Staff culture, use of authority and prisoner quality of life in public and private sector prisons
| Author | Ben Crewe,Susie Hulley,Alison Liebling |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Published date | 01 April 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865810392681 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
44(1) 94–115
!The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865810392681
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Staff culture, use of authority
and prisoner quality of life
in public and private
sector prisons
Ben Crewe, Alison Liebling and Susie Hulley
University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Drawing on data collected in five private sector and two public sector prisons, this article
highlights the complex relationship between prison staff culture and prisoner quality of life.
Specifically, it explores the link between the attitudes of prison staff and their behaviour,
particularly in terms of their use of authority, and seeks to explain the somewhat paradoxical
finding that those prisons rated most positively by prisoners were those in which staff were
least positive about their own working lives and most negativein their views of prisoners. The
article highlights the importance of experience and competence, as well as attitudes, in
determining how authority is exercised and experienced in prison. It also draws attention
to the different kinds of staff cultures that exist both between and within the public and
private sectors.
Keywords
authority, officer culture, prison privatization, prison staff
As Liebling (2007a) contends, prison staff cultures vary considerably, and these varia-
tions have significant consequences for the quality of life of prisoners: a crucial difference
between prisons is ‘the way in which power is used, and how this feels’ (Liebling, 2007a:
117; emphasis in original). Based on a 30-month study comparing quality of life and
practices in public and private sector prisons in England, this article highlights the
complex relationship between the attitudes of prison staff and their behaviour, particu-
larly in relation to their use of authority – a key determinant of the prisoner experience
and the wider legitimacy of criminal justice agencies (Sparks et al., 1996; and see Tyler,
1990).
One of the aims of the introduction of private sector competition in England and
Wales, and in Australia, was to develop staff cultures that were more positive, respectful
and rehabilitative than those that existed in the public sector (Harding, 2001;
Corresponding author:
Dr Ben Crewe, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 9DA, UK
Email: ben.crewe@crim.cam.ac.uk
Moyle, 1995). Previous studies suggest that this aim has in many places been realized, in
part through the recruitment of staff with no prior experience of (public sector) prison
work. Moyle (1995) found unusually progressive staff attitudes in Borallon, the privately
run Australian prison, while Newbold (2007: 225) describes being ‘struck by the profes-
sionalism, dedication and enthusiasm’ of the employees of Auckland Central Remand
prison in New Zealand. Reporting on the UK, Shefer and Liebling (2008: 262) note that
‘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,
levels of fairness, respect and humanity towards prisoners’ (see also James et al., 1997;
Liebling assisted by Arnold, 2004; National Audit Office (NAO), 2003). Such findings
challenge the view that officer culture is invariably cynical, authoritarian, distrustful of
prisoners and resistant to change as a functional response to the nature of prison work
(see, for example, Crouch and Marquant, 1980; Lombardo, 1985).
However, an equally important aim of the privatization ‘experiment’ has been to
decrease the costs of imprisonment (Harding, 2001; Moyle, 1994). This has meant redu-
cing staff expenditure in ways that can undermine attempts to run legitimate regimes.
While heavily unionised and generously staffed prisons often have rather traditional,
regressive cultures, with negative consequences for prisoners, the ‘immiseration of work-
ing conditions’ (Taylor and Cooper, 2008: 26) brought about by prison privatisation can
lead to negative consequences for both prisoners and staff. For example, Cooper and
Taylor (2004, 2005) argue that, in driving down labour costs in HMP Kilmarnock
(Scotland), the conditions of staff were degraded ‘to such an extent that the public
interest was undoubtedly compromised’ (Taylor and Cooper, 2008: 7). A poor-quality
and inexperienced workforce, low staffing (and staffing shortfalls), and problems with
recruitment, training and retention undermined the safety and well-being of prisoners
and staff, and created a threat to institutional order.
Similar problems with staffing levels and staff inexperience have been identified in
other private prisons in the UK and Australia, in reports by independent prison inspec-
torates (e.g. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) 2002, 2005, 2007a) and in
academic and official studies (Home Affairs Committee 1997; James et al., 1997; Moyle,
1995; NAO, 2003; Rynne et al., 2008; although see Hatry et al., 1993). Rynne et al.
(2008: 124) describe staff inexperience as having ‘compounded’ a serious prison distur-
bance in Queensland, Australia. James et al.’s (1997) evaluation of HMP Wolds, the first
privately managed prison in England and Wales, found staff attitudes that were more
humane, and staff-prisoner relationships that were more positive, than in a comparable
public sector prison. However, staff complained of ‘a sense of powerless and vulnera-
bility related to understaffing’ (Shefer and Liebling, 2008: 267), and their low numbers,
inexperience and lack of confidence led to high levels of bullying and assaults, and other
problems linked to their general lack of ‘jailcraft’. The implication is that even when staff
attitudes are positive, the nature of private sector staffing means that the prisoner
experience is not necessarily any better. In some private prisons, staff–prisoner relation-
ships are ‘good’ (rather than ‘right’) because staff feel overwhelmed and intimidated by
prisoners (Liebling assisted by Arnold, 2004).
Logan’s (1992) comparison of women’s prisons in New Mexico, USA, provides a
further puzzle. The staff survey data consistently pointed to superior quality in the
private prison, but prisoners rated the state-run prison more positively: ‘Obviously,
Crewe et al. 95
To continue reading
Request your trial