Reform, Resistance and Managerial Clawback: The Evolution of ‘Reform Prisons’ in England
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12290 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | JAMIE BENNETT |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 1. March 2019 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12290
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 45–64
Reform, Resistance and Managerial
Clawback: The Evolution of ‘Reform
Prisons’ in England
JAMIE BENNETT
Governor, HMP Grendon & Springhill, Aylesbury; Research Associate,
University of Oxford
Abstract: In late modernity, prison policy and practice have been characterised as being
structured by punitiveness and managerialism. Recent research on prison reform has
focused on the pervasiveness of punitiveness, but the resilience of managerialism is equally
important in understanding contemporary penality. The creation of ‘reform prisons’ in
England, offered an attempt to reimagine managerialism, where prison managers would
act with greater autonomy, freed up from centralised policy prescription and monitoring
of compliance. The article explores how this reform developed in practice. Particular
attention is paid to the retreat from the original intentions and the emergence of a
counter-reformation, reasserting the centralised, managerial hegemony. It is concluded
that while attention has been paid to punitiveness, the existence of a carceral habitus,
and the process of carceral clawback, managerialism also plays a central role in shaping
contemporary penality, and it is important to draw attention to a managerial habitus and
managerial clawback.
Keywords: managerialism; occupational culture; prison management; prison
policy; reform prison
Following the general election in the UK in 2015, the first Conservative ma-
jority government was returned to power since 1997. Former Secretary of
State for Education, Michael Gove, was appointed as Secretary of State for
Justice and immediately launched a significant strategic shift in the man-
agement of prisons. In contrast to the ‘very tight, centrally set criteria’ laid
down for prison governors, Gove called for a new policy of increased ‘oper-
ational autonomy and genuine independence’ as well as ‘greater freedom’
(Gove 2015). This approach drew heavily upon the expansion of academy
schools, which operated with greater financial and operational indepen-
dence, and which had been a centrepiece of Gove’s tenure at Education
in the preceding Conservative-Liberal coalition government (2010–14). In
May 2016, he announced that four prison governors would lead six prisons
45
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol58 No 1. March 2019
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 45–64
as early adopters of the approach to ‘run[ning] prisons with the maximum
possible level of autonomy under current legislation’ (Gove 2016).
This article draws upon qualitative research conducted in one of the
early adopter ‘reform prisons’ in 2017, and is part of an ongoing series of
projects tracing the working lives of prison managers in England over the
last decade (Bennett 2015a, 2015b). The article will start by setting out the
context of prison management in late modernity, in particular the perva-
sive combination of punitiveness and managerialism. Detailed research on
prison management and reform have reached different empirical conclu-
sions about the predominance of these two strands. Prison management,
particularly in England, has been characterised by the encroachment of
managerialism, altering professional orientations, values and practice. In
contrast, research on prison reform, particularly from America, has drawn
attention to the endurance of punitiveness, which shapes policy and prac-
tice, and forms a barrier to progressive developments. The ‘reform prisons’
programme in England was particularly directed at prison management
and presented a challenge to managerial orthodoxy; as a result, it is di-
rectly engaged with, and raises questions about, the social embeddedness
and pervasiveness managerialism as a mode of governance and organising
logic within prisons.
The findings are set out in three primary themes: structure, culture,
and agency. The first theme relates to the changing organisational struc-
tures in which the ‘reform prison’ operated, in particular the evolving
policy context in which the meaning of reform and its scope was contested
and negotiated. The second theme relates to how the contested meaning
of reform was realised in management practice, examining the changes
that were implemented and how this evolved within the shifting context.
The third theme examines the individual approach or vision brought by
managers, and how this both differed from, and had continuities with,
other prisons. The article closes by drawing conclusions about the role of
managerialism in contemporary prisons, and how this shapes and influ-
ences attempts to achieve reform. Just as the American research on prison
reform has identified a deeply entrenched carceral habitus and a process
of carceral clawback that resists progressive reform, so this study high-
lights the existence of a managerial habitus and a process of managerial
clawback, which is also an important aspect of the contemporary penal
landscape.
Prison Reform and Prison Management in Late Modernity
This article is concerned with a concerted attempt at prison reform, taking
place within a particular institutional setting (prison managers and man-
agement) and situated in a broader social context (late modern England).
These three elements – late modernity, the occupational culture of prison
managers, and reform processes – warrant some elucidation and discussion
in order to lay the necessary groundwork for further analysis.
Late modernity refers to the distinctive patterns of social, economic
and cultural relations that emerged during the last third of the 20th
46
C
2018 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial