1

Making Prisons Safe Dr Kimmett Edgar

May, 2014

There were nearly 11,000 recorded assaults by prisoners on

other prisoners in 2013; between 2010 and 2013, serious

assaults increased by 14% (Prison Reform Trust, 2014).

Prison managers have a serious commitment to ensuring that

prisons are safe. I firmly believe that prisons can be safer,

and I hope this paper provides some ideas about how to

achieve that.

Most prisoners feel safe most of the time. No one is violent

all of the time. And every day, prison officers prevent dozens,

perhaps hundreds of fights and assaults. They observe signs

of trouble and know when and how to intervene.

However, violence reduction strategies and staff interventions

are hampered by a lack of information about the

circumstances that lead to violence. Much of what is known

about prison violence is gleaned from officers who respond

after violence has erupted.

I will say more about how we did our research in a moment,

but our interviews with officers demonstrated that in two-

thirds of the incidents they responded to, they did not have

2

a good grasp of what led to the fight or assault. Less than

one in five said that they had any security intelligence that

could have helped them to predict that it would happen. Only

three per cent felt that there had been anything they could

have done to prevent it.

The premise for a conflict-based strategy to reduce violence

is that violent incidents can be studied as the culmination of

conflicts between prisoners. Knowing how and why conflicts

escalate into violence is an essential foundation for

preventing fights and assaults.

Central questions explored by conflict-centred strategies are:

How do prisoners handle it when trouble arises with another

prisoner?

What factors determine whether a dispute is resolved or

results in a fight?

What skills do prisoners use when in disputes; and how likely

are those tactics to resolve the situation or drive it towards

a fight or assault?

Why do prisoners decide to use force?

Research

Research conducted by Edgar, O’Donnell and Martin at the

University of Oxford Centre for Criminology gathered data on

violent incidents in prisons in England and Wales (Edgar, et

al. 2003).

3

Prisoners who were directly involved in a fight or assault

clearly have a privileged perspective. They were personally

involved in the problem that led up to the violence. The

knowledge they had about the incident is indispensable to an

explanation of why it occurred – and, hence how it might

have been prevented.

The Escalator: a diagram of conflict

We began by asking the prisoner to describe the problem

with the other person from the first sign of trouble, in a

sequence of steps.

Susan

Through questions about the options available at points

along the way, the escalator presented the possibility that

the violence could have been averted. Indeed, some of the

disputes presented behaviour that opened up possibilities for

a peaceful resolution.

I came in the prison and was confronted by three women who demanded drugs.

They asked, ‘Are you frightened to show you have drugs?’ I said, ‘Nothing frightens me.’

I then heard them talking about assaulting me, so I prepared for a confrontation.

They were intimidating on association, so I said to the leader, ‘Come into the toilets with me’.

She went in, all happy. I punched her in the face, just once.

Q What did you hope to achieve? It wasn’t pre-meditated, but I knew I had to take action. No way you can run to the officers.

4

Conflict Resulting in Violence

Conflicts are

Situations in which there are competing interests which the

parties pursue in uncompromising ways.

Analysing the incident as a conflict means looking at the

parties involved, the clash of interests between them, the

tactics they used to achieve their goals, the relationship

between them – before, during and after the conflict – and

the social environment in which the conflict developed.

How people handle disputes can aggravate the situation and

make it more likely that one or both would resort to physical

force. Such tactics include verbal abuse, threats, and hostile

gestures.

Interests are what the person wants out of the situation,

which might relate to an object, such as a newspaper, or

values, such as loyalty.

The social context refers to policies and conditions that

generate conflicts. For example, a wing might tolerate one of

the phones being out of action. But combine that with two or

three nights of association being cancelled, and the

atmosphere will be very tense: violent conflicts are far more

likely to arise.

5

The conflict pyramid

These diverse elements - relationships, interests, tactics, and

the social context - can be illustrated by following the course

of one dispute.

Ballard's account

tactics

interests

relationships

interpretations

purposes of force

social context

I'm in the food queue. I get a smashed ice cream.

I ask the servery lad, ‘Could you change this for me please, bro?’ He just stares. I look for a reply.

Jenkins shouts ‘No!’ still staring at me. I say, ‘I ain’t no dickhead.’ I walk away.

When I come out for breakfast, go to the servery. Jenkins is in front of the servery, looking for trouble.

I laugh and walk away. Jenkins hits me in the back of the head. I turn round and we start rucking.

Q. Why did you think he was staring at you? A. He was trying to intimidate or frighten me.’

6

Jenkins’ account

The stares, accusations and challenges show how poor

conflict resolution skills escalated this dispute. Banter is

commonplace, but in disputes, verbal abuse is used to

belittle an opponent and win a war of words.

Another narrative shows how people with learning disabilities

can be at a disadvantage in disputes.

Shawn scalded Phil with boiled water. When I interviewed them,

an officer said Shawn had a learning disability. Shawn explained

that he loaned Phil some tobacco. The first time, it was a gift.

The fourth time, Shawn said he wanted to be repaid and Phil

agreed. When Phil got paid, Shawn asked for a smoke, but Phil

offered him a chocolate bar. Shawn persisted about their

agreement, but when Phil turned his back and walked away

Shawn threw the water. Although Phil’s interview does not suggest

any wrongdoing towards Shawn, it is likely that Phil was taking

advantage and exploiting Shawn.

I am not suggesting that people with learning disabilities are

inherently poor at resolving conflict. They might have a good

understanding of how to resolve a dispute, but be unable to

I'm on the servery. A new guy demands a different ice lolly.

I say no; the officer says no. The new guy says to the other servery worker, “Tell that boy to do as I tell him.”

In the morning, I am on the hot plate. Ballard comes in and gives me a dirty look.

I say, “Why are you running off your mouth?” He is mouthy back.

I start to walk away, but then I turned and hit him. Officers come in and break it up.

Q. Why did Ballard say this to the other worker? A. He was trying to put me down, like he was higher than me.

7

explain the solution. However they might find it difficult to

process information or believe they have very few options,

and this can have an effect on how they respond to conflict.

No One Knows, a study by Jenny Talbot at the Prison

Reform Trust, defined learning disability as:

A significantly reduced ability to understand complex

information or learn new skills (impaired intelligence)

A reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social

functioning)

A condition which started before adulthood . . . and has

a lasting effect

Learning disabilities

Limited language ability, comprehension and communication skills:

– Difficulty understanding certain words

– Difficulty understanding and responding to questions

– Difficulty reading body language and following social cues

Limited memory capacity:

– Difficulty recalling information

– Take longer to process information

– Difficulty ordering and sequencing

Can be acquiescent and suggestible; under pressure, might try to

appease others

Frequently unable to read and write very well, or at all.

If undetected, they are often left to manage conflicts alone.

Even when they are involved in an incident, their disability

may not come to light. No One Knows found that people

8

with learning disabilities and difficulties were five times more

likely to say they had been subject to control and restraint.

Prisoners with learning disabilities who are not helped when

they complain about being victimised find other ways of

coping, which include staying in their cells – at greater risk

of self harm – or lashing out. Shawn’s story illustrates the

complexity of the links to violent incidents as he filled both

victim and perpetrator roles.

Lessons from conflict

What lessons can we gain from conflict to help prisons

prevent violence? Three important themes arise.

The high risk of being victimised exacerbates prison

conflicts

Tactics used in prison disputes tend to escalate rather

than resolve conflicts

Anti-social behaviour, such as threats or accusations, was

often reciprocal

The first theme is that the high risk of being victimised - for

example through theft or exploitation - exacerbates conflicts

in prison, creating conditions in which prisoners might be led

to use force.

9

When officers ensure the safety of all prisoners from

victimisation, they are preventing conflicts which might

otherwise result in assaults or fights. When exploitation is not

confronted by staff, there is an incentive to prisoners to

protect their interests with force.

The second theme is that the tactics prisoners use tend to

escalate rather than resolve the conflict. For example,

challenges are common, such as ‘Who are you looking at?’

or ‘What do you think you’re doing?’

In 46% of the incidents, prior to the fights or assault, one or

both had accused or threatened the other; verbal challenges

were used in 42%; invasions of personal space, insults or

commands in about a third. Appearing in combination, these

Cycle One – an eye for an eye

The risk of assault is increased by the belief that being

wronged or exploited requires physical retaliation.

Actual risks of

being cheated,

exploited, or

defrauded Material

deprivations

increase the

urgency to

defend property

Theft, fraud,

bad debts are

seen as signs

of disrespect

Norm: wrong-

doing merits

physical

punishment

Prisoners react to

perceived wrongs

with violence

10

behaviours become reliable predictors that physical violence

is imminent.

The risk of being assaulted escalates disputes. Our studies

found that 89 per cent of prisoners believed that violence in

prison was inevitable. When threats of violence are made

credible by a high risk of assault, each party to a dispute

believes that the other could use force and it becomes

harder to resolve a conflict.

The third theme is that anti-social behaviour was often

reciprocal. This aspect of prison violence should inform our

approach to ‘victims’.

Cycle Two – force begets force

Prisoners' responses to their fears for physical safety

increase the likelihood that violence will result.

actual risk of

assault: rates vary

across prisons

feelings of

intimidation,

psychological

preparation for

violent self-defence

defensive reactions:

hostility, deception,

suspicion, challenges,

accusations

perceived need

to demonstrate

toughness by

using force to

deter others

11

The role of victim

The concepts victim and perpetrator imply unilateral

responsibility: the perpetrator causes the problem; the victim

plays a passive role. Violent incidents such as robbery and

punishment beatings tend to follow this pattern. We found

very little overlap between victims and perpetrators of

robbery. People who robbed others were very unlikely to be

robbed. The same applied to cell theft.

However, there was a significant overlap between victims and

perpetrators of assault, insults and threats. People who

threatened others tended to have been threatened.

The conflicts study showed the prevalence of reciprocal harm

in conflicts that led to violence:

78% described mutual victimisation prior to the use of force

31% described mutual insults

41% described mutual threats

The type of population influenced the likelihood of mutual harm.

Reciprocal threats prior to the fight or assault were described by

45% in the young offender institution

50% in the local prison

36% in the women’s prison

23% in the high secure prison

In the 1950s, Marvin Wolfgang investigated 588 homicides in

Philadelphia. In a quarter of the murders, the victim was the

first to use force or produce a weapon. If we focus on

victims, then precipitation appears to be totally irrational. Why

would someone kick off a series of events in which they are

12

killed? The answer is not to analyse the personality traits of

victims. Rather, the logical explanation is that in these

situations, it is not clear in advance who will be the victim

and who, the perpetrator.

That is a good foundation for understanding the role of

victims of assaults. To be clear: no one deserves to be

assaulted. That someone on the receiving end of harmful

behaviour is a victim isn’t hard to grasp. What might be

difficult is that in a majority of violent incidents in prison,

both parties are victims and perpetrators.

When there is reciprocal victimisation, or when officers do

not have enough information to judge which person is at

fault, they will be most effective if they are even-handed in

confronting the aggressive tactics that they can observe:

threats, verbal abuse, ultimatums and accusations. In other

words, to prevent violence arising from disputes, officers

should be focusing on behaviour, not individuals.

The conflict-centred analysis shows that:

Risk is dynamic

- Lifestyle can expose someone to higher risks of being

assaulted

- Skills at managing conflict provide options that reduce the

risk of becoming violent

- Having no previous experience of violence does not mean

the person will never become violent

13

Risk is influenced by the situation

- The victimisation that causes disputes to escalate into

violence is – often – reciprocal

- Fear of being dominated by a particular opponent

exacerbates disputes

- Tactics such as accusations, threats and ultimatums narrow

the parties’ options, restricting opportunities for resolution

- Suspicions that the other intends to take advantage, or use

force, give ‘permission’ to resort to injurious force

Risk is social

- Escalation can be influenced by others, e.g., spurred on by

other prisoners, interrupted (temporarily or finally) by an

officer, and restrained by incentives

- A setting where violence is prevalent gives ‘permission’ to

prepare to use force

- Alliances can transfer conflict to other parties

- A victim in one setting can become an aggressor in

another

- The ethos of prisons is more or less tolerant of violence

(e.g., staff view fights as inevitable or preventable; other

prisoners justify, condone, or condemn injurious force)

Functions of Violence

Why do people decide to use violence? What were fights and

assaults about? What motivated those who used force?

Drugs were involved in just over one in ten incidents (slightly

higher among women prisoners).

Bullying, in the sense of one prisoner abusing his or her

power over another to exploit them, was not a common

14

factor leading up to fights. Fewer than one in six had

anything at all to do with bullying, and less than five per

cent were between a bully and their victim.

A third of fights/assaults were punishment beatings, for

example, on a suspected cell thief or an informant. Barry and

Will, below, is typical.

Will

Someone I know outside comes to this jail and

starts to spread rumours.

Barry – he’s the one who set it up – he’s got a

big mouth. He took this story up. He’s the A

wing bully. I offered him in the showers and he

wouldn’t.

Saturday morning I go to the gym as usual – I

was even in the shower with Barry. I went out

on exercise – it felt strange. Five minutes before the end of exercise one bloke goes off

the yard and goes to the toilet. Staff wait in the

corridor for him to come out.

Barry calls me over – I had a feeling it would go

off. Another bloke hit me from behind – I went

down and they started beating me. One was

jumping on me and one was kicking me – I

managed to pull myself up and I was going to

hit one of them, but I noticed the blood so I

went to the screws. I was numb. There was

pain to start with but then it just went numb.

I was taken to healthcare. When I came back I

was kicking off about the screws not being in

the yard. The SO questioned me but I wouldn’t

say who it was. They can’t take action if I won’t

proceed. I think they have an idea who it was.

Barry

Will and me both get transferred from [HMP].

We get on ok together.

I’m on A wing and someone I know is on B

wing. He told me he had a newspaper cutting

about the case. He passed me the cutting on

exercise and I decided he needed to be sorted

out. The next day on exercise, me and the lads

from B wing gave him a beating.

He went to a screw and got taken to healthcare. He came back on the wing – he

was going to stand his ground. My mate was

going to jug him and the screws knew about it

so they moved him down the block on

protection.

15

Intentions and Consequences: Will

At what point do you think the situation

actually became violent?

In the yard.

At what point could you have done something

that might have prevented the violence?

Couldn’t have prevented it. I knew I was going to

get a kicking. It was either take a PP9 [battery]

out on the yard or take a kicking and I want to get

my bird over as quickly as possible.

Intentions and Consequences: Barry

What were you trying to achieve? Nothing really – straightforward punishment.

At what point do you think the situation

actually became violent?

I don’t think it was violent.

Could he have done something to prevent it?

If he’d told us straight away what he’d done it

would have been ok. He lied as well.

At what point do you think violence had to

happen?

When I got the newspaper cutting.

In about a quarter of incidents, prisoners used violence to

project a tough image to others, not involved in the dispute.

Darren slapped Ben at kit change because he feared that

Ben would humiliate him in front of others.

Darren

I come down to kit change and asked for two

towels because I’d left one in the shower the

day before. Bloke on kit change says no, only

one towel, one for one. I explain that the

officer said ok, you can have one, but kit

change still argues.

He then threw the towel over and the other

kit change bloke leans over towards me – I

knew he was going to say something – swear

or something.

I don’t know where it came from but I just

smacked him on the side of the face with my

open hand. That’s not like me and I was

surprised that I did it.

The officer told me to go back to my cell.

Ben

I’m doing kit change with Johnny. An inmate

comes up who I don’t know and asks for an

extra towel.

He and Johnny have an argument about the

towel. I’m handing out the clean kit and I

intervened on Johnny’s behalf. I asked the

officer if he could have another one and he said

no.

I leaned forward to tell the inmate to bugger

off and as I did he slapped me and took me

completely by surprise. Then he ran off and the

officer ran after him and grabbed him and took

him down the block.

16

Intentions and consequences: Darren

What did you expect the kit change guy to do

when he leaned forward?

I was intimidated by the way he leant towards me

– I knew he was going to say something smart – it

was nerves, too. It happened so quick.

What were you trying to stop by slapping him?

Being a big man and embarrassing me. I didn’t

want him to put me down. I don’t like that. You

can’t allow it in here – you really can’t. It causes

bullying and everything.

Intentions and consequences: Ben

What do you think he wanted to achieve by

slapping you?

Nothing. It got him nicked. Maybe the way Johnny

talked to him wound him up.

What might you have done to prevent the

slap?

Give him another towel.

In a quarter of incidents, prisoners used force when faced

with an imminent threat to their safety. Fitzpatrick said that

he used force to restrain Gibson, who had attacked him.

17

Fitzpatrick

I was in my cell, ten at night. I shouted out to a

mate for a magazine. Someone shouted out

‘Get your head down, nigger.’

I shouted out, ‘Do you know who you’re

talking to?’ I told him to get his head down. He

said, ‘I’ll see you in the morning.’

And then, in the morning, he says, ‘Yeah, I ain’t

forgot.’ I’ve gone downstairs, sitting in my

mate’s cell. I looked out and seen Gibson. He

is gesticulating at me to come out of the cell. I

just turned my back on him and carried on

talking.

A couple of seconds later, the cell door is

banged open. And Gibson come in and

punched me on the head. I jumped up and

pushed him. He slipped and fell sideways out

the door. I stepped over him and went out into

the middle of the landing cos I knew the

officers were still feeding people. I thought it

would stop him.

He came towards me. I started backing round

the table tennis table. The officers were

coming down. Just before they got there he

threw a punch. I grabbed hold of his arms and

we both fell on the table. Officers got there

and got in between us. They took me to my

cell and took him to the block.

Gibson

Every night he was making noise by ways of

shouting out the window, or music playing loud

until midnight gone. I shouted out on the

Sunday night, ‘Shut up, you dickhead.’

I’ve got damaged tendons in my hand. And he

shouted, ‘Shut up and get your claw in.’ What I

said next was what caused the problem. I said,

‘Shut up, you nigger. I’ll see you in the

morning.’

And I did see him in the morning. Then there

was a bit of a scuffle in the morning which

started in someone’s cell. Both got nicked. I

ran in there like Mike Tyson, throwing

haymakers.

He said - in the morning – he said, ‘I’ll see you

tonight.’ I thought, ‘I can’t wait.’ Cos I felt

threatened he’d have his mates.

18

Intentions and consequences: Fitzpatrick

When he used the n-word, what do you think

he was trying to achieve?

Probably wanted me to say nothing, close my

window. I don’t think he expected me to say, ‘Get

your head down.’

What were you feeling when he used the n-

word?

Wondering – what did he say that for? He showed

his true colours. But by morning, I’d forgot about it.

If I’d have been angry I would have gone straight

for him.

How did you interpret his promise, ‘See you in

the morning’?

I’ve heard that every day. He says it now, in the

morning he will probably say nothing.

When you were in the cell and he gestured for you to come out – what did he have in mind?

He had his jumper round his waist and the way he

was stood was like he wanted a fight.

Was there a time you might have done

something to prevent it?

If someone’s got it in their head that they’re going

to fight you, it is quite hard to change it. I don’t

think I could, unless I just stayed in my cell all

morning and didn’t come out for breakfast.

What might he have done to prevent it?

If he shouted, ‘Fitzpatrick, I was just a bit wound

up. I didn’t mean to call you that.’ I’d have

respected him for that.

Intentions and consequences: Gibson

When you said him, ‘Shut up you dickhead,’

what did you hope that would do?

I just needed quiet.

[Why call him a dickhead?]

That was just a figure of speech. I wasn’t going to

say, ‘Can you be quiet?’

What was the result?

It brought things to a head. It would have had the

same effect no matter what I said.

What did you mean to achieve when you used

the n-word?

I didn’t mean nothing by it. Not racially

motivated – it wasn’t.

You then said, ‘See you in the morning.’ What

was meant by that?

‘I don’t want to argue. Don’t get mouthy. I’ll argue with you face to face.’ Not inviting him to fight.

What did he mean by he’d ‘see you tonight?’

With his tone, I thought, ‘There’s gonna be

some violence.’

After breakfast you sought him out – what

were you trying to do?

I was looking to sort it out so it don’t

escalate into weapons.

What was the result?

It was stupid. I felt threatened. I felt I had to

confront him straightaway. Why, ‘I’ll see you

tonight?’ I’ll see you now.

Was there a time you could have prevented the

violence?

No. Well, I could have had me toast, carried on

eating me breakfast. But what would happen

on the night? All right saying, ‘Tell the screws.’

You can’t do that in the real world.

19

Many young offenders turned to violence because they

believed it was the best way to resolve their differences. But

women and long-term male prisoners were far less likely to

believe that violence could resolve anything.

Power Contests

Mary Bosworth has written:

“Prison life is characterised by ongoing negotiations of power.”

(Bosworth, M and Carrabine E, 2001)

The most common situation resulting in violence were power

contests. Ballard and Jenkins was a typical example. A

conflict that begins with a clash over some material object

becomes a test of who will dominate whom. In response,

each person insults, threatens, challenges, verbally abuses or

physically intimidates the other.

Concerns about intimidation are widespread in all types of

prison. When people fight over a seemingly trivial object, like

a pot of yoghurt, or access to the pool table, they are likely

to be defending their honour and self-respect. As a prisoner

explained:

“It sounds silly fighting over tobacco, but you can’t let it go

without losing your respect. You wouldn’t fight about it on the

out, but we are not on the out. We’re in jail.”

Sandy assaulted Barbara after Barbara made a disparaging

remark about Sandy's cell-mate. Sandy explained: This girl was sat behind me, talking to her friends about

me and my padmate. I turned round. I was saying, 'Who do

20

you think you are to say anything about us?' We

exchanged words. I told her to shut up and leave it alone.

She carried on. We squared up.

When Sandy confronted Barbara she introduced a power

dimension to the dispute. The phrase 'who do you think you

are?' was a direct challenge to Barbara, a test of whether she

was equal to Sandy. Barbara retaliated in kind.

They told each other to shut up. This exchange of commands

was a turning point, as both felt belittled by being told what to

do. Their interpretations of the other's intentions match.

Barbara: She was trying to intimidate me. She thought I would

just sit down and shut my mouth.

Sandy: She felt she could intimidate me. She thought she could

push me about.

When their dispute became a power contest, Barbara and Sandy

changed the meaning of the conflict from a question about what

language was acceptable to a test of who could control the

other.

Characteristics of power contests

Sizing up – gauging the opponent’s strength of character

Narrow focus – on one other prisoner/opponent

Respect – being dominated is the central concern

Win/lose – compromise is considered a weakness

Power values – force determine the outcome; and

Precedent – losing this dispute will fix them in an inferior position

Tactics like challenges, threats, and hostile gestures indicate

that a dispute is becoming a power contest. Those involved

try to settle the conflict first through coercion and then

through physical violence. Not only is respect the central

21

motivation, but a boost in self-respect for one can only be

gained by a loss in self-respect for the other. Mutually

acceptable resolutions are ruled out when the desired

outcome is defined in this way.

Solutions

What does a conflict analysis mean for effective violence

reduction strategies?

First, the huge variety in prison environments and the

multiple factors that influence violent outcomes show that

each prison has to gather evidence and analyse how conflict

management could help enhance safety.

Having said that, there is little here to support strategies

based on identifying dangerous individuals and targeting

them. Our data do not support a targeted strategy as the

primary method of achieving safety; data from prisons in

England and Wales do not support such a strategy, either.

Professor A. E. Bottoms commented in his literature review on

prison violence:

In a context where the vast majority of violent acts are

apparently undetected, it should be clear that those who are

formally identified as repeat offenders may well be atypical of

the larger universe of those who are prepared, when occasion

demands, to resort to violence to achieve their own ends.

(Bottoms, 1999: page 231)

22

NOMS data show that 80% of assault or fights are

committed by people who have not previously been charged

with an assault in prison. As Professor Bottoms observed, the

80% who are detected committing assault for the first time

represent a much larger group of people who would use

force if the situational stresses required it.

I visited a prison holding about 1200 men. Counting every

time aggressive force was used, there would be about 100 to

120 violent incidents per month, of which 20-30 resulted in

officers’ taking official action. This prison had four people on

its anti-bullying scheme. Targeting individuals was not making

a significant impact in reducing violence.

Similarly, separating victims from perpetrators has limited

value in reducing violence, except as a short-term cooling off

period. Separating a perceived victim may:

• identify the wrong person as the victim and protect

someone who had been bullying the one who

assaulted them

• create opportunities for a ‘victim’ to victimise others

(locating them on a vulnerable prisoner wing)

• lead a victim to enlist allies to carry out retaliation

• imply to others that the victim provided information,

thereby increasing the risk of further assaults.

23

Before prison authorities separate prisoners who are

assaulted for their protection, they should ask whether they

know enough about the dispute to distinguish reliably

between a guilty perpetrator and an innocent victim.

Violence reduction strategies must take a broad perspective.

All prisons should operate a range of measures, each of

which makes a distinct contribution to preventing situations

from escalating to the point of serious injury.

Effective prevention

The officers’ role

Early intervention by officers, challenging the harmful

behaviour that leads to, or escalates, conflict is far more

effective in reducing the costs of running prisons than staff

reacting with force to violent incidents after they occur. When

officers consistently confront victimisation, this removes the

causes of violence and gives prisoners confidence that

problems can be solved without using force.

But officers’ roles should also encompass a broader sense of

peacekeeping as conflict resolution. Peacekeeping includes:

- early intervention to manage inmates’ disputes by focusing on

the interests, values and needs at stake

- improving communication between the parties

- searching for options for win-win outcomes

In 2000, in the prisons of England and Wales, there were 2.9

prisoners for every prison officer. In 2013, following cost-

24

cutting measures, that ratio had risen to 4.8 prisoners for

every officer (Prison Reform Trust, 2014).

Dynamic security is undermined by low staffing levels. Peace-

keeping requires sufficient numbers of officers, with enough

consistency to enable them to intervene. The president of the

Prison Governors Association in England and Wales, Eoin

McLennan-Murray, reflected on the impact of staff numbers

and the size of prisons:

"It is the relationships we build with prisoners that is how we

control. ... Other jurisdictions use coercion and force, we tend to

use personal relationships. For that to happen, you need

sufficient staff facing prisoners. While we are reducing the

number of staff and increasing the number of prisoners, you're

getting prisoners who feel that they are anonymous and no-one

cares about them. That has a psychological impact and changes

the culture in prisons. It will make them inherently more risky.”

(House of Commons, 2014)

Working with prisoners

Consulting prisoners about how to achieve safety provides

important information about the causes of violent incidents,

the resources among prisoners to help prevent it, and how to

be more effective in managing conflicts.

The use of aggressive tactics in disputes shows the benefits

of programmes which develop skills in responding to conflict.

Examples include the Alternatives to Violence Project; Silence

the Violence (Khulisa); Nonviolent Communication; and others.

25

Violence reduction reps can mediate to resolve conflicts on

the wing; and they can attend safer custody meetings to

feed back the sources of conflict throughout the prison.

What options exist for prisoners who seek nonviolent ways of

resolving differences? Prisons that provide wing forums,

trained, impartial mediators, or formal opportunities to

negotiate, are better equipped to resolve conflicts before they

result in a fight or assault. It is about creating a space in

which non-violent methods are credible, respected, and

workable.

Prison Managers

Conflicts are endemic in prisons – between managers and

staff, between prisoners and staff, and among prisoners. Most

managers have well-developed skills of working with conflicts

constructively.

It makes sense to promote social order by promoting

objectives that address the underlying causes of conflict;

namely:

fulfilling prisoners’ basic human needs

protecting prisoners’ personal safety

providing opportunities to exercise personal autonomy

building in mechanisms for prisoners to resolve conflicts

26

Safety is an essential requirement of an effective and

humane penal system. Reducing violence is a huge and

complex challenge. Understanding conflict sheds light on the

underlying causes of fights and assaults, and provides

dynamic and effective tools for managing prisons. Thus

conflict resolution can refine violence reduction strategies

and empower governors, officers and prisoners in their efforts

to make prisons safer.

Dr Kimmett Edgar

Head of Research

Prison Reform Trust

kimmett.edgar@prisonreformtrust.org.uk

27

SOURCES

Bosworth, M and Carrabine, E (2001) ‘Reassessing resistance: race, gender

and sexuality in prison’, Punishment and Society, 3: 501-515.

Bottoms, A E (1999) (1999) ‘Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in

Prison,’ Crime and Justice, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 205-281.

Edgar, K, O’Donnell, I, and Martin, C (2003) Prison Violence: The dynamics of

conflict, fear, and power, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

House of Commons Oral Evidence, taken before the Justice Committee:

Crime Reduction: A Co-ordinated Approach? Tuesday, 4 February, 2014, Q

395.

Prison Reform Trust (2008) Prisoners’ Voices: Experiences of the criminal

justice system by prisoners with learning disabilities and learning difficulties,

by Jenny Talbot, London: The Prison Reform Trust

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/No%20One%20Kno

ws%20report-2.pdf

Prison Reform Trust (2014) Prison: The Facts – Bromley Briefings, Summer

2014

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20fa

cts%20May%202014.pdf

Wolfgang, M E (1957) ‘Victim Precipitated Criminal Homicide,’ Criminal Law,

Criminology, and Police Science, 48: 1-11.

28

Prison Checklist for Preventing Violence

• Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among prisoners are

easily accessed by all prisoners

• All prisoners are protected from victimisation

• Officers are alert to any aggressive behaviours

• Risk assessments are based on dynamic factors and are

regularly updated

• Dynamic security enables staff to recognise signs of

trouble early

• Regular wing meetings discuss causes of tensions

• Prisoners’ basic human needs are met

• Racial and or ethnic tensions are managed

• Prisoners’ skills in responding to conflict are developed

• Prisoners are consulted about how to reduce violence

• Mediation is widely available

• Regular prisoner surveys about victimisation provide

knowledge about underlying factors contributing to

violence

• Rules against drugs, weapons, and other contraband are

rigorously enforced

• Better supervision of ‘high-crime’ areas within the prison

• Good relationships are fostered

• Non-violent responses to conflict are rewarded