Written evidence submitted by the Prisons and Custody team at Leeds Trinity University (PRI0031)

1. Introduction

The Prisons and Custody team at Leeds Trinity University (LTU) is pleased to contribute to this call for evidence. This evidence is drawn from the research, practice, teaching, and training expertise within the team, who have all worked within the Criminal Justice System and are currently delivering an MSc in Applied Custodial Leadership, in partnership with Unlocked Graduates and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Masters Programme has been running for 3 years at LTU, with an approximate intake of 120 participants per year, all working full-time as Prison Officers in over 20 public sector prisons in the UK for the duration of the programme (2 years). The submission focuses on addressing questions 1, 2, 5 and 8 but our response speaks to some other areas of interest to the inquiry.

2. Contributors

Lead Author:

Sarah Waite is a Lecturer in Criminal Justice. After working within the criminal justice sector, Sarah has spent over 10 years teaching in Higher Education to undergraduates, postgraduates, and frontline professionals. Her research interests lie in people’s experiences of criminal justice processes and trust, the role of frontline staff and intersections of gender. Her PhD research explored staff-prisoner relationships and trust in women’s open prison. Sarah is a trustee for Transform Justice and sits on the Research Advisory Group for the Howard League of Penal Reform.

Co-Authors:

Andi Brierley is a Senior Teacher in Applied Custodial Leadership. Prior to teaching in Higher Education, he had a career in Youth Justice, spanning 15 years. Andi’s work ranged from co-facilitation participation work, multi-agency case management, specialist work with children-looked after and care leavers, as well as working with prolific and serious youth crime, both in and out of secure settings. He has lived experience of youth incarceration and this dual perspective of youth justice has led Andi to publish two books on youth crime and desistance.

Claire Vilarrubi is an Associate Professor (Professional Practice) and is the Deputy Programme Lead for the MSc Applied Custodial Leadership. She has extensive experience and practice expertise having spent over 20 years working in the Criminal Justice System, both as a Chartered Forensic Psychologist and a Prison Governor. Claire’s current PhD research explores young women’s pathways to offending. She also is the Chair of the board of trustees for charities Inspire North and Together Women.

Emma Tymon is a University Teacher in Applied Custodial Leadership. As well as teaching, training and leadership expertise, Emma has extensive frontline Prison Officer experience. She has experience of work in the prison service through a variety of roles, including Custodial Manager for reducing reoffending, Supervising Officer for first night in custody, reception and segregation, Programmes Officer, and teaching POELT training. After leaving the Prison Service, Emma joined a health and wellbeing charity and developed several large-scale mental health training packages.

Professor Danielle McDermott is a Professor in Custodial Practice and the Academic Lead for the MSc Applied Custodial Leadership. Her career began in the Prison Service as a Trainee Forensic Psychologist, working with adult males and young people, mainly who have been convicted for violent and sexual offences. Danielle has a PhD in Forensic Psychology, is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and a Chartered Psychologist. Danielle’s research explores the psychological risk factors associated with self-harming behaviours in young and adult male offenders.

Dr Russell Woodfield is a Lecturer in Forensic and Criminal Psychology. He has previous wide-ranging occupational experience as a Prison Officer within His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, working with female and male offenders of various categories and convictions. His current research interests lie in Environmental Forensic Psychology particularly psychological illness in prison personnel and similar stress and trauma exposed occupations through the application of advanced statistical research methodology. Russ has previously undertaken a PhD, Masters and bachelor's degree in Forensic Psychology and Psychology respectively. 

3. Our Submission

Why staff, particularly at the operational support grade (OSG) and Prison Officer grades, are leaving the prison service?

There is a large body of evidence that suggests Prison Officers are subject to significant occupational stressors in comparison to other criminal justice occupations[1]. Whilst staff across the justice system respond to the increasing complexities of the problems justice-involved populations face, Prison Officer work is sustained and takes place within a closed environment. Prison Officer roles are complex, varied and must often manage the rising complexities of mental health and social need when wider services are unavailable, and this results in high levels of emotional labour and stress. Due to the hidden nature of this work, preconceptions of the role do not often represent the reality of the job. Physical working conditions, particularly in older prisons, alongside long shifts, and staff shortages, means staff leave the service to gain a better work life balance that is often also better paid.

Perhaps the most concerning evidence base to raise are the mental health challenges faced by Prison Officers due to the nature of their work, high-stress environments, and their exposure to traumatic incidents. Much academic research consistently draws attention to the impact of Prison Officer work on mental health and well-being, burn out, compassion fatigue, and emotional labour[2][3]. Staff frequently work in unsafe conditions, navigating violence, threats, and self-harm with very low staffing numbers. Professor McDermott’s PhD research discusses the co-occurrence and related risk factors associated with violence and self-harm[4][5] and the Prison Personnel Trauma Measure (PPTM), designed by Dr Russell Woodfield to measure trauma exposure in prison personnel, found self-harm and death, violence and environmental trauma exposure was associated with the development of psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD[6][7]. Notably, years of service moderated the impact of trauma and PTSD, as well as gendered differences between the psychological symptoms of prison personnel and the type of prison trauma exposure[8]. This study highlights the risks of frontline trauma that are unique to prison work and the importance of retaining experienced staff. Whilst staff care and supervision schemes are beginning to gain traction, Prison Officers often lack the appropriate level of support required. Initiatives regularly rely on other members of staff with minimal capacity, are not consistent or readily available and are sometimes viewed as intertwined within the culture of the prison, rather than as a neutral and confidential scheme.

What implications do difficulties in recruiting and retaining OSGs and Prison Officers have for the ability to provide effective regimes for prisoners?

Difficulties in the recruitment and retention of Prison Officers have a direct impact on the ability of a prison to provide and operate effective regimes for the people in its care. Reduced staffing levels, alongside a lack of experienced Prison Officers, creates several issues for the delivery of prison regimes. Low staffing numbers mean restricted regimes are often run, leading to people spending more time locked in cells. Whilst Covid-19 regimes saw an increase in restricted regimes, low numbers of Prison Officers mean restricted regimes were not uncommon prior to the pandemic. Low numbers of Prison Officers mean staff are sometimes unable to unlock people to go to work and therefore no/minimal meaningful activities are provided. Additionally, reduced Prison Officer numbers alongside higher levels of violent incidents can compound prisoners’ fears around safety and leave people feeling unsafe at the prospect of spending time out of cell. As well the practical issues with the regime and activities, this creates an environment that limits interaction, and opportunity for interaction, between staff and prisoners. This can generate further problems, limiting staff-prisoner relationships, the building of trust[9] and opportunities for staff to identify and resolve both individual and collective issues within the regime, and can generate a sense of frustration, boredom and unfairness among prisoners. Time is needed for staff and prisoners to develop interpersonal interaction which can promote the operation of an effective regime and dynamic security. Additionally, Prison Officers are often acutely aware of the impact restricted regimes can have on the mental health of prisoners and must respond to this with limited support and resources. The effect of restricted and solitary regimes on prisoners’ mental health has been well documented and a recent study highlighted a significant deterioration in the mental health of prisoners during the pandemic[10]. Moreover, the loss of experienced Prison Officers leaves a paucity of practical expertise and ‘jail craft’ when working with prisoners with more complex issues, e.g., people serving life sentences and children and young adults. Prison sentences are increasing, with higher tariffs for mandatory life sentences that are also being given at a younger age[11]. This places Prison Officers under increasing pressure to run regimes that are well-staffed and effective at meeting the complex needs of its population.

How effective is HMPPS at retaining of Prison Officers, and what more could it do to improve job satisfaction and staff morale?

There are several improvements that could be made in order to increase retention, job satisfaction and morale amongst Prison Officers. Firstly, pay and remuneration that reflects the levels of staff required, does not need to be topped up with overtime, and reflects the physical and emotional complexities of the job would assist with making progress on these issues. External messaging regarding the role of the Prison Officer and the requirements and demands of the work could be communicated clearly prior to recruitment and during initial training enabling people to prepare for the role and promoting realistic expectations. Additionally, exit interviews would help to gather data on retention issues and shed light on national and/or local patterns. However, whilst these factors would go some way to improving issues with retention, as outlined earlier in this submission, the demands of the job and working conditions place significant and often unsustainable loads on Prison Officers. Consequently, a broader approach that focuses on recognising the demands of the role on mental health and meets the supervision and support needs of staff would make further progress in this area. The roll out of regular and meaningful clinical supervision schemes across all Prison Officer roles would increase support and encourage regular communication between staff and management regarding these issues. Peer support programs which enable Prison Officers to provide support to others need to ensure peers have the time and resources to implement these measures and are supported to do so. These programs need to consider their perceived neutrality, environment, and distance from the prison[12]. Together, these initiatives would bring support systems in place for Prison Officers in line with those in allied professions. This is particularly important given the policy direction of trauma-informed practice within criminal justice services and the need to support staff within this commitment[13]. The support and recognition of the demands of the Prison Officer role could be enhanced further through training for managers on the mental health/support needs of staff and involving this in appraisals and/or role requirements and responsibilities. Additionally, CPD training around these issues should be ongoing and include refresher training.

Evidence shows that Prison Officers derive job satisfaction when they feel like they are making a difference[14]. This term can vary depending on establishment and officer role, but it is associated with the provision of effective regimes, public protection, and rehabilitative ideals. Reward and recognition schemes could promote job satisfaction and increase staff morale. However, in order to operate within this domain, Prison Officers need to work in an environment with healthy staffing numbers and one with access to the wider provisions they require to navigate and manage some of the many complex issues faced by the prison population, e.g., health and therapeutic provision. Additionally, these issues and their impact should be acknowledged within wider prison policy and discourse. For example, a focus on rehabilitative or therapeutic objectives can put pressure on Prison Officers in an environment where these characteristics are unachievable.

Whether Prison Officers have the tools and support they need to carry out their roles effectively?

Prison Officer work is challenging and though there are variations between prisons at a local level, officers are generally required to implement a broad range of skills to meet the demands of their role and to work with a population that often have complex needs. As such, the length of Prison Officer training should be extended for all Prison Officers, reflecting and valuing the needs of the role, and ensuring new staff are adequately prepared and confident. This is particularly important given that the current age of minimum recruitment is 18. Due to the importance of interpersonal skills to the role of the Prison Officer and the high level of need within the prison population, training could consider the affective domain of learning which involves attitudes and emotions. This is often said to be developed on the job and over time as part of ‘jail craft’. However, given the low retention rate and need for these skills at the outset, new officers may benefit from more explicit teaching and learning. Embedding reflective practice, as found within policing and youth justice, could form an important aspect of this[15]. Additionally, whilst it is acknowledged that Prison Officers work across institutions during their career and Women’s Estate Specific Training has been rolled out, training and support could account for the specificities of the prison, e.g., children and young adults, working with lifers, and open prisons. Given the complexity and demands of the role, additional support and assessment of initial training needs at interim should be in place. Regular structured support and review could be in place following initial Prison Officer training. Furthermore, Prison Officer progression needs should be clearly mapped out in order to support staff in carrying out their roles effectively.

Prison Officer training should be ongoing, with regular refresher training and the individual training needs of staff should be frequently reviewed. Relevant training sessions would benefit from input and consultation with those who have lived experience of imprisonment[16]. Any internal or external training support should be clearly signposted and easily accessible for officers. The effectiveness of the training and continuous professional development of Prison Officers would benefit from in-depth, independent evaluation. Given the high levels of trauma amongst the prison population, trauma informed training should be rolled out across the prison estate ensuring all officers attain a level of understanding before becoming operational[17]. Similarly, this applies to mental health training. Whilst prison staff should not be expected to take on the role and responsibilities of mental health professionals, these issues present almost daily within their role and training would increase awareness, bolstering the capacity to recognise, signpost, and support symptoms within prisoners and colleagues. This may counter further issues associated with the ‘façade of coping’[18] whereby Prison Officers are likely to dismiss support following traumatic incidents and present as managing well despite being impacted emotionally.

4. Conclusion

The themes within this submission paint a stark picture of the current issues facing the prison operational workforce. Low staffing levels and unsustainable and unhealthy workloads create significant problems for the recruitment and retention of Prison Officers, as well as the implementation and delivery of effective prison regimes. Whilst an increase in remuneration and in the recognition of the work of prison staff is important, this is only part of the solution. Prison staff must work with an increasingly complex population within a context of decreasing criminal justice and wider state services. The closed nature of the prison institution places Prison Officer work behind closed doors, in unhealthy and trauma inducing environments. Development of the tools, support, and training that Prison Officers receive may go some way to enabling and supporting them to carry out their roles effectively. However, this again needs to be considered within the environment and conditions Prison Officers operate. Investment in the training and development of criminal justice staff is paramount, nevertheless people will not be retained in roles where they feel undervalued and unsupported.

January 2023