Abstract
Based on the findings from a detailed study of five private and two public sector prisons in England and Wales, this chapter discusses the relative quality, professionalism and balance of power of public versus private sector prisons. Two private sector prisons appeared at the lowest end of a quality spectrum, and two at the highest end, complicating any simplistic argument that ‘private is better’. Drawing on well-validated measures of the moral and social climate of prisons, clear strengths and weaknesses were found in each sector. In particular, there were variations in the professional use of authority by staff. These differences were found even in the highest-performing private sector prisons. Distinctive power distributions, cultures and experience levels in each sector generated different types of penal order, leading to different outcomes. The evaluation, and its developmental methodology, helps to clarify our understanding of, and thinking about, prison life, quality and the effects of different forms of imprisonment. The findings suggest that some public sector strengths are overlooked in contemporary policymaking and that these strengths are at risk of being eroded as public sector prisons are remodelled as larger, cheaper and more streamlined institutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
It is relevant here to note that many values-driven public sector governors have moved to the private sector because of their view that it is easier to do ‘good work’ in private than public prisons.
- 2.
Research grant RES-062-23-0212.
- 3.
Both authors participated in the fieldwork, with Susie Hulley and Clare McLean working as full-time research assistants for almost the entire duration of the project. Sara Snell, a prison governor on secondment from the Prison Service, was involved in the fieldwork phases in HMP Forest Bank and HMP Dovegate, and the majority of the period in HMP Bullingdon. Jennifer Cartwright and Marie Hutton provided additional research assistance in HMP Rye Hill.
- 4.
The Office for National Commissioning (ONC) was the body within the NOMS which oversaw the monitoring and performance of all of the private sector prisons. The ‘rectification notice’ was served on the prison’s contractor to highlight serious shortcomings in the prison’s performance (principally in the areas of prisoner safety and regime activities). The notice required the company to produce a written action plan and to address the issues identified in an operational review of the establishment.
- 5.
Short, informal visits were also made to two further private sector prisons, HMP Parc and HMP Wolds.
- 6.
A full list of dimensions, definitions and items can be found in Liebling et al. (2011).
- 7.
When reading these figures, it is important to look at ‘substance’, or score, as well as ‘difference’: the decency score was well below three in both establishments, suggesting that prisoners were being less negative in their evaluations, rather than positive, as such.
- 8.
It should be noted that, by 2012, the MQPL results for both of these establishments had improved considerably, particularly in Dovegate.
References
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102, 101–152.
Bottoms, A. E., & Tankebe, J. (2013). ‘Voice Within’: Power-Holders’ Perspectives on Authority and Legitimacy. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration (pp. 60–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Camp, S., & Gaes, G. (2000). Private Adult Prisons: What Do We Really Know and Why Don’t We Know More? Washington, DC: Office of Research and Evaluation Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Crewe, B., Liebling, A., & Hulley, S. (2014). Heavy-Light, Absent-Present: Re-thinking the ‘Weight’ of Imprisonment. British Journal of Sociology, 65(3), 387–410.
Harding, R. (1997). Private Prisons and Public Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Home Office. (1979). Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Service—The May Inquiry (Cmnd. 7673). London: HMSO.
Home Office. (2001). Review of the Board of Visitors: A Report of the Working Group Chaired by Rt Hon Sir Peter Lloyd MP. London: Home Office.
House of Commons. (2002). Home Affairs Public Administration Select Committee. In The Public Service Ethos, Seventh Report of Session 2001–2 263-II. London: Stationery Office.
Hulley, S., Liebling, A., & Crewe, B. (2012). Respect in Prisons: Prisoners’ Experiences of Respect in Public and Private Sector Prisons. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(6), 484–499.
James, A. K., Bottomley, A. K., Liebling, A., & Clare, E. (1997). Privatizing Prisons: Rhetoric and Reality. London: Sage.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2005). Comparative Criminal Justice Policy-Making in the US and UK: The Case of Private Prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 58–80.
King, R. D., & McDermott, K. (1989). British Prisons 1970–1987: The Ever-Deepening Crisis. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 107–128.
Liebling, A. (2008). Incentives and Earned Privileges Revisited: Fairness, Discretion, and the Quality of Prison Life. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9, 25–41.
Liebling, A. (2011). Distinctions and Distinctiveness in the Work of Prison Officers: Legitimacy and Authority Revisited. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 484–499.
Liebling, A. (2012). The Prison and the Performance Revolution: ‘Virtual’ or Virtuous Improvement? In R. Calne & W. O. Reilly (Eds.), Scepticism: Hero and Villain (pp. 357–371). New York: Nova Publishing.
Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2002).Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (Research Findings No. 174). London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Liebling, A., Assisted by Arnold, H. (2004). Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Liebling, A., Durie, L., Stiles, A., & Tait, S. (2005). Revisiting Prison Suicide: The Role of Fairness and Distress. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The Effects of Imprisonment (pp. 209–231). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Liebling, A., Crewe, B., & Hulley, S. (2011). Conceptualising and Measuring the Quality of Prison Life. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Criminological Research (pp. 358–372). London: Sage publications.
McEvoy, K. (2001). Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland: Resistance, Management and Release. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Prison Competition and Capacity Announcement. Press Release 13 July 2011. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prisons-competition-and-capacity-announcement. Accessed 20 July 2015.
Ministry of Justice. (2013, September). Prison Population Monthly Bulletin. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-figures. Accessed 3 Mar 2016.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryan, M., & Ward, T. (1989). Privatization and the Penal System: The American Experience and the Debate in Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Rynne, J., Harding, R., & Wortley, R. (2008). Market Testing and Prison Riots: How Public-Sector Commercialization Contributed to a Prison Riot. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(1), 117–142.
Sparks, R., Bottoms, A., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the Problem of Order. Oxford: Clarendon.
Tanner, W. (2013). The Case for Private Prisons. London: Reform.
Wachtel, T., & McCold, P. (2001). Restorative Justice in Everyday Life. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Civil Society (pp. 114–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crewe, B., Liebling, A. (2018). Quality, Professionalism and the Distribution of Power in Public and Private Sector Prisons. In: Hucklesby, A., Lister, S. (eds) The Private Sector and Criminal Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37064-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37064-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37063-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37064-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)