Prison Managerialism in an Age of Austerity

Afterword: ‘It’s a New Way, But ...What Have They Lost?’: Prison Managerialism in an Age of Austerity

As the original fieldwork for this book was being completed, the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 was breaking and in its aftermath came a period of economic recession and fiscal austerity. This has touched upon all aspects of life in a myriad of ways, including prisons. This Afterword is intended to explore the impacts of this age of austerity upon the working lives of prison managers and to consider how this has altered the nature of prison managerialism. It draws upon additional fieldwork conducted in one of the original research sites in 2014 and 2015, including five days of observations and 16 interviews. The Afterword opens by outlining the context both in terms of the national economic plan implemented in the wake of the crisis and in particular following the election of the Coalition Government in 2010. It also outlines the broad approaches adopted by prisons in order to reduce costs and their impact. The next section explores the empirical material generated from the additional fieldwork. This focuses on two major themes. The first is the shift from performance management to change management, examining how managers have had to guide through a series of significant reforms and the effects that this has had. The second theme considers the changing nature of prison managers’ working world, particularly how it has come to reflect aspects of what has been described as ‘new capitalism’ (Sennett, 2004). The Afterword then concludes with reflections upon the working lives of prison managers and in particular the nature of prison managerialism.

Austerity and prisons

A detailed analysis of the financial crisis and its consequences are beyond the scope of this book and the competence of the author. However, it is worth not- ing some brief summary points as context. The crisis arose from the prolonged and dramatic expansion of domestic borrowing, intensified by the commodifica- tion and secondary marketing of these debts to the financial sector. The bubble expanded and, as the potential risks of default became exposed, the market dramatically collapsed. States stepped in to support the financial market through direct bail-outs to banks, underwriting risk and the production of new money known as quantitative easing. This, in turn, placed nation states and their financial infrastructures under strain. In the UK and other countries, the state response to the crisis led to dramatically increased public debt. This in turn gave rise to demands from the global financial market and governments themselves to

218 Afterword 219 reduce national debts. Whilst some of this would be funded through increases in taxation and income generation, it also entailed reductions in spending. This long-term reduction in spending heralded what has been described by Prime Minister David Cameron as ‘the age of austerity’ (Clarke and Newman, 2012). Austerity is a macro-economic strategy where reductions in wages, prices and public spending are intended to improve competitiveness and are achieved through reductions in state budgets and indebtedness (Blyth, 2013). The argu- ment goes that, by reducing state borrowing, resources are freed up for private investment, so stimulating the economy. This strategy has garnered wide international governmental and institutional support (Blyth, 2013) and general public acquiescence (Clarke and Newman, 2012). However, austerity strategies are controversial. It has been argued that they are economically ineffective, that they are socially divisive and lead to political instability (Blyth, 2013) and that they have a disproportionate impact on particular groups, including the poor (Agnello and Sousa, 2011) and women (Rubery and Rafferty, 2013). It has also been suggested that austerity plays a significant ideological role. From this perspective, a crisis emanating from the commercial financial sector has come to be the responsibility of the state. In other words, the crisis has been transformed from a private sector problem to a public sector one; has shifted from a financial crisis to a fiscal one; and has altered from an economic problem to a political one (Clarke and Newman, 2012). It has been argued that this serves particular interests by supporting a reduced state and expanded private sector, so solidifying the domination of neoliberalism (Hall, 2011; Clarke and Newman, 2012; Levitas, 2012; Corbett and Walker, 2013). For prisons, the impact of austerity was felt particularly following the election of the Coalition Government in 2010. As part of the plans to reduce public expenditure, NOMS were required to deliver savings of £900million, or 24%, between 2011 and 2015 (NOMS, 2014b). This was achieved through a range of means including a reduced headquarters, competing for services, the introduction of a ‘benchmarking’ programme to standardise and stream- line prison costs, closing small and less cost efficient prisons, the introduction of new pay and conditions for staff, as well as the impact of wider public sector reforms including centralised pay restraint and changes to pensions. The ‘benchmarking programme’ was initiated as an alternative to wholesale competition for prison places as means of delivering cost savings across the prison estate more quickly (Mulholland, 2014). It was also intended to improve consistency and quality of regimes by offering ‘new ways of working’ (Mulholland, 2014). This operated by providing a framework against which the resources and service delivery expected of similar security category prisons would be standardised. However, there would be some flexibility to reflect local circumstances:

benchmarking provides not a ﬂat-pack IKEA kit which governors have simply to put together but a resource provision and the capacity for a regime which can be shaped to suit the facilities of each prison and to meet the particular needs of prisoners. (Mulholland, 2014, pp. 15–16) 220 Afterword

Although wholesale competition for existing public sector prisons was not proceeded with, facilities management services, including maintenance and cleaning, have been contracted out so as to ‘maintain the momentum of our reform work to open up the delivery of public services’ (NOMS, 2014b, p. 24). In addition, the prison estate has been undergoing ‘restructuring’ in order ‘to open new efficient places at lower cost’ (NOMS, 2014b, p. 24). This has included the closure of 12 smaller prisons, which have been replaced by new larger prisons such as the 1,600-place HMP Oakwood, the 900-place HMP Thameside and the 600-place HMP Isis. A number of prisons were also extended through the construction of additional houseblocks. There has additionally been a contract awarded to construct a new 2,000-place prison at Wrexham. Staff pay and conditions have been reformed. The Fair & Sustainable programme (NOMS, 2012b) introduced a consolidated pay structure for all staff based upon an objective job evaluation system to weight and grade posts. It also introduced revised pay levels for new staff, which reflected market rates and where therefore in some cases lower than that for existing staff. The intention of these changes was to save money in the long term (over 15 years) and ‘Enable public sector prisons to remain a competitive force in an increasingly diverse market place’ (NOMS, 2012b, p. 8). Like other public sector organisations, the Prison Service has been subject to public sector pay restraint, with no inflation-related pay rise awarded during the period 2011–13 for those earning over £21,000 and then an average of 1% for 2014–16, whilst civil service pensions were reformed, including increased employee contributions, a change from final to average salary calculation and a raised retirement age (Prison Service Pay Review Body, 2014). As a consequence, most prison staff experienced a reduction in the real value of take home pay since 2011 and this was having a negative impact on morale and motivation (Prison Service Pay Review Body, 2014) The recent changes in prisons have reflected general neoliberal and managerial trends, based upon the logic of the market. Many of the reforms opened up direct opportunities for private commerce to participate in public activities, whilst the retained public sector was increasingly making pay, benefits and management choices drawing extensively upon comparisons with the private sector. The effects of these trends have been felt amongst prison managers and the prison estate. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, warned in 2013:

No one should fool themselves that these ﬁnancial and organisational pressures do not create risks. In prisons, there are fewer staff on the wings supervising prisoners, there are fewer managers supervising staff and less support available to establishments from a diminished centre. Quite apart from the impact of the savings themselves, there is clearly a danger in all forms of custody that managers become ‘preoccupied with cost cutting, targets and processes’ and lose sight of their fundamental responsibilities for the safety, security and rehabilitation of those they hold. (HMCIP, 2013, p. 8)

He went on to observe that:

All the establishments we inspected during the year were under pressure to do more with less and, in some, the cracks were beginning to show. In most cases, these were necessary reforms. Nevertheless, maintaining standards of Afterword 221

safety and decency in prisons has been a challenge for all and is not always achieved. Other priorities, such as providing work and other purposeful activity in prisons, have fallen away ...It is a credit to those who work out of sight in these establishments that, for the most part, they have not been dis- tracted from their fundamental responsibilities to those in their custody and the wider public they serve. However, the warning signs are there. (HMCIP, 2013, p. 14)

By 2014, NOMS was itself showing that there was an impact upon the performance of prisons. The Prison Rating System, which provides an overall assessment of individual prison performance, showed that there had been a rise in the number of prisons rated at level 2 (‘Overall performance is of concern’) and level 1 (‘Overall performance is of serious concern’) from two in 2011–12 to 17 in 2012–13 and 29 in 2013–14 (NOMS, 2012c, 2013, 2014c). There was also a decline in those assessed as level 4 (‘Exceptional performance’) over the same period, from 42 to 17 to 16. The Chief Inspector also highlighted that the cracks in the system were widening and in particular there was a concerning decline in safety and rise in self-inflicted deaths (HMCIP, 2014). Nevertheless, he also recognised that management actions had stabilised the situation, and that despite the pressures, purposeful activity and resettlement services had been sustained. The period following the financial crisis can therefore be seen as one in which neoliberal approaches have continued, expanded and intensified, albeit in altered form. Direct opportunities for the private sector have come through construction and competition, but there has been retained and extensive core public service. However, marketisation has intensified within that core public service with practices, techniques and approaches being imported from the private sector. There has also been an expanded acceptance of the logic of the market as the ideological basis for designing policy and practice. Performance monitoring and management have shifted, with less focus on the quantitative measures and instead concentration on managing changes, realising resource reductions and maintaining operational stability. The assessments of NOMS itself and HM Inspectorate of Prisons illustrate that there have been considerable challenges in this, including a building of operational pressure and an impact on the quality of service.

From performance management to managing change

Rather than being a description of specific techniques and technologies, managerialism is an organising ideology, which links organisational practices to hierarchies of power and are implicated in the dominant capitalist structures. The actual organizational form does shift and change from time to time as debates are generated from within management (Parker, 2002). During the original fieldwork, managerialism as practiced within prisons afforded particular prominence to performance measurement and monitoring. This reflected practices across the public sector during the New Labour era. This section considers how that shifted and changed during the subsequent period, but argues that this did not mark an end to managerialism but instead an alteration in its form. 222 Afterword

The eclipse of performance management After 2008, the structure of performance management was changed. The Weighted Scorecard was replaced in 2010 by the ‘performance hub’. Whilst this still created a ‘league table’ of prisons, it drew upon a wider range of measures including external audits for security and safer custody, inspectorate assessments and MQPL results, as well a reduced number of quantitative targets. A numerical score for the prison, based on the ‘performance hub’, led to an overall performance rating for each prison from the lowest (1) to the highest (4). There have also been changes to the audit system, with in-house audits being replaced by less structured management checks and assurance state- ments. There has also been a change to the methodology of external audits, with a move away from a strict compliance approach towards a ‘risk assessment’ approach, which allowed greater qualitative judgement by auditors on the risk presented by non-compliance. This was partly motivated by the needs of efficiency, and these changes have been used in order to generate cost savings; however, they were also aimed at refocusing management attention. Responsi- bility for the setting and monitoring of performance also sifted so that it was no longer solely a line management responsibility, but service delivery agreements were set up by commissioners from NOMS, so that HM Prison Service had a system of accountability that had more in common with that used with commercial providers. Managers in the prison often stated that performance management and targets had a reduced prominence when compared with 2007 and 2008. Many saw that the establishment of the performance hub meant that a wider range of measures, such as external audits, MQPL and inspectorate reports, were seen as important and that the domination of key performance targets had been reduced. At the time of the fieldwork in 2014–15, the prison considered that HM Inspectorate of Prisons were due to visit and therefore there was significant prepa- ration being put into checking and implementing requirements. There was a weekly meeting to identify a set of HMIP Expectations and then conduct an internal assessment of compliance:

You have got all the expectations, they are split out. The Business Hub will do that work and then focus on a topic for a month, different managers will be pinged out an Expectations list and you’ve got a week to go and do that inspection, see and comment on the evidence, matched to the Expectations guidance, put that up on the system, load it onto the spreadsheet, they will take the actions from it and then the functional head will look at the action plan and decide what needs to be done. On a Wednesday you then review the action plan. (Ben, operational manager)

The establishment would generally take an approach of identifying which inspection or audit was due and then focus on preparing for that. Most people saw this as a sensible way of directing resources to manage particular performance risks. In general, the everyday process of performance management did not have the same prominence as previously. There was no weekly performance meeting to monitor all targets, although some crucial areas such as attendance at education and work, and staff absenteeism were still reported daily at the Afterword 223 morning operational meeting, which all managers attended at nine o’clock on weekdays. One manager went as far as to say that:

You have to want to be involved in performance now ...It is now becoming something that is remote and happening in the background. (Joseph, operational manager)

There was also a sense that the alterations to performance management had also shifted focus and purpose. One manager commented:

Rather than operational management, it is business management measures that are being given the weight. This feeds into how competitive we are. That is the climate we are in. (Amy, Hub manager)

It was also said that the commissioning structure had more ‘teeth’ and in time could grow in prominence and influence, potentially making significant decisions about investment or disinvestment based on performance, outcome measures and cost. These changes in the prominence of performance measures in part reflect changes to the technology and techniques, but they also reveal shifting dynamics of power. During the original fieldwork, it was apparent that operational managers in particular favoured quantitative, key performance targets for their malleability, the way that they reinforced the hierarchical structures and their ability to simplify a complex organisation. In contrast, other measures such as MQPL and inspection, were resisted due to their complexity, the uncertainty and lack of control they entailed for managers, but also due to their legitimi- sation of the views of prisoners. The changes to the performance management system, reducing quantitative targets and incorporating MQPL and inspection, have therefore gone against the flow of managers’ preferences and power interests. In addition, the move to less operational and more organisational measures, along with the growing assertiveness of commissioners also acts to reinforce the systems of control. The new structures of performance management therefore bring with them an alteration in the status and power of prison managers; their means of asserting strong control are weakened as measures become more exter- nally driven, less malleable and the outcomes more uncertain. Further, the room for local manoeuvre has been constrained through both the development of measures that serve the wider organisational interests, and the means of monitoring and accountability become strengthened. This is not to suggest that managers have become entirely powerless, but there has been a displacement of some of the power they accrued through performance management and this has shifted upwards in the organisations, facilitating the process of ‘management at a distance’ (O’Malley, 2004) in which employees become increasing subjected to an architecture of control.

Theriseofchangemanagement As observed in the first section, the period since 2010 in particular has seen significant organisational changes in order to realise the contribution of the public 224 Afterword service to the demands for fiscal austerity. This has includes introducing a new pay and grading system for all staff (Fair & Sustainable), standardising resource allocations across establishments so as to realise savings (benchmarking), the contracting out of non-core services such as works departments, as well as the impact of other cross-government reforms such as changes to public sector pensions and a pay freeze followed by a period of pay restraint. For many managers the pace and extent of change was intense:

It feels like the most disjointed period of my career. We have changed to the point where what we do is completely different ...Sometimes the change seemed relentless. (Max, Custodial manager)

The techniques and language of change management had seeped into the work of prison managers. They explained how they had to manage the process of implementing changes through the stages of ‘mobilisation, transition and transformation’ (Mulholland, 2014), using project plans, resource profiles and communication briefings provided by external, national project teams. The role of local prison managers was to ensure that these processes were followed and the changes implemented in accordance with those national plans. This sometimes involved reducing or recruiting staff, redeploying and retraining existing staff for new responsibilities, changing prisoner routines and prison running times, and revising local policies to reflect the changes. The processes had to be conducted in line with nationally prescribed procedures and there was regular report- ing upwards to the national project teams in order to monitor progress. This was therefore a structured and controlled process of co-ordinated and planned change. However, at times it could be a painful, emotional experience as one manager described who was holding ‘closed competitions’ in order to select staff where there were more than were required:

I had to do the interviews with people for closed competitions and redeploy- ment. There were a lot people who were good at their job but didn’t get it and were told that they were surplus. To them this was devastating. It’s really signiﬁcant to those people to be told that they are on the surplus list or rede- ployment register. We are still seeing the impact of that now. I’ve not had to deal with situations like that before. It left a lot of people feeling unnerved and unsettled. There was massive uncertainty for people. (Margaret, senior non-operational manager)

As well as implementing the structural change, there was an ongoing process of reviewing and smoothing the way as the changes were implemented. In some cases, this involved building a case that certain activities had been under- resourced and requesting alterations to the resources allocated through a formal process. In other cases, it meant working more informally:

Sometimes you felt that you had lists of things they didn’t feel was working, so you couldn’t look strategically because you got so bogged down in detail. It was important to communicate that back. If you didn’t you’d never get Afterword 225

them on board. There was a lot of communicating, negotiating and problem solving. (Ruth, operational manager) It is an ongoing process of ﬁnding our feet and ironing out the problems (Margaret, senior non-operational manager)

Again, another manager spoke about the ongoing process of managing the tensions between the nationally prescribed change programme and the experiences on the ground, in particular absorbing and dispersing the emotions that it generated:

On a daily basis for the ﬁrst six months we had to soak up the negativity ...But if we want to run a public service we have to make some cuts. Most people buy into that. I felt a bit stuck in the middle, holding a line between uniform staff and senior management. Some times the change seemed relentless and it was important to be a sounding board for staff ...We had to bear the brunt of it from staff and prisoners and we did feel the impact. There were times when I thought ‘bloody hell, I don’t know what I’m going to get today’. I felt powerless, all I could do was appease people. (Max, Custodial manager)

Local managers had a signiﬁcant role in managing people through the process of change. This included having meetings and brieﬁngs with staff and guiding them through the changes so as to reduce resistance and ensure compliance. Managers at all grades noted how they played a role in this communication process:

Making sure staff were fully aware of what the situation was, what avenues they could go down, supporting them through that change process, a lot of reassurance was offered to those staff, but also giving them a more positive outlook, so it’s not all bad, there are opportunities in this for you if you want to take them because under Fair & Sustainable there were a lot more opportunities for staff to progress and to move around. (Gayle, senior non-operational manager) I could only be sympathetic. There was not really a lot I could do with it, it was going to happen. It was like the atom bomb being dropped, I can try to push it a bit but I can’t stop it from happening. (Alastair, non-operational manager) There was a lot of communication, talking in groups so that people knew what was happening and why. (Margaret, senior non-operational manager) I took the corporate line: that the change is necessary, make sure they understood what was happening and how things would be changing. (Carol, Hub manager) [I held] regular meetings cascading this to staff. This was selling the message and dispelling rumours. (Kieran, Custodial Manager) 226 Afterword

There was a lot of reassuring staff and letting them know that it was a national change. Reassure them that we weren’t alone and that it was a national thing. We asked people to get involved and let them know that it was going to happen so if they wanted to raise anything, to do it now. (Dominic, supervisory ofﬁcer)

These comments reveal that the communication of changes penetrated deep into the organisation, with managers at all levels participating. However, they also show that there was some inconsistency within the narratives. For some, there was an attempt to present change as beneﬁcial, opening up opportunities. For others there was a more neutral approach, repeating corporate lines and offering information about the impact of the changes upon their team. For others still there was a desire to distance themselves from the changes without being openly critical, for example by emphasising their own powerlessness in the process. Communication was also a means of securing compliance by offering reassurance, explanation and training for staff in order to enable them to accept changes and work with them. However, it was also an opportunity to identify and take action to manage potential resistance:

We had some staff who responded positively in those changes where it had a negative impact, so you’re not going to be working in those establishments anymore you are going to have to work somewhere else, or in a different area and they have embraced that and gone for it. Okay, it’s not what they have wanted but they have been positive and they’ve not kicked and screamed, which they are entitled to do, but they’ve moved with that process. They’d be okay with you and engaging. We’ve had some staff that have gone totally the opposite way, they’ve decided not to engage, they’ve decided to maybe bury their head in the sand a little bit, start giving some negative comments. It’s like the poisoned apple syndrome in a barrel and feeding that out to staff, falsely giving information to staff, not giving factual information but scare- mongering amongst other staff, so they are some of the staff who have reacted quite negatively to change. But they are the ones you try to focus a bit more on to support them a lot more (Gayle, senior non-operational manager)

The support for those who were potential resisters involved isolating them and challenging their views:

That was the difﬁcult bit because there was resistance from some of those left within those groups. Lots of barriers to knock down, it was about fear I think. Again there was some quite open and honest meetings with individuals about they are stuck and talking that through with them until you get to a point where there are no barriers left, getting their agreement really (Joseph, operational manager)

The role of managers in change management was centred on compliance. They had to ensure that nationally prescribed programmes were implemented through appropriate processes and also had to manage the local impacts of this including guiding staff through this. Managers were therefore increasingly becoming Afterword 227 local agents for national change. As with performance management, this marked a shift in the power structures as managers become increasingly the objects of ‘management at a distance’ and enmeshed by various apparatus of control. The next section turns to some of the effects of this upon the working world and working lives of prison managers.

Prisons as ‘new capitalist’ workplaces

The term ‘new capitalism’ is an attempt to encompass changes that have taken place in the workplace as a result of societal changes in the late 20th century and early 21st century, in particular those related to neoliberalism. These changes include rapid developments in technology and the globalisation of communication and trade, which have enabled intensification in capitalist and particularly financial exchange. Such changes have not only been technical but have also been ideological, promoting the domination of the market. In relation to work, it has been argued that organisations have become more flexible in which employment is more fluid and short-term, with skills changing rapidly and workers having to adapt and move (Sennett, 2004). The new employment relationship envisaged by ‘new capitalism’ is one characterised by ‘a more tenuous connec- tion between employers and workers’ (Doogan, 2009, p. 3). It has also been argued that this has effects upon the character of workers, that is ‘the personal traits which we value in ourselves and for which we seek to be valued in others’ (Sennett, 1998, p. 10). This section is concerned with the question of how far features of ‘new capitalism’ have seeped into the working lives of prison managers. In particular this focuses on four areas. The first is the feelings of insecurity and uncertainty reported by many workers as change intensified and they were exposed to the market. The second is concerned with the feelings of some staff that they have been left behind by changes and that their experience is not valued. The third issue relates to prison management as emotional labour, that is the display of particular emotions as part of their work, particularly when managing change. Finally, there is a discussion of the changing structure of prisons and its potential effects on everyday social relations between staff and prisoners and between managers and staff.

Insecurity and uncertainty As we saw in Chapter 1, there are at least three ways in which a greater sense of fluidity, risk and insecurity has come to characterise the experience of work (Heery and Salamon, 1999). The first is that the ‘job for life’ may be disappearing, and instead replaced by casual and short-term work. The second is that exposure to markets and competition itself creates insecurity. The third way in which insecurity is maintained is through the subjective experience of workers in terms of cognitive and affective attitudes towards security, in other words, they feel insecure. This section considers how these were manifested in the contemporary world of prison work. Some managers felt that prisons, along with other organisations, were experiencing a generation shift in which newer employees had a different orientation towards work, reflecting wider social changes: 228 Afterword

The job is different now. When I joined there were older staff, ex-military and it was a job for life. I moved away because I wanted to do it. Younger people don’t think like that. For some it’s a stop-gap. We don’t pay enough anymore and the beneﬁts are less. They don’t do it for the right reasons, it’s just that it’s local and convenient. I don’t think the Prison Service wants to retain staff now because of the costs and the pension. (Leon, Supervisory ofﬁcer)

In a more direct way for prison managers, there was greater insecurity arising from the change processes that have occurred over recent years. Whilst no one faced compulsory redundancy and the loss of their jobs, some faced signiﬁcant changes such as moving to a different establishment, whilst almost all staff had to deal with taking on new responsibilities, joining new teams, changing working hours or developing new skills. For those moving establishments, the impact could be dramatic. For example, one manager told of some of the effects of the closure of a prison:

There were people working at [the prison] that lived in [the town], that had worked [there] for an awfully long time, so it did seriously affect them. It was a massive change for them ...you come to a prison like this and you’ve got whole families in here that live just down the road. You had that [there], you had husband and wife and suddenly the husband is sent to [one prison] and the wife is sent to [another prison], they are suddenly split up, massive impact ... (Alastair, non-operational manager)

Others faced internal competitions for a limited number of posts with those who were not successful being identiﬁed as being ‘surplus’ and potentially facing moving establishment. However, managers would attempt to mitigate the impact of such changes:

There’s nothing worse if there’s a group of 23 people thinking ‘which five of us is not going to be here?’ So I was able to ...make it a bit positive and look at the ...opportunities elsewhere, so I got figures from other establishments were they were short of that grade locally ... so it didn’t look like they’d be walking out the door on Friday with nothing to come back to on Monday. As it turned out, through natural wastage we were able to make that transition down to 18 fairly effectively. It took us a while but we got there. The staff appreciated having that understanding because they were all panicking to start with, once the figures were out, they were quite upset. (Joseph, operational manager)

Others faced changes to personal routines such as working hours, which could be disruptive:

There were changes to their pay and their routines as they would have to work different times and shifts – it was a huge impact. But there was no other option for them, they either had to seek employment elsewhere or ﬁnd another job within the establishment. (Carol, Hub manager) Afterword 229

I felt sympathetic to them because they had gone into that role and some of them had applied to work that because their circumstances, their personal circumstances suited that Monday to Friday, there was one who was near to retirement, he did actually just retire. (Alastair, non-operational manager)

For others, there was a concern about the changing demands that would be placed upon them and new skills that they would have to develop:

I felt concerned for them because a lot of them had been doing the same job since they started ...It wasn’t just about the reduction in numbers, it was about having to work differently as well ...There was some anxiety about capability ... (Joseph, operational manager)

All of this change and uncertainty induced in some a profound concern about themselves and their working world:

There was a lot of uncertainty. It was the worst part of my career. I found myself some days in the car park, thinking ‘where are we going’. There was so much uncertainty ...It was an unhappy time. As a manager it was difﬁcult to look forward and put it in a good light when you didn’t know what was around the corner yourself. ...There was a big bulldozer coming through and you had to jump on board. (Roger, Custodial manager)

Whilst the reality was that no staff faced compulsory redundancy and very few faced having to move establishment or compete for their roles, there was nevertheless a pervasive sense of insecurity that arose from the changes and the potential for disruptive change. Most people did face changes to their working lives which had signiﬁcance for them and caused them to experience uncertainty. Managers did much to manage and mitigate this despite the fact that they themselves were affected by it but it nevertheless was a profound experience. Exposure to the market and the uncertainty that induced had a prominent and important role. The changes over recent years have themselves been presented as a consequence of market forces. The reasons for the recent changes in prisons were widely justiﬁed on this basis:

Everyone realised that we couldn’t continue if we were going to position ourselves to compete with private prisons, we had to change. That was a very clear bit of information that came out from the head people ...We lost some jails. It was the reality of that happening ...It was the reality that we weren’t indestructible. (Ben, operational manager) I see successful implementation of the benchmarking reports as implementation of our winning bids. Rather than being put out to competition, this is our one and only chance to have the future of that establishment within NOMS (Joseph, operational manager) 230 Afterword

The bigger picture is that they are getting public sector prisons, they are not going to get privatised and to me that has been a key driver to get them engaged. Actually you need to engage with us because if you don’t do this, we are up for competition and then that is a huge impact for them. (Gayle, senior non-operational manager)

However, for some, the changes were not the end of the story and that once the Pandora’s box of commercial competition had been opened, it could not be closed again:

We were told ‘that is what has kept you your jobs’, but in the back of my head, I still think that it could be tendered out. I’m not sure of the safety of the S[upervisory] O[fﬁcer] role. (Todd, supervisory ofﬁcer)

There are more changes to come. I think there is an inevitability about privatisation. The back services will go. I also think about rehabilitation, commissioners will ask about the outcomes and I’m not sure whether they will think the investment is worth the outcomes. The commissioners will get more teeth. (Margaret, senior non-operational manager)

Many also said that they felt uncertain about the successful operation of prisons under the new conditions. Many revealed their concerns about whether resources had been reduced too far. For those, there was a concern that ‘we can’t just keep cutting’, that already there may be a situation where the reforms had ‘cut too deep and too much’ and that ‘it feels like we’ve gone to the extreme’. In prisons, even in altered circumstances, it could not be claimed that they feature the flexibility and fluidity envisaged in the concept of ‘new capitalism’. Indeed, compulsory redundancy was entirely avoided and managers work hard in order to reduce and manage the anxieties of staff and minimise the significant disruptions that would occur from changing locations. However, many staff were affected by changing roles, teams, working hours and skills. In addition, the exposure to the market place had become prominent in the thinking of managers and staff. The insecurity that this induced enabled significant organisational changes to be accepted and implemented. Nevertheless, it remained the case that the public sector still dominates the delivery of prison services. Given the limited realisation of the structures of ‘new capitalism’ in prisons, it is instead important to understand insecurity as a mode of domination in which workers feel insecure, they repeat and accept the discourse of the market and these ways of thinking seep into their habitus. From this perspective, it has been argued that insecurity and feelings of insecurity, rather than reflecting a profound change in the reality of work instead are manufactured as part of a process of enabling compliance (Doogan, 2009).

Redundancy and the ‘specter of uselessness’ In one of his works on ‘new capitalism’, Richard Sennett observes that contemporary organisations are in a constant process of change and reorganisation (Sennett, 2004). He explains that employees are haunted by ‘the specter of uselessness’ or the fear of unemployment. Sennett claims that this takes three Afterword 231 primary forms. The first is that competition means that there are always others that will be willing and able to do the work. As previously mentioned, competition in prisons had induced feelings of insecurity which fostered compliance amongst workers. The second was fear of automation. The third, which will be the primary focus of this section is the fear that age and experience count for little and indeed it may be an impediment to change as more experienced workers may be more confident in applying critical thinking to what they are being asked to do and are more willing to resist. Some staff accepted the changes that have taken place in prisons without resistance, whilst others have found it more difficult. Managers attempt to ameliorate this through their actions. However, there were two groups, supervisory officers and custodial managers, where the changes had a particular impact and reflected the tensions encapsulated in Sennett’s work. Under the new pay and grading systems introduced under Fair & Sustainable, the two uniformed management grades, senior officer and principal officer, where abolished and two new grades, supervisory officer and custodial manager, were created. Unlike, senior officers, supervisory officers did not directly line manage staff, nor were they responsible for a specific team or area, instead they would have supervise a number of wings or part of the prison on a shift, or duty basis. They therefore moved from a per- manent and embedded part of the structure to a more flexible and disconnected presence. The changes also meant that they only worked as supervisors on a part- time basis, spending the other part of their role working as offender supervisors assessing prisoners, writing reports and structuring their work through their sentence and towards release. Principal officers had previously managed part of the prison, such as a number of wings or a department such as security and would act as line managers for the senior officers. Custodial managers had a range of responsibilities encompassing managing a part of the prison, including being line manager for all of the officers in that area, and they would also take operational responsibility for the prison, as orderly officer, on a shift basis, including at nights. They therefore had a wider spread of work and had to manage a range of responsibilities. For many of the supervisory officers, the change was a painful experience. They had built up their skills and honed their craft over many years of experience. For example, describing:

This was going to be my life, S[enior] O[fficer] is what I wanted but now it is not the SO role it was. (Todd, supervisory officer) I did feel that I had 16 years of having the skills of a senior officer, a manager and was then being told that wasn’t good enough. I felt that I was being told ‘you’re going to be demoted’ (Denise, supervisory officer)

These feelings often reﬂected concerns that their skills were not being fully utilised, they could not contribute as effectively as they could in the past and that they had to adapt to new demands:

As a senior ofﬁcer I had a staff group, I had a good rapport with staff and prisoners. There was continuity so you could run things as they should be run. 232 Afterword

Now there is not sufﬁcient time ...As [supervisor] you have to cover several wings, do ACCT reviews [for those at risk of self harm] V[iolence] R[education] S[cheme], I[ncentives and] E[arned] P[rivileges], that’s all you are doing, you are not getting good continuity and rapport. Now because of the way it is set up, you get inconsistency and poor relationships ...I felt frustrated as I couldn’t work at the level I wanted due to the time. I’m usually a keen person and wanted to work at a good standard. I felt like that was being taken away from me. I was getting down, taking it home with me. Now I have to come in, do what I have to that day then leave it. I have to do this in order to stop being stressed otherwise I would get down. (Todd, supervisory ofﬁcer)

For custodial managers, there were similar views about the effects of adapting to new roles and expectations. Many discussed the challenges of completing all of the roles in a meaningful way and this led to them questioning their own professional character:

It’s a big difference. You are spread over more. We don’t have enough time with staff and everything is more rushed. We have a lot of time at meetings and it is difficult to be out and about and visible. We’ve had to spread out our time and we can’t do everything ...We have to focus on daily priorities. We don’t have the same handle. The role has changed so much and we are trying to do so much that we’ve lost our identity. (Roger, custodial manager) You have the orderly office covering 24 hours a day, so you have night cover which wasn’t previously in there. The P[rincipal] O[fficer] would be more Monday to Friday, nine to five shift pattern with some rest days around week- ends. They now are taken out a fair part of the week because you need to run a shift pattern with early starts, late finishes, night cover. They are taken away from your function. They have about 16 hours left in the function from a 37 or 39 hour working week. I feel they have a lot of pressure because they will have up to 22 people to manage. So they have to assist the function head running it, the line management responsibilities and then orderly officer duties. There is a lot of pressure to get all of that work done. You have to pick up work of your own, take it to do orderly officer stuff and try to fit it in around. I’ve conducted interim reviews and opened up [staff appraisals] in the photo- copying room because you are struggling to grab the staff and to give them the time they deserve. (Ben, operational manager)

The creation of the custodial manager group also drew out a number of tensions as some of the group were comprised of those who were experienced principal ofﬁcers moving into the new grade, whilst others were being promoted into it without that previous experience. The contrast between the two was widely discussed and commented upon:

There was a perception that the new C[ustodial] M[anager]s were brilliant and the old POs were dragging us down. The POs did try to mentor the new CMs Afterword 233

as they could see their inexperience but this ended up with there being a big divide. The old POs were seen as not as good, not flexible enough. The new CMs were seen as more eager and able to do all of the paperwork that came with the role such as attendance management, but they had less experience in managing the prison operationally. The old POs saw their role as essentially operational and were stronger in this area. Others wanted them to spend more time ticking boxes. This assessment wasn’t entirely fair as it looks at only one element of the job. (Margaret, senior non-operational manager) Some of them were quite disengaged and said ‘I’m a PO, I’m going to act as a PO’. We then had to recruit others to fit the benchmark. So we had some who were the old PO’s and a new group who were S[enior] O[fficer]s on promotion. In the beginning there was some view from the PO’s that they were better, but the people who newly came on board ...were more engaged ...they were easier to manage. They wanted to make it work and prove themselves because they were newly promoted. They were an easy group to manage. But also they were on a learning curve. They were up for the changes ...It’s not true for all of [the former PO’s], but the majority, and even those that are good at their job, knowledgeable, who I thought would take it on more openly, were ‘I’m a PO’ and kept calling themselves ‘PO’ rather than ‘custodial manager’. Not so much now, but at the beginning. They tried not to be custodial managers. (Ruth, operational manager)

There was some discussion of custodial managers. They suggested that those who had not been PO’s often took up the role more fully, as they did not come with pre-conceived ideas or established practices. However, some of the resistance was seen as being due to ‘mind set and attitude’ and their ‘willingness to change’. However, it was also recognised that there were structural problems as CM’s had to cover night duties and had taken on much larger staff groups. (Extract from ﬁeld notes)

These discussions reveal how age and experience can be seen as barriers to change, in particular because of the potential for critical responses and resistance from those who have built up their craft over time. In contrast, new managers were seen as more malleable and ﬂexible, able to adjust quickly and realise the shift in culture and practice envisaged by the reforms. The ‘specter of uselessness’ loomed over the managers who were navigating change. For many the experience they had built up did not appear to be valued and they were concerned that the new expectations brought with them a gen- eralisation and a more dispersed and diverse role. In contrast the opportunity to bring in new managers offered the opportunity to select those who would embody the new approaches that were being demanded.

Prison management as emotional labour Emotional labour is where employees are required to display particular emotions as part of their work (Hochschild, 1985). This section is concerned with ‘prescrip- tive’ emotional management, where employees are expected to display particular emotions as an integral element of the discharge of their duties (Bolton, 2000). 234 Afterword

This has become particularly important in recent years as managers have had to implement change in which there has been an expectation about how this is presented and led, emphasising positivity. Many managers have had to deliver this despite misgivings that they themselves may have about the changes and also despite the fact that they themselves may be affected, in sometimes profound ways, by those changes. Managers understood that they had to present a positive and optimistic representation of change and to emphasise key information which formed part of a centrally produced narrative, including that change was necessary, that this would secure the future of public sector prisons and that existing staff would be protected. Managers described their typical role in presenting this corporate image:

I met with the team and had a series of ‘toolbox’ talks ...The content was largely taken from centrally produced narratives which we had to use. We ...put a more positive spin on it saying it might not be all bad. Basically we said you have to go with it. (Margaret, senior non-operational manager) I took the corporate line: that the change is necessary, make sure they understood what was happening and how things would be changing. I then had to manage the change in processes. It worked because we took time, working through things ...on an individual level. (Carol, hub manager) You have to take the positives out of it and turn the negatives into positives – do a bit of a SWOT analysis for them. (Ben, operational manager) It was difﬁcult to engage staff. We did make sure we were visible on the wing in order to ask questions. Leading at the front, not sitting in an ivory tower, but instead you go around, listen to staff, take note, discuss it. (Ruth, operational manager)

Managers generally saw their role as leading the change, representing the corporate perspective and attempting to role model appropriate engagement. This included demonstrating their commitment to the change process and offering an optimistic and positive perspective. Privately, many managers had reservations about the changes or did not personally support them. As noted above, many felt that resources had been reduced too far. Given these views, some felt a dissonance between the expectations placed upon them as a manager and their own feelings:

From a senior management level we were told we had to be positive, be corporate. I’m an honest chap, I would say that I didn’t agree but let’s get on with it. It was almost as if we were being asked to be dishonest. (Max, Custodial manager)

Many managers were also personally affected by the changes. Some had to lead their teams despite the fact that they themselves may be made surplus, would Afterword 235 have to change role or would be affected in other ways. For example, two managers who faced being personally impacted in signiﬁcant ways spoke about how they had to compartmentalise their personal feelings and their responsibilities as a manager:

If you are leading on something and you express your anxieties, you can trans- fer your anxieties onto others ...if you are transferring your anxieties, what faith are they going to have in you in leading through that change? Trying to sell something quite negative from their perspective, although I felt it was quite positive because it secured the future of the establishments. It’s difficult to get that over if you are demonstrating anxiety. You can have those conversations at a later date, but sometimes you have to swallow hard and get on with it, take a deep breath and go for it. That is what I did. (Joseph, Operational manager) I had to make sure they understood how the figures had been calculated and I had to be up front with them about what it meant. I had to let them know ...I would say things like we had to be cost effective with resources and maximise what we were providing ...The most difficult part was the not knowing. I tried to remain positive and put it across to the team in a positive way. I had to remain positive for them so that they could take it on board without becoming negative. (Stephanie, Hub manager)

During this period of reforms, expectations had arisen not only about the activities of managers but also about their emotional presentation. They were expected to role model the new corporate citizenry, where they would either positively engage with or stoically comply with centrally directed actions identified as ben- eficial, be adaptable and flexible in meeting new requirements, enlist support from colleagues and demonstrate deep commitment and loyalty to the organisation. The fact that managers would do this despite their own personal interests illustrated how deeply embedded this had become in their working lives and within their own habitus.

The remaking of everyday social relations As has been emphasised throughout this book, relationships are at the heart of prison life. Relationships between staff and prisoners and between managers and staff in particular have been the focus of significant academic attention as they form such a central feature of the everyday social world of prisons. In discussing the reforms that have taken place over recent years, many managers observed that one consequence was that these everyday social relations were remade and re-imagined in profound ways. In particular, the reduction in the number of staff many felt would necessitate reduced interaction with prisoners, and the reductions in managers along with their widening span of control would also mean that they would have less opportunity to interact with staff and prisoners. With reduced numbers of staff and managers it was also felt that they would be deployed in a different way, ensuring that there were sufficient numbers rather than being allocated to specific areas 236 Afterword over prolonged periods of time and therefore being able to build up relationships. This was summed up in the following descriptions:

The organisational changes have meant that we have less staff to deal with prisoners’ issues. The prisoner perception is that there are less staff around for them to talk to. We’ve cut staff and staff are busier, so they have got less time. Some of the most important work is done talking to prisoners and we’ve built a structure that removes some of that ...Also ...they don’t like guest staff being on there. Guests often say ‘oh I don’t know about that’, but they’ve worked on another wing so they should know about that. Prisoners’ perception is that they are not good staff. We need to make sure we don’t lose that interactionwithprisonstaff. (Joseph, Operational manager)

There was concern from staff that there would be less of them, but with a greater workload and without having a visible manager. We also don’t have the luxury of sitting down and talking to prisoners – that dynamic security. I’d also say that there isn’t that sense of responsibility. Rather than being in charge of one wing, we cover three. We go round and make sure everything is running smoothly but we don’t have a lot of time with staff. There’s no sense of continuity or ownership. When you have a run of three days you start to build up a picture of what is going on, but without that you just tick your boxes and then come away. You get a hand over about what ACCTs need doing, not about prisoners individual issues. It’s the same with staff, they think ‘why am I telling you this today, you won’t be here tomorrow’. The CMs are supposed to be the line managers, but they just aren’t there because of all the other duties they have to do. (Denise, supervisory officer) I used to love being out on the landing, it helped me to understand prisoners and staff. You can see any changes in mood and behaviour and you can nip problems in the bud. It’s difficult to be a good manager if you don’t know your staff and prisoners. It seems to me that dynamic security and relationships have reduced. Now, I only see prisoners on ACCT reviews, violence reduction or IEP – it’s always negative ...It seems that the new role is more reactive. You’re not there enough to offer support and help things run smoothly. You are flitting about, popping your head in, signing books, responding to the radio and alarm bells. (Leon, supervisory officer)

In both of these descriptions, there is a concern not only about the quantity of interactions, but also about their quality. These descriptions capture a hollowing out of everyday interactions with staff and prisoners in place of a more ﬂexi- ble, adaptable, portable role with a shallower, more constrained and less holistic relationships. This new form of management is outlined in two comments which emphasise the new techniques. First, one manager describes management as a speciﬁc role conducting formal responsibilities and interactions being through bureaucratic processes: Afterword 237

We have changed to the point where what we do is completely different. In particular we have a different relationship with prisoners and we don’t have as much time to spend with prisoners. Relationships have always been the basis of what we do. It makes encouraging rehabilitation easier and involves pro-social modelling. Because we will do what we need to, we will have to rely more on IEP and adjudications. Staff will have to rely on using tools rather than relationships. (Max, Custodial manager)

The second describes the impact of automation, in particular information technology, and also the new corporate notion of ‘every contact matters, which:

neatly encapsulated the idea that however small or ﬂeeting, experience and desistance research shows that even the most common day-to-day interactions between everyone who works in a prison and prisoners can and do make a difference. (Mulholland, 2014, p. 17)

This manager questions this representation:

I remember one prisoner saying ‘with the changes you are making someone is going to get hurt’. There are less staff on the ground, although our numbers on each wing is largely the same. However, they are doing more work so the interaction is not the same. This idea of ‘every contact matters’ seems like a way of saying that it matters more now because there is less opportunity ...For me personally, there is less direct interaction ... They don’t know who I am as much these days. We put people in ofﬁces and tie them down to computers. We communicate through a machine. We get ofﬁce bound. But prisoners used to see us. (Roger, Custodial manager)

From this perspective it is not only the reductions in staff and managers that impact upon the nature of interactions, but also transformations in the role through information technology and bureaucracy. In addition, the notion of ‘every contact matters’ acts to highlight this reduction in interactions whilst at the same time offering greater legitimacy by emphasising the productivity of sometimes limited and ﬂeeting social contact, offering them up as a precious commodity to be consciously deployed. Whilst these accounts suggest a profoundly altered, even impoverished, set of social relationships, prison managers themselves were reluctant to accept and enact such a dystopian outcome. Many managers expressed personal commitments to the importance of meaningful interactions with staff, as has been highlighted previously in the discussions of change management, but also with prisoners. As one manager stated:

I could easily have let it change but I always spend time, whatever role I am doing, I always spend time speaking to prisoners, sitting down with prisoners, talking through issues with prisoners, because they are our service users. Staff are not here for their beneﬁt, they are here for prisoners’ beneﬁt. Sometimes we can lose sight of that. I want to know how prisoners are feeling, I want to 238 Afterword

know what prisoners are thinking. Sometimes the only way to get that is to talk to them yourself. You get a perception of it from your managers, I’m not saying I go around everyone, but sometimes I like to sit and talk to prisoners and have that day-to-day interaction with them. One of the reasons I joined this job was to have day-to-day interaction with prisoners. I’m in a different position now but I still ﬁnd that bit of the job really comfortable. I like doing it. I still make time to do it. I still want to make time to do it. I want to – positive or negative. (Joseph, Operational manager)

This account was also supported by the ﬁeldwork, which included a myriad of circumstances in which managers interacted with each other and with their staff formally and informally as an integral part of their work. The deep commitment to personal interactions within the working culture of prison management and the habitus of prison managers acted to mediate and ameliorate some of the potential for ‘new capitalist’ reforms to hollow out everyday social relations.

Conclusion: Prison managerialism, austerity and legitimacy

The financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent period of public sector reform and financial austerity have undoubtedly resulted in significant changes in public sector prisons. Major organisational reforms have been initiated and implemented resulting in large scale savings being recouped whilst operations have remained relatively stable, if stretched. However, this study is more concerned with viewing the effects of this period through a sociological lens, questioning how this has had an impact upon organisational cultures and individual identity. In their analysis, Alison Liebling and Ben Crewe (2013) have argued that prisons have shifted from ‘managerialism-plus’, which combined the structures of managerial control with progressive concerns for humane treatment and rehabilitation, towards ‘managerialism-minus’ in which ‘economy and efficiency are prioritized above any moral mission’ (p. 294). Their focus of their analysis was upon the economic and moral dimensions of managerialism. Whilst overlap- ping and connected, this study does have a distinct focus upon managerialism as a lived experience in the working lives of prison managers. From that perspective, there are both similarities and also differences from the description of ‘managerialism-minus’. In common with Liebling and Crewe (2013), this study has found that managerialism has evolved in the age of austerity to become more concerned with economy. At a structural level, this has meant that there has been a shift from performance measurement to managing change, but characterised by strong central direction, managed from a distance, with those in prisons becoming local agents of change. On a broad level, the strategy of austerity is accepted as being necessary to safeguard the precarious national economy, whilst developments such cost reductions, the emergence of ‘new capitalist’ work practices and exposure to the market, are all accepted as necessary to contribute to this solu- tion. These measures are profoundly ideological, being deeply entangled with neoliberalism (Clarke and Newman, 2012; Blyth, 2013). The financial crisis and subsequent recession has therefore provided an opportunity not to challenge the Afterword 239 domination of neoliberlism, but instead to reinforce this as it is ‘sedimented into the “habitus” of everyday life, common sense and popular consciousness’ (Hall, 2011, p. 711). In prisons the intensification of economic rationality as a governing value (Liebling, 2011; Liebling and Crewe, 2013) is an example of this process This has also been accompanied by changes in managerialism as an instrument of domination and an extension of the aspirations of the organisation to control workers. Whilst Garland (2001) saw this ‘culture of control’ being realised through reduced professional discretion and increased monitoring of practice, this appears to have evolved so that contemporary managerialism is concerned not only with regulation, but also with developing self-regulation, and is concerned not only with the actions of employees, but also with their emotions, values and identity. Such processes are not unique to prisons, but are features of contemporary, managerial organisations which are concerned not only with the regulation of activity but also the habitus of workers, as a more intensive mode of control and domination. Viewing prisons from the perspective of globalised change and managerialism is, however, incomplete. Prison managers are not automatons but instead are thinking feeling agents. Similarly, prisons themselves are institutions that have a local culture that is deeply embedded and durable. The recent developments have to some degree worked with the grain of these cultures, in particular the top-down change programme has reinforced hierarchical structures, and the contained emotions and heroic self-sacrifice displayed resonates with ideas of masculinity. However, there is also a sense of discomfort and anxiety expressed by many. There remain the tensions (Garland, 2001) and resistance (Cheliotis, 2006) that have been detected previously as individuals seek to draw upon not only corporate discourse but also traditional professional and occupational cultures, as well as more personal, biographical values. This was particularly seen in concerns about the potential impact of change upon prisoners and staff. These are concerns that the Chief Executive of NOMS recognised when he stated that:

There is an understandable fear that over the next few years – not only will we be unable to tackle the deﬁciencies identiﬁed – but that the Service will suffer real decline – impacting adversely on the experience of imprisonment for individuals, undermining our values and reversing the progress we have made in reducing re-offending and in maintaining safe, secure and decent prisons. (Spurr, 2011, p. 14)

This concern was particularly marked in the potential for reduced staffing and the changing roles of managers on relations with staff and prisoners. The reform process held out the prospect of re-making and re-imagining everyday social relations as more structured, transactional, purposeful and commodified. However, as has been described, managers sought to resist and ameliorate this risk. Main- taining positive relationships with staff and prisoners was, for most, something worth striving to maintain despite the difficulties and a feature of their working lives that would not be quickly or easily given up. In this way, they acted 240 Afterword as ‘micro actors’ (Kennedy, 2010), engaged in an everyday negotiation between realising global and local forces, between innovation and conservation. This negotiation is an illustration of prison managerialism in action. One of the significant differences between 2007–08 and 2014–15 is that there appeared to be a shift in equilibrium of prison managerialism. This term attempted to encapsulate the ways in which prison managers engage in an ongoing dialectical process in which they navigate, accommodate and sustain a balance between the competing demands of global managerialism and the local culture. The accomplishment of a sustainable balance between those forces is important in uncertain, changing times. The link between old and new, global and local, can create a sense of continuity, stability and even legitimacy. How- ever, in recent years this balance had been disturbed, unsettled and has become more uncomfortable. Whilst managers acquiesced in the reforms, they did not wholeheartedly embrace this and experienced some dissonance. This discomfort has been observed more broadly in response to austerity:

It is precisely this complex condition – the unfinished and unsettled field that Gilbert’s idea of ‘disaffected consent’ points to so effectively. It suggests a delicate balance in which consent is (still) being given: there is only limited dissent and active counter-mobilization ...But this consent is conditional and grudging, rather than enthusiastic. It may be compliant (and even calculat- ing). But it is certainly characterized by forms of ‘disaffectedness’: unsatisfied, uncommitted, disgruntled and, perhaps, disengaged. (Clarke and Newman, 2012, p. 315)

Many managers found themselves in this liminal state, not fully committed to changes taking place, but not resisting either. In the research there was a form of estranged managerialism developing, in which managers were compliant, even active in delivering corporate change, but experiencing a sense of dissonance. In terms of their work, managers did not feel in control of the changes, which were largely driven by national policy directives, but instead their role was solely to ensure that they were delivered locally. Some of these changes managers felt uncomfortable with. They also experienced some estrangement from their sense of self as the emotional demands of the work could be disorientating and unsettling. The way managers presented themselves often masked and contained their real feelings. This estrangement reflected that there was not yet a settled legitimacy. Inside and outside prisons, all is not yet stabilized; there is an ongoing period of flux. Many are still coming to terms with the situation that faces them and making sense of this new terrain. Indeed, prison managers appear to be seeking ways in which they can adapt and maintain important aspects of organisational culture including everyday social relations. They are acting as agents, engaged in a search for legitimacy. Yet many questions remain unanswered and will only be fully understood in the future. Over time, will prison managers be able to find meaning and value in a changing world? Will they be able to achieve an accommodation between those new global forces, the local cultures and their own values and aspirations? Is this state of flux to be prolonged or become a more chronic feature of public services? Will they be able to accommodate the Afterword 241 expectations of staff, prisoners and the wider organisation whilst also expressing their own values? In other words, can prison managers move beyond acquiescence in order to create, from the forces that play upon them, a sustainable sense of legitimacy? To a significant extent, the future of prisons over the coming years will be determined by the answers to these questions. Annex A: Insider Ethnography

Whilst many ethnographic and anthropological studies report the work of out- siders exploring remote and alien cultures, this book is drawn from a research project deploying a different approach; that of ‘insider’ ethnography. This has been described as being ‘characterised by significant levels of initial proximity between researcher and researched’ (Hodkinson, 2005, p. 132). My research on prison managers was conducted whilst I myself was a prison manager and was funded through HM Prison Service. In this annex, I discuss the origins and design of the work and offer a reflexive account of conducting the fieldwork considering how the dual identities of insider and researcher were entangled in ways that are significant not only methodologically, but also in revealing dynamics of power (Sparks et al., 1996), in this case between researcher, researched and the host organisation. The origins of this project lay in my own professional and personal experiences. In 1996, with the intention of extending my interest in social justice into a career, I joined the Prison Service on a fast-track management programme, reaching governor grade in 1999. During my time managing prisons I have wres- tled with complex and unresolved ethical dilemmas. How far can I progress issues of social justice within prisons and how far does that have a broader impact on society? Does the structure of society mean that imprisonment merely entrenches, legitimates and enforces power and inequality? What is my role as a public ‘expert’ on criminal justice issues – to advocate on behalf of an optimistic approach to prisons or to problematise it and argue for its abolition? The origin of this research was therefore personal but also brought into focus wider sociological issues, including the relationship between agency and structure and that between global and local forces. I sought, through ethnographic research, an opportunity to explore and understand in a more systematic way my own working world and indeed myself. From the outset the research and my role as a working prison manager were inextricably linked.

Research methods

In order to explore the working lives of prison managers, I decided that an ethnographic approach was required, one that was ‘grounded in a commitment to the first-hand experience and exploration of a particular social or cultural setting on the basis of (though not exclusively by) participant observation’ (Atkinson et al., 2001, p. 4). There were some specific features of both the subject that had been identified and the setting in which it was taking place that made this approach relevant. In relation to the subject, ethnography has been identified as being particularly relevant to exploratory or ‘pathbreaking’ research (Fielding, 2001) and this project fitted that in as much as it involved a relatively unexplored area with a broad agenda. The nature of the research was to address the lived experiences of

242 Annex A: Insider Ethnography 243 work, including how rules and routines were understood and enacted. This has been explored in the ethnography of work, which has also been able to reveal links with broader sociological questions such as the relationship between agency and structure (Smith, 2001), organisational and occupational culture (Frow and Morris, 2000; Parker, M., 2000) and issues of power and inequality (Smith, 2001). Ethnography has an established track record in British prisons (King and McDermott, 1995; Sparks et al., 1996; Liebling assisted by Arnold, 2004; Crewe, 2009; Drake, 2012; Phillips, 2012), and specifically in researching prison staff (Liebling and Price, 2001; Crawley, 2004). This work has revealed the complex social interactions that shape the prison world, shed light upon what are often obscured and hidden aspects of the institution, and has connected this with wider sociological perspectives (Wacquant, 2002). The central approach taken in ethnography is the use of participant observation (Fielding, 2001). However, approaches to observation vary along a spectrum from participant to non-participant and even within one study, such as this one, the role and identity of the researcher will be unstable and vary according to circumstances at different moments. A range of other strategies are also deployed in ethnographic research such as formal and informal interviewing, systematic counting, and examining documents. Such a wide range of strategies are now being used that it has been suggested that there is ‘a carnivalesque profusion of methods, perspectives and theoretical justifications for ethnographic work’ (Atkinson et al., 2001, p. 3). In this particular study, conducted in 2007 and 2008, there were three sources of data generated; 62 days of observations of managers in their day-to-day roles, 60 semi-structured interviews with them, and documen- tary evidence collected in the sites. This was supplemented by a further five days undertaking observations and interviews and one of the research sites in 2014 and 2015 in order to chart subsequent developments. The fieldwork was conducted in two medium-sized, medium security prisons in England. They were relatively modern, both being constructed and opened in the mid-1980s. Their organisational life took place against the background of the growth in the use of imprisonment, which dramatically accelerated from the early 1990s. Their institutional history was entangled with this development, and both prisons had subsequently been expanded with the addition of extra prisoner accommodation and facilities. At the time the research was conducted both held over 600 prisoners and were both undergoing further expansion. Much of my research was located in spaces away from the maelstrom of the prisoner society and staff-prisoner interactions on wings, workshops and exercise yards. Significant time was spent in offices and meeting rooms in ‘admin’ areas. Even those interactions with prisoners generally took place with individuals in office-based interviews, disciplinary adjudications or in the conduct of routinised processes such as on reception and discharge. More unstructured interactions in social spaces did take place, often at times where there was a high concentration of prisoners such as the serving of meals, coming in or going out from exercise or during movements to and from work. Rather than management being located in a ‘backstage’ world, there appeared to be a number of distinct but intersecting social milieus – including that of staff, prisoners and managers. The predominant spaces inhabited by managers in some respects replicated those of the typical bureaucratic organisation – bland beige offices and meeting rooms 244 Annex A: Insider Ethnography with functional furniture, motivational posters and displays of corporate information, the multiplicity of computers, telephones and filing cabinets. However, to suggest that they were identical would be to ignore the bars on the windows, the locks on the doors, the key chains and security cards, and the uniforms worn by some staff. The milieu of the prison manager reflected the dual pressures of both a homogenised organisational regime and the distinctive local aspects of the prison world.

Entering the ﬁeld

Gaining access to prisons can be ‘a time consuming and problematic process’ (Smith and Wincup, 2000, p. 335) and certainly there have been many examples of researchers being denied access or having their ambitions curtailed in the process of negotiating access. However, as an insider negotiating access was less time-consuming and was not problematic in the same way. In practical terms, gaining entry to the prisons was straightforward. Personal contact was made with the senior managers in the two prisons, the research explained and they immediately consented. The complexity of conducting insider ethnography has often been discussed in epistemological terms. Whilst historically insider ethnography was viewed negatively within the field (see Eriksen, 2001), it has become increasingly accepted (Jackson, 1987). In contemporary ethnography, a more nuanced view of insider ethnography has emerged (Hodkinson, 2005). This recognises that there are risks the insider needs to be conscious of, including failing to explore and reveal ‘taken for granted’ aspects of a culture, and failing to adopt a sufficiently critical perspective. However, there are also potential benefits including being able to screen for credibility, being able to deploy knowledge to identify salient issues for research, and being able to establish rapport. The role of insider-researcher requires a degree of reflexivity and discipline in order to realise the potential benefits, whilst avoiding the potential pitfalls. Such theoretical exploration of the role of insider research does, however, risk imposing an artificial neatness on the process itself and the complex ways in which the researcher and the researched interact and understand one another. On my first day conducting fieldwork, I quickly gained a sense of how my identity as both a researcher and a prison manager would shape people’s perspectives in diverse ways. I attended the daily management meeting at nine o’clock, which involved a range of managers from around the prison and discussed operational incidents, absentee staff and other policy and performance issues. I briefly introduced myself and the purpose of my research. During the meeting, a manager made a series of risqué jokes, firstly about his relationship with his wife and then about his dog which had been ‘shagging sheep’. At first there was little laughter and one person said that they didn’t want to join in because of ‘our guest’, referring to me. To this the manager responded by saying; ‘don’t worry, he’s not bothered about that’. This seemed to encapsulate how for some I was a harmless colleague used to the masculine ‘banter’ of prison life, whilst for others I was a potentially dangerous outsider of whom they should be wary. After the meeting, I met with a manager who had an extensive academic background and found myself being seen from a different perspective, focussing in detail on my Annex A: Insider Ethnography 245 researcher position and the potential conflicts inherent in the insider-researcher role. Later in the day, I toured the prison and was introduced to a variety of staff who, when I said I was researching managers, would often respond with mocking, if good natured, laughter and comments such as ‘if you can find them’. When my role as a prison manager was disclosed, I was often met with excessive defer- ence in a similarly mocking, but good natured, tone. These responses again drew upon my dual identities and revealed some of the barriers I would face by being seen as an ‘outsider’ by some groups not only as a result of being a researcher but also due to being a prison manager. Whilst such interactions revealed to me the complex and diverse ways in which I would be perceived and people would interact with me, I also spent the day feeling uncomfortable in my new role, not entirely understanding what it was to be an insider-researcher. The routines and practices of prison life were familiar to me and I struggled to have a clear sense of my new role and the perspective that I should adopt. My field notes are heavily descriptive, lacking in nuance and largely ignoring my own feelings and personal reflections. My experience was that becoming an insider-researcher, was a messy, inelegant, even crude process which only came incrementally, through practice over time, and involving, sometimes, uncomfortable reflection. I would also not wish to suggest that my experience of being an insider-researcher was ever accom- plished in the sense that it was complete, instead, it always felt inchoate and incomplete, a constant process of navigation and negotiation, with myself as well as those around me. However, this was a process which was potentially rich with meaning and one which not only could enable the process of observing and understanding the field from a new perspective, but was also a conduit through which the tensions and conflicts of the field could be expressed and sited. It is to this process which I now turn.

Conducting the ﬁeldwork: Problems and challenges

Whilst some other research studies by prison management insiders have simply stated their personal experience and affiliations and treated it as a declaration of interests (Bryans, 2007), I will attempt to provide a more reflexive account of the research process. This section broadly covers three issues: identities; power; and confidentiality and interventions.

Identities Identity is the idea that individuals have a concept of the self, a sense of who they are and their place in the world, what has been described as the ‘sustaining of coherent, yet continuously revised, biographical narratives’ (Giddens, 1991, p. 5). In the process of carrying out this research there were shifts in my own sense of identity, but there were also responses from subjects regarding who they thought I was and how they understood my identity. These two aspects will be discussed below. My own sense of identity was intimately bound up in the research methodology and my role as an insider-researcher. For an ethnographer studying a field they are familiar with, the challenge is identified as achieving sufficient critical distance, a process of ‘getting out, of distancing themselves from their far-too- familiar surroundings’ (Lofgren, 1987, p. 76, italics in original). In that way a 246 Annex A: Insider Ethnography position is sought which is intimate enough to gain access, empathise and understand but at the same time sufficiently detached in order to reflect and analyse, what has been described as walking a tight rope between ‘empathy and repulsion, home and strangeness, seeing and not seeing’ (Sarsby, 1984, p. 132). It is this position between distance and intimacy that has been described as the essence of ethnographic fieldwork; ‘it is out of this experience of being simultaneously an insider and an outsider that creative insight is generated’ (Fielding, 2001, p. 151). There were some ways in which I tried to create distance through the research design itself. In particular, I selected prisons that I was not familiar with and therefore they and the people who worked there were largely unknown to me. By having sites that are separate from my direct personal experience, this helped me to see things anew and to feel some unfamiliarity in a familiar environment (Strathern, 1987). The planning of the research and background reading gave some shape and structure to the observations, shifting me from my work identity or at least providing me with a reflexive appreciation of it, and helping me to view the environment from a sociological rather than a managerial perspective. The use of field notes, the constant carrying of a notebook and frequently writing observations and entries also anchored me in the purpose for which I was there. In these ways I was trying to manufacture and sustain a sense of disciplined subjectivity (Wolcott, 2005). There was also a more intimate, intense and personal experience that I went through in order to achieve a sense of detachment. I can now: ‘reflect on the self that [I] had to become in order to pass in the setting, and how that temporary, setting-specific self differs from the person that [I] normally [am]’ (Fielding, 2001, p. 151). The most visible and outward manifestation of the changes in my identity were in my personal appearance. Before entering the first research site I had to decide what I was going to wear. This was a more challenging and complex issue than simple vanity. This struck at the heart of my identity and the change that I was undertaking. Clothes are not merely for discretion or warmth but are also related to identity: ‘Essentially people use clothes to make two basic state- ments: first, this is the sort of person I am; and secondly, this is what I am doing’ (Ross, 2008, pp. 6–7). In prisons, clothing has a particular meaning and is used in order to communicate distinctions of status. There is a long history of prisoner clothing being used as a reflection of changing penal philosophies, from the uni- formity of arrowed and striped clothing to the liberalism of prisoners wearing their own clothes, and on to new punitive practices using high visibility clothes (Ash, 2010). For staff also, the use of prison uniform and military style insignias of rank are used in order to convey a sense of order, status and discipline, with governor grades distinguished by the fact that they wear suits rather than uniform, sometimes even being referred to as ‘suits’ and promotion into their ranks being described as ‘getting your suit’. My decision about what clothes to wear therefore took on a particularly potent texture and felt that it went to the essence of both who I had been and who I was attempting to become. I decided to wear casual, reasonably smart clothing but avoid suits and ties. This decision was intended to convey a difference from my previous identity as a prison manager and to mark myself out as someone who was not in the prison as an employee. This change in status and role did not go unnoticed by others. One officer directly asked me what it was like going from a ‘high powered job’ to coming in speaking to staff wearing a t-shirt and jeans (I didn’t think of my Annex A: Insider Ethnography 247 previous role in the same terms and was wearing a polo shirt and chinos, but the question was still a good one). Other staff, including senior managers did occasionally comment on my casual attire, usually in a light-hearted way, but also in sufficient numbers to indicate how important this was in defining my change in role and perceived status. I also found myself going through changes that indicated a personal journey I was undertaking. I became increasingly comfortable in casual clothing and increasingly uncomfortable in a suit, so that those occasions outside of the research when I had to wear a tie, I found it strangulating and almost impossi- ble to wear. I grew my hair longer, and even at one stage sported a beard. The way that research can have an impact on the researcher and is manifested in personal appearance was graphically illustrated on the cover of Malcolm Young’s An Inside Job (1991), where two photographs of the author contrasted the clean cut police officer with the hippyish researcher. These changes are not superficial, but reflect a deeper questioning taking place as a result of the temporary role in the field. Young observed that there is an intense, intimate and personal experience, a ‘radical reflexivity’ (p. 25), that is required in order to create the distance required:

It requires a conscious act of experiencing a reflection of yourself and of how you have become what you are. It can be quite painful, for the insider is studying his own social navel, with the potential always present that he will recognize this to be only one of a number of arbitrary possibilities and perhaps also find that many practices are built on the flimsiest of moral precepts. (Young, 1991, p. 9)

Rather than drawing me in to ‘going native’, the research led me to question my profession and my own role, reflect on the practices I engaged in, choices I made and accommodations I accepted. These are not always comfortable con- siderations. I particularly questioned the role of prison in society; its role in maintaining and reinforcing power and inequality (see Bennett, 2008b). This also led me to question my role as a prison manager, as well as those of other prison managers, whether I and they reinforce, resist or ameliorate these conditions. This questioning is difficult but is also creative and rewarding as part of the process of exploring the field from a space that is both intimate but also sufficiently detached in order to facilitate meaningful observation. When I had entered prisons as a professional, I rather idealistically felt that this was an opportunity to engage with issues of social justice but by the end of the research, my perspective had shifted and instead I saw myself engaged in a messy set of compromises and challenges regarding values and beliefs, getting my hands dirty in a social field struggle. Whilst these changes in my own identity mark the journey I was undertaking, no researcher acts in isolation. Those who are the subject of the research also have a sense or perception of my identity. This is often intertwined with organisational culture and structures as it is related to any personal identity I projected. There are seven predominant ways in which I felt that I was perceived by those in the field. The first is as a colleague. As has been described earlier, the fact that I was an insider meant that access was easier and also meant that I understood the language, acronyms and technicalities of processes in prisons. This was useful 248 Annex A: Insider Ethnography in enabling staff to speak to me with some degree of confidence that their perceptions would be understood and empathised with. I did not face any resistance as an ‘outsider’ or have to undertake any rites of passage in order to be accepted. In fact, that acceptance was often instant, for example one senior officer went as far to describe me in a team briefing as ‘one of us’. This sense of shared experiences and belonging did create some challenges in focussing on the research issues. Some outside researchers can adopt a position of naivety which would allow them to explore what were taken for granted assumptions and practices. I had to manufacture this sense by explaining to people that although I was familiar with the technicalities or mechanics of prison management, my role as a researcher meant that I was looking at it from a different perspective. Generously, everyone was willing to do this, although it did illustrate that the first perception that many people had of me was as a fellow member of prison staff rather than a researcher. The second identity is that of superior in an organisational hierarchy. As those I was interacting with knew my background and previous roles, some were conscious that I held a formal rank and status within the organisation. For example, occasionally I would be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Governor’ and one interviewee asked ‘is it okay to call you “Jamie” since you’re an ex-Dep[uty Governor]?’. Such forms of address and the seeking of permission to drop formalities, convey a sense of the importance of status and hierarchy within the organisation. However, such interactions also perform a function for those who are using them, acting as signals that they should be cautious about what they say and do. A third, and related, identity is that of expert. I was sometimes asked by individuals or in meetings to comment on policies, practices or provide feedback. I studiously avoided doing this, always explaining that I was there in a particular role of researcher. This was never pushed by the questioners and was accepted on the face of it. However, it did disclose a degree to which participants were aware that I was not a naive observer but instead carried a professional history and knowledge. The fourth identity is that of mentee. Some managers, notably some who were older, more experienced and particularly those that were more senior than me in the organisational hierarchy, adopted a mentoring role towards me. They were willing to spend additional time with me, ensuring that I had support and access, willing to share their thoughts and experiences and also offer unsolicited advice on my future career. This benevolent interest was helpful and appreciated but was also an assertion of hierarchy, control and a tacit reinforcement of my insider position. These first four identities are linked in as much as they all relate to hierarchical position, rank or status within the organisation. They reveal that whilst I was not in a formal position, I was perceived by many to carry residual status and identity as a prison manager. The fifth identity is auditor. Some managers asked about how the outcomes of my research would be used within the organisation. Although I explained that this was not the purpose or nature of the work, some managers found this difficult to comprehend. For example, many people asked about or referred to the ‘report’ I was writing, a term that implied that it has some official purpose. Another example is where one governor grade approached me anxiously saying that he had been told I was completing ‘a cost-benefit comparison’ between the Annex A: Insider Ethnography 249 two prisons. Although I had previously explained the nature of the research and reiterated this, there remained a residual anxiety from that individual, reflecting a concern about the purpose and uses to which the research may be put by the organisation. Some managers also responded to the research by putting on a performance as if they were being tested and were anxious to pass. These individuals would often use management phrases and clichés in order to respond to questions and would constantly seek to give positive examples of what they had done, claim credit for innovations and provide ‘spin’. Given that I had spent some considerable time in the field by the time I carried out the interviews, these distortions were relatively easy to detect and were themselves telling about the individuals and sometimes about wider prison management. Nevertheless, they also reveal one of the ways in which I and my research were understood and approached by the participants. The sixth identity is as an enigma. For some people, I was difficult to understand and to pigeon hole and they appeared bemused as to what I was doing and why I was doing it. This was revealed in some of the comments that were made about my personal appearance as described above. Indeed, one senior manager, during the stage that I had longer hair and a beard, described me in a joking way as ‘Che Guevara’. Whilst this may just have been a reference to my appearance, it may also have indicated that beyond curiosity, there may have been suspicion or discomfort about my motives or that I deviated from and subverted cultural expectations by undertaking this research role. The final way in which I was understood was as a researcher. However, this was not discrete from my organisational identity and in many ways was a manufactured identity. There were some managers who had themselves undertaken research and were able to discuss meaningfully the research process and my role. They particularly understood what I was doing, how I was doing it and some of the complexities. As the research progressed, other managers also seemed to accept that I was there in a particular role and started to become protective of that. For example, when I was asked in meetings to comment on issues, other managers would step in on my behalf explaining that I was there as a researcher. Whilst this may have also been about protecting their own status and position, the fact that this appeared to happen more as time went on, indicated that this at least in part reflected that they accepted my role as researcher. However, for some there was an inherent problem with being a manager and a researcher. On more than one occasion I was asked penetrating questions about my motives and any personal or career advantage that I may accrue from conducting the research. One manager took a different angle and asked candidly whether it was possible for me to be unbiased given my background and describing how they felt judged by my observing them. My identity as a researcher appeared manufactured, incomplete and inextricably bound up with my organisational position, although it did form part of how I was understood and viewed by others.

Power Power in its most general terms refers to the production of causal effects (Scott, 2001). This is not only a subject of this research, but is an ethical and practical problem in its conduct. As an ‘insider’ I am someone who potentially holds power, but I am also the subject of power, and potentially the medium for it. 250 Annex A: Insider Ethnography

There is therefore a particular issue about the potential effects of the research for myself and for others. I will start by discussing the ways in which I may have been the subject of power. This has been described as the ‘special problem’ of prison research where access and funding are restricted and therefore there are risks regarding the control and shaping of research (Sparks et al., 1996, p. 339). There are both formal and informal ways in which organisations can attempt to shape and control research outcomes (King, 2000; Whyte, 2000). However, the argu- ment that organisations will overtly control research can be overplayed and it should be recognised that the process of gaining access and conducting research is negotiated, meaning that the researcher themselves exercise significant power (Hammersley, 1995; King, 2000). In my specific case, the research was funded initially by the Leadership and Development team of the Prison Service as an individually negotiated personal development opportunity. The head of that particular team was keen to promote innovative development opportunities and was willing to make funds available to support this. Although that individual asked me to include in the research some analysis of data that had already been generated on prison managers using Myers-Briggs personality assessments, this was quickly forgotten as that individual moved on from their role and it has not been part of the research project. Each year I have had to resubmit an application for funding which has asked for little more than an update on progress. As already noted, access to the prisons was straightforward without any attempt to alter or shape the research agenda. There was not therefore the intimate scrutiny and col- laboration in establishing the research agenda that have been discussed elsewhere (Sparks et al., 1996; Smith and Wincup, 2000). During the conduct of the research there were not any overt attempts to control or shape what was happening. There were rare comments made including an offer to keep a senior manager ‘informed’ about a prison being researched, occasional requests to ignore or overlook comments that may have been seen as inappropriate or unprofessional (‘don’t write that down’, ‘you’re not making a note of that?’), and a prodding desire that the outcome of the research would be ‘favourable’ to a particular prison. However, these comments were never made with a sense of any meaningful pressure and were never taken seriously by me or followed up by those who made them. Later questions about the research by those people were satisfied (or deterred) by general feedback about which stage the research was at or sociological concepts that may be relevant, no information was directly asked for or disclosed that would have breached confidentiality. Sim- ilar comments frequently crop up in methodological accounts, and should not be considered indicative of any serious attempt to corrupt or distort the research findings, but were instead a reflection of the natural uncertainty and nervousness of research subjects who surrendered considerable power to a researcher. However, overt power is not the only way in which control can be exercised and there are often soft forms of power that achieve the same outcomes. There are more subtle ways in which the values of funders and researchers can become inexorably interlinked through their relationship (Cheek, 2000) and this can be a particular issue where, like me, they are an employee (Sparks et al., 1996). I have acquired a certain amount of organisational trust and have accepted the corre- sponding obligations and responsibilities, including the fact that publications are subject to official approval in order to ensure that they are not overtly political Annex A: Insider Ethnography 251 or breach the Civil Service Code. Yet within those constraints I have also cul- tivated an alternative identity as a commentator on prison issues, being editor of the Prison Service Journal since 2004, a member of the editorial board of the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Matters, the author of a number of articles and the editor of three books. Some of these articles have been critical of prisons generally or Prison Service policy in particular. As such, I have a developed and practiced critical appreciation of the work that I do and the field in which I operate. Whilst this book is not polemic, it does include observations that are critical of or are at odds with official accounts. As an insider, my experience as the subject of power was different from that of external researchers. In the design, funding, approval and fieldwork stage, there was little formal control and I was able to proceed with minimal scrutiny. Indeed, the most striking feature has been the absence of control rather than the exercise of it. I will now turn to the ways in which I may have been the facilitator of power. My intention was to carry out research on prison managers, who are people who themselves hold significant power over others. In his work, Bryans (2007, p. 6) described prison governors as a powerful ‘criminal justice elite’. Pahl (1980) has argued that sociology has largely ignored the powerful in favour of the powerless and addressing this deficit could have significant value:

If the everyday worlds with which we are most familiar are mainly those of the underdogs or, at best, the middle dogs, we are forced to fall back on the accounts of non-sociologists for an understanding of the top dogs ...If one argues that our understanding of the powerless has been greatly improved through sociological analysis, surely our understanding of the powerful could also be improved. (pp. 130–131)

However, are prison managers really powerful elites? Gouldner (1973) also argued in favour of undertaking sociology of the powerful but argued that prison managers, school head teachers and hospital administrators were not the powerful but were also underdogs. He described that these ‘local caretaking ofﬁcials’ were generally depicted in sociology as ignorant and poor managers. He went on to say that these depictions carried:

a political payload. For it is this discrediting of local ofﬁcials that legitimates the claims of the higher administrative classes ...and gives them an entering wedge on the local level. (p. 50)

A study of prison managers therefore has to be conscious of the risks of being used in unintended ways and for reasons that are not approved or supported by the researcher (for a poignant example see Sparks, 2002). As a result, this study attempted to avoid appearing as a formal evaluation of effectiveness and instead was an attempt to provide a sociological exploration. By the very nature of the subject of agency and structure, prison managers were explored not only as the holders of power but also as the subjects of it. It was therefore not attempting to place prison managers in the position of being elite or the sole holders of power. It is as much about their powerlessness as much as it is about their power. 252 Annex A: Insider Ethnography

Finally, I will address the ways in which I was the holder of power and others were the subjects of it. I have already touched upon some of these but they are worth reiterating. The first was that any researcher holds some power in as much as people exposed themselves and their work to the scrutiny of someone who would analyse and write about it without them having control. This was a significant act of trust by the participants and an accumulation of power and responsibility by the researcher. As has been previously mentioned, my role as an insider may have carried with it expectations about comradeship and may have facilitated access, it was therefore important for me to structure expectations by being clear about the nature of the research, the areas being considered and to provide commitments about confidentiality. The second aspect of my power related back to my role as a serving prison manager. This was brought sharply into focus on the one occasion when a member of staff declined to be interviewed. I had intended to go back to the manager in charge of the prison on that particular day and arrange an alternative interview, as they assisted me by making staff available. The interviewee expressed concern about this and stated that they may be challenged or criticised for refusing to take part, not by me but by the manager I would be speaking to. As a result I decided not to arrange an alternative interview and went home for the day. Although on this occasion the risk was managed and avoided, it nevertheless highlighted that I was perceived by some as having power through the support of senior people within the establishment. Although I did not sense that others were concerned about this, it was an issue that I became increasingly conscious of as a result. As an insider, the complexities, challenges and risks of research display both similarities and differences compared with external researchers. In some ways the process of the research was eased and the logistics were more straightforward. There were the same risks of control and misuse of findings. However, there were more subtle challenges both in the ways that organisational power flowed in shaping the researcher and the response of the participants. As an insider- researcher it is essential that one is alert to this and open to ways in which this can be manifested and managed.

Confidentiality and intervention Many researchers report ethical dilemmas presented where they have to ask themselves whether they should maintain the mask of the neutral and passive researcher or whether they should intervene (for particularly vivid examples see Crewe, 2009). This was a dilemma that I faced on several occasions throughout the research, again my insider status made these challenges at least feel different to those situations presented in other research. As mentioned previously, the only time in which there appeared to be a request to breach confidentiality was when a senior manager asked me to keep him ‘informed’ of the research. This appeared to be an implied invitation to do more than simply discuss the sociological findings but instead to pass judgement and nuggets of information about the organisation and individuals. This was not followed up and subsequent conversations and feedback were in the most general terms regarding the progress of the research and I was not directly asked to breach any confidentiality. Annex A: Insider Ethnography 253

There were a number of occasions during the research where people made comments that I felt were distasteful and were sometimes racist or sexist. One in particular had a strong impact. On that occasion, a manager shared an anecdote about a conversation he had with a more senior, female colleague at a previous prison. In this he said that he had described overweight women as ‘pigs in knickers’. This left me feeling sickened at the degrading language and attitude displayed. Many researchers have reported having ‘well-bitten tongues’ from remaining silent when comments are made (Crewe, 2009). However, this left me sharing Crewe’s feelings of shame at the ‘collusive silences’ (p. 475) that I maintained. In my circumstances, I was particularly concerned as my organisational status may have conferred a greater degree of tacit approval to what was said, but I had to balance that with the potential benefits of gaining a rounded picture of the world I was examining. During the research, people appeared to become increasingly relaxed, testing me with disclosures about their views of managers, and once established that I would listen and hold confidences, opened up to disclosures about a range of issues. As ever, it was the disclosures of breaches of formal rules that provide a barometer of the honesty and openness of participants. Some revealed experiences of witnessing the abuse of prisoners in the distant past, many disclosed practices such as manipulating performance information, and others disclosed more individual, but deeply held personal beliefs about issues such as reli- gion or politics. As with the comments described above, the balance seemed to lie in maintaining openness rather than shutting this down and breaching confidentiality. On one occasion I felt that the balance lay differently. In this situation, I was shadowing a manager who had to carry out a series of checks in the reception area of the prison. A prisoner had arrived who claimed to have been assaulted by prison staff at the prison he had just left. Initially it was not clear that there was going to be any follow-up. I decided that the risk was serious and immediate and therefore wanted to be assured that the prisoner was receiving medical attention and that the matter was properly recorded. In the event, the manager I was shadowing did ensure that these things happened without the need for me to intervene. I am sure that the questions I was asking betrayed more than a research interest at the time and that my concern was clear. Although I was satisfied that was necessary in the circumstances, it illustrates that I always acted as a researcher on a contingent and inchoate basis. One issue that is often raised in research is about loyalties and taking sides, again a particular issue in prisons where the divisions between groups are sometimes marked, such as between prisoners and staff or between managers and the managed. In one of the sites, I was present during a one day strike by the Prison Officers Association. Some managers were members of the union and therefore joined the strike (most senior and principal officers) whilst others were not and therefore operated the prison during the day. I decided that I would cross the picket line and enter the prison. I did not feel compromised by this as a result both of the fact that I was researching managers and was therefore interested in how they would deal the situation, and also that as a governor grade I would not be expected by those on the picket line to join a strike and instead would be expected to go in. My dual identity acted as a protection on this occasion. During the day I was able to talk to managers on both sides and afterwards was able to 254 Annex A: Insider Ethnography discuss the strike openly with those who took part without any adverse reaction. Whilst in the prison, I also made it clear that, should the need arise, I would be willing to assist with the operation of the prison. This assessment was based on the immediacy of the risk as in a strike situation with small number of people on duty the safety of staff and prisoners can be compromised. However, in the event I was only asked to cover a unit during a meal break, but again this reveals how my responsibilities as an employee remained extant, even if temporarily subdued. These dilemmas about when to stand back, when to intervene, when to keep confidentiality and when to break it are often presented in the field. However, there were occasions when my dual role had an influence, in shaping the nature and context of these dilemmas.

Leaving the ﬁeld

In each prison there was a fixed period in which I was due to be there (six months) and a set programme of work that I intended to carry out. It was therefore a straightforward logistical task to end the research. I offered to return in due course to present back some of the findings but that was some four years later, and also returned to conduct supplementary research at one of the sites six years after the original study. Leaving the field was not, however, simply a technical task but was instead part of a personal journey or ‘rite de passage’ (Young, 1991, p. 63) which had seen me change in many ways. As I prepared to leave the second research site, my casual clothing started to become smarter, my hair shorter and ties felt less constricting. Within two months of completing the fieldwork I had taken up a post as governor of a prison. Although I outwardly returned to my previous occupation, I did not feel like the same person who had gone into the research. I felt more questioning, less attached to the organisation for its own sake, more conscious of the social web that imprisonment formed part of, and more conscious of the strengths and limitations of managerial practices. This made me a different prison manager, although I make no claims to be a more effective one, but that after all was never the purpose. On taking up my new post, I became immediate colleagues with the governors of the two prisons I had conducted the research in. We had to re-establish our relationships in new roles and were able to move on. However, the need for me to maintain confidentiality was apparent and they both respected that my research would develop at its own pace and in its own way. Apart from the occasional polite question about when it would be completed, neither has ever wanted to know more about it or asked to intervene in any way. Having undertaken this research, it also meant that I would now be marked not only in how I saw the world, but also how I would be perceived. Although there may not be the open and intense hostility towards inside researchers as there has been in the past (Mascarenhas-Keyes, 1987; Young, 1991), there is a degree of antagonism that could arise from being so publicly identified as a prison manager with an interest in research, intellectual inquiry or academic study. This is an antagonism that was, in itself, revealing about the culture of prison management. There is a cultural tension within prison management in which some prison managers define the world of prison management as being made up of two Annex A: Insider Ethnography 255 mutually exclusive groups, the first was described using terms such a ‘academic’ or ‘process-orientated’ or ‘strategy’, in contrast to the second group that were described using terms such as ‘practical’, ‘people-orientated’ and ‘operational’. Whilst such distinctions were false and incomplete, the language and tensions are important in understanding culture (Parker, M., 2000), but were also part of my own personal story. On leaving the field I completed a phase in the research, but I also entered into a new phase of my personal and professional life. In this phase I certainly didn’t claim to have the answers but I did have a better understanding of the questions, issues, complexities, tensions and problems of the world in which I had worked and researched. Annex B: Management Roles and Responsibilities

This Annex briefly summarises the main roles and responsibilities of each management grade described in this study. Governing Governor – The manager who is in charge of the whole prison. They line manage other senior managers and are accountable for the prison as a whole, including safety, security, efficiency and performance. They are usually an experienced prison manager who has worked in a range of operational management roles, including uniformed roles. Governor Grade – A senior operational manager who will normally be in charge of a part of the prison. Prisons are divided into ‘functions’ including residence (the living accommodation or wings), security, operations (such as gate, reception, visits), regimes (including catering, work, gymnasium) or reducing reoffending (sentence planning, offender management, links with probation, psychology and external organisations). A governor grade is normally in charge of a function and will also be a member of the prison senior management team. They will periodically take operational charge of the prison as ‘duty governor’. They are usually experienced prison managers who have worked in operational roles, including uniformed roles. The term ‘governor grade’ is commonly used although the designated term since 1999 has been ‘operational manager’. Principal Officer – The most senior uniformed grade. These officers generally run a department, which forms part of a function. This may, for example, be a number of wings, security intelligence, part of operations and would usually involve managing a team of staff. Others manage discrete policy areas such as audit, life sentence prisoners or suicide prevention. Principal officers are also periodically responsible for the day-to-day operation of the prison in the role of ‘orderly officer’. Following the Fair & Sustainable reforms of 2012 (NOMS, 2012b), this grade was abolished and a new grade created known as ‘Custo- dial manager’. This new role was a first line manager and encompassed a wide range of responsibilities at different times including duty manager for the prison as a whole and management responsibilities for an individual department and cross-departmental policies. Senior Officer – The first line manager of prison officers. They generally operate as shift managers in particular areas such as wings, visits, reception or activities. They are generally part of a team of senior officers who provide the day-to-day shift management of those areas. Following the Fair & Sustainable reforms of 2012 (NOMS, 2012b), this grade was abolished and a new grade created known as ‘Supervisory officer’. This new role was not a line manager but instead had supervisory responsibility for part of the prison of a day-to-day shift management basis. Head of Learning & Skills – A senior non-uniformed manager responsible for the management of the education contract and the broader development of

256 Annex B: Management Roles and Responsibilities 257 learning and skills in the prison. However, their roles expanded in some prisons to encompass line management responsibility for areas such as workshops, gymnasium and catering. They generally have an education background and have not worked in other roles in prisons. Human Resources Business Partner – A senior non-uniformed manager responsible for the human resources aspects of the prison, such as recruitment, training, appraisal and attendance management. They also act as a strategic advisor to the Governing Governor and senior managers regarding change management and consultation. Some have previously worked in administrative roles in prisons whilst others are recruited directly without prison experience. They are expected to have relevant professional qualification and affiliations. They are not within the management line of the prison but are instead managed through a regionalised professional HR team. Head of Finance – A senior non-uniformed manager responsible for the bud- get planning and resource management aspects of the prison. They also act as an advisor to the Governing Governor and senior managers regarding financial management. Some have previously worked in administrative roles in prisons whilst others are recruited directly without prison experience. They were expected to have relevant professional qualification and affiliations. In 2014 these roles altered to become Finance Business Partners and a similar model to that used in HR was implemented. Head of Psychology – A senior non-uniformed manager responsible for the psychological services provided by the prison, such as psychometric testing of prisoners, report writing and delivery of offending behaviour programmes. Gen- erally they were experienced forensic psychologists who had worked in prison psychology departments. They were expected to have relevant professional qualification and affiliations. Following the completion of this study, these roles were removed from the management line within the prison and instead became incorporated within a regional professional psychology team. Hub Manager – Following the Fair & Sustainable reforms of 2012 (NOMS, 2012b), a new administrative manager grade was created, as the non-operational equivalent to the Custodial Manager. This role was a first line manager and department manager for an administrative area such as Business (i.e. finance and performance management), People (i.e. staff deployment, training and human resources), Offender Management (i.e. managing prisoner sentences and assessments) or Activities (i.e. prisoner employment and training). Area Manager – A senior civil servant responsible for a number of prisons in a geographical area. They acted as line manager to Governing Governors. They were generally experienced prison managers who had themselves been in the role of Governing Governor. Following the completion of this study they were renamed as Deputy Director of Custody. Notes

1 Introduction

1. Several terms have been used to describe the contemporary world, including ‘high modernity’ (Giddens, 1991), ‘new modernity’ (Beck, 1992) and ‘late modernity’ (Garland, 2001). The term ‘late modernity’ will be used here because it implies that this is a phase in modernity, whereas Beck’s term implies that this marks a break with the past, and Giddens’s term implies that this is the end or pinnacle of modernity. These latter two terms therefore make greater claims than the more descriptive ‘late modernity’. However, it is not simply for reasons of modesty that ‘late modernity’ is preferred; it is also because, as will be argued, it is more empirically accurate. Late modernity suggests a degree of continuity with the past, and that this is the latest part of an ongoing process of modernity. As will be observed later in the book, the contemporary world is characterised not only by change and transformation but also by continuity with the past. 2. At the time of writing, this was based on the seven ‘pathways to reducing reoffending’: accommodation; education, training and employment; health; drugs and alcohol; ﬁnance, beneﬁt and debt; children and families; attitudes, thinking and behaviour. 3. Baron Carter of Coles founded Westminster Health Care in 1985, which he sold in 1999. He has a wide range of private interests in insurance, health and information technology. He has acted as government advisor on a range of issues including offender management, sports, legal aid and health services.

3‘...It Just Happened’: Becoming a Prison Manager

1. The names used are pseudonyms; real names have not been used.

5 ‘Our Core Business’: Prison Managers, Hard Performance Monitoring and Managerialism

1. There were two race equality KPTs: one relating to staff and one relating to prisoners. Both were composite measures. The staff measure included audit results and the percentage of minority ethnic staff employed. The prisoner measure included audit results, outcomes from visitor surveys and monitoring of whether key areas such activities, use of force and disciplinary measures reﬂect the ethnic mix of the population.

258 Notes 259

7 ‘We Haven’t Quite Been Turned into Robots Yet’: The Role of Individuality and Subjectivity in Prison Management

1. IEP scheme is the incentives and earned privileges scheme. This is a national policy applied in all prisons. Under this, prisoners are entitled to ‘basic’, ‘standard’ or ‘enhanced’ levels of privileges according to how well behaved they are and how far they conform with the expectations placed upon them.

8 The Hidden Injuries of Prison Management

1. This example was cited during my original research in 2008, but was referred to again in a meeting during my further research in 2015. References

Aas, K. (2013) Globalization & Crime, second edition. London: Sage. Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P. (1999) Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage. Adkins, L. (1995) Gendered Work: Sexuality, Family and the Labour Market. Buckingham: Open University Press. Agnello, L. and Sousa, R. (2011) Fiscal Consolidation and Income Inequality.Nucleo de Investigacao em Politicas Economicas: Universidade do Minho, available at http://www.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe accessed on 15 August 2014. Alfred, R. (1992) Black Workers in the Prison Service. London: Prison Reform Trust. Allen, R. and Stern, V. (eds) (2007) Justice Reinvestment – A New Approach to Crime and Justice. London: International Centre for Prison Studies. Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y. (1997) Understanding Gender and Organizations. London: Sage. AMIMB (Association of Members of Independent Monitoring Boards) (2005) ‘Practical Guide to Monitoring Prisons’ Diss: AMIMB. Amis, K. (1961) New Maps of Hell. London: Victor Gollanez. Armstrong, S. (2007) What Good Are Markets in Punishment? Prison Service Journal Vol. 172, pp. 12–16. Arnold, H., Liebling, A. and Tait, S. (2007) Prison Officers and Prison Culture, in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) Handbook on Prisons. Cullompton: Willan. Ash, J. (2010) Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality. London: IB Tauris. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (2001) Editorial Introduction, in Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage. Austrin, T. (1994) Positioning Resistance and Resisting Position: Human Resource Management and the Politics of Appraisal and Grievance Hearings, in Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (eds) Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge. Ballard, J. (2000) Super-Cannes. London: Flamingo. Bao, G., Wang, X., Larsen, G. and Morgan, D. (2013) Beyond New Public Governance: A Value-Based Global Framework for Performance Management, Governance, and Leadership in Administration & Society Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 443–67. Bartollas, C. (2004) Becoming a Model Warden: Striving for Excellence. Lanham: American Correctional Association. Bartollas, C. and Miller, S. (1978) Correctional Administration: Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. and Donskis, L. (2013) Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumgartner, M. (1992) The Myth of Discretion, in Hawkins, K. (ed.) The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

260 References 261

Bayliss, P. and Hughes, S. (2008) Teachers and Instructors in Prisons, in Bennett, J.,Crewe,B.andWahidin,A.(eds)Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Bell, E. (2008) Reading Management and Organization in Film. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bell, E. (2011) Criminal Justice and Neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bennett, J. (2005) Book Review: Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life by Alison Liebling assisted by Helen Arnold in Prison Service Journal, No. 157, pp. 56–7. Bennett, J. (2007a) Did Things Only Get Better?: A Decade of Prisons Under Tony Blair and New Labour in Prison Service Journal, No. 171, pp. 3–12. Bennett, J. (2007b) Measuring Order and Control in HM Prison Service, in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) Handbook on Prisons. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Bennett, J. (2008a) They Hug Hoodies Don’t They? Responsibility, Irresponsibility and Responsibilisation in Conservative Crime Policy in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 451–69. Bennett, J. (2008b) The Social Costs of Dangerousness: Prisons and the Danger- ous Classes. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, available at http: //www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus540/Dangerousness_ﬁnalweb.pdf accessed on 3 August 2011. Bennett, J. (2014) Resisting the Audit Explosion: The Art of Prison Inspection in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 449–67. Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) (2008) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan Bennett, J. and Hartley, A. (2006) High Reliability Organisations and High Security Prisons in Prison Service Journal Vol. 166, pp. 11–16. Bennett, J. and Wahidin, A. (2008) Industrial Relations in Prisons, in Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Berry, L. (1989) The Employee as Customer, in Bateson, J. (ed.) Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press. Bettelheim, B. (1960) The Informed Heart. New York: The Free Press. Bhui, H. and Fossi, J. (2008) The Experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic Prison Staff, in Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Blair, T. (2010) AJourney.London: Hutchinson. Blau, P. (1963) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blyth, M. (2013) Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bolton, S. (2000) Emotion Here, Emotion There, Emotional Organisations Every- where. Critical Perspectives on Accounting Vol. 11, pp.155–71. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, H. (1999) Gender and Power in the Workplace: Analysing the Impact of Economic Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brody, R. (2000) Effectively Managing Human Service Organizations,secondedition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 262 References

Brookes, S., Smith, K. and Bennett, J. (2008) The Role of Middle and First Line Managers, in Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Bryans, S. (2000a) Governing Prisons: An Analysis of Who Is Governing Pris- ons and the Competencies They Require to Govern Effectively in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 14–29. Bryans, S. (2000b) The Managerialisation of Prisons – Efﬁciency Without a Purpose in Criminal Justice Matters Vol. 40, pp. 7–8. Bryans, S. (2007) Prison Governors: Managing Prisons in a Time of Change. Cullompton: Willan. Bryans, S. and Wilson, D. (2000) The Prison Governor: Theory and Practice,second edition. Leyhill: Prison Service Journal. Burrell, G. (1984) Sex and Organisational Analysis in Organisation Studies Vol. 5, pp. 97–118. Caldwell, R. (2006) Agency and Change: Rethinking Change Agency in Organizations. Abingdon: Routledge. Carlen, P. (2001) Death and the Triumph of Governance? Lessons from the Scottish Women’s Prison in Punishment and Society Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 459–71. Carlen, P. (2002a) Governing the Governors: Telling Tales of Managers, Mandarins and Mavericks in Criminal Justice Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 27–49. Carlen, P. (2002b) Carceral Clawback in Punishment and Society Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 115–21. Carlen, P. (2005) Book Reviews: Alison Liebling Prisons and their Moral Perfor- mance Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004 in Theoretical Criminology Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 251–3. Carlen, P.(2008) Imaginary Penalities and Risk-Crazed Governance, in Carlen, P. (ed.) Imaginary Penalities. Cullompton: Willan. Carter, P. (2003) Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach. London: Strategy Unit. Carter, P. (2007) Securing the Future: Proposals for the Efﬁcient and Sustainable Use of Custody in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice. Casale, S. (1984) Minimum Standards for Prison Establishments. London: NACRO. Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. (2007) The Penal System: An Introduction, fourth edition. London: Sage. Cave, M., Kogan, M. and Smith, R. (eds) (1990) Output and Performance Measure- ment in Government: The State of the Art. London: Kingsley. Cheek, J. (2000) An Untold Story? Doing Funded Qualitative Research, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition. London: Sage. Cheliotis, L. (2006) How Iron Is the Iron Cage of New Penology? The Role of Human Agency in the Implementation of Criminal Justice Policy in Punishment and Society Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 313–40. Cheney, D., Dickson, L., Skilbeck, R., Uglow, S. and Fitzpatrick, J. (2001) Criminal Justice and Human Rights Act, second edition. Bristol: Jordans Publishing. Clarke, B. (1996) The Question of Change in Prison Service Journal Vol. 106, pp. 30–4. Clarke, J., Gerwirtz, S., Hughes, G. and Humphrey, J. (2000) Guarding the Public Interest? Auditing Public Services, in Clarke, J., Gerwirtz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (eds) New Managerialism, New Welfare? London: Sage and Open University. References 263

Clarke, J., Gerwirtz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (2000) Reinventing the Welfare State, in Clarke, J., Gerwirtz, S. and McLaughlin, E. (eds) New Managerialism, New Welfare? London: Sage and Open University. Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (2012) The Alchemy of Austerity in Critical Social Policy Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 299–319. Clegg, S. (1994) Power Relations and the Constitution of the Resistant Subject, in Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (eds) Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge. Cockburn, C. (1988) The Gendering of Jobs: Workplace Relations and the Repro- duction of Sex Segregation, in Walby, S. (ed.) Gender Segregation at Work. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press. Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1996) Breaking the Silence: On Men, Masculinities and Managements, in Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (eds) Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements. London: Sage. Confederation of British Industry (2008) Sickies and Long-Term Absence Give Employers a Headache – CBI/AXA Survey, available at http://www.cbi.org.uk/ ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/90ab71d2f4d981da8025 744200523b87?Opendocument Corbett, S. and Walker, A. (2013) The Big Society: Rediscovery of ‘The Social’ or Rhetorical Fig Leaf for Neoliberalism? in Critical Social Policy Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 451–72. Corston, J. (2007) Corston Report: Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. London: Home Office. Coyle, A. (2002) A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: Handbook for Prison Staff. London: International Centre for Prison Studies. Coyle, A. (2005) Imprisonment: The Four Blair Principles in Prison Service Journal Vol. 161, pp. 27–32. Coyle, A. (2008) Change Management in Prisons, in Bennett, J. Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Crawley, E. (2004) Doing Prison Work: The Public and Private Lives of Prison Officers. Cullompton: Willan. Crawley, E. and Crawley, P. (2008) Understanding Prison Officers: Culture, Cohe- sion and Conflict, in Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Crawley, E. and Sparks, R. (2005) Hidden Injuries?: Researching the Experiences of Older Men in English Prisons in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 345–56. Crewe, B. (2006) Male Prisoners’ Perceptions of Female Officers in an English Prison in Punishment and Society Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 395–421. Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English Prison. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Crewe, B., Bennett, J. and Wahidin, A. (2008) Introduction, in Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Davis, H. and Martin, S. (eds) (2008) Public Services Inspection in the UK. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 264 References

Davis, K., Kingsbury, B. and Merry, S. (2012) Introduction: Global Governance by Indicators, in Davis, K., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B. and Merry, S. (eds) Governance by Indicators: Global Power Through Quantification and Rankings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deetz, S. (2000) Disciplinary Power in the Modern Corporation, in Grint, K. (ed.) Work and Society: A Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. DiIlulio, J. (1987) Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Manage- ment. New York: The Free Press. DiIlulio, J. (1991) No Escape: The Future of American Corrections. New York: Basic Books. Dodgson, K., Goodwin, P., Howard, P., Llewellyn-Thomas, S., Mortimer, E., Russell, N. and Weiner, M. (2001) Electronic Monitoring of Released Prisoners: An Evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. London: Home Office. Doogan, K. (2009) New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work. Cambridge: Polity Press. Downes, D. and Morgan, R. (1997) Dumping the ‘Hostages to Fortune’? The Pol- itics of Law and Order in Post-War Britain, in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drake, D. (2012) Prisons, Punishment and the Pursuit of Security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dunbar, I. (1985) ASenseofDirection.London: HMSO. Dworkin, R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Elliott, C. (1999) Locating the Energy for Change: A Practitioner’s Guide to Appreciative Inquiry. Winnipeg: IISD. Ericson, R. (2007) Crime in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity Press. Eriksen, T. (2001) Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, second edition. London: Pluto Books. Evans, M. and Morgan, R. (1998) Preventing Torture: A Study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Falshaw, L. (2010) Inspecting Secure Institutions, in Ireland, C. and Fisher, M. (eds) Consultancy and Advising in Forensic Practice: Empirical and Practical Guidelines. Chichester: BPS Blackwell Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications in Criminology Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 449–74. Feldman, M. (1992) Social Limits to Discretion: An Organizational Perspective, in Hawkins,K.(ed.)The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ferlie, E., Pettigrew, A., Ashburner, L. and Fitzgerald, L. (1996) The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fielding, N. (2001) Ethnography, in Gilbert, N. (ed.) Researching Social Life,second edition. London: Sage. Fineman, S. (2003) Understanding Emotion at Work. London: Sage. Fioramonti, L. (2014) How Numbers Rule the World: The Use and Abuse of Statistics in Global Politics. London: Zed Books. Flannigan, R. (2008) The Review of Policing: Final Report. London: Home Office. Foucault, M. (1973) The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Routledge. References 265

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane. Fox, A. (1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations. London: Faber. Frow, J. and Morris, M. (2000) Cultural Studies, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition. London: Sage. Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garland, D. and Sparks, R. (2000) Criminology, Social Theory, and the Challenge of Our Times, in Garland, D. and Sparks, R. (eds) Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2002) Runaway World: How Globalisation Is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile Books. Godfrey, D. (1996) The Morale of Prison Governors: Some Reflections in Prison Service Journal No. 104, pp. 12–14. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gouldner, A. (1964) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press Gouldner, A. (1973) For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gostin, L. and Staunton, M. (1985) The Case for Prisoner Standards: Conditions of Confinement, Segregation, and Medical Treatment, in Maguire, M., Vagg, J. and Morgan, R. (eds) Accountability and Prisons: Opening Up a Closed World. London: Tavistock Publications. Gronroos, C. (1984) A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications in European Journal of Marketing Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 36–44. The Guardian (2009) Met No Longer Institutionally Racist, Says Commissioner in The Guardian 24 February 2009, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ 2009/feb/24/racism-police-lawrence-met accessed on 1 December 2011. Haines, J. (2008) Independent Monitoring Boards, in Jewkes, Y. and Bennett, J. (eds) Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Hall, S. (2011) The Neo-liberal Revolution in Cultural Studies Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 705–28. Hammersley, M. (1995) The Politics of Social Research. London: Sage. Harding, R. (2005) Book Reviews: Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study in Values, Quality and Prison Life, Alison Liebling. Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology, Oxford University Press 2004 in Punishment and Society Vol. 7, pp. 222–4. Harding, R. (2006) Are Prison Inspections Effective? in Prison Service Journal Vol. 167, pp. 15–19. Hart, H. (1961) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, K. (1992) The Use of Legal Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science, in Hawkins, K. (ed.) The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Health and Safety Executive (2005) Survey of Workplace Absence Sickness and (Ill) Health, available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/sicknessabsence/swash2005.pdf accessed on 1 December 2011. Heery, E. and Salamon, J. (eds) (1999) The Insecure Workforce. London: Routledge. 266 References

Hennessy, P. (1990) The Political and Administrative Background, in Cave, M., Kogan, M. and Smith, R. (eds) Output and Performance Measurement in Government: The State of the Art. London: Jessica Kingsley. Henry, A. (2012) Situating Community Safety: Emergent Professional Identities in Community Practice in Criminology and Criminal Justice Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 413–31. HMCIP (nd) Available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/ accessed on 1 December 2011. HMCIP (2005) Parallel Worlds: A Thematic Review of Race Issues in the Prison Service. London: Home Office. HMCIP (2008) Time Out of Cell: A Short Thematic Review. London: HMCIP. HMCIP (2009a) Report of an Announced Inspection of HMP Pentonville, 11–15 May 2009. London: HMCIP. HMCIP (2009b) Report of an Announced Inspection of HMP Wandsworth 1–5 June 2009. London: HMCIP. HMCIP (2009c) The Prison Characteristics that Predict Prisons Being Assessed as Performing ‘Well’: A Thematic Review. London: HMCIP. HMCIP (2012) Expectations, fourth edition. London: HMIP, available at http: //www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/adult-expectations-2012.pdf accessed on 17 June 2013. HMCIP (2013) Annual Report 2012–13. London: The Stationary Office HMCIP (2014) Annual Report 2013–14. London: The Stationary Office HMIP (2009) Report on HMP & YOI Cornton Vale: Full Inspection 21–29 September 2009. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. HM Prison Service (1987) A Fresh Start: Bulletin No 8. London: Home Office. HM Prison Service (2001) Annual Report and Accounts: April 2000–March 2001. London: The Stationery Office. HM Prison Service (2002) Prison Service Order 8403: Management of Attendance Procedures. HM Prison Service (2003) Annual Report and Accounts April 2002–March 2003. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2004) Annual Report and Accounts April 2003–March 2004. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2005) Annual Report and Accounts April 2004–March 2005. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2006) Annual Report and Accounts April 2005–March 2006. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2007) Annual Report and Accounts April 2006–March 2007. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2008a) Annual Report and Accounts April 2007–March 2008. London: The Stationary Office. HM Prison Service (2008b) Prison Service Order 8404: Management of Attendance. HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office, Audit Commission and Office for National Statistics (2001) Choosing the Right Fabric: A Framework for Performance Information. London: HM Treasury. Hochschild, A. (1985) The Managed Heart: The Commercialisation of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hodkinson, P. (2005) ‘Insider Research’ in the Study of Youth Cultures in Journal of Youth Studies Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 131–49. References 267

Hood, C. (1991) A Public Management for All Seasons in Public Administration Vol. 69, pp. 3–19. House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee (2008) Testing and Assessment Third Report of Session 2007–08 Volume 1 HC 169-I. London: The Stationary Office. Howard, M. (1993) Speech to the Conservative Party Conference 12 October 1993. Huxley, A. (1932) Brave New World. London: Chatto and Windus. International Centre for Prison Studies (nd) World Prison Brief, available at http:// www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/ accessed on 28 November 2011. Jackson, A. (1987) Reflections on Ethnography at Home and the ASA, in Jackson, A. (ed.) Anthropology at Home. London: Tavistock Publications. Jacobs, J. (1977) Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (1994) Resistance and Power in Organi- zations: Agency, Subjectivity and the Labour Process, in Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (eds) Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge. Jewkes, Y. (2014) Prison Contraction in an Age of Expansion: Size Matters, But does ‘New’ Equal ‘Better’ on Prison Design? in Prison Service Journal Vol. 211, pp. 31–36. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1998) The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance in Harvard Business Review On Measuring Corporate Performance. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press. Kauffman, K. (1988) Prison Officers and Their World. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Keith, B. (2006) Report of the Zahid Mubarek Inquiry. London: The Stationary Office. Kennedy, P. (2010) Local Lives and Global Transformations: Towards World Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. King, R. (1991) Maximum Security Custody in Britain and the USA: A Study of Gartree and Oak Parks Heights in British Journal of Criminology Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 126–52. King, R. (2000) Doing Research in Prisons, in King, R. and Wincup, E. (eds) Doing Research on Crime and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, R. and Elliott, K. (1977) Albany: Birth of a Prison – End of an Era. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. King, R. and McDermott, K. (1995) The State of Our Prisons. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Laming, Lord of Tewin (2000) Modernising the Management of the Prison Ser- vice: An Independent Report by the Targeted Performance Initiative Working Group London: HM Prison Service. La Nuez, P. and Jermier, J. (2004) Sabotage by Managers and Technocrats: Neglected Patterns of Resistance at Work, in Jermier, J., Knights, D. and Nord, W. (eds) Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge. Launay, G. and Fielding, P. (1989) Stress Among Prison Officers: Some Empirical Evidence Based on SelfReport in Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 138–48. 268 References

Learmont, J. (1995) Review of Prison Service Security in England and Wales and the Escape from Parkhurst Prison on Tuesday 3 January 1995. London: HMSO. Levitas, R. (2012) The Just’s Umberella: Austerity and the Big Society in Coalition Policy and Beyond in Critical Social Policy Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 320–42. Lewin, K., Lippit, R. and White, R. (1939). Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates in Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 10, pp. 271–301. Lewis, D. (1997) Hidden Agendas: Politics, Law and Disorder. London: Hamish Hamilton. Liebling, A. (2005) Measuring Prisons and their Moral Performance, in O’Toole, S. and Eyland, S. (eds) Corrections Criminology. Sydney: Hawkins Press. Liebling, A. (2007) Why Prison Staff Culture Matters, in Byrne, J., Hummer, D. and Taxman, F. (eds) The Culture of Prison Violence. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Liebling, A. (2008) Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (MQPL), in Jewkes, Y. and Bennett, J. (eds) Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Liebling, A. (2011) Perrie Lecture: The Cost to Prison Legitimacy of Cuts in Prison Service Journal Vol. 198, pp. 3–11. Liebling, A. assisted by Arnold, H. (2004) Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liebling, A. and Crewe, B. (2013) Prisons Beyond the New Penology: The Shifting Moral Foundations of Prison Management, in Simon, J. and Sparks, R. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society. London: Sage. Liebling, A., Crewe, B. and Hulley, S. (2011) Values and Practices in Public and Private Sector Prisons: A Summary of Key Findings from an Evaluation in Prison Service Journal Vol. 196, pp. 55–8. Liebling, A. and Price, D. (2001) The Prison Officer. Leyhill: Prison Service Journal. Liebling, A., Price, D. and Shefer, G. (2011) The Prison Officer,secondedition. Abingdon: Willan. Liebling, A., Tait, S., Durie, L., Stiles, A. and Harvey, J. (2005) Safer Locals Evaluation in Prison Service Journal Vol. 162, pp. 8–12. Livingstone, S., Owen, T. and MacDonald (2003) Prison Law, third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lloyd, P. (2001) Review of the Boards of Visitors: A Report of the Working Group Chaired by Rt Hon Sir Peter Lloyd MP. London: Astron. Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2004) For a Historical Sociology of Crime Policy in England and Wales Since 1968 in Critical Review of International Social and Polit- ical Philosophy Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 5–32. Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2011) Public Criminology? Abingdon: Routledge. Lofgren, O. (1987) Deconstructing Swedishness: Culture and Class in Mod- ern Sweden, in Jackson, A. (ed.) Anthropology at Home. London: Tavistock Publications. Loftus, B. (2011) Police Culture in a Changing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lombardo, L. (1989) Guards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work,second edition. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing. McDermott, K. (1990) We have No Problem: The Experience of Racism in Prison in New Community Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 213–28. References 269

McDonnell, D. (2000) Managerialism, Privatisation and the Prison Scene in Criminal Justice Matters Vol. 40, pp. 13–14. McDonough, P. (2006) Habitus and the Practice of Public Sector in Work, Employment and Society Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 629–47. MacPherson, W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. London: TSO. Manning, P. (1992) ‘Big Bang’ Decision: Notes on a Naturalistic Approach, in Hawkins, K. (ed.) The Uses of Discretion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Martin, J. (1992) Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mascarenhas-Keyes, S. (1987) The Native Anthropologist: Constraints and Strate- gies in Research, in Jackson, A. (ed.) Anthropology at Home. London: Tavistock Publications. Mills, M. (2009) The Maintenance of Headway. London: Bloomsbury. Ministerial Task Force for Health, Safety and Productivity and the Cabinet Office (2004) Managing Sickness Absence in the Public Sector, available at http://www .hse.gov.uk/gse/sickness.pdf accessed on 1 December 2011. Modood, T. (2000) Race and Ethnicity Employment in Grint, K. (ed.) Work and Society: A Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. Morgan, R. (1997) Imprisonment: Current Concerns and a Brief History Since 1945 in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mulholland, I. (2014) Perrie Lecture 2013: Contraction in an Age of Expansion: An Operational Perspective in Prison Service Journal Vol. 211, pp. 14–18. Mullins, L. (2002) Management and Organisational Behaviour, sixth edition. Harlow: Pearson Education. Nathan, S. (2003) Prison Privatization in the United Kingdom, in Coyle, A., Campbell, A. and Neufeld, R. (eds) Capitalist Punishment: Prison Privatization and Human Rights. London: Zed Books. Newcomen, N. (2005) Recent Changes in the Inspection of Places of Custody in Prison Service Journal Vol. 161, pp. 49–52. Newell, T. (2005) Book Review: Prisons and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life by Alison Liebling Assisted by Helen Arnold in Prison Service Journal Vol. 158, pp. 56–7. NOMS (2008) Race Review 2008: Implementing Race Equality in Prisons Five Years on. London: Ministry of Justice. NOMS (2009) Annual Report and Accounts 08–09. London: The Stationary Office. NOMS (2012a) Annual Report and Accounts 2011–12. London: The Stationary Office. NOMS (2012b) Fair and Sustainable: Revision to Proposals for Working Structures in HM Prison Service Following the Consultation with Trade Unions. London: Ministry of Justice. NOMS (2012c) Prison Annual Performance Ratings 2011/12. London: Ministry of Justice. NOMS (2013) Prison Annual Performance Ratings 2012/13. London: Ministry of Justice NOMS (2014a) Annual Report and Accounts 2013–14. London: The Stationary Office NOMS (2014b) Business Plan 2014–15. London: National Offender Management Service 270 References

NOMS (2014c) Prison Annual Performance Ratings 2013/14. London: Ministry of Justice O’Connell Davidson, J. (1994) Resistance in a Privatized Utility, in Jermier, J., Knights,D.andNord,W.(eds)Resistance and Power in Organizations. London: Routledge. O’Malley, P. (2004) Risk, Uncertainty and Government. London: The GlassHouse Press. Ostrom, E. (2012) The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Govern- ment Regulation. London: The Institute for Economic Affairs. Owers, A. (2007) Imprisonment in the Twenty-first Century: A View from the Inspectorate, in Jewkes, Y. (ed.) Handbook on Prisons. Cullompton: Willan. Owers, A. (2009) Reforming Prisons: The Role of Inspection in Criminal Justice Matters Vol. 77, pp. 16–17. Padfield, N. and Maruna, S. (2006) The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate: Exam- ining the Dramatic Increase in Recalls to Prison in Criminology and Criminal Justice Vol. 6, pp. 329–52. Pahl, R. (1980) Playing the Rationality Game: The Sociologist as Hired Expert, in Bell, C. and Newby, H. (eds) Doing Sociological Research. London: George Allen and Unwin. Parker, J. (2000) Structuration. Buckingham: Open University Press. Parker, M. (2000) Organizational Culture and Identity. London: Sage. Parker, M. (2002) Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Paton, N. (2005) Public Sector Absenteeism is a Sick Joke, available at http://www .management-issues.co.uk/2006/8/24/research/public-sector-absenteeism-is-a - sick-joke.asp Penal Reform International (1995) Making Standards Work – An International Handbook on Good Prison Practice. London: PRI. Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies. New York: Harper and Row. Phillips, C. (2012) The Multicultural Prison: Ethnicity, Masculinity and Social Rela- tions Among Prisoners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pilkington, A. (2001) Beyond Racial Dualism: Racial Disadvantage and Ethnic Diversity in the Labour Market, in Noon, M. and Ogbonna, E. (eds) Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s? Oxford: Blackwell. Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. Powls, J. (1991) Conviction Management in Training and Development October, pp. 32–5 and November, pp. 18–23. Pratt, J. (2007) Penal Populism. Abingdon: Routledge. Pratt, J. Brown, D., Brown, M., Hallsworth, S. and Morrison, W. (eds) (2005) The New Punitiveness: Trends, Theories, Perspectives. Cullompton: Willan. Prison and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales (2011) Annual Report 2010–11. London: Prison and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales Prison Service Pay Review Body (2014) Thirteenth Report on England and Wales 2014. London: The Stationary Office. References 271

Pugh, D. and Hickson, D. (eds) (1996) Writers on Organisations, fifth edition. London: Penguin. Purcell, J. and Ahistrand, B. (1994) Human Resource Management in the Multi- divisional Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raine, J. (2008) Inspection and the Criminal Justice Agencies, in Davis, H. and Martin, S. (eds) Public Services Inspection in the UK. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Ramsbotham, D. (2003) Prisongate: The Shocking State of Britain’s Prisons and the Need for Visionary Change. London: The Free Press. Reiner, R. (1991) Chief Constables: Bobbies, Bosses, or Bureaucrats? Oxford: Oxford University Press Riveland, C. (1999) Prison Management Trends, 1975–2025, in Tonry, M. and Petersilia, J. (eds) Prisons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rose, N. (1999) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, second edition. London: Free Association Books. Ross, R. (2008) Clothing: A Global History. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rothstein, H., Huber, M. and Gaskell, G. (2006) A Theory of Risk Colonization: The Spiralling Regulatory Logics of Societal and Institutional Risk in Economy and Society Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 91–112. Rubery, J. and Rafferty, A. (2013) Women and Recession Revisited in Work, Employment and Society Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 414–32. Rutherford, A. (1993a) Criminal Justice and the Pursuit of Decency. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rutherford, A. (1993b) Penal Policy and Prison Management in Prison Service Journal, No. 90, pp. 26–9. Ryan, M. (1993) Penal Policy and Political Culture in England and Wales: Four Essays on Policy and Process. Winchester: Waterside Press. Sarsby, J. (1984) Special Problems of Fieldwork in Familiar Settings, in Allen, R. (ed.) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. London: Academic Press. Schaufeli, W. and Peeters, M. (2000) Job Stress and Burnout Among Correctional Officers: A Literature Review in International Journal of Stress Management Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 19–48. Schein, E. (1988) Organizational Psychology, third edition Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Scott, D. (2008) Creating Ghosts in the Penal Machine: Prison Officer Occupa- tional Morality and the Techniques of Denial, in Bennett, J. Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Scott, J. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, J. (2001) Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character: Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton. Sennett, R. (2004) The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sennett, R. (2009) The Craftsman. London: Penguin. Sennett, R. and Cobb, J. (1972) The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Norton and Co. 272 References

Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2000) Coercive Accountability: The Rise of Audit Culture in Higher Education, in Strathern, M. (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge. Sim, J. (2009) Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State. London: Sage. Skolnick, J. (1966) Justice without Trial. New York: Wiley. Smith, V. (2001) Ethnographies of Work and the Work of Ethnographers, in Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage. Smith, P. and Goddard, M. (2002) Performance Management and Operational Research: A Marriage Made in Heaven? in Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 247–55. Smith, C. and Wincup, E. (2000) Breaking in: Researching Criminal Justice Insti- tutions for Women, in King, R. and Wincup, E. (eds) Doing Research on Crime and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Society Guardian (2007) NHS Rationing has Caused Patient Deaths, Doctors Claim. Society Guardian, September 25th 2007, available at http://www.guardian.co .uk/society/2007/sep/25/health Souhami, A. (2007) Transforming Youth Justice: Occupational Identity and Cultural Change. Cullompton: Willan. Spalek, B. (2008) Communities, Identities and Crime. Bristol: The Policy Press. Sparks, R. (2002) Out of the ‘Digger’: The Warrior’s Code and the Guilty Observer in Ethnography Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 556–81. Sparks, R. (2003) States of Insecurity: Punishment, Populism and Contemporary Political Culture, in McConville, S. (ed.) The Use of Punishment. Cullompton: Willan. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. and Hay, W. (1996) Prisons and the Problem of Order. Oxford: Clarendon Press Spence, C. and Carter, C. (2014) An Exploration of the Professional Habitus in the Big 4 Accounting Firms in Work, Employment and Society Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 946–62. Spurr, M. (2011) Perrie Lecture: Reducing Costs and Maintaining Values in Prison Service Journal Vol. 198, pp. 12–16. Spurr, M. and Bennett, J. (2008) The Interview: Michael Spurr in Prison Service Journal Vol. 177, pp. 54–61. Stanko, E. (1988) Keeping Women In and Out of Line: Sexual Harassment and Occupational Segregation, in Walby, S. (ed.) Gender Segregation at Work. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Stevens, A. (2013) Offender Rehabilitation and Therapeutic Communities: Enabling Change the TC Way. Abingdon: Routledge. Stohr, M. and Collins, P. (2014) Criminal Justice Management: Theory and Practice in Justice-centred Organizations, second edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Strathern, M. (1987) The Limits of Auto-anthropology, in Jackson, A. (ed.) Anthropology at Home. London: Tavistock Publications. Sykes, G. (1958) The Society of Captives. Princeton: University Press. Tait, S. (2008) Prison Officers and Gender, in Bennett, J. Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (eds) Understanding Prison Staff. Cullompton: Willan. Turner, T. and Morley, M. (1995) Industrial Relations and the New Order: Case Studies in Conflict and Co-operation. Dublin: Oak Tree. References 273

Turner, V. (1969) Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Vagg, J. (1985) Independent Inspection: The Role of the Boards of Visitors, in Maguire, M., Vagg, J. and Morgan, R. (eds) Accountability and Prisons: Opening Up a Closed World. London: Tavistock Publications. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2005) Reviews: Prisons and their Moral Performance. By Alison Liebling Assisted by Helen Arnold (Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology, Oxford University Press 2004) in British Journal of Criminology Vol. 45, pp. 765–7. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2010) Regulation of Prison Conditionsin Crime and Justice Vol. 39, pp. 503–63 Wacquant, L. (2002) The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnography in the Age of Mass Incarceration in Ethnography Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 371–97. Waddington, P. (1999) Police (Canteen) Sub-culture: An Appreciation in British Journal of Criminology Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 287–309. Wagstaffe, S. (2002) There is Measure in All Things in Prison Service Journal Vol. 141, pp. 2–4. Wajcman, J. (2000) It’s Hard to Be Soft: Is Management Style Gendered?, in Grint, K. (ed.) Work and Society: A Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. Watson, T. (2001) The Emergent Manager and the Processes of Management Pre- learning in Management Learning Vol. 32, pp. 221–35. Watson, T. (2003) Sociology, Work and Industry, fourth edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Weber, M. (1914/1978) Economy and Society: An Outline Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press. Wenger, E. (2008) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westmarland, L. (2001) Gender and Policing: Sex, Power and Police Culture. Cullompton: Willan. Wheatley, P. (2005) Managerialism in the Prison Service in Prison Service Journal No. 161, pp. 33–4. Whitty, N. (2011) Human Rights at Risk: UK Prisons and the Management of Risk and Rights in Punishment and Society Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 123–48. Whyte, D. (2000) Researching the Powerful: Towards a Political Economy of Method, in King, R. and Wincup, E. (eds) Doing Research on Crime and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, D. (1995) Against the Culture of Management in Prison Service Journal, No. 98, pp. 7–9. Wilson, D. (2000) Whatever Happened to “The Governor” in Criminal Justice Matters No.40, pp. 11–12. Wilson, D. (2005) Review of Prisons and their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life by A. Liebling Assisted by H. Arnold, and The future of Imprisonment by M. Tonry (ed.) in The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 229–31. Wolcott, H. (2005) The Art of Fieldwork, second edition. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Woodcock, J. (1994) Report of an Inquiry into the Escape of Six Prisoners from the Special Secure Unit at Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire on Friday 9 September 1994. HMSO: London 274 References

Woolf, H. and Tumim, S. (1991) Prison Disturbances April 1990: Report of an Inquiry. London: HMSO Wright, K. (1994) Effective Prison Leadership. Binghamton, NY: William Neil Publishing. Wright, P. (2012) Rethinking Prisons and the Community in Prison Service Journal Vol. 204, pp. 35–41. Young, M. (1991) An Inside Job: Policing and Police Culture in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Index

accountability, 19, 23, 26, 27, 56, 73, and agency, 33, 88, 149, 211, 214, 77, 78, 86, 87, 96, 101, 102, 106, 230, 231 107–8, 109, 110, 111, 120, 152, legitimation, 95, 127, 133, 134, 149, 164, 205, 208, 211, 222, 223, 256, 158, 159, 161, 225, 226 adaptation, 30, 33, 45, 47, 57, 70, 163, links with power, 155, 156, 173–4, 183, 203, 211, 216 157, 163 adjudications, 65, 135–7, 141, 237, managing appearances, 32, 97, 155 243 as a means of managing risk, 27, 85, area manager, 72–3, 91–5, 152, 158, 86, 222 257 as progressive reform, 86, 129, 130, audits, 8, 26, 63, 66, 72–3, 84–90, 95, 208, 209, 214 98, 110, 151, 160, 175, 211, 222 as a value, 26, 160 austerity, 17, 218–21, 224, 238, 240 conﬂict, 16, 19–20, 21, 34, 35, 36, 41, 50, 51, 57, 70, 124, 128, 130, 132, banter, 20, 135, 168, 170, 172, 174, 144, 147, 150, 169, 203, 209, 178, 244 214, 245 benchmarking, 219, 224, 229 Conservative Party, 4 Bourdieu, Pierre, 20, 34, 70, 96, 124, corporate citizens, 7, 28, 123, 203, 162 235 Bryans, Shane, 18, 21, 22, 23–4, 26, craft, 15, 22, 26, 45, 57, 71, 27, 31, 34, 53, 90, 91, 122, 123, 94, 147, 207, 210, 214, 125, 131, 162, 163, 164, 168, 202, 231, 233 206, 210, 213, 245, 251 Crawley, Elaine, 18, 19–21, 33, 35, 39, 45, 47, 49, 57, 65, 70, 124, 138, Carlen, Pat, 10, 21, 28, 31–2, 82, 83, 148, 166, 167–8, 169, 170, 97, 114, 155, 164, 211, 213 171, 243 Carter, Baron of Coles, 8, 9, 258 Crewe, Ben, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 25, 27, change management, 113, 218, 223–7, 30, 31, 53, 148, 164, 168, 208, 257 238–9, 243, 252, 253 chaplain, 142, 196 custodial manager, 231–3, 256 Cheliotis, Leonidas, 10, 27–8, 32–3, 35, 64, 81, 122, 140, 148–9, 162, decency, 66, 74, 109, 112, 113, 114, 213, 239 126, 129, 143, 145, 160, 163, 209, Coalition Government, 218, 219 211, 221 competition, 3, 8–9, 11, 18, 25, 26, 28, denial, 68, 79, 177, 179–82, 183 58, 61–4, 68, 82, 83, 96, 175, discipline, 41, 141, 148, 246 219–20, 221, 227, 229–30, 231 discretion, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, compliance, 80, 84, 90, 92, 93, 94, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 54, 66, 78, 88, 108, 109, 110, 149, 164, 181, 196, 90, 124, 133, 138–47, 162, 163, 230, 231 188, 208, 211, 239

275 276 Index economic rationality, 35, 239 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), emotion, 3, 20, 29, 53, 59, 66, 69, 94, 31, 73, 100, 106–12, 151, 178, 127, 141, 167, 169, 170, 171, 178, 199, 213, 220–1, 222 190, 196, 203, 224, 225, 239, 240 hub manager, 257 emotional labour, 171, 227, 233–5 human resources (HR), 25, 169, 181, escape, 6, 27, 62, 74, 85 196, 200, 212–3, 217, 257 ethnicity, 35, 166, 167, 176–84, 201, human services, 21–2, 127, 209 204, 258 humanity, 23, 68, 109, 113, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 140, 142, 143, 147, fair and Sustainable, 220, 224, 225, 149, 155, 160, 161, 162, 191 231, 256 humour, 20, 62, 134, 135, 149, 150 Feeley, Michael and Simon, Jonathon, 7. 9, 25, 32, 66, 209 identity, 57, 85, 90, 165, 202, 203, Foucault, Michel, 94, 96, 156 232, 238, 239 inequality and, 166, 169, 171, 173, 176, 181, 183 gaming, 82, 89, 97, 128, 155, 211 late modernity and, 114 Garland, David, 2, 3–4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 25, managerialism and, 11, 17, 35, 37, 130, 239, 258 48, 50, 53, 66, 76, 79, 90, 96–7, gender, 17, 35, 37, 46, 135, 154, 167, 127, 157, 164, 205 168–76, 180, 183, 184, 201, 204 non-operational managers, 197, Giddens, Anthony, 10, 12, 13–14, 18, 199, 200 29–30, 36, 98, 120, 124, 131, 155, occupational culture and, 40, 42, 156, 162, 165, 204, 245, 258 45, 65, 69, 206 globalisation, 2, 11, 12–16, 18, 24–9, prisoners, 115, 120 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 50, 64, 69, 71, research and, 243, 244–9, 251, 253 72, 75, 96, 98, 100, 120–1, 148, resistance, 148, 150 165, 202, 203–7, 216, 227, 239, imaginary penality, 97, 155 240 incentives and earned privileges (IEP), governing the soul, 27–8, 123, 154 6, 145, 157, 236, 237, 259 governor, 9, 102, 105, 111, 113, 143, Independent monitoring boards 158, 169, 205, 246, 248, 251, 253, (IMB), 73, 100–6, 120, 213 254, 256–7 insecurity, 2, 5, 10–11, 14, 85, 205, impact of managerialism, 26, 76, 92, 206, 227–30, 231 109, 131, 151, 187, 199, 208 individuality, 122–3, 125, 135–7, Kennedy, Paul, 2, 11, 12, 14, 36, 69, 210 120, 124, 204, 240 loyalties, 59–60 key performance targets (KPT), 8, 66, research on, 22–3, 30, 31–2, 202 72–3, 74–84, 92, 95, 98, 107, 110, 115, 160, 181, 187, 199, 200, 222, 223, 258 habitus, 20, 48, 96, 97, 124, 127, 132, King, Roy, 8, 25, 30, 243, 250 163, 165, 201, 205, 206, 207, 230, 235, 238, 239 late modernity, 2–4, 5, 10–16, 18, 38, Head of Learning and Skills, 196–200, 70, 71, 72, 202, 204, 258 256–7 legitimacy, 7, 8, 22, 25–7, 88, 111, hidden injuries, 166–8, 200, 201 113, 133, 136, 137, 139, 158, 161, hierarchy, 35, 67, 76, 77, 152, 156, 217, 237, 238–41 158, 217, 248 Lewis, Derek, 8, 74, 85, 91, 101 Index 277

Liebling, Alison, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18, new capitalism, 10–12, 166–7, 218, 19–21, 22, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 227–38 57, 65, 79, 91, 110, 113–19, 124, New Labour, 4, 6, 8, 10, 112, 221 126, 129, 133, 135, 138, 139, 162, New public management (NPM), 8, 168, 208, 209, 213, 238–9, 243 18, 22, 23, 72, 74, 96, 215, 216 loyalties, 57, 58–60, 65, 143, 152, 156, non-operational managers, 17, 37, 59, 167, 235, 253 60, 158, 161, 167, 196–200 machismo, 20, 49, 132, 133, 172, 176, offender management, 7, 9, 196, 256, 190, 196 258 management at a distance, 8, 26, 28, offending behaviour programmes, 66, 96, 123, 210, 223, 227 76, 82, 199, 257 managerialism, 3, 7–10, 23, 24–9, O’Malley, Pat, 8, 26, 28, 96, 98, 123, 31–5, 35–8, 47–8, 53, 58, 61, 74, 210, 223 84 organisational culture, 30, 33–5, 48, austerity and managerialism, 221–3, 50, 74, 128, 147, 207, 215, 238, 238–41 240, 247 effect on equality, 167, 175–6, 200–1 effect on non-operational managers, Parker, Martin, 7, 11, 33, 34–5, 200 49, 123, 131, 207, 221, effect on prisoners, 66–8 243, 255 effect on professional identity, performance rating, 62, 100, 222 122–65 power, 1, 17, 20, 27, 30, 37, 47, impact of MQPL, 115 65, 68, 70, 97, 98, 123, 132, 137, impact on management of staff 143, 144, 145, 162–5, absenteeism, 196–7 188, 213, 215 interaction with local culture, 56–7, as agency, 124, 155–62 68–71, 95–9, 120, 201–7 ethnicity and, 177 potential and limitations of gender and, 2, 171, 174, 175, 176 managerialism, 207–12 inequality and, 3, 11, 28, 130, Martin, Joanne, 33–5, 49 166–7, 201, 203, 204, 210, 212, masculinity, 20, 46, 51, 52, 53, 57, 61, 243 68, 124, 135, 155, 176, 201, 203, performance measurement as an 204, 239 instrument of, 75, 76, 90, 91, measuring the quality of prison life 95, 102, 111, 120, 197, 199, (MQPL), 10, 73, 100, 112–19, 120, 221, 223, 227 222, 223 research and, 242, 245, 247, 249–52 micro-actors, 14, 36, 69, 70, 124, 132, resistance to, 147–55 165, 202, 240 ‘soft’ power, 6, 131, 217 Mubarek, Zahib, 27, 89, 177 Power, Michael, 84, 88, 89, 90 principal officer, 59, 65, 168–9, 230–3, Narey, Martin, 78–9, 208 253, 256 National Offender Management Prison Officers Association, 59, 253 Service (NOMS), 26, 112, 178, prison officer culture, 18, 19–21, 22, 183, 213, 219–20, 221, 222, 229, 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39, 44–5, 239 47, 49–71, 124, 132, 190, 196, neoliberalism, 2, 3, 5, 72, 100, 219, 200, 202, 203–7, 208 220, 221, 227, 238 private prisons, 8, 25, 62, 229 278 Index private sector, 9, 25, 96, 184, 188, 213, Sennett, Richard, 10–11, 26, 69, 219, 220, 221 166–8, 205, 214, 218, 227, 230–1 professionalism, 32, 43, 127–8, 132, sick absence, 17, 184–96 190, 195 socialisation, 39, 45–7 psychology, 106, 114, 161, 196, 197, Souhami, Anna, 33, 215 200, 256, 257 Sparks, Richard, 2, 3, 5, 25, 30, 122, punitiveness, 3, 4–7, 23, 125, 130, 126, 133, 139, 166, 168, 212, 242, 142, 147, 196 243, 250, 251 Spurr, Michael, 8, 27, 78, 85, 213–14, race, 37, 82, 84, 89, 110, 176–7, 178, 239 209, 258 staff-manager relationships, 50–65, reducing reoffending, 9, 66, 160, 163, 127–8, 132–8, 153–4, 161, 239 197, 209, 256, 258 staff-prisoner relationships, 19–20, resistance, 1, 80, 164, 184, 194, 196, 65–8, 114, 133, 203 231, 233, 239, 248 structuration, 13, 18, 30, 32, 36, 131 as agency, 17, 32–3, 37, 124, 140, supervisory officer, 230–3, 256 147–55, 163 ethnicity and experiences of, 178, teamwork, 41, 57–65, 69, 87, 152, 160 182–3, 201 TITAN prisons, 214 experienced by female managers, training, 50, 133, 169, 172, 213, 224, 168, 172, 174, 176, 201 226, 257 to managerialism, 26, 89, 178, 109, trust, 5, 58, 63, 64, 69, 103, 110, 113, 120, 167, 214 114, 117, 157, 159, 167, 172, 198, managing and reducing, 57, 69, 250, 252 138, 203, 225, 226 non-operational managers uncertainty, 9, 11, 48, 69, 70, 78, 110, experience of, 198, 199 120, 138–9, 165, 185, 188, 189, risk, 7, 10, 27, 59, 65, 66, 74, 84, 85, 193, 196, 206, 207, 223, 224, 87, 98, 100, 104, 106, 108, 120, 227–30, 240, 250 126, 133, 143, 160–1, 170, 171, 181, 209, 218, 220, 222, 227, 250, 252, 253–4 values, 10, 22–3, 24, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, Rose, Nikolas, 28, 50, 123, 154 40, 41, 124, 134, 137, 142, 143, rules, 30, 33, 37, 84, 104, 122, 124, 147, 154, 155, 159–60, 183, 205, 126, 127, 129, 131, 137, 138–47, 206, 212–17, 239, 240–1, 247, 250 148, 149, 152, 153, 155, 156, 163, as agency, 10, 13, 125–32, 145, 164, 185, 188, 243, 253 162–5 Rutherford, Andrew, 22–3, 30–1, 34, humanity, 7, 102, 162 53, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 162, managerialism, 23, 33, 50, 62, 75, 163, 164, 204, 205, 210, 213 77, 83, 88, 89, 114, 146, 209, 210 security, 3, 6, 8, 32, 45, 74, 84, 85, 87, prison officer culture, 20, 21, 44–5, 93, 94, 103, 111, 114, 119, 126, 60, 67–8, 103 127, 130–1, 132, 133, 140, 142, punitiveness, 22–3, 146 143, 153, 160, 169, 171, 190, 220, Virtual prison, 28, 97, 109 222, 231, 236, 244, 256 Visible management, 23, 51–2, 60, 61 senior officer, 43, 58–9, 65, 76, 141–2, 145–6, 161, 168–9, 195, 202, 231, Weighted scorecard, 62, 74, 75, 82, 83, 248, 256 92, 187, 200, 222 Index 279

Wheatley, Phil, 8, 27, 78, 85, 91, 112, Women managers, 168–76 129, 208, 210 Woolf Report, 6, 214 Wilson, David, 9, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, Working personality, 20, 34, 39, 47, 31, 34, 91, 114, 123, 163, 70, 124, 132, 163, 164, 165, 190, 207, 210 205, 206