Prisons as moral climates Alison Liebling Cambridge University, UK

1. Risk and vulnerability in prison populations: a global crisis Friday 21 October 2016, 11am – 4pm Room 101, 30 Russell Square, Birkbeck, University of London, WC1B 5DQ Prisons as moral climates Alison Liebling Cambridge University, UK

2. Risks and vulnerabilities • Suicide/distress • Disorder • Violence • Damage to character and the civil disposition • Other criminogenic outcomes • Political charge (and radicalisation)

3. Principles • Prisons should uphold social order • They should be ‘morally intelligible’

4. Relationship between moving average suicide rates and mean GHQ12 score s in 12 prisons (2002) [r=0.83]

5. Modelling overall distress and GHQ12:prisoner data 2002 and 2004 Dignity Relationships Respect Fairness Clarity Security and Order Frustration 0.42 0.42 -0.21 -0.16 0.44 0.47 -0.24 - Offending Behaviour - Personal Development -0.24 GHQ12 Distress Institutional Suicide Rates 0.81 Safety -0.44 -0.45 0.29 0.28 -0.11 R2 = 0.50 (2002) R2 = 0.45 (2004) Family Contact -0.13

6. Dignity Relationships Respect Fairness Clarity Security and Order Frustration 0.25 0.81 0.84 0.24 Care and Safety Individual Care Assistance for the Vulnerable Entry Support 0.12 0.18 0.15 Safety 0.16 0.42 0.42 0.12 0.15 0.14 R2 = 0.25 (2002) R2 = 0.29 (2004) Drug control 0.23 0.44 0.43 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.09 Family Contact

7. Distress and Well-Being in Prison

8. EWP Before-after prisoner quality of life data, 2002-2004 (n=103, 108)

9. The ‘big five’ dimensions of prison quality for personal development1 (Liebling et al) BUREAUCRATIC LEGITIMACY ‘THE TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIVITY OF THE PRISON/PRISON SYSTEM AND ITS MORAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL’ (3.97) HUMANITY ‘AN ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISED BY KIND REGARD AND CONCERN FOR THE PERSON’ (3.27) .144 *** .166 *** STAFF PROFESSIONALISM ‘STAFF CONFIDENCE AND COMPETENCE IN THE USE OF AUTHORITY’ (3.53) PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT (‘HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL’) (3.28) R2 = 69.2 .145 *** HELP AND ASSISTANCE ‘SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT FOR PROBLEMS, INCLUDING DRUGS, HEALTHCARE + PROGRESSION’ (3.37) .413 *** .101 *** ORGANISATION + CONSISTENCY ‘THE CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PRISON’ (3.08) 9 1 Controlling for function, + public/private ownership/management

10. Explaining the relationship between MQPL and Reoffending ORGANISATION & CONSISTENCY THE CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PRISON DECENCY THE EXTENT TO WHICH STAFF AND THE REGIME ARE CONSIDERED REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE POLICING & SECURITY STAFF SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE PRISON ENVIRONMENT -5.12* -6.32** -9.06** PRISONER SAFETY THE FEELINGS OF SECURITY OR PROTECTION FROM HARM, THREAT OR DANGER PROVEN REOFFENDING -9.37** -6.12* DISTRESS FEELINGS OF SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTUBANCE PRISONER ADAPTATION THE NEED OR PRESSURE TO GET INVOLVED IN TRADE AND ALLEGIANCES -10.67** -4.97* -9.96*** -6.92* DRUGS & EXPLOITATION THE LEVEL OF DRUGS, BULLYING AND VICTIMISATION WELLBEING FEELINGS OF PAIN, PUNISHMENT & TENSION PERSONAL AUTONOMY PRISONERS’ FEELINGS OF AGENCY AND SELF-DETERMINATION 10 R2 = 0.69 – 0.73

11. Explaining the Variance in Political Charge Intelligent Trust 0.15 0.12 0.29 0.12 R2 = 0.6517 Staff – Prisoner Relationships

12. Figure 1: Towards a ‘Failed State’ Theory of Prison Effects Distal causes Proximate causes Outcomes 1. Risk/fear: violence & terrorism, 9/11, war in Iraq Lack of rehabilitation opportunities Senior management stress Lack of hope & meaning 2. ↑ Population/ changing demographics/ longer sentences Disproportionate Action Violence Disorder Radicalisation Suicide 3. Growing economic inequality/family disorganisation Perceptions of discrimination & powerlessness Political Charge 4. Changing legal procedures (joint enterprise) Religious & intergroup conflict Power/leadership struggles 5. Punitiveness (public acceptability restrictions on meaningful activities) An inability to respond to moral & religious challenges 6. New penological senior management/shifting knowledge-base (SIRs) Staff detachment/alienation corruption/brutality Lack of “recognition” /respect 7. Changing prison officer orientation & training Declining trust

13. Figure 2: A Grounded Generative Theory of Legitimate Penal Order Distal causes Proximate causes Outcomes Bureaucratic legitimacy* 1. Global & economic events/climate Humanity/recognition* Help & assistance (with drugs, education, health)* 2. Political & policy climate ‘punitiveness’/ the ‘penal state’ Intelligent trust Staff professionalism* Legitimate order (leading to higher personal development) Resources & managerial skill/power (incl. management of ‘contracts’) 3. (Legitimate) Sentencing framework Intelligent Trust Staff support for/confidence & trust in senior managers/ each other 4. Population characteristics (age, ethnicity, faith, prior convictions) Normative involvement of prisoners in personal projects/activities/regime 5. Prison size, age, architecture, cost Changing prisoner networks & hierarchies Specific incidents & their consequences /management 6. Professional stability: Speed, scale of change/competence of implementation Clarity & organisation* Policing & security*

14. Prison Quality and Prison Suicide: A Testable Working Model Relationship with senior mgtRole and responsibility Work culture/climate Perception of PS safety/control Communication Suicide prevention effectiveness Imported Vulnerability Relationship Respect Fairness Clarity and Organisation Composite Prisoner Care Distress GHQ12 Institutional Suicide Rates Traditional Culture Offending Behaviour Personal Development Page & Lermann on Staff Resources • Care and safety • Individual Care • Assistance for the Vulnerable • Entry Support Safety Family Contact Drug Control

15. Conclusions: Values grow virtues • Moral ideas ‘work well’ in prison but have been neglected. • Prisoners are capable of living in a morally oriented reality … The last thing we should do is place emergent persons in ‘broken’ institutions or ‘morally unintelligible’ prisons. More legitimate, and more legitimately used, prisons are more likely to help build a ‘disposition to desist’. (Auty and Liebling 2016 submitted). • What prisoners need, if they are to grow in new directions, is: stability, clarity, protection and support, decent treatment, including respect and recognition, and freedoms and opportunities to exercise the universal capacities constitutive of personhood. This is ‘good authority’, understood properly.

16. Further reading • Liebling, A and Ludlow, A (2015) ‘Suicide, Distress and the Quality of Prison Life’, in Crewe et al The Prisons Handbook • Liebling, A. (1999) ‘Prison Suicide and Prisoner Coping’, in M. Tonry and J. Petersilia (eds) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 26, pp. 283-359. • Liebling, A. (2008) ‘Why Prison Staff Culture Matters’, in J. M. Byrne, D. Hummer and F. S. Taxman (eds) The Culture of Prison Violence. Allyn and Bacon Publishing, Boston USA, pp. 105-122. • Liebling, A. (1994) ‘Suicides Amongst Women Prisoners’ Howard Journal, 33(1): 1-9. • Liebling, A Tait, S (2005) ‘Revisiting prison suicide: the role of fairness and distress’, in A Liebling and S Maruna (eds) The Effects of Imprisonment Willan • Liebling, A (2007) ‘Suicide and its prevention’, in Y Jewkes (ed) Handbook on Prisons Willan • Liebling, A (2007) ‘The role of the prison environment in prison suicide and prisoner distress’, in G. E. Dear (Ed.) Preventing Suicide and Other Self-Harm in Prison. London: Palgrave-Macmillan • Liebling, A and Tait, S (2007) Improving Staff-Prisoner Relationships, in G. E. Dear (Ed.) Preventing Suicide and Other Self-Harm in Prison. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. • Liebling, A (1995) ‘Vulnerability and Prison Suicide’, British Journal of Criminology 35(2): 173-187 • Liebling, A (1992) Suicides in Prison Routledge: London • Liebling, A. (1998) ‘Managing to Prevent Prison Suicide: Are Staff at Risk Too?’, in J. Kamerman (ed) Negotiating Responsibility in the Criminal Justice System, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 68-86.

17. Thank you !