Reflections and recent learning pointsFinally, it is worth reflecting on our observationsabout the process as a change management anddiagnostic tool in the prison environment. Theseobservations are summarised below: It is an emerging process and the Prison Service stillhas a long way to go, though some interestingevidence is being found. The deviant behaviouralpatterns are now being analysed and the process ofteaching other how to act differently has beenstarted up. Framing and defining the right problem is an art andvery difficult. It requires a lot of facilitation skills,active listening, being quiet and asking qualifiedquestions. The process of identifying individuals with distinctpositive behavioural patterns that others can learnfrom is an emerging process that takes a lot of effortand time. The approach should be taken intoaccount, unless other approaches are notapplicable.The process creates a lot of energy and frustrationamong the inmates and staff. It is about acting yourway into a new way of thinking, which is new,uncommon and often human beings want to jumpto conclusions quickly.Leaders and middle managers need to change theirmental models by loosening control and living withthe fact that traditional hierarchies are turned upsidedown. When things get tough they have a tendencyto try to roll back in the expert trap and ‘fix’ insteadof letting the change process emerge. The realexperts are the local problem owners.Finding the right evidence is a hard nut to crack too.Social proof: ‘somebody just like me is doing it, socan I’ is hard to identify.How to get people involved and motivatedconstitute a challenge. Formulating an inspiringinvitation that makes people join the process iscrucial. It is crucial that the processes are engagingand demand-driven. It should not be driven, onlyfacilitated from the central office.Finding the right data is difficult, though crucial.Skilled facilitation helps, but does not entirely do it.The community needs to demand for data,facilitators can help to organise and structure them,so social proof can be presented and discussed.Managers responsible of other wicked areas arebecoming aware of the positive deviance approach.For example it is now being considered using it inone maximum security prison in relation to gangrelatedcrime challenges.A lot of wicked social challenges move across ‘silos’,both within the prison system and acrossboundaries to other institutions, private companiesand NGO’s. It is challenging to engage peopleoutside the smaller community, because for examplefinancial, cultural, managerial inducements are notpresent and levers change.The process has given us some seeds than are slowlydeveloping and spreading in a sustainable way.26 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Time is Money:The role of personal finance in reducing re-offendingDr. Kimmett Edgar is Head of Research at the Prison Reform Trust and Chris Bath is theDirector of Projects at UNLOCK.‘Financial exclusion might play a role in, and bereinforced by, custodial sentences.’(Legal Services Research Centre)The Legal Services Research Centre (LSRC) haspreviously produced useful evidence which shows how alack of access to financial products and services is linkedto the risk of offending. However, it is perhaps less clearhow a custodial sentence might reinforce financialexclusion. In this article, we consider the impact ofimprisonment on the person’s financial status and theircapacity to manage their personal finances. The evidencecomes from a recent report, Time is Money, jointlypublished by the Prison Reform Trust and UNLOCK, theNational Association of Reformed Offenders 1 .The LSRC defined financial exclusion in terms offive factors : having no bank account, holding nosavings, using high interest credit, owing priority debts,or having an annual income less than £14,500.Research conducted by the LSRC found that: 54 per cent of prisoners (58 people) had a totalhousehold income of less than £10,000 per yearbefore going to prison. 40 per cent of prisoners (53 people) wereunemployed before going to prison. Looking at the number of times interviewees hadgone to prison, results showed that financiallyexcluded prisoners had served significantly moreprison sentences than financially included prisoners 2 .Time is Money produced new evidence about thefinancial exclusion of people in prison, considering;banking; insurance; credit, debt and saving; and moneyadvice 3 . We discuss each of these, with particularattention to the ways that custodial sentences createbarriers to accessing basic financial services.BankingAccess to a basic transactional bank account iscritical to successful resettlement and, in turn, reducingre-offending. In addition to being a prerequisite foremployment, it can make it easier to secure stableaccommodation, improve access to benefits,allowances, grants and other mainstream financialservices and can encourage more responsible attitudesto spending.A third of people surveyed in prison said they didnot have a bank account. This compares to only 5 percent of low income households in the UK 4 . Most ofthose had previously held one at some time, but aboutone in ten surveyed had never had one. Half of thewomen interviewed had a bank account, in contrast toalmost three-quarters of men. Some people describedthe difficulties they had faced in opening accounts. Themain obstacle appeared to be a lack of the requiredidentification. For example, few former prisoners arelikely to have a utilities bill.I’ve never been abroad, so no passport. I’vebeen disqualified since I was 14 years old, sono licence. They need a photo I.D. So I hadmy mother, who had been banking withthem, to vouch for me. So we got it. We stillhad to argue the case.Since 2004, UNLOCK has been working withprisons and banks to facilitate the opening of newbank accounts. As far back as 2005, NOMS acceptedthe need to increase the number of prison/bankpartnerships, while conceding that resources may notbe available in all prisons. In December 2009, NOMSpublished a revised Prison Service Instruction (PSI35/2009) which instructed governors to supportaccess to banking by using the ID solution developedby a pilot run by UNLOCK. However, there remainsno guarantee that banks will accept the form asidentification and open accounts, causing frustrationfor people in prison and prison staff and often localbank staff. Work to secure partnerships betweenprisons and banks continues.1. Time is Money, funded by the Friends Provident Foundation, can be downloaded from the websites of Prison Reform Trust(www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk) and UNLOCK (www.unlock.org.uk).2. Legal Services Research Centre (2007) Putting Money Advice Where the Need is: Evaluating the Potential for Advice Provision inDifferent Outreach Locations, by A Buck, T Tan, and C Fisher, London: LSRC.3. Time is Money surveyed 144 people in prison and interviewed 47 of them; it also surveyed 24 former prisoners and 29 families of peoplewith convictions. Other topics include benefits, the discharge grant, and the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.4. DWP (2010), Family Resources Survey, 2008-2009, London: DWP.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal27

Of the 47 people interviewed in prison, 40 had abank account, but only three said they could manage itdirectly during their sentence. Five others depended ontheir families to manage their bank account.As a direct result of going to prison, I endedup bankrupt. I have now got a deposit onlyaccount.I can’t work or access my bank [in prison]which is the only reason I am in debt.People interviewed in prison were asked whetherthey expected to need any banking services afterrelease. Just under half (45 per cent) said that theywould need new or further services from their bankswhen they were released, which included, for example,a credit card, an overdraft facilityand new savings accounts.InsuranceAccess to insurance isfundamental to full financialparticipation in a modern society.It supports stable housing,employment and selfemployment.For example,employer’s liability insurance is alegal requirement for many smallbusinesses. However, mainstreaminsurers often have a blanketexclusion policy against peoplewith any unspent convictions ora policyholder living in the samehome.As there are around eight million people on thegovernment’s Offender Index, the ambiguitiesregarding insurance and convictions affect a significantproportion of society; and eight million under-estimatesits impact, as many more are involved as familymembers or potential employers.Under insurance law, unspent criminal convictions(as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974)must be disclosed to insurance companies irrespectiveof whether the insurer asks about them. The onus is onthe customer to disclose any material facts which aprudent insurer would consider relevant in settingpremiums or deciding to cover. Non-disclosure caninvalidate insurance and potentially lead to prosecution.In 2004, UNLOCK found that when someoneposed as a reformed offender with a conviction forassault, five out of the six leading insurance providersrefused to provide cover because of the criminalIntervieweeshighlighted how theinability to getinsurance canprevent access tomortgages andmany forms ofemployment or selfemployment.conviction 5 . The charity has since established a list ofspecialist brokers who can provide cover to individualsand households with convictions.Time is Money indicated that a minority of peoplein prison have insurance, at least while they are inprison. Comparing the people interviewed in prison tothe general public gives an indication of their lack ofaccess to insurance. 83 per cent (39) people interviewed in prison hadrelatively stable accommodation (council rent,private rent or mortgaged). Of these, 77 per cent (30) did not have homeinsurance. This compares to 22 per cent of UKhouseholds who have no contents insurance; and35 per cent, who have no buildings insurance.Many social landlords now offer simple,straightforward and inexpensivetenants contents insurance (TCI)policies, specially designed fortheir tenants. TCI policies havelow premiums (often from £1 perweek), no excess to pay onclaims, no requirement for a bankaccount, options on frequency ofpayments, and often integrationinto rent payments. However, theissue of convictions as a materialfact also hold true for TCIpolicies, often preventing formeroffenders from benefitting fromthem.Over four in five formerprisoners said it was harder to getinsurance and four-fifths saidthat, when they did getinsurance, they were charged more. Only two peoplesaid that their conviction made no difference to theprice. Interviewees highlighted how the inability to getinsurance can prevent access to mortgages and manyforms of employment or self-employment.The surveys also showed how the decisions thatinsurers make on the basis of a criminal conviction canoften harm the person’s family. Many respondentsconsidered it particularly unfair that the family shouldsuffer penalties in insurance due to their conviction:My parents told their home insurers andmotor insurers of my conviction and theywere refused cover. This has stayed on recordand now they cannot get cover at all eventhough I don’t live with them any more. Itmakes me really furious that my family arebeing punished as well as me.5. Allison, E. (2004) ‘Insurance companies deny cover to ex-prisoners’, The Guardian, 1 June, 2004.28 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Credit, Debt and SavingThe LSRC found that imprisonment exacerbatesdebts. 16 per cent of people in prison were alreadyunable to repay their bills when they entered prison.12 per cent had fallen into debt since being in prison.They also estimated that over three million people areunable to access mainstream credit. The main sourcesof credit for these households are the social fund,home credit companies, and hire purchase, some ofwhich lead the customer into high interest debts.Time is Money found that over half of peopleinterviewed in prison said that, while in thecommunity, they had been rejected for a bank loanand 8 per cent said they had tried to borrow from aloan shark (a rate over 10 times higher than theaverage UK household). One in four people surveyedin prison had been threatened for a debt while in thecommunity. People who had borrowed from a loanshark were four times morelikely to have been threatenedover a debt.Two thirds of peopleinterviewed in prison who haddebts said they owed over£1000 and one third said theyowed money for housing.I need to pay a lot ofmoney before they’ll rehouseyou. That’s wrongbecause you’ll be homeless.They should give you a flatand let you pay off so mucha week.Two thirds of peopleinterviewed inprison who haddebts said theyowed over £1000and one third saidthey owed moneyfor housing.People in prison also spoke about the impact oftheir debts and imprisonment on their families’finances:My husband can’t get any credit now becauseof me. My father gets letters from the councilsaying he’ll lose his home — it’s my debt atthe end of the day, I can’t understand whythey threaten to kick him out of his homebecause of it.Over half of the families surveyed had had toborrow money since the conviction. Two thirds of thefamilies who were already in debt said their debts hadincreased since the imprisonment of their relative. Tenper cent of families said they were ‘in real financialtrouble,’ and one in three said dealing with bills was aconstant struggle.Former prisoners were asked to gauge whatimpact, if any, being in prison hadhad on their levels of debt; 20responded. 30 per cent (6/20) said theyhad no debts 9/14 for whom it wasrelevant said that being in prisonhad made their debts worseWith me in prison notworking, my partner run upsome extra debts. Also,when I came out, I found ithard getting work, whichmade it worse.Other likely reasons for debt included crisis loans(25 per cent), court fines and mobile phone bills(about one in five).Imprisonment creates obstacles for people whotry to correspond directly with creditors. There arecurrently no industry guidelines regarding thesuspension of interest charges on loans whensomeone is in prison. Convicted people are notpermitted to use credit cards or enter into any loan orcredit agreement while in prison. However, people inprison are permitted to make payments to reduce anoutstanding balance or any other debt re-payment,though this is not always facilitated:My overdrawn current account is increasingwhilst in prison and so is my credit cardbalance. I think this will affect my ability torehabilitate successfully. I don’t want to setup a home, get a job etc., and then havecreditors banging on the door.Under the National Minimum Wage Act 1988,while in prison a person ‘does not qualify for thenational minimum wage in respect of any work whichhe does in pursuance of prison rules’, this does notinclude those who work for outside employers doinga normal job on a working out scheme. Prison pay iscontrolled by individual governors to reflect regimepriorities. People are eligible for pay when employedin work, induction, education, training or offendingbehaviour programmes. Average wages are between£7 and £12 a week (around 30p per hour).Expenditure in prisons is paper-based and people donot handle cash or conduct electronic paymentmethods. Recent Ministry of Justice policyannouncements have indicated a desire to movetowards a full working week in prisons. If realised, thiswould increase the opportunity for people in prison torepay their debts in preparation for release and requirea fundamental shift in the way the finances of peoplein prison are managed.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal29

In addition to work with banks, local partnershipsbetween prisons and credit unions have begun toemerge. Credit unions are financial co-operativesowned and controlled by their members, withoutexternal shareholders. Their central purpose is offeringaffordable financial services, including savings andaffordable credit to their membership. An example isLeeds City Credit Union, which has been working withHMP Leeds and HMP Wealstun since 2007. Thiscollaboration led to the opening of 600 savingsaccounts. Some larger credit unions, including Leeds,also offer full current accounts.Money AdviceAlmost two-thirds of people interviewed in prisonsaid they struggled to pay bills, or were in real financialtrouble, before coming to prison.On entry to prison, people areeffectively severed from theirfinancial life, losing access toproducts and communicationwith creditors. Yet three quartersof them (and the sameproportion of former prisoners)said no one had ever asked themabout their finances while inprison. Only 5 per cent of peoplein prison said they had beenasked about how their familieswould cope financially while theywere in custody.Assessment of a person’sfinancial situation, and the likelyimpact of prison on theirfinances, is best delivered early in a prison sentence.Effective assessment is essential if resources are to beefficiently and properly allocated. Early assessment canalso alert the individual to problems that they can tackleduring their sentence and help them make links tospecialist services. Conversely, a lack of priority given tothe person’s finances in prison reception or inductionprocesses can seriously exacerbate any existing financialproblems.In making referrals to specialist services followingan assessment, it is important to distinguish threedifferent elements of money advice; the developmentof personal financial capability, general information andadvice about financial matters, and formal debt adviceare related but distinct concepts. For example, debtadvice is typically a crisis intervention to solve a currentproblem, as opposed to focusing on developing theskills necessary to choose and use financial productssuch as bank accounts. Similarly, generic information. . . a lack of prioritygiven to theperson’s finances inprison reception orinduction processescan seriouslyexacerbate anyexisting financialproblems.and advice is unlikely to solve a significant debt crisisbut will help individuals to become more self-sufficientin the future.Money Advice: financial capabilityMost of the people surveyed in prison expressedconfidence about their money management skills. Only28 per cent (38/138) said that they were unsure or veryunsure about handling finances. However, peopleinterviewed in prison were less confident in dealingwith banks. Just over half of those interviewed said thatthey were unsure or very unsure about dealing withbanks (23/44). This suggests that, while people who areoften on very low incomes may develop effectivebudgeting skills they may be less confident in dealingwith new technologies (such as online banking) orcommunicating with staff whoprovide financial services.The Vale of GlamorganCitizens Advice Bureau ran aproject to develop the financialskills of people in prison, basedon UNLOCK’s ‘UNLOCKingFinancial Capability’ trainingresource. The project found that The greatest benefit camewhen the workshops were closeto release. Many participants felt thereshould also be personal supportupon induction. Over half left the workshopsfeeling confident about thefinancial capability issues covered. Confidence about dealing with debt rose from 17per cent at the outset to 45 per cent at the end. The most marked improvement was in confidencegetting insurance and mortgages when you haveprevious convictions: rising from 9 per cent to 58per cent 6 .The Skills for Life curriculum (the national strategyin England for improving adult literacy, language andnumeracy skills) can be delivered through contractedproviders in prisons to learners who ‘will require at leastone year for progress to be achieved.’ Therefore someeducation providers within prisons may deliver financialliteracy courses as a way of embedding practicalnumeracy and literacy skills.Evidence from the survey of families suggests thatsending a relative to prison not only increases thefamilies’ debts, but also undermines their confidenceabout managing finances. The proportion of offenders’6. Ipsos MORI (2010), Improving Financial Capability among Offenders, London: Ipsos Mori.30 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

families who felt unsure in managing money more thandoubled after their relative was imprisoned.People in prison have little opportunity to practisefinancial skills in their every-day lives. They cannot visitbranches and the modern tools of internet andtelephone banking are forbidden. However, offendersare now a recognised financially excluded group withinthe national financial capability strategy, aligned with thefinance, benefits and debt pathway. The prisonenvironment could increase self-reliance by providingopportunities to practise normal financial operations anddevelop the increased awareness, confidence and skillsrequired to use modern financial services.Money Advice: information and adviceInformation and advice is notroutinely available to peoplearriving in prison regarding howbest to organise their finances toavoid the worst consequences ofimprisonment. For example,people are unsure whether toupdate their bank with theirprison address or contact theirloans company to advise that theyare in prison. Even those confidentenough to act without advice findit difficult to communicate withfinancial services providers.I didn’t know if I had tochange my address or if Icould keep it at my homeaddress. It wasn’t easy to findout what you could andcouldn’t do.A survey by Citizens Advice,whose Bureaux currently provideadvice in 43 prisons and 29 probation settings, foundthat only 6 per cent of people in prison had receivedadvice on day-to-day money management 7 . The LSRCfound that 90 per cent of people in prison who were inreal financial trouble had not received any advice for theirproblems.Once effective assessment is in place, adviceservices can make a constructive impact. Nearly all ofthose who were asked about their finances on arrival inprison subsequently received advice and eight out often said it had been useful. Providing basic information,and facilitating its use, would allow people theThe prisonenvironment couldincrease self-relianceby providingopportunities topractise normalfinancial operationsand develop theincreased awareness,confidence and skillsrequired touse modernfinancial services.opportunity to take responsibility for tackling theirfinancial issues.Money Advice: debt and benefitsThe LSRC research also explored the kinds of advicetopics likely to interest people in prison. Almost half (45per cent) wanted advice about how to get out of debt;over a third (35 per cent) would want advice abouthandling debts after release; and a third wanted practicaladvice about managing debts while in prison.Time is Money also found that imprisonment islikely to increase levels of debt. Just over half of thepeople interviewed in prison had debts. Of those whohad debts, 40 per cent of people in prison and 64 percent of former prisoners felt thattheir debts had worsened duringtheir sentence. Limitedcommunication and access tocreditors, combined withnegligible prison wages can leadquickly to exponentially risingdebts and even legal action.81 per cent of peopledischarged from prison claimbenefits. People discharged fromprison have the same rights tohousing, healthcare, andcommunity support as anyoneelse. However, the local authoritymust be informed of theirsituation and given anopportunity to assess their needsin good time prior to theirrelease. An article by Paul Bowenet al. describes the dutiesmandated under the NationalHealth Service and CommunityCare Act (1990):The duty to assess the needs of a potentiallyvulnerable person is triggered when a localauthority becomes aware of an individual whomight need support. The duty may applybefore the services are required (as, forexample, a prisoner prior to his/her release)when it appears that the person may needservices after discharge from prison. If the localauthority thinks the person might need healthcare or housing, the local authority must notifythe relevant PCT or housing authority and invitethem to assist the assessment. 87. Citizens Advice (2007) Locked out: CAB evidence on prisoners and ex-offenders, London: Citizens Advice.8 . Bowen, P. Markus, K. and Suterwalla, A. (2008) Discharged prisoners’ rights to health care, housing and community care — Part 1,’Legal Action Group, January 2008.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal31

Former prisoners generally supported the idea thatbetter money advice in prison would have helped themto lead a law-abiding life after release. One-third saidthat advice, delivered while they were in prison, wouldhave helped ‘a lot’, and half agreed that the advice‘might have helped a bit’ in leading a law-abiding life.ConclusionsA substantial proportion of people in prison werealready experiencing extreme and persistent financialexclusion before being sentenced. Imprisonment tendsto increase financial exclusion and reduce personalresponsibility, creating problems with housing,insurance, employment, and family relations; all ofwhich can increase the risk of reoffending. Changeswithin prisons to promote financial inclusion andresponsibility would contribute directly to effectiveresettlement and a reduction in the rate of reoffending.Restrictions on people’s ability to manage theirfinances in prison must be questioned, and onlycontinued where there are genuine security risks whichcould not be mitigated in other ways. Making it difficultfor someone in prison to manage debts, access theirbank accounts, or prepare for the financialresponsibilities they will face on release is wasteful ofpublic resources and damaging to the prospects ofsuccessful resettlement. In addition to necessarynational policy changes, Time is Money proposes anumber of practical steps that should be taken byprisons in order to reduce the impact of the prison onfinancial exclusion. These include the following: - Prison induction processes should include a sectionon practical financial matters, backed up byprovision of relevant services within reasonabletimescales . Prisons should promote money awareness throughstaff training, posters, money awareness days etc. At the start and throughout a sentence, prisonsshould facilitate bona fide financialcommunications and transactions in support ofresettlement People in prison should be given all possiblesupport to open a bank account before release.Where this is not possible, they should be giveninformation on how to open one after releaseAll people in prison should be made aware of theRehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and offeredinformation and guidance on the long-termimpacts of having a conviction, including onemployment and insurancePeople in prison should be supported in managingany ongoing commitments (e.g. direct debits) anddealing with existing debt from the start of asentence or time on remand.Information on accessing affordable credit (e.g.credit unions) should be given to the families ofpeople in prisonFinancial capability initiatives should be recognisedas distinct from, but integrated with, basic skills,financial advice and debt advice provision. Theyshould also go beyond budgeting to develop theawareness, understanding, skills and confidence tochoose, access and use modern financial productsand servicesPrisons should facilitate access to free, mainstreamnational advice services (such as The Money AdviceService and National Debtline) either by phone,web, or face-to-face, as appropriateSources of independent advice should be activelysought and promotedThe potential for prison peer supporters to betrained in generic money advice, linked toqualifications (such as NVQ Level 3 in Advice inGuidance) should be explored.Prisons must ensure that all people receive themoney that is held in their private cash (prison)account on release.Resettlement units in prisons should alert localauthorities to people in need of benefits, housing,and other support (e.g. with learning disabilities)well before the anticipated release date to ensurethat the mandated duties to vulnerable people aremet.32 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Research on Criminalisation ofMigrant WomenDr Liz Hales is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.Professor Loraine Gelsthorpe is University Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Institute ofCriminology, University of Cambridge.The work of a number of key organisations, suchas the International Organisation for Migration,means that there is now greater awareness of theextent of national and international peopletrafficking and exploitation by smugglers oragents of people seeking to leave their country toseek work or asylum. Within the UK, publicknowledge has been influenced by the setting upof the UK Human Trafficking Centre in October2006, the work of a number of human rightsorganisations and media interest in some cases.However, to date, there has been no formalrecognition of the numbers of potential victims incustody on criminal charges, nor systematic prisonbased research that provides evidence of howthese individuals have been managed within theCriminal Justice System and by the UnitedKingdom Border Agency (UKBA). Our research onthe criminalisation of migrant women, funded for18 months by the ESRC, aims to fill this knowledgegap. 1 In this article we outline the background tothis work, our research design, and initial findingsas we approach the final phase of this work. 2Background to the researchThe latest published figures on the female prisonestate show a 34 per cent growth in the female sectorbetween 1999 and 2009. The number of newreceptions peaked at 12,676 in 2008, with a gradualfall since then. 3 However, during this period of time,within the population where nationality has beenrecorded, receptions of foreign national prisonersincreased from 8 to 19 per cent of the total. 4 In 2009foreign nationals accounted for 26 per cent of all newuntried receptions and for 16 per cent of receptionswith an immediate custodial sentence. 5Alongside this increase there has been a shift in thebalance of offence categories. In the past womenarrested at port of entry on importation of drugs wereidentified as the dominant group. However, in the lateststatic population count, one third had been charged inrelation to their immigration status or related offencesof deception and fraud to enter, remain, leave or securework within the UK. 6 There is also evidence of anincreased number of those involved in organised illegalactivity such as cannabis production, selling of fakegoods or street robberies. Data from voluntary sectororganisations working with foreign women in custodyindicate that those charged within this offence grouptend to be migrant women, that is, those who haveentered the UK to seek work or asylum, rather than astemporary visitors or for reasons of currentemployment, education or marriage.This period of increase of migrant women incustody is perhaps not surprising — with the tighteningup of border security, the introduction of a points basedsystem for those seeking rights to enter for work, andraids on premises to identify and prosecute thoseemploying illegal migrants. 7 It has also been a time oftighter regulation of foreign nationals in terms of rightsto remain in the country. Automatic deportationprovisions came into effect in August 2008 for thosewho had been sentenced to a period of imprisonmentof at least 12 months. 8 This necessitated much closerworking and information sharing between the prisonsand the UKBA Criminal Casework teams and, as foreignprisoners are rarely deported at the Earliest Release Date,this has contributed to a parallel growth of those heldsolely on Immigration warrants. The legal routes of entryinto the country, to seek work or asylum and legallyaccessing employment once within the UK, havetherefore been closing down at a time when womenseeking asylum or the opportunity to support their1. ESRC GRANT No: RES-062-23-23-2348.2. In carrying out this research with women in custody we also recognise that there are similar victims of trafficking and smuggling withinthe male estate and YOIs.3. Ministry of Justice (2010) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.4. Within the figures presented by the Ministry of Justice (2010) 1.5 per cent are of ‘unrecorded nationality’.5. Ministry of Justice (2010), Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009.6. Women and Young People’s Group, Ministry of Justice (2008) A Strategy for Managing Foreign National Prisoners in the Female Estate.Ministry of Justice.7. This was resultant on implementation of the Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 in February 2008.8. Under the UK Borders Act 2007.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal33

families by seeking labour overseas and sending moneyhome have been increasing. Many of these women havebeen employed in the informal sector 9 in their country oforigin and as pointed out by the Global Alliance AgainstTraffic in Women there is a strong link betweentrafficking, migration and labour opportunities. 10 Inaddition, non EEA overstayers or ‘undocumentedmigrants’ have found that access to work has becomeincreasingly difficult where they are competing withincreasing numbers of A8 and A2 nationals. 11Interlinked with this is theincrease in illegal recruitment,transportation and employmentof these migrants, who areeffectively managed as profitablecommodities to be bought andsold and whose illegal status is acoercive tool used by their agents.To challenge this area of crime theUK Government ratified theCouncil of Europe Convention onAction against Trafficking in 2008.This was implemented in the firsthalf of 2009, with the impositionof custodial penalties for thosefound guilty. The Conventiondefines trafficking as acts such asrecruitment,receipt,transportation, by means such asthreats, coercion, deception,abuse of position of vulnerability,for the purpose of exploitationsuch as sexual exploitation, forcedlabour or slavery. It also acceptsthat the relationship withsmugglers, whose assistance isinitially sought to escapepersecution, can become equallyabusive and fall within the same category. One weaknessrelating to the effectiveness of the legislation, however,concerns the problem of charging those who exploittrafficked labour without evidence of their directinvolvement in the recruitment and transport aspects oftrafficking. Additional legislation was thus introduced inSection 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 — ofholding someone in slavery or servitude or requiring aperson to perform forced or compulsory labour. Thiscame into effect in April 2010.The Conventiondefines trafficking asacts such asrecruitment, receipt,transportation, bymeans such asthreats, coercion,deception, abuse ofposition ofvulnerability, for thepurpose ofexploitation such assexual exploitation,forced labouror slavery.The objective of these two additional elements oflegislation is thus to ensure the punishment of thoseguilty of what some have seen as modern day slavery,but a key element is also the recognition and appropriatetreatment of anyone subject to these crimes as a ‘victim’.A formal method of identifying potential victims oftrafficking and ensuring they receive appropriate care hasthus been introduced through the National ReferralMechanism (NRM). This approach necessitates facilitatingand responding appropriately to disclosures made byvictims and, with the individual’sconsent, making referrals throughthe NRM, so that a decision can bemade on whether there are‘reasonable grounds’ to believethe individual is a potential victimof trafficking. If confirmed, thevictim is then provided withprotection and support andcurrently offered 45 days of‘reflection and recovery’ duringwhich a ‘conclusive grounds’decision can be made before theirremoval from the UK is enforced.There is the potential to increasethis to a year if the victim hasagreed to assist the police in theircriminal investigations. Anyfurther stay in the UK is at thediscretion of the UKBA.Unfortunately, anyone who doesnot want to be formally identifiedas a victim, due to fear ofretribution or stigmatisation is noteligible to be referred in this way.In cases where the victim oftrafficking is in court on a criminalcharge, Crown Prosecution Service(CPS) legal guidance advises prosecutors that where thecriminal offence has been committed whilst in a coercedsituation, there is a strong public interest to stop theprosecution 12 . It provides clarity for prosecutors about thecircumstances of the person’s situation which mightsupport a defence of duress in law, relevant factors whendeciding where the public interest lies, and clarity aroundthe more subtle forms of coercion exercised by traffickersand exploiters. This guidance has been recognised by theCourt of Appeal in the case of R v O [2008]. 139. Informal sector refers to those doing work that is not recognised or protected under existing laws, such as domestic work, streetvendors and small traders.10. Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women Beyond Borders; exploring links between Trafficking and Labour. GAATW Working PaperSeries 2010.11. A8 refers to the eight countries from Eastern Europe who joined the EU in 2004 (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, CzechRepublic, Slovenia and Estonia) and A2 to the two who joined in 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria).12. CPS (2010) Legal Guidance on Human Trafficking and Smuggling.13. R v O [2008] EWCA Crim 2835.34 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

The aims of the researchResearch DesignAgainst this background we are aware that thereare still victims of trafficking, smuggling and forcedlabour in the female prison estate. In 2008, the PoppyProject, which was the main provider of accommodationand support to women who have been trafficked intoprostitution or domestic servitude, reported that 21 percent of their referrals between 2001 and 2007 had beenheld within the prison or immigration estate and this hascontinued over the last three years despite the newlegislation. 14 The Anti-trafficking Monitoring Groupraised concerns in relation to this in their report in 2010,identifying flaws in victim identification by the NRM andstating that victims of traffickingare still routinely prosecuted foroffences they commit whencoerced. 15The main aim of our researchis therefore to take a more indepthlook at migrant womenwho are being processed throughthe criminal justice system in theSouth East of England, targetingthose who may be victims oftrafficking, smuggling or enforcedlabour. Through this we aim toidentify the extent to which thereare victims in the system, tounderstand the reasons for this,and to look at how these womenare being managed. We are doingthis by identifying and gainingconsent to interview those incustody who have been changed with illegal entry,offences of deception and fraud to enter, leave, remainor secure work within the UK, or involvement inorganised illegal work activities such as cannabisproduction. We are also interviewing women chargedwith importation of drugs, who state that theirexperiences of threats, deception and coercion were asdescribed in the definition of trafficking that we gave. 16Where the initial interview indicates that the womenhave entered the country in the hands of traffickers orsmugglers and/or have been working under duress weseek the interviewees’ consent for engagement in theresearch, to gather information and monitormanagement of their cases.The goal has beento gradually gatherrelevant data in anumber of keyareas, but to allowthose interviewedto recount theirexperiences and feelin control ofthe meeting.The key task of this research has been to gatherinformation from potential victims through individualinterviews. The interview format was prepared inanticipation that the most likely victims would not haveEnglish as a first language, could well be traumatised bytheir experiences and might still be in fear of those whobrought them into the U.K. or controlled them oncehere. Great care has thus been taken in guaranteeingconfidentiality and anonymity of data gathered and inthe choice of professional interpreters. The goal hasbeen to gradually gather relevant data in a number ofkey areas, but to allow those interviewed to recounttheir experiences and feel incontrol of the meeting. 17 The keyareas of information sought haverevolved around: Place of origin, first language,need for interpreter support,socio-economic background andchildcare responsibilities. Reasons given for leavingcountry of origin and seekingentry to the UK. Method of contact andrecruitment by the travelfacilitator, method and amountof payment and informationoffered in terms of work,payment, intended destinationand legality of position on arrival. Journey to the UK, includingwork en route, control of travel documents andstated experience of threats or coercion. Access to and control over work choices oncewithin the UK, payment received and experiencesof coercion or violence and, for those who escapedfrom a controlled work situation in the UK,awareness of options and support available. The criminal justice proceedings, includingdisclosures made in court, advice on plea, historyof court appearances, sentence given and periodof time in custody on court and immigrationwarrants. The immigration proceedings, including access tolegal advice, details and location of initial, full14. Stephen — Smith, S (2008) Prisoners with no Crime. Detention of Trafficked Women in the UK The Poppy Project, Eaves Housing forWomen.15. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group (2010) Wrong Kind of Victim? One Year on: an analysis of UK measures to protect traffickedpersons. Anti Slavery International.16. In relation to this it is not insignificant that the new EU directive adopts a broader definition including exploitation of criminal activitywhere elements of forced labour or services occur in activities such as drug trafficking.17. This is in line with the ethical and safety recommendations for interviewing trafficked women provided by the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) (2003).Issue 198 Prison Service Journal35

immigration interviews, appeal cases, andoutcomes.In respect to criminal justice and immigrationproceedings, the level of understanding expressed,level of interpreting services provided and accessto legal representation, including times, locationand nature of contact.Stated problems in relation to physical and mentalhealth and indicators of stress evidenced atinterviews.Referral for assessment as victims of traffickingthrough the NRM.Progress to DateAs we reach the final phase of this work we havecompleted initial interviews with 103 migrant womenin custody and from this we have identified 43 womenwho entered the UK in the hands of traffickers andworked under the control of others, 5 who enteredindependently but ended up working in ‘slavery like’conditions in the UK and 10 who entered in the controlof smugglers 18 . Follow up work with this target groupof victims has (to date) consisted of sixty six follow upinterviews. These have been mostly in the prison estate,but a few have been carried out at Yarl’s Wood IRC andseven have been with women in the community afterrelease. We have also attended and observed theircourt appearances whenever possible. With thewomen’s permission we have also talked with thosesupporting them on the criminal justice andimmigration matters and looked at theircommunications with their legal representatives andthe UKBA. In addition, a number of those interviewedhave welcomed the opportunity to stay in contact withus by letter between visits. Through this work we havebuilt up a comprehensive understanding of theirexperiences in relation to those who have recruited,transported and worked them, their experiences, afterescape, of attempting to return home or survive asundocumented migrants, and from the point of arresttheir experiences within the criminal justice andimmigration system.We have also gathered information around theirgreatest stated anxieties and looked at their needs for,and access to appropriate protection and support, inthe custodial environment and in the community.Key ThemesAt this point in the research it is too early to outlinethe full findings, evidence relating to compliance withthe Convention on Trafficking and victim protectionand Human Rights Legislation, and good practice issuesin relation to the way these women have beenmanaged. However the key themes that are emergingfrom the data analysed to date are as follows: The number of identified victims of trafficking,within the total sample of all those interviewedwithin the female estate, is not insignificant. The practice of processing of victims through theNRM may be extremely limited. The largest nationality groups represented withinthe sample of victims concern those from Nigeria,followed by those from Vietnam and China. Victims of trafficking tend to come from lowersocio-economic groups, and over half agreed tocome to the UK in anticipation of earning moneyto support their families. At the same time, there is evidence to suggest thata number also leave their country of origin to seekasylum, due to threats from within the immediatefamily as well as political conflict. Many of the women have described weighing upthe risks of staying in their country of origincompared with moving away from existing familysupport to seek a new life. For most it was theirfirst experience away from home. A number within our sample were brought here byforce, but the majority were recruited by traffickerswho marketed their product to suit what they sawtheir victims’ greatest needs. A number had beeninitially brought into the UK as children and othershad been trafficked between countries. Once within the UK, forced work was mostcommon in the provision of sexual services,followed by cannabis production, domesticservitude and a number of other controlledcriminal activities. Irrespective of the key area ofwork, rape was a common experience. Most victims knew that there were other women,and in some cases children, trafficked and workedby those who had controlled them. Two women sentenced for importation of drugswere also victims of trafficking and informationgathered from others indicates a close linkbetween those who profit from trafficking peopleand those who profit from trafficking drugs. Almost all of those interviewed had experiencedviolence and intimidation and many still felt in thehold of traffickers after their arrests. Thisintimidation impacted on what they felt they couldsafely say on arrest and in court.18. Victim identification by the researchers was based on the key indicators outlined in the Trafficking Toolkit and used in the NRM referralform.36 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

With the exception of those working on cannabisfarms, most arrests were after the victim hadescaped and was trying to return home or survivein the UK as an undocumented migrant.A high percentage of those interviewed were inneed of support in relation to physical and mentalhealth problems resultant on all they had beenthrough.Only one had been granted leave by Immigrationto remain in the UK, having been trafficked inand then detained as a child.Why are these victims in custody?In the group of 43 women who appear to bevictims of trafficking, to date only ten have or arebeing processed through the NRM and in only fourcases did this happen in time to stop criminalproceedings. The focus of our current work istherefore revolves around the analysis of the reasonsfor this. The key issues being explored are: Evidence of failures to facilitate and respondappropriately to victim disclosures from the pointof arrest onwards. The relationship between the defendant and herlegal representative and the barriers presented fornon-English speakers being processed through aforeign criminal justice system. Management of cases where the fact that thedefendant is a victim of trafficking is raised in thecontext of court proceedings. In relation to the above, interpretation of currentlegislation within the courts and failures to stopcriminal proceedings where the victim is involvedin cannabis production How well relevant professionals understand theNRM mechanism and the responsibilities of thosewho are recognised as first responders.Linked in with this we are also looking at:How these victims are processed through theimmigration system in terms of awareness ofprocedures, access to legal representation andthe management of asylum interviews within acustodial setting.Outcomes of asylum applications and appealsand the impact of the UK Borders Act on victimsof trafficking.Access to appropriate protection and support forthose identified and those who are not processedthrough the NRM.The long term outcomes for those released intothe community, dependant on the NationalAsylum Support System, as they await finaldecisions on their immigration status.Issues impacting on the welfare of children andother dependants, in the UK and the country oforigin, as their mothers are managed through thecriminal justice and immigration systems.The final stageOver the final three months of the research wewill continue to monitor the progress of our currentcases as well as completing our data analysis andwriting up the full report on our findings. Throughpublication of this report we aim to identify andevidence areas of management where changes inpolicies and practices might be warranted to ensurebetter compliance with the Convention on traffickingand wider Human Rights Legislation. All of this will beshared with relevant policy makers within the Ministryof Justice and UKBA. We also hope that this willcontribute to a better understanding of relevantissues for the UK Government during thetransposition phase of the new fuller EU Directive onTrafficking. 19 We also plan to submit a further articleto the Prison Service Journal, summarising thefindings and any recommendations of our report,once is it published.The level of investigations carried out by police inresponse to disclosures.19. This is due for completion in April 2013.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal37

Alexander Maconochie’s ‘Mark System’John Moore is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Deputy Director of the Criminal Justice Unit at theDepartment of Health and Applied Social Sciences, University of the West of England.IntroductionIn 1836 Alexander Maconochie accepted the postof private secretary to Sir John Franklin, therecently appointed Lieutenant Governor of VanDiemen’s Land. Before his departure he wascommissioned by the Prison Disciplinary Society toundertake a review of transportation within theAustralian penal colony. On arrival in HobartMaconochie swiftly drafted this report, whichFranklin sent, together with the largelyunfavourable responses of local officials, to theColonial Office in October 1837. He enclosed in thebundle sent to London a summary of the findingsMaconochie had prepared for Lord John Russell,the Home Secretary. Russell saw the report’srelevance to the ongoing Molesworth Committee’sreview of transportation and publishedMaconochie’s summary as a Parliamentary Paper 1 .The Colonial Office ordered the full set ofdispatches to be printed for consideration byMolesworth and his committee. 2 Maconochie’sreports not only provided a damming indictment ofthe operation of the transportation system but alsoset out an innovative alternative penal theory,which was to become known as the ‘Mark System’.Sheldon Glueck’s claim that ‘there is hardly a reformin the correctional field in our epoch that cannot betraced, at least partially, to the fertile imagination ofMaconochie’ remains true. 3 Not only did Maconochieinspire the Irish Convict system and the ReformatoryMovement in the United States but indeterminatesentences, borstal, open prisons, reward schemes andstage regimes can also all be directly traced back to hisideas.Maconochie’s ‘Mark System’Maconochie’s ‘Mark System’, which he claimed wasequally applicable to both men and women, had five keycharacteristics. Firstly it was unashamedly reformative,placing the individual reform of the lawbreaker over bothdeterrent and retributive objectives. Secondly itadvocated task sentences rather than time sentences.The convict was not guaranteed liberty after a set periodbut only on completion of the required task. Thirdly, itintroduced marks as a currency through which taskachievements could be measured, rewards for desirablebehaviour paid, fines for misconduct levied and rationsand indulgences purchased. Fourthly it developed astaged approach to penal discipline with a clear divisionbetween the punitive, punishment stage and thesubsequent reformative or moral training stages. LastlyMaconochie’s system was not tied to a particularinstitution; whilst other theories focused on the bestprison regime his was a theory of punishment and reformwith wider applications than ‘any other form of mereimprisonment.’ 4 He was not ‘suggesting a form ofapparatus’ but seeking ‘to introduce a new object andspirit into our whole penal administration.’ 5A convict would therefore be sentenced tocomplete a certain task, measured in marks. Releaserequired the lawbreaker to achieve a balance of markson her or his account equivalent to the sentence. Butmarks were also required for provisions, so theconvicts’ purchase of anything other than barenecessities prolonged the length of their subjection topenal discipline. A refusal to co-operate resulted in abread and water diet and an increasing debt to be paidoff. 6 The system was carefully designed so releasecould not be obtained by mere endurance of thepunishment; his system was intended to ‘uniformlysubjugate all brought under its influences’. 7 The systemwas calculated to internalize approved behaviour;convicts’ desire to complete their punishment providedthe initial incentive but Maconochie believed the goodhabits promoted would persist, becoming, withrespect to the discharged convict’s future life, ‘fetterswhich would be only the more effectual because theyare unseen’. 81. Home Office, (1838), Report on State of Prison Discipline in Van Diemen’s Land, London.2. Colonial Office, (1838), Despatch from Lieutenant Governor Sir J Franklin, October 1837, relative to present System of ConvictDiscipline in Van Diemen’s Land. London.3. Glueck, S. (1958), Foreword to J.V. Barry Alexander Maconochie of Norfolk Island, Melbourne: Oxford University Press p.xi.4. Maconochie, A. (1839a) General Views regarding the Social System of Convict Management, Sydney: Tegg & Co. p.19; Maconochie,A. (1846), Crime and Punishment: The Mark System, London: Hatchard & Son p.27.5. Ibid p,28.6. Maconochie, A. (1853), Penal Discipline: Three Letters, London: Thomas Harrison p.6.7. Maconochie, A. (1857), The Mark System of Prison Discipline, London: Mitchell & Son p.1 (emphasis in original).8. Maconochie (1839a) p.24.38 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Maconochie’s penal philosophy asserted that theprimary aim of public punishment should be thereformation of the criminal. Deterrence, whilst ‘highlyuseful in its place’, was, for Maconochie, alwayssubsidiary to reformation. 9 This was not a commonperspective; within official and public discourse theoverwhelmingly dominant justification for statepunishment was deterrence. Under the Bloody Codedeterrence had operated on the basis that thespectacular execution of a small minority of felons wasmore effective than a high probability of arrest andconviction. Whilst the first half of the nineteenth-centurysaw a revision of these arrangements, with new penaleconomies requiring the arrest and punishment of fargreater numbers, it was still generally considerednecessary to retain the public spectacle in punishmentfor it to be a successful deterrent.Beccaria proposed publicenslavement and Bentham’sPanopticon incorporated publicviewing galleries, both schemesproviding the visibility theirauthors perceived essential fordeterrence. Maconochie’s view ofthe causes of crime wasfundamentally different,anticipating future psychological,social and medical theories, hebelieved the criminal was morallydeficient and socially inadequate;a person whose faults neededcorrecting through training and treatment rather than arational being whose criminality could be controlled by afine tuning of crime’s cost benefit ratio.Maconochie’s opposition to deterrence highlightsthe significant differences between his philosophicalbeliefs and those of the Utilitarians for whompunishment was ‘an evil’ justifiable only where itsbenefits to society outweighed the pain inflicted on theindividual. For Beccaria and Bentham punishment wasstate-inflicted pain, justified by its deterrent effect onfuture crime; criminals were in effect sacrificed for thegreater benefit of the whole society. Maconochie claimedthat the promotion of deterrence was ‘selfish’ andinevitably led to ‘injustice’ and ‘disproportionateseverity’. 10 Society’s right to sacrifice any member,Maconochie’s penalphilosophy assertedthat the primaryaim of publicpunishment shouldbe the reformationof the criminal.whatever their crime, was an attack on the ‘sacredness(of) individual interests’ which he believed characterized‘the advance of true freedom and civilization’. 11 Byrejecting the Benthamite assertion that punishment wasalways an evil Maconochie was able to develop analternative legitimization. In his hands the infliction ofpunishment became ‘medicine for the individual’;transforming it, in its reformative guise, from a necessaryevil to a desirable end in its own right. 12The concept of ‘less eligibility’ was continuallyexploited in this period to critique reformativeaspirations. Charles Dickens gave voice to these concernswhen he claimed:we have come to this absurd, this dangerous,this monstrous pass, that the dishonest felonis, in respect of cleanliness,order, diet, andaccommodation, betterprovided for, and taken careof, than the honest pauper. 13Although Maconochie wasnot insensitive to the demand thatpunishments retain a punitivedimension, from his earliestwritings he had recognized aninherent conflict between theinfliction of punishment and thepromotion of reformation. Thefailure of the existing systemresulted, he argued, directly from its attempt tosimultaneously deter and reform, requiring ‘existingPenal Institutions … (to) constantly fluctuat(e) …between these two horns of a dilemma’. 14 The inflictionof punishment, Maconochie argued, inevitably placed aperson in an ‘unnatural position’ that ‘interferesespecially with the free agency’ crucial to appropriatesocial life. 15 Reformation involved promoting ‘voluntaryexertion and self denial’, which could only be generatedwhen, on however an unlevel playing field, the choices ofidleness and immediate gratification were also madeavailable. 16Maconochie criticized the existing ‘penal apparatus(as being) nearly all retrospective (and) framed to punishthe past’ whilst failing to ‘guard against the future.’ 17 It9. Maconochie (1853) p.2.10. Maconochie, A. (1848) Secondary Punishment: The Mark System, London: John Olivier p.411. Maconochie (1839a) pp.9-10 (emphasis in original).12. Maconochie, A. (1847), Comparison between Mr Bentham’s views on punishment, and those advocated in connexion with the MarkSystem, London: Compton p.2.13. Dickens, C. (1997), ‘A Walk in the Workhouse’ (Household Words, 25th May 1850) in Selected Journalism 1850-1870, Edited by DavidPascoe, 239-245, London: Penguin Classics p.241).14. Maconochie (1839a) p.18.15. Ibid p.18.16. Ibid p.18 (emphasis in original).17. Maconochie, A. (1846), Crime and Punishment: The Mark System, London: Hatchard & Son p.3.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal39

was for this reason that the many reformative initiativesfailed and he therefore rejected the usual compromise inwhich ‘(r)eformation and example must be conjointlyprovided for’, instead arguing for ‘dividing the processesemployed into specific punishment for the past andspecific training for the future’. 18 The two objectives were‘essentially different’, one ‘subdued the individual … injust retribution for past offences’ whilst the other ‘raisedhim again … (and) made him again worthy to be a freeman.’ 19 They could not be practically combined; each hadits own ‘science’ which demanded radically differentregimes to achieve their diverseobjectives. 20 The initial punishmentphase, Maconochie argued,‘should be severe, — but short’and be enforced ‘if necessary, bydirect physical violence orconstraint, because in this stage itis desirable to subdue theprisoners’ minds, and fix them, inpainful retrospect, on their pastguilt’. 21Punishment’s focus,Maconochie declared, should beon achieving ‘a comprehensiveand manly reform’ requiring theconvict to display ‘sustainedsubmission and self-command’. 22Progress towards release would bethe convicts’ responsibility, thesystem being designed to require that ‘all must confessthemselves subjugated, for otherwise they would neverbe released from it.’ 23 The key to his system’s inevitablesuccess, Maconochie argued, was that it aligned theinterests of the prisoner with those of society. He saw hispenal system as including a corporal dimension,advocating that punishment’s ‘iron should enter bothsoul and body,’ though its application required skilfulmeasurement, for its purpose was to reshape rather than‘to scar and harden’. 24 Physical suffering, inherent inpunishment, was to be given a new function; thoseundergoing punishment were to be ‘trained to virtue,and not merely sentenced to suffering.’ 25 In this sensePunishment’s focus,Maconochiedeclared, should beon achieving ‘acomprehensive andmanly reform’requiring the convictto display ‘sustainedsubmission and selfcommand’.Maconochie and other advocates of reformation werenot concerned with abolishing the corporal, their taskwas rather to legitimize and civilize it.In reviewing transportation Maconochie had claimedthat the records of convicts focused exclusively on theirmisdeeds, whilst ‘good ordinary behaviour, (such) asdiligence, sobriety, obedience, honesty, fidelity, zeal, orthe like’ was unrecorded. 26 As a result they had no impacton decisions on matters such as the issuing of tickets ofleave and tended ‘to warp the judgement in formingestimates of moral character’. 27 In the hulks and localprisons, as well as in the Australianpenal colonies, the regimes’ focuson misbehaviour he felt removedany incentive for good or virtuousbehaviour. The inevitableconsequence of this was that the‘good prisoner … (was) usually abad man.’ 28 Refocusing attentionon positive behaviour Maconochieargued would allow ‘the manlyvirtues … to be … sedulouslycultivated’. By structuring theregime to reflect the adversityexperienced in ordinary life theMark System sought to make theprisoner the agent of his or herown reformation. 29 From thisadversity there was to be ‘noescape but by continuous effort’,rations beyond bread and water, indulgences, andeventually freedom all depend on the prisoner’s capacityto ‘struggle manfully’. 30Sentences to imprisonment, hard labour, the galleysand transportation prior to this period were either inperpetuity or for a fixed period of time. Where forfeitureof the lawbreaker’s labour was part of the intention ofthe sentence its measurement was problematic. Releasecame with time and the quantity and quality of thelabour extracted were normally poor. Maconochieadvocated a system that ‘would set a proper value ontime’ and in which evasion from labour would bepenalized. 31 Whilst English prisons under Du Cane later in18. Maconochie (1839a) p.7 (emphasis in the original).19. Ibid p.7.20. Home Office (1838) p.9.21. Maconochie (1839a) p.18 and Maconochie, A. (1839b), Australiana: Thoughts on Convict Management and Other Subjects Connectedwith the Australian Penal Colonies, London: John W Parker p.100 (emphasis in original)22. Maconochie (1853) p.2 and Maconochie (1839a) p.5.23. Maconochie (1857) p.1.24. Colonial Office (1838) p.7.25. Maconochie (1839a) p.15.26. Home Office (1838) pp.5-6.27. Ibid p.6.28. Maconochie (1846) p.29.29. Maconochie (1853) p.4.30. Maconochie (1846) p.43.31. House of Commons, (1850) Report from the Select Committee on Prison Discipline; together with the proceedings of the committee,minutes of evidence, appendix and index, London p.5.40 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

the nineteenth century were to be characterized bydeliberately useless labour, Maconochie advocated‘useful labour in the open air, in employments in whichimproved skill would facilitate the subsequent earning ofhonest bread’. 32 Hard labour needed to act both ‘as (a)warning to the idle’ and as ‘preparation for the penitentto meet the difficulties which necessarily beset them aftertheir discharge.’ 33Time sentences, Maconochieargued, were ‘the root of veryAt the heart ofMaconochie’s systemwere marks; thecurrency of his modelpenal institution.They measured thelength of sentence,rewarded work andother desirableconduct, purchasedboth the necessitiesof life and luxuriesand were deductedas fines formisconduct.nearly all the demoralizationwhich exists in prisons’ and gaveprisoners ‘a direct interest inidling, and whiling away timeinstead of employing it, directlycorrupt them, and destroywhatever little habit of industrythey may previously have had’. 34Instead of time sentencesMaconochie proposed theintroduction of task sentences‘with minima times annexed tothem, but not maxima’, underwhich completion of punishmentwould not be determined by thepassage of time but by thecompletion of a specific task. 35Maconochie argued that theminimum period of punishment,even for ‘the least offence’, shouldbe two, or ideally, three months. 36These prisoners would, likeeveryone else subjected toMaconochie’s system, havereceived, in terms of time, nomaximum sentence, effectivelyremoving their capacity to endureand resist their gaoler confident in the knowledge thatthere was a future date beyond which they could not bedetained. When asked how long an ‘obstinate’ man who‘does nothing’ could remain in confinement Maconochieresponded: ‘For ever; but that is an unsupposable Case.’ 37He was confident that his system was so carefully craftedthat whatever intentions the prisoner arrived with, itwould soon be clear that it was in their interest to cooperate,they would realize that once ‘under the lash ofthe law … (they) must work out of it (and) no time willtake them out’. 38 For prisoners who had traditionallyreceived longer sentences Maconochie’s system offeredthe prospect of much speedier release. Maconochiesuggested that a prisoner sentenced to transportation forlife was likely to be released in five or six years asincarcerating them for longer would compromise hisreformative objectives. 39 Thoseexposed to his system who werereconvicted, Maconochie argued,should have their secondsentences significantly increasedirrespective of the severity of theirsubsequent offence. 40At the heart ofMaconochie’s system weremarks; the currency of his modelpenal institution. They measuredthe length of sentence, rewardedwork and other desirableconduct, purchased both thenecessities of life and luxuriesand were deducted as fines formisconduct. The exact valuevaried over time, sometimeslinked to a monetary value,normally a penny, and on otheroccasions to an hour’s labour. 41 Inhis theoretical writingsMaconochie argued for a widerange of behaviours to beevaluated daily and marksallocated accordingly. In his initialreport written in 1837 headvocated awarding marks toconvicts who had been:orderly, obedient, zealous, attentive, active,industrious, cleanly in their persons and rooms,civil, temperate under provocation (should suchhave been offered), punctual in theirattendance at prayers, school, work etc., orhave in any other way deservedcommendation. 4232. Maconochie (1846) p.31.33. Ibid p.7.34. House Of Commons (1850) p.447; Maconochie (1846) p.6.35. (Maconochie (1857) p.1 (emphasis in original).36. Maconochie (1846).37. House of Lords, (1847), Second report Select Committee of the Lords into the execution of the criminal law, especially respecting juvenileoffenders and transportation, London p.106.38. House of Commons (1850) p.455.39. House of Lords (1847) p.108.40. Maconochie (1857) p.2.41. Maconochie, A. (1856), Prison Discipline, London: T Harrison p.18; House of Lords (1847) pp.100-101.42. Home Office (1838) p.10.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal41

Two decades later Maconochie was proposing thatthey be allocated in prisons on the basis of seven criteria:General demeanour, Diligence in labour,Efficiency in Labour, Amount of Religiousinstruction possessed, Zeal exhibited inacquiring more, Amount of Literary instructionpossessed, and Zeal shown in acquiring moreof it. 43Marks were also central to maintaining discipline.Fines were levied in marks and thus impacted both on aprisoners existing purchasing power and ultimately onthe length of their sentence.During the initial punitivestage prisoners would be requiredto earn a specific proportion ofthe total marks required for theirrelease before being allowed toprogress to the training stage. Forwomen, Maconochie argued theinitial stage should involve ‘aMagdalen seclusion … (with)moral and religious instructionand …tuition in … arts andoccupations’ but which was lesspunitive than the regime formen. 44 Whilst solitary confinementcould be incorporated into theinitial stage of Maconochie’ssystem, the training stages alwaysinvolved association. Theimportance of association wasstressed during the second stageby the establishment of groups ofconvicts. These groups, who in the case of single maleconvicts he believed should be of about six men, wouldbe formed by the men themselves, who becameaccountable for each other’s conduct. 45 Women were tobe organized in smaller groups as Maconochieconsidered that selfishness was not a female vice. 46Once the convicts had been organized into groupsthe Mark System became collective with all the marksearned by group members being pooled. Likewise whenone member was fined the whole group suffered,generating a common interest among group members. 47Groups would be disbanded if members fell out or if aBy forcing convicts toconsider the interestsof others he believedhe was promotingtheir social feelingsand that they wouldlearn to modify theirbehaviour bothduring the groupstage and when theyre-entered society.member committed a serious offence. Members ofdisbanded groups would return to the punishment stagewhere they were required to form themselves into newgroups. Trouble makers, the lazy and dishonest,Maconochie was confident, would, under thisarrangement, be marginalized within the convictcommunity. 48 Central to this thinking was his belief thatvice and criminal behaviour were evidence of selfishness.By forcing convicts to consider the interests of others hebelieved he was promoting their social feelings and thatthey would learn to modify their behaviour both duringthe group stage and when they re-entered society. Thesegroups, Maconochie argued, would make all prisoners:‘Mentors, entitled to advise, restrain, instruct, andinfluence their neighbours togood’. 49 Maconochie planned thatduring this group stage marriedmen should be assigned cottageswhere they would live with theirfamilies. His family’s conduct, aswell as his own, would determinethe convict’s progress, providingthe married convict with a strongincentive to be a disciplining forcewithin his own home. 50The major mechanism ofreform for Maconochie was notsolitude or religious instruction butproductive labour. Penal Labour,he argued, should be demanding,making a prisoner ‘work both outof this position, and into themeans of subsequently keepingout of it’ thereby developing‘those habits of independentvoluntary exertion which constitute at once the bestproofs of immediately improved character.’ 51 Workshould be meaningful and relevant to the convicts’ futureemployment and in particular women should beengaged in ‘feminine’ employment. 52 His regime was nothowever to be entirely focused on hard work, hebelieved strongly in providing prisoners with access toeducation, a wide range of literature and the capacity tomake and enjoy music. When Governor Gipps offeredtwenty pounds towards establishing a Library at NorfolkIsland Maconochie, in characteristic style, respondedwith a long and detailed memorandum setting out why43. Maconochie (1857) p.1.44. Maconochie (1839b) p.130.45. Home Office (1838) p.10.46. Maconochie (1839b) pp.130, 105-106.47. Maconochie (1846) p.44.48. Home Office (1838) p.10.49. Maconochie (1839b) p.74 (Emphasis in original).50. Ibid p.106.51. Maconochie (1848) p.7; Maconochie (1846) p.15 (emphasis in the original).52. Maconochie (1839b) p.155.42 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

his specific and considerable requirements made asignificantly higher sum necessary. Gipps increased thelibrary budget to a hundred pounds. Maconochie thenpersuaded Gipps to allocate a further hundred poundsfor the purchase of musical instruments, which hefollowed up by forwarding to the Governor the invoicefor the cost of the entire stock of a sheet music retailerwhich Maconochie had impulsively purchased at anauction for another forty six pounds. 53Whereas for advocates of deterrence the fate of thedischarged prisoner was often of limited importance, forthose promoting reformation asthe primary function ofpunishment it was crucial.Cynicism about the chances ofreform were widespread; PrisonGovernor, George Chesterton,spoke for many when he declaredthatthe discharged convict will flyto his accustomed haunts,and the most superficialknowledge of those pollutedlocalities will determine thequestion, as to how long hisrecent appreciation ofwholesome counsel andpastoral instruction may beexpected to survive! 54Such views, anticipating theenvironmental criminology of theearly twentieth-century, claimedthat the neighbourhoods fromwhich ‘criminals’ emerged where so thoroughly‘polluted’ that, whatever the merits of prison regimes,the discharged prisoners were virtually doomed to returnto their criminal lifestyle. Maconochie agreed that manyex-convicts were returning to crime and former prisonerswere a criminogenic influence within the communitiesthey were released into. However, he placed the blameprimarily on the failure of the regimes. His system, byresisting the temptation to construct an artificial worldwithin the prison, acknowledged the problems prisonerswould face on release and through his training regime heWhereas foradvocates ofdeterrence the fateof the dischargedprisoner was oftenof limitedimportance, forthose promotingreformation as theprimary function ofpunishment itwas crucial.believed it would produce individuals not only able toresist the temptations offered by the ‘polluted localities’but capable of returning to them as civilizing influences. 55His confidence in the success of his reformativeregime led him to argue against restrictions andsupervision for released convicts; who should bedispersed ‘unknown and unrestricted, at their own freewill,’ able to engage fully in life free from any stigma. 56Maconochie (1857:2) even argued that prisoners at theend of their sentences ‘should have the power ofremaining, up to a given time, in precisely the samecircumstances as before’. 57 Thisextended confinement wouldearn the convict, on their eventualdischarge, ‘a money payment (saya penny per mark), for whateversurplus they may have within thistime accumulated.’ 58From Theory to PracticeAlthough this paper hasfocused on his theoriesMaconochie had twoopportunities to put his theoriesinto practice. In 1840 he wasappointed as Superintendant ofthe Norfolk Island penalsettlement nine hundred mileseast of Sydney, a post he held until1844. In 1849 a secondopportunity presented itself whenhe was appointed as the firstGovernor of the new Birminghamprison at Winston Green.Most of the available literature on Maconochiefocuses on his time at Norfolk Island. The island’s secondsettlement between 1825 and 1855 has been widelyportrayed as a ‘hell on earth’ populated by prisoners whowere ‘incorrigible doubly convicted capital respites, guiltyof awful crimes’ and subjected ‘to extra-legalpunishment and tortures’ by ‘commandants (who) werebrutal and sadistic’. 59 Recent research by Tim Causerbased on a detailed examination of the convict recordshas revealed a somewhat different picture; in fact themajority of convicts were sent to Norfolk Island for non-53. Colonial Office (1841) pp.121-122, 17, 23, 27-28.54. Chesterton, G.L. (1856), Revelations of Prison Life; with an enquiry into Prison Discipline and Secondary Punishments, Volume 2, London:Hurst & Blackett. p.41.55. Maconochie (1839a).56. Ibid p.36.57. Maconochie (1857) p.2. This idea was not novel. William Brebner, Governor of the Glasgow Bridewell, allowed prisoners to remainbeyond the term of their sentence and permitted the poor and destitute of Glasgow voluntary entry. By 1842 there were nearly fortyvoluntary prisoners.58. Maconochie (1857) p.2.59. Causer, T.J. (2010) ‘Only a place fit for angels and eagles’: the Norfolk Island penal settlement, 1825-1855, Unpublished PhD Thesis, KingsCollege London p.23.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal43

violent property offences, their average length ofdetention on the island was three years, and that thescale of punishments imposed on the prisoners wassignificantly less than previously claimed. 60 Maconochie’sregime on the Island has been portrayed an exceptionalevent in the history of the second settlement; a period ofenlightened penal management characterised by thehumanitarian treatment of convicts; who responded byrejecting their criminal habits and adopting civilisedmodes of behaviour. This account can be found widely inthe literature with the most recent example being NorvalMorris’s fictionalized account of Maconochie’s regimewhich he used as a platform to argue for humanereforms of the contemporaryprison. 61 All these accounts relyheavily on John Barry’shagiographic AlexanderMaconochie of Norfolk Islandwhich celebrated Maconochie as‘a man of great nobility of soulwho dedicated himself in theprime of his life to the reform of abarbarous penal system.’ 62The evidence howeversuggests a more ambiguous story.The remote location allowed theSuperintendant scope for a levelof autonomy way beyond what isusually experienced by thoserunning penal institutions.Instructions from London had tofirstly be dispatched by ship toSydney and then forwarded, againby ship, to Norfolk Island. Arequest for the Secretary of Stateto confirm an instruction wouldgain the colonial administrator over a year’s grace andMaconochie was an administrator who had no qualmsabout declaring the Colonial Secretary misguided,requesting he reconsider whilst continuing his own localpolicies. He used this facility to remove the obstacles onthe Island that impeded his full implementation of hisMark System. 63The system of marks implemented on the Island wasfocused on the convict’s labour; a ‘Tariff of Wages’ wasapplied covering ‘every description of labour.’Significantly these tariffs allocated greater value to somelabour than others with Maconochie declaring that: ‘AWhilst it was truethat the marks fineprovided analternativepunishment to theexisting options ofsolitary confinement,the wearing of ironsand flogging,Maconochie usedthem all onNorfolk Island.Person possessing Skill would have more than a workingMan.’ 64 Maconochie also encouraged the growth of aninformal economy, rewarding convicts who advancedthrough his stages firstly with small plots of land tocultivate and later tickets of leave which allowed themfreedom within the Island. They were encouraged togrow vegetables, rear stock and cultivate tobacco; all ofwhich they were free to trade. He embarked on anambitious programme of public works; Roman Catholicand Anglican churches, new barracks and a new prisonwere all constructed. He established a local police forceemploying in excess of a hundred convicts and manyother convicts were directly employed on Governmentbusiness. With these factors inmind it is perhaps not surprisingthat the production of maize andwheat fell significantly duringMaconochie’s time. What he wasunable to do however was give hismarks his true intended value —release from the Island was notwithin his gift — and as a resultthe initial decline in bothdisciplinary infringements and theconsequent corporal punishmentswas soon reversed.One of the most powerfulMaconochie myths is that herejected corporal punishments.Whilst it was true that the marksfine provided an alternativepunishment to the existingoptions of solitary confinement,the wearing of irons andflogging, Maconochie used themall on Norfolk Island. UnderMaconochie being absent from prayer earned a fine of25 marks; refusing to bathe, 12 marks; careless fieldlabour, 84 marks; insolence 100 marks; stealingpotatoes, 200 marks and the false confession of amurder, 1,000 marks. However serious offences wereoften dealt with by a mark fine accompanied by acorporal or carceral punishment: ‘being in the bush inan improper situation’ earned a 2,000 marks fine and6 months in jail, ‘insolence and threatening languageto Captain Maconochie’, earned a fine of 2,000 marksand one month in jail; whilst a conviction for an‘unnatural crime’ earned a 1,000 marks fine and 10060. Ibid pp. 100, 50.61. See for example Hughes, R (1987) The Fatal Shore, London Collins and Clay, J. (2001) Maconochie’s Experiment, London, John Murray.Morris, N. (2002) Maconochie’s Gentlemen, New York, Oxford University Press.62. Barry, J.V. (1958) Alexander Maconochie of Norfolk island, Melbourne, Oxford University Press, p.2.63. For example he advised the Governor of New South Wales that his instruction to restrict the Mark System to new prisoners transportedfrom England and Ireland was impractical so he had unilaterally included the colonial prisoners already on the Island. When GovernorGipps rebuked Maconochie he responded that as the colonial prisoners had already been included it was unfeasible to reverse the policy.64. House of Lords (1847) p.96.44 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

lashes. 65 It is clear that under Maconochie the numberof floggings decreased significantly; Causer has shownthat number of lashes which were over 11,000 in 1839and over 10,000 in 1845 but did not reach 5,000 inthe Maconochie years and indeed in 1840 had reducedto 1,000. 66 Paradoxically the average lashesadministered on Maconochie’s order, ninety-three, washigher than under any other Governor in the penalsettlement’s history. The evidence suggests thatalthough life properly improved for convicts duringMaconochie’s tenure the scale of changes claimed byBarry is overstated.In 1849, with the construction of Birminghamprison nearing competition, the local Justices met todiscuss the appointment of a Governor. They agreed toappoint Maconochie with the specific intention ofallowing him to carry out anexperiment with his ‘MarkSystem’. However the localauthorities attempt to gain theapproval of the Home Secretary tothe introduction of the ‘MarkSystem’ was refused and instead alocal arrangement was madepermitting Maconochie to carryout a modified ‘Mark System’experiment with prisoners undersixteen. Maconochie’s secondpractical attempt to achieve thereformation of prisoners wascarried out in a mid-nineteenthcenturylocal prison wheresentences were short — more often measured in daysrather than years — and the Governor was subject todetailed national and local regulations and supervision.He also faced many of the everyday practicalities whichare all too often ignored in theoretical models. Inparticular his ‘Mark System’ had identified productivelabour as the key mechanism for reforming prisoners butwhilst at Birmingham Maconochie had difficultyproviding work and most of the adult male prisonerswere confined alone in their cells without work or otheroccupation. His experimental regime however requiredthe boys to work for their food and to achieve thisMaconochie resorted to the crank mill and shot drill.Labour was performed on the crank machine by turningthe handle upon which a 5lb weight had been attached.The boys were required to make 10,000 revolutions aIn particular his‘Mark System’ hadidentified productivelabour as thekey mechanismfor reformingprisoners . . .day, 2,000 before breakfast, 4,000 before lunch, and afurther 4,000 to receive their supper. Those who did notearn their food by meeting this target were issued with abread and water diet. 67 The shot drill involved boysmoving a pile of cannon balls from one side of theexercise yard to the other. When completed they wouldbe required to return them to their original location.Maconochie rapidly found himself in conflict withthe local justices and his own deputy. His attempts toexperiment were increasingly curtailed and within twoyears he was dismissed from his post. Two years after hisdismissal the prison was the subject of a RoyalCommission investigation following the suicide ofEdward Andrews a 15 year old prisoner. The report ofthe Commission was detailed and in particularhighlighted a number of illegal punishments Maconochiehad introduced into the prison.These included, for idleness,standing against the wall duringwork hours, more dramatic washis introduction of flogging byinstalments. Under thisarrangement, he admitted inevidence to the RoyalCommission, obstinate andstrong-willed boys who were notco-operating with his regimewould be flogged on a daily basisuntil their submission wasobtained. He introduced thestraight jacket into the prison andon a number of occasions hadwomen strapped to the railings in the prison’s central hallon display to the other prisoners; a humiliation that heended only on obtaining the woman’s compliance to hisauthority. He also on a number of occasions delayed thelawful release of prisoners. 68 Michel Foucault writingabout the emergence of the prison in France hashighlighted the conflict between the discourses of lawand discipline. For Foucault reformatory discipline drawson ‘a theoretical horizon that is not the edifice of law, butthe field of the human sciences’. 69 Under deterrent andretributive punishments the focus is on the offence forwhich the court can determine a specific punishment.For reformation this focus moves to the offender and thecourt must inevitably hand them over to the gaoler tomanage their treatment. This process leads to whatFoucault has termed the ‘declaration of carceral65. Colonial Office, (1843) ‘Letter from Maconochie to the Colonial Secretary New South Wales 4th April 1842’, in Convict discipline.correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor of Van Diemen’s Land, on the subject of convict discipline Part I,London pp.17-22).66. Causer (2010) p.238.67. Royal Commission (1854) Report of the Commissioners appointed to Inquire into the Condition and Treatment of the Prisoners confined inBirmingham Borough Prison, London p. vii.68. Royal Commission (1854) p. xxviii.69. Foucault. M. (2003), ‘Society Must Be Defended’Lectures at the College de France 1975-76, London: Picador p.38.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal45

independence’; with the gaoler increasingly operatingunrestrained by the law. 70 In Birmingham Maconochie,committed to introducing a reformative regime,constantly felt the virtue of his intentions allowed him tointroduce and implement illegal punishments.Maconochie’s LegacyWalter Crofton’s appointment to the Chairmanshipof the newly established Board of Directors of the IrishConvict Prisons in 1854 provided an opportunity forMaconochie’s ideas to be put into practice on asignificant scale. Crofton’s progressive stage system,developed in the 1850s, incorporated Maconochie’sbelief that convicts should be prepared for release. The‘intermediate prisons’ of the third stage of that systemcan be regarded as the first ‘open’ prisons. 71 Back inEngland both the regimes of Joshua Jebb (1850-1863)and Edward Du Cane (1869-1895) incorporatedelements of the Mark System. Lionel Fox the Chairman ofthe English Prison Commission in the middle of thetwentieth century claimed that ‘from the time ofMaconochie on Norfolk Island, the conception ofProgressive Stages, coupled with Maconochie’s mark’ssystem, became almost the dominating idea in prisonreform in both Europe and America.’ 72 Maconochie’sideas directly influenced popular writers like HepworthDixon, Henry Mayhew and Charles Dickens and made animportant contribution to the changingconceptualization of the criminal during the nineteenthcentury.In America Maconochie’s penal theory made a deepimpact on the leading reformer Enoch Wines whosought to place him at the very pinnacle of prisonreformers proclaiming in a report to Congress that:among prison reformers Maconochie holds themost conspicuous place; that he stands preeminentin the ‘goodly company.’ In him headand heart , judgement and sympathy, theintellect and the emotional element, weredeveloped in harmonious proportions; wereequally vigorous and equally active; and allconsecrated to the noble work of lifting thefallen, reclaiming the vicious, and saving thelost. 73Maconochie’s penal theory underpins theDeclaration of Principals adopted in 1870 by theAmerican Prison Association. His ideas and Crofton’sdeployment of them within his Irish system provided theinspiration for the highly influential regime developed atthe Elmira Reformatory in New York State from 1876.Elmira in turn impressed the Gladstone Committeewhose report of 1895 raised the possibility of engagingin an experiment along similar lines; an aspiration whichled to the initiation of the borstal experiment from 1909in England. The ideas of Alexander Paterson, whodominated the English Prison Commission between thetwo World Wars, are a faithful reproduction ofMaconochie’s.The penal theories developed by Maconochieanticipated subsequent developments in statepunishments: group dynamics, indeterminate sentences,behavioural modification, token economies, andincentive schemes can all be traced back to his penalblueprint. Yet whilst his theories remain embeddedwithin the contemporary penal system and central to theagendas of prison reformers we need to also recognisethat his own attempts to implement these ideas werehighly problematic. Indeed on his death The Athenaeumhighlighted that the two opportunities he had beengiven to try out his theories had ‘both ended in failure,one in misery and disaster.’ 74 If it is to Maconochie’s ideaswe must, as Norval Morris suggests, look to for ‘the rootsof modern prison reform’ then maybe it is to his penalexperiments at Norfolk Island and Birmingham that weshould look to understand why so often prison reformfails. 7570. Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin p.247.71. Open Prisons were introduced in England early in the twentieth century on the initiative of Alexander Paterson using arguments identicalto those set out by Maconochie to justify the innovation. (Thomas, J.E. (1972) The English Prison Officer since 1850: A Study in Conflict,London, p.155) Many of the criticisms directed at Open Prisons in the twentieth century are almost identical to those directed at Crofton’s‘Intermediate Prison’. With one opponent asserting ‘that to call it a Prison is a misnomer.’ (An Irish Prison Chaplain, (1863) TheIntermediate Prisons, A mistake, Dublin, p.7; emphasis in the original).72. Fox, L. W. (1952) The English Prison and Borstal Systems, London p,149.73. Wines, E, C (1872) International Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime including Penal and Reformatory Treatment:Preliminary Report of the Commissioner appointed by the President to represent the United States in the Congress in Compliance with aJoint Resolution of March 7, 1871, Washington p.204.74. Athenaeum 3 November 1860.75. Morris (2002).46 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

The English Prison during the First andSecond World Wars:Hidden Lived Experiences of WarYvonne Jewkes is Professor of Criminology at the University of Leicester and Helen Johnstonis Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Hull.This article describes a research study still in itsearliest days. Our primary reason for publishing sosoon in the project’s life is that we want to appealfor information. If you have any official or personalinformation or documentary material — includingprivate diaries and journals, letters, service medalsor simply informed thoughts — about prisons inEngland during either of the World Wars, pleasesee the contact information at the end of the articleand get in touch. We would particularly value anyinformation from ex-prisoners, prison officers andgovernors — or relatives of such individuals — whoexperienced prisons during the WarsThe reason for our interest in this topic is quite simplythat it is a forgotten history. Despite a wealth of data(including photographic images and autobiographicalliterature) on prisoners-of-war, internees and conscientiousobjectors, there are surprisingly few scholarly accounts ofordinary prisoners and prison staff during these periods ofconflict. Commonly, the criminological literature jumpsfrom the end of the nineteenth century to the 1960s whenthe death penalty was abolished and Lord Mountbattendevised the security classification system with which we arefamiliar today, and penal historians have tended to pegtheir studies on a handful of key dates rather thandiscussing longer periods and trends: 1901 when the firstBorstal opened; 1921 when the Howard League was setup; 1932 when the first recorded prison riot occurred atHMP Dartmoor; 1936 when the first open prison wasestablished in 1936 at New Hall in Wakefield; 1945 whena new Prison Commissioner was appointed; 1948 whenthe Criminal Justice Act was finally passed (having firstbeen introduced by Home Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare in1938 but dropped at the outbreak of the Second WorldWar because time could not be found to pass it into law);and 1951 when the Franklin Report reviewed punishmentin penal institutions. Aside from these landmark dates,existing academic studies offer virtually no discussion ofprisons in wartime; either the Great War of 1914-1918 orthe Second World War, 1939-1945. This is astonishinggiven what vivid and, at times, desperate and frighteningperiods these were.We felt convinced that there was a forgotten historyof prisons waiting to be written in the light of thenarratives related in Madness in its Place 1 ; an oral historyof Severalls Hospital, a psychiatric institution in Essexestablished in 1913 that held long-term patients in acustodial environment. The Great War brought with itstaff shortages, including 21 Reservists who wereimmediately called up to fight (followed over the courseof the next year by many others who had enlisted) andnumerous female nurses whose services were required inother types of hospital as the wounded were repatriated.Equally disruptive to Severalls’ usual regime was the factthat from August 1914, the Suffolk Brigade of theTerritorials was quartered in some of its buildings and thesurrounding grounds. In both wars illnesses such asscarlet fever, tuberculosis and typhoid broke out, manypatients suffered dangerous levels of weight loss, and atleast two members of staff died from their symptoms 2 . In1942, 38 patients were killed and 23 were injured whenSeveralls was bombed 3 . Scarce and/or disruptedresources, in the form of water, coal, heating, clothing,medical supplies and food were severe obstacles to thenormal functioning of residential psychiatric hospitalsand resulted in the recruitment of inexperienced,unqualified staff, some of whom were ‘elderly andincompetent’ and, for inmates, ‘the return of the lockeddoor, of inactivity, of isolation’ 4 .It is hard to imagine that war did not have equallyprofound effects on prisons. We have conductedpreliminary, relatively small-scale research — which weare currently developing into a much more detailed study— using documentary sources, including PrisonCommissioner Reports, The Times digital archive, localnews sources, autobiographies of prison staff and theBBC WW2 The People’s War website. Our intention hereis merely to give a flavour of what we have found so far;of the stories, activities and official records whichtogether provide a fascinating glimpse into how worldwar affected English prisons. We have grouped our initialfindings under three headings: fluctuations in the prisonpopulation and expansion of the prison estate;bombings and evacuations; and everyday life in prison.1. Gittins, D. (1998) Madness in its Place: Narratives of Severalls Hospital, 1913-97, London: Routledge.2. Ibid: p. 61-2.3. bid: p. 181.4. ibid: p. 63.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal47

Fluctuations in the prison population andexpansion of the prison estateWhile there is a general dearth of literature onprisons during the Wars, what information exists tendsto concern a handful of key historical figures, includingthe charismatic Alexander Paterson, appointed to thePrison Commission in 1922, and his successor, LionelFox. The latter is especially interesting because, as anEditorial in the British Journal of Criminology recordinghis death notes, he became Chairman in ‘a period ofunparalleled difficulty’ when ‘our penal system had beenseriously affected by the war’ 5 .Fox oversaw a vast prison building programmebetween 1945 and 1952 when — due to a 50 per centrise in the prison populationbetween 1938 and 1946 — 17new prisons and borstals werebuilt. At the same time as theprison population was growing,both staff and inmates were beingconscripted, and the Timesreports that Home Secretary,Chuter Ede, had to defendstaffing and conditions at HMPHolloway where the prisonerpopulation doubled during WWIIbut staff numbers remained thesame and included many moretemporary, inexperiencedpersonnel which, Edeacknowledged, weakened staffoverall and impaired pre-warstandards of administration 6 . Butthe possible reasons for the dramatic rise in numbers ofpeople sentenced to prison, leading to a rapidly growingproblem of overcrowding (which might include, forexample, large numbers of young men returning homefrom active service; issues around homelessness,fractured family ties, mental illnesses related to theexperience of armed combat, etc.) can currently only beguessed at. Further, while criminologists andpsychologists now acknowledge the link between Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and offending — underlinedby a recent NAPO report 7 that nearly one in ten currentprisoners is a former member of the armed forces —there is little historical documentation of similarWhile there is ageneral dearth ofliterature on prisonsduring the Wars,what informationexists tends toconcern a handfulof key historicalfigures . . .phenomena during and immediately after the WorldWars.While the years immediately after WW2 witnesseddramatic increases in prison numbers, also worthy ofconsideration are the significant falls in the prisonpopulation which accompanied war. For example, in1915-16, numbers of sentenced prisoners dropped from114,283 to 64,160 — a decrease of 50,123. The PrisonCommissioner at the time, Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, arguedthat a fall in petty crimes was linked to enlistment: ‘Thereis every reason to believe that the country’s call for menappealed as strongly to the criminal as to other classes’ 8 .Yet at the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, theTimes reports that short prison sentences for crimescommitted because of the war (e.g. stealing, looting,hoarding food and rationscoupons etc.) became verycommon. Moreover, given theshortage of medical and otherqualified staff, potentially asinteresting as the reasons for thefall in numbers of convictedinmates, is the comment in thesame article that receptions intoprison are largely confined to the‘physically and mentally weak’ 9 .Bombings and EvacuationsReporting on the early yearsof the Second World War, 1939-1941, the Prison Commissionersdescribed the period as one of‘disruption and destruction,during which the total effort of the Prison Service wasdevoted to keeping the machine working in conditionswhich were always difficult and often dangerous’ 10 .Despite the robust nature of prison buildings (atWandsworth, for example, some of the prison staff’schildren were brought inside the prison because itoffered more secure shelter 11 ) and the presence ofcompetent, trained staff, the Commissioners werepreoccupied with Air Raid Precautions (ARP), appointingan ARP Officer at Head Office, and selecting individualofficers at prisons who were trained at ARP schools orinstructed by local fire brigades. Training exercises wereheld in which prisoners also ‘cheerfully co-operated’. 125. British Journal of Criminology (1961) ‘Editorial’, 2(2): p. 109.6. Times, 18th October 1945.7. NAPO (2009) Armed Forces and the Criminal Justice System,http://www.lifechangeuk.com/_webedit/uploadedfiles/All%20Files/Veterans%20Case%20Studies%202009%20(2).pdf8. Times 26th September 1916.9. Ibid.10. Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and Directors of Convict Prisons for the Years 1939-1941 (1945) Parliamentary Papers, Cmd.6820, p. 4. (from now on RCP & DCP).11. McLaughlin, S. (2001) Wandsworth Prison: A History, London: HMP Wandsworth.12. RCP & DCP,1939-1941 Ibid., p.5.48 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

When war broke out it had already been decidedthat there should be an immediate discharge of allprisoners with less than three months left to serve and allBorstal inmates who had served not less than six monthsof their term. In total 5,624 prisoners were discharged 13 .Shortly afterwards, over 2,000 prisoners and Borstalinmates were transferred over a three day period by roadwith all their personal property and records. The ideawas to reduce or remove the prison populations in areasthought to be liable to attack and to totally or partiallyclear selected establishments and redistribute thepopulation. With that in mind, Wormwood Scrubs,Pentonville and Brixton were wholly cleared except for afew prisoners awaiting trial at Brixton and prisoners onremand or awaiting trial were transferred toWandsworth. Those in other committal areas werediverted to prisons outside London. Holloway retained asmall number of convicted prisoners for domestic serviceand those on remand or awaiting trial at an early dateand the remainder were transferred to Aylesbury.Outside London; only Portsmouth was wholly clearedbut five prisons — Birmingham, Hull, Leeds, Liverpooland Manchester — and one Borstal, Rochester BI, werepartially evacuated 14 . Other prisons were re-organised tohouse prisoners-of-war (e.g. HMP Stafford) or militaryprisoners (e.g. HMP Reading).In the summer of 1940 the air-raids came. Borstalswere the first to suffer and before the end of August,Portland, Borstal and Feltham had all reported bombdamage. Portland was severely affected during the Battleof Britain with prisoner working parties frequentlybombed or machine gunned by hostile aircraft. By July1940 day-bombing had become so serious that largeworking parties had to be split up, and several partieshad narrow escapes 15 . In September 1940 the heavy airraidson the capital began, and four of the Londonprisons were hit within a few weeks. The raids went onfor months with intermittent strikes, one of the mostserious of which occurred on the night of 10th May atPentonville. The prison was hit by several heavyincendiaries causing fires and severe damage tobuildings and leading to tragic loss of life, as heard by achild living nearby:I was five when the war began and we lived ina block of flats in Islington, London…Our airraidshelter was next to the wall of PentonvillePrison…One night I remember an incendiarybomb fell and set fire to the roof of the prisonand we could hear the prisoners screaming tobe let out. They’d been moved from the topfloor to the bottom floor and carried onscreaming until the fire was eventually put out.Of all the things I remember I alwaysremembering hearing them screaming, thesewere hardened men, but in the end they werescreaming like little girls 16 .In total seventeen people, including officers, theirfamilies and prisoners, were killed. As a result the entireprison population was immediately transferred and theprison was closed.Outside of the capital, bombing raids also inflictedserious damage. The first provincial prison to be attackedwas HMP Walton in Liverpool. On 18th September 1940three bombs struck the prison, resulting in severedestruction and human casualties. One wing was putout of action, six prisoners were killed and two wereinjured. Air-raids continued into December and then,after a brief lull, heavy raids began again in March 1941.The most severe strikes occurred in late spring of thatyear. On 26th April 1941 a large number of incendiariesfell on Walton Prison, starting fires which wereeventually brought under control ‘with great courageand resource’ by prison staff assisted by the Auxiliary FireService (AFS) 17 . There followed a series of eight raids bythe Luftwaffe on successive nights, placing immensestrain on the prison. On the night of the 3rd May, Waltonreceived eight direct hits by heavy bombs; very seriousdamage was done and 22 prisoners were killed. Fivedays later, on the 8th May another heavy bombdemolished an entire wing and caused serious damageto the administration block. Again, a neighbour’stestimony describes the terror of the bombing and itsaftermath:We lived next to Walton Prison which wasbombed one night and we could hear from ourgarden the prisoners screaming. Years latersome bones were found when they wererenovating the Prison Hospital. It was reportedthat these were prisoners lost during the airraid’ 18 .Following the prolonged airstrikes in May 1941 theauthorities had no choice but to close Walton Prison andevacuate the prisoners while repairs were carried out. Asubstantial part of the prison was quickly made ready for13. This discharged group was made up of 3,482 Males in Local Prisons, 318 Females in Local Prisons, 127 Males in Convict Prisons, 8Females in Convict Prisons, 8 Males in Preventive Detention, 1563 Males in Borstals and 118 Females in Borstals, RCP & DCP, 1939-1941 (1945), p.6.14. RCP & DCP, 1939-1941 (1945), p6.15. Ibid., p11.16. Contributor to BBC WWII The People’s War website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/91/a5961891.shtml17. RCP & DCP, 1939-1941 (1945), p12.18. Contributor to BBC WWII The People’s War website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/55/a1986555.shtmlIssue 198 Prison Service Journal49

use again and on 28th July 1941 it was reopened. Therest of the year was spent in comparative peace but noother provincial prison suffered so heavily as Liverpool. 19As the quotes from the BBC website illustrate, theprisoners had good cause to be terrified during theGerman bombing raids. One interesting point ofdiscussion that emerges from the Commissioners reportsis whether or not prisoners should be locked in their cellsduring air-raids. The report notes that as the ‘behaviourof prisoners, considering their unenviable position duringair-raids, was on the whole remarkably good and rarelyoccasioned anxiety to the staff’ 20 they should be allowedto remain in their cells: in fact, it was decided that, withthe exception of those on the top floors, cells were oneof the best forms of air-raid shelter and were the safestplace for prisoners to be. Thequestion of whether or not thecell should be locked during a raidwas, however, a more contentiousissue. On the one hand, it wasrecognised that being lockedalone in a cell during a raid wasunpleasant and frightening. Onthe other hand, experienceshowed that if a wing was hit byan incendiary the landings werelikely to collapse and, wherecasualties occurred, they wereoften due to prisoners rushing outof their cells as the landing wasfalling through. It was decidedthat physical safety should takeprecedence over psychologicalanxiety and a rule was laid down that, during air-raids atnight, prisoners should be kept locked up 21 , although atHMP Wandsworth bolts were added to the cell doors toallow for a rapid evacuation of inmates if necessary 22 .According to the Commissioners, subsequentexperience regularly proved the soundness of thisdecision. Harley Cronin, later General Secretary of thePrison Officers Association (POA), but then working atHolloway Prison, notes in his autobiography that heurged the Home Secretary to revise Holloway’s policy ofleaving cell doors open at night:I had seen some of the unsavoury results of thispolicy at Parkhurst…My case there was provedwhen Pentonville, reoccupied, was actually hitOne interestingpoint of discussionthat emerges fromthe Commissionersreports is whetheror not prisonersshould be locked intheir cells duringair-raids.by a bomb. Most of the killed and injured wereamongst those sheltering on the ground floorof the prisons. Men locked in cells wereunharmed by bomb or blast 23 .Everyday Life in PrisonPrison work may not have become more purposefulduring the wars but it did enable inmates to contributeto the war effort and thus provided an ‘outlet for thepatriotism of convicts’ 24 with, for example, themanufacture of articles for Government Departmentsand the armed forces (e.g. coal sacks for the Navy and kitbags for the Army). During the Great War, the Timescomments that many prisonersvolunteered to work overtime tosupport the war effort despite themenial nature of the work for, asthe paper notes, it had becomeimpossible for prisoners to engagein work that competed with theoccupations of the workingclassesoutside. The article ends bynoting that ‘it is hoped that theimprovement which has beenshown with regard to work willhelp them when they aredischarged’ 25 ; a sentimentreflecting the growing faith innew forms of ‘treatment’ whichbrought psychotherapeutic andrehabilitative discourses intoprisons, as well as into ‘asylums’ and hospitals in theearly decades of the twentieth century.In World War II female prisoners contributed to thewar effort by making dolls and teddy bears for evacueechildren 26 . Mary Size, then Deputy Governor atHolloway Women’s Prison, notes in her biography thatboth staff and prisoners knitted comforts for men andwomen which were sent to the Red Cross Depot atOxford for distribution. The prisoners were highlycommended for their work and a supply of wool wasthen provided by the Red Cross. The Mayor ofAylesbury set up a Comforts and Welfare fund whichmany prisoners contributed to from their modestwages. Most of the women donated a penny a weekout of their earnings of three-pence: some paid three19. RCP & DCP, 1939-1941 (1945), p12.20. RCP & DCP, 1939-1941 (1945), p14.21. Ibid.22. McLaughlin, Ibid.23. Cronin, H. (1967) The Screw Turns, London: Long: p. 154.24. Times, 9th February 1915.25. Ibid.26. Industrial Training in Borstals, PRO 45-19688-442964/15, /16 7 Oct 1943 cited in Forsythe, W. J. (1990) Penal Discipline, ReformatoryProjects and the English Prison Commission, 1895-1939, Exeter: Exeter University Press, p.236.50 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

half-pence, others a halfpenny. A bank account wasopened and £1 a week paid into the Mayor’s account.When the balance reached £5 it was sent to the SpitfireFund which resulted in the prison receiving a letterfrom Lord Beaverbrook saying he was deeply touchedby the gift 27 .Many prisons also had their own small-holdingsand farms during the Second World War. Prisoners atAylesbury cleared gardens and small areas of land togrow their own food, and donated what they could topeople who had been evacuated to Aylesbury after airraidson London 28 . At New Hall, the new, open trainingprison in Wakefield, ‘trusted prisoners’ lived simply inhuts in the middle of a wood, with ‘no walls or fencesand just a splash of paint on a tree to mark theboundary’ 29 . Prisoners kept pigs and hens and grew softfruit trees, strawberries and some fields of cereals. Theybaked their own bread and sold it to local people, aswell as supplying other nearby prisons 30 . Once again,reflecting penal ideologies of the time, Home SecretaryHerbert Morrison decided to see New Hall’s‘enlightened methods in dealing with offenders’ forhimself 31 . His visit in March 1944 convinced him thatsome prisoners could be handled well in ‘minimumsecurity’ establishments: in fact the experience wasdescribed by the Times newspaper as an ‘eye-opener tohim — the only one [prison] he had ever visited fromwhich he came out happier than he went in’.As was the case in the wider population, war alsobrought positive experiences to prisoners in the form ofmorale-boosting leisure activities such as musicalbands, concert parties and sporting competitions.Another contribution to the BBC The People’s War sitenotes the importance of social events (at a Naval prisonfor military offenders) for prison officers, as well asinmates, who ‘became almost as institutionalised as theprisoners’ 32 . He describes ‘Saturday Open Socials’,when staff, who mostly lived in prison lodgings, invitedlocal residents to come and enjoy the entertainment.This was a good PR exercise because not all the localswere happy to have a large prison on their doorstep,but this gave them an opportunity to meet the staffand ‘find they were human and not monsters’ 33 .Prison staff were, of course, adversely affected bythe war in numerous ways. Research from psychologyhas noted the presence of ‘shell-shock’ (a term first usedin The Lancet in 1915) among staff at secure hospitalsreturning from active service in both Wars and, giventhat 80,000 cases of shell-shock had been diagnosed by1918 34 , and that alcoholism became increasinglycommon in this period, it seems highly likely that bothwere represented among the officers who staffedprisons.ConclusionAcademic research into the history of prisons andpunishment has a long and distinguished history but ithas been dominated by studies either which examine the‘birth of the prison’ at the end of the eighteenth andbeginning of the nineteenth century, or which focus onthe 1960s and 1970s when several importantdevelopments occurred and when there was a growingpoliticisation of both prisoners and prison officers. Thereexists little, if anything, about any of the eventsdescribed in this article in the academic ‘prison studies’literature. Our aim, then, is to explore the impact andeffects of war on the management of the prisonpopulation; on the buildings in which prisoners andofficers lived and worked; on the lives and careers ofprison officers and governors; and on the everydayexperience of imprisonment for those in custody. As thisarticle has hopefully demonstrated, there is a rich vein ofinformation waiting to be uncovered — data whichmight not only shed light on a forgotten chapter in penalhistory but might also offer valuable insights into currentproblems and issues facing the prison service; copingwith rises and falls in prisoner numbers, the re-rolling ofinstitutions to accommodate different populations, andthe relatively high numbers of ex-military personnelwithin the prison population to name but a few.CONTACT USDo you have any information or stories to tell aboutprisons, prisoners, prison officers, or anyone elseconnected in any way with prisons during World WarI or World War II?We are interested in hearing from anyone who hasanything that might add to our research — from diaries,letters and reports to simply a story to tell. Please contactus: Yvonne Jewkes, Department of Criminology, Universityof Leicester, LE1 7QA yj25@le.ac.uk; and/or HelenJohnston, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice,University of Hull, HU6 7RX H.Johnston@hull.ac.uk27. Size, M. (1957) Prisons I Have Known, London: George Allen & Unwin, p. 136.28. Ibid.29. Contributor to BBC WWII The People’s War website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/08/a4093508.shtml30. Ibid.31. Times 29th March 1944.32. Contributor to BBC WWII The People’s War website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/43/a5343743.shtml33. Ibid.34. Busfield, J. (1996) Men, Women and Madness: Understanding Gender and Mental Disorder, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal51

Book ReviewThe power of positive deviance:How unlikely innovators solvethe world’s toughest problemsBy Richard Pascale, Jerry Sternin andMonique SterninPublisher: Boston: Harvard BusinessPress (2010)ISBN: 978-1-42211-066-9 (hardback)Price: £17.99 (hardback)This is a book that makes somebold claims. The authors assert thatthey provide:‘…compelling evidence of aproven remedy for overcomingintractable problems. Its success in‘impossible’ situations demonstratesthat we can make meaningful inroadsagainst many of the seeminglyinsurmountable problems thatconfound the present and cast ashadow on our future…’ (p.4)On this basis, this should be abook that is required reading for everyone on the planet. The book’sapproach has three elements: first,that solutions to problems are oftenlatent, that is that they already exist;secondly, that these solutions havebeen discovered within thecommunities or groups that facethose problems; and thirdly, thatthose solutions have been discoveredby ‘positive deviants’ — that is peoplewithin those communities or groupswho have found different ways ofdoing things and have thereforeenjoyed more success.The authors illustrate theseelements by describing a range ofprojects in which they have beeninvolved where this approach hasbeen successfully used. These settingsrange from projects in the developingworld — such as malnutrition inVietnam, refugees in Uganda andfemale circumcision in Egypt — toinitiatives the developed world aimedat reducing hospital-acquiredinfections and increasing corporateperformance. This approach is one ofa number that have attempted toReviewsprovide bottom-up ideas, focussing ofgood examples rather than problems,and which have attempted to workwith existing cultures. Other similarapproaches have included strengthbuildingand appreciative inquiry,which has been widely used in prisonsin England and Wales most notably inthe development of the Measuringthe Quality of Prison Life approach.These approaches certainly havetheir place and managers are welladvised to have knowledge of thesein order to use them as a tool tomanage change in a creative andmotivational way. However, as is oftenthe case with such books, the claimsare grandiose, the tone evangelical.There is also a question overwhether this approach really is theuniversal management panacea thatis claimed. Would the logic of theauthors’ approach provide solutionsto, for example, the financial crisissimply by identifying traders who aredoing well and by getting those whoare not to copy them? Similarly, inmarginalised, high crimecommunities would crime bereduced by encouraging offenders tofollow the example of those whostay out of trouble? Of course not:such problems are linked to widersocial structures and cannot beattributed to individual behaviouralone. Therefore ‘positive deviants’do not have all of the answers.Another example would be whethergood footballers could be created bylooking at what Wayne Rooney orDavid Beckham do on the pitch? Ofcourse this is not the case, andsimilarly good prison or policeofficers, teachers or nurses cannotbe created just by looking at thosewho are good. These are professionswhere there is skill and craft involvedwhich cannot easily be replicatedand transferred.This is a book that has much torecommend it and it is certainly thecase that positive, bottom-upmanagement techniques have theirplace, but a little more modesty andcritical faculty would not have goneamiss.Jamie Bennett is Centre Manager ofIRC Morton Hall.Book ReviewDebating for a Change:Improving prison life throughprisoner/staff working groupsBy Andrew Fleming-Williams andAnna GordonPublisher: Ministry of Justice (2011)Available free at:http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/DebatingforaChange.PDFHuman beings yearn to be insocial environments that containcertain virtues, like fairness andrespect. The experience of being in apunitive and disrespectfulenvironment is traumatic anddamaging. Without respect, dignityor fairness personal development isimpossible.Prisoners remain citizens andpreserving a notion of citizenshipeven within a prison is vital for themaintenance of their human rights.These rights are connected to basichuman needs for meaning (fairnessand justice), for connectedness(belonging, a sense of community),for security (emotional as well asphysical), action (empowerment,autonomy), and recognition (respect,acknowledgement and dignity).Difficult to maintain in prisons, butcrucial if we seek personaldevelopment and a sense of personalresponsibility.The issue for prison regimeplanners is constructing a form ofimprisonment whose basicstructure and daily practices aremore or less acceptable to thosewho endure it, despite their52 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

domination and commonly lowsocial position.This publication looks at aprocess that seeks to give a voice to allparties working together to improvethe context within which they have tolive and work. It describes the work ofAndrew Fleming-Williams and AnnaGordon in 17 prisons in the SouthEast with a prisoner and managementforum project. The experience built upby Andrew Fleming-Williams,treasurer of the Prison Reform Trustand Chairman of the Friends ofWandsworth Prison, in 39 forums inprisons using managementdevelopment techniques to increaseprisoner involvement in the prison’soperation, was researched throughthe project in 17 prisons. The findingsare very positive from all partiesinvolved — prisoners, officers, seniormanagement team members andothers. The evidence is that suchforums (run very differently to prisoncouncils) are capable of delivering realbenefits across a wide range of prisonissues. There was strong support fromall parties to the introduction of suchevents to be held regularly.This publication shows what canbe done within the context of afocussed dialogue between staff andprisoners to consider the quality of lifeissues in the prison and to have a sayin aspects that need to be improved.As well as the immediate issue ofdeveloping progress on rubbingpoints of daily living in the prison theprocess is respectful and empoweringfor all, meeting their need to have asay, to feel they belong in the prisoncommunity and recognise the fairnessof decision making. Everyonebenefits.The author of the report can becontacted on:andrew@flemingwilliams.co.ukTim Newell is a retired prisongovernor.Book ReviewVictims and Policy Making: acomparative perspectiveBy Matthew HallPublisher: Willan Publishing (2010)ISBN 9781843928256 (hardback)9781843928249 (paperback)Price £80.00 (hardback) £26.99(paperback)Victims and Policy Making is theproduct of an ambitiously widerangingresearch project comparingvictim policies in nine countries. Itaims to update and complementBrienen and Hoegen’s (2000) analysisof victim provision in 22 Europeancountries 1 , whilst also testing Hall’sown framework for conceptualisingthe relationships between culturalattitudes towards victimhood andjustice, and international and nationalpolicy networks. The methods includedocumentary data gathered frompolicy instruments and the secondaryliterature, complemented byqualitative interviews with policymakers and victim supportrepresentatives.The first substantive chapterpresents a compelling narrativedescribing the influences internationaldeclarations and measures have hadon domestic legislation and practice inthe nine countries under review. It isconvincingly demonstrated thatseminal documents such as the 1985UN Declaration of Basic Principles ofJustice for Victims of Crime and Abuseof Power prompted and shaped thewriting of national victim legislationand policies — and this despite thefact that the international measurestend not to be binding. But, Hallargues, although the internationalagreements have gone some waytowards recognising non ‘ideal’victims (that is towards recognising asvictims those who do not conform tothe stereotype of the innocent andrespectable citizen unknown to theoffender), domestic responses tend torevert towards approaches whichfavour the ideal victim and overlookother forms of victimhood. A furtherstudy into the influencesunderpinning this asymmetry couldprove a valuable contribution towardsmore inclusive policy and practicetowards the victims of crime.The following chapters addressthe roles of ‘policy networks’ indomestic policy making, therecognition of victims’ rights, andcompensation and restorative justice.These chapters lack the clarity of thefirst substantive chapter and itbecome difficult to follow the author’sdecisions about what material topresent or to remain sympathetic tothe series of new and distincttheoretical approaches he keepsintroducing. As Hall attempts todescribe the wide ranging body ofdata he appeals to a number ofpoorly defined and applied theoriesand models. For example he refersoften to the concept of policynetworks without using it tocontribute to an analysis of the basicfinding that a range of interest groupsinfluence the development of victimrelated policies.The three conclusions seemedlike a poor reward for havinglaboured my way through to the endof the book. The first finding that‘wide, cultural influences […] are acontributing factor to thedevelopment of victim policies’ (p.216) is so broad that it borders onbanal. Insofar as there is specificevidence for the claim, Hall can becredited with substantiating, in aninternational study, aspects ofBoutellier’s (2000) account of the‘victimalization of morality’ 2 (thethesis that as secularisation leads tothe decline of common standards ofmorality, a common appreciation forthe suffering of others remains);however the evidence presented inthis book does nothing to showsecularisation is responsible for the1. M. Brienen and H. Hoegen (2000) Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems: The Implementation of Recommendation(85)11 of the Council of Europe on the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure. Niemegen: Wolf LegalProductions.2. H. Boutellier (2000) Crime and Morality: The Significance of Criminal Justice in Post-modern Culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal53

change, nor to prove that ‘culturalinfluences’ are the cause, rather thanthe effect, of changing victim policies.Similarly, the second finding thatpolicy networks are implicated in thedevelopment of victim reforms neverfully makes the transition fromtheoretical assumption to constructiveconclusion. And thirdly, reference tothe over-used and under-definedconcept of ‘globalisation’ contributeslittle to an understanding of victimrelatedpolicy. This is an ambitious andwide-ranging book, but it is anexasperating and sometimes turgidread. I closed it with a sense offrustration.Dr. Rachel Bell is a senior officer atHMYOI Feltham.Book ReviewOffending Women: Power,Punishment, and the Regulationof DesireBy Lynne A. HaneyPublisher: University of CaliforniaPress (2010)ISBN: 978-0520261907 (hardback),978-0803259751 (paperback)Price: £41.95 (hardback), £16.95(paperback)Sociologist Lynne Haney haswritten an ethnography of twocommunity-based facilities for femalecorrections in the United States. Herfieldwork, spanning over a decade,locates the institutions withindiffering social and political contexts.The book demonstrates how thepolitical status quo in the 1990stranslated to an institution for youngoffenders constructed around‘dependency discourse’; whilst theadult institution observed a decadelater was framed by the ‘recoverydiscourse’ — both of which served todisentitle the women whilst claimingthe path to successful reintegration.The former was concerned withlimited government, and weaningwomen from a sense of entitlementto support from the state. Thesecond, and perhaps more insidious,pathway aimed to refashion women’s‘dangerous desires’ by unravellingaddictive behaviours, to result inwomen understanding the differencebetween ‘needs’ and ‘desires’.The underlying critique of bothof these approaches, is, for Haney, thefundamental issue of programmaticapproaches which do not appear totake contextual issues into account.There are several outstandingexamples in the book, which explorehow narratives of ‘dependency’ and‘recovery’ are out of touch with thesocial realities of the women’s lives,serving to flatten and eliminate themultiple ways women experienceincarceration, as well as the multiplecontingencies they face imagining alife after incarceration; including lackof education, few job opportunities,and social support.For Haney, both programmes fellfoul of ‘alternative’ narratives, as theyattempted to position themselvesagainst mainstream corrections,whilst simultaneously beingdependent on the state and suchdiscourses for funding and resourcesupport. The result was thatinstitutional tensions filtered throughto daily uncertainties for the womenincarcerated in the institutions, manyof whom rallied against the system inorder to feel they were getting whatthey deserved, rather than remain inuncertain, contingent programmesfull of empty promises.The two central exploratorylenses are those of genderedgovernance and hybrid states — inthe sense of decentralized stateauthority and the hybrid services thatproliferated in the wake of federalsupport for programming; but alsohybrid states of the womenincarcerated in these institutions.The book is divided into twoparts: the first deals with Alliance, andthe ‘state of dependence’, and thesecond with Visions and the ‘state ofrecovery’. Across both, descriptions ofthe daily routines, stories andcharacters provide a rich and vigorousimage of the institutions, while theconcluding chapter returns to asociological framing of theethnographic account to criticallyanalyse the questions raised by thestories.The volume is compelling, clear,and concise; providing a sense of thefrustration and anxieties womenfaced in the institutions in whichmotherhood and healthy lifestyleswere incentivised. The shift betweenreporting on women’s reactions andrebellions and the institutions’changes and daily rhythms isinsightful. Whilst such anethnography is firmly located withinits US (and state-specific) contextsince it refers so directly to theresources and policy context of itsmilieu, the study is valuable for UKreaders because many of theconcerns facing incarcerated womenremain the same, and the lessons tobe learned from Alliance and Visionswould be well worth transferring tothis context.Aylwyn Walsh is based at theUniversity of Northampton and haspreviously worked as a Writer inResidence at HMP Lowdham Grangeand HMP Ashwell.54 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Interview: Danny DorlingDanny Dorling is Professor of Human Geography at the University of Sheffield. He is interviewed byJamie Bennett who is Centre Manager of IRC Morton Hall.Danny Dorling is Professor of Human Geographyat the University of Sheffield. His work hasfocused on trying to understand and map thechanging social, political and medical geographiesof Britain and further afield, concentrating onsocial and spatial inequalities to life chances andhow these may be narrowed. His work hasincluded detailed maps of changing patterns ofinequality and wealth 1 and the impact of theeconomic recession 2 . He has also considered howthis has had an effect on people’s lives, includingthe risk of being the victim of the most seriouscrimes 3 .He has attracted growing public attention for hiswork and has been the subject of a glowing editorial inThe Guardian 4 . His most recent books have taken abroader approach by questioning the orthodoxies thatunderpin contemporary society. In Injustice: Why socialinequality persists? 5 , Dorling exposed the values, beliefsand prejudices that justify and sustain inequality and hismost recent book, So you think you know aboutBritain? 6 , examined major social issues such as diversity,ageing, North-South divide, family life and populationgrowth. His analysis is eye-opening and innovative,revealing a new way of looking at these issues.This interview took place in August 2012.JB: How would you define humangeography?DD: Human geography is about what happens topeople as they are distributed around the Earth; what isimportant about where you are in what happens duringyour life. Anything that is spatial is human geography,but as almost everything is spatial this enables you tolook at many different issues ranging from economics,to health, to crime. The question is how thegeographical location, postcode or country is importantin the arguments you are engaged in.JB: You have created a role as a publicintellectual or public human geographer. You donot only work in academia, but have broadenedout into work on TV, radio, publishing accessiblepopular books and even talking at festivals. Whyhave you taken on this role? What do you see asthe value of it? And why do you think you areparticularly suited to it?DD: I didn’t do it deliberately it slowly happenedand then accelerated. It still isn’t huge. I think ithappened because I write in a colloquial way althoughI do that as I can’t write in a more complicated way. Theway I write and a lot of the way I talk uses simpleEnglish and is uncomplicated. The reason I did it isbecause academia can become boring and this wasmore challenging than only talking to eighteen,nineteen and twenty year olds from fairly privilegedbackgrounds, which is what most lecturing is. Alsolecturing isn’t that varied year to year, so it can feel likeGroundhog Day. The outside work helps me to escapefrom that and go back into University life withsomething new to say. It’s more challenging talking to awider group of people than it is talking to fellowacademics and students.JB: A number of your works have focussed onthe spatial distribution of wealth and poverty.What has your work revealed about inequality inthis country and how it has changed over the lasthalf a century?DD: There has been a staggering concentration ofwealth in particular parts of the country. Over the lasthalf century, if you take house prices which are a largepart of wealth, they have gone up most in the placeswhere they were higher to start with. Not just gone upmost in absolute price, but gone up most relatively:percentage-wise. We have now reached the pointwhere over half of the marketable wealth in thiscountry, that is the wealth that you can do somethingwith such as lend it to someone else or spend it, is heldby just 1 per cent of people. When I went to Universityin 1986, it was about 18 per cent. There has been anincredible concentration of wealth.We have looked at poverty, which is not quite asdramatic but there has been an increase in relativepoverty over this period, the poor have become morespatially concentrated away from villages and awayfrom other now generally more affluent areas. The poorhave had to move further towards cities, and in the last1. Dorling, D., Rigby, J., Wheeler, B., Ballas, D., Thomas, B., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., and Lupton, R. (2007). Poverty, wealth and place inBritain, 1968 to 2005, Bristol: Policy Press.2. Dorling, D. and Thomas, B. (2011). Bankrupt Britain: An atlas of social change, Bristol: Policy Press.3. Hillyard, P., Pantazis C., Tombs, S., Gordon, D., and Dorling, D. (2005). Criminal Obsessions: Why Harm Matters More Than Crime.4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/in-praise-of-danny-dorling?INTCMP=SRCH5. Dorling, D. (2010) Injustice: Why social inequality persists? Bristol: Policy Press.6. Dorling, D. (2011) So you think you know about Britain? London: Constable & Robinson.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal55

year for the first time since the 1930s we have seen anincrease in absolute poverty, which we never expectedto see again.This is an interesting time in terms of income andwealth distribution. Things have been going in thewrong direction for quite a long time but currently thatpattern is accelerating. House prices in the mostexpensive parts of London are going up at anunprecedented rate with properties costing manymillions of pounds in some places, at the same time,with benefit cuts and other changes coming in, we areseeing people who are finding it more difficult to buyfood or heat their homes at the bottom of society, sothe gaps are widening in terms of money.JB: What has your work revealed about linksbetween economic inequalityand other social issues such aseducation and health?DD: As the work that I andmany other colleagues have beeninvolved in over the last couple ofdecades has progressed, we haveproduced tighter estimates ofhow much income people haveand as the data has becomebetter, the predictive power tounderstand issues such as howlikely someone is to do well ineducation or how likely they areto die, has increased. The dots onthe graph begin to line up in astraighter and straighter line.Economic inequality isprogressively explaining moreand more of the distribution ofpeople’s chances of having poorhealth or poor education. By that I mean that the fitbetween the distribution of little money by area, andthe distribution of premature deaths, or poor examgrades is becoming tighter. Society is becoming morepredictable by geography than it used to be. You don’tfind that many areas where people are poor but they dowell in education or live for a long time. There used tobe a bit more geographical variety. Similarly, you won’tfind many places where the people are relatively richbut the schools (in aggregate) are not particularly goodand overall health is poor. Over time that relationshiphas tightened up but also our data has got better.JB: Sometimes people talk about a ‘post codelottery’ but this doesn’t sound like luck, thissounds like a phenomenon constructed by society.DD: Yes, it’s constructed in an unconsciousfashion. It isn’t that there is a committee sitting theresaying ‘let’s plan and drive this’. Instead it is a process,to use a social science term. Whatever has happenedand why ever it has happened, progressively year onEconomic wealthlinks up withpeople’s chances ofexperiencingvictimhood,particularly crimesof violence orburglary, and alsotheir chances ofbeing or becominga perpetrator.year any aberration in the system, such as relativelycheap houses near a good school, has been sorted outby — for example — those houses becoming moreexpensive. So, people sort themselves out to make thelines on the graph line up. That is what happens in acountry where inequalities are increasing in line witheconomic wealth. It is more important where you live asconcerns what is likely to happen to you in future thanit was in the 1960s or 1970s, when you were a bit freerto chose and a richer person might live in a poorer areawithout worrying so much about the implications. Inthe past there were some relatively well-off people incouncil houses, but that hardly ever happens now.JB: What about links with crime andvictimhood?DD: Economic wealth linksup with people’s chances ofexperiencing victimhood,particularly crimes of violence orburglary, and also their chancesof being or becoming aperpetrator. The victims andperpetrators tend to live relativelynear to one another with thesecrimes. There are other crimesthat the wealthy are far morelikely to commit, but for whichwe have less data. The classicexample is speeding. That is thecrime most likely to involve killingsomeone in Britain. It is a crimethat is commonly committed byvery large numbers of peoplealmost every day. Generally thechances of someone speedingwill increase the more affluent isthe area they come from. That is because they are morelikely to own a car and they are more likely to drive alonger distance. It would be useful to get data on thefull gamut of crimes. We can get information onrobbery, burglary and the crimes committed by poorerpeople, but it is more difficult to get data on the crimescommitted by the more affluent, and often those harmsare not thought of as crimes.JB: Crime and victimhood are largely centredin poorer neighbourhoods. Is this as a result ofhow people in those neighbourhoods behave, theconditions in which they live or how crime isdefined?DD: All of those and more. I’ve seen some lovelywork from schools recently where they took a localpaper, looked at the court reports from Magistratescourts and mapped them by post code across their localtown. This showed that concentration by perpetratorwas not as marked as may be assumed, of course it wasmore prevalent in some areas, but it was also widely56 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

spread. It is just that a few areas in any town are oftennotorious, so when you read the local paper you noticeaddresses in those areas and tend not to clock the onesin other areas. Thinking that most crime occurs in just afew parts of town is the geographical equivalent ofthinking that most buses arrive in pairs (you noticewhen they arrive in pairs). How crime is defined doeshave a great effect too. We do it less often now, but weused to imprison people for not paying their TV license.That would clearly have a massive effect on those whofound it difficult to pay for a TV license. If you were tostep back from the situation andask what are all of the acts thatare currently illegal, includingpaying people cash in hand whenyou should pay tax and so on,and you drew a map of illegalactivity that you could be takento court for and immoral activity(immoral such as forms of taxavoidance that verge on illegalityas being theft), you would find adifferent picture from crimemapping based on convictions orpunishments.JB: You have been part ofa group that have talkedabout ‘harm’ rather than‘crime’ 7 , for example there aremany harmful and anti-socialbehaviours that are notconsidered criminal. A classicexample would be that taxevasion is largely dealt withas a civil and administrativeissue where as benefit fraud istreated as criminal.DD: Yes, tax and benefitprosecutions are a classicexample of this, of what is most harmful — in this caseto all of us through depriving the exchequer of money— as not being labelled a crime. It isn’t just that wehave people or institutions avoiding say £90,000 of tax,it’s that the sums of money are so much moreenormous than people fiddling their job seekersallowance. The harm caused by tax avoidance/evasion(its all bad) is far greater than the harm caused byfiddling benefits. The general attitudes to benefit fraudas compared to tax fraud shows how crime and how itis defined is all mixed up with the idea that somepeople are more or less worthy. Many of our attitudesare still pretty Victorian.What I am not arguing is that we should create ahuge police state where we criminalise all of theThese differences arepart of a way ofbehaving when youthink you arecontributing tosomething greaterthan yourself asopposed to thinkingyou are a mug if youdon’t take what youcan get. Going downthe mug routecreates anincreasinglydysfunctional society.behaviour of the upper and middle classes as well asthe poorer members of society. We would need stormtroopers on the streets to do that. What we should dois to look at other countries, other times and otherplaces where people rich, poor and average are morelikely to act in a way that is social and moral and wherethey don’t want to harm others by stealing from shopsor not paying tax.JB: If we looked at those times and placeswhere such attitudes prevailed, what would wefind? Would we find that they were more equalsocieties?DD: They would tend to bemore equal, although there arevery unequal societies such asSingapore, which is the mostunequal society in the rich worldbut has low crime rates. Ingeneral, Scandinavian countriesand more equal richer countriessuch as Korea and Japan havelower rates of crime and violence.In Japan this was revealedtragically after the earthquakeand tsunami. Many people havea safe in their house where theykeep savings and thousands ofthese were washed up andpeople simply handed them in.They didn’t think of openingthem up and trying to get themoney out. It was anathema todo that, even though the peoplewho owned the money may wellhave been dead. Had that beenhere, I don’t think people wouldhave acted in quite the same way.Also in a country like Japan, youcan see people bend over andpick litter up without thinking about it, and beingextremely reluctant to drop litter. These differences arepart of a way of behaving when you think you arecontributing to something greater than yourself asopposed to thinking you are a mug if you don’t takewhat you can get. Going down the mug route createsan increasingly dysfunctional society.JB: As we talk, it is a week after the riotsaround the cities of England. What are your initialobservations on the nature and patterns of thatdisorder?DD: What we need to look at is the log ofincidents that were recorded, which has to be analysedproperly. We also need the postcodes of those whohave gone through the courts. That would give a7. Hillyard, P., Pantazis C., Tombs, S., Gordon, D., and Dorling, D. (2005). Criminal Obsessions: Why Harm Matters More Than Crime.Issue 198 Prison Service Journal57

proper assessment rather than picking out onemillionaire’s daughter and saying ‘it’s people from allwalks of life’. There is an anodyne immediate reaction,but that work needs to be done.My own view is that in many ways this is similar toriots we have had in the past. One difference has been aspill out into slightly different areas. We did some workon Charles Booth’s maps of London, which showed thedistribution of poverty and wealth in London in the1880s, compared that with the middle of the last centuryand the most recent period. On the back of thatresearch, which was conducted a decade ago, weshowed that London has again become pitted by areasof poverty near areas of wealth as it was in the 1880s, asituation that had been changed in the 1950s and1960s. The riots are partly reflecting the geography ofpoverty and wealth in London. However, more work isneeded to analyse the situation and compare it withprevious riots. I would also say that the immediatelanguage and reaction was predictable and similar towhat I remember of the riots in the early 1980s.JB: The current Government has describedwhat they perceive as a‘broken society’. In your viewis that an accurate descriptionof all or parts of the UK?DD: It is better to say slowlybreaking rather than broken. Wewere a more cohesive society inthe 1950s, 1960s and particularlythe 1970s. The 1970s is a periodthat the current government hatesbecause it was a time that wasvery bad for wealthy families (thetiny group of families from which almost all currentcabinet ministers are descended). Since then we havebeen breaking and the gaps between us have beenbecoming larger (the rich have been getting richer, whichis why so many in government are now millionaires).There hasn’t been a point of breaking but if we carry onthis course for another three or four decades then itwould be fair to call the country ‘broken’ because itwould be so extremely divided when compared to anyother affluent country in the world.JB: In your work you have discussed some ofthe reasons for the persistence of social inequality.What do you see as the beliefs that underpin this?DD: There is a difficulty in countries that arebecoming more unequal in that as they become moreunequal, then people from the better-off part of societybegin to justify their position as being something aboutthem: they are bolder, a bit more special, they workharder, and they deserve it. The wider the gaps growbetween people, the easier it is for the people at the topto justify these enormous gaps because the less they mixwith and know about less well-off people. The set ofThe riots are partlyreflecting thegeography ofpoverty and wealthin London.reasons I have seen in how people justify this include that‘greed is good’, ‘we need to have wealth creators’, ‘thelower classes don’t have it in them to do very much’, andfallacious comments such as ‘it’s all about talent’. Thelanguage, where some people are seen as ‘talented’ andothers as ‘useless’, becomes more prevalent in anunequal society. That language dies off in countrieswhere inequality is reduced, where people are paid moresimilar amounts, it is then that they begin to realise thatthere aren’t great differences in ability.JB: Are there any international or historicalexamples of societies where inequality has beenreduced successfully?DD: It is worth starting at home. The greatestreductions in inequality in the UK took place between1918 and 1978. This reductions were hardly visible in the1920s but they were beginning (we can see that now inhindsight). After the Crash of 1929, there were incrediblereductions in wealth and inequality, so that by 1939 halfof the inequality that had existed in 1918 had gone. TheSecond World War helped to cement this and thesereductions in economic inequality between families inBritain carried on improvingafterwards as well. As I wasgrowing up as a boy in the 1970s,the richest 1 per cent of people inBritain only earned six times theaverage and four times after tax.Can you imagine a top bankerearning only four times theaverage working wage? Nottwenty times or two hundredtimes. You only have to lookaround the world to see that this isstill possible. The bankers of Switzerland are paid less andthere is much lower economic inequality in Switzerland ascompared to the UK. We are an extreme. The only largerich country that is more unequal than us is the UnitedStates. However, the United States is moving in theopposite direction and becoming a little more equal andwe are about to overtake it in the inequality league table,so we might well soon be the most unequal large countryin the world in a couple of years time the way things arecurrently going. These views are based on figuresproduced by the International Monetary Fund as to howthey view current trends in things like public spendingaltering. The fund predicts today that by 2015 the UK willspend a lower proportion of its GDP on public servicesthan the USA for the first time ever. The UK alreadyspends a lower proportion than anywhere else in WesternEurope. Given this, though all kids of direct and indirectroutes, it is hardly surprising that more people end up inprison as a proportion of the population in the UK thanend up imprisoned anywhere else in Western Europe.JB: The Government have proposed a‘rehabilitation revolution’ where they aspire to58 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

educe reoffending by people released from prison.One of their major strategies is to incentiviseservices to achieve this aim through social impactbonds and payment by results. How do you viewthis strategy?DD: There is so much that is wrong it is hard toknow where to begin. When I was first looking atcriminology, I thought we had one of the highest rates ofimprisonment in Western Europe because our judges andmagistrates were being vindictive but there was goodresearch I came across that showed like-for-like we wereless likely to imprison people for similar offences thancountries with a lower prison population. What hasactually happened is that we have become more violentpeople; crimes are committed in Britain that are morevicious and cause more damage. We have one of thehighest crime rates and it isbecause of those rates that wehave one of the highestimprisonment rates in WesternEurope. You have to ask whatmakes us such violent people.Social impact bonds are notgoing to address the underlyingrates of violence and anger. Theywon’t increase commitment to asociety where it makes sense tosteal because all around youpeople are obviously stealing, justmany of them are stealing legallythrough conning you into phonedeals where you spend more thanyou thought for making a call, orthey are conning you by payingless tax than you despite earningmore. The general message inBritain is that you are a often mugnot to steal, whether that stealing is petty theft or‘trousering’ a banker’s bonus made up of hundreds ofthousands of pounds from the savings accounts ofpensioners. In the UK, more than anywhere else inWestern Europe, people are told its getting money thatmatters.Much of the reasons that people end up in prisonare to do with the nature of our society. Rates of violenceamongst men are often related to status and if you makepeople feel incredible unequal by the time they areyoung adults, you get more violence in general. Youcannot have a country where the prospects at thebottom are declining and the prospects at the top aregrowing and not expect a high degree of violence andmany other social problems. The idea that a privatecompany will address this without touching theunderlying social issues, that social impact bonds mightuse the power of the market to install cohesion, leadsme to conclude that so little thought of any worth hasWe have one of thehighest crime ratesand it is because ofthose rates that wehave one of thehighestimprisonment ratesin Western Europe.You have to askwhat makes us suchviolent people.gone into these plans that they almost certainly won’twork.However, what is scarier is what would have to bedone in order to make these plans work? We should notbe afraid of social impact bonds failing as much as weshould be fearful of them succeeding. This is becausethey rely on a black box. They want to pay by results andnot interfere in the means that are used to get that result.Singapore shows how a society can be culled into certaintypes of behaviour. With a strict enough police force youcan stop people chewing gum. You can control rowdychildren in schools by giving them drugs. We already dothat. They do it far more in the USA. An entrepreneurfunded by social impact bonds might come up with thebright idea of putting young people across aneighbourhood on some kind of sedative. He or shecould give them a cash incentiveto take the ‘medication’. Whatkind of drugs would they have toget people to take? What kind ofsupervision or control would haveto be in place? In a sense the riskof ‘the market’ working increating a low-crime society ismuch more concerning than it notworking.JB: A number ofalternative strategies tocriminal justice have beenproposed. In particular, theJustice Reinvestment model isbased upon principles ofhuman geography: it is basedon the argument that moneycan be saved by reducing theuse of imprisonment and thatsaving should be reinvested inaddressing the social causes of crime in thecommunities where prisoners come from. How doyou view this approach?DD: You have to start by looking at the amount ofmoney there is in the criminal justice system. The highereducation system is a £8 or £9 billion a year business andserves to recreate itself. We are hardly likely to becometurkeys voting for Christmas. This is why universities inBritain have accepted mass privatization over the courseof the last twelve months and the introduction of fees of(for now) up to £9000 a year to study at a university.Similarly, with the criminal justice system, there is animpetus to keep the system working as it is. You will havea problem unless you find a way to develop theseschemes from within, so that prisons start to have aninvolvement in implementing them. It’s a great idea it’slike turning swords into ploughshares. But it won’t workwhile budgets are being cut so rapidly. You have to havethe same people producing the ploughshares whoIssue 198 Prison Service Journal59

produced the swords otherwise they will keep producingthe swords. Underlying all of this, there is a group ofpeople who want to keep the country as unequal as it isbut also make it more peaceful. I just don’t think that ispossible. A justice reinvestment model relies ultimatelyon a desire to reduce underlying inequalities and to live ina country with far less crime. For those who just thinkthat many people are simply ‘criminal’ or have‘criminality’ within them this is just a liberal fantasy andwhat are needed instead are more prisons.We need to start by setting a target at governmentlevel so that as a country we become less unequal eachyear. We don’t need to do anything more radical thanmove towards becoming the same as the mediancountry in the OECD, which is the Netherlands. Look atcrime, victimhood and imprisonment rates there. Thisisn’t about socialist utopia it is just about notbeing/becoming the most unequal rich country in theworld. Aspiring to such a target would mean that youcan have rational hope for your children’s future if youare in the bottom half of the country economically. Ifpoliticians mean that and convince people that you meanthat, then the majority will rationally have a reason forworking hard and staying out of trouble. At the moment,if you at the bottom of society, or even in the middle,your chances aren’t very high of ‘doing well’ even if youdo those things you are supposed to do and instead youmight have a better chance if you behave badly.Think for a minute to how people might react uponhearing that some group of bankers in London are nowreceiving part of their bonuses out of the governmentwelfare budget for the profits they are making advisingtheir clients on investing in social impact bonds. I’m surethe bankers would be clever enough to find statisticalways to pretend that what they were investing in washaving a social impact. Making a profit is what they areemployed to do and if that involves diddling the tax payerout of money what’s the difference between that andconvincing someone to opt to move to a mobile phonetariff that actually costs them more but is also verycomplex? In short — you don’t get a better world bytrying to harness and encourage selfish instincts.JB: What do you see as the future prospects forthe UK in relation to poverty, wealth andinequality?DD: At the moment, for the super rich their holdingof assets and wealth are escalating in a way that theyhave never escalated before. Property rates are dividing ina way that they haven’t since at least the 1930s. Wecurrently have massive housing prices rises in the mostexpensive parts of London and dramatic house price fallsin poorer parts of Northern England. Inequality in wealthin particular is rising faster than at any point it has before.None of this was expected. Normally recessions bringabout a little more equality, at least in the short-term.This one hasn’t.I cannot see it carrying on for five or ten years likethis. It isn’t sustainable. I also don’t think people at thetop end of society want it to carry on like this. It is notpart of plan ‘A’. I suspect that we will start to movetogether if there is a second dip or a sustained stockmarket crash, in a similar way we did in the 1930s. It’snot necessarily a happy way for this to happen, but thatis my guess of where we are moving towards.We are currently living in strange times as concernsthe statistics on social, health and economic inequalitywhere things that have not happened for decades arehappening. We are currently a haven for the super rich ofthe world but that cannot continue for much longer as itdepends on how safe London is seen as a place to liveand a place to invest. It is hard to predict, though. Icouldn’t have predicted the crash in 2008 and theimmediate impression afterwards was that it would be agreat leveler, but actually it was the opposite.JB: What is next for you?DD: I am writing a short book discussing what isgood about living in a country that becomes slightlymore equal. I am writing about the benefits of achievinggreater equality. I am interested in describing the natureof the prize of beginning to reverse the growinginequality trend. It’s been such a long time sinceinequalities were last reduced in Britain that it sounds likerose-tinted reflection when people talk of the moreequitable past. A lot of people write about what is badabout inequality but there isn’t enough produced aboutwhat is good about equality. I’d like to focus on howmany aspects of your life, not least freedom, can beimproved by living in a place that is a little more equalthan Britain, such as freedom to chose what job youmight want to do, whether to have a job, where youwant to live. I am looking at the positive reasons tochange the direction in which we are moving at themoment. For people at the very top of society inparticular, those who think they could live in gatedestates in the future, I think they might not realise thatliving in gated estates is not as nice a life as living withother people where you have more in common and youdon’t have to be afraid. The rich are building high fencesaround their land and putting up gates at the entrancesof where they live. I think growing inequality reduceseveryone’s freedom, but quickly we become acclimatizedto being imprisoned in a particular way of living and canall too easily think that there is no alternative to evergrowing inequality.60 Prison Service JournalIssue 198

Purpose and editorial arrangementsThe Prison Service Journal is a peer reviewed journal published by HM Prison Service of England and Wales.Its purpose is to promote discussion on issues related to the work of the Prison Service, the wider criminal justicesystem and associated fields. It aims to present reliable information and a range of views about these issues.The editor is responsible for the style and content of each edition, and for managing production and theJournal’s budget. The editor is supported by an editorial board — a body of volunteers all of whom have workedfor the Prison Service in various capacities. The editorial board considers all articles submitted and decides the outlineand composition of each edition, although the editor retains an over-riding discretion in deciding which articlesare published and their precise length and language.From May 2011 each edition is available electronically from the website of the Centre for Crimeand Justice Studies. This is available at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/psj.htmlCirculation of editions and submission of articlesSix editions of the Journal, printed at HMP Leyhill, are published each year with a circulation of approximately6,500 per edition. The editor welcomes articles which should be up to c.4,000 words and submitted by email topsjournal@hotmail.com or as hard copy and on disk to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager, HMPLeyhill, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8HL. All other correspondence may also be sent to the Editorat this address or to psjournal@hotmail.com.Footnotes are preferred to endnotes, which must be kept to a minimum. All articles are subject to peerreview and may be altered in accordance with house style. No payments are made for articles.SubscriptionsThe Journal is distributed to every Prison Service establishment in England and Wales. Individual members ofstaff need not subscribe and can obtain free copies from their establishment. Subscriptions are invited from otherindividuals and bodies outside the Prison Service at the following rates, which include postage:United Kingdomsingle copy £5.00one year’s subscription £25.00 (organisations or individuals in their professional capacity)£18.00 (private individuals)Overseassingle copy £7.00one year’s subscription £35.00 (organisations or individuals in their professional capacity)£25.00 (private individuals)Orders for subscriptions (and back copies which are charged at the single copy rate) should be sent with acheque made payable to ‘HM Prison Service’ to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager, HMP Leyhill,Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8BT.Issue 198Prison Service Journal

PRISON SERVICEJOURNALThis edition includes:Perrie Lecture: The cost to prison legitimacy of cutsProfessor Alison LieblingPerrie Lecture: Reducing costs and maintaining valuesMichael SpurrRegulating Prison Strikes and Industrial ConflictAmy LudlowThe English Prison during the First and SecondWorld Wars: Hidden Lived Experiences of WarProfessor Yvonne Jewkes and Dr Helen JohnstonInterview: Danny DorlingJamie Bennett