Search results

The criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales went through extensive reform under the Coalition Government of 2010-2015. In this paper, and through the lens of policing, prisons and probation, the authors set out to identify the direction and qualities of these reforms. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors review key policy documents produced by the Coalition Government as well as relevant critiques. The authors concentrate on policing, prisons and probation on the basis that interrogation of these major aspects of the CJS should enable the principles underpinning the Coalition’s approach to the CJS to be discerned.

The authors identify key themes, and their contradictions, that emerged in the Coalition Government’s approach to the CJS, these being: devolution and centralism; marketization with a growing emphasis on payment by results; politicisation and de-politicisation; and, evidence-based policy.

This is a review of recent government policy and as such some of the implications and outcomes resulting from that policy are not yet clear.

This paper will be of particular use to those working in or studying UK criminal justice policy. Given that the majority partner in the Coalition went on to form the current government policy trends from the recent Coalition are likely to have some relevance to current government policy making in the CJS.

To date there have only been limited attempts to identify key policy trends emerging from the Coalition Government.

There is an increased focus on making prison cultures more rehabilitative, with clear evidence that certain environmental characteristics contribute towards rehabilitation. To date, limited research has explored the rehabilitative culture in a high security prison. This study aims to measure staff and prisoner ratings of social climate and their levels of hope in such an establishment.

The research adopted a quantitative approach, using the EssenCES and State Hope Scale. Data was analysed using parametric and non-parametric tests to explore correlations/relationships between variables.

Findings indicated that higher ratings of social climate were associated with higher levels of hope. Staff rated the social climate more favourably than prisoners, and Category B prisoners had higher levels of hope than Category A prisoners. No significant correlation was found between length of time in service or custody and ratings of social climate or hope.

This paper highlights the importance of developing a positive social climate and hope, supporting the rehabilitative culture initiatives.

This paper contributes to the limited literature on social climate and hope within UK forensic settings. Furthermore, reliability testing indicates the State Hope Scale is appropriate for use with a UK forensic population, extending its application.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of assisted desistance from the perspective of women involved in the criminal justice system. It focusses on two community projects set up in the aftermath of the 2007 Corston Report, Northshire Women’s Centres (WCs) and the Housing for Northshire project.

Through analysis of a year of observation in these settings and 23 narrative interviews with staff and service users, the paper notes the differences between risk-focussed and desistance-focussed justice for women.

Neither projects are a panacea; however, they offer an insight into desistance-focussed practice. The findings would suggest that the projects provide social justice as opposed to criminal justice, particularly because of their flexible approach and awareness of the relational elements involved in female desistance.

The in-depth, qualitative data provided challenges the “payment by results” rhetoric which demands positivist research that promotes an understanding of desistance as a binary outcome. Implications for policy are considered.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perspectives of prisoners and prison staff in relation to mental wellbeing and the negotiation of barriers to accessing and providing support. This small-scale study includes the experiences of 11 prison staff and 9 prisoners within a Category D male prison.

A focus group was conducted with the prisoners and interviews with prison staff. Thematic analysis identified three core themes: “context enabling factors”, “barriers to accessing support for mental wellbeing” and “peer support roles”.

Prisoners conveyed a reluctance in reporting mental health issues due to the fear of being transferred to closed conditions. All staff indicated the benefits of peer support roles.

Further research is required on a wider scale, as it is acknowledged that the findings of this study are from one prison and may not apply to other settings. Although there are barriers that may impact the reporting of mental wellbeing issues, there may be small relational steps that can be taken to address these.

Few studies exist that explore the nuances and barriers within open prisons, perhaps due to the overwhelming need within closed conditions. A context-specific approach considering early prevention strategies to support a safer prison system and successful rehabilitation is explored. The combination of prisoner and staff experiences is of value to both academia and policymakers.

The implementation of the Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) strategy requires partnership between NHS providers and custodial and community-based practitioners in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). What this partnership looks like is dependent on the nature and resources of involved services. However, what it is meant to achieve – reduced reoffending, a more knowledgeable workforce, and a more engaged client group – is clearer. It is fundamental to the OPD strategy that these outcomes are delivered through partnership so as to minimise harmful transitions between services, and to effectively share the expertise required for the holistic case management of personality disordered (PD) offenders. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The implementation of the OPD strategy is ongoing, and data will be forthcoming in due course that will allow for the empirical test of the hypothesis that working together is better than working separately. However, with the emphasis on public protection and workforce development, some of the crucial partnership issues may remain less well understood or explored. This paper overviews the services in which the authors are involved, describing their initiation and operation.

The paper articulates how NHS/NOMS partnerships have been developed and experienced.

The paper concludes with a discussion of a number of principles for partnership work in relation to the OPD strategy.

This paper is intended to assist developing services to make the most of collaborative working across the PD pathway in England and Wales.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the benefits of cooking one-to-one, alongside commensality (eating together) for improving offenders’/ex-offenders’ health and well-being, measured in terms of improved social skills, cultural competencies and successful resettlement.

Fieldwork conducted over nine months included; participant observation of lunch times (n=56) and cooking one-to-one with trainees (n=27), semi-structured interviews (n=23) and a “photo-dialogue” focus group with trainees (n=5) and staff (n=2).

Commensality is beneficial for offenders’ health and well-being. Further, preparing, cooking, serving and sharing food is a powerful means of improving self-esteem and developing a pro-social identity.

The original focus of the research was commensality; it was during the study that the potential for cooking as an additional tool for health and well-being emerged. A future longitudinal intervention would be beneficial to examine whether the men continued to cook for others once released from prison and/or finished at the resettlement scheme.

Everyday cooking to share with others is an invaluable tool for improving self-worth. It has the potential to build pro-social self-concepts and improve human, social and cultural capital.

Cooking lunch for others is a part of strengths-based approach to resettlement that values community involvement.

Cooking and eating with offenders/ex-offenders is highly unusual. Further hands-on cooking/eating activities are beneficial in terms of aiding self-confidence and self-respect, which are vital for improving offenders’/ex-offenders’ health and well-being.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the social climate of therapeutic wings and mainstream wings within one prison, to identify positive areas of social climate that can be built upon and areas for improvement.

In total, 1,054 social climate questionnaires (the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema – EssenCES) were sent to prisoner-facing staff and all prisoners within an English Category B prison holding indeterminate sentenced prisoners. Perceptions of social climate on therapeutic wings and mainstream wings and perceptions of social climate between staff and prisoners were compared.

The results showed that the therapeutic wings felt safer, there were better staff-prisoner relationships and there was better peer support among prisoners than people on the mainstream wings. Also, prisoners felt safer than staff, staff rated the overall social climate as more positive than prisoners and staff felt that they supported prisoners, but prisoners did not feel the same.

The main limitation is that the EssenCES measure does not explain the participants’ ratings of the social climate.

There is a need to transfer the principles and values of therapeutic wings to mainstream wings. In addition, there is significant room for improvement in the social climate of this prison.

This is the first study to compare the social climate of therapeutic and mainstream wings within one single prison. The research has a valuable contribution to the development of positive social climates conducive to better clinical outcomes.

Policymakers worldwide have proposed a new contract – the ‘social impact bond’ (SIB) – which they claim can allay the underperformance afflicting not-for-profits, by tying the private returns of (social) investors to the success of social programs. We investigate experimentally how SIBs perform in a first-best world, where investors are rational and able to obtain hard information on not-for-profits’ performance. Using a principal-agent multitasking framework, we compare SIBs to inputs-based contracts (IBs) and performance-based contracts (PBs). IBs are based on a piece-rate mechanism, PBs on a non-binding bonus mechanism, and SIBs on a mechanism that, due to the presence of an investor, offers full enforceability. Although SIBs can perfectly enforce good behaviour, they also require the principal (i.e., government) to relinquish control over the agent’s (i.e., not-for-profit’s) payoff to a self-regarding investor, which prevents the principal and agent from being reciprocal. In spite of these drawbacks, in our experiment SIBs outperformed IBs and PBs. We therefore conclude that, at least in our laboratory test-bed, SIBs can allay the underperformance of not-for-profits.