Making Prisons Safe

Dr Kimmett Edgar May, 2014

There were nearly 11,000 recorded assaults by prisoners on other prisoners in 2013; between 2010 and 2013, serious assaults increased by 14% (Prison Reform Trust, 2014). Prison managers have a serious commitment to ensuring that prisons are safe. I firmly believe that prisons can be safer, and I hope this paper provides some ideas about how to achieve that.

Most prisoners feel safe most of the time. No one is violent all of the time. And every day, prison officers prevent dozens, perhaps hundreds of fights and assaults. They observe signs of trouble and know when and how to intervene.

However, violence reduction strategies and staff interventions are hampered by a lack of information about the circumstances that lead to violence. Much of what is known about prison violence is gleaned from officers who respond after violence has erupted.

I will say more about how we did our research in a moment, but our interviews with officers demonstrated that in two- thirds of the incidents they responded to, they did not have

a good grasp of what led to the fight or assault. Less than one in five said that they had any security intelligence that could have helped them to predict that it would happen. Only three per cent felt that there had been anything they could have done to prevent it.

The premise for a conflict-based strategy to reduce violence is that violent incidents can be studied as the culmination of conflicts between prisoners. Knowing how and why conflicts escalate into violence is an essential foundation for preventing fights and assaults.

Central questions explored by conflict-centred strategies are: How do prisoners handle it when trouble arises with another prisoner? What factors determine whether a dispute is resolved or results in a fight? What skills do prisoners use when in disputes; and how likely are those tactics to resolve the situation or drive it towards a fight or assault? Why do prisoners decide to use force?

Research

Research conducted by Edgar, O’Donnell and Martin at the University of Oxford Centre for Criminology gathered data on violent incidents in prisons in England and Wales (Edgar, et al. 2003).

Prisoners who were directly involved in a fight or assault clearly have a privileged perspective. They were personally involved in the problem that led up to the violence. The knowledge they had about the incident is indispensable to an explanation of why it occurred – and, hence how it might have been prevented.

The Escalator: a diagram of conflict

We began by asking the prisoner to describe the problem with the other person from the first sign of trouble, in a sequence of steps. She went Susan in, all They were happy. I intimidating punched I then heard on them talking her in the association, face, just They asked, about so I said to once. ‘Are you assaulting me, the leader, frightened so I prepared ‘Come into I came in the to show you for a the toilets prison and have drugs?’ confrontation. with me’. was I said, confronted ‘Nothing by three frightens me.’ Q What did you hope to achieve? women who demanded It wasn’t pre-meditated, but I knew I drugs. had to take action. No way you can run to the officers.

Through questions about the options available at points along the way, the escalator presented the possibility that the violence could have been averted. Indeed, some of the disputes presented behaviour that opened up possibilities for a peaceful resolution.

Conflict Resulting in Violence

Conflicts are Situations in which there are competing interests which the parties pursue in uncompromising ways.

Analysing the incident as a conflict means looking at the parties involved, the clash of interests between them, the tactics they used to achieve their goals, the relationship between them – before, during and after the conflict – and the social environment in which the conflict developed.

How people handle disputes can aggravate the situation and make it more likely that one or both would resort to physical force. Such tactics include verbal abuse, threats, and hostile gestures.

Interests are what the person wants out of the situation, which might relate to an object, such as a newspaper, or values, such as loyalty.

The social context refers to policies and conditions that generate conflicts. For example, a wing might tolerate one of the phones being out of action. But combine that with two or three nights of association being cancelled, and the atmosphere will be very tense: violent conflicts are far more likely to arise.

The conflict pyramid

tactics interests relationships

interpretations

purposes of force

social context

These diverse elements - relationships, interests, tactics, and the social context - can be illustrated by following the course of one dispute.

I laugh and Ballard's account walk away. When I come Jenkins hits me out for in the back of breakfast, go to the head. I turn the servery. Jenkins shouts round and we Jenkins is in ‘No!’ still start rucking. front of the I ask the staring at me. I servery, looking servery lad, say, ‘I ain’t no for trouble. ‘Could you dickhead.’ I

change this for walk away. me please, bro?’ He just I'm in the Q. Why did you think he was staring stares. I look food queue. I at you? for a reply. get a smashed ice A. He was trying to intimidate or cream. frighten me.’

Jenkins’ account I start to walk away, I say, “Why but then I In the are you turned and morning, I running off hit him. am on the your Officers I say no; the hot plate. mouth?” He come in and officer says no. Ballard is mouthy break it up. comes in and The new guy back. says to the gives me a I'm on the other servery dirty look. Q. Why did Ballard say this to the servery. A worker, “Tell other worker? new guy that boy to do

demands a as I tell him.” A. He was trying to put me down, different ice like he was higher than me. lolly.

The stares, accusations and challenges show how poor conflict resolution skills escalated this dispute. Banter is commonplace, but in disputes, verbal abuse is used to belittle an opponent and win a war of words.

Another narrative shows how people with learning disabilities can be at a disadvantage in disputes. Shawn scalded Phil with boiled water. When I interviewed them, an officer said Shawn had a learning disability. Shawn explained that he loaned Phil some tobacco. The first time, it was a gift. The fourth time, Shawn said he wanted to be repaid and Phil agreed. When Phil got paid, Shawn asked for a smoke, but Phil offered him a chocolate bar. Shawn persisted about their agreement, but when Phil turned his back and walked away Shawn threw the water. Although Phil’s interview does not suggest any wrongdoing towards Shawn, it is likely that Phil was taking advantage and exploiting Shawn.

I am not suggesting that people with learning disabilities are inherently poor at resolving conflict. They might have a good understanding of how to resolve a dispute, but be unable to

explain the solution. However they might find it difficult to process information or believe they have very few options, and this can have an effect on how they respond to conflict.

No One Knows, a study by Jenny Talbot at the Prison Reform Trust, defined learning disability as:

 A significantly reduced ability to understand complex information or learn new skills (impaired intelligence)  A reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning)  A condition which started before adulthood . . . and has a lasting effect

Learning disabilities

Limited language ability, comprehension and communication skills: – Difficulty understanding certain words – Difficulty understanding and responding to questions – Difficulty reading body language and following social cues

Limited memory capacity: – Difficulty recalling information – Take longer to process information – Difficulty ordering and sequencing

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

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

If undetected, they are often left to manage conflicts alone. Even when they are involved in an incident, their disability may not come to light. No One Knows found that people 7

with learning disabilities and difficulties were five times more likely to say they had been subject to control and restraint. Prisoners with learning disabilities who are not helped when they complain about being victimised find other ways of coping, which include staying in their cells – at greater risk of self harm – or lashing out. Shawn’s story illustrates the complexity of the links to violent incidents as he filled both victim and perpetrator roles.

Lessons from conflict

What lessons can we gain from conflict to help prisons prevent violence? Three important themes arise.

 The high risk of being victimised exacerbates prison conflicts  Tactics used in prison disputes tend to escalate rather than resolve conflicts  Anti-social behaviour, such as threats or accusations, was often reciprocal

The first theme is that the high risk of being victimised - for example through theft or exploitation - exacerbates conflicts in prison, creating conditions in which prisoners might be led to use force.

Cycle One – an eye for an eye The risk of assault is increased by the belief that being wronged or exploited requires physical retaliation.

Actual risks of being cheated, exploited, or Material defrauded deprivations increase the Prisoners react to urgency to perceived wrongs defend property with violence Theft, fraud, Norm: wrong- bad debts are doing merits seen as signs physical of disrespect punishment

When officers ensure the safety of all prisoners from victimisation, they are preventing conflicts which might otherwise result in assaults or fights. When exploitation is not confronted by staff, there is an incentive to prisoners to protect their interests with force.

The second theme is that the tactics prisoners use tend to escalate rather than resolve the conflict. For example, challenges are common, such as ‘Who are you looking at?’ or ‘What do you think you’re doing?’

In 46% of the incidents, prior to the fights or assault, one or both had accused or threatened the other; verbal challenges were used in 42%; invasions of personal space, insults or commands in about a third. Appearing in combination, these

behaviours become reliable predictors that physical violence is imminent.

The risk of being assaulted escalates disputes. Our studies found that 89 per cent of prisoners believed that violence in prison was inevitable. When threats of violence are made credible by a high risk of assault, each party to a dispute believes that the other could use force and it becomes harder to resolve a conflict.

Cycle Two – force begets force Prisoners' responses to their fears for physical safety increase the likelihood that violence will result.

actual risk of assault: rates vary across prisons perceived need feelings of to demonstrate intimidation, toughness by psychological using force to preparation for deter others violent self-defence

defensive reactions: hostility, deception, suspicion, challenges, accusations

The third theme is that anti-social behaviour was often reciprocal. This aspect of prison violence should inform our approach to ‘victims’.

The role of victim

The concepts victim and perpetrator imply unilateral responsibility: the perpetrator causes the problem; the victim plays a passive role. Violent incidents such as robbery and punishment beatings tend to follow this pattern. We found very little overlap between victims and perpetrators of robbery. People who robbed others were very unlikely to be robbed. The same applied to cell theft.

However, there was a significant overlap between victims and perpetrators of assault, insults and threats. People who threatened others tended to have been threatened.

The conflicts study showed the prevalence of reciprocal harm in conflicts that led to violence: 78% described mutual victimisation prior to the use of force 31% described mutual insults 41% described mutual threats

The type of population influenced the likelihood of mutual harm. Reciprocal threats prior to the fight or assault were described by 45% in the young offender institution 50% in the local prison 36% in the women’s prison 23% in the high secure prison

In the 1950s, Marvin Wolfgang investigated 588 homicides in Philadelphia. In a quarter of the murders, the victim was the first to use force or produce a weapon. If we focus on victims, then precipitation appears to be totally irrational. Why would someone kick off a series of events in which they are

killed? The answer is not to analyse the personality traits of victims. Rather, the logical explanation is that in these situations, it is not clear in advance who will be the victim and who, the perpetrator.

That is a good foundation for understanding the role of victims of assaults. To be clear: no one deserves to be assaulted. That someone on the receiving end of harmful behaviour is a victim isn’t hard to grasp. What might be difficult is that in a majority of violent incidents in prison, both parties are victims and perpetrators.

When there is reciprocal victimisation, or when officers do not have enough information to judge which person is at fault, they will be most effective if they are even-handed in confronting the aggressive tactics that they can observe: threats, verbal abuse, ultimatums and accusations. In other words, to prevent violence arising from disputes, officers should be focusing on behaviour, not individuals.

The conflict-centred analysis shows that:

Risk is dynamic - Lifestyle can expose someone to higher risks of being assaulted - Skills at managing conflict provide options that reduce the risk of becoming violent - Having no previous experience of violence does not mean the person will never become violent

Risk is influenced by the situation - The victimisation that causes disputes to escalate into violence is – often – reciprocal - Fear of being dominated by a particular opponent exacerbates disputes - Tactics such as accusations, threats and ultimatums narrow the parties’ options, restricting opportunities for resolution - Suspicions that the other intends to take advantage, or use force, give ‘permission’ to resort to injurious force

Risk is social - Escalation can be influenced by others, e.g., spurred on by other prisoners, interrupted (temporarily or finally) by an officer, and restrained by incentives - A setting where violence is prevalent gives ‘permission’ to prepare to use force - Alliances can transfer conflict to other parties - A victim in one setting can become an aggressor in another - The ethos of prisons is more or less tolerant of violence (e.g., staff view fights as inevitable or preventable; other prisoners justify, condone, or condemn injurious force)

Functions of Violence

Why do people decide to use violence? What were fights and assaults about? What motivated those who used force?

Drugs were involved in just over one in ten incidents (slightly higher among women prisoners).

Bullying, in the sense of one prisoner abusing his or her power over another to exploit them, was not a common

factor leading up to fights. Fewer than one in six had anything at all to do with bullying, and less than five per cent were between a bully and their victim.

A third of fights/assaults were punishment beatings, for example, on a suspected cell thief or an informant. Barry and Will, below, is typical.

Will Barry Someone I know outside comes to this jail and Will and me both get transferred from [HMP]. starts to spread rumours. We get on ok together.

Barry – he’s the one who set it up – he’s got a I’m on A wing and someone I know is on B big mouth. He took this story up. He’s the A wing. He told me he had a newspaper cutting wing bully. I offered him in the showers and he about the case. He passed me the cutting on wouldn’t. exercise and I decided he needed to be sorted out. The next day on exercise, me and the lads Saturday morning I go to the gym as usual – I from B wing gave him a beating. was even in the shower with Barry. I went out on exercise – it felt strange. Five minutes He went to a screw and got taken to before the end of exercise one bloke goes off healthcare. He came back on the wing – he the yard and goes to the toilet. Staff wait in the was going to stand his ground. My mate was corridor for him to come out. going to jug him and the screws knew about it so they moved him down the block on Barry calls me over – I had a feeling it would go protection. off. Another bloke hit me from behind – I went down and they started beating me. One was jumping on me and one was kicking me – I managed to pull myself up and I was going to hit one of them, but I noticed the blood so I went to the screws. I was numb. There was pain to start with but then it just went numb.

I was taken to healthcare. When I came back I was kicking off about the screws not being in the yard. The SO questioned me but I wouldn’t say who it was. They can’t take action if I won’t proceed. I think they have an idea who it was.

Intentions and Consequences: Will Intentions and Consequences: Barry What were you trying to achieve? At what point do you think the situation Nothing really – straightforward punishment. actually became violent? In the yard. At what point do you think the situation actually became violent? At what point could you have done something I don’t think it was violent. that might have prevented the violence? Could he have done something to prevent it? Couldn’t have prevented it. I knew I was going to If he’d told us straight away what he’d done it get a kicking. It was either take a PP9 [battery] would have been ok. He lied as well. out on the yard or take a kicking and I want to get my bird over as quickly as possible. At what point do you think violence had to happen? When I got the newspaper cutting.

In about a quarter of incidents, prisoners used violence to project a tough image to others, not involved in the dispute. Darren slapped Ben at kit change because he feared that Ben would humiliate him in front of others.

Darren Ben I come down to kit change and asked for two I’m doing kit change with Johnny. An inmate towels because I’d left one in the shower the comes up who I don’t know and asks for an day before. Bloke on kit change says no, only extra towel. one towel, one for one. I explain that the officer said ok, you can have one, but kit He and Johnny have an argument about the change still argues. towel. I’m handing out the clean kit and I intervened on Johnny’s behalf. I asked the He then threw the towel over and the other officer if he could have another one and he said kit change bloke leans over towards me – I no. knew he was going to say something – swear or something. I leaned forward to tell the inmate to bugger off and as I did he slapped me and took me I don’t know where it came from but I just completely by surprise. Then he ran off and the smacked him on the side of the face with my officer ran after him and grabbed him and took open hand. That’s not like me and I was surprised that I did it. him down the block.

The officer told me to go back to my cell.

Intentions and consequences: Darren Intentions and consequences: Ben

What did you expect the kit change guy to do What do you think he wanted to achieve by when he leaned forward? slapping you? I was intimidated by the way he leant towards me Nothing. It got him nicked. Maybe the way Johnny – I knew he was going to say something smart – it talked to him wound him up. was nerves, too. It happened so quick. What might you have done to prevent the What were you trying to stop by slapping him? slap? Being a big man and embarrassing me. I didn’t Give him another towel. want him to put me down. I don’t like that. You can’t allow it in here – you really can’t. It causes bullying and everything.

In a quarter of incidents, prisoners used force when faced with an imminent threat to their safety. Fitzpatrick said that he used force to restrain Gibson, who had attacked him.

Fitzpatrick Gibson I was in my cell, ten at night. I shouted out to a Every night he was making noise by ways of mate for a magazine. Someone shouted out shouting out the window, or music playing loud ‘Get your head down, nigger.’ until midnight gone. I shouted out on the Sunday night, ‘Shut up, you dickhead.’ I shouted out, ‘Do you know who you’re talking to?’ I told him to get his head down. He I’ve got damaged tendons in my hand. And he said, ‘I’ll see you in the morning.’ shouted, ‘Shut up and get your claw in.’ What I said next was what caused the problem. I said, And then, in the morning, he says, ‘Yeah, I ain’t ‘Shut up, you nigger. I’ll see you in the forgot.’ I’ve gone downstairs, sitting in my morning.’ mate’s cell. I looked out and seen Gibson. He is gesticulating at me to come out of the cell. I And I did see him in the morning. Then there just turned my back on him and carried on was a bit of a scuffle in the morning which talking. started in someone’s cell. Both got nicked. I ran in there like Mike Tyson, throwing A couple of seconds later, the cell door is haymakers. banged open. And Gibson come in and punched me on the head. I jumped up and He said - in the morning – he said, ‘I’ll see you pushed him. He slipped and fell sideways out tonight.’ I thought, ‘I can’t wait.’ Cos I felt the door. I stepped over him and went out into threatened he’d have his mates. the middle of the landing cos I knew the officers were still feeding people. I thought it would stop him.

He came towards me. I started backing round the table tennis table. The officers were coming down. Just before they got there he threw a punch. I grabbed hold of his arms and we both fell on the table. Officers got there and got in between us. They took me to my cell and took him to the block.

Intentions and consequences: Fitzpatrick Intentions and consequences: Gibson

When he used the n-word, what do you think When you said him, ‘Shut up you dickhead,’ he was trying to achieve? what did you hope that would do? Probably wanted me to say nothing, close my I just needed quiet. window. I don’t think he expected me to say, ‘Get [Why call him a dickhead?] your head down.’ That was just a figure of speech. I wasn’t going to say, ‘Can you be quiet?’ What were you feeling when he used the n- word? What was the result? Wondering – what did he say that for? He showed It brought things to a head. It would have had the his true colours. But by morning, I’d forgot about it. same effect no matter what I said. If I’d have been angry I would have gone straight for him. What did you mean to achieve when you used the n-word? How did you interpret his promise, ‘See you in I didn’t mean nothing by it. Not racially the morning’? motivated – it wasn’t. I’ve heard that every day. He says it now, in the morning he will probably say nothing. You then said, ‘See you in the morning.’ What was meant by that? When you were in the cell and he gestured for ‘I don’t want to argue. Don’t get mouthy. I’ll argue you to come out – what did he have in mind? with you face to face.’ Not inviting him to fight. He had his jumper round his waist and the way he was stood was like he wanted a fight. What did he mean by he’d ‘see you tonight?’ With his tone, I thought, ‘There’s gonna be Was there a time you might have done some violence.’ something to prevent it? If someone’s got it in their head that they’re going After breakfast you sought him out – what to fight you, it is quite hard to change it. I don’t were you trying to do? think I could, unless I just stayed in my cell all I was looking to sort it out so it don’t morning and didn’t come out for breakfast. escalate into weapons.

What might he have done to prevent it? What was the result? If he shouted, ‘Fitzpatrick, I was just a bit wound It was stupid. I felt threatened. I felt I had to up. I didn’t mean to call you that.’ I’d have confront him straightaway. Why, ‘I’ll see you respected him for that. tonight?’ I’ll see you now.

Was there a time you could have prevented the violence? No. Well, I could have had me toast, carried on eating me breakfast. But what would happen on the night? All right saying, ‘Tell the screws.’ You can’t do that in the real world.

Many young offenders turned to violence because they believed it was the best way to resolve their differences. But women and long-term male prisoners were far less likely to believe that violence could resolve anything.

Power Contests

Mary Bosworth has written: “Prison life is characterised by ongoing negotiations of power.” (Bosworth, M and Carrabine E, 2001)

The most common situation resulting in violence were power contests. Ballard and Jenkins was a typical example. A conflict that begins with a clash over some material object becomes a test of who will dominate whom. In response, each person insults, threatens, challenges, verbally abuses or physically intimidates the other.

Concerns about intimidation are widespread in all types of prison. When people fight over a seemingly trivial object, like a pot of yoghurt, or access to the pool table, they are likely to be defending their honour and self-respect. As a prisoner explained:

“It sounds silly fighting over tobacco, but you can’t let it go without losing your respect. You wouldn’t fight about it on the out, but we are not on the out. We’re in jail.”

Sandy assaulted Barbara after Barbara made a disparaging remark about Sandy's cell-mate. Sandy explained: This girl was sat behind me, talking to her friends about me and my padmate. I turned round. I was saying, 'Who do

you think you are to say anything about us?' We exchanged words. I told her to shut up and leave it alone. She carried on. We squared up.

When Sandy confronted Barbara she introduced a power dimension to the dispute. The phrase 'who do you think you are?' was a direct challenge to Barbara, a test of whether she was equal to Sandy. Barbara retaliated in kind.

They told each other to shut up. This exchange of commands was a turning point, as both felt belittled by being told what to do. Their interpretations of the other's intentions match.

Barbara: She was trying to intimidate me. She thought I would just sit down and shut my mouth.

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

When their dispute became a power contest, Barbara and Sandy changed the meaning of the conflict from a question about what language was acceptable to a test of who could control the other.

Characteristics of power contests  Sizing up – gauging the opponent’s strength of character  Narrow focus – on one other prisoner/opponent  Respect – being dominated is the central concern  Win/lose – compromise is considered a weakness  Power values – force determine the outcome; and  Precedent – losing this dispute will fix them in an inferior position

Tactics like challenges, threats, and hostile gestures indicate that a dispute is becoming a power contest. Those involved try to settle the conflict first through coercion and then through physical violence. Not only is respect the central

motivation, but a boost in self-respect for one can only be gained by a loss in self-respect for the other. Mutually acceptable resolutions are ruled out when the desired outcome is defined in this way.

Solutions

What does a conflict analysis mean for effective violence reduction strategies?

First, the huge variety in prison environments and the multiple factors that influence violent outcomes show that each prison has to gather evidence and analyse how conflict management could help enhance safety.

Having said that, there is little here to support strategies based on identifying dangerous individuals and targeting them. Our data do not support a targeted strategy as the primary method of achieving safety; data from prisons in England and Wales do not support such a strategy, either.

Professor A. E. Bottoms commented in his literature review on prison violence: In a context where the vast majority of violent acts are apparently undetected, it should be clear that those who are formally identified as repeat offenders may well be atypical of the larger universe of those who are prepared, when occasion demands, to resort to violence to achieve their own ends. (Bottoms, 1999: page 231)

NOMS data show that 80% of assault or fights are committed by people who have not previously been charged with an assault in prison. As Professor Bottoms observed, the 80% who are detected committing assault for the first time represent a much larger group of people who would use force if the situational stresses required it.

I visited a prison holding about 1200 men. Counting every time aggressive force was used, there would be about 100 to 120 violent incidents per month, of which 20-30 resulted in officers’ taking official action. This prison had four people on its anti-bullying scheme. Targeting individuals was not making a significant impact in reducing violence.

Similarly, separating victims from perpetrators has limited value in reducing violence, except as a short-term cooling off period. Separating a perceived victim may: • identify the wrong person as the victim and protect someone who had been bullying the one who assaulted them • create opportunities for a ‘victim’ to victimise others (locating them on a vulnerable prisoner wing) • lead a victim to enlist allies to carry out retaliation • imply to others that the victim provided information, thereby increasing the risk of further assaults.

Before prison authorities separate prisoners who are assaulted for their protection, they should ask whether they know enough about the dispute to distinguish reliably between a guilty perpetrator and an innocent victim.

Violence reduction strategies must take a broad perspective. All prisons should operate a range of measures, each of which makes a distinct contribution to preventing situations from escalating to the point of serious injury.

Effective prevention

The officers’ role Early intervention by officers, challenging the harmful behaviour that leads to, or escalates, conflict is far more effective in reducing the costs of running prisons than staff reacting with force to violent incidents after they occur. When officers consistently confront victimisation, this removes the causes of violence and gives prisoners confidence that problems can be solved without using force.

But officers’ roles should also encompass a broader sense of peacekeeping as conflict resolution. Peacekeeping includes: - early intervention to manage inmates’ disputes by focusing on the interests, values and needs at stake - improving communication between the parties - searching for options for win-win outcomes

In 2000, in the prisons of England and Wales, there were 2.9 prisoners for every prison officer. In 2013, following cost-

cutting measures, that ratio had risen to 4.8 prisoners for every officer (Prison Reform Trust, 2014).

Dynamic security is undermined by low staffing levels. Peace- keeping requires sufficient numbers of officers, with enough consistency to enable them to intervene. The president of the Prison Governors Association in England and Wales, Eoin McLennan-Murray, reflected on the impact of staff numbers and the size of prisons:

"It is the relationships we build with prisoners that is how we control. ... Other jurisdictions use coercion and force, we tend to use personal relationships. For that to happen, you need sufficient staff facing prisoners. While we are reducing the number of staff and increasing the number of prisoners, you're getting prisoners who feel that they are anonymous and no-one cares about them. That has a psychological impact and changes the culture in prisons. It will make them inherently more risky.” (House of Commons, 2014)

Working with prisoners

Consulting prisoners about how to achieve safety provides important information about the causes of violent incidents, the resources among prisoners to help prevent it, and how to be more effective in managing conflicts.

The use of aggressive tactics in disputes shows the benefits of programmes which develop skills in responding to conflict. Examples include the Alternatives to Violence Project; Silence the Violence (Khulisa); Nonviolent Communication; and others.

Violence reduction reps can mediate to resolve conflicts on the wing; and they can attend safer custody meetings to feed back the sources of conflict throughout the prison.

What options exist for prisoners who seek nonviolent ways of resolving differences? Prisons that provide wing forums, trained, impartial mediators, or formal opportunities to negotiate, are better equipped to resolve conflicts before they result in a fight or assault. It is about creating a space in which non-violent methods are credible, respected, and workable.

Prison Managers

Conflicts are endemic in prisons – between managers and staff, between prisoners and staff, and among prisoners. Most managers have well-developed skills of working with conflicts constructively.

It makes sense to promote social order by promoting objectives that address the underlying causes of conflict; namely:  fulfilling prisoners’ basic human needs  protecting prisoners’ personal safety  providing opportunities to exercise personal autonomy  building in mechanisms for prisoners to resolve conflicts

Safety is an essential requirement of an effective and humane penal system. Reducing violence is a huge and complex challenge. Understanding conflict sheds light on the underlying causes of fights and assaults, and provides dynamic and effective tools for managing prisons. Thus conflict resolution can refine violence reduction strategies and empower governors, officers and prisoners in their efforts to make prisons safer.

Dr Kimmett Edgar Head of Research Prison Reform Trust [email protected]

SOURCES

Bosworth, M and Carrabine, E (2001) ‘Reassessing resistance: race, gender and sexuality in prison’, Punishment and Society, 3: 501-515.

Bottoms, A E (1999) (1999) ‘Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in Prison,’ Crime and Justice, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 205-281.

Edgar, K, O’Donnell, I, and Martin, C (2003) Prison Violence: The dynamics of conflict, fear, and power, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

House of Commons Oral Evidence, taken before the Justice Committee: Crime Reduction: A Co-ordinated Approach? Tuesday, 4 February, 2014, Q 395.

Prison Reform Trust (2008) Prisoners’ Voices: Experiences of the criminal justice system by prisoners with learning disabilities and learning difficulties, by Jenny Talbot, London: The Prison Reform Trust http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/No%20One%20Kno ws%20report-2.pdf

Prison Reform Trust (2014) Prison: The Facts – Bromley Briefings, Summer 2014 http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20fa cts%20May%202014.pdf

Wolfgang, M E (1957) ‘Victim Precipitated Criminal Homicide,’ Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48: 1-11.

Prison Checklist for Preventing Violence

• Mechanisms for resolving conflicts among prisoners are easily accessed by all prisoners

• All prisoners are protected from victimisation

• Officers are alert to any aggressive behaviours

• Risk assessments are based on dynamic factors and are regularly updated

• Dynamic security enables staff to recognise signs of trouble early

• Regular wing meetings discuss causes of tensions

• Prisoners’ basic human needs are met

• Racial and or ethnic tensions are managed

• Prisoners’ skills in responding to conflict are developed

• Prisoners are consulted about how to reduce violence

• Mediation is widely available

• Regular prisoner surveys about victimisation provide knowledge about underlying factors contributing to violence

• Rules against drugs, weapons, and other contraband are rigorously enforced

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

• Good relationships are fostered

• Non-violent responses to conflict are rewarded 28