Prison privatization
| Author | Alison Liebling,Guy Shefer |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895808092429 |
| Published date | 01 August 2008 |
| Date | 01 August 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
© 2008 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
and the British Society of Criminology.
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1748–8958; Vol: 8(3): 261–278
DOI: 10.1177/1748895808092429
Prison privatization:
In search of a business-like atmosphere?
G U Y S H E F E R A N D A L I S O N L I E B L I N G
University of Cambridge, UK, University of Cambridge,UK
Abstract
This article explores one interesting finding emerging from early
findings of studies comparing private and public prisons in the UK:
the relationship between prisoners and staff. These relationships
appear to be better in some private prisons than in the public
sector, at least during the early years of privatization. After presenting
these findings, the authors provide three possible explanations for
the positively evaluated prisoner–staff relationships in many private
prisons during these early years: first, an intentional focus on relaxed
and less formal regimes; second, the distinct balance of power
which is the outcome of more powerless and inexperienced staff
working in private prisons; and third, the legacy of a punitive
atmosphere which still persists in some public sector prisons.
While these findings do not constitute an argument in favour of
privatization, they provide an opportunity to be less romantic about
public sector values and practices, and more circumspect about the
dangers of imprisonment more generally.
Key Words
POA • prison • prison staff • prison staff attitudes • privatization
• public sector • staff–prisoner relationships
Introduction
Some have called the privatization of prisons in the UK (and elsewhere) ‘the
penal experiment of the century’ (James et al., 1997: 3). As in other fields,
when conducting a major experiment, the results can be surprising and may
2 6 1
262
Criminology & Criminal Justice 8(3)
differ from our original expectations. In some cases, these unexpected out-
comes can be more meaningful or important than those originally hoped for.
In this article, we discuss one such unexpected outcome of the prison privat-
ization experiment. We try to explain how, although many proponents of
privatization relied primarily on cost and effectiveness arguments (and the
few that anticipated some improvement in the quality of prisoner–staff rela-
tionships, did not expect very dramatic changes), early findings indicate that
staff–prisoner relations may be a significant factor distinguishing prisons
under public and private management in the UK. In the early years of this so-
called experiment, a surprising number of findings indicate that many
(although not all) private prisons significantly outperform traditional public
sector prisons in the areas of staff attitudes, and levels of fairness, respect and
humanity towards prisoners (James et al., 1997; Liebling, 2004; and later).
These findings should be read with caution. It is not clear how wide-
spread this feature is, or whether it is long-term. Few systematic and socio-
logical evaluations of private sector prisons have been conducted.1 There is
a reason to believe that it is not a universal phenomenon. In the USA, there
is evidence showing that prisoner–staff relationships in private prisons can
go very wrong (Friedmann, 2003; Parenti, 2003). It is possible that this is a
characteristic of the early years of privatization and things might look very
different when budgetary considerations become more pressing and state
regulation and monitoring less tight. In the latter case, we might find that
private prisons that perform poorly are worse than the poorest public sec-
tor prisons (see, for example, NAO, 2003). It is also important to note that
overfamiliar or close staff–prisoner relationships take their toll in other
dimensions of prison life (see later).
Finally, even if similar findings emerge in the future, it is arguable that
this apparent distinction says more about the defects of the traditional pub-
lic sector prison system than about the advantages of privatization per se.
Nevertheless, even when taking the above points into consideration, the
positive findings are too significant to be left unnoticed or unexplored. In
this article, we provide the first step in such an exploration.
Although the point about staff–prisoner relationships may be linked to
questions of the legitimacy of privatization (see Sparks, 1994; James et al.,
1997: 138; and later), this article will not focus primarily on questions of
legitimacy, on ‘less visible instrumental practices’ of privatization (Liebling,
2004: 117) or on other dimensions of quality that are relevant to prison life
(Logan, 1992; Liebling, 2004; and see conclusions later). Instead, this article
will focus exclusively on the question of whether, and if so why, staff– prisoner
relationships are ‘better’ in private than in public sector prisons. Here, ‘better’
means rated more positively by prisoners. There are complex issues here,
which we highlight at the end. Such a narrow focus may provide only a small
contribution both to the broad private–public sector debate and to the under-
standing of life in prison. This is so specifically when the correlation between
well-disposed staff and quality of life in prison is not necessarily wholly positive.
There may be a negative correlation between ‘good’ (close) staff–prisoner
Shefer & Liebling––Prison privatization
263
relationships and other aspects of prison life that are crucial for prisoners and
the staff such as: bullying and threats by other prisoners, security (escapes),
and issues of order and control, drug abuse, self-harm and suicide, and staff
satisfaction and/or stress about their job. We will discuss some of these issues
below. However, it cannot be disputed that staff–prisoner relationships are a
central aspect of prison life and exploring their nature and quality in the pri-
vatization context can provide us with significant insights into prison regimes
and prison life at the beginning of the 21st century.
Privatization and staff–prisoner relationships
The previous experience of privatization in the late 19th and early 20th cen-
tury in the USA was not known for its high level of humane or respectful
treatment of prisoners. Under the labour leasing arrangements, prisoners
were exploited, and were subject to conditions of neglect and brutality that
were not far from slavery (Ryan and Ward, 1989; Shichor, 1995; Hallett,
2006). Although many years have passed since, the private sector is still sus-
pected of having ‘selfish profit motives’ that will overcome any quality
improvement considerations (Harding, 2001: 282). Commentators have sug-
gested that ‘[I]t is naïve to imagine that a for-profit enterprise will regulate
itself morally’ (Liebling, 2004: 480), and ‘the private sector is more interested
in doing well than in doing good’ (Robbins, 1988: 4; see also James et al.,
1997: 8). It is therefore not surprising that: ‘[I]mproving prisons and correc-
tions regimes was not overtly prominent in US debates about privatization.
Improvement was seen as a possible and desirable, but not essential, by-product
of better and more cost effective management’ (Harding, 2001: 272). This is
more salient if we refer to improvements in staff–prisoner relations (although
exceptions exist, see later), rather than the (also important) issues of improv-
ing sanitary and medical conditions, overcrowding and other visible features
of prison life. Although there are some differences between the privatization
process in the UK and the USA (see Jones and Newburn, 2005), the above
analysis of the US privatization experiment is relevant to the UK. Neither the
practical problems that led to the decision to privatize some adult prisons nor
the ideological reasons that were raised to support this move were signifi-
cantly concerned with effecting an improvement in staff–prisoner relation-
ships. This was not the main or primary aim. The practical and ideological
problems that drove the system towards privatization in the USA and in the
UK included insufficient resources, funding and management expertise (or
power) to reduce operational costs, overcoming union resistance to changing
working practices, and the need to execute a massive programme of con-
struction of new prisons required to resolve over-crowding caused by the
growth of prisoner populations (Harding, 2001: 269–73). There was also, in
the UK, an explicit loss of faith in the public sector’s ability to do anything
efficiently or well. Although improvements to prison regimes are mentioned
as goals by some scholars (see Liebling, 2004: 97), efforts appeared to be
264
Criminology & Criminal Justice 8(3)
directed at the more visible, easily measured features of the regime (e.g. num-
ber of prisoners per cell, sanitary conditions and hours unlocked) rather than
at staff treatment of prisoners. Neither did the ideological motivation for pro-
moting the privatization of prisons have much to do with hopes for better
attitudes towards prisoners. The Thatcher government that privatized the
first adult prison in 1992, gained a reputation for being tough on crime
(Gamble, 1994: 35; James et al., 1997: 37), not for being concerned with lack
of respect to prisoners by staff. A Green Paper that discussed the options for
private sector involvement in prisons stated that the objectives of the privat-
ization would be: ‘Making additional remand accommodation’, ‘reducing
costs’, ‘releasing prison and police manpower for work which make better
use of their skills’, and these had to take place under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial