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 addi- tional 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 follow- ing 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 man- agement to change management, examining how managers have had to guide through a series of significant reforms and the effects that this has had. The sec- ond 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 dra- matically 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 finan- cial 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 partic- ular 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 sec- tor 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 elec- tion 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 introduc- tion of new pay and conditions for staff, as well as the impact of wider public sector reforms including centralised pay restraint and changes to pen- sions. The ‘benchmarking programme’ was initiated as an alternative to whole- sale 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 work- ing’ (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 pris- ons 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 pro- gramme (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 mar- ket 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 pres- sures do not create risks. In prisons, there are fewer staff on the wings supervising prisoners, there are fewer managers supervising staff and less sup- port 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 activ- ity 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 per- formance of prisons.