Such negotiations may be tricky. With a population of
670,000 North Wales probably needs a prison of no more than a thousand at most.
Yet it will be getting a facility twice what is needed. Today's statement again
emphasises the positive impact of the big new infrastructure project on local
businesses. The drivers of prison policy now include job creation alongside
efficiency and economy with all three trumping questions of the effect on
prisoners.
Lord Carter’s original proposals for Titan jails back in
2007acknowledged the operational challenges associated with large prisons - the
possibility of disturbances, difficulties in meeting the needs of special
groups and in recruiting and managing large numbers of suitable staff. These issues still pose risks. He failed to
note the change this marks to the purpose of imprisonment - away from an
approach which seeks to minimise the exclusionary aspects inherent in detention
and towards a model of exile in which offenders are held in large numbers apart
from society. While economies of scale may be possible in the provision of
food, education or drug treatment, “super jails” will struggle to prepare their
residents for return to the various communities in which they live.
The risks and challenges inherent in large prisons are
reflected in the widely held expert view that small is if not beautiful then at
least less ugly. The UN Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) state that “it is desirable that
the number of prisoners in closed institutions should not be so large that the
individualization of treatment is hindered. In some countries it is considered
that the population of such institutions should not exceed five hundred”. The SMRs date from the mid-1950s but 35 years
on Lord Woolf’s 1991 inquiry into the disturbances at Manchester Prison
recommended that the size of prisons should not exceed 400. In fact Woolf
referred to a 1988 Prison Service Design Briefing which described a capacity of
600 as providing the “optimum balance between the need for effective
relationships and control of prisoners and economies of scale”; but the Inquiry
report recommended that a 600 place prison would be better run as two prisons
with 300 places.
Fast forward 13 years to then Prison Ombudsman Stephen
Shaw’s investigation into the fire and disturbance at Yarls Wood immigration
centre, where he noted that “developments in prison design since 1990 suggest
that the maximum of 400 places suggested by Lord Woolf .... was unduly
conservative. Recent prison experience, Shaw argued, demonstrates that larger prisons
can operate successfully. He described economies of scale and the efficient use
of public money as “proper considerations”, identifying as a critical element
“that they must be capable of zoning down – both in times of emergency and to
provide safe, more homely units to reflect the needs of different groups within
the population.
In approving larger prisons, Shaw seems to have had in mind
something well short of Titans, remarking that “1,000 place prisons are no
longer unusual”. North of the border, a review of the Scottish prison estate
had concluded the optimum size for a new prison was 700. This was partly for
reasons relating to management complexity and operational stability, but partly
because of proportionality - getting the correct scale of prison in relation to
the overall prison population and aligned with other facilities.
It was the Chief Inspector’s view south of the border which
seems to have temporarily slain the Titan concept during Jack Straw’s
consultation which followed Lord Carter’s original proposal for Titan prisons.
Anne Owers told the Justice Select Committee in December 2007 that small prison
do better in terms of safely, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement.
“That is because they provide an environment in which people are known, in
which relationships can develop, in which people are often closer to home.” The
Inspectorate found large prisons, old prisons and private prisons were less
likely to be safe. Smaller prisons were
almost two-and-a-half times more likely to perform well in the Inspectorate’s
tests of respect than large prisons holding more than 800 prisoners.
Purposeful activity and resettlement scores were not
directly related to size however.
Resettlement was predicted by the percentage of prisoners living within
50 miles of the prison; indirectly this finding would suggest local prisons
closer to centres of population should produce better results.
Other research has been more equivocal. Back in 1980, a
literature review by Farrington and Nuttall yielded no empirical evidence that
prison size influences behaviour inside or after leaving prison. Prison
offences were less likely in larger prisons, but it was impossible to control
for the kinds of inmates in each prison. In a more controlled analysis there was
a strong tendency for the more overcrowded prisons to be less effective. Size
was only weakly related to effectiveness, and this association was reduced
further after controlling for overcrowding. Since then Alison Liebling has
concluded that “several analyses of prison life and quality provide empirical
support for the argument that small is better”.
In 2013, the Policy Exchange Think Tank ignored this work
when publishing a report by a former prison governor with what they described
as a potentially “game changing contention”. “For a long time,” they claimed,
“it has been assumed, without evidence, that smaller prisons outperform larger
ones. But size is irrelevant. When it comes to prisons, we prove that, contrary
to popular myth, small is not good and big is not bad.” While the involvement
in this report of private companies Sodexho and Carillion raises questions
about its objectivity, it seems fair to say that there is no recent conclusive
body of research that can decisively inform policy making about the optimum
size of prisons in the UK.
Much depends on how facilities are organised, staffed and
managed within the perimeter. The benchmarking and outsourcing which ministers
claim has saved £300m per year has pushed many prisons close to the edge. Despite
welcome improvements at 1600 place Oakwood reported this month, there are still
serious problems. It's possible that G4S have had to provide additional
resources from their own pockets to address the most serious challenges. If so,
the official contract cost of £13,000 per prisoner per year will be a
dangerously low benchmark for Wrexham's budget.
Even if resources are adequate, Alison Liebling is surely
right to warn that “larger prisons, with highly competent but remote governors
may make the struggle for legitimate regimes and staff behaviour harder”.
No comments:
Post a Comment