A typology of prisoner compliance with the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme: Theorising the neoliberal self and staff–prisoner relationships
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895820947456 |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820947456
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2022, Vol. 22(1) 97 –114
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820947456
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
A typology of prisoner
compliance with the Incentives
and Earned Privileges scheme:
Theorising the neoliberal self
and staff–prisoner relationships
Zarek Khan
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
This article is based on interview data (N = 16) collected in a medium security men’s English
prison (HMP Wandsworth). It begins with an introduction of the Incentives and Earned Privileges
scheme and outlines the amendments to Incentives and Earned Privileges that have transformed
prisoners’ requirements for progression during their sentence. As the article demonstrates, the
policy alteration increases the need for prisoners to be visibly compliant by staff in order to
advance through the scheme; it is no longer sufficient to be invisibly compliant. To this end, I
present a typology of visibility that illustrates prisoner compliance and outcomes to the Incentives
and Earned Privileges scheme. The article situates the revisions made to Incentives and Earned
Privileges against the backdrop of neoliberal informed penal politics. The article concludes by
summarising the key theoretical and practical implications of the study.
Keywords
Compliance, incentives and earned privileges, neoliberalism, staff–prisoner relationships
Introduction
In the early 1990s, the English prison system went through major redevelopment mark-
ing a significant turning point in penal policy and practice. On 1 April 1990, there were
large-scale disturbances at Strangeways prison in Manchester, where prisoners protested
over the course of 25 days, making it the longest prison riot in British history. Following
Strangeways, the British government announced a judicial investigation known as the
Corresponding author:
Zarek Khan, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, St Cross Road, Oxford, OX1 3UL, UK.
Email: zarek.khan@crim.ox.ac.uk
947456CRJ0010.1177/1748895820947456Criminology & Criminal JusticeKhan
research-article2020
Article
98 Criminology & Criminal Justice 22(1)
Woolf enquiry which introduced key recommendations of the Prison Service to induce
reforms into the prison system. Central to this report were proposals of justice that would
seek to extend the rights and facilities available to prisoners. To maintain future control,
the Prison Service, like the Woolf report itself, saw merit in the development of a prop-
erly structured system of incentives. The main aims for implementing an incentive-based
approach to prisons were to improve the overall regime and prisoner performance in each
establishment, to develop more constructive regimes and to achieve better control
(Bosworth and Liebling, 1994; Bottoms, 2002; Liebling et al., 1997).
In 1995, the Prison Service Instruction to Governors (IG 74/1995) was implemented
in prisons across England and Wales. The National Framework stated that the introduc-
tion of ‘earnable and losable’ privileges will seek to encourage ‘responsible behaviour’,
‘hard work’ and ‘progress through the system’, creating ‘a more disciplined, better con-
trolled and safer environment’ (IG 74/1995) for prisoners and staff. Five specific aims
underpinned the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) policy:
1. ‘to provide that privileges generally are earned by prisoners through good behav-
iour and performance and are removable if prisoners fail to maintain acceptable
standards’;
2. ‘to encourage responsible behaviour by prisoners’;
3. ‘to encourage hard work and other constructive activity by prisoners’;
4. ‘to encourage sentenced prisoners’ progress through the prison system’;
5. ‘to create a more disciplined, better controlled, and safer environment for prison-
ers and staff’. (IG 74/1995)
IG 74/1995 required prisons to introduce ‘basic’, ‘standard’ and ‘enhanced’ privilege
levels, each of which reflected the individual’s behaviour over time. Prisoners who
wished to be considered for privileges above ‘basic’ had to demonstrate ‘good and
responsible’ behaviour. The policy asserted that privileges ought to ‘be acceptable to
reasonable public opinion’ and ‘justifiable in the face of informed criticism’ and ‘above
all . . . not bring the Prison Service into disrepute’ (IG 74/1995). In this light, Woolf and
Tumin (1991) developed a structured system of incentives, centred on a rational-choice
economic model, which sought to encourage responsible prisoner behaviour and prevent
future disorder: ‘those who have a high investment in the system are not likely to seek to
destroy it’ (p. 374). Behavioural expectations and the rights and responsibilities within
IEP guidelines were primarily concerned with addressing offending behaviour. Partly in
response to media concerns about ‘cushty prisons’ (see Liebling, 2008), the scheme
sought to reinforce austerity measures. In doing so, it should be understood as part of a
more punitive approach to penal policy. What Garland (2001) describes as ‘penal sensi-
bilities’ altered the emotional tone of penal practice, situated against the backdrop of
prison overcrowding, fiscal restraint, punishment instead of rehabilitation and height-
ened emphasis on risk-centred interventions, driven by responsibilisation, managerial-
ism and probability.
In 2013, the Prison Service revised the IEP scheme for prisoners in the first review of
the policy for over 10 years. The revised IEP system provided an extremely detailed
framework and reformulated the guidelines to widen behavioural requirements.
To continue reading
Request your trial