Prison Service Journal - Centre for Crime and Justice Studies · PDF fileA l a nH mi dJ eOg are based at the School of Psychology, ... Issue 234 Prison Service Journal 3 What is d/Deafness?

This edition includes:

Suffering in Silence: The unmet needs of d/Deaf prisonersDr Laura Kelly

The illicit economy in prisons:A new measure of biddability (BIDSCALE) to predict

involvement in prison illicit economy and its consequencesAlan Hammill, Jane Ogden and Emily Glorney

Military veteran-offenders:Making sense of developments in the debate to inform

service deliveryDr Katherine Albertson, Dr James Banks and Dr Emma Murray

Should the public be listening to prison radio programmes? An exploration of prison radio in Sweden

and North AmericaSiobhann Tighe and Dr Victoria Knight

Inspecting PrisonsInterview with Peter Clarke

P R I S O N S E R V I C E

OURNALJNovember 2017 No 234

P R I S O N S E R V I C EP R I S O N S E R V I C E

OOUURRNNALALJJ

Prison Service Journal Prison Service JournalIssue 234Issue 234

Contents

3 Suffering in Silence: The unmet needs of d/DeafprisonersDr Laura Kelly

Editorial Comment2

16 The illicit economy in prisons: A new measure ofbiddability (BIDSCALE) to predict involvement inprison illicit economy and its consequencesAlan Hammill, Jane Ogden and Emily Glorney

Military veteran-offenders: Making sense ofdevelopments in the debate to inform servicedeliveryDr Katherine Albertson, Dr James Banks and Dr EmmaMurray

23

Alan Hammill and Jane Ogdenare based at the School ofPsychology, University of Surrey, andEmily Glorney is based at theDepartment of Forensic Psychology,Royal Holloway, University of London.

Dr Laura Kelly is a Lecturer inCriminology at the University ofCentral Lancashire.

Purpose and editorial arrangements

The Prison Service Journal is a peer reviewed journal published by HM Prison Service of England and Wales.

Its purpose is to promote discussion on issues related to the work of the Prison Service, the wider criminal justice

system and associated fields. It aims to present reliable information and a range of views about these issues.

The editor is responsible for the style and content of each edition, and for managing production and the

Journal’s budget. The editor is supported by an editorial board — a body of volunteers all of whom have worked

for the Prison Service in various capacities. The editorial board considers all articles submitted and decides the out-

line and composition of each edition, although the editor retains an over-riding discretion in deciding which arti-

cles are published and their precise length and language.

From May 2011 each edition is available electronically from the website of the Centre for Crimeand Justice Studies. This is available at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/psj.html

Circulation of editions and submission of articles

Six editions of the Journal, printed at HMP Leyhill, are published each year with a circulation of approximately

6,500 per edition. The editor welcomes articles which should be up to c.4,000 words and submitted by email to

[email protected] or as hard copy and on disk to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager,

HMP Leyhill, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8HL. All other correspondence may also be sent to the

Editor at this address or to [email protected].

Footnotes are preferred to endnotes, which must be kept to a minimum. All articles are subject to peer

review and may be altered in accordance with house style. No payments are made for articles.

Subscriptions

The Journal is distributed to every Prison Service establishment in England and Wales. Individual members of

staff need not subscribe and can obtain free copies from their establishment. Subscriptions are invited from other

individuals and bodies outside the Prison Service at the following rates, which include postage:

United Kingdom

single copy £7.00

one year’s subscription £40.00 (organisations or individuals in their professional capacity)

£35.00 (private individuals)

Overseas

single copy £10.00



Orders for subscriptions (and back copies which are charged at the single copy rate) should be sent with a

cheque made payable to ‘HM Prison Service’ to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager, HMP Leyhill,

Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8BT.

Dr Katherine Albertson is SeniorLecturer in Criminology at SheffieldHallam University, having conductedForces in Mind Trust1 and BritishAcademy2 grant research andevaluation work with ex-forcespersonnel in the community supportsetting, along with Dr James Banks,who is a Reader in Criminology,also at Sheffield Hallam University.Dr Emma Murray is a SeniorLecturer in Criminal Justice atLiverpool John Moores University,conducting research with militaryveterans in probation and prisonsettings.

Paul AddicottHMPPS

Dr Ruth ArmstrongUniversity of Cambridge

Dr Rachel BellHMP Wandsworth

Ian BickersMinistry of Justice

Alli BlackHMP Drake HallMaggie Bolger

Prison Service College, Newbold RevelProfessor Alyson Brown

Edge Hill UniversityGareth EvansIndependentDr Ben Crewe

University of CambridgeDr Sacha Darke

University of Westminster Dr Michael Fiddler

University of GreenwichDr Kate Gooch

University of Leicester

Chris GundersonHMP HewellSteve HallIndependent

Professor Yvonne JewkesUniversity of BrightonDr Helen JohnstonUniversity of HullDr Bill Davies

Leeds Beckett UniversityMartin Kettle

Church of EnglandDr Victoria KnightDe Montfort University

Monica LloydUniversity of Birmingham

Dr Amy LudlowUniversity of CambridgeAnne-Marie McAlindenQueen’s University, Belfast

Dr Ruth MannHMPPS

William PayneIndependentGeorge PughHMP BelmarshDr David ScottOpen University

Christopher StaceyUnlock

Ray TaylorHMPPS

Mike WheatleyHMPPS

Kim WorkmanRethinking Crime and Punishment, NZ

Adrian Rowbottom and Steve WilliamsHMP Leyhill

Editorial BoardDr Jamie Bennett (Editor)

Governor HMP Grendon & SpringhillPaul Crossey (Deputy Editor)

HMYOI FelthamDr Karen Harrison (Reviews Editor)

University of Hull

Should the public be listening to prison radioprogrammes? An exploration of prison radio inSweden and North AmericaSiobhann Tighe and Dr Victoria Knight

31Siobhann Tighe is a producer andreporter working for the BBCand Dr Victoria Knight is a SeniorResearch Fellow at De MontfortUniversity, Leicester.

November 2017

39 Book ReviewCultural criminology: An invitation (Secondedition)Dr Jamie Bennett

Dr Jamie Bennett is Governor ofHMP Grendon & Springhill.

40 Book ReviewThe Justice Women: The Female Presence in theCriminal Justice System 1800–1970Rachel Dixon-Goodall

Rachel Dixon-Goodall is a PhDStudent of Law, at the University ofHull.

The Editorial Board wishes to make clear that the views expressed by contributors are their own and donot necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Prison Service.Printed at HMP Leyhill on 115 gsm and 200 gsm Galerie Art SatinSet in 10 on 13 pt Frutiger LightCirculation approx 6,000ISSN 0300-3558„ Crown Copyright 2017

Book ReviewJosieDr Karen Harrison

42 Book ReviewRegulating Judges: Beyond Independence andAccountabilityWilliam Payne

William Payne was a prison governorand worked elsewhere in NOMSbefore retiring.

45 Inspecting Prisons: Interview with Peter ClarkeDr Jamie Bennett

1Issue 234 Prison Service Journal

41 Book ReviewThe Monstering of Myra HindleyDr Karen Harrison

Dr Karen Harrison is a SeniorLecturer in Law at the University ofHull.

42

Occasionally, academic research is criticised forexpressing the blindingly obvious albeit obscured byconvoluted language. These are criticism that could notbe levied against the lead article in this edition, Dr LauraKelly’s exploration of the experiences of d/Deafprisoners. This sensitive and in depth study usesinterviews with prisoners in order to reveal theirexperiences, bring their lives into view, and illuminatethe often hidden barriers and harms they face. Thestudy draws upon Deaf studies which proposes thatdeafness (without a capital letter) refers to a clinicalcondition where an individual experiences impairmentto their hearing function that meets a medically definedcriteria. In contrast, Deafness (with a capital letter)emphasises the cultural aspects, where an individualidentifies as being part of a distinct minority group,comprised of people who are proud to be Deaf andshare the same language, values and life experiences.This broader conception opens up the way for a richer,more nuanced and complete understanding of theexperiences of this group. Dr Kelly reveals that it isunclear how many people in prisons are d/Deaf.Estimates range from 400 to 1600. The interviews andanalysis does help to understand the challenges ofbeing d/Deaf in prison and how the lack of good qualityadjustments, technology and equipment mean thatindividuals can become isolated. Some attempts havebeen made to alleviate these issues but there remainsignificant economic and cultural barriers to change.This article is a significant and important contributionthat deserves to be read by those who are involved inprisons. There is much food for thought and reflectionas well as sensible recommendations for how thesituation can be improved.

Alan Hammill, Jane Ogden and Emily Glorney, intheir article, report on a study about prisonerinvolvement in the illicit economy, that is trade that isforbidden by law or by prison rules, including canteenitems, drugs, psychoactive substances, prescribedmedications, alcohol and mobile phones and servicessuch as money lending and gambling. They particularlyfocus on those who are vulnerable to becomingembroiled in the illicit economy. This uses research onconsumer debt and identifies those who prisoners whoare eager to please, easily led astray, impulsive orlacking self-control. This study proposes a quantitativescale to evaluate this, which may offer a tool for betterunderstanding individuals and the composition of the

illicit economy in prisons. This is an article that hasrelevance to violence reduction and safer custodystrategies in prisons.

The experience of military veterans has gainedmuch greater attention in recent years, includingthose who have been involved in the criminal justicesystem. Katherine Albertson, James Banks and EmmaMurray contribute a provocative article that attemptsto offer a fresh perspective. They attempt to avoid thepolemic that can often accompany debates aboutveterans, arguing that ‘Ultimately, this cohort, notwholly heroes, victims or villains, have a right to abalanced and sensitive approach to the developmentof services suited to identifying, assessing andmanaging their needs’. They suggest thattransitioning from military service to the communitycan be a difficult and painful process and thatveterans experience multi-faceted disadvantages andexclusion. They also argued that veteran identity isdeeply embedded and enduring. Taking theseelements of identity and social justice, the authorsargue that the experience of veterans should beencompassed within diversity and equalities practices.

The final article brings together a practitionerand a researcher: BBC reporter and producerSiobhann Tighe and Dr Victoria Knight of DeMontfort University, Leicester. In this they draw upona range of international examples of how radio hasbeen used to build connections between prisons andthe community and to deepen understanding. Thiscontribution expands the media that have been thefocus on criminological attention and identifies animportant means of creating public discourse.

This edition also includes an interview with ChiefInspector of Prisons, Peter Clarke. In this, he discussesthe current state of prisons in England and Wales andthe distinctive contribution of the inspectorate inpromoting good practice and reducing harm. Theinterview also ranges across recent and upcomingchanges to the inspection process includingstrengthening intervention in the worst situations.

As ever, Prison Service Journal covers bothcurrent issues and more enduring, intractablechallenges within the criminal justice system. PSJattempts to examine those issues from both atheoretical perspective but also with proper attentionto the reality of the everyday experiences of thosewho live and work in prisons.

Editorial Comment

Issue 2342 Prison Service Journal

Prison Service JournalIssue 234 3

What is d/Deafness?

For many, deafness is seen as simply being aninability to hear; a misfortunate affliction making‘normal’ life difficult.1 However, in reality definingd/Deafness is much more complex than this, withmedical conceptions of deafness differingsignificantly from those which are cultural. Medicaldefinitions look at deafness as an impairment,measuring the level of such impairment on aspectrum according to the quietest sound that anindividual is able to hear.2 The extent to which aperson is medically deaf varies significantly fromthose whose hearing is only slightly impaired, toindividuals who are hard of hearing (HoH), andfinally to those who are severely deaf. For thepurposes of this article, HoH refers to individualswith mild to moderate hearing loss who may havedifficulty following speech without the use ofhearing aids, and severely deaf includes those whohave little or no functional hearing, who usuallyneed to rely on lip reading even with hearing aids.3

In contrast to this, cultural definitions of d/Deafnessfocus on identity, and the way in which an individualidentifies with their d/Deafness. Cultural understandingsof d/Deafness have been discussed at length in the field ofDeaf studies, where scholars differentiate between

differing identifications using either a ‘d’ or a ‘D’, in linewith a convention proposed by James Woodward in1972,4 and developed by Carol Padden in 1980.5 Inaccordance with this, Deaf refers to individuals whoidentify as being part of a culturally distinct minoritygroup, who commonly use British Sign Language (BSL) tocommunicate.6 These individuals are seen as being part ofthe Deaf Community, which is comprised of people whoare proud to be Deaf and share the same language,values and life experiences.7 Exposure to Deaf life hasbeen shown to reveal to individuals that it is possible tolive full lives without sound, and to introduce them tovisual and tactile ways of behaving, including using touchto express warmth and friendliness, and for gettingpeople’s attention.8 In contrast, in terms of those who areHoH/deaf, but not Deaf, these individuals are commonlyshown to view their deafness negatively and to feelstigmatised by it.9 Consequently, common responses areeither to attempt to conceal it and to ‘pass’ as hearing, orto correct it with hearing aids.10

Irrespective of identity, d/Deaf individuals oftenrequire access to specialised equipment that can helpthem to live without sound during their day-to-day livesin the hearing world. Such equipment includesvibrating alarm clocks, flashing fire alarms, minicoms,11

hearing aids and hearing loop systems.12 Additionally,Deaf individuals usually require access to BSL

Suffering in Silence: The unmet needs ofd/Deaf prisoners

Dr Laura Kelly is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Central Lancashire.

1. Lane, H. Hoffmeister, R. Bahan, B. (1996) A Journey into the Deaf World, San Diego: Dawn Sign Press.2. Action on Hearing Loss (N.D) Definitions of Deafness [online] [Accessed on 19th June 2017] Available at:

https://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/about-deafness-and-hearing-loss/definitions-of-deafness.aspx.3. Action on Hearing Loss (2015) About deafness and hearing loss—Statistics [Online] [Accessed on 7th July 2016] Available at:

https://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/about-deafness-and-hearing-loss/statistics.aspx.4. Woodward, J. (1972) ‘Implications for sociolinguistic research among the Deaf’, Sign Language Studies, 1: pp 1–7.5. Padden, C. (1980) ‘The Deaf Community and the Culture of Deaf People.’ In Baker, C. & Battison, R. (eds.), Sign Language and the

Deaf Community: Essays in Honour of William. Silver Spring MD: National Association of the Deaf. 89–104.6. It must be acknowledged that an individual does not have to be severely deaf in order to identify as being part of this cultural and

linguistic minority group. In contrast it is possible for somebody to be HoH, yet to identify as being Deaf, and for a severely deafindividual to have no conception of cultural Deafness.

7. Higgins, P. (2002) ‘Outsiders in a Hearing World’, in Gregory, S. and Hartley, G. (eds) Constructing Deafness, London: Pinter.8. Leigh, I. W. (2009). A Lens on Deaf Identities. New York: Oxford University Press.9. Higgins, P. (1980) Outsiders in a Hearing World: A sociology of deafness, London: Sage.10. ibid.11. A minicom is a telephone that uses written text as the mode of communication. It is also known as a text phone and has a keyboard

attached, which enables text to be transmitted down the phone line. Minicoms can be used to communicate with other minicomusers, and can also be used to communicate with a person who prefers to converse in spoken word. In the latter instance a text relayservice must be used which transfers text in to spoken word, and vice versa (The National Deaf Children’s Society (2016) Minicom[Online] [Accessed on 29th July 2016] Available at:http://www.ndcs.org.uk/family_support/useful_links_and_organisations/glossary/minicom.html).

12. Hearing loop systems are a type of sound system used by people with hearing aids for the purpose of assisting them to hear in certain,often noisy environments. They consist of a physical wire that is placed around the parameter of a particular environment, whichproduces a magnetic field that is picked up by hearing aids when they are on a particular setting. The signals emitted from themagnetic field are then transferred back into audio, which minimises unwanted background noise, and maximises the quality of thesound for the hearing aid user (Hearing Link (N.D) What is a hearing loop? [Online] [Accessed on 29th July 2016] Available at:http://www.hearinglink.org/living/loops-equipment/hearing-loops/what-is-a-hearing-loop/).

Prison Service Journal4 Issue 234

interpreters for everyday interactions with hearingpeople in contexts such as university, the workplace,hospitals and legal appointments.

The prevalence of d/Deafness in the UK

Statistics show that over 11 million people in theUnited Kingdom have some form of hearing loss,13 afigure which includes all those who sit anywhere onthe spectrum of d/Deafness. Those classed as HoHmake up the majority of this number, withapproximately only 900,000individuals in the UnitedKingdom being either severelydeaf and/or culturally Deaf, andjust 24,000 of those declaringthat BSL is their preferredlanguage.14 This showstherefore that those whoidentify as being part of theDeaf community are indeed verymuch a minority group.

The prevalence of d/Deafnessin prisons in England and

Wales

There is currently no officialMinistry of Justice policy in placeto make it obligatory forestablishments to keep records oftheir numbers of HoH/d/Deafprisoners.15 Without this, it isdifficult to know how many ofthese prisoners are currentlyserving custodial sentences inEngland and Wales. An officialreport published by Her Majesty’sInspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) in200916 estimated that there were around 400 prisonerswith some form of hearing loss in England and Wales.However, in correspondence from the NationalOffender Management Service (NOMS) as part of thisresearch, it was advised that in August 2014,approximately 1600 prisoners had hearing difficulties.17

This figure was collated from the National OffenderManagement Information System (NOMIS) which isdescribed as the ‘Operational database usedin prisons for the management of offenders’.18

During this research, NOMS advised that althoughthe Prison Service has no legal obligation to recordnumbers of d/Deaf prisoners, many establishments useNOMIS to record figures of prisoners who self-declareas having disabilities (amongst other things). Accesswas given to figures from NOMIS for the purpose ofsample recruitment, as in the context of d/Deafness,

there is one relevant category onthe system; ‘Hearing Difficulties’.The broadness of this categoryimmediately raised doubts aboutthe competency of NOMIS as arecording mechanism forHoH/d/Deaf prisoner numbers, asthe lack of differentiationbetween the different levels ofd/Deafness makes it impossible toelucidate how many of thisnumber are Deaf, deaf, or HoH.Furthermore, throughout theduration of the research itbecame clear that differentestablishments used NOMISdifferently, and some did not useit at all, a point which raisesdoubts as to the accuracy of thefigure provided by NOMS.

An initial aim of this researchwas to provide a more accurateestimation of d/Deaf prisonernumbers than previously available.In order to do this a letterrequesting information was sent toevery establishment in Englandand Wales. However, and despite

a 70 per cent response rate from establishments, it soonbecame apparent that this would not be possible.Without a legal obligation or standardised recordingmechanism, prisons were often unable to providenumbers of d/Deaf prisoners, and of those who could,their reliance on NOMIS, coupled with a lack of

During thisresearch, NOMSadvised that

although the PrisonService has no legalobligation to recordnumbers of d/Deafprisoners, manyestablishments useNOMIS to recordfigures of prisonerswho self-declare ashaving disabilities(amongst other

things).

13. Action on Hearing Loss (2015) About deafness and hearing loss—Statistics [Online] [Accessed on 7th July 2016] Available at:https://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/your-hearing/about-deafness-and-hearing-loss/statistics.aspx.

14. ibid.15. McCulloch, D. (2012) Not Hearing Us: An exploration of the experience of deaf prisoners in English and Welsh prisons. A Report for

the Howard League for Penal Reform, London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.16. HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2009) Disabled Prisoners: A short thematic review on the care and support of prisoners with a disability.

London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons.17. National Offender Management Service (2014a) RE: Deaf prisoners [personal email to [email protected] from

[email protected] on 19th September 2014].18. Ministry of Justice (N.D) Prison National Offender Management Information System (p-NOMIS) and Inmate Information System (IIS)

[Online] [Accessed on 13th July, 2016] Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/prison-national-offender-management-information-system-p-nomis-and-inmate-information-system-ii.


awareness of the complexity of d/Deafness, meant thatthere was commonly little/no differentiation betweenthose who were HoH, deaf or indeed Deaf in the figuresprovided. This means therefore that there is still no clearidea of how many d/Deaf people are incarcerated inprisons in England and Wales.

Existing literature

Prior to the completion of this study, availableempirical research relating to the experiences of d/Deafpeople in prison was limited. Of the literature that wasavailable, most was anecdotal and very small scale, andwas often based on either American prisons or accountsof ex-prisoners.19 Numerous existing studies had anotherkey flaw in that they failed to acknowledge thecomplexity of d/Deafness or to differentiate meaningfullybetween the experiences of deaf and Deaf prisoners.

Despite these limitations, findings from existingstudies provided a useful indication of the position ofd/Deaf prisoners within the prison world. Within suchstudies, there was absolute consensus that d/Deafprisoners suffer disproportionately as a direct result oftheir d/Deafness, with communication barriers, resourceissues and a lack of d/Deaf awareness being cited as keycauses of this.20 In consequence, research carried out inEngland and Wales has suggested that these issues showthe Prison Service to be ill-equipped to meet the needs ofd/Deaf prisoners.21 In the most comprehensive empiricalstudy about this cross-section of the prison populationcarried out as part of his MA, McCulloch takes thisfurther, and argues that the treatment of d/Deaf people inprison equates to a violation of the Equality Act 2010.22

For the purposes of clarity, the relevant elements of thislegislation are discussed below.

The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 is the primary legalframework in place to protect the rights of d/Deafprisoners. It defines unlawful discrimination as treatingsomeone worse than others because of a protectedcharacteristic, and outlines nine of such characteristics.These include age, sexuality and disability, with therights of those who are d/Deaf being protected underthe characteristic of disability, which is defined as: ‘Aphysical or mental impairment ... [that] has a substantialand long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability tocarry out normal day to day activities’.23

With regards to the conditions implemented by theAct, it stipulates that, as far as is reasonable, publicservices must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to theirservice to ensure equality for all groups, and specifiesthat that such adjustments must be made for disabledpeople under three main circumstances.24 The firstwhere a service provider has a provision, policy orcriterion that places a disabled person at a ‘substantialdisadvantage’ in comparison to those who are notdisabled, the second where a physical feature puts adisabled person at a substantial disadvantage incomparison to a non-disabled person, and finally:

Where a disabled person would, but for theprovision of an auxiliary aid, be put at asubstantial disadvantage in relation to arelevant matter in comparison with personswho are not disabled, to take such steps as itis reasonable to have to take to provide theauxiliary aid25

19. For discussions on this see O’Rourke, S. and Reed, R. (2007) ‘Deaf People and the Criminal Justice System’ in, Austen, S. and Jeffery, D(eds). Deafness and Challenging Behaviour: The 360 Perspective, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

20. Ackerman, N (1998) Deafness and Prisons—A Study of Services for Deaf Prisoners and the Experience of being Deaf within a PrisonEnvironment [An unpublished dissertation], Oxford: Oxford Brookes UniversityFisken, R. (1994) The Deaf in Prison (unpublished dissertation), Cambridge: University of CambridgeGerrard, H. (2001) Double Sentence. Birmingham: BIDIzycky, A. and Gahir, M. (2007) The Adverse Effects of Imprisonment on Deaf Prisoners’ Mental Health: A Human Rights Perspective.[Online] [Accessed 3rd April 2013] Available at: www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8EA09898-A67A-4B68-91D6-BFC589345D9D/0/AdverseEffectsofImprisonment.pptMcCulloch, D. (2010) Not hearing us? A critical exploration of the current experiences of profoundly deaf prisoners in Anglo Welshprisons, (unpublished dissertation) Birmingham: Birmingham City UniversityGahir, M. O’Rourke, S. Monteiro, B. Reed, R. (2011) ‘The Unmet Needs of Deaf Prisoners: A Survey of Prisons in England and Wales’,International Journal on Mental Health and Deafness, 1(1)McCulloch, D. (2012) Not Hearing Us: An exploration of the experience of deaf prisoners in English and Welsh prisons. A Report for the Howard League for Penal Reform, London: The Howard League for Penal ReformRoyal National Institute for the Deaf (1995) Disabled Prisoners’ Needs: The urgency of a policy response. London: RNID.

21. Findings from a charity document produced by the British Deaf Association in 2016 after this research was completed provide furtherevidence of this (British Deaf Association (2016) Throw away the key? How Britain’s prisons don’t rehabilitate Deaf people [online]Accessed on 18/8/17, Available at: https://bda.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BDA-Deaf-Prisoners-Report-2016.pdf).

22. McCulloch, D. (2010) Not hearing us? A critical exploration of the current experiences of profoundly deaf prisoners in Anglo Welshprisons, (unpublished dissertation) Birmingham: Birmingham City University.McCulloch, D. (2012) Not Hearing Us: An exploration of the experience of deaf prisoners in English and Welsh prisons. A Report forthe Howard League for Penal Reform, London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.

23. Equality Act 2010. (c 15) [Online] [Accessed on 10th April 2013] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.24. ibid.25. ibid.


In terms of the application of these principles tothe Prison Service specifically, in 2011 a Prison ServiceInstruction (PSI) titled ‘Ensuring Equality’ wasintroduced which provided some further detail.26 Itstates that governors must consider what prisonerswith a disability might reasonably need and ensure thatreasonable adjustments are made for them. Thedocument stipulates that if an establishment is unableto make the necessary adjustments, then they musttransfer such prisoners to another establishment in atimely fashion.27, 28

However, even with such clarifications the Act hasbeen criticised for failing to provide a specific definitionof what would be classed as ‘reasonable’. McCullochargues that this ambiguity is problematic because itgives service providers the powerto interpret what is ‘reasonable’based upon their own subjectiveperceptions, thus underminingtheir accountability.29 In thecontext of the Prison Service, theaforementioned PSI attempts toprovide some clarity by statingthat ‘a reasonable adjustmentshould enable a disabled prisonerto take full part in the normal lifeof the establishment’.30 However,this is again problematic as it alsogoes on to say that ‘The law doesnot specify what factors youshould take into account whenconsidering what is ‘reasonable’.In the event of any legal action,reasonableness is determined bythe courts on an individualbasis’.31

This study

The primary aim of this research was to provide amore rigorous and comprehensive account of the livesof d/Deaf prisoners in England and Wales than wasalready available. As part of this, meaningfulconsideration was given to the role of ‘imported’

identity in prison, with the experiences of deaf and Deafprisoners being examined separately. The research alsofurther explored previous claims that d/Deaf prisonerssuffer disproportionately in prison, and gave particularfocus to McCulloch’s (2012) claim that the PrisonService is failing to adhere to the legal duty imposed bythe Equality Act 2010 in this particular context.

In order to address the research aims, anexploratory qualitative research design was utilised. Aspart of this, 27 semi-structured interviews were carriedout across seven male prisons throughout Englandbetween December 2014 and May 2015. Ten of thesewere with staff members who had worked with d/Deafprisoners, seven with culturally Deaf prisoners, five withseverely deaf prisoners and five with HoH prisoners. In

addition to this, a further groupinterview was carried out withfour culturally Deaf prisoners atHMP Bowdon,32 and observationswere made and recorded in afieldwork journal at all of theestablishments entered.

All interviews were recordedusing a Dictaphone, and ininstances where a participant’sfirst language was BSL, aqualified interpreter was present.After the interviews werecompleted, they were transcribedwith the aim of being as close toverbatim as possible. Thetranscriptions were then analysedusing what is known as thematicanalysis, which allowed for theorganisation of large amounts of

raw data, and for the discovery of patterns that wouldhave otherwise been difficult to detect.33

This research proved to be very complicated toundertake for numerous reasons, the first relating tothe fact that that there is no meaningful mechanismin place for recording d/Deaf prisoner numbers, asthis made it difficult to locate appropriate researchparticipants. In addition to this, furthermethodological complications arose as a result of the

All interviewswere recorded

using a Dictaphone,and in instances

where aparticipant’s firstlanguage was BSL,

a qualifiedinterpreterwas present.

26. Ministry of Justice (2011) Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 Ensuring Equality. [Online] [Accessed 7th July 2016] Available at:https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psis/prison-service-instructions-2011.

27. ibid.28. However, the PSI also states that delays are acceptable in instances where the proposed receiving establishment cannot provide

appropriate facilities.29. McCulloch, D. (2010) Not hearing us? A critical exploration of the current experiences of profoundly deaf prisoners in Anglo Welsh

prisons, (unpublished dissertation) Birmingham: Birmingham City UniversityMcCulloch, D. (2012) Not Hearing Us: An exploration of the experience of deaf prisoners in English and Welsh prisons. A Report forthe Howard League for Penal Reform, London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.

30. Ministry of Justice (2011) Prison Service Instruction 32/2011 Ensuring Equality. [Online] [Accessed 7th July 2016] Available at:https://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/psis/prison-service-instructions-2011.

31. ibid.32. For the purposes of anonymity all prisons named in the research have been given pseudonyms.33. Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, London: Sage.


language barriers between the researcher and theculturally and linguistically Deaf prisoners, with theirpreference for a visual language making the processof ensuring that the research was both ethical andauthentic more difficult than it otherwise would havebeen. Such difficulties were compounded by the factthat establishments did not allow the researcher touse a visual recording device to record the interviews,and did not provide the culturally Deaf participantswith access to visual copies of the consent forms andinformation sheets that had been provided by theresearcher.

Findings

Findings from this researchechoed those of previous studies,showing clearly that at the timethe research was carried out, thePrison Service was failing to meetthe needs of d/Deaf prisoners.While there were certainly somepockets of good practice, andinstances where individual staffmembers were going above andbeyond to attempt to meet theneeds of these prisoners,examples of this were few andfar between. On the contrary, formost of the severely deaf andculturally and linguistically Deafprisoners included in this study,the pains and deprivationsassociated with imprisonmentwent way beyond those of otherprisoners. In earlier studies, theterm ‘double punishment’34 hasbeen used; however, findingsfrom this research indicate thatthis term is not even nearly strong enough. While manyprison researchers have concluded that minoritygroups, such as women, foreign national and olderprisoners suffer disproportionately whilst in prison,35

numerous staff members included in this researchinsisted that few such groups were more deprived thanthose who were d/Deaf. Key reasons for this are; theirlack of access to sound, and, for Deaf prisoners, theircultural and language difference.

Turning firstly to role of sound; it became clearthroughout the duration of the research that prisonas an establishment relies on sound in order to run,with tannoys, voices, bells and alarms all beingcentral to the prison regime. As a result of this,prisoners need access to sound in order to becomeintegrated into prison life. Therefore, those who ared/Deaf require access to equipment that convertssound into a d/Deaf friendly format. Many d/Deafprisoners will need hearing aids and hearing loops,36

and most will require access to flashing fire alarms,vibrating alarm clocks andminicoms (for the purpose oftelephone conversations).Equipment such as subtitledtelevisions and high qualityheadphones are also commonrequirements.

Despite this, the d/Deafparticipants included in thisresearch were not consistentlygiven access to such equipment.One particularly insightfulexample of resource denial washighlighted by a Deaf participantwho had been told that he‘wasn’t allowed’ over-earheadphones despite not beingable to wear the in-earheadphones provided becausehe was born without ears. Astaff member who had beenpresent during this interviewspoke of being shocked athearing this information andfeeling as though in thisinstance denial of suchequipment was unacceptable.This notion of ‘not being

allowed’ certain equipment was reflected in otherinterviews, with one participant discussing being toldthat he was not allowed a minicom because it would‘be against the rules’, and another being unable toget access to a vibrating alarm clock because it was‘an unauthorised item’. In the latter instance, thisinformation was verified by the present staff member,who agreed that for procedural reasons he would notbe allowed access to a vibrating alarm clock.

One particularlyinsightful exampleof resource denialwas highlighted bya Deaf participantwho had been toldthat he ‘wasn’tallowed’ over-earheadphones despitenot being ableto wear the in-earheadphones

provided becausehe was bornwithout ears.

34. For example Howard League for Penal Reform (2016) Frances Crook’s blog 15 Jul 2016: Double punishment [Online] [Accessed on 4thSeptember 2016] Available at: http://howardleague.org/blog/double-punishment/.

35. HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2006) Foreign national prisoners: A thematic review, London: HM Inspectorate of PrisonsMann, N. (2016) ‘Older age, harder time: Ageing and imprisonment’, in, Jewkes, Y. Crewe, B. And Bennett, J. (Eds) Handbook onPrisons (2nd Edition), London: RoutledgeMoore, L. and Scraton, P. (2013) The Incarceration of Women: Punishing Bodies, Breaking Spirits. London: Palgrave.

36. However, it is important to specify that many culturally and linguistically Deaf people do not wear hearing aids or use hearing loops, astheir language and culture is visual rather than oral.


Furthermore, only one of seven participants whoneeded them had consistent access to good qualityhearing aids. Of the other six participants, three didhave access to hearing aids, but experienced difficultiesin that the hearing aids were either of a low quality, setincorrectly or prone to running out of batteries, asshown via the below quote:

They are a bit parsimonious with thebatteries, they will give you one little cardand that is it. And then when you queue upthere probably won’t be any at the healthkiosk. So it is one of intermittent supply,which causes great problems for us, becauseif you lose your hearing you just can’tfunction at all ... Just tryingto function as a prisonerdoing the everyday thingsthat are part of the systemcan be very difficult if youcan’t hear properly!

The three remainingparticipants who needed hearingaids did not have access to themat all in prison, as demonstratedhere:

The only place I feelcomfortable is in court, andit is ridiculous for a personto only feel comfortable incourt, where they are goingto get a sentence ... [Incourt] I have a thing thatgoes in my ear with a loopto everybody’s microphone. I just want myhearing aid; I would be fine. I think I wouldbe more my old self.

In such a sound oriented environment, this lackof access to the necessary equipment has significantconsequences for d/Deaf prisoners, whoconsequently become isolated from prison life (todifferent degrees depending on the severity of theirhearing loss). Participants reported being unable tohear tannoys or calls from staff members, and oftengetting into trouble when they did not respond tothem. This issue was discussed by staff members,with one prison officer advising that the Deafprisoner at the prison had missed multiple mealsbecause he had not heard the tannoy, and anothermember of staff stating:

If I’ve gone on to a landing and I’ve neededone of the Deaf guys to come out of his celland down to the office, they will go on thetannoy and say ‘Mr such and such to theoffice’, and I just think why are they doingthat, he isn’t going to hear you?

Participants also reported being unable to hear thetelevision, which exacerbated boredom and monotony,and created issues with their cellmates if they wantedto turn the volume up higher. Another key issue relatedto an inability to hear fire alarms, which madeparticipants feel disproportionately unsafe. None of theparticipants had access to visual fire alarms, which wasdiscussed by a staff member who stated:

I’ve asked the governors toprovide things to help us withhim. For instance, if there is afire … But he’s got nothing ...and they’ve known about thisfor months and months andthe fire officer came andassessed it, and said yeah thisis what we need, but it’s nothere.

The consequences of thislack of provision were highlightedby one prisoner who said:

In education twice there’sbeen fires and they’ve allrushed out, and I’m the lastone because the alarmsgone off and no-one’s let me

know; I’ve told them that they need to havesomething in place, but there is still nothing.

Other issues included struggling to communicatewith doctors or solicitors, or to participate ineducation/training programmes because they could nothear what was being said.37 A final main problem thatarose in consequence to a lack of access to sound relatedto the reporting of higher barriers to meaningful contactwith family and friends compared with their hearingpeers, due to lack of access to necessary equipment,which in turn compounded isolation from them.38 Anexample of this came from one prisoner who describedhis relationship with his wife and children as being ‘gone’.This issue is more problematic for Deaf prisoners, whocommonly do not communicate with speech, thusmaking phone calls even more problematic.

Other issuesincluded strugglingto communicatewith doctorsor solicitors,

or to participate ineducation/trainingprogrammes

because they couldnot hear what was

being said.

37. This also made a number of the interviews for this research very difficult to conduct.38. This is particularly problematic given the links between continued contact with family and friends and desistance from crime.


After discussing issues relating to sound whichaffected all of the participants involved in theresearch, the additional problems experienced by theDeaf prisoners as an outcome of their cultural andlinguistic difference will now be considered. Theseven Deaf participants interviewed resided in threeprisons; five of whom were situated in one, and theremaining two each in different establishments. Interms of communication, all of these prisonerspreferred to communicate in BSL, and only two couldspeak in any coherent way. Additionally, three of theseven were able to read and write.39 The fact that BSLwas their primary (and often only) language, meantthat access to qualified BSL interpreters was requiredin almost every scenario involving hearing people.40

Despite this, an inability to obtain access tointerpreters emerged as a core theme in all of theinterviews, with such provision appearing to be rare. Aparticularly concerning example of the extent of thislack of provision was provided by a staff member,who, when discussing one of the Deaf participants,advised that he was not provided with an interpreterat his trial, and subsequently ‘Didn’t even know whathe was sentenced to, where he were going, whatcategory he were going to be’ until he had been inprison for a number of months. This staff memberspoke candidly throughout the interview andadmitted that despite being ‘desperate’ tocommunicate with the prisoner, she had been unableto do so because they had not had an interpreter atthe establishment for over three months. It wasevident that she was anxious about this lack ofcommunication and was concerned for the prisoner’swelfare, which was reflected in the fact that she thenasked if she would be able to use the interpreter whowas present for the interview, to communicate withhim. The interpreter then accompanied her theprisoner’s cell where he interpreted a range ofquestions for her, all relating to the prisoner’s welfare.

The reasons for this lack of provision weremultifaceted. Staff members reported that insufficientfunding was key, however, the research showed that lackof Deaf awareness was also problematic. Although anumber of the staff members interviewed were Deafaware to a certain extent,41 it became apparent that prisonofficials commonly have little conception of Deafness,seeing deafness as a disability/mental impairment,42 andtherefore not knowing how to meet the cultural andlinguistic needs of deaf prisoners. This was highlighted byone staff member who, when asked whether she thoughtreasonable adjustments had been made for a Deafprisoner, responded by saying ‘No, I don’t actually knowwhat he should have. What rights should be in place forhim, I don’t know, I only know that we try and help himto live a safe life in here’. This lack of understanding ofhow to manage such difference was echoed by anothermember of staff, who stated that:

I know they had a Parole hearing last week orthe week before, and to be fair he [the offendersupervisor] was good in that he sat there andwas asked questions about the Deaf man, andwent ‘I’m out of my depth. I don’t have a clue,I don’t know how to work with this man, I can’tassess him because I don’t even know how tocommunicate with him so it wouldn’t be fair forme to comment43

Staff members were shown to respond to thecommunication void that existed between themselvesand Deaf prisoners in a multitude of concerning ways.The first main response was to leave them to their owndevices, as highlighted by two staff members at oneestablishment who felt that, without them, other prisonofficers would forget that the Deaf prisoner was there.An example of this was provided by this prisoner’spersonal officer, who, when speaking of the treatmentthat he received while she was off sick for six weeks, said:

39. Because BSL is a visual language, many Deaf people never learn to read or write.40. While this problem could be alleviated if there were other prisoners or staff members at the establishment who could communicate

fluently in BSL, this was not the case. 41. It tended to be these staff members who, out of concern for the Deaf prisoner(s), agreed to be interviewed.42. The idea that Deafness was somehow linked to mental impairment was further ingrained by the fact that Deaf prisoners commonly

achieve low results when doing IQ tests in prison. One member of staff found this extremely frustrating, saying that there ‘Aren’t anyIQ assessments that have been developed that would help Deaf men yet because you would have to translate the instructions. And assoon as you don’t use the instructions how they are written it invalidates the assessment’. This therefore means that existing IQ testresults for Deaf prisoners are often likely to be invalid as they are based upon questions that are created for written rather than visualresponses, and therefore if the individual is unable to read or write the results will not reflect their true intellect.

43. While it could be argued that such issues also apply to foreign national prisoners, who are also culturally and linguistically different,staff members felt that they had more difficulty accommodating the needs of Deaf prisoners than those of other minority groupsbecause they did not have access to the one thing that they need in prison; sound. Foreign national prisoners were viewed as beingeasier to provide for simply because they were able to hear, as highlighted by one staff member who felt that Deaf prisoners had the‘worst’ time in prison because ‘Even with foreign nationals, they can hear can’t they? They can hear, and the prison runs English as aforeign language courses, so they can learn English. Our Deaf guys can never learn to hear. We have the resources for stuff to be in theother languages, but not for sign language ... [Also] everything that is written down, we have it in a thousand different languages. Soat least they [foreign nationals] can access the written stuff. Whereas our Deaf guys don’t have that. When trying to get interpreters init has always been the attitude of, ‘We can’t’. Even down to legal representation, solicitors are aware of getting foreign languageinterpreters; I just don’t think they are aware of Deaf interpreters’.


So I came back from the sick and ... in thattime, again, he has been neglected. When Icame back he were like a vagrant; you can’twalk in his cell, you walk in and it is likehorrific, the smell ... It does upset me to seehim just festering there. So when I came backthe other day, I were like, ‘Oh my god’. He justgets left; it is like horrific, horrific.

This notion of Deaf prisoners being ‘left’ becausethey are too profoundly different to accommodate wasalso discussed by a staff member at another prison whostated that, ‘Half the time the staff can’t communicatewith them, so they just leave them, and they just getstuck in the system’.

Another key response of staff members was totreat Deaf prisoners as though they were hearing; totalk to them and write thingsdown and hope that they couldunderstand, as discussed here:

Offender supervisors wouldjust ‘manage’ and hope the[Deaf] guy understands,and a lot of them I don’tthink really understand howDeaf their guys are or theircommunication needs, sothey just think ‘Oh yeah, henods along so he mustunderstand’ ... Or, like Iwent to see Thomas44 on hiswing to tell him that anappointment had beencancelled, and I spoke tothe officer first and said‘Can you just let him know this and this?’,and he went ‘Yeah yeah. Just write it down’.I was like ‘Okay, is that to remind you’, andhe was like ‘No, I’ll just give it to him’. ThenI was like ‘But he can’t read English’. Theofficer was then like ‘Can’t he? Well wealways do that’. Then I said, ‘Well does healways get it wrong?’, and he was like,‘Yeah, come to think of it’. And I was like,‘Because he can’t read what you are writingdown for him!!’.

In HMP Bowdon where there were six Deafprisoners, there were multiple staff members who couldcommunicate in BSL at a basic level, three of whomwere interviewed as part of this research. These staffmembers spoke of being used as interpreters by otherstaff members, despite only having a limited

understanding of the language. While they viewed sucha response as inevitable, they also felt that the extent towhich other staff members were relying on theirabilities had become problematic, as illustrated below:

Like when I’ve been called and they say,‘We’ve got an adjudication with this guy, canyou come and interpret?’, and I’m like ‘NO,because I’m not an interpreter’. And they arelike ‘Oh, okay. Well we’ll just go aheadanyway’, and I’m like ‘Well, you can’t reallydo that because it is a legal setting and youshouldn’t be doing that without aninterpreter’. I’m not going to get listened tobut I know that’s not the right thing for thatperson.

Another strategy employedby staff members at HMPBowdon was to use one of theDeaf prisoners (who could lipread and talk to a certain level)as an interpreter. The Deafprisoners were very positiveabout this as they felt that ithelped them to communicate,however staff members wereconcerned that it was giving himan almost unprecedented levelof control, as shown in theconversation below:

Staff member: There is oneDeaf guy on the wing at themoment and they basicallyuse him as an interpreter

which is VERY ropey.

Interviewer: Do they do that a lot?

Staff member: Yeah.

Interviewer: What do you think of that?

Staff member: It scares me. He has personalitytraits that do not need to be encouraged,which relate to putting him in a position ofpower.

Interviewer: In terms of his offence?

Staff member: Yeah. So yeah, it encouragesall the wrong messages that we don’t want tobe giving that individual.

Interviewer: Have you told them [the otherstaff members] that?

44. This is a pseudonym.

When I came backhe were like a

vagrant; you can’twalk in his cell, youwalk in and it is likehorrific, the smell ...

It does upset meto see him just

festering there.


Staff member: We’ve had discussions about it,but then there’s also the, ‘Yeah well we arestuck, so this is the best we can do’. They arevery reliant, it is worrying. It just worries me asto the level of manipulation that is going onthere. By him helping out staff, staff seem to bereally helpful with him, and I think that’sopening a dodgy door for him grooming staff.

Interviewer: Really?

Staff member: Yeah. Crossing boundaries andstuff ... It is a concern for someone with hispersonality traits, that we would be concernedabout anyway, almost psychopathy traits thatwe need to manage. A hearing guy isn’t easy tomanage, but it is easier to raise staff awarenessof that, and to be putting inboundaries that are quitestrict, and making sure theyaren’t crossed. But given thatthey need him, thoseboundaries are more lax. It’sjust not good.

For the participants who werethe only Deaf person at theirrespective establishments, this lackof access to other Deaf people, orindividuals who couldcommunicate in BSL, led to almosttotal cultural and communicationisolation. However, because therewere multiple prisoners at HMPBowdon, it had been anticipatedthat life for these prisoners would be easier, and that suchisolation would be less all-encompassing because theyhad each other to communicate with. While this wasindeed the case in certain scenarios, it became apparentthat many of their experiences did in fact mirror those ofthe prisoners who were the only Deaf person at anestablishment. It was found that most staff members atthe prison had little understanding about why it would bebeneficial for Deaf prisoners to be situated on the samewing, and therefore separated them. This was a point offrustration for all of the Deaf prisoners interviewed, whodiscussed being transferred to the establishment fromother prisons with the impression that it was going to be‘Deaf friendly’ and then being equally isolated, as shownvia the following quote:

At the other prison I was isolated, no Deaf lads.So they said come over to here, so I came here

and I was glad I saw Deaf lads. But when theystart separating us in different wings, I think‘why are you doing that?’. We are here for areason; we are supposed to be here together toget rid of the isolation. I don’t want to beisolated again, to sit with the hearing peopleand not with the Deaf ... We are isolated on ourown, we feel overpowered. We should all be onthe same landing, so we can see each other,and communicate with each other.

Staff members validated this viewpoint, confirmingthat such separation was largely a consequence of a lackof Deaf awareness, as opposed to security or offencerestrictions.

A lack of Deaf awareness also created other problemsfor these prisoners, as many staffmembers perceived culturally Deafbehaviour such as touching orsigning as being problematic. Theresearch showed that because theoverwhelming majority of staffmembers were unable tocomprehend sign language theythen looked upon it with suspicion,as shown in the following quotefrom a staff member:

But then there are negativeattitudes about how the Deafprisoners interact with eachother, which I don’t necessarythink is about rules, but ratherstaff not being aware of Deaf

culture ... They fear that they don’t know what’sgoing on because they can’t understand whatthey are saying [when the Deaf prisoners arecommunicating in BSL], or what’s happening,[and they worry] that they might be able togroup together and make plans and plot.

In addition to there being a generalised suspicion ofBSL, it became clear that there were certain types of signsthat were viewed disproportionately problematically, withone staff member saying that when she looked on stafflogs there were lots of unwarranted entries about ‘Deafaggression’ when specific signs were used.45 The extent ofthis problem was highlighted by a prisoner who claimedthat himself and the other Deaf prisoners at HMPBowdon had been attempting to sign to each other ‘insecret’ in order to avoid provoking suspicion from staffmembers and other prisoners.

... because theoverwhelmingmajority of staffmembers wereunable tocomprehend

sign language theythen looked upon itwith suspicion ...

45. This was also found to be problematic in the context of Parole Boards where the signing of Deaf prisoners was so demonstrative(which is normal in Deaf culture), that it was seen as evidence of ‘risky’ or unsafe behaviour; thus making it more difficult for Deafprisoners to be paroled.


The Deaf prisoners’ use of touch was also viewed asproblematic there, with it being deemed as inappropriatefor them to touch staff members for both security andauthority related reasons, as shown here:

As an officer, prisoners are not allowed to touchme. But for a Deaf prisoner, they will tap you onthe shoulder, and if you want to be pedanticabout it, a lot of officers are a bit taken aback,and would class it as an assault.

As a consequence of the issues discussed thus far(namely inappropriate resource allocation and minimalstaff Deaf awareness), Deafprisoners become almostcompletely isolated from prisonlife. These individuals are oftenunable to access medicalassistance or legal aid with aninterpreter, or to gain a meaningfulunderstanding of the penal regimeor the expectations of theirprisoner role.46 While there isinsufficient space here to provideexamples of each individual issue,the below conversation with astaff member highlights the extentof these problems:

Staff Member: This one Deafman ... I know he has a lot ofhealth care problems and itnever really came out until wewere in group,47 and hestarted to talk about it andthe interpreters were like,‘We are quite worried abouthim, we think there’s actuallyquite a lot wrong with him, we need to get himseen by the doctor’. So I contacted healthcareon his behalf who said, ‘Yeah yeah, we’ve seenhim before a few times, he’s fine’. I was like‘How do you know he was fine?’, and theywere, like ‘He said he is, he was smiling’. Andit’s like, this man is profoundly Deaf and youhaven’t got an interpreter; you have got a dutyof care, and you are saying yeah yeah you thinkhe’s fine, but he can’t communicate with you

and you can’t communicate with him, so howcan you say that?

Interviewer: Has anything happened as aresult of that?

Staff Member: We’ve had a lot of rows withhealthcare. They basically said that they don’thave the funding, and we were like well youcan’t not treat them.

Interviewer: Do they apply for funding from adifferent place?

Staff Member: Yeah ... So yeah, they justrefused. So it got to the pointwhere we just asked ourinterpreters to stick aroundfor an extra hour after sessionto go to healthcare with him,and actually get him thetreatment that he neededand the tests that he needed... [It’s] really dangerous, reallyunethical. I don’t know howthey have argued it for solong, and have got away withit. It is scary.

Interviewer: The guyscomplained to me a lot aboutnot having interpreters for thedoctor and all that sort ofthing. Did it mean that he hadillnesses that weren’t treatedthen?

Staff Member: Yeah, yeah.Quite serious stuff. And thestuff that he was worried

about, he was worried about cancer and allsorts, and from what he described it soundedfeasible. I don’t know the ins and outs of whathe actually has but that was, the interpreters arebound by confidentiality, but yes he has someserious stuff to get sorted.

Interviewer: And it was just being left?

Staff Member: Yes, just left. It’s scary.

As an officer,prisoners are notallowed to touch

me. But for a Deafprisoner, they will

tap you on theshoulder, and if youwant to be pedantic

about it, a lot ofofficers are a bit

taken aback,and would class it

as an assault.

46. All of the Deaf participants were confused about prison rules and procedures, with four of the prisoners reporting being reprimandedwhen accidently breaking rules. All but one had little understanding of the complaints or application procedure, and during interviewsit became apparent that numerous individuals did not understand the terms ‘tariff’ or ‘offender supervisor’.

47. This staff member worked in the psychology department at HMP Bowdon where there was a treatment programme running whichhad been tailored to meet the needs of Deaf prisoners. As part of this, interpreters were used. All of the Deaf prisoners were extremelypositive about this programme, and advised it was the only context within which they had consistent access to qualified interpreters.For the purposes of anonymity, no further information is provided here about the nature of the programme, however this is what thestaff member is referring to when she says ‘group’.


Additionally, without access to BSL interpreters,Deaf prisoners (particularly those who cannot read orwrite) are largely unable to access education, trainingor rehabilitative programmes. This was problematicfor a number of reasons; the first being that it causedDeaf prisoners to experience the monotony of prisonat a more intense level than their hearing peers, withone participant becoming upset when asked aboutthis and saying, ‘What do I have to do? Just sit in mycell all day, and watch the TV’. The second reasonthat this lack of access to classes/courses is significantis because by failing to adapt such activities to makethem accessible for Deaf prisoners the Prison Serviceis failing to meet one of its main aims: rehabilitation.As well as being problematic forthe prisoners themselves, thiscould also undermine publicsafety, as acknowledged by astaff member, who whendiscussing one of the Deafprisoners, stated that becausehe had a determinate sentence‘He will be released regardless... and it could lead to morevictims’. Contrasting problemswere created for the prisonersat HMP Bowdon, all of whomwere serving IndeterminateSentences for Public Protection(IPPs), and could not be releaseduntil a Parole Board wasconvinced that they no longerposed a risk to the public.Because the prison could notprovide them with access to thenecessary ‘risk reducingprogrammes’, all five prisoners were already over-tariff and were concerned that a lack of access tocourses that were on their sentence plans wouldmean that they would never be able to leave prison.These perceptions were echoed by the staff membersinterviewed there, who were in agreement that IPPsentences were inappropriate for Deaf prisoners, asdiscussed below:

If they are on a determinate sentence theywill just get released anyway, and if they arenot on a determinate sentence they mightnever get released just because they areDeaf ... Everybody kept telling them thatthey had to do a course, but they can’tbecause they are Deaf. And then they aretold that they can’t get out until they do acourse, but you can’t do a course becauseyou are Deaf.

As a result of the issues discussed throughoutthis section of the article, severely deaf andparticularly culturally and linguistically Deaf prisonersexperience the pains of imprisonment differently andmuch more intensely than their hearing peers, to thepoint that are often forced to live in a continual formof solitary confinement. The Prison Service in itscurrent form is not an appropriate place to hold theseprisoners, and consequently appears to have adisproportionately damaging effect on their mentalhealth. All of the Deaf prisoners appeared anxious,lonely, fearful, frustrated, and confused during theirinterviews, as shown here by one participant whosepoignant reflection captures the sadness of his plight:

I only feel a little bitdepressed, not heavilydepressed. Sometimes I cryjust because I am in prison. Icry a lot ... because there’snobody Deaf, there’snobody Deaf here. I can’tcommunicate. I can’t expressmyself to anybody.

Recommendations for thePrison Service

It is clear that the PrisonService is failing to meet the needsof d/Deaf people in prison in anyconsistent way. Findings from thisresearch map onto those ofMcCulloch, demonstrating clearlythat the prisons included in theresearch were not complying withthe conditions of the Equality Act

2010, and were consequently acting illegally by failing tomeet the duty the legislation imposes. While promotingpolicy change was not a core aim of this research, itsfindings have obvious implications for Prison Servicepolicy. With this in mind, in order to ensure thatestablishments are able to comply with the legalstipulations of the Equality Act 2010 and to implementthe necessary reasonable adjustments for d/Deafprisoners, a set of recommendations for change for thePrison Service have been outlined. The purpose of this isto provide suggestions which are seen as being bothpractical and feasible for the Prison Service to implement.With this in mind, it is recommended that the PrisonService ought to make the following changes to theirpractices and procedures if they are to be compliant withthe conditions of the Equality Act 2010:

1. To make it a statutory requirement forestablishments to record d/Deaf prisoner numbers,and to introduce an accurate system for doing so.

If they are ona determinate

sentence they willjust get releasedanyway, and if

they are noton a determinate

sentence they mightnever get releasedjust because they

are Deaf ...


The implementation of this recommendation isimperative, as this research has shown that without anaccurate recording mechanism the Prison Service has littleknowledge of numbers or locations of HoH/d/Deafprisoners, or the extent of their d/Deafness. For thesefigures to be accurate and useful, distinctions must bemade between the different levels of d/Deafness, withHoH, deaf and Deaf being split into separate subsections,and there being simple definitions provided for each term.Establishments must be provided with clear standardisedguidelines for how to implement the system, and staffmembers must undertake training in order to becomecompetent in its use.

2. To acknowledge theimportance of sound inprison, and to make itstandard practice forHoH/d/Deaf prisoners to beprovided with equipmentthat converts sound into anaccessible format. This research has shown that

HoH/d/Deaf prisoners havedifficulty becoming integrated intothe prison regime without accessto specialist equipment thatconverts sound into a d/Deaffriendly format. To overcome this,HoH/d/Deaf prisoners must begiven access to items such as visualfire alarms and vibrating alarmclocks. Minicoms must also beprovided where necessary toensure that these prisoners are able to use the telephone,as should hearing aids, replacement batteries and hearingloops.

3. To ensure that BSL is treated as an officiallanguage in prison. Written prison resources such as information packs

are often not converted into a visual format for Deafprisoners. To combat this, the Prison Service should ensurethat where translated alternatives are in place for foreign

national prisoners, the equivalent information is alsoavailable in BSL. While this may be more complicatedinitially due to the visual nature of sign language, it isrecommended that visual versions of documents such asinformation packs should be available nationwide, andadjustments should be made to written procedures suchas making complaints and using the application system,to make them accessible to Deaf prisoners.

4. To provide Deaf prisoners with regular accessto qualified BSL interpretersThe provision of BSL interpreters for Deaf prisoners

is often inconsistent, and inconsequence these individualscommonly become largelyisolated from prison life. Toovercome this, Deaf people inprison must be given access to afully qualified BSL interpreterduring medical appointments,legal appointments, ParoleBoards, and adjudications.48 Whileface-to-face interpreting ispreferential where possible, failingthis, a service such asInterpreterNow could be utilised inmeeting/appointment typesettings, which can provide accessto fully qualified interpreters overthe phone.49

Deaf prisoners must also begiven the opportunity to activelypartake in educational, vocational,offending behaviour and

rehabilitation classes/courses either in their own languageor with the presence of an interpreter. The Prison Servicemust make it possible for Deaf prisoners to fulfil therequirements of their sentence plan, as without doing soDeaf prisoners may be serving longer and more painfulsentences than other prisoners—putting them at adistinct disadvantage compared to their peers. Anexample of good practice here is the Sex OffenderTreatment Programme that runs at HMP Whatton, whichhas been tailored to allow Deaf prisoners to participate.50

48. In order to ensure that an interpreter is sufficiently qualified, the Prison Service ought to use only those who are registered with theNational Registers of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deaf blind People (NRCPD). It is important to acknowledgethat only certain interpreters are qualified to do legal work, and therefore in the context of legal appointments the NRCPD can beconsulted to find an interpreter with the appropriate skills.

49. InterpreterNow was formed by the Deaf Health Charity SignHealth in 2012, and uses technology to provide an interpreting service toDeaf people in instances where they cannot get access to a face-to-face interpreter. In order to use the service, a computer,smartphone or tablet is needed, along with a working webcam and an internet connection. Service providers must register with theservice, agree to pay for the calls and download the InterpreterNow app. In instances where a BSL interpreter is necessary, the serviceprovider would open the app and request access to an interpreter, who then appears on the screen of the device being used and caninterpret for the Deaf person in the room. This service is currently used by service providers such as the NHS and the LeicestershirePolice force (InterpreterNow (2016) InterpreterNow [Online] [Accessed on 10th September 2016] Available at:http://www.interpreternow.co.uk/).

50. Butler Trust (2016) Victoria Beck, Rachel Callander, Pete Mills and Helen O’Connor (HMP Whatton) [online] [Accessed on April 26th2016] Available at: http://www.butlertrust.org.uk/victoria-beck-rachel-callendar-pete-mills-and-helen-oconnor-hmp-whatton/.

Minicoms mustalso be providedwhere necessaryto ensure that

these prisoners areable to use

the telephone,as should hearingaids, replacementbatteries andhearing loops.


5. To provide nationwide d/Deaf awarenesstraining for prison staff.Prison staff members commonly have little

d/Deaf awareness, and in consequence do not knowhow to effectively meet the needs of d/Deafprisoners. With this in mind, it is recommended thatstaff members at every prison establishment mustreceive d/Deaf awareness training, where they will betaught about the differences in different levels ofd/Deafness, the importance of providing specialistequipment, and the culturally distinct norms andbehaviours of many Deaf people. Those chosen toundertake this training can then be used asinformation points for other staff members if/when ad/Deaf person arrives at their establishment.51

6. To provide a standardised set of guidelines forprison establishments and other responsibleagencies.The Equality Act 2010 is not currently protecting

the rights of d/Deaf people in prison. Without a cleardefinition of ‘reasonable adjustments’ staff membersoften have little idea of how to adhere to thelegislation when faced with a deaf, and particularly

Deaf prisoner. To reduce such ambiguity, the PrisonService ought to provide a standardised set ofguidelines which detail the expected adjustments ford/Deaf people in prison, as well as information abouthow to go about making such adjustments.52

Alongside this, it is recommended that a replacementof the PSI titled ‘Ensuring Equality’ (2011) is created,which provides further clarity for establishmentsabout the adjustments that they are required to makefor prisoners who are protected under the EqualityAct 2010.

7. To consider the needs of Deaf prisoners servingIPPs.It is recommended that the Prison Service takes

account of the findings from this research whichsuggest that Deaf prisoners serving IPPs are becomingincreasingly over-tariff as a consequence of the factthat establishments do not have the resources toenable them to fulfil the conditions of their sentenceplan. If it transpires that these claims are in fact valid,then the Prison Service must see that these prisonersare given the opportunity to complete the necessarycourses in a timely fashion.

51. Since the fieldwork period ended one of the prisons included in the study has in fact begun to provide d/Deaf awareness training forstaff members in conjunction with the registered charity Royal Association for Deaf people. For the purposes of anonymity no furtherinformation about this training is provided here, however, this is an example of good practice that ought to be rolled out across theprison system.

52. If the procedures at a particular establishment differ from these guidelines, staff members there should be made aware of suchdeviations.


Introduction

In the prison context, the Illicit Economy (IE) refersto trade that is forbidden by law or by prison ruleswhich mostly includes either goods ranging fromcanteen items to classified drugs, NewPsychoactive Substances (NPS), prescribedmedications, alcohol and mobile phones orservices such as money lending and gambling.Although the IE may have some positive impacton prison life by engaging prisoners in an activitythat rewards the seller and meets a buyer’s need,or by filling idle hours and keeping prisoners calm,reports suggest that the IE can lead to debt,intimidation, violence and disruptivebehaviour.1,2,3,4,5 This study explored prisoners’experiences of the illicit economy (IE) anddeveloped a new measure of biddability to predictinvolvement in the IE; the BIDSCALE.

The IE in prisons has been described as a system ofsupply and demand in line with other legal economies.The supply characteristics of the IE are well understoodand routes of supply such as ‘over the wall’ packages, staffand prison visits have been documented as a securitychallenge for the prison service for many years.6, 7 Further,the motivations of those engaged in securing supplies andin selling the illicit goods are typically straightforward,

relating to making money or a need to enhance theirstatus or influence.8 To date, the demand side of equationhas been less documented.

One increasing problem is the use of NPS whichhave been reported as more readily and cheaplyavailable and as incurring lower risk and currentlyevading detection.9 Even though NPS were made illegalin May 2016 by the Psychoactive Substances Act, theyhave increasingly become an integral part of the IE andtheir supply has increased. Because UK prisons arecashless and prisoner earning capacity through work islimited, the IE, most recently underpinned by NPS, hasresulted in one of the key problems in contemporaryprisons; namely debt.

Recent reports indicate that over one in threeprisoners currently has or has had debt issues due tospending beyond their means, particularly on the IE.10, 11

Debt is a useful window into the workings of the IE andcan be understood within the context of research onconsumer debt, defined as ‘unplanned and unintended’to distinguish it from credit, which is planned andintended.12 Some studies have also highlighted the roleof psychological issues that illustrate how buyingbehaviour can deviate from rational choice. Forexample, Ottovani and Vandone13 described a role forinstant gratification in ‘buy now, pay later’ decisionswhich bring cost in the future. Further, Martin and


involvement in prison illicit economy and its consequences. Alan Hammill and Jane Ogden are based at the School of Psychology, University of Surrey, and Emily Glorney

is based at the Department of Forensic Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London.

1. NOMS (2015). National Offender Management Service Annual Report and Accounts 2014–15. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434548/NOMS_AR14_15_report_accounts_Final_WEB.pdf.

2. Ward, V. (2015). Legal highs blamed for increasing levels of violence in prisons. Retrieved fromhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11670937/Legal-highs-blamed-for-increasing-levels-of-violence-in-prisons.html.

3. Morris, N. (2015). Shocking new figures show huge rise in prison violence, suicide and self-harm. Retrieved fromhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shocking-new-figures-show-huge-rise-in-prison-violence-suicide-and-selfharm-10011833.html.

4. Shaw, D. (2015). Gangs and drugs fuelling upsurge in prison violence. Retrieved rom http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30783075.5. Gooch, K., & Treadwell, J (2015). Preventing and reducing prison bullying. Prison Service Journal, 221; 25–29.6. Crewe, B. (2005). Prisoner society in the era of hard drugs. Punishment & Society, Vol. 7(4), pps. 457–481.7. Faure Walker, D. (2015). The informal economy in prisons. Criminal Justice Matters, Vol. 99, pps. 18–19.8. Crewe, B. (2005). see n.6.9. Faure Walker, D. (2015). See n.7.10 Hammill, A. & Newby, R. (2015). The illicit economy, debt and prison violence: Is prisoner debt inevitable? Prison Service Journal, No.

221, pps. 30–35.11. Picksley, M. & Midgley, V. (2014). An exploration of prisoners’ perceptions of debt acquired between prisoners at HMP & YOI

Moorland. Report by Yorkshire & Humberside Psychological Services, pps. 1–30. Ministry of Justice, London.12. Webley, P. & Nyhus, E. (2001). Lifestyle and dispositional routes into problem debt. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 92(3), pps. 423–

446.13. Ottaviani, C. & Vandone, D. (2011). Impulsivity and household indebtedness: Evidence from real life. Journal of Economic Psychology,

Vol 32, pps. 754–761.


Potts14 reported that impulsive individuals are biasedtowards immediate rewards and pay less attention tothe future negative consequences of their choices andGathergood15 similarly concluded that a lack of self-control was associated with high debt burdens. In linewith this, Lea, Mewse and Wrapson,16 addressed theproblem of ‘crisis debt’ (where there was no prospect ofpaying off or even reducing debt) and argued thatsevere debtors were chronically short of money, hadtroubled life histories and particular behavioural andpsychological features, such as feeling the stigma ofdebt so keenly that they spent to cover up the issue.These characteristics are very common among peoplewho have committed a crime and indeed are seen askey to explaining criminal behaviour.17 To date,however, little research exists on the factors that maymake prisoners more susceptible to debt through theIE.

Debt is not the onlyconsequence of the IE and recentconcerns have focused on thelink between the IE andviolence.18, 19 For example, Edgar,O’Donnell and Martin20

concluded that trading within theIE was a source of victimisationthat, in turn, could lead toviolence and Ireland21 and Goochand Treadwell22 similarly arguedthat bullying, particularly withinthe context of the IE, mayprogress to violence betweenprisoners.

In summary, concerns have been expressedabout recent increases in the IE in the context of NPS,debt and subsequent violence. The present studyfocused on the demand side of the equation with aparticular emphasis on prisoners’ experiences of theIE and its consequences. The study also exploredwhether particular prisoners are more susceptible toboth the IE and its consequences. To this end thenotion of ‘biddability’ was developed to reflect thoseprisoners who are eager to please, easily led astray,

impulsive or lacking self-control in line with researchon consumer debt. This study therefore utilized twostages with a mixed methods approach. The initialqualitative stage involved an exploration of prisoners’experiences of the IE and the impact of the IE on riskybehaviours. The subsequent quantitative stageevaluated whether susceptibility to the IE could beassessed using a new measure of biddability(BIDSCALE), whether this new measure had goodpsychometric properties and whether biddability wasassociated with risky behaviours such as substanceuse, debt and violence. Both stages took place in fourUK adult male prisons across England.

Stage 1: Qualitative study to explore howprisoners experience the IE

Method

AimTo explore prisoners’

experiences of and involvementin the IE.Design

A qualitative design with in-depth, semi-structured interviewsanalysed using content analysis.Sample

Seventy-one male prisonerswere interviewed from four prisonsacross England. Their mean agewas 33 years, their mean sentencelength was eight years and on

average they had attended four prisons. Based ondiscussion with Governors and their teams, sampling wasdone in two ways: i) project posters were displayed onthe prison wings and wing officers were asked to suggestthose who might participate (n=37); and ii) a list of bothperpetrators and victims in recent incidents reported onthe prison’s Incident Reporting System (IRS) as debt-related was used to approach individuals (n=34). Thissampling approach aimed to access prisoners with arange of knowledge of IE and debt.

Debt is not the onlyconsequence ofthe IE and recentconcerns have

focused on the linkbetween the IE and

violence.

14. Martin, L. & Potts, G. (2009). Impulsivity in decision-making: An event-related potential investigation. Personality and IndividualDifferences, Vol. 46, pps. 303–308.

15. Gathergood, J. (2011). Self-control, financial literacy and consumer over-indebtedness. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 33, pps.590–602.

16. Lea, S., Mewse, A. & Wrapson, W. (2012). The psychology of debt in poor households in Britain. In A Debtor World: Inter-disciplinaryPerspectives on Debt, (Eds. Brubaker, R., Lawless, R & Tabb, C.), pps. 151–8.

17. Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (2010). The Major Risk/Need Factors of Criminal Conduct. The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th Edition,pps. 157–294. LexisNexis, New Jersey, USA.

18. NOMS (2015). see n.1.19. Gooch & Treadwell (2015). see n.5.20. Edgar, K., O’Donnell, I. & Martin, C. (2003). The extent and nature of victimisation. In Prison Violence: The dynamics of conflict, fear

and power. Willan Publishing, UK.21. Ireland, J. (2013). Prison bullying and fear: Can fear assist with explanations of victim responses? In Bullying among prisoners:

Innovations in theory and research (Ireland, J., Ed.), pps. 229–149. Willan Publishing, UK.22. Gooch & Treadwell (2015) see n.5.


ProcedurePrisoners were interviewed in settings deemed safe

and conducive to frank dialogue for both parties includinga room in the education wing or library, a wing office orthe prisoner’s cell. The first fourteen interviews were notrecorded, pending approval from the prisons to do so.The remaining fifty-seven interviews were recordedfollowing consent by the prison and the prisoner. Mostinterviews took about thirty minutes.

The interview scheduleQuestions covered interviewees’ participation in the

IE (or that of others), their motivations, their perception ofrisk and the consequences of their own and others’behaviour.

Data analysisRecorded interviews were transcribed by a

professional legal service. The transcripts, along withinterview notes from the fourteen unrecorded interviews,were analysed using content analysis.23 First, data wascoded for the subsequent quantitative analysis (Stage 2)to describe dichotomous risk behaviours in relation to theIE that were coded as ‘present’ or ‘absent’. Next a seriesof emergent themes were identified, coded for theirfrequency and illustrated with exemplar quotes.

ResultsRisk behavioursThe interviews were analysed to generate

dichotomous outcomes (‘present’ or ‘absent’) in terms ofthe impact of the IE. These are summarised in Table 1.

The majority of prisoners had used substances everand a half had tried NPS; two thirds had participated inthe IE directly and about a half said that they felt impactedupon by the IE Over a third had traded on the IE andreported having debt. There were no differences betweenthe four prisons (P values > 0.05).

Emergent themesThe content analysis highlighted four themes. These

are described below. Illustrative quotes from the prisonerinterviews are given in Table 2.

Table 1: Dichotomous risk behaviours (n/% n=71)

Outcome or riskbehaviour

Prison A Prison B Prison C Prison D Overall

n/%Ever used substances?(1,4)

(n=50)

69%

(n=61)

86%

(n=52)

73%

(n=59)

83%

(n=56)

79%

Participates in IE? (3) (n=36)

50%

(n=42)

59%

(n=48)

67%

(n=56)

78%

(n=45)

63%

Impacted by IE? (2) (n=27)

38%

(n=45)

64%

(n=38)

53%

(n=43)

61%

(n=39)

55%

Isolated? (n=27)

38%

(n=55)

77%

(n=28)

40%

(n=28)

39%

(n=36)

51%

Tried NPS? (n=27)

38%

(n=36)

50%

(n=33)

47%

(n=40)

56%

(n=34)

48%

Trades? (5) (n=27) (n=19) (n=38) (n=31) (n=28)

38% 27% 53% 44% 39%

Has debt

(now or past)?

(n=13)

19%

(n=32)

45%

(n=14)

20%

(n=31)

44%

(n=24)

34%

Notes:Most frequently mentioned: cannabis (n=35), heroin (n=19) and cocaine(n=17)Either stated in response to a direct question or inferred from theinterviewee accountMeaning buys, sells or both versus does not participate. Traded itemsmost frequently mentioned: tobacco (n=28), NPS (n=28) and medications(n=12)Of these, 38% (n=30) indicated they were still using substancesTrades means sells or both sells and buys (versus buys only or does notparticipate).

Table 2: Emergent themes from interviews (n=71)

Theme Illustrative quote Mentions

The IE

is inevitable

and

pervasive

‘People do it [trade] in prison. It’s just away of life. It passes the time.’ (I–30)‘Like they say, boys will be boys … themore you tell someone not to dosomething, sometimes the more they do it.’(I–41)Trading … I think it’s fundamental to prisonlife, innit? It’s absolutely fundamental. (1–21)

50/71

Trading NPS

is perceived

as low risk

‘ … the only reason I would take ‘mamba’[NPS] is because it doesn’t show on yourpiss test. I don’t want cannabis because it’stoo much risk.’ (I–29)‘Because legal highs are legal, people willbring them for … for … for almost anyone… and even staff can be wrapped roundfingers because it’s legal.’ (I–68)‘There’s too many psychedelic drugs in thesystem for anyone to understand what thef–’s going on.’ (I–45)

33/71

NPS use

is

problematic

‘I lit it up [a spliff containing NPS] and thenit just went boof and I thought what the f... hell’s just hit me here? Me heart ratewent up… then I got this like paranoidfeeling that everyone … were on me… andall the, like, walls closed in on me.’(I–47)‘It’s quite an intense buzz. And it’s … it’slike a … like a mind control buzz. It cansend you paranoid within seconds. And itcan send you angry in seconds. People arefitting off it …’ (I–46).‘I just got in deeper and deeper and I gotto the point where, like, I just wanted it[NPS]. I didn’t care about theconsequences. I just wanted it.’ (I–50).‘Erm … I’ve seen people smoke ‘spice’ andend up doing things you would never, everput them down as doing. Erm … hurtingthemselves, hurting other people, smashingup their cell.’ (I–58).

39/71

Debt leads

to isolation,

violence

and

transfers

‘There’s certain people that do it [get intodebt] on purpose , certain people that donot mind getting a thumping …’ (I–54)‘Trading’s part of the game. Yeah, but mostpeople are just doing that then movingwing, moving jail … because you’ve done iteverywhere.’ (I–62)‘Yeah, 95 per cent of people run … transfer[wing], another jail, do the same again.’(I–27)‘We had a prisoner, he … he moved everywing. He just debted himself up continuous.Now, he’s just passing the problem around.’(I–5)

24/71

23. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15(9), pps. 1277–88.

Note: Annotation (I-xx) refers to interviewees in chronological order ofinterview 1–71.


Theme 1: The IE is inevitable and pervasive.The IE was seen as inevitable and described as‘fundamental’, ‘a way of life’ and ‘it passes the time’. Itwas seen as an issue and used as a way to manageboredom and keep the prisoners occupied. Theme 2: Trading NPS is perceived as low risk.Almost half of interviewees claimed that NPS were themost frequently traded items which were seen as readilyavailable, not detectable in mandatory drug tests (MDT)and a relatively low risk activity (compared with incannabis or heroin). This helps to explain the high profileof NPS in the IE.Theme 3: NPS use is problematic.

The majority stated that they had used substances inthe past or now. The majority felt that NPS wereproblematic and almost half admitted to using NPS nowor having tried it (notably ‘spice’ or ‘black mamba’) atleast once. Diverse descriptions were offered of personalexperience of ‘spice’ and manydescribed the detrimental impactof ‘spice’ on the mental andphysical health and interactionswith others. Theme 4: Debt leads toisolation, violence andtransfers.

A third acknowledged thatthey had current or past debtissues. The escalation path fornon-payment includedintimidation and threats ofviolence whilst at times there wasa direct move to violence (fight orassault). Those in debt sometime sought ‘help’ from staff,usually requesting a wing transfer or a transfer away fromthe prison (to escape the debt), citing the prison’sobligation to keep them safe. Sometimes the prisonerwas then moved to a segregation unit or vulnerableprisoners’ wing (if there was one). If the prisoner was notmoved then they sometimes opted for self-isolation intheir cell. Alternatively some described raising the stakesfor example by assaulting a member of staff, self-harmingor setting a fire in their cell; all of which aimed to enablethe prisoner to ‘escape’ the debt.

Stage 2: The development and validation of a newmeasure of prisoner biddability and its role inpredicting risk behaviours

Method

AimThis stage aimed to develop and validate a new

measure of prisoner biddability and to evaluate the role ofbiddability in predicting the risk behaviours identified fromstage 1.

Method

The decision to become involved in the IE isinfluenced by a number of factors which may either becore to the individual such as risk perception, personality,needs and wants or a product of the prison environmentincluding, prison culture, peer pressure, availability orboredom. Prisoners may also be influenced by whether ornot they are biddable (previously defined as beingamenable, co-operative, susceptible, malleable,persuadable, submissive, wanting to be liked, yielding).Biddability might therefore predict involvement in the IEand the impact of the IE on the individual.

DesignThe initial questionnaire comprised seventeen

questions calling for responses on a scale 1–10. Followingpsychometric analysis, items were rejected and a finalscale was created. The role of the subscales of biddability

in predicting the dichotomous riskbehaviours with the IE using datafrom Stage 1 was then evaluated.

SampleQuestionnaires were

completed by all participants(n=71) in Stage 1 of the study.

Developing the measureThe questions were derived

following initial conversations withprison staff, from the literature andcompiled from a search to capturethe synonyms and antonyms mostfrequently used for the word‘biddable’. The questionnaire was

presented at the conclusion of Stage 1 interviews.Participants could choose self-completion or to have theresearchers deliver the questionnaire verbally. All chose thelatter approach. Prompts and clarification were offeredwhen required although this occurred very rarely. Thequestions were posed in a way that high biddability waseither scored 1 (questions 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16)or 10 (questions 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17) to balancethe order.

Data analysisItems were re-coded so that a higher score reflected

greater biddability. First, the psychometric properties ofthe scale were evaluated using principal axis factoranalysis with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) and theKaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure to verify sampling adequacy.Eigen values exceeding 1 were used as the cut-off forinclusion with a minimum of three items per factor and afactor loading greater than 0.4. Cronbach’s alphas (α)were calculated on the total scale and sub-scales to testfor reliability. Second, participants were coded as havingeither high or low biddability scores and the role ofbiddability in predicting risk behaviours was assessedusing Chi-square (c²) tests and Cramer’s V effect sizes.

Participantscould chooseself-completionor to have the

researchers deliverthe questionnaire

verbally.

ResultsThe psychometric properties of the new scaleAll 71 participants completed the biddability

questionnaire. The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verifiedthe sampling adequacy for the analysis (KMO = 0.75). Aprincipal axis factor analysis was conducted on the 17items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin). Five factorshad eigen values > 1 and together explained 63.1 percent of the variance. The scree plot was ambiguous andshowed inflexions that could justify retaining betweenthree and five factors. Two factors had less than threeitems. The factor analysis was rerun to assess theoptions for the most parsimonious description of theobserved correlations in the data. This iterative processyielded a principal axis factor analysis conducted on 11items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) and KMO =0.74. The resulting solution had three factors witheigen values > 1, together explaining 61.1 per cent ofthe variance, each with more than 3 items. Table 3shows the factor loadings after rotation of this 11-itemsolution.

These three factors were labelled as follows: i)‘assertiveness’; ii) ‘compliance’; iii) ‘willpower’. Thereliability of the scale was good: total scale (11 items:�α=0.76); assertiveness (4 items: �α=0.73);compliance (3 items: �α=0.73) and willpower (4items: �α=0.76). A higher total score reflected greatercompliance and lower levels of assertiveness andwillpower. The final questionnaire is shown in Table 4.

The role of BIDSCALE in predicting riskbehaviours.

The dichotomous risk behaviours from stage 1 areshown in Table 4. The final BIDSCALE consisted of 11 itemsrated on a scale 1–10. The total maximum score was 110.Total biddability scores were used to classify participants aseither high in biddability (score >50; n=20, mean=62.5;SD=12.4) or low in biddability (score <33; n=20; mean=24.7;SD=5.1). A c² test was used to evaluate the associationbetween biddability and each risk behaviour.


Table 3: Factor loadings for 11 item biddabilityquestionnaire (n=71)

Rotated factor loadings

Item (question as asked) 1. Assertiveness 2. Compliance 3. Willpower

Do you think you’re prettytough or likely to beintimidated when dealing withan aggressive person?

.63 .04 .11

Would your mates describe youas assertive or submissive? .63 .10 .15

When you’re with a group, doyou go your own way or do youtry to fit in?

.62 -.06 -.08

Do you like to please peopleeven if they behave badly or doyou pull them up?

.54 .05 .10

Do you break rules you don’t likeor do you obey anyway? -.14 .72 -.01

Generally, do you follow therules or make up your own? -.02 .72 -.01

Does breaking rules make youfeel nervous or does it give you arush?

.16 .65 -.20

Do you lead by example or areyou more likely to follow? .18 .02 .64

If someone’s trying to sell yousomething you really don’twant, do you buy it anyway orsay no thanks?

-.11 .02 .64

Would you say you’re easily ledastray or you’re not open tobeing influenced?

.28 -.08 .59

If someone’s trying to forcesomething on you, do you goalong with things or do youresist?

.15 .07 .56

Eigenvalues 3.49 1.92 1.31

% Variance 31.71 17.45 11.93

Cronbach’s α .73 .73 .76

Table 4: The final Biddability Questionnaire (BIDSCALE)

Would you say you’re easily led astray oryou’re not open to being influenced?(e.g. have a lark when you know it’s notallowed — W)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do you think you’re pretty tough or likelyto be intimidated when dealing with anaggressive person? (e.g. you’re told topay more than you owe, do you refuse orgive in — A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do you like to please people even if theybehave badly or do you pull them up? (A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Generally, do you follow the rules ormake up your own? (C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Would your mates describe you asassertive or submissive?(A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If someone’s trying to force somethingon you, do you go along with things ordo you resist? (W)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Does breaking the rules make you feelnervous or give you a rush? (C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do you like to lead by example or are youmore likely to follow? (W)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do you break rules you don’t like or doyou obey anyway? (C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If someone’s trying to sell you somethingyou don’t really want, do you buy itanyway or say ‘No thanks’? (W)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

When you’re with a group, do you goyour own way or try fit in? (A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Note: Factor loadings >0.40 are highlighted in bold.

A-Assertive (4 items); C-Compliance (3 items); W-Willpower (4 items).

The results are shown in shown in Table 5.

The results showed that high biddability predictedprisoners being isolated (large effect size), beinginvolved in IE trading and getting into debt (medium-large effect sizes) as well as having tried NPS and beingimpacted by the IE (medium effect sizes). No effect wasfound for participation in the IE or for substance useever.

DiscussionThe present study explored prisoners’ experiences

of the IE, the role of NPS and their relationship tooutcomes such as debt and violence. The results fromthe qualitative stage showed that active participation inthe IE was very common and was seen as an inevitableand fundamental part of prison life which helped topass the time and ease boredom. Further, NPS wereseen as core to the IE as they were low risk and hard todetect but prisoners also described them as problematicdue to their impact of physical and mental health andthe ways in which prisoners interacted with each other.This reflects recent concerns reported by NOMS24 andthe media25, 26 and supports the notion that the IE inprisons may be changing due to new influences.Furthermore, prisoners described how debts incurred

from the IE could lead to prison transfers and violencewhich is in line with reports in the media27 and providesome evidence for recent NPS amnesties which havebeen implemented as a means to tackle the surge ofviolence in prisons.28 They also support concerns aboutthe IE expressed by NOMS 29 and the work of Goochand Treadwell30 who highlighted the links between theIE, bullying and victimisation.

The study also developed a new measure ofbiddability to reflect vulnerability to the IE and toevaluate whether this new scale was associated withinvolvement in IE and its consequences. The resultsshowed that the 11-item BIDSCALE was easy toadminister in a prison setting, had good psychometricproperties and consisted of three reliable subscales:‘assertiveness’, ‘compliance’ and ‘willpower’. Inaddition, the total biddability score was significantlyassociated with trading in the IE and being in debt.Research exploring consumer debt in the non-prisonenvironment highlights a role for a number of factorsincluding psychological issues such as impulsivity andlack of self-control.31, 32 The results from the presentstudy indicate that a comparable constructconceptualised as biddability to reflect the lack ofassertiveness and willpower and a high sense ofcompliance may be similarly predictive of debt inprisoners. Furthermore, the new BIDSCALE was alsoassociated with the negative consequences of the IEsuch as trying NPS and becoming isolated.

The results from the present study thereforeindicate that the IE is an integral part of prison life andthat prisoners trade, particularly for and with NPS,because it takes up time and they are bored andbecause NPS are considered low risk and cannot bedetected. The results further indicate that the IE canlead to debt, violence and transfers and that trying NPS,trading, isolation and debt can be predicted byBIDSCALE. For the IE to change, these factors thereforeneed to be addressed. This could involve improvededucational and physical activities for prisoners toalleviate boredom, greater education concerning therisks associated with NPS, the wider use of bodyscanners, mobile signal blocking equipment and drugtesting procedures to pick up the supply and use ofNPS. Each of these, however, involves financialinvestment into prisons for increased staffing andequipment, a challenge in times of austerity and a


Table 5: The role of BIDSCALE in predicting risk

behaviours (n=40)

Risk behaviouror outcome‘present’

c² (df = 1) P value Cramer’s V Effect size

Isolated?14.40 <.001 0.63 Large

Trades?9.23 0.002 0.48 Med-large

Has debt(now or past)? 8.64 0.003 0.47 Med-large

Tried NPS?6.47 0.011 0.40 Medium

Impacted by IE?5.01 0.025 0.35 Medium

Participates inIE? 1.76 0.185 0.21 —

Ever usedsubstances? 1.15 0.284 0.13 —

24. NOMS (2015). see n. 1.25. Ward (2015). see. n. 1.26. Morris (2015). see n. 3.27. Shaw (2015). see n. 4.28. Doward, J. (2015). ‘Spice’ amnesty to tackle violence epidemic in prisons. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/29/prison-amnesty-spice-drugs.29. See n. 1.30. See n. 5.31. Martin & Potts (2009). see n.14.32. Gathergood (2011). see n. 15.


longer term solution. These solutions also involve awhole prison approach together with clear national andinstitutional strategies as argued by Gooch andTreadwell33 who highlight how the IE is a complex andmultifactorial problem. Perhaps, however, in addition totrying to change the IE itself, in the shorter term, effortscould also be made to limit the consequences of the IEIn line with this, prisoners could be helped to avoid ormanage their debt differently by discussing it openlywith prison officers rather than just transferring theirproblems to another wing; they could be educatedexplicitly about the problems with the IE, the likelihoodof debt and the availability of NPS in prisons onentering prison; and they could be screened on entryfor the likelihood that they will become involved in theIE and suffer deleterious consequences. And the 11item BIDSCALE developed in the present study could beused to help identify and support those prisoners mostat risk from the IE and most likely to suffer itsconsequences. Accordingly, such a screening tool couldbe used with newly arrived prisoners, alongside existingtools as a means to identify those most likely to trade inthe IE, most likely to try NPS and most likely to incur thenegative consequences of the IE such as debt as a

means to offer support prior to the onset of anyproblems to those identified as most vulnerable. This isnot to stigmatise such prisoners per se, nor to considerproblems of the IE as being unrelated to the prisonenvironment but to simply target limited resources ofsupport to those prisoners in most need.

To conclude, the IE in prisons is perceived asinevitable and pervasive and as a means to pass thetime. NPS have recently become a central part of the IEbut impact on prisoners physical and mental health andability to engage with others. Further, the IE can lead todebt which may result in transfers and/or violence.Participation in the IE and resulting debt and isolationare common but not universal and can be predicted bythe new Biddability Scale (BIDSCALE) that was shownto have good psychometric properties and to consist ofthree subscales relating to assertiveness, complianceand willpower. It is argued that in the longer term theIE needs to be changed through policy and practice. Inthe shorter term, however, it is suggested that prisonerscould be educated about the risks of both IE and NPSon arrival into prison and that the BIDSCALE could beused to identify, monitor and support those individualsmost at risk of the detrimental consequences of the IE.

33. Gooch & Treadwell (2015). see n. 5.



service deliveryDr Katherine Albertson is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Sheffield Hallam University, having conducted

Forces in Mind Trust1 and British Academy2 grant research and evaluation work with ex-forces personnel in thecommunity support setting, along with Dr James Banks, who is a Reader in Criminology, also at Sheffield

Hallam University. Dr Emma Murray is a Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice at Liverpool John Moores University,conducting research with military veterans in probation and prison settings.

In a 2008 report by the National Association forProbation Officers3 it was estimated that in excessof 20,000 ex-service personnel were serving asentence in either prison or the community inEngland and Wales. Since this report, we havewitnessed a steady growth in research, literatureand knowledge exchange seeking to make senseof veterans’ offending and the veteran-offender.4

Here, we provide a brief overview of the keydevelopment of this debate since the recognitionof the ‘problem’ of ex-military personnel in prisonnearly ten years ago. This discussionproblematizes the narrow focus on veterans'engagement with criminal justice and suggeststhat the quality of transition from military tocivilian life is in fact contingent on a morecomplex interplay of social, cultural and economicparticipation-linked factors. We propose that byconsidering the complexities of transition,veterans’ offending is more appropriatelypositioned amongst wider structural challengesfaced on return to civilian society. This approachinforms the limited recent empirical work in thisarea, which has been slow to filter intomainstream criminal justice practice. It is ourcontention that veterans’ contact with thecriminal justice system needs to be understoodwithin the broader explanatory frameworks ofdiversity and social inclusion. We make specificrecommendations, based on new developments inthe veteran-offender debate, to inform servicedelivery to this cohort in the criminal justicesystem.

Despite the lack of definitive figures for the veteranpopulation in prison, there remains a great deal ofpolitical, practitioner and academic interest in this area,alongside growing concerns regarding theunprecedented increase in public health uptake andcriminal justice service contact by ex-service personnel. Itis estimated that poor transition from military service intocivilian life cost the UK tax payer £98 million in 2015alone.5 Of the 757,805 people who served as Regulars inthe British Armed Forces between 1991 and 2014 it hasbeen estimated that at least 66,090 may need to accesssupport services; this is equivalent to 1 in 11 who mayneed a helping hand either now or in the future.6

A review of the key messages across the last tenyears of study of veterans and veteran- offenders ispertinent given the recent introduction of Veteran Wingsat the UK's largest new-build prison, HMP Berwin Russ,which opened in Wrexham earlier this year. Addressingcritical questions regarding what we know and where weare heading with regard to the delivery of services to theveteran community is therefore timely, particularly withregard to the focus on how this decade of work can mosteffectively inform criminal justice service delivery.

NAPO to now: identification, diagnosis, response

In response to the National Association ofProbations Officers (NAPO) report identifying the largenumber of veterans mired in the criminal justice system,the social justice charity NACRO published ‘A Guide toWorking with Veterans in Custody’.7 Highlighting theapparent lack of awareness amongst criminal justicepractitioners of the impact of military experiences on

1. The evaluation of Addaction's veteran specific Right Turn project (2015–2017). The aim of the Forces in Mind Trust is to promote thesuccessful transition of Armed Forces personnel, and their families, into civilian life. For more details, see the web page:http://www.fim-trust.org/.

2. The British Academy/ Leverhulme small grant was awarded in 2015, to conduct narrative life history interviews with criminal justiceengaged military veterans focussing on identity transitions.

3. National Association of Prison Officers (2008) Ex-Armed Forces Personnel and the Criminal Justice System.4. Murray, E. (2013) Post-army trouble: veterans in the criminal justice system, Criminal Justice Matters, 94(1), pp.20–21.5. Forces in Mind Trust (2013) The Transition Mapping Study: Understanding the transition process for Service personnel returning to

civilian life, p 7.6. Diehle, J., and Greenberg, N. (2015) Counting the Cost report: Help for Hero's and KCMHR, [on-line]:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/2015/Diehle2015.pdf (Accessed 30/01/2017).7. James, S., and Woods, N. (2010) A Guide to Working with Veterans in Custody, NACRO; London. Available:

http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/working-with-veterans-810.pdf (Accessed 30/01/2017).


veterans, this guidance document sought to assistprofessionals in their engagement with this cohort. Thereport emphasises the different language codes andculturally nuanced ways in which ex-military personnelreason due to their service training. The guidancecontains advice regarding how practitioners can use thisculturally-specific information to engage moreeffectively with this often hard-to-engage population.Elsewhere, Treadwell’s ‘Counterblast’ article in theHoward journal of Criminal Justice presents aninformed practitioner-based view of veterans who havecome into contact with probation.8 As an ex-probationofficer, Treadwell relates his encounters with veterans,emphasising how many who leave the ordered life ofthe forces struggle to transition into the civilian world.Significantly, Treadwell recognises that coming intocontact with the criminal justice system represents justone of a myriad of harms that may be experienced byindividuals who leave the Armed Forces.

The Howard League's 2011 ‘Report of the inquiryinto former Armed Service personnel in prison’ assertedthat ex-service personnel represented the largestoccupational subset of the male prisoner population inthe UK.9 Bringing the issue of veteran offending intothe public sphere, such behaviour was depicted as acontinuation of some individuals’ pre-enlistmentengagement with crime. This perspective has comeunder sustained criticism for depicting current veterans’problems as the product of individual deficits.10 Inresponse, McGarry and Walklate propose an alternativeframework for making sense of ex-service personnel'spost war engagement in crime.11 By imaging the ‘soldieras victim’, the authors assert that the state isaccountable for exposing military personnel to combat,which can have a detrimental impact on their return tocivilian life.

The Government and policy response to thissituation manifest in 2014 with Lord Ashcroft’s VeteransTransition Review,12 the Phillips Review13 and twoassociated reports14, 15 which make a range ofrecommendations relating to the collection of cohortdata and the co-ordination of services and diversionschemes. The quantitative data elements of this workidentified that veterans in the criminal justice system havelittle in the way of distinct needs when compared to theirnon-ex-forces peers.16 An apparent recognition of thepotential harms of military service is however reflected inthe UK Government’s ratification of the UK ArmedForces Covenant in 2011 in which responsibilities tocurrent and former Armed Forces personnel and theirfamilies have been formalised.17 The Covenant states thatno current or former member of the British Armed Forcesshould face disadvantage in public or commercial servicesand in some cases they should receive specialconsideration. Yet the Covenant remains a statement ofprinciple rather than a legally binding duty of care for theArmed Forces community. And whilst Covenantprinciples are cited as underpinning policy developmentsin the criminal justice system, practitioners are onlydirected to use military service as a relevant identificationcategory when ‘the offending behaviour in question canbe shown to be directly caused by service in the ArmedForces’.18, 19 This situation highlights a tension betweencriminal justice practice and the principles of the ArmedForces Covenant.

Disappointingly the Covenant-based ethos is yet tobe reflected in strategic support for the many goodpractice examples of working creatively with ex-forces incustody. The HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report in 2014identified both a lack of consistency in approach acrossthe prison estate and that successful activities were beingimplemented through the hard work and determination

8. Treadwell, J. (2010) COUNTERBLAST: More than Casualties of War?: Ex�military Personnel in the Criminal Justice System. The HowardJournal of Criminal Justice, 49(1), pp.73–77.

9. The Howard League (2011) Report of the inquiry into former Armed Service personnel in prison. London: The Howard League for PenalReform.

10. e.g. Early Service Leavers; Female veterans; those with and without combat experience; Retirees; BAME veterans; The Bereaved; thewar injured; older veterans; younger veterans; those employed and unemployed on leaving service; veterans with no contact withsupport services or public services.

11. McGarry, R., and Walklate, S. (2011) The soldier as victim: Peering through the looking glass, British Journal of Criminology, 51 (6),900–917.

12. Ashcroft Review (2013) The Veterans Transition Review.13. Phillips, S. QC, MP (2014) Former Members of the Armed Forces and the Criminal Justice System: A Review on behalf of the Secretary

of State for Justice.14. Kelly, J. (2014) The Needs of Ex-service Personnel in the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from two surveys, Ministry of Justice

Analytical Summary: evidence on the needs and experiences of ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system. 15. Lyne, C., and Packham, D. (2001) The Needs of Ex-service Personnel in the Criminal Justice System: A Rapid Evidence Assessment,

Ministry of Justice Analysis Series.16. ibid.17. Ministry of Defence (2011) The UK Armed Forces Covenant: available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49469/the_armed_forces_covenant.pdf.18. Phillips, S. QC, MP (2014) Former Members of the Armed Forces and the Criminal Justice System: A Review on behalf of the Secretary

of State for Justice, p 6.19. The full quote is: ‘any suggestion that former services personnel who have offended should receive different treatment within the

criminal justice system from their civilian counterparts runs the risk of undermining public confidence in the Covenant unless theoffending behaviour in question can be shown to have been directly caused by service in the Armed Forces (which is rarely the case)’,ibid. p 6.

20. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prison (2014) People in prison: Ex-service personnel, London: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons.21. MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R.J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., Fahy, T., Wessely, S. and Fear, N.T. (2013) Violent offending by

UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381(9870), pp.907–917.22. Ford, M., Mills, H., and Grimshaw, R., with Allison, C.(2016) Profile of Provision for armed forces veterans under probation supervision,

The Probation Institute, available at:https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Profile%20of%20provision%20for%20armed%20forces%20veterans%20under%20probation%20supervision.pdf

23. Ministry of Justice (2013) Transforming Rehabilitation: A strategy for reform 2010–2015. Available at:https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation/results/transforming-rehabilitation-response.pdf.

24. Lyne, C., & Packham, D. (2014). The needs of ex-service personnel in the criminal justice system: a rapid evidence assessment. London:Ministry of Justice .

25. Royal British Legion (2014) A UK Household Survey of the ex-Service community, available at:https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/media/2275/2014householdsurveyreport.pdf.

26. Royal British Legion (2016) Deployment to Employment: Exploring the veteran employment gap: Available [on-line]:http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/campaign/the-veteran-employment-gap/.

27. Ashcroft Review (2013) The Veterans Transition Review.28. Hatch, S.L., Harvey, S.B., Dandeker, C., Burdett, H., Greenberg, N., Fear, N.T. and Wessely, S. (2013) Life in and after the Armed Forces:

social networks and mental health in the UK military. Sociology of health & illness, 35(7), pp.1045–1064.29. Iverson, A., Nikolaou, V., Greenburg, N., Unwin, C., Hull, L., Hotopf, M., Dandeker, C., Ross, J., and Wessely, S. (2005) ‘What Happens

to British Veterans when they leave the Armed Forces?’, European Journal of Public Health, 15 (2): 175–184.30. Hipes, C., Lucas, J.W. and Kleykamp, M. (2014) Status-and Stigma-related Consequences of Military Service and PTSD Evidence from a

Laboratory Experiment, Armed Forces & Society, vol. 41 no. 3 477–495.31. Murray, E. (2016) The 'Veteran-offender': A Governmental project in England and Wales, Palgrave Handbook of Criminology and War.

of committed staff, rather than through formalisedsupport or profiled hours.20 A publication in the Lancet,from the King’s Centre for Military Health Research teamdemonstrated that ex-service personnel are in fact lesslikely than their civilian counterparts to have contact withthe criminal justice system.21 However, those who dooffend are significantly more likely to engage in violentand sexual offending. This study received significantnational media coverage and we can only speculate onthe social stigma implications. The2016 Probation Institute Report22

highlights the continued patchyunderstanding of the needs ofveterans on probation,particularly post the TransformingRehabilitation23 (TR) reforms. TheTR reforms promised tailoredprovision for veteran-offenders,24

yet these innovations have thusfar, according to the Probationreport remained elusive.Collectively, this body of workillustrates the continued lack ofrecent empirical, theoretical andpractice-based work filteringthrough to mainstream criminaljustice practice.

Understanding veterans’ transition experiences

It is our contention that veterans’ contact with thecriminal justice system needs to be understood within thebroader context of their transition to civilian life. In thissection we move away from explaining veteran offendingthrough the individual deficit model to highlight researchproducing a more comprehensive picture of ex-forcesexperiences of re-entry into civilian society. While muchless reported in the national media this evidence base

supports our proposition that military veterans intransition face a complex array of disadvantages. Forexample, over and above coming into contact with thecriminal justice sector, working age veterans in the UK arenearly twice as likely to be unemployed as their civiliancontemporaries.25, 26 Moreover, almost a fifth of ex-servicepersonnel have reported finding themselvesdisadvantaged when accessing public and commercialservices, for example having trouble obtaining a mobile

phone contract, whilst a quarterhighlighted that they had beenrefused a mortgage, loan or creditcard in the past five years.27 Thoseleaving military service are alsoidentified as being at increasedrisk of social isolation, as socialand civil engagement profiles falldramatically.28, 29, 30 This body ofwork points towards the need tounderstand veterans’ offendingwithin a broader explanatoryframework which incorporatesdiversity and social inclusionagendas.

A more nuancedunderstanding of the potential

origins of veteran offending and their support needsmore broadly is, however, evolving. Overridingconcerns with the governance of veterans31 are shiftingto the complexity of veterans’ engagement in civiliansociety as a whole, not just within the criminal justicesector. For example, an appreciation of the multitudeof factors that can prevent a ‘good transition’ frommilitary to civilian life is evident in work commissionedthrough agencies such as the Forces in Mind Trust.Their Transition Mapping study acknowledges howsubjective, structural and participatory factors allimpact on veterans’ entry into civilian life:


... almost a fifthof ex-service

personnel havereported findingthemselves

disadvantaged whenaccessing public andcommercial services ...


A good transition is one that enables ex-Service personnel to be sufficiently resilient to adapt successfully to civilian life, both nowand in the future. This resilience includesfinancial, psychological, and emotionalresilience, and encompasses the ex-Serviceperson and their immediate families.32

The National Health Service (NHS) has responded tothis increasingly evidenced reality of veterans as a patientcohort experiencing significant cultural barriers into helpseeking services by defining veterans as a Priority Healthcare group. Further, the NHS Constitution has beenamended to ensure that Veterans are ‘able to accessservices with health professionals who have anunderstanding of Armed Forces culture’.33 Despite theavailability of these nuanced messages and practiceresponses from other public sectors and nearly ten yearswork since the NAPO briefing paper, criminal justiceagencies maintain they have no access to ‘evidence abouteffective ways of addressing veterans needs in total’ andspecifically not since ‘the changes required by theTransforming Rehabilitation agenda’.34 Until alternativediscourses around the broader experiences of veterans intransition are transferred into the criminal justice policyand commissioning landscape, they will not influencenational criminal justice practice standards.

The first empirically-based research of veterans’contact with post-transforming rehabilitationcommissioned services has recently been completedfrom a criminal justice perspective.35, 36, 37 This two yearstudy of Addaction’s38 Right Turn veteran-specificrecovery project39 highlights the benefits of employingan holistic peer group based service delivery model. This

research identifies veterans’ engagement withsubstance misuse and criminal activity among a rangeof issues faced post service. These issues includeveterans: lack of transferable education andemployment options; and social isolation; as well asday-to-day problems such as: managing finances anddebt; access to secure accommodation; negotiating thecomplexities of the benefits system; and accessingappropriately specialist health services. The Right Turnproject has been successful both in terms of enhancingveterans’ recruitment into and continued engagementwith support services. Further positive outcomes ofproject engagement are identified as veterans’engaging in voluntary and paid work and socialengagement in wider and more diverse social networks.The impact this delivery model has had on veterans’lives more broadly has also been evidenced throughsustained recovery from addictions, and a dramaticreduction in criminal justice engagement amongst thecohort. This study highlights how a strengths-based,culturally competent and holistic approach to veteranstatus can facilitate a significant reduction in socialisolation and supports the development of a positivecommunity participation-based identity, captured in theconcept of ‘military veteran citizenship’.40

It is clear the initial efforts to identify the numbers ofthe veterans in the criminal justice system have beenfurthered by practitioner work highlighting the lack ofawareness of the military experience within criminaljustice operatives.41, 42 Veterans’ offending has beenshown to be only one of a myriad of challenges faced onleaving service. This has run parallel to discourse aroundmilitary service as acting as a ‘deep freeze’ on prioroffending behaviour.43 State responsibilities have been

32. Futures Company and Forces in Mind Trust (2013) The Transition Mapping Study: Understanding the transition process for Servicepersonnel returning to civilian life, p 13. [on line]: http://www.fim-trust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/20130810-TMS-Report.pdfAccessed 08/11/16.

33. National Health Service Constitution (2015) Handbook to the Constitution- Principles that guide the NHS, p 17. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supplements-to-the-nhs-constitution-for-england.

34. Ford, M., Mills, H., and Grimshaw, R., with Allison, C. (2016) Profile of Provision for Armed Forces Veterans under Probationsupervision, The Probation Institute Report.

35. Albertson, K., Best, D., and Irving, J. (2015) ‘A Social Capital approach to assisting veterans through recovery and desistance transitionsin civilian life’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 54 (4): 384–396.

36. Albertson, K., and Best, D., with Irving, J., Murphy, T., Buckingham, S., Morton, G., Stevenson, J., Crowley, M., Mama-Rudd, A., andChaggar, A. (2016) Right Turn Veteran-Specific Recovery Service: 5 Site Evaluation Pilot: Interim Report (March 2016), Sheffield HallamUniversity: Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice.

37. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-Specific Recovery Service Evaluation, Final report (June 2017), Sheffield Hallam University: Helena Kennedy Centre for InternationalJustice.

38. Addaction are one of the UK's largest specialist community drug and alcohol treatment charities, for more details see the web page:https://www.addaction.org.uk/.

39. For more details about the Right Turn project, see the web page: https://www.addaction.org.uk/help-and-support/adult-drug-and-alcohol-services/right-turn.

40. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-Specific Recovery Service Evaluation, Final report (June 2017), Sheffield Hallam University: Helena Kennedy Centre for InternationalJustice, p 68.

41. James, S., and Woods, N. (2010) A Guide to Working with Veterans in Custody, NACRO; London.42. Treadwell, J. (2010) COUNTERBLAST: More than Casualties of War?: Ex�military Personnel in the Criminal Justice System. The Howard

Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(1), pp.73–77.43. The Howard League (2011) Report of the inquiry into former Armed Service personnel in prison. London: The Howard League for Penal

Reform.


raised within the debate44 and recognition of the potentialharms of military service is reflected in the Armed ForcesCovenant.45 Tensions around the purpose of identifyingveteran status in the context of offending behaviour havebeen identified, along with the publication of morenuanced, veteran offending profile data.46 Practitioners inthe criminal justice sector are willing to embrace thedistinctions in veterans experience to ensure their practiceis informed47, 48, 49 indicating the prospective benefits of theveteran-offender debate being moved forward in a newdirection.

New Directions—a diversity and socialinclusion agenda

Over the last decade it has been identified thatthose with a military service history experiencesignificant challenges on transition into civiliansociety. There has been a continuation of adichotomous debate regarding the causes ofveterans’ offending behaviour, whilst policy andpractice has been hampered by a lack of empiricaldata. Ultimately, the picture is much more complexthan this. Despite some recent positive developments,the issue of veterans in the criminal justice systemlacks the application of a broader framework ofdiversity and social inclusion agendas. The complexityof the lived experiences of veterans requires a more

holistic consideration of veterans' pre-enlistmentsituation, their experience of military service andconsideration of the opportunities for social,community and civic participation upon leaving. Inorder to account for these participatory issues theresearch focus requires a more holistic turn, informedby the experiences of the diverse veteran populationthemselves. Of particular interest is establishing theextent to which members of the Armed ForcesCommunity feature among those facing multiplesocial disadvantages. The potential of viewing theexperiences of UK military veterans as an increasinglymarginalised group within the wider social andpolitical context ultimately means shifting into anexplanatory framework incorporating issues ofdiversity, social inclusion and participation.

Empirical research, theory and policy is onlybeginning to engage with the impacts of pre-enlistmentlife, military service and post service experiences onveterans. What we do know is that veterans have adistinct offending50 and wellbeing profile,51 that they facesignificant barriers to accessing support services due to alack of sensitivity about military culture amongst keyprofessionals52 and also experience significant levels ofsocial exclusion.53, 54, 55, 56, 57 These obvious injustices result insome veterans being excluded from civilian therapeuticand support contexts because they are misunderstood orjudged.58, 59, 60 Many veterans understandably prefer to seepractitioners who have an understanding of and

44. Walklate, S., and McGarry, R. (2015) Competing for the trace: The legacies of war's violence, in Walklate, S and McGarry, R (Eds)Criminology and War: Transgressing the Borders, London: Routledge.

45. Ministry of Defence (2011) The UK Armed Forces Covenant:46. MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R.J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., Fahy, T., Wessely, S. and Fear, N.T. (2013) Violent offending by

UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381(9870), pp.907–917.47. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prison (2014) People in prison: Ex-service personnel, London: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons.48. MacManus, D., and Wood, N. (2017) The Ex-Armed Forces offender and the UK criminal justice system, in Hacker-Hughes, J (Ed)

Military Veteran Psychological Health and Social Care: Contemporary Issues, Routledge: London and New York.49. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-

Specific Recovery Service Evaluation, Final report (June 2017), Sheffield Hallam University: Helena Kennedy Centre for InternationalJustice.

50. MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R.J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., Fahy, T., Wessely, S. and Fear, N.T. (2013) Violent offending byUK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381(9870), pp.907–917.

51. Bashford, J., Collins, C., Hasan, S., and Professor Lord Patel (2015) Call to Mind: A framework for action, Community InnovationsEnterprise on behalf of the Forces in Mind Trust and NHS England.

52. ibid.53. Iverson, A., Nikolaou, V., Greenburg, N., Unwin, C., Hull, L., Hotopf, M., Dandeker, C., Ross, J., and Wessely, S. (2005) ‘What Happens

to British Veterans when they leave the Armed Forces?’, European Journal of Public Health, 15 (2): 175–184.54. Hatch, S.L., Harvey, S.B., Dandeker, C., Burdett, H., Greenberg, N., Fear, N.T. and Wessely, S. (2013) Life in and after the Armed Forces:

social networks and mental health in the UK military. Sociology of health & illness, 35(7), pp.1045–1064.55. Hipes, C., Lucas, J.W. and Kleykamp, M., (2014) Status-and Stigma-related Consequences of Military Service and PTSD Evidence from a

Laboratory Experiment, Armed Forces & Society, vol. 41 no. 3 477–495.56. Keeling, M., Wessely, S., Dandeker, C., Jones, N., and Fear, N. T. (2015) ‘Relationship difficulties among UK military personnel: Impact

of sociodemographic, military, and deployment-related factors,‘ Marriage & Family Review, 51(3), 275–303.57. MacManus, D., and Wood, N. (2017) The Ex-Armed Forces offender and the UK criminal justice system, in Hacker-Hughes, J (Ed)

Military Veteran Psychological Health and Social Care: Contemporary Issues, Routledge: London and New York.58. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-


59. Stack, C. R. (2013) ‘How is psychological therapy experienced by ex-UK armed Forces members? An exploration through personalnarrative of cross-cultural encounters.’ (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University/ Metanoia Institute).

60. Wainwright, V., McDonnell, S., Lennox, C., Shaw, J., and Senior, J. (2016) ‘Treatment Barriers and Support for Male Ex-Armed ForcesPersonnel in Prison Professional and Service User Perspectives.’ Qualitative Health Research.


sensitivity towards military life and culture.61 Ultimately,this cohort, not wholly heroes, victims or villains, have aright to a balanced and sensitive approach to thedevelopment of services suited to identifying, assessingand managing their needs.62 Understanding the socialand cultural impact of military experience on journeyspost military service is beginning to generate explanatorytheoretical frameworks to examine the notion of‘transition’ as a cultural legacy of military life.63 From thisposition, the significance of the impact of the change in‘rules’ from military environments compared to civilianones is exposed, as service personnel must navigate acomplex cultural transition when moving betweenmilitary and civilian cultures. Understanding these issuesfrom the perspective of a wide variety of differentlyexperienced veterans64 and their families and communitiesmust form the bedrock of futureresearch agendas and practitioner-based initiatives.

The Government and widersociety have both a stake and arole in ensuring veterans are ableto acclimatise from military tocivilian spheres. This meansproviding opportunities or safespaces in which veterans canmake the shift from a sense ofself from soldier to citizen,65 oras moving from living in ‘civilianlife as a serving soldier’ toembracing a fuller, positive andmore future facing ‘militaryveteran citizenship’.66 It wouldtherefore appear necessary toexplore the possibility that poor transition outcomesmay be related to complications in securing any senseof post-service identity. Interestingly, veterans whohave no contact with publicly funded support servicesare not seen as challenging. For example, the

persistence of the military identity has been identifiedun-problematically in leavers from the US Air force,67

former Army, Navy and RAF veterans living in the cityof Plymouth68 and those retiring directly from theforces into civilian life.69 If we do not include thosewho appear to have made a successful transition(defined as not coming to the attention of publicservices), we may miss identifying pathways and keypointers which facilitate more effective transition fortheir peers.

Acknowledging identification with a militaryservice history is an important identity markeramongst this cohort. In order to facilitate the shift toa post-military identity requires us to approach thesedistinctions not as a deficit, but as a culturallyrelevant marker of a range of constructive resources.

Practice informed by this type ofculturally competent approachhas been shown to be moreeffective in reducing the barriersto veterans asking for andengaging in support services, bethey health, social care orcriminal justice.70

Conclusions and implications

The move from militaryservice into civilian society is asignificant life transition, whichfor some veterans can lead tocontact with the criminal justicesystem, alongside a variety ofother social ills. However, military

transition remains a process about which we know littleabout. In turn, empirically and theoretically informedpolicy approaches and practice remain sparse. As aconsequence, how we choose to respond to veterans islikely to continue to be based on unsubstantiated

The Governmentand wider societyhave both a stakeand a role in

ensuring veteransare able to

acclimatise frommilitary to civilian

spheres.

61. Ben-Zeev, D., Corrigan, P.W., Britt, T.W., and Langford, L. (2012). Stigma of mental illness and service use in the military, Journal ofMental Health, 21, 264–273.

62. McCartney, H. (2011). Hero, victim or villain? The public image of the British soldier and its implications for defence policy. Defence &Security Analysis, 27, 43–54.

63. Cooper, L., Caddick, N., Godier, L., Cooper, A. and Fossey, M. (2016) Transition From the Military Into Civilian Life: An Exploration ofCultural Competence', Armed Forces & Society.

64. e.g. Early Service Leavers; Female veterans; those with and without combat experience; Retirees; BAME veterans; The Bereaved; thewar injured; older veterans; younger veterans; those employed and unemployed on leaving service; veterans with no contact withsupport services or public services.

65. Stack, C. R. (2013) ‘How is psychological therapy experienced by ex-UK armed Forces members? An exploration through personalnarrative of cross-cultural encounters.’ (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University/ Metanoia Institute).

66. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-Specific Recovery Service Evaluation, Final report (June 2017), Sheffield Hallam University: Helena Kennedy Centre for InternationalJustice, p 68.

67. Yanos, R.C. (2004) Perceptions of Adjustment to Civilian Life among Recently Retired Air Force Officers, University of Maryland.68. Herman, A., and Yarwood, R. (2014) ‘From Services to Civilian: The geographies of veterans’ post-military lives’, Geoforum, 53: 41–50.69. Wolpert, D. S. (2000) Military Retirement and the Transition to Civilian Life,’ in Martin, J. A., Rosen, L. N., and Sparacino, L. R. (Eds) The

Military Family, London: Praeger.70. Albertson, K., Best, D., Pinkney, A., Murphy, T., Irving, J., and Stevenson, J. (2017) ‘It’s not just about recovery’: The Right Turn Veteran-



assumptions71 which impact on access to social justicefor ex-service personnel. Responding to veteran statusas a proxy for high risk of offending or as a treatmentindicator for a homogenous group (wholly heroes,victims or villains) are unhelpful for practice. If theseassumptions are left unchallenged we risk public andcommercial services stigmatising veterans whotransgress as somehow less deserving. We need policymakers, researchers, theoretical framework developers,Armed Forces charities/third sector agencies and thewider Armed Forces community to interact with eachother in partnership in order to facilitate thedevelopment of an holistic understanding of thetransitional experiences of military veterans.

The inclusion of veterans’ experiences of transitionin the veteran-offender debate can help us understandhow best to ‘mobilize this capitalinto accepted civilian norms’ whichare proving essential to a ‘good’transition enhancing the 'possibilityof successful employment andpersonal outcomes'.72 Further, wemust acknowledge that thecultural and structural experiencesin the military may influence theways in which the military servicelegacy is expressed for many yearsbeyond leaving service life.73, 74

Veterans' voices are key to thedevelopment of these newdirections and discourse, and weneed to ensure that the widerArmed Forces communitythemselves are utilised to facilitatethese successful transitions. Ultimately, there aredistinctive forms of institutionalized cultural capital thatare embodied and valued within the military. These differfrom the cultural capital required to integrate in civiliansociety. In order to formulate the best transitionalexperience, we need to facilitate opportunities for theveteran community to develop a ‘sense of identity andpurpose [that] isn’t rooted in the past’ but rather ‘basedon their present civilian circumstances and their plans forthe future’.75 In order to achieve this, the veterancommunity are best served by being both considered andincluded via a diversity and social inclusion framework.We make four recommendations, reflecting the newdevelopments in the debate on veteran-offenders toinform service delivery within the criminal justice setting.

First, veterans in the criminal justice sector arerecognised as a distinct and culturally diverse population,thereby ensuring responsibility for the ex-forcespopulation becomes a part of the existing custodialEquality and Diversity Officer mandate. Second,mandatory military service awareness training is deliveredacross the public services sector, including all staff in thecriminal justice context. Third, a political and policy levelcommitment to the introduction of a national veteranpathway is secured. This could take the form of astrengths-based, cross sector approach, meaning thatboth veterans in custody and custodial staff benefit fromaccessing more informed support intervention packages.This will incorporate through the gate services to addresshealth and social care needs, addictions issues and socialinclusion discrepancies. Accessing Council’s Armed Forces

Covenant resources means thatveterans in custody will beconnected with the wider localArmed Forces community(including families), ensuring aholistic pathway which valuesrelationships, enhances socialcapital gains and providesopportunities for communityparticipation. This way, theexperiences, voices and talents ofthe currently untapped communityresource that the Armed ForcesCommunity represent can beutilised to aid those veteranscaught up in the criminal justicesystem. Finally, a commitment to atheoretically informed evidence-

base that advises commissioners and influences practicefor veterans—across health and social care, addictionsand the criminal justice context—thus ensuring goodpractice is shared and sustained throughout this nationalmilitary veterans’ pathway.

Since the NAPO report, over ten years ago, weare still awaiting definitive figures for the veteranpopulation in the UK criminal justice system. The UKArmed Forces Covenant principle that no current orformer member of the British Armed Forces shouldface disadvantage is yet to be reflected in anystrategic support for ex-forces provision in thecriminal justice sector. The purpose of identifyingveteran status in the context of offending behaviourhas been highlighted as problematic. Likewise, the

71. Treadwell, J. (2016). The Forces in the Firing Line? Social Policy and the ‘Acceptable Face’of Violent Criminality. In The PalgraveHandbook of Criminology and War (pp. 331–346). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

72. Cooper, L., Caddick, N., Godier, L., Cooper, A. and Fossey, M. (2016) Transition From the Military Into Civilian Life: An Exploration ofCultural Competence', Armed Forces & Society, p 15.

73. Higate, P. R. (2001). Theorizing continuity: From military to civilian life. Armed Forces & Society, 27(3), 443–460.74. ibid.75. Futures Company and Forces in Mind Trust (2013) The Transition Mapping Study: Understanding the transition process for Service

personnel returning to civilian life, pp 53–54.

Since the NAPOreport, over tenyears ago, we arestill awaiting

definitive figuresfor the veteranpopulation in theUK criminal justice

system.


continued focus of the dichotomous debate onexplaining the causes of veterans’ offending hasproved unhelpful. Policy and practice reform has beenhampered by a lack of empirical data. Therefore,should we not move the veteran-offender debateforward, we risk responding to offending veteransbased on these unsubstantiated assumptions whichimpact negatively on ex-service personnel.

This paper asserts that the incorporation of thesenew developments in the veteran-offender debatecould provide a service delivery model responding tothe status of veteran as a protected characteristic,

warranting the delivery of culturally competenttraining. Further, we recommend this becomplemented by a cross sector pledge to both anational veteran pathway and evidence-basecollection strategy—working across health and socialcare, addictions and the criminal justice context. Weassert that by making sense of new developments inthe evidence base around veterans transitioning intocivilian society, we can broaden the veteran-offenderdebate, thus ensuring service delivery to this cohortfocusses on facilitating social justice for ex-servicepersonnel.


Background

This article reviews a recent project completed byone of the authors. Tighe was successfully awardeda fellowship1 to visit examples of prison radioacross Sweden and North America. Tighe visitedprogrammes that could be heard by the generalpublic. This happened after her secondment at theNational Offender Management Service (NOMS), asHead of Prison Radio in England and Wales.2 It washer insight and admiration of National Prison Radiowhich inspired this exploration. Her objective wasto find out how the listening public responds to theprisoner experience when they hear it on theirnormal radio at home or via a website or throughsocial media platforms like Facebook andSoundCloud.

The aim of Tighe’s project was to improveunderstanding of how prison radio in differentjurisdictions is made. This could be by prisoners or ex-prisoners themselves or in collaboration withprofessional radio makers. In consolidating Tighe’sevidence there are a number of important factors thatshed light on the complexity of prison radio and thevalue it may have for the prisoner themselves, theirfamilies, the prison system and the wider society. Thisarticle argues that prison radio can make valuablecontributions towards rehabilitative agendas as well asigniting routes to active citizenship and participation. Italso highlights a range of responsibilities thatbroadcasters, small or large, might reflect on whendealing with prison-centred programmes for widerpublic consumption. We explore whether radioprogrammes made by prisoners have something tooffer the wider public. We reflect on the impact of this.

When Tighe was Head of Prison Radio at NOMS,on secondment from the BBC, she was constantlyimpressed by the quality of the content of National

Prison Radio and how it put the audience at the heartof everything it does. National Prison Radio, which canbe heard by the majority of prisoners in England andWales, can be accessed by the majority of prisoners inEngland and Wales can only be heard via their in-celltelevision. It is important to note that it cannot be heardby anyone outside the prison. As a result of Tighe’sfellowship and Knight’s review of the existing researchinto prison radio, they have come to the conclusion thatlistening to radio programmes made by prisoners wouldhave value outside the prison walls. They believe thisfor three main reasons. First, it would offer moreinformation about prisons and how they operate, fillingknowledge gaps amongst the general public. Second, itwould give the community a more nuancedunderstanding of crime because they would hear themen and women taking part as ‘humans’ not just‘criminals’; something distanced and arbitrary. Third, amore informed general public may contribute towardsa more successful re-entry into the community forprisoners, resulting in less re-offending. Moreoverresearch indicates that prisoners, especially those whowork side by side with professional radio producers, candevelop essential skills which could enhance theiremployability and at the same time help them grown inconfidence.3 Tighe’s fellowship corroborates thesefindings.

What Prison Radio Research Tells Us

There is a discreet raft of research on prison radio.Although it is very niche it does give some insight intothe ways in which prison radio has emerged, how it ismanaged and the ways it is produced. HeatherAnderson discusses what she calls ‘in-prison’ radio. Sheidentifies the different forms of prison radio. Forexample radio programmes created outside in thecommunity, to be played inside prison compared to

Should the public be listening to prisonradio programmes?

An exploration of prison radio in Sweden and North America Siobhann Tighe is a producer and reporter working for the BBC and Dr Victoria Knight is a Senior Research

Fellow at De Montfort University, Leicester.

1. Winston Churchill Memorial Fund- http://www.wcmt.org.uk/users/siobhanntighe2015. 2. National Prison Radio is broadcast in the majority of prisons in England and Wales via in-cell televisions, but it can only be heard inside

the prison estate. It is a mix of music and speech, and is made by prisoners who are supported by a charity called The Prison RadioAssociation. It was initially set up to provide support when there was a number of suicides in Feltham Young Offenders Institute but ithas grown into a professional, award-winning radio station which gives information about reducing rehabilitation and breaking thecycle of crime. Prisoners engagement with National Prison Radio could take place either through another radio station called RadioWanno based in HMP Wandsworth, or through radio production courses supplied by the education provider.

3. Wilkinson, K., & Davidson, J. (2008). An Evaluation of the Prison Radio Association's Activity: The West Midlands Prison Radio TasterProject. Unpublished internal evaluation report.


radio programmes made by serving prisoners played onthe inside and also on the outside. Our explorationbuilds on these different formats and considers thecritical sensitivities related to producing andtransmitting prison radio.

At this point it is useful to draw on the radioscholar, Nick Couldry4 who developed the idea of‘voice’ as ‘process and value’.5 He argues thatorganisations actively choose to exclude, ignore,undermine and silence certain voices and therefore inessence the organization denies ‘a basic dimension ofhuman life’.6 Couldry asserts the ‘process’ of effectivecommunication is firstly the production of voicethrough broadcast media. Secondly this processrequires the voice to be spoken, and crucially heardby a receiver, that is the audience. It is the listeningaspect of Couldry’s process which adds complexityand makes it challenging for anyone involved in prisonradio, especially if it goes out onthe public airwaves. If it is to beprepared for publicconsumption it is essential thatproducers need to addressoffence related risks, besensitive to victims andwitnesses of crime as well asabiding by legal broadcastingstipulations.7 To do thissuccessfully making sure that prison radio requiresadditional resources, whether that is professionalexpertise or financial investment.

There is significant debate about the extent towhich prisoners are silenced, not just in radio. Goffmandescribed the prisoner experience as a ‘civic death’,whereby all opportunities to be an active citizen aretaken away.8 An outcome of this civic death meansthat,

… prisoners are dehumanized in the popularconsciousness. They are rarely presented asindividuals and when they are, it’s only theircrimes and scarred backgrounds which arebrought to light.9

One vivid example of this ‘dehumanization’ is thatmany prisoners’ around the world do not have the rightto vote. However there are groups in society whichrecognize this and help prisoners become more activein society. Recent examples include helping prisonersmake hand embroidered cushions and bags to sell,creating artwork including novels and poetry andproducing food items for sale. All of this taps into therehabilitative agenda to promote purposeful activity inprisons as well as encouraging more engagement withthe outside world.10

Prison radio is distinct from the arts examples listedabove. Whilst it also contributes to the rehabilitation ofprisoners, but it less straightforward. In order for it tobe produced correctly and without risks, importanteditorial issues need to be addressed. This is highlightedthrough Tighe’s fellowship report which touched onthemes like censorship, citizenship, support networks,

resettlement, desistance andpublic opinion. We consider theseissues here.

Enabling citizenship throughradio participation

As described by Goffman weknow that citizenship iscompromised by imprisonment.

For example prisoners are unable to participate inpublic, democratic and liberal practices. However,prison radio researchers agree that participation inradio, as programme makers or as listeners, enhancescitizenship11 and democracy.12 This is because radio,unlike other media, is relatively accessible. As Andersonsays it relies entirely on sound, specifically the voice.13

Compared to television it is inexpensive to make. Radioprogrammes can be accessed in numerous and variousways and can reach audiences across largegeographical areas.

Existing prison radio research suggests it is alsovery powerful especially when it comes to activismand the promotion of positive social values. One goodexample of this comes from Australia in a programmecalled the Jailbreak Health Project. This was created

… prisoners aredehumanized in the

popularconsciousness.

4. Couldry, N. (2015). Alternative Media and Voice. The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. In Atton, C. (Ed.).(2015). The Routledge companion to alternative and community media. Routledge. Couldry’s (2015).

5. ibid. (2015) p44. 6. ibid. pg 45.7. McDonald, K. (2014). Performance, power and production: a selective, critical and cultural history of the radio interview (Doctoral

dissertation, Bournemouth University).8. Goffman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates London, Penguin.9. Lumby, C. (2002). Televising the invisible: prisoners, prison reform and the media. Brown, D., & Wilkie, M. (Eds.). (2002). Prisoners as

citizens: Human rights in Australian prisons. Federation Press.10. User Voice, Howard League, prison councils.11. Anderson, H. (2013). Facilitating Active Citizenship: Participating in Prisoners' Radio. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(4),

292–306. See also Bedford 2015, Wilkinson and Davidson 2008.12. Anderson, H. (2008). Raising the civil dead: Prisoners’ radio in Australia and Canada (Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University).13. (2015:18).


with serving prisoners and was about blood bornediseases.14 It is this kind of participation in prison radioprogrammes which according to Bedford allowsinmates to manage and cope with imprisonment.15

Furthermore, Fisher’s research in Australia found thatprison radio gave a voice to prisoners especiallythrough requests shows and seasonal programmeslike the ones at Christmas. Fisher said they focused‘on the voices of the incarcerated’16 and generatedstrong ties between prisonersespecially within indigenouscommunities. He goes onto saythat prison radio is an importantbridge for softening the effectsof imprisonment especiallywhen it comes to the separationof the prisoner and their family.Fisher’s observation supportsother research which has foundthat other forms of media liketelevision can strengthen thelinks between prisoners andtheir family back home.17 Forexample, by watching the sameprogramme at the same timeeven though they are inseparate places they havecreated a bond.

Being able to cope withprison, and yet feel connectedwith home helps this notion ofstill being part of thecommunity. In the same waythen, listening to prison radioand making prison radio canalso contribute to this sense ofbelonging. According toBedford prison radio provides ‘aservice for a community, itoperates as a means ofexpression of the community’.18 She goes on to saythat this sense of belonging can help prisoners‘reshape their understanding of concepts such ascommunity, responsibility and empathy’.19 Finally sheargues that prison radio can widen or open updebates about our prisons to the listening public.20

Protecting the public, the victims and prisonorganisations

Creating content made by serving prisoners is thecore business of National Prison Radio (NPR) which isbroadcast to most prisons across England and Wales.Bedford’s analysis of NPR highlighted how it contributesto Prison Service targets, specifically ‘purposefulactivity’.21 The core staff of NPR are radio professionals

many with an established recordat the BBC. This expertise meansthat NPR generates credibleprogrammes which abideimportant editorial and securitystandards. Bedford argues thatthis marries with Reithianprinciples and thus extendsprinciples of ‘ethicalengagement’.22 This blending ofprofessional standards andserving the public is a distinctivequality of NPR according toBedford.

One of the positiveoutcomes of this type of activeparticipation in their ownrehabilitation means thatprisoners can learn radioproduction skills and also basicskills (such literacy andnumeracy). Moreover, Bedfordidentified that that prisoners canlearn about ‘social responsibility’23

for example creating a set ofprogrammes about restorativejustice. Not only were they aboutencouraging empathy inprisoners they also contributed toreducing recidivism according toBedford. She claimed that these

programmes where prisoners honestly engaged withthe harm they had inflicted helped to manage publicopinion about NPR. She concluded that this helped tovalidate what NPR’s serves to do as well as reassuringthe public about their function which at its core isrehabilitation.

She claimed thatthese programmeswhere prisonershonestly engagedwith the harm theyhad inflicted helpedto manage publicopinion about NPR.She concluded thatthis helped to

validate what NPR’sserves to do as wellas reassuring thepublic about theirfunction which at

its core isrehabilitation.

14. Minc, A., Butler, T., & Gahan, G. (2007). The Jailbreak Health Project–incorporating a unique radio programme for prisoners.International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(5), 444–446.

15. Bedford, C. (2015). Making waves behind bars: the story of the Prison Radio Association (Doctoral dissertation) p13. 16. Fisher, D. (2009). Mediating kinship: country, family, and radio in northern Australia. Cultural Anthropology, 24(2), 280–312.p289.17. Knight, V. (2015). Remote Control: Television in Prison London, Palgrave Macmillan.18. Bedford, C. (2015). Making waves behind bars: the story of the Prison Radio Association (Doctoral dissertation) p42.19. ibid. 43 see also (Allan 2006).20. ibid. p43.21. Bedford, C. (2015). Making waves behind bars: the story of the Prison Radio Association (Doctoral dissertation) p150.22. ibid. p156.23. ibid. p197.


A different study conducted into NPR by McDonaldexplored the editorial process and highlighted a complexset of processes which ensured that its reputation wasmaintained. She highlighted that NPR and the PrisonService work closely together. For example prisonerstaking part in NPR must satisfy security requirementsbased on established risk assessments. Moreover NPRstaff teach prisoners essential editorial rules when itcomes to making programmes. When she wasresearching NPR she observed that prisoners were taughtto how to become sensible interviewers, whichsometimes meant making sure the interviewee wastreated correctly and fairly.24 As we said in our introductionNPR can only be heard by serving prisoners and one of thereasons it cannot be heard outside is to protect victims ofcrime and to make sure they arenot further harmed. Considerationfor widening its reach to thecommunity has been avoided.Driving this decision is to ensurerightful protection of victims ofcrime. In contrast to the well-honed relationship between NPRand NOMS in England and Walesthe Austrailian researcherAnderson found an examplewhich didn’t comply with prisonsystem rules. She identified a radioshow called Locked-In, which tookcalls from low risk offenders at theend of their sentence. Itcontravenes Australian prisonpolicy on protecting victims ofcrime.25 This kind of example couldweaken trust between importantstakeholders and ultimately put a project like this at risk.

To overcome these risks, prison radio across theboard puts in place mechanisms to mitigate risk. Forinstance in England and Wales NPR has strict conditionsabout which prisoners can participate and they need tobe engaged in their rehabilitation. They do this inconjunction with offender managers and securitydepartments within the prison. Within the prison, riskscan be managed to some degree through prisonerselection and editorial guidelines. But on the outsidethis is harder to manage, and therefore publishingprisoner testimonies is avoided. Anderson argues thereis a distinct ‘absence of prisoners’ own views and

perspectives in the public sphere’.26 But she alsobelieves that prisoners themselves can plug that gap,helping to provide,

… alternative discourses on law and orderissues that speak through the voices of thoseexperiencing … the prison system …27

She says that by denying their voice or restricting it, orheavily regulating it, the penal debate becomes limited,partial and selective. Moreover, prisoners are not justexperts on the prison experience, they have other things tosay about the world. Anderson’s findings are supported byMcDonald’s research, who suggests that radio offersimportant opportunities for the prisoner ‘to be heard and

to be listened to’.28 As we havementioned earlier society reducesprisoners to one single issue whichis incarceration. But the researchindicates that prisoners’engagement in prison radio has thepotential to normalize of the prisonexperience. It enables inmates to berecognised as individuals with their‘own’ voices. We need to be verymindful that these voices have thepotential to extend further harm tovictims.

Furthermore the potentialrisks are also exacerbated by theestablished argument thatprisoners are less eligibile. Becauseof their crimes prisoners are notconsidered undeserving when itcomes to access to full rights,

active citizenship and access to goods and services. And itis these kinds of restrictions which can be played with.Bottoms, describes this is a form of ‘manipulation ofperceived public opinion in order to serve politicalinterests’.29 We know that if political parties appear to betough on crime, they believe that is more attractive to theelectorate. However the recent Prison Reform agenda setout by the previous Secetary of State, Michael Gove in2016 gave some indication that restrictions would beloosened in order to reduce re-offending, curb prisonviolence and save money. His vision for the Prison Servicecould now be put on hold, especially in the light of Brexit.What we do know is keeping in contact with family is one

It enables inmatesto be recognised asindividuals withtheir ‘own’ voices.We need to be verymindful that thesevoices have the

potential to extendfurther harm to

victims.

24. McDonald, K. (2014). Performance, power and production: a selective, critical and cultural history of the radio interview (Doctoraldissertation, Bournemouth University) p 166.

25. Anderson, H. (2013). Facilitating Active Citizenship: Participating in Prisoners' Radio. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30(4),292–306.

26. Anderson, H. (2015). Prisoners’ Radio. The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. Anderson (2015).27. ibid. p432).28. McDonald, K. (2014). Performance, power and production: a selective, critical and cultural history of the radio interview (Doctoral

dissertation, Bournemouth University) (Curtis Blanc interview in McDonald 2014).29. Bottoms (2015:222)????


established route to successful resettlement. As describedbelow this is also one of the major findings in Tighe’sproject. She visited prison radio projects in Sweden andNorth America and witnessed prisoners and ex-prisonersusing radio to maintain important links with their family,community, their identity. It and also helped them makesense of their prison experience, which for some isdisorientating and painful as Sykes30 famouslydocumented in his sociological study of an Americanprison.

Sweden

Radio Fri is a radio programme in Stockholm andbroadcast on a community radio station. It features youngoffenders, many of them vulnerable with complex needs.These young people are assisted by professionalprogramme makers. This is helpfulbecause initially many may struggleto present the programme andspeak on air, as Nadia one of theprofessional programme producersexplains,

The people who likepresenting radio programmes,stay … One person has beendoing it for three years. He’stotally fluent when he’sspeaking now, and he reallyconnects with the audio. Thepeople we work with areencouraged to reflect on thematerial that we’ve recorded.That’s how they’re practicingempathy. Our big aim is to help people workbetter in a group, to practice empathy skills andself-reflection, enhance their language andcommunication skills, and strengthen their self-esteem. (Nadia—professional programmeproducer)

Tighe also met two young men called Gabriel andJasber. They were hopeful that their work with Radio Friwould help them find employment although notnecessarily in the highly competitive media industry.Gabriel said that before Radio Fri he was shy, but he isnow able to talk in front of people and even givepresentations,

Everyone needs to challenge their fears.(Gabriel — young person).

At one of the Young Offenders Institutions outsideStockholm which Radio Fri visits the young prisoners thatTighe spoke to explained that participation in radioallowed them to express themselves in creative ways. Oneteenage girl said,

It’s important for us living here to speak out,and people need to listen because I’m just asmuch of a human as anyone else is. People saythey understand me, but they’ve never had anaddiction, so they can’t really understand me. Ithink it’s important for people to understandthat drugs and criminality are big problems forteenagers. (Anon—young person under 18)

The value of the voice within this context is asMcDonald described in her research is a valuable route to

carving out autonomy and self-worth31 This was also reiterated byanother young person who Tighespoke to,

I get the chance to expressmyself and tell my story. Bylistening to me, people mightrecognise themselves in me,relate to me, and not feelalone. If I tell my story peoplemay say: ‘Hey! I’ve beenthrough that, and I’m also inthat place. I know what youfeel and I know what you’rethinking’. (Anon—youngperson under 18)

Sharing her story was therapeutic for her. Since itwas heard by the public, outside the prison on anormal radio and via the internet she felt she washelping others. That empowered her and gave her apurpose.

The young people themselves could see prisonhad not only removed them physically from societybut had also taken away their voice and their abilityto participate in civic life. The young people inStockholm were using radio to paint a broader, morenuanced and complex picture of themselves than theones society creates. As mentioned earlier radio doeshave the power to get involved and challenge publicperception of criminals. Radio Fri is doing preciselythis. It provides a platform to inform the public andpossible counter dominant discourses aroundcriminality.

The young peoplein Stockholm wereusing radio to painta broader, morenuanced andcomplex pictureof themselves thanthe ones society

creates.

30. Sykes, G. (195??) The Society of the Captives.31. McDonald, K. (2014). Performance, power and production: a selective, critical and cultural history of the radio interview (Doctoral

dissertation, Bournemouth University).


USA

In Oregon, North America, a prison tutor Laurenwas compelled to create a radio communityprogramme called Concertina Wire. She felt that thiswould provide a valuable space to humanise the femaleprisoners she was teaching creative writing to.

The idea was originally to get incarceratedand formerly incarcerated women to writenon-fiction memoir pieces, or somethingabout their hopes, or what they wanted todo when they got out, and to broadcast it,so that the community could see them ashumans. We used, withpermission, written piecesfrom Coffee CreekCorrectional Facility inWilsonville and we readthose out on the air. Theresponse was really positiveand people were excited tohear this original content.Then we started to useformerly incarceratedwomen talking ‘live’ on air,having a discussion aboutwho they were, theirstruggles and where theyhope to go from here. So itwas powerful for theaudience, but also powerfuland transformative for thewomen taking part.(Lauren—Concertina Wire)

One unanticipated outcomeof Concertina Wire was that it became a supportnetwork for people who had just left prison. Laurenexplained how ex-prisoners listened and evenparticipated because they wanted to remainconnected to both the prison and the ex-prisonercommunity. This was also echoed by another weeklyradio programme called The Prison Show, made inHouston, Texas. Presented and produced by two ex-prisoners the show’s core objectives were to providefriendship to prisoners inside, including those onDeath Row, remaining connected to families on theoutside, and providing a community for those whohad been released from prison. One way of doing thiswas via its Shout-Out section. This is where familiesand friends could phone into the show and have afew minutes to say hello to their loved-ones insideprison.

The show’s producer, David, described howemotional these shout-outs were,

No one ever called in to give me a call-out[whilst in prison]. I'd lay up in my little bunk withmy headphones on and listen to all the peoplecalling in to The Prison Show and they becamemy family. It was really neat to hear them say toother inmates: ‘We love you. We miss you. Wewon't be able to come to see you, but justknow that you're in our thoughts’. And I'd getall choked up…If your loved-ones care enoughabout you to call out on the radio, telling youhow much they love you, that's just awesome,

man, and I don't care howbig and bad a convict youare: you're going sit thereand cry about it. (David—producer The Prison Show)

The established view is thatprison experience is painfulbecause of enforced isolation. Theproducer David believes his showhelps soften the distance betweenprisoners and separated familymembers. Moreover, anyonetuning in but detached from thesituation, had the rare opportunityto hear prisoners not just asoffenders, but as a brother, father,son and boyfriend. This chimeswith Rex Bloomstein’s catalogueof prison documentary films. Hiswork are an illustration of howprisoners shown on screen can

help increase the public’s knowledge of prison life and fillan information gap. Bennett’s analysis of Bloomstein filmsargues,

Bloomstein’s contribution has been tomaintain a space in popular culture for moremeasured reflection and empathy. Thepolemics and stereotypes, that so oftencharacterize public discourse about crime andpunishment, fall away as the viewer isexposed to a fuller expression of humanexperiences.32

If and when prisoners are allowed to contribute tofilm or radio, if they choose to see or hear it the publicare exposed to a way of life they normally don’texperience.

I'd lay up in my littlebunk with my

headphones on andlisten to all the

people calling in toThe Prison Show and

they became myfamily. It was reallyneat to hear them

say to other inmates:‘We love you. We

miss you.

32. Bennett, J. (2015). Rex Bloomstein's films of reflection and empathy. Criminal Justice Matters, 100(1), 30–30.


Broadcasting Standards

All of the radio stations and programmes visitedfor Tighe’s project were independently funded. They allshared the view that prisoners and offenders and ofcourse their families, should be represented and heardon community radio. However McDonald has indicated,broadcasting the prisoners voice is sensitive is often metwith trepidation and anxiety from the authorities andthe wider society.33 One radio producer who Tighe metin Portland, Oregon believed that the audience wholistened to her programme were much moresophisticated,

People who listen to KWVA [the station thatbroadcasts The Concertina Wire] are going tobe more savvy to alternative media outlets.These aren’t the same people who turn to FoxNews, right? ... We are reaching listeners whoare already interested in finding unique andvaried programmes that you can’t hearanywhere else (Lauren—Concertina Wire)

They felt they were justified in being more relaxedwhen it came to their type of radio because they knewit would reach the audience they were trying to engagewith, their desire to give a voice to this marginalisedgroups often meant they took editorial risks.

Emphasising this point, the producer describedattempts that were made to secure a slot for ConcertinaWire on a mainstream radio station affiliated with tothe powerful and influential National Public Radionetwork in North America but these were unsuccessful.

Remaining small and independent may wellprovide radio stations the freedom to give a voice togroups like prisoners who are normally silent. Anothercommunity radio station based in Oregon had a prisonradio programme called Prison Pipeline. They enjoyedsurprising audiences with prison radio content that theywouldn’t come across elsewhere, or would not havechosen to tune into,

Our show is on at a pretty prime driving time.So I always feel there are some people tuningin who aren't necessarily expecting theinformation they're getting from us, and thenthey're touched by what they hear. (Amy—Prison Pipeline)

Like other producers Amy felt that this kind ofprogramming did increase people’s understanding ofprisons and what happens to prisoners. Thesecommunity radio stations may enjoy more freedom

than established media companies, but this comes at aprice. Tighe noticed a lack of professionalism andexpertise. They rely heavily on untrained volunteers,who are driven by a strong sense of social justice andmay have a general awareness of broadcasting rulesand regulations, but do not have a strong grasp ofjournalistic principles. Best practice is not alwaysevident.

In contrasts, one of most successful workingmodels was the Radio Fri radio programme in Sweden.This is because it had paid professionals who are thereto support and guide the young people with theirprogramme making. This meant that programmes weresafe, compliant with broadcast regulations as well asyoung offender institution rules The charity whichproducers Radio Fri adheres to their own editorialguidelines which as based on the National Prison Radiomodel. This helped the programme survive and flourish.To highlight this one young female at the prison inStockholm explained to Tighe how she wanted tobroadcast information about perceived malpractice andcorruption inside the prison. Producers at Radio Fridescribed this as ‘trash talk’ and said they heard thiskind of thing regularly. They were keen to eliminateanything libellous from the programmes. Furthermorethe producers had a procedure to deal with complaintswhich involved alerting services accordingly. In addition,the professional producers actively edited outinappropriate language or content (including crimebeing spoken about in a glamorous or boastful way).They were keen to maintain expected broadcastingstandards making sure content was not offensive, notdamaging to the reputation and did not put the survivalof their organisation at risk.

Broadcasting Voices from Prison

Although the programmes Tighe visited inSweden and North America were making significantin-roads into broadcasting the prison experience tothe public, the lack of serving prisoner voices wasvery apparent. Concertina Wire and Prison Pipelinewere allowed permission to record inside prison butvery rarely. Crossroads in Washington DC had plansto record inside a prison but to date this had beenunsuccessful. However, unusually serving prisonerscould telephone into the show and make commentson what they have heard about the show, raiseconcerns about prison life and sometimes talk abouttheir conviction/sentence. Similarly The Prison Showbased in Texas encouraged messages from prisoners’families and friends which were broadcast on theirShout-Out section. Serving prisoners could then enjoy

33. McDonald, K. (2014). Performance, power and production: a selective, critical and cultural history of the radio interview (Doctoraldissertation, Bournemouth University).


hearing family and friends but were unable torespond.

As Bedford and McDonald have highlightedthere are significant challenges and sensitivitiesaround bringing the prisoner’s voice to radio. Due tothe difficultly of recording inside prison programmemakers rely heavily on ex-prisoners and also find34

creative ways to amplify the voice of serving prisonerswhich they can’t access. For instance, ConcertinaWire dramatized essays written by serving femaleprisoners in attempts to try and breath life into therich content of their essays. These essays speakfrankly and emotionally about their lives and theirfeelings.

Sweden has overcome the issue of accessingprisons but only because they a target a less riskygroup. They have no success accessing the adultprison estate, but instead they focus on youngoffenders.. However, Radio Fri’s long term ambition isto establish their own National Prison Radio acrossSwedish prisons. With this goal in mind Tighe wasasked to address Swedish prison authorities abouthow NPR worked in England and Wales and how it isseen to contribute to reducing reoffending.

Conclusion

Tighe’s observations from her project alongside thesecondary evidence presented tells us that prison radiohas a lot to offer a range of stakeholders. If prison radio isto be prepared for public consumption it is essential thatproducers need to address offence related risks, besensitive to victims and witnesses of crime as well asabiding by legal broadcasting stipulations. Giving voice ispowerful and can help those incarcerated address andconsider their rehabilitation. There is sensitivity aboutreleasing radio programmes for the general public toconsume. However the quality and diversity ofprogramming does have much to offer the wider public.Silencing the prison only exacerbates distorted views ofprison life and this in turn compounds wider prejudicedirected at prisoners and those trying to resettle. At thesame time a prisoner’s community can become furtherdistanced and harder to reach if their ability to speak,listen and hear is disrupted. Public broadcasters couldbenefit from this form of community radio and partnerwith them to transport and broadcast hidden voices to awider public. Is anybody listening? With editorial care andcareful consideration they could be.

34. Anderson, H. (2012). Raising the civil dead: prisoners and community radio. Peter Lang.


Book ReviewCultural criminology: Aninvitation (Second edition)By Jeff Ferrell, Keith Hayward andJock YoungPublisher: Sage (2015)ISBN: 9781446259153 (hardback)9781446259160 (paperback)Price: £75.00 (hardback) £26.99(paperback)

This is the second edition of aground-breaking and influentialbook by three distinguished,internationally renownedprofessors. It draws upon a widerange of criminological andsociological theories in order tocast new light upon the issues ofcrime and criminal justice. Theintroductory chapter explains thatcultural criminology is concernedwith the ways in which people acttogether creating meaning andforming identities. This symbolicenvironment does not exist in atheoretical space, but has realworld implications, intertwiningwith structures of power andinequality. It is a process that isdynamic, evolving and constantlynegotiated. A vivid example isgiven in the opening pages of thebook focussing on the Occupymovement, which emergedfollowing the financial collapse of2008 and the subsequent period ofeconomic austerity and recession,calling for fundamental reformsand contesting capitalism itself.Activists took to wearing ‘GuyFawkes’ style masks, which wereinspired by images from dystopiangraphic novel V for Vendetta,1

which subsequently became asuccessful film.2 Closer analysis notonly reveals the cultural

appropriation of this image frommainstream, commercialentertainment, but also revealsdeeper capitalist structures. Theimage is owned by the TimeWarner corporation, who thereforegain additional profit, and thecompany licenced to produce themasks uses non-unionisedworkshops in Mexico and Brazil.This story therefore reveals not onlyhow cultural products arecontested, but also how resistancecan be commodified and enlistedby powerful financial interests thatbenefit from it.

The chapters in this book coverthe intellectual and theoreticalorigins of cultural criminology aswell as chapters focussing onspecific issues including mediarepresentation. A particularlyenlightening chapter describeseveryday experiences of crime andcriminal justice. It takes a diary of anordinary day and illustrates theways in which we all encounter therepresentations and reality of crimeand criminal justice, whether thatbe the increasing securitisation ofpublic spaces, media coverage andalso criminal chic used in fashionand advertising. The book alsoaddresses research approaches thatcan draw out the cultural aspects ofcriminology, particularly qualitativeapproaches such as ethnography.Each chapter ends with a helpfulsection that recommends books,articles and websites, but also filmsand documentaries that reflect thethemes, an excellent resource thatrightly illustrates how popularculture is a site in which criminologyis enacted.

I read this book at the sametime as reading legal journalist,

Jeffrey Toobin’s account of the OJSimpson trial.3 At the time, the trialwas an event of seeminglyunprecedented intensity, abewitching confluence of celebrityand crime. The apparently insatiableappetite for the trial generated hugemedia coverage. The fact that thetrial was broadcast and participantsspoke openly to the press simplyfuelled the obsession. This alsoplayed out in the courtroom, withtheatrical gestures by lawyersseeming to be aimed at viewers asmuch as the jury, most notoriouslywhen Simpson was asked to try onthe gloves found at the murderscene. Toobin’s account also showshow the lawyers and judgesresponded to media coverage on apersonal and professional level,becoming acutely conscious of theirown media image. The trial took onan almost unreal quality, as if it was avast and unfolding entertainmentrather than being concerned with abrutal double murder. At the sametime, the trial became embroiledwith social problems that wentbeyond the events themselves,raising public issues about gender,including domestic violence and theproblematizing of female behaviour,issues of race, in particular regardingthe discrimination in the criminaljustice system, and issues of wealthand power, including whether thosewith resources could avoidaccountability for their actions.Following Simpson’s acquittal manyof the lawyers, witnesses and jurorswent on to write books, benefitingfrom lucrative publishing deals, andmove on to successful media careers.The trial has now, itself taken on amythical status, recently beingsuccessfully recreated as a fictional

Reviews

1. Moore, A. (1988) V for Vendetta New York: Vertigo.2. V for Vendetta Dir. James McTeigue (USA, 2006).3. Toobin, J. (2015) The run of his life: The People V OJ Simpson London: Random House.


television show4 featuring highprofile stars, marking the finaltransition of real deaths into acommercial, entertainment product.This is only the most high profileexample of the relevance of culturalcriminology and the entangledrelationship between representationand reality.

Critical Criminology is anoutstanding book that is essentialreading to anyone concerned withissues of culture, whether that bethe behaviour of groups, popularrepresentation, or the constructionof social values.

Dr Jamie Bennett is Governor ofHMP Grendon & Springhill.

Book ReviewThe Justice Women: The FemalePresence in the Criminal JusticeSystem 1800–1970By Stephen Wade Publisher: Pen & Sword History(2015) ISBN: 978 1 47384 365 3(paperback)Price: £12.99 (paperback)

In The Justice Women: TheFemale Presence in the CriminalJustice System 1800–1970, StephenWade explores the challenges facedby women, in gaining professionalstatus in the criminal justice system.He traces the introduction ofwomen to a number of professionalroles within the British criminaljustice process; from voluntary,unpaid work through toprofessional status, whilsthighlighting the struggle thesewomen faced against genderinequality and discrimination. Asprofessional roles within thecriminal justice system, like manyother professions had simply notbeen accessible to women until theFirst World War, and then the

implementation of the SexDisqualification (Removal) Act1919, this book reflects not only therise of women within this field butarguably the rise of women morebroadly within British society.

Stephen Wade is a historian ofcrime and law, and author ofpredominantly non-fiction books;he has spent time ‘writing as aworker in prisons,’ and is a parttime lecturer at the University ofHull. He begins this book byexploring how through womenworking in voluntary and unpaidroles within the criminal justicesystem, women’s interest in thistype of work was highlighted(Chapter One), before continuingwith an insight into the genderrelated battles women faced as lawstudents and lawyers (ChapterTwo). The book is structured insuch a way that each chapter isdevoted to a profession; professionswhich include policewomen, jurorsand magistrates and prison officersand the lesser known roles of theprobation officers, lady detectivesand sheriffs, Lord Lieutenants andcoroners.

By drawing on a diversespectrum of roles, this bookencapsulates the social history of theCriminal Justice System, through thebiographies of women whocontributed in part to its reform;describing both the challenges andthe battles women faced as theyentered the legal and law relatedprofessions within a male dominatedinstitution. In doing so, Wade bringsthe social history of the criminaljustice system to life, when hedescribes the women whoexperienced the battles ofdiscrimination and inequality. Bydrawing on the biography of SybilCampbell for example the, ‘firstwoman judge in a full time capacity,being appointed and serving as amagistrate at Tower Bridge in 1945;’(p34) Wade describes the objectionsshe faced and in particular the

‘questions that were asked regardingwhether a woman was a fit personto do such work,’ (p35). Byinterweaving the biographies ofwomen, throughout the book, whoexperienced the battle to enter thelegal profession, with developmentswithin the social history of the legalsystem, Wade depicts the on-goingstruggle confronting these womenthrough their own eyes, relating tofirst-hand accounts and experiences.Crucially whilst Wade acknowledgesthat a tremendous amount ofprogress has been made during theperiod on which this book covers, healso acknowledges that he is,‘astonished that more progress hasnot been made’ (p147).

This book is well researched, asWade draws on a broad range ofbiographies from both the OldBailey and provincial sources. Forexample, the matron’s journal atLincoln Castle Prison dated October1868, describes the care given to aparticular prisoner with a babywhilst awaiting execution, (p75)however as Wade acknowledges,such sources are fundamental tothe insight of fact, but fail toprovide a crucial insight into theemotional struggles such womenworking within the criminal justicesystem undoubtedly encountered.

During his introduction, Wadedescribes that a woman’s place in the‘legal system up to the turn of thenineteenth century had been limitedto prison matrons andwardresses,’(pviii) and in doing so,disappointingly fails to acknowledgethe crucial role of the jury of matrons.The jury of matrons were called uponby the court in a number ofinstances, but primarily in cases toestablish whether a woman was,‘quick with child’ in women who hadpleaded their belly, whilst facing acapital punishment. However, thisdoes not detract from the fact thatthe book presents a thoroughrepresentation of women’sexperiences within the criminal

4. American crime story: The People V OJ Simpson (US, 2016).


justice system in gaining professionalstatus.

This book provides a refreshingperspective on the developments ofthe criminal justice process from theviewpoint of women, whoexperienced the challenges andbattles of entering a male dominatedprofession. Overall this bookdemonstrates a thorough insight intothese issues through the diversespectrum of professions, and thepersonal challenges the womenfaced in gaining professional statuswithin the British criminal justicesystem. The style of this book allowsan inter-connectedness betweenevents in social history and thebiographies of women, bringinghistory to life, making it an ideal readfor students.

Rachel Dixon-Goodall is a PhDStudent of Law, at the University ofHull.

Book ReviewThe Monstering of MyraHindleyBy Nina WildePublisher: Waterside Press (2016)ISBN: 978-1-909976-34-4(paperback)Price: £19.95 (paperback)

The subject of this book, MyraHindley, needs no introduction.Even though she has been dead for14 years she is still, aside fromperhaps Rosemary West, one of thebest known female offenders inEngland and Wales. Charged andconvicted with Ian Brady for themurder of five children, she served36 years in custody. The fact thatshe did serve such a long period incustody and is still characterised asone of ‘the UK’s most notoriousserial killers’ (p.17) is the focus ofthis book. The author, Nina Wilde,describes herself as ‘a very closefriend’ (p.17). They first met inCookham Wood Prison whenWilde was conducting research

there in 1993 and their friendshipcontinued until Hindley’s deaththrough subsequent visits andletters. Over this time Wilde got toknow Hindley well and the book isan attempt, I think, to show thereader perhaps a different side toHindley than has previous beenexpressed. This is also donethrough the publication of letterextracts which over the yearsHindley had sent to Wilde.

The crux of the book is toshow the unfairness which Hindleysuffered at the hands of the state.Hindley was the first female to beconvicted of murder following theabolition of the death penalty inEngland and Wales. Despite this,the mood and temper of thecountry was still punitive, especiallywhen it came to a child killer, whichis why the media throughout herlifetime painted her as the ‘mosthated woman in Britain’ (p.100). Atthe time that Hindley wassentenced to life, the period oftime which she had to serve wasimposed by the Home Secretaryand it was not until 1982 that aminimum sentence of 25 years wassuggested for her. By this stage shehad already served 16 years andhad been refused parole once. In1985 the Local Prison ReviewCommittee recommended thatHindley was suitable for release,but her parole was knocked backby the then Home Secretary, LeonBrittan, who imposed a provisionaltariff of 30 years. This was furtherextended to a whole life tariff in1990 by the then Home SecretaryDavid Waddington. Throughouther time in prison and up until herdeath she tried to challenge thiswhole life tariff, taking her case tothe Court of Appeal in 1997 andthe House of Lords in 2000. Tendays after Hindley died, on 25November 2002, the House ofLords ruled that the HomeSecretary could no longer set thetariff for life sentenced prisonersand that it should be a matterwhich rests with the judiciary.

The book has two mainarguments. Hindley was treated asshe was first because she was awoman and consequently what shedid was worse because she was awoman. Second the unfairness sheexperienced was because the presswould not leave her alone andcontinually brought up the story andthe evil nature of her character. Inmost press articles the samephotograph of her was used—platinum blond—when in actual factHindley spent most of her life as abrunette. The author claims that inthe 1990s ‘any tabloid editor couldhave told you that he couldguarantee sales by putting one oftwo women on the front page: theother was Her Royal Highness Diana,Princess of Wales’ (p. 101). This istherefore a good example of howmuch influence the media and thepress can have on political decisions.

In terms of these arguments Ithink Wilde is right on both counts.Interestingly she cites examples ofother female killers who were notgiven the same notoriety as Hindleyand who frankly I had not heard of.Again this shows how it was thepress which was the largestcontributor in this story. Despiteagreeing with the main argumentsin the book I felt that the authorwanted me to feel some level ofpity for Hindley. She continuallyreminds the reader that Hindley didnot actually kill any of the childrenand that she was convicted forbeing an accomplice of Brady. Ididn’t feel this pity, but nor did Ireact to the arguments with dismay(p. 17). Overall the book is writtenwell and makes the abovearguments well. It thus serves as areminder that tariff decisions on lifeimprisonment should be decidedupon by the judiciary and that theyshould be carried out withoutpolitical bias or influence.



Book ReviewJosieBy Catherine TrimbyPublisher: Youcaxton publications(2016)ISBN: 978-19111-753-08(paperback)Price: £10.00 (paperback)

Dissimilar to most books whichare reviewed in the Prison ServiceJournal, Josie is a fictional novel. Idecided to include it in the reviewpile partly because the subjectmatter of the book focuses onJosie’s time at a women’s prisonand also because the author,Catherine Trimby, served as amagistrate in Shropshire for 34years and is now a member of theIndependent Monitoring Board fora women’s prison.

The book opens with Josiebeing transported to prison havingbeen sentenced for her criminaloffence. At this stage of the bookwe don’t know anything about heror the fact that she is an offender,just the experience of beingtransported in, what is oftenreferred to as the sweat box. Wesoon learn the context and thenfollow Josie through her firstevening and morning at EdgehillPrison. The book then sets thescene. Josie is a ‘quiet and timidthirty-two-year old’ (back cover)who lives alone and is involved in anoperatic society. One of thesociety’s members, Mike, pays herunwanted attention and one nighton a ruse gets Josie to come back tohis flat. Mike makes unwantedadvances to her and through panicJosie forgets to put on her lightswhen driving away. She hits andkills a man and is later charged withdeath by careless driving. She issentenced to a custodial sentence.

Chapter 13 onwards thendescribes Josie’s life in custody. Weare told about the detailed inductionprogramme, her bedroom, her house(wing), the group of friends shebegins to make, her time working inthe gardens and her involvement

with a choir. The book also highlightsher appointments with herprobation/reintegration officer andthe conversations which they have inorder to get Josie to start takingresponsibility for causing the death ofa young man. This involves contactwith the victim’s mother and alsoJosie replying to this letter. Theexperiences are not all positive: she isinvolved in a small incident in thequeue for dinner in her first fewweeks in prison, she is involved in ahostage incident and she also seesone of her friends self-harm.

Overall I did enjoy the book. Itwas well written and I did want tofind out what happened to Josie butin truth I did find it a little tame. Ihave never been inside a women’sprison so do not know what thereality of a women’s prison is like, buthaving read some of the academicliterature and watcheddocumentaries I didn’t feel this bookpainted that realistic a picture.Despite including the incidents ofself-harm and being taken a hostageand also touching on other issuessuch as the women missing theirchildren, drug abuse, low educationlevels and post-convictionemployment; none of these werereally dealt with in any meaningfulway and thus could have been muchstronger. This could have been a wayin which to get some importantmessages out to people about whywomen shouldn’t be held in existingcustodial institutions. Nevertheless asa novel, is was an interesting read.


Book ReviewRegulating Judges: BeyondIndependence andAccountabilityEd. Richard Devlin & Adam DodekEdward Elgar 2016ISBN 978 1 78643 078 6 Price: £105

This book considers theregulation of judges in 19 countries,including England and Wales. Itproposes a new approach toanalysing judicial regulation, whichhas traditionally been discussed onlyin terms of the twin necessities forjudges to be independent and forthem to be accountable. The bookalso provides a critique of regulationconceived merely as a process ofsetting, monitoring and enforcingrules or standards. Although this isnot part of its design, the book mayalso help shed light upon theregulation of other aspects of social,economic and governmental activity,which the body of literature whichhas grown up alongside it oftenterms the ‘regulated State’. This bookadds to that literature and helpfullymakes many references to it.

The importance of judicialregulation has long beenrecognised as a fundamentalconstitutional and philosophicalissue (the question Plato asked inthe Republic about how those whohad power were to be controlled isof enduring significance). Judicialregulation is also topical given thescrutiny the senior judiciary inEngland and Wales have comeunder about whether the executiveor the legislature can trigger Article50 of the Lisbon Treaty to set inmotion the UK’s departure from theEuropean Union. In November 2016three judges in the Court of Appealruled unanimously that Ministersexercising the Royal Prerogativecould not trigger Article 50 and thatParliament must formally empowerthem; and in January 2017 theSupreme Court upheld thatdecision, albeit with four of the 11judges dissenting. The mediacoverage of those judgments,particularly the first (with the adhominem attacks three tabloidnewspapers made against theAppeal Court judges), has throwninto sharper relief issues relating tothe accountability of judges (andindeed the media) as well ashighlighting the tensions in the


relationship between the legislative,the executive and the judicialfunctions of the constitution.

The more sophisticated modelthis book proposes provides aninteresting means of understandingand framing debates about suchcurrent issues. In the first of its 20essays, each of which is written byseparate authors all of whom aresenior academics, the editors(Canadian professors of law) set outtheir new approach. Instead ofconceiving the regulation of judgesas a calibration of independencebalanced against accountability, theeditors set out a ‘regulatory pyramid’of four features: values, processes,resources and outcomes. These are‘four variables that are potentiallyhelpful for a description or analysis …of all the multiple actors involved inthe operationalization of a judicialsystem’ (p. 4).

The six ‘values’—impartiality,independence, accountability,representativeness, transparencyand efficiency—provide the baseof the pyramid. The ‘processes’side of the pyramid (whichincludes recruitment, training,complaints, the appellatemechanism and performanceevaluation) recognises how criticalthe administrative framework of ajudicial system can be. It is argued,for example, that the ‘recruitmentand appointment processes areperhaps the most powerfulregulatory instruments’ (p. 18).Post-appointment theindependence of the judiciaryoften leaves regulation to theappellate case-focused processand disciplinary arrangementswhich apply only by exceptionwhen judges behave improperly.

The importance of the’resources’ side of the pyramidwas illustrated by comments madeby Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale(respectively, the President andDeputy President of the UKSupreme Court) when appearingbefore the House of LordsConstitution Select Committee in

March 2017. The terms andconditions under which judges areappointed; the number of judgesfor which resources are madeavailable; and the support theyreceive (including the physical andIT infrastructure) have a bearingon efficiency and effectiveness(efficiency being important for, asthe old adage has it, ‘justicedelayed is justice denied’). InEngland and Wales there arecurrently concerns about thedifficulty filling judicial vacanciesbecause terms and conditionsaren’t attractive enough. Thefourth aspect of the pyramid,‘outcomes’ is a consideration ofpublic confidence in the judiciary.Several of the essays consider therole the media plays incommunicating this.

This new approach involves amore sophisticated assessment thanbalancing independence andaccountability does alone. However,the editors recognise that it cannotprovide a hard and fast yardstick.Accordingly, they qualify theirapproach by acknowledging theinherent complexity and diversity(or hybridity as the editors term it)of regulation; and by the need tocontextualise its analysis, andappreciate the fluidity of context.These help explain variations ofinterpretation, particularly whenapplying the model internationally,which is the substance of the book.In the book’s other 19 essays,different authors apply the‘pyramid’ approach to consideringjudicial regulation in differentcountries including China, Croatia,Russia, the USA, Malaysia,Germany, South Africa and England& Wales.

Diverse though the countrieswhose judiciaries are considered, itis interesting to see commonthemes. For example, theintroduction of a complaints anddisciplinary process has proved a‘fertile domain’ (p. 41) for reformsin many countries includingCanada, India, Italy, South Africa as

well as England & Wales. Bycontrast where complaints systemsare not formalised, accountability itis argued is less robust, as the essayon judicial regulation in Australiaillustrates, which also criticises thelack of transparency in the systemfor appointing judges. It is alsointeresting, apropos the need tounderstand the judicial system incontext, to note that thesignificance of impartiality as avalue is subordinated to otherpolitical and social norms in China,Italy, Japan and Russia.

The essay on the Chinesejudiciary highlights thefundamentally different set ofvalues which underpin Chinesesociety. The very deep andlongstanding cultural preferences inChina for the harmoniousresolution of disputes are reflectedin the distrust of litigation to resolvethem. This contrasts dramatically tothe litigious nature of disputeresolution in Western democracies,notwithstanding efforts to replacesome openly adversarial conflictwith mediation. Perhaps the largesttheme to emerge is that a healthyrelationship between the regulatedand the regulator involves tension.Should that relationship be‘comfortable’ (that is, witheverything going swimmingly) thereis probably something deeplywrong. This isn’t to suggest thatregulation necessarily involves anadversarial set of relationships.Indeed, the editors argue that theirpyramid approach is in partrecognition that regulation needs tobe understood and conducted notas a command/control relationshipbut more collaboratively; and, likeall good partnerships, needsconstant attention.

Some may regard theconsideration of regulatory issuesas like counting how many angelscan dance on the head of a pin.Like all areas of study there is a riskof self-absorption and themarginalising of relevance. Inaddition to the insights into the


judicial function the book provides,its novel approach may also offer away of considering current issuesrelated to prisons. Regulated bythe statutory instrument of PrisonRules and the instructions andmanagerial arrangements thatflow from them, the pyramidmodel may enable interestingreflections on the role anddiscretion (or ‘autonomy’ incurrent parlance) of governors. Itmay also help interpret the

changes to the prison service as anorganisation. From being truly an‘arm’s length’ body in 1990s(when the Director General of thePrison Service answeredParliamentary Questions), todayNOMS (the name has disappeared)is being folded into the Ministry ofJustice as another Directorate.

In short, this an interestingbook. One of its principalachievements, as Justice RichardGoldstone (who served on the

Constitutional Court of South Africa1994–2002 and who was ChiefProsecutor for the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia and Rwanda) notes is itscontribution to comparativejurisprudence: to understand one’sown judicial system one needs toexamine others.

William Payne was a prisongovernor and worked elsewhere inNOMS before retiring.


Peter Clarke was appointed HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons in January 2016. He joined the MetropolitanPolice in 1977 after graduating in Law from BristolUniversity. He served in a variety of uniformed anddetective roles in London, including commandingthe Brixton Division, and Staff Officer to theCommissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Afterserving as Deputy Director of HR for the 45,000employees of the Metropolitan Police, in May 2002he was appointed as Head of the Anti-TerroristBranch at New Scotland Yard and National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations, leading theinvestigation into all acts of terrorism in the UK andagainst British interests overseas. He retired fromthe police service from the position of AssistantCommissioner, Specialist Operations in 2008.

In 2009 he was appointed by the Prime Minister tobe a member of the UK National Security Forum,created to advise Government on the implementationof the UK National Security Strategy. In addition toholding a number of advisory and consultative roles inthe private sector, he was a non-executive Director ofthe UK Serious Organised Crime Agency from 2009–13. In 2014 he was appointed by the Secretary of Statefor Education to be the Education Commissioner forBirmingham with a specific remit to investigate allegedIslamist infiltration of schools. He became a member ofthe Board of the Charity Commission in 2013, and is atrustee of the Crimestoppers charity. He has been aFellow of the Center for Law and Security at New YorkUniversity and was awarded an Honorary Doctorate inLaws by the University of Bristol in 2008.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England andWales is an independent inspectorate which reports onconditions for and treatment of those in prison, youngoffender institutions, secure training centres, immigrationdetention facilities, police and court custody suites,customs custody facilities and military detention. The roleof HM Inspectorate of Prisons is to provide independentscrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisonersand other detainees, promoting the concept of ‘healthyestablishments’ in which staff work effectively to supportprisoners and detainees to reduce reoffending andachieve positive outcomes for those detained and for thepublic. The inspectorate work jointly with other inspectingbodies, in prisons this includes Ofsted focussing on

education, the Care Quality Commission and the GeneralPharmaceutical Council focussing on healthcare, and HMInspectorate of Probation focussing on offendermanagement.

Inspections assess four areas: Safety (that prisoners,even the most vulnerable, are held safely); Respect (thatprisoners are treated with respect for their humandignity); Purposeful Activity (that prisoners are able, andexpected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefitthem), and; Resettlement (that prisoners are prepared forrelease into the community, and helped to reduce thelikelihood of reoffending). There are three stages to eachinspection. The first is the pre-inspection visit whichincludes the collection of preliminary information and theconduct of a confidential survey of a representativeproportion of the prisoner population. The second stageis the inspection visit, where data is gathered and assessedagainst the published Expectations.1 Sources of evidenceinclude prisoner focus groups, individual interviewscarried out with staff and prisoners, the prisoner surveyresults, documentation and observation by inspectors. Atthe end of this the prison is awarded a numeric score foreach of the four healthy prison tests, from one(‘Outcomes for prisoners are poor’) up to four (‘Outcomesfor prisoners are good’). The third stage is the post-inspection action, including the production of an actionplan, based on the recommendations made in the reportand subsequent progress reports.

The Inspectorate’s work constitutes a part of theUnited Kingdom’s obligations under the OptionalProtocol to the United Nations Convention against Tortureand other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment ofPunishment. This Protocol requires signatory states tohave in place regular independent inspection of places ofdetention.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons is appointed by theJustice Secretary from outside of the Prison Service. TheChief Inspector reports directly to the Justice Secretaryand Ministers on the treatment of prisoners, conditions inprisons, young offender institutions, court custody andother matters in England and Wales as directed by theJustice Secretary. The Chief Inspector also has a statutoryresponsibility to inspect and report to the Home Secretaryon conditions for and treatment of detainees in all placesof immigration detention in the United Kingdom.

This interview took place in September, 2017.


Peter Clarke is HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. He is interviewed by Dr Jamie Bennett, Governor of HMPGrendon and Springhill.

1. Available at http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/ accessed on 14 September 2017.

JB: How much experience did you have ofprisons prior to taking up your current role andhow did you develop your knowledge andunderstanding?

PC: Prior taking up the role my experience ofprisons was mainly interviewing prisoners or dealingwith transactional matters such as the transfer ofproperty. I hadn’t had a great deal of experience ofthe main working parts of prisons. I developedknowledge and understanding by doing the job. Ihave visited a lot of prisons, somewhere around fifty,since taking up this role. I have also talked tocolleagues, read around the subject, and observedwhat is going on. It’s a role where it is important tohave a degree of technical knowledge, but alsomaintain an overview, taking a step back from thetechnicalities.

JB: What in your view isthe purpose of imprisonment?

PC: Primarily it is to carryout the sentences of the court.Beyond that there are a wholerange of purposes that theprison should seek to achieve,many of which areinterdependent. Of coursecustody should be safe andsecure, it should berehabilitative and shouldprepare prisoners for release sothat they can play a positive partin the community after prison.There is interdependency in asmuch as if prisons are not safe,in particular, it is unlikely that other objectives aroundreform, rehabilitation, education and training, will beachieved. That is why I have said several times, mostrecently in the Annual Report, that the Government’sambition to reform is, in my view, unlikely to beachieved unless the basics are right. That requiresdecent regimes that enable men to take part inactivities that are available.

JB: How would you describe the specific roleof Chief Inspector of Prisons?

PC: It is to lead the inspectorate but also to be thevoice of the inspectorate. Given that we are aninspectorate and not a regulator, our only power is ourvoice, and it is important that our voice is heard whenthat is required.

Another key role is to fulfil the legal obligationunder the Prisons Act 1952 to inspect the treatmentand conditions of prisoners. I don’t look at prisons tosee whether they are keeping within their budgets orcomplying with Prison Service Instructions, my statutoryrole is to see how prisoners are being treated and whatconditions they are being kept in.

JB: How do you regard our relatively highnational imprisonment rate?

PC: That is simply not an issue for me and I don’texpress a view on it. I know many non-governmentalorganisations have a view on reducing the prisonpopulation as one way of securing improvement. Myview is that it is not my role to express a view on anissue that is a matter for government policy andsentencing policy. What I have a very clear view on isthat however many it is considered appropriate toimprison, they should be kept in conditions that aresecure, safe and decent. There is a particularemphasis on decency at the moment as there is animbalance between prisoner numbers and the abilityto provide a decent custodial environment.

JB: What role do you consider that prisons playin relation to social problemsand inequality includingpoverty, unemployment, andmental health?

PC: Prisons are a reflectionof society in some ways but notin others. For example there is ahigh proportion of people inprison who are vulnerable ordisadvantaged in various ways.This includes mental health,ethnicity, and other issues thatincrease potential vulnerability.Prison does disproportionatelyreflect certain groups withinsociety. It is difficult to come toa view of how prisons canreverse this or improve society

other than by trying to ensure that when prisonersare released they are able to be positive role modelswithin their communities. That is a noble aspiration,but far off at the moment.

JB: What do you see as the role and impact ofprisons in relation to race and diversity?

PC: Prisons have to seek to be exemplars in theirunderstanding of the issues and their response tothem. Time and time again we see in our surveys,which are a key part of our inspection methodology,that BAME groups perceive that they are receivingless favourable treatment. Often we see that prisonsdo not devote enough attention to understandingwhy that perception exists. One example is at HMPFord where we have had three consecutive inspectionreports recommending that there is more done tounderstand why BAME prisoners have more negativeperceptions of their treatment. It did appear thatthere might be some basis in reality as there didappear to be disproportions in allocation to the morefavoured accommodation and access to release ontemporary licence. We expect every prison we inspect

... there is a highproportion ofpeople in prisonwho are vulnerableor disadvantaged incertain ways. Thisincludes mentalhealth, ethnicity,and other issues ...



to be addressing these issues. The Lammy Review2

will hopefully also give more impetus to this.JB: It has often been argued that women’s

prisons are largely a replication of men’s andthat therefore the distinctive needs of womenare not effectively met. Is that your experience?How does the inspectorate ensure that thedistinctive needs of women are met?

PC: One of our inspection teams has aspecialised focus on women’s prisons, so we try todevelop a depth of knowledge and understanding.We find that women’s prisons inspect fairly well. Wegenerally find that the standardsin women’s prisons are better.So it’s not a case of finding asimple replication of men’sprisons. We see a lot of verygood work focussed on meetingthe needs of women. What isreally troubling are the levels ofself-harm, which is far higher inwomen’s prisons. In that sensealso, they are not a replicationbut there are particular needsthat must be understood andmet.

JB: Your annual reportshave been very critical. Themost recent states that ‘Lastyear I reported that toomany of our prisons hadbecome unacceptably violentand dangerous places. Thesituation has not improved—in fact, it has become worse’,that there had been ‘aserious deterioration instandards in our prisons’ andthat you ‘have often been appalled by theconditions in which we hold many prisoners’.3

How has this situation come about?PC: It is a combination of factors. There is far too

much violence in our prisons. The figures speak forthemselves. There are incredibly high levels ofviolence and this has been rising. What sits behindthat violence? Drugs clearly have a major influence, inparticular psychoactive substances. They are a game-changer, it’s not just another iteration of the long-term problem of drugs in prison. It’s very differentbecause of the violence, the unpredictability of theimpact they have upon individuals. This also creates aculture of debt, violence and bullying.

In addition there are far too many people inprisons with mental health problems who shouldn’tbe there. Some should be moving through to secureunits but there aren’t enough beds and they arespending too long in prisons. Far too often I haveseen people with mental health issues who for theirown safety or the safety of others find themselves insegregation units. The sheer numbers of people withmental health problems is inexorably rising. In our lastinspection of Pentonville, there were 1,300 prisonersand just under a quarter were on anti-psychoticmedication, which our health professionals judge as

being incredibly high. This givesa sense of the problems.

Another factor thatcontributes is the lack of staff atthe moment. Traditionally theinspectorate has focussed onoutcomes rather than what sitsbehind them, but it would beremiss of us not to commentwhere there was a clear linkbetween certain factors andpositive or negative outcomes.The lack of staff in some prisonsmeans there is no flexibilitywithin regimes, so whenunexpected events occur suchas staff sick absence or hospitalsescorts for prisoners, the regimesuffers. Prisoners don’t like theunpredictability that causes,they get frustrated and thatcompounds all of the otherproblems.

There has also been a lackof long-term investment in thephysical environment. The

ending of ‘slopping out’ was of course excellent, butan unintended consequence is that we have far toomany prisoners held in shared cells with anunscreened lavatory in a space that also serves as abedroom and dining room for two people. This is notdecent, it’s unsanitary and is not a fit way to detainpeople in the 21st century.

JB: The language used by you in this reportis emotive. It is impossible to be exposed to therealities of imprisonment without having anemotional response to it. What feelings,discomfort and questions do you experiencewhile undertaking your work? How does thisaffect you and how do you cope with this?

The ending of‘slopping out’ wasof course excellent,but an unintendedconsequence isthat we have fartoo many prisonersheld in shared cellswith an unscreenedlavatory in a spacethat also serves asa bedroom anddining room fortwo people.

2. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/lammy-review accessed on 14 September 2017.3. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-chief-inspector-of-prisons-annual-report-2016-to-2017 accessed on 14

September 2017.

PC: I would challenge the assertion that thelanguage is ‘emotive’, I would prefer to think it is‘descriptive’. It might be strong but I try not to beemotive. I try to describe what I see. That is what I seeas the function of the inspectorate. In terms of myprofessional background, this job is a continuation ofwhat I’ve been doing for the last 40 years, which isfinding out facts, assessing them, coming tojudgements, writing them down and reporting onthem. In terms of emotional response, it was recentlyput to me during a radio interview that I sounded angry.I responded that I wasn’t angry, but I was disappointedin some of what I have seen in prisons, disappointedthat some of the regimes and conditions are not such asto give the prisoners a realistic chance of makingprogress and making steps towards rehabilitationduring their sentence. It is moredisappointment than discomfortor feeling emotional about it.

JB: What are thefundamental solutions to thecrisis in prisons? Is it financial,strategic, or moral?

PC: I don’t think there is acrisis in all prisons. I’vementioned women’s prisonsthat generally report well. Inaddition, open prisons by andlarge do well, as does the highsecurity estate, which generallydoes what is asked of it anddoes it pretty well. The problemsare really around the category Band category C training prisonsand local prisons. The solutions are a corollary ofwhat I have described as the problems. Some of themclearly need resources throwing at them. I don’t thinkyou can take 30 per cent out of a people-intensivebusiness like prisons and not expect there to be aseriously adverse effect. It is a fact that in someprisons there are simply not enough staff to enablethe leadership to be innovative, flexible or deliver theservices they want to. There is a need for investmentin the prison estate as so much of it is not fit forpurpose. It’s about getting the basics right. Dealingwith the violence, drugs, contraband, making themdecent places. Only then can you move forward withrehabilitation, education and training.

Some issues demand a strategic response suchas the response to the ageing population. I have seensome really good things happening in prisons aroundthe country. There are wings set aside for olderprisons at, for example, HMP Northumberland. Thereis good work in the open estate at HMP Leyhill. Thereare many examples but it feels piecemeal. Given all ofthe projections around about the future profile of the

prison population, we may need to take a morestrategic approach. Do we need to keep men in theirsixties, seventies and eighties in category B andcategory C prisons? Many of them need to remain incustody, there is no question about that, and manyare not suitable for open conditions, but do theyneed the level of security and cost that comes withcategory B and category C? Could they be held in aform of custody that, put crudely, looks like an oldpeople’s home with a wall around it? Within thatcould they more easily receive the services andsupport that should be offered to older people,disabled people or those requiring palliative care?

JB: What do you see as the role of theInspectorate over the coming years in stimulatingand sustaining reform?

PC: We will continue toreport what we see. We are aninspectorate and not aregulator, but as well asensuring our voice is heard, weneed to ensure that someoneacts in response to ourrecommendations. There wasplanned to be legislation thatwould have created a statutoryduty for HM Prisons andProbation Service, or theSecretary of State, to respond toour recommendations. That didnot happen due to the generalelection and has now been lost.Nevertheless, there is worktaking place in order to replicate

that without legislation. The Secretary of State haspublically confirmed his commitment to ensuring thatinspectorate recommendations are implemented. Iam hopeful we can come to a position that ensurestransparency and actual implementation of ourrecommendations. That would enhance the role ofthe inspectorate in identifying where action isneeded, and potentially also in identifying andspreading good practice.

JB: You have expressed concern about yourrecommendations not being implemented andindeed noted in your most recent annual reportthat ‘we found—for the first time—that thenumber of our recommendations that had beenfully achieved was lower than the number notachieved’. Why do you believe this situation hascome about and how can this be improved?

PC: There is work to be done to understand thisand to see if there are variations between types ofestablishments in relation to the uptake ofrecommendations. We also need to know whetherrecommendations within different categories of our

I don’t think youcan take 30 percent out of a

people-intensivebusiness like prisonsand not expectthere to be a

seriously adverseeffect.



healthy prisons tests are taken up more effectivelythan others. I also want to know if there are trendsover time that we should be understanding.Immediately, there are two things that strike me. Thefirst is that there are variations between broadlycomparable prisons. For example some local prisonstake our recommendations seriously, and I have to saythat shows when we inspect. Others don’t and theygive off a sense that the report has been put on theshelf and left to gather dust. The second is why thereis seemingly less uptake now than in the past? Thisneeds further analysis, but it may be that manyprisons are under such pressure that their priority is tokeep the show on the road day-to-day, to maintainthe regime, keep people safe, and deliver whateverthey can of the activities they offer. As a result,inspectorate recommendationsare not their top priority. I can’tsay that is definitely the case,but it is the impression I havegained from some places.

JB: The GovernmentWhite Paper ‘Prison safetyand reform’4 proposes somesignificant changes to theinspection process. Inparticular, it proposes theintroduction of ‘a formalrectification process wherethe inspectorate’s findingscan act as a trigger for theSecretary of State tointervene in the worst cases’and that ‘inspections will alsoinclude consideration of how the leadership of aprison is contributing to the achievement of theoutcomes it inspects’. What is the significance ofthis shift towards evaluating managers andtriggering intervention?

PC: We are not in the business of evaluatingmanagers. That is for the likes of Deloitte and PwC orfor line managers as part of the annual appraisalprocess. We are not in that business. The business ofthe inspectorate is outcomes for prisoners. What I aminviting inspectors to do is when they find anoutcome, whether good or bad, to ask ‘why?’. Whatis it that has brought this outcome about? That waywe can potentially help the prison to understandwhat it is they need to do in order to rectify theproblem. If it is good practice we are looking at, ithelps us to understand what has brought that aboutand help us in the business of promulgating it. In themodern era, it is not sufficient for the inspectorate tosay this is an outcome and we don’t care what has

brought it about. That is not right. We should bemore constructive than that. We are not in thebusiness of evaluating managers or saying there is aparticular style of management that is appropriate.That would be interfering in the management ofprisons. It is about looking at outcomes andunderstanding what role leadership and managementhave had in bringing that about.

The aspiration of the White Paper was to have amechanism for triggering intervention and this wasplanned to be incorporated into legislation. That will notnow take place and therefore we are discussingadministrative measures that would have the sameeffect. My concern is that some prisons that are notproviding a safe or decent environment do not alwaysget the support they need in order to rectify this. It is not

good enough that there are someprisons that have consistentlystruggled to achieve basicstandards of safety and decency. Itis a big step forward to have aprocess where the Chief Inspectorcan raise a significant concernwith the Secretary of State and theSecretary of State is required torespond. The raising of suchconcerns and the response shouldbe in the public domain andwould therefore bring a degree ofpublic accountability. It can bescrutinised by both the generalpublic and the House ofCommons Justice SelectCommittee, who can hold the

Secretary of State and me to account. More generally interms of our recommendations there is an ambition tohave a process where HM Prisons and Probation Serviceresponds to our recommendations saying what it is theyintend to do, that is publically available and brings asimilar level of public accountability. What concerns meat the moment is that an action plan is completed andthen what happens to it? We don’t have the capacity tofollow up on a regular basis. I see that as a linemanagement responsibility. Sometimes I go to feedbacksessions on the last day of inspections, where thefeedback is provided. At some of these, the line managerfor the prison has been there, the deputy director ofcustody or regional director, and they have said yes youare right, all these things need doing. I find myselfwondering what that person’s role has been inoverseeing, supporting, guiding and demanding, ifnecessary, action in relation to the previous inspection.There is a clear responsibility for HM Prisons andProbation Service here.

What I am invitinginspectors to do iswhen they find anoutcome, whethergood or bad, to ask‘why?’ What is itthat has broughtthis outcomeabout?

4. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prison-safety-and-reform accessed on 14 September 2017.

JB: You have described that, your inspectionexpectations are ‘underpinned by internationalhuman rights standards’, not set by HM Prisonsand Probation Service or ministers. Somemanagers and official reviews have expressedconcern that this means there is a misalignmentbetween what the organisation is expecting tobe achieved and what you expect. Others,including yourself, have argued that thisindependent foundation is central to thecredibility and effectiveness of inspection. Whatis the significance of this difference and is itsustainable?

PC: Not only is it sustainable, it is absolutely vital.It is an international obligation under the OptionalProtocol to the United Nations Convention againstTorture and other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment of Punishment to carry out inspections andthe standards against which those inspections shouldbe carried out. It is not satisfactory for anorganisation to set its own standards and then markits own homework. The very essence ofindependence is to have standards that are enduring,are not influenced by political fashion, passingresource constraints or management trends. Thereshould be a more permanent backdrop against whichplanning and development of custodial policies orpractices can take place. Self-defining standards areflawed as a concept. Occasionally I get the responsethat the inspectorate have critisised something, butwhat we have critisised is compliant with a PrisonService Instruction. That is not what we are lookingat. That would be the role of a regulator. We are nota regulator and so we stand aside from theorganisation and that includes the self-definingstandards they set for themselves. The organisationalstandards will, at times, be influenced by expediencyand that should not form the basis of ourjudgements.

JB: Inspection teams are drawn from a widevariety of professional backgrounds and this hasbeen seen to be a significant strength. Is there acase for extending this so that some ex-prisonersare employed as inspectors?

PC: I wouldn’t rule that out. As with any memberof the team, we would need to think about the valuethey would bring. That wouldn’t necessarily be solely byvirtue of being a prisoner, although that might have avalue. There are capabilities and qualities that arerequired of any colleague working in the inspectorate.There are also issues around security clearance andvetting that apply to any member of the team. I don’trule it out, but at the moment I am not positively goingout looking to recruit ex-prisoners.

JB: In Scotland, the Inspectorate has beenenlarged so as to encompass the work ofindependent monitors in prisons. How do you judgethis development and would you seek closer co-operation or even merger of inspection andindependent monitoring boards?

PC: I wouldn’t judge that development as Ihaven’t examined it in detail. Scotland is different fromEngland and Wales, not least in terms of scale. Youcouldn’t just bring the IMB and inspectorate together.You would need a pretty significant infrastructure tosupport them. We must not run the risk of losing theuniqueness of IMB, which comes from the fact thatthey are local and they are in prisons every day. Thereis potential for looking at how we might collaborate,not necessarily in a formal way, but through a flow ofinformation. That can inform, for example, risk baseddecisions about where we inspect and when. We couldalso think about how they might in some way becomethe ‘eyes and ears’ of the inspectorate. They do have adistinct role that should not be lost, but I know thatmany share similar frustrations to mine, about followup to their reports and recommendations. Weshouldn’t forget them when thinking about the impactwe can have on prisons by examining them from anindependent perspective.

JB: Finally, looking back over the last two yearsand looking forward to the future, how do you feelabout the task you have taken on?

PC: I find it an enormous privilege. That is partlybecause I have an enormously committed team whodo a great job and have a strong sense of working toa clear set of values. They are committed tomaintaining and preserving the independence of theinspectorate. It is a privilege to be leading them. I amacutely aware that I have come into this role at ahugely important time in the history of prisons. Theyhave been on a difficult journey but the challenge forthe inspectorate is to help secure improvement andmake prisons very different places from those thattoo many have become. I’d like to think theinspectorate could be seen as a positive resource forprisons without compromising our independence. Idon’t want us to be tolerated as some sort ofnecessary evil. To be seen as disrupting everything ina prison for a couple of weeks, and that everyone letsout a big sigh of relief when we go. In a trulygratifying number of places we have been welcomed,received co-operation and have been seen as apositive influence to help them make progress. Acrossthe prison system there is huge commitment fromleaders and indeed right across the organisation tomaking prisons better places. I’d like to play a positiverole in that.



Order Form (Please photocopy this page) Copies TotalThe Prison Governor£4 for prison staff r .....................£5 for non Prison Service staffInclude £3.00 p+p per book Cheque Value ....................

Enclose a cheque made out to ‘HM Prison Service’ and send to:Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager, HMP Leyhill, Wotton-under-Edge,

Gloucestershire, GL12 8BT. Tel: 01454 264007

Name........................................................................ Address ............................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

. ................................................................................ Signature ..........................................................

PUBLICATIONS

The Prison Governor: Theory and Practice by Shane Bryans and David WilsonDescribes in one closely argued book, the history of imprisonment, the management ofprison staff, the understanding of prisoners, the developing role of the Governor andsome well governed prisons.

Bookson SpecialOffer!

$


Prison Service Journal Prison Service JournalIssue 234Issue 234

Contents

3 Suffering in Silence: The unmet needs of d/DeafprisonersDr Laura Kelly

Editorial Comment2

16 The illicit economy in prisons: A new measure ofbiddability (BIDSCALE) to predict involvement inprison illicit economy and its consequencesAlan Hammill, Jane Ogden and Emily Glorney

Military veteran-offenders: Making sense ofdevelopments in the debate to inform servicedeliveryDr Katherine Albertson, Dr James Banks and Dr EmmaMurray

23

Alan Hammill and Jane Ogdenare based at the School ofPsychology, University of Surrey, andEmily Glorney is based at theDepartment of Forensic Psychology,Royal Holloway, University of London.

Dr Laura Kelly is a Lecturer inCriminology at the University ofCentral Lancashire.

Purpose and editorial arrangements

The Prison Service Journal is a peer reviewed journal published by HM Prison Service of England and Wales.

Its purpose is to promote discussion on issues related to the work of the Prison Service, the wider criminal justice

system and associated fields. It aims to present reliable information and a range of views about these issues.

The editor is responsible for the style and content of each edition, and for managing production and the

Journal’s budget. The editor is supported by an editorial board — a body of volunteers all of whom have worked

for the Prison Service in various capacities. The editorial board considers all articles submitted and decides the out-

line and composition of each edition, although the editor retains an over-riding discretion in deciding which arti-

cles are published and their precise length and language.

From May 2011 each edition is available electronically from the website of the Centre for Crimeand Justice Studies. This is available at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/psj.html

Circulation of editions and submission of articles

Six editions of the Journal, printed at HMP Leyhill, are published each year with a circulation of approximately

6,500 per edition. The editor welcomes articles which should be up to c.4,000 words and submitted by email to

[email protected] or as hard copy and on disk to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager,

HMP Leyhill, Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8HL. All other correspondence may also be sent to the

Editor at this address or to [email protected].

Footnotes are preferred to endnotes, which must be kept to a minimum. All articles are subject to peer

review and may be altered in accordance with house style. No payments are made for articles.

Subscriptions

The Journal is distributed to every Prison Service establishment in England and Wales. Individual members of

staff need not subscribe and can obtain free copies from their establishment. Subscriptions are invited from other

individuals and bodies outside the Prison Service at the following rates, which include postage:

United Kingdom

single copy £7.00



Overseas

single copy £10.00



Orders for subscriptions (and back copies which are charged at the single copy rate) should be sent with a

cheque made payable to ‘HM Prison Service’ to Prison Service Journal, c/o Print Shop Manager, HMP Leyhill,

Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 8BT.

Dr Katherine Albertson is SeniorLecturer in Criminology at SheffieldHallam University, having conductedForces in Mind Trust1 and BritishAcademy2 grant research andevaluation work with ex-forcespersonnel in the community supportsetting, along with Dr James Banks,who is a Reader in Criminology,also at Sheffield Hallam University.Dr Emma Murray is a SeniorLecturer in Criminal Justice atLiverpool John Moores University,conducting research with militaryveterans in probation and prisonsettings.

Paul AddicottHMPPS

Dr Ruth ArmstrongUniversity of Cambridge

Dr Rachel BellHMP Wandsworth

Ian BickersMinistry of Justice

Alli BlackHMP Drake HallMaggie Bolger

Prison Service College, Newbold RevelProfessor Alyson Brown

Edge Hill UniversityGareth EvansIndependentDr Ben Crewe

University of CambridgeDr Sacha Darke

University of Westminster Dr Michael Fiddler

University of GreenwichDr Kate Gooch

University of Leicester

Chris GundersonHMP HewellSteve HallIndependent

Professor Yvonne JewkesUniversity of BrightonDr Helen JohnstonUniversity of HullDr Bill Davies

Leeds Beckett UniversityMartin Kettle

Church of EnglandDr Victoria KnightDe Montfort University

Monica LloydUniversity of Birmingham

Dr Amy LudlowUniversity of CambridgeAnne-Marie McAlindenQueen’s University, Belfast

Dr Ruth MannHMPPS

William PayneIndependentGeorge PughHMP BelmarshDr David ScottOpen University

Christopher StaceyUnlock

Ray TaylorHMPPS

Mike WheatleyHMPPS

Kim WorkmanRethinking Crime and Punishment, NZ

Adrian Rowbottom and Steve WilliamsHMP Leyhill

Editorial BoardDr Jamie Bennett (Editor)

Governor HMP Grendon & SpringhillPaul Crossey (Deputy Editor)

HMYOI FelthamDr Karen Harrison (Reviews Editor)

University of Hull

Should the public be listening to prison radioprogrammes? An exploration of prison radio inSweden and North AmericaSiobhann Tighe and Dr Victoria Knight

31Siobhann Tighe is a producer andreporter working for the BBCand Dr Victoria Knight is a SeniorResearch Fellow at De MontfortUniversity, Leicester.

This edition includes:

Suffering in Silence: The unmet needs of d/Deaf prisonersDr Laura Kelly


involvement in prison illicit economy and its consequencesAlan Hammill, Jane Ogden and Emily Glorney


service deliveryDr Katherine Albertson, Dr James Banks and Dr Emma Murray

Should the public be listening to prison radio programmes? An exploration of prison radio in Sweden

and North AmericaSiobhann Tighe and Dr Victoria Knight


P R I S O N S E R V I C E

OURNALJNovember 2017 No 234

P R I S O N S E R V I C EP R I S O N S E R V I C E

OOUURRNNALALJJ

Documents

Prison Service Journal - Centre for Crime and Justice Studies · PDF fileA l a nH mi dJ eOg are based at the School of Psychology, ... Issue 234 Prison Service Journal 3 What is d/Deafness?