For me the Council work we do in prisons is all about legitimacy

Jason Warr

11/05/2013

In the Woolf Report (1991), perhaps the most forward thinking report into prison
conducted by any member of the Establishment, Lord Woolf noted that

… a recurring theme in the evidence from prisoners who … were involved in the [Strangeways] riots was that their actions were a response to the manner in which they were treated by the prison system. Although they did not always use these terms, they felt a lack of justice.

In practical terms this meant that the prisoner participants of that, and other disturbances, were involved because they perceived their environment, and the authority inherent within it, as illegitimate. 

Legitimacy in prisons is something of a thorny and complicated issue (see Sparks et al 1996) and of course in this situation we are discussing the perspectives of two related but variant populations; which makes for an even more complicated picture. However, in essence people confer legitimacy to organisations or systems if and only if there is a shared commitment to the cultural, normative or structural values that underpin those organisations/systems.

Within the carceral state of England and Wales, the legitimacy of communities has most commonly relied upon a conjunction of the democratic nature of the community and the joint enterprise of therapy, which exists in the various TC models and units that are scattered throughout the prison service. However, for the majority of prisoners, who exist outside of these communities, legitimacy can be in short supply.

The problem then arises that if legitimacy is in short supply how do we keep prisons this side of the brink of disorder and riot? Having had experience of ‘a disturbance’ in prison believe me you do not want a prison to descend into the brutal maelstrom of disorder. It does no one any favours, not the participants, not staff and not the wider population or indeed the public. So what can be done to ensure this does not happen?

One such mechanism is involving prisoners in the regime in which they must exist, involving them in shaping the manner of their incarceration. This is not, as some of the more right wing press may attest, pandering to the whims of prisoners but is instead the opening of a dialogue between what can often be two entrenched and openly hostile populations –prisoners and the prison.

Ever since the Woolf report there has been a recognition of the importance of this process but many of the experiments have failed. The User Voice model has not failed. It has not failed because our engagement both instils from the outset, and maintains throughout, objectivity and open democracy – which can in turn lead to a process of communitisation (the adoption of the community values and structure) and thus legitimacy.  How does it do this?

Simples! Council’s fail when there is no investment (and thus no action) from the Number 1 Governor, if the prisoners who end up on it are staff favourites or patsies and have no respect throughout the population and if the Senior Management Team become alienated through the Council’s negativity. We solve these issues. How? Well, that would be telling … trade secrets and all that (I could tell you but then I would have to …)!

Let us just say that investment is ensured by contracting us in, we engage with the whole population whether they be those with GOAD issues (those like us!) or not and we are solution driven and focused. See, simples (maybe).

So for me its all about legitimacy. Without it Gaols fall, with it … well its not a panacea but it enables a process of dialogue, collaboration, co-production, civility, pro-socialisation, increased social capital and ultimately improved relationships and then … peace! 

That’s why I’m there, that’s why I do what I do.