Identifying a successful prison Internationally
Kotahi ano te kohao hei urunga atu mo te miro må, te miro whero me te miro pango.
The white, the red and the black threads are drawn together through the single eye
of the needle.
There is relevant knowledge that can be gained from different fields of academic research. The fields of Criminology and Justice provide the bulk of custodial specific research literature, but Mann highlights how both psychology and OD professions also have very important contributions to make to culture change in prisons. This review draws on research from different primary academic disciplines including: Criminology and Justice; Organisational Development (including Workplace Quality; Safety) and Systems Thinking.
Since the inception of the modern penal system, function of and effectiveness of prisons has been debated, criticized or researched. It is outside the scope of this paper to cover the topic in detail, but to mention a few notable examples.
Internationally recognised activists for prison reform include John Howard (1726 - 1790), Stephen Grellet (1772 - 1855) and Elizabeth Fry (1780 - 1845). De Beaumont and De Tocqueville provide an example of historical academic research. In Scotland, William Brebner 1783 - 1845 was a prison governor who also became a recognised prison reformer. In the late 19th Century, acclaimed Russian novelists Dostyevsky wrote ‘Crime and Punishment’ (1866) and Tolstoy wrote ‘Resurrection’ (1899) questioning the morality of prisons and punishment based justice.
More recently, a number of authors studying positive outcomes in prison have also provide cautionary notes against incarceration. Van Ginneken noted in conclusion to her 2016 article, that “There is a danger that even a cautious suggestion of imprisonment as a positive experience for some people in some circumstances will be taken as an argument in favour of incarceration. This would be unwarranted and undesirable, given the well-documented harmful effects of separation, isolation, and institutionalisation. Crewe and Levins have echoed the sentiment, arguing how their work into the reinventive power of prisons for a minority of people is not a defence of imprisonment. Ugilvik has noted in his study into the power of trust in prison that if anything, criminal justice system involvement often leads to misrecognition and disempowerment, weakening desistance processes, rather than enabling trust and positive change.
Cautionary disclaimer
Likewise, this paper also includes a cautionary note acknowledging that it is not an endorsement of incarceration as an effective therapeutic enabler, given the well-documented harmful effects of separation, isolation, and institutionalisation. This paper should not be interpreted to imply that prison is an effective solution to issues of justice in modern society, instead we’d argue that it highlights them and in many cases it also reinforces them. Identifying ways to make a custodial facility more wellbeing oriented should not stop us exploring the alternative contexts in which reinvention might occur or looking for ways to reduce the need for prisons overall. That said, prisons are a long standing feature of the justice system so it makes sense to find ways to improve them until better options are employed.
Rehabilitation Programmes - the What Works Debate
Over the course of the 20th century there was considerable debate about the role and function of prisons. Prior to the 1970’s, rehabilitation - in the form of human service treatment, was widely accepted as a legitimate goal of correctional operations. However the 1970’s saw conflicting research around the competing goals of rehabilitation and punishment. This is often referred to as the ‘what works / nothing works’ debate, spurred by the regularly cited 1974 paper by John Martinson: ‘What Works? – Questions and Answers about Prison Reform’. Martinson reviewed studies of prison rehabilitative programmes and concluded that offender treatment was largely ineffective. Martinsons results were challenged and an increasing body of research since proved otherwise (Andrews and Bonta, Bonta and Cullen & Gendreau’s) about the effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation.
New Zealand Corrections and criminologists have also been part of this debate. In the late 1980s, New Zealand developed two residential treatment programmes for serious offenders that were considered highly innovative at the time and blended together the strengths of structured cognitive behavioural group programmes and therapeutic community approaches. Since the mid-1990s this hybrid model – advocated as a fruitful direction for future offender programme development – was adopted and further refined for use in New Zealand's four high-risk special treatment units (HRSTUs). Greg Newbold, on the other hand, is a NZ Criminologist who became a proponent of the ‘nothing works’ philosophy. In his 2007 book ‘The Problem With Prisons’ he argued that if we judge rehabilitation success on today’s 86% reconviction rate it proves that modern “prisons do not work” and offers no possible solutions.
Andrews and Bonta argue the counter perspective to the same situation, and in particular promoting a risk specific treatment oriented approach. They argue that "there is a need for promotion of the development of agencies that offer clinically appropriate services" Their general argument is that broad structural interventions (i.e. social services and functions - like a Correctional service) must “reach down and impact on individuals in their immediate situations of action”. But they also acknowledge that there may be other pathways, stating that "the only morally and politically acceptable alternative to this position is to assume that the agencies will work toward organizing the [users] into political units that can exercise power in ways supportive of their prosocial interests”.
Through the 21st century though, the evidence supporting successful approaches has grown significantly. Day noted in 2012 that rehabilitation of prisoners and offenders had re-emerged internationally as one of the primary goals of correctional agencies in all Western countries. Harding argues that, even though much of the evidence is lateral and tangential, that there is now an enormous literature on ‘What Works’ and that rehabilitation programmes that do achieve positive outcomes are now well-validated. He argues that we can now identify with a good degree of reliability what programs work, in relation to which offenders, whether adult or juvenile, at what stage of their sentences, in prison or in the community and with what proportion of false negatives or false positives. Polaschek et al conclude that research on correlates of intervention programmes that reduce expected reconviction rates has been highly influential in criminal justice systems throughout much of the western world.
The impact of daily prison life on outcomes
Ugilvik has acknowledged that although prisons are often described as places of pain, despair and hopelessness, studies show that some prisoners, under certain conditions, do report positive life changes happening in prison. Crewe and Ievins (2019) also highlight the challenge of the competing outcomes identifying how some prisoners do experience prisons as arenas where positive change is possible but that, even at the best of times, a strong tension exists between reinvention and the prison’s other more control-oriented objectives, such as punishment, public protection and containment, which are likely to directly contravene or inhibit processes of change.
Much of the literature about outcomes from prison has focussed on the effects of rehabilitation programmes. Liebling and others have challenged the “deep freeze hypothesis” (whereby day to day prison life itself is described as having little or no influence on outcomes) and have confirmed that a positive social climate in prison correlates to a wide range of positive outcomes for prisoners, staff and wider society compared to a negative social climate.
The performance of the ‘Scandinavian penal system is often highlighted in the literature as exceptionally positive. Pratt has identified that ‘Scandinavian Exceptionalism’ does not just refer to exceptionally low imprisonment and recidivism rates in these countries but also the humane prison conditions, highlighting that in this region, conditions of daily life approximate to life outside as far as possible, rather than being allowed to degrade and debase all within because simply going to prison itself is recognised as the punishment for crime.
What is Prison Social Climate in relation to daily-life?
The meaning of ‘climate’ has been pioneered and debated in many different organisational settings including Education and Health through the 20th century. There is no comprehensive and generally agreed definition of social climate in the custodial context but most authors agree that it is a multi-dimensional construct. It has been defined as the environment, social culture, interpersonal interactions and relationships that are distinctive to the organisation as perceived by those who live and work there and as “the material, social, and emotional conditions of a given unit and the interaction between such factors”. Crewe, Leibling and Hulley (2011) identified that prisoner experiences are shaped by factors such as prison design, material conditions and staff behaviour in determining the quality of prison life for prisoners. Ugilvik (2020) highlights that the architecture of prisons, their regimes, rules and regulations, and the ever-present dividing line between prisoners and officers all contribute to creating a low-trust environment in most prisons. This situation also profoundly shapes the relationship between individual prisoners and members of staff. But he also then acknowledges the impact or those individual relationships themselves, acknowledging that the experience of being trusted by staff can act as a powerful catalyst for desistance and his research clearly shows that relationships between prisoners and prison staff can play a significant, even life-changing, role in assisting desistance processes.
The most recognised ‘daily life’ evaluation tools include the Essen climate evaluation schema, as well as Leiblings Moral Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) and Staff Quality of Life (SQL) tools. An example of a more recently developed tool is the Dutch Prison Climate Questionnaire (PCQ) published in 2020. The value of these tools in measuring the social climate of prisons has come to include use as indicators of the decency of conditions and also as a management tools. This paper does not aim to provide a comprehensive review of the theory and associated evaluation processes for Prison Social Climate but it does aim to acknowledge it as a recognised and relevant concept. Research identifies that imprisonment itself can be a cause of crime. But imprisonment is also a part of existing justice practice so there is value in understanding when and how the social climate can influence different outcomes.
Prison Social Climate & Recidivism Rehabilitation
Harding has concluded that even in the absence of a rigorous quasi-experimental demonstration, the effect of recidivism rehabilitation programs become more effective when delivered within a prison that has a positive social climate, compared to one that does not. Auty and Leibling have identified how prisons that are decent and well organized, which treat prisoners with humanity, are safe, helpful and well policed then lead to better outcomes for prisoners. Narey & Day have further confirmed the effect of daily prison unit life on recidivism and programme outcomes, concluding that even the best-designed and delivered programs can not effect significant change on participants when learnings are not reinforced in daily prison life outside of the programs room (the designated physical spaces where therapy/rehabilitation is carried out). They show how features of institutional life, particularly in prisons, may work against engagement in therapeutic programs in some cases and that the services are thus ‘unready’ [to deliver effective treatment], implying that Prison Social Climate should be prioritised over rehabilitation programme delivery.
The relationship of Prison Social Climate to Mental Health and Health Care
Where the orientation of staff towards inmates is relatively supportive, inmates perceive their circumstances as more positive. Respectful treatment by staff (as perceived by inmates) is found to be highly correlated with various dimensions of prison life including distress and perceptions of humanity. In relation to healthcare specifically “positive prison climates facilitated interactions between correctional and health care staff and prisoners, while in negative climates correctional staff acted as a filter or barrier between inmates and health services”, furthermore the overall climate in relation to health care is dependant on the overall climate of care for the welfare of inmates because access to health care is mediated through wing staff. Correctional officers are gatekeepers for entry to the health care system .
In further research, the provision of mental health training to correctional officers has been associated with a decline in use of force and violence. Training for Corrections Officers specifically related to mental illness has also been associated with more positive perceptions of people in prison with mental health disorders, where as emotional exhaustion and depersonalization has predicted poorer perceptions.
Prison Social Climate and aggression and violence
Prison riots, disturbances and general disorder are an important issue facing prison administrators and a prison’s social climate is likely to be of critical importance in determining the level of disorder that occur. Social climate is significantly correlated with staff readiness to use force against prisoners. A range of situational social climate factors, including prison management, impact on institutional violence and a the greater the percentage of prisoners that attended programs relating to education, vocational training and industry, the lower the rates of prisoner–staff assaults. Interpersonal structures within organisations that allow groups to be pitted against each other can create an atmosphere of suspicion, rivalry and competition leading intergroup hostility, resentment and aggression and the opposite occurs where groups are allowed to identify shared goals and work alongside each other to achieve these.
Griffin found that expressed readiness to use force is influenced differentially by the three dimensions of climate and that individual characteristics of officers do not affect the expressed readiness to use force. In particular, showing that officers who felt that they had higher levels of authority were less ready to use force while also showing that other aspects of the climate (e.g. alienation, institutional operations, organisational support, role ambiguity and training) were not found to have a significant effect. Prisons do need to be proactively managed for security and can ill afford chaos or dis-organisation. It is the way organisations are managed that raises problems. The prime issue is not one of personnel (the type of people in managerial roles) but the way they are being required to manage – it is a systemic issue.
Prison Social Climate and the wellbeing of Custodial Officers and other staff
There is a body of research that identifies wellbeing issues for Custodial Officers as a general occupation. Trounsen and others have identified that “correctional officers perceive a significantly heightened level of work-related environmental adversity compared to those working in other general community occupations and akin to those working in police and emergency service sectors” and “can experience higher prevalence of negative physical and psychological consequences”. Correctional officers tend to engage in significant levels of absenteeism and other related, negative behaviors as well as have one of the highest occupational stress and burn-out rates of any profession .
Leibling and others have explored the relative impact of different contributing factors, but it is often noted that there is comparatively less empirical investigation relating to the effects of different prison social climate or environmental factors on those who elect to pursue a career as a corrections officer . Organizational structure and climate of correctional institutions has been identified as having the most consistent relationship with COs’ job stress and burnout, highlighting the relevance of interventions that improve communication between management and COs. Higher ratings of prison climate have been associated with higher levels of team climate, job satisfaction and the functionality of the organizational structure. Harsh physical conditions have been found to correspond to significant problems for staff across a variety of outcomes including staff physical and psychological symptomatology above and beyond individual-level effects. Staff’s perceptions of prison conditions has been shown to be relevant and also congruent with that of inmates. Factors influencing work-stress can also include heavy workload, extra shifts without compensation, and low salary.
Ross, Leibling and Tate’s 2011 study into The Relationships of Prison Climate to Health Service in Correctional, suggested that health care staff themselves may be influenced by prison climate and further data from a suicide prevention evaluation suggested several links between prison culture and health care provision highlighting how Custodial and health care staff were mutually dependent, whereby ealth care staff depend on officers to unlock prisoners on time for appointments and medication, and the application system involves officers directly with access.
Prison social climate and Corruption
We haven't found extensive research on links between prison social climate and corruption. That said, McCarthy (1984) identified that “a major incentive results from defects in the prison organization's control structure.” and further highlighted prison social climate factors that “undermine the formal control structure of the prison” including “friendships with inmates, reciprocal relationships, and staff reliance on inmates to perform certain staff duties”. McCarthy concluded that “Controlling corruption requires a commitment by correctional administrators to improve and upgrade the general correctional environment, particularly the working conditions for staff; to protect employees from political pressures; and to replace a tendency toward complacency with a concern for accountability”.
Summary of outcomes specific literature
This paper clearly shows how social climate can make a significant difference to individuals, a community or an organisation. There are a combination of factors and outcomes that are both competing and complementary but are certainly intertwined. Diagram GZ provides a simple summary visualisation to illustrate the interwoven nature of relationships between social climate factors and outcomes identified in this section.
Research projects have the luxury of being able to study individual causal factors or individual outcomes (like recidivism, violence or staff safety) but the functional parts of the Justice system like prisons, probation services or the police will always need to serve the needs of multiple stakeholder groups along with a range of different outcomes concurrently.
Andrews and Bonta highlight that “The challenge for correctional agencies is great (for promoting human service oriented practice). Not only must correctional workers and managers be brought into contact with 'What works' they must be trained in the skills that effective support requires - and supported in the practice of those skills.” Beedon further identifies how “the extent of the organisational challenge in explaining that prison leaders and managers are attempting to do the impossible and balance competing priorities in the light of a proliferation of objectives and tasks which go way beyond [their] functional and financial capacity to deliver”.
There is a strong argument for taking an integrated systems approach and addressing social climate as a whole.
Describing the features of a prison unit with a positive social climate
In recent decades a number of different general models of prison performance have developed internationally. In conversation Sir Kim Workman has indicated how the German Prison system is acknowledged as having very strong commitment to Human Rights and how the Belgium system is recognised for its commitment to restorative justice.
Pratt and others have identified how Scandinavian countries are recognised internationally for their progressive approaches, combining low rates of imprisonment and humane prison conditions, often described as ‘Scandinavian penal exceptionalism. Pratt also compares the features of their prison systems to ‘anglo-phile systems of the UK, NZ and Australia. Ugilvik acknowledges that Prisons internationally are often risk-oriented by default and asks ‘Why are Norwegian prison officers sometimes willing to take a chance and trust prisoners? and hypothesises that the professional culture of Norwegian prison officers might be more future- and change-oriented than is the case in such cultures elsewhere, making decisions more legitimate.
WHO has published a model of 'Healthy Prisons' based on public health standards - although this has a limited orientation towards only health outcomes and as such is primarily focussed on prison health system performance. Similarly, the Correctional Program Evaluation Inventory (1990) and CPAI (1996) are examples of frameworks designed to enable the evaluation and continuous improvement of Corrections Initiatives. But they are designed to assess Treatment Programmes rather than daily life within a custodial facility. The difference being that a treatment programme is purely rehabilitation focussed and might be offered within or outside of a custodial facility where-as daily life within a custodial facility is forced upon a resident as a result of delivery of a criminal sentence.
Re-inventive institutions
The idea of reinventive institutions has recently been raised in the literature. Crewe and Ievins have proposed the idea of ‘reinventive institutions’ and do not aim to describe a specific type of a prison that might is ‘reinventive’ as such, although they do acknowledge Therapeutic Community models but instead simply explore individual prisoners claims and experiences of positive growth and change during imprisonment. Leibling has argued that a reinventive institution is one that balances a suitable risk awareness with an appropriate focus on positive change and mutual trust, which then leads to a combined impact from all these ‘good ingredients’ working together effectively. UIgilvik argues that the experience of being trusted by staff can act as a powerful catalyst for ‘reinventive institutions’. That a prison operating with reinventive qualities would be one where processes of change, when they happen, are recognized and supported and where change in some ways may take priority over control. In practice, this would seem to entail a certain level of mutual trust between prisoners and staff.
United Nations Mandela Rules
The United Nations has identified The Mandela Rules as a ‘common denominator’. The rules are not intended to describe in detail a model system of penal institutions. They seek only to set out what is generally accepted as being good principles and practice in the treatment of prisoners and prison management. There are 122 rules and they give guidance on all aspects of prison management, from admission and classification to the prohibition of torture and limits on solitary confinement. Within the Mandela rules there are:
RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION which include a set of Basic Principles incorporating five rules covering up to 12 different points (See summary table below) and 21 other General Rules such as Prisoner File Management, Accommodation, Food, Health-care services, Contact with the outside world, Books, Religion, Notifications and Investigations.
There are also further RULES APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF PRISONERS:
Enabling Environments Standards
The Enabling Environment Standards are a UK framework that was developed for psychiatric ‘Therapeutic Communities’ facilities and then adapted for prison based Therapeutic community’s. The framework ‘aims to bridge older distinctions between clinical and non-clinical settings, to develop a single common core vocabulary, applicable across a range of agency and service environments, for those factors in the social and community “dimension” which are believed to be positive for health and wellbeing. This has been done by identifying a common core of key principles and value statements which underpin all such attempts to establish quality services which foster productive relationships and promote good mental health.
Democratic Therapeutic Communities (DTCs)
Also from the UK, Bennett and Shuker have presented another similar model based on Custodial facilities that operate as Democratic Therapeutic Communities. They highlight how the notion of a positive Social Climate is central to the DTC approach including social arrangements and relationships as the basis for change. They emphasize that the DTC method has been successfully implemented in prison settings in England and that aspects of DTC regimes with most potential benefit to wider prison practice is in relation to positive social climates. (refer box TX)
Box TX: Elements of DTC practice
Rehabilitative Framework
Dr Ruth Mann et al (2018 and 2019) have outlined another evidence-based framework for a ‘rehabilitative culture’ for UK prisons. The framework identifies seven categories of features; hope, leadership, fairness, reward, relationships and physical environment (Ref table X).
Table X – Features of a rehabilitative culture
Mann further identifies that the benefits for all stakeholders (including staff) of a rehabilitative culture far outweigh the demands, including that; recidivism rates are considerably lower; rehabilitative prisons are safer; focusing on rehabilitation as the ultimate goal of imprisonment does not distract leaders and staff from cleanliness and safety - rather it enhances their achievements; and, rehabilitative work has been found to be associated with a source of meaning, lower levels of stress and greater job satisfaction for staff, than a more punitive culture.
Improvements in prison systems are not unique to Europe. Punta de Rieles is one latin American example of an aspirational ‘model’ prison from Uruguay. Punta de Rieles is a progressive "open" prison just outside the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo. "It's recognized locally and internationally as a model prison which offers opportunities you don't find anywhere else."
Dominican Republic Centers for Correction and Rehabilitation (CCRs)
Pierce provides an overview of the prison reform process in the Dominican Republic and describes features of a New Prison Model ‘Centers for Correction and Rehabilitation (CCRs)’ that have been seeded and established over two decades now. The study details how the reform programme started as a pilot in one facility in 2004 and then expanded gradually, through an ongoing process of prison reform over fifteen years, to include over 22 facilities by 2019, equating to ⅓ of the national prison network.
The research describes the significant features of these prisons, including the core features of CCR’s outlines below (note that this is not an exhaustive summary), whereby:
Looking out at wider literature; in the field of Organisational Development Liberati et al (2020) explained that the search for the features of exceptionally high-performing settings is now a uniting trait of several research fields, including those on high reliability organisations, safety engineering, safety II and resilient healthcare, and positive deviance approaches. Although they have emerged from somewhat different theoretical perspectives and have varying emphases, these literatures share several conceptual similarities. A consistent finding is that the forces that create positive conditions for safety may be at least partially invisible to those who create them because they remain tacit or habitualised: they require structured study to surface them.
With an aim of ‘reducing avoidable harm in maternity services’, Liberati identified that as well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ’what good looks like’. Through multisite ethnography and stakeholder consultation, Liberati et al developed a framework for Seven Features of Safety in maternity units (Ref. Table V).
Table V
Within Aotearoa New Zealand health research Rolleston, MacDonald and Miskelly (2021) carried out a qualitative study exploring the concept of flourishing for whānau Māori (Māori families) and how this is enacted in their everyday lives. For this study they used a kaupapa Māori research approach. Through their work, eight main themes emerged which they depicted as ‘pou’ or markers that whānau (the families) considered intrinsic to flourishing
Uaratanga (values)
Whanaungatanga (kinship relationships)
Manaakitanga (support)
Hauora (health and wellbeing)
Whakapāwera (hardship)
Kai (food)
Tikanga (customs)
Hangarau (technology)
Summary and critique of different feature sets
In summary, all models include a combination of “the material, social, and emotional conditions of a given unit and the interaction between such factors”, although when there is a step down to a further level of detail, all the frameworks have differences. Differences include that Mann’s rehabilitation model and CCRs put strong emphasis on the physical environment, whereas the DTC model only references ‘shared social spaces and open offices’ as a sub-feature. Mann’s model also specifically identifies the role of leadership while the DTC model does not. The Custodial models place strong emphasis on points relating to nurturing ‘self-identity’ and a sense of ‘hope’ which Liberati’s non-custodial models doesnt. The custodial models also put stronger emphasis on participative, or democratic, involvement of users (prisoners) in policy, rules and process. The DTC framework is the only one to specifically detail the need for an induction process of a few weeks, rather than days. The Dominican CCR model addresses issues of people sleeping on the floor which is understandable considering that it is not as significant an issue in other jurisdictions.
One size does not fit all - how local context influences the features, interactions and implementation
One size does not fit all! We need to be aware that there is no simple formula available which can be followed to guarantee exceptional outcomes, because how arrangements come to be present is specific to each country. Even at a more local level all sites are unique - they have different populations, staffing and needs, and have a different current culture. The objectives of a prison system vary over jurisdictions and may differ over time so any framework needs a set of features that is suited to the context it is meant to operate in.
Discussing the reform experience in the Dominican Republic, Pierce highlights that the process has not been straightforward, noting that prison reform is not a politically popular endeavor, that prison systems are complex institutions that do not change quickly and that the benefits of reform initiatives may occur long after a political cycle has passed. Tensions in the transition to the new model are highlighted including autonomy, flexibility and freedom to participate and influence rules and self-determination in certain dimensions of their lives. The research also highlights the unique history and context that influenced the framework for CCPs and the reform process, and the importance of local context. This is characterised by the following quote from Elias Carranza, a senior regional official “Before, when I would go to a government and say, ‘Look at what they’re doing in Switzerland,’ they’d say, ‘That’s a different world.’ But now I can say, ‘Look at the Dominican Republic [a more local example],’ and they listen.”
Neubacher, Lieblig and Kant explored whether research concepts and methods could transfer across cultures from England to Germany where prison legislation, concepts and language differ. They concluded that the concept and methodology of moral performance seem to travel well while things are more complicated when it comes to translation.
Local relationship dynamics have been identified as being important by Leibling et al whereby “in some UK prisons, staff are relatively happy because they are not challenged by their managers and are disengaged from prisoners. In others, they are stressed and uneasy because they are working hard to address prisoners’ needs”. There are different kinds of staff cultures that exist including somewhat paradoxical situations whereby those prisons rated most positively by prisoners were those in which staff were least positive about their own working lives and most negative in their views of prisoners. Furthermore prison staff cultures are not static, and they are shaped by local factors, such as the nature of the local employment sector, and the particular history and ethos of a prison.
The characteristics and needs of a local culture will influence the specific features and how they interact within an organisations operating model. An interesting more general example of this phenomenon comes from Professor Parissa Haghirian, an academic of international management at Tokyo’s Sophia University. She was interviewed for a story about why Japanese workplaces have not adopted remote working like many other cultures. She explains there are a lot of unspoken messages in the Japanese workplace – such as subtle body language cues or ‘reading the air’, which might steer the direction of a meeting – and these just couldn’t be examined on a screen. “In Japan, it’s always better to have a meeting in person than to write an email, because nonverbal communication plays a very important role,”
Within Custodial environments and prison networks in general, staffing levels is another important factor. The way in which prisons are resources, and then the way that those prison resources are organised and managed all contribute to influencing what operational features and styles of leadership are possible and whether relational interactions that foster human flourishing are possible. Compassion, construed as a deeply relational pro-active ‘seeing’, requires not only appropriate resources (so that there are enough staff with enough time and continuity of contact to offer quality interactions with prisoners) but also an institutional predisposition or organisational mode that fosters an attitude that every contact really does matter.
For a framework to be suited to any local context the range of local influences need to be taken into account. The interactions between the different operational features are as important as the choice of features themselves, and the suitability will be affected by a range of influences that are present within the local prison network context. A summary of general influences is visualized in Diagram S.
Liberati et al has also highlighted how that the interactions between the different features appears to be as important as the features themselves, concluding that features do not appear to act in isolation, each with independent effects; instead, every feature seems to interact with the next in a synergistic way, so what is seen at the level of the unit is the product of those interactions. No individual feature appears dispensable, and none on its own is sufficient. However, when all are present, they are likely to create a self-reinforcing cycle that promotes safety at a system level.
Bennett and Shuker acknowledge that it can be difficult to unpick or isolate specific elements of an integrated social system such as a DTC and that their model is not intended to be definitive. They highlight how their identified features cannot stand alone and that they have to be embedded within, or part of a general effort to create and sustain, a positive social climate and culture.
Finally, the 2022 evaluation of the NSW Rapid Build prison unit project, based on a purposefully established operational model, also highlighted the importance of the interaction between the individual features in enabling a positive Prison Social Climate. Their research confirmed how innovative features were seen to operate as an interconnected system rather than as independent components.
With this in mind, a logic model is provided (Fig LM) which accounts for these factors and shows relationship between the organisational inputs, a unit specific operational model (as seperate from associated therapeutic interventions being delivered), prison social climate as a mediating outcome, and three layers of outcomes. The model shows how the unit specific operating model directly influences the resulting Prison Social Climate. By understanding and providing locally relevent features and requirements for the operating model it would be possible to positively influence prison social climate.
Summary
It’s reasonable to assume that within any Custodial network there are some residential units that have managed and continued to perform well and achieve better outcomes even within this constant disruption. Can we learn from parts of our system, already performing well, to help seed and drive improvements across other areas and systems?
To understand how to move forward and change, there is a strong argument for producing descriptions of ‘what good looks like’ that are specific to their particular areas of operation, rather than operating at the level of generality.
This paper also presents a strong argument that where possible, these descriptions should be ‘user oriented’ and based on combination of issues, risks and outcomes that the operation needs to deal with concurrently. It is important that prisons consider their own approach to culture change, as all sites are unique — they have different populations, staffing and needs, and have different current cultures. Cultural change is not a quick or easy task.
No comments:
Post a Comment