‘The prison don’t talk to you about getting out of prison’: On why prisons in England and Wales fail to rehabilitate prisoners
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Author | Annie Bunce,Karen Bullock |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895818800743 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2020, Vol. 20(1) 111 –127
‘The prison don’t talk to you
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
about getting out of prison’:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818800743
DOI: 10.1177/1748895818800743
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
On why prisons in England
and Wales fail to rehabilitate
prisoners
Karen Bullock
University of Surrey, UK
Annie Bunce
University of Surrey, UK
Abstract
The position of rehabilitation in prisons in England and Wales has long been debated. Yet
studies which consider how prisoners experience rehabilitative practices and processes are rare.
Drawing on prisoners’ accounts, this article considers their perceptions and lived experiences
of the ways in which rehabilitation is influenced by the nature of organizational support for
rehabilitation; the characteristics of interventions implemented to support rehabilitation; and
the complexion of the prison climate. We find the perception of an institutional failure to take
responsibility for rehabilitation. Rehabilitative interventions – notably Offender Management
Programmes (OMPS) and work placements – are perceived to be self-serving in rationale. They
are experienced as ill-resourced, superficial in approach and unlikely to engender change. The
prison climate, characterized by a lack of interest among correctional staff, lack of empathy and
concern, and mixed – but often impersonal and sometimes antagonistic – relationships between
prison staff and prisoners, further disrupts any ethos of rehabilitation. Theoretical and practical
implications are discussed.
Keywords
Climate, Offender Management Programmes (OMPS), prisons, rehabilitation, work placements
Corresponding author:
Karen Bullock, Professor in Criminology, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2
7XH, UK.
Email: k.bullock@surrey.ac.uk
112
Criminology & Criminal Justice 20(1)
Introduction
To punish or reform? This question regarding the purpose and function of the prison has
long been debated. Undoubtedly though, a place for rehabilitation can be found within
contemporary penal discourses in England and Wales (see, for example, MoJ, 2010,
2013b). However, despite rhetoric which stresses the desirability of the prison as a place
of reform and rehabilitation, official reports also draw attention to how as an institution
it is failing to embed the cultures, relational processes and practices that have been found
to facilitate effective implementation of rehabilitative regimes (CJJI, 2017; HMIPP,
2013, 2017; Robinson, 2008). Many studies have examined the social institution of the
prison documenting the forms, functions, power dynamics, mores and cultures, rela-
tional processes and factors that influence order within prisoner societies. They have
considered how prisoners adapt, the impact of the prison experience on prisoners, exam-
ined the ways that the prison environment exerts pressures or ‘pains’ on prisoners; how
institutional identities take shape, and how external forces affect the functioning and
culture of institutions (e.g. Clemmer, 1940; Crewe, 2009; Irwin and Cressey, 1962; King
and Elliott, 1977; Liebling and Arnold, 2004; Morris and Morris, 1963; Sparks et al.,
1996; Sykes, 1958). While inferences about the prospect for prisoner rehabilitation can
be drawn from these studies, they do not deal explicitly with how prisoners experience
rehabilitation in the prison. Indeed, studies which consider directly how prisoners experi-
ence rehabilitation are rare (Blagden et al., 2016).
This article draws on prisoner accounts to begin to fill this empirical gap. It considers
prisoners’ perceptions and lived experiences of the nature of organizational support for
rehabilitation, the characteristics of interventions provided to support rehabilitation
(notably Offender Management Programmes (OMPs) and work placements) and the
complexion of the prison climate. Taken together, we report a perception of an institu-
tional failure to take responsibility for prisoner rehabilitation, which is instead devolved
to the prisoners. Any institutional provision for rehabilitation is generally perceived by
prisoners to be self-serving in terms of its rationale and experienced as ill-resourced,
poorly conceived and superficial. As such, institutional provision was thought unlikely
to contribute to positive behaviour change. From the perspective of prisoners, the prison
climate – characterized by a lack of interest in rehabilitation among correctional staff,
lack of empathy and concern, and mixed but often impersonal and sometimes antagonis-
tic relationships between prisoners and correctional staff – disrupts any ethos of rehabili-
tation. We finish with reflecting on certain theoretical and practical implications. Before
developing our analysis, we situate the present study within the evolving position of
rehabilitation in penal policy and practice.
The Position of Rehabilitation in Penal Policy and Practice
Rehabilitation within prison policy
Buffeted by changes in social trends, competing political ideologies and conflicting
research evidence about effectiveness, the position of rehabilitation within the prison has
never been stable (see, for example, Cullen and Gendreau, 2001; Hollin, 2011). The 20th
century was characterized by the rise of a ‘rehabilitative ideal’ focusing on social welfare
Bullock and Bunce
113
and the psychological treatment of prisoners based on sociological and psychological
theories of behaviour (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001; Hollin, 2011). Promoted by a deep-
seated belief that the state could, and should, intervene to improve the lives of citizens,
and belief in the power of professionals to engender change, the mid-20th century was
characterized by a model of penal practice that promoted the diagnosis and treatment of
offenders (Hollin and Bilby, 2007). This ‘individualized’, ‘treatment’ model came under
attack in the latter part of the 20th century, when the ideal of rehabilitation was chal-
lenged politically, for being soft on crime, and on the basis of efficacy, for being ineffec-
tive in reducing offending (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001; Hollin and Bilby, 2007).
Essentially, it has been argued that the 20th century saw support for the ‘rehabilitative
ideal’ fall away, in favour of punitive discourses and practices which stressed incapacita-
tion and deterrence (Feeley and Simon, 1992; Garland, 2001; Pratt, 2007).
However, whether the rehabilitative ideal truly collapsed is highly debatable.
Governments continued to pursue rehabilitative aims within penal policy. Indeed, the
clear inclusion of rehabilitative ideals within penal policy has led scholars to argue that
contemporary penal policy blends notions of punishment, control and rehabilitation
(Hutchinson, 2006; Robinson, 2008). Certainly, the 1990s onwards saw somewhat of a
revivification of the rehabilitation of offenders. Notably, the international ‘what works’
movement began to influence penal policy and practices in England and Wales. The
widespread introduction of OMPs – which comprise activities and interventions aimed at
reducing the risk of a prisoner reoffending – in prisons in England and Wales gained
momentum due to a plethora of primary research studies and research syntheses which
demonstrated that they can be effective in reducing offending (for a review see McGuire,
2002). Optimism was reinforced by the dissemination of research evidence that suggests
that identifying and targeting ‘criminogenic’ needs – needs which are amenable to
change, including a lack of education, lack of employment, drug and alcohol misuse,
impulsivity or low self-control and attitudes supportive of crime (see, for example,
Harper and Chitty, 2005; MoJ, 2013a) – may be effective in reducing crime and in devel-
oping holistic approaches to addressing reoffending (Maguire and Raynor, 2017;
Petersilia, 2003; Taxman, 2004). Further, wider factors – such as strong family and rela-
tionship ties, sobriety, having stable and satisfying employment, being hopeful about the
future and being able to give something back to others/contribute towards society in
some way – have also been identified as supportive of the process of desisting from
crime (MoJ, 2013a).
In turn, rehabilitative interventions implemented in prison are more likely to be effec-
tive if they are followed up after release, and if transition from custody to community is
planned and coordinated from an early stage in the sentence (Hudson et al., 2007). Albeit
differently named, designed and delivered by different organizations, and with a focus on
achieving different aims, there has been a long history of working with prisoners to
address the practical problems they face upon leaving custody (Maguire and Raynor,
2006). While promoted by British probation services since the 1960s, the delivery of
practical assistance for adult prisoners (except lifers) on release has been sporadic, not
compulsory, generally offered by charitable and voluntary agencies (latterly by the
Probation Service) and of variable quality (Maguire and Raynor, 1997, 2006). By the
1980s the concept of ‘throughcare’ commanded widespread support; however, attempts
114
Criminology & Criminal Justice 20(1)
to develop it through liaison and joint sentence planning were frustrated by practical
problems and changes...
To continue reading
Request your trial