Prof Karen Harrison, Professor in Law and Penal Justice, University of Lincoln; Rachel Mason, Senior Lecturer in Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln; and Dr Helen Nichols, Reader in Criminology, University of Hull — written evidence (PRI0008)
Introduction
This evidence is based on the findings of several research projects which the authors have been involved in over the last four years. We have written extensively on prison culture, governance and leadership and undertaken a number of empirical projects which have included speaking to over 100 prison governors about their lived experiences. This has involved us working with the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA), HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Ministry of Justice, and Spark Inside (a coaching charity). In addition, we have completed research with people detained in prisons which has highlighted the impact of prison culture, governance, leadership and staffing on their health, wellbeing, and rehabilitation. Work in this area has been in collaboration with the National Health Service (NHS) and HMPPS. We have presented our research across HMPPS including delivering workshops to the HMPPS Insights group and to practitioners working for Corrections Victoria, in Australia. We continue to work with HMPPS Disparities Unit to ensure that our research leads to practical implementation and impact. We believe that we are currently the leading academic experts in this field and can provide a full list of our publications if desired.
Summary
The studies which are referenced in the evidence include:
“Just get on with it”. A qualitative exploration into the health and wellbeing of prison operational managers and governor grades. This found that more needs to be done to support the wellbeing of governor grade staff. A dysfunctional culture results in staff feeling unvalued, disenchanted and disengaged (Summary report). Referenced in the evidence as WB.
“It’s only banter, isn’t it” Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) experiences amongst Prison Governors’ Association Members. This found that there are links between EDI experiences, workplace wellbeing and intentions to stay within or leave HMPPS, such that poorer EDI experiences predict poorer wellbeing, and poorer wellbeing predicts higher intentions to leave. Improving EDI experiences will improve workplace wellbeing and increase staff retention (Summary report). Referenced in the evidence as EDI
Review of the Spark Inside coaching programme for prison staff. This found that active listening in a safe, non-judgemental independent space can support prison officers in developing their skills and abilities, with this helping to increase confidence and communication skills. Active participation in coaching led to improved wellbeing and had a positive impact on retention (Summary report). Referenced in the evidence as SI.
Confined Creativity: Unveiling the Art of Isolation. This art exhibition was delivered in 2024 in partnership between HMP Hull and the University of Hull. Showcased at the University’s on-campus art gallery, it featured artwork from more than 20 prisoners and was designed to share a positive narrative around the prison establishment as part of the Hull community. (Press release). Referenced in the evidence as AE.
Impulsivity, violence, and Novel Psychoactive Substance use. This found that there were links between the use of substances, in particular synthetic cannabinoids, and violence but highlighted that substance use was not the only contributing factor to violence in prison. Prisons that are unsafe, have poor regimes, and lack opportunities for rehabilitation impact on people detained in prison (Conference presentation). Referenced in the evidence as SUV.
Independent review of services for adults with a learning disability and autistic adults in Midlands prisons. This found that the support for people detained in prison who may be autistic or have a learning disability was not consistent, leading to them having their needs neglected, poorer treatment, and being more vulnerable in the prison environment (Findings report). Referenced in the evidence as ASD.
The role of a prison governor
1.1 Prison governors have responsibility for the day-to-day operations of individual prison establishments. Within prison establishments, governors are responsible for the safe operation of the prison and delivery of the institutional regime. This includes ensuring a safe and secure environment, managing staff, and ensuring that their prisons are holding prisoners in safe, humane conditions that facilitate rehabilitation for successful release and resettlement. Governors are also responsible for ensuring compliance with legal requirements and implementing policies and practice as directed by HMPPS.
1.2 The core role of prison governors has not changed significantly since the inception of the modern prison. However, imposition of austerity measures by the UK Coalition Government in 2010 caused significant and evidencable change to the lived experiences of prison governors in their working lives. The requirement for the then National Offender Management Service to deliver savings of £900 million between 2011 and 2015 standardised institutional resourcing through ‘benchmarking’ and resulted in the contracting out of internal prison services. Governors were thus positioned to deliver a regime driven by external, financial factors, resulting in a strongly perceived loss of autonomy at the institutional level. Evidence from our research demonstrates that currently, prison governors do not feel that they have enough autonomy:
1.2.1 Governors feel unable to be autonomous in their roles: governors are at a ‘pinch point’ between actioning directives from headquarters and being responsive to the needs of their individual establishments. They want to be held to account for their actions and decisions, however, do not feel that they are given the control or trust to deliver their regimes in ways that are genuinely autonomous and reflective of the specific needs of their establishments. Some governors acknowledge how this has changed over time, with one of our research participants stating that they “miss being able to make what [they] think are sensible and reasonable decisions”. Feeling an inability to be autonomous in their roles is causing reduced job satisfaction due to the stifling of governor innovation and creativity (WB).
1.2.2 Governors working autonomously can be seen as a risk: acting autonomously in their roles is perceived as being both positive and negative. Where governors act ‘outside the box’, their actions, despite being positive and innovative, can be interpreted as being “maverick”. Working in this way can lead to fear of punishment for operating outside of direct instruction and result in enhanced experiences of work-related stress. This undermines governors’ knowledge of their establishments’ needs and their ability to respond accordingly (WB).
1.2.3 Covid-19 captured the importance of governors having autonomy: while the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated work-related stress due to uncertainty, risk and fear, it was a significant time in temporarily capturing the value of autonomy for prison governors. Between the pandemic outbreak and the instigation of Gold Command, governors were able to implement innovative initiatives within their establishments to support staff and prisoners which had positive implications for the wider prison culture, and perceptions that this improved the wellbeing of prisoners and staff. Outside of the pandemic scenario, governors feel “completely shackled” as spending money would be seen to “cause absolute Ministry of Justice chaos” despite the invaluable benefits, which have positive implications for safety and security (WB).
2.1 Successful governors need a variety of qualities including:
2.1.1 Resilience: across all of our research projects we have seen what a tough job working in prisons is. This is not exclusive to prison governors as the prison working environment for all staff is one which is complex and beset with a number of intertwined challenges including exposure to trauma and violence. In addition to these challenges prison governors have added responsibilities in terms of the safety and wellbeing of all staff and prisoners in addition to managing financial budgets, human resources and liaising with regional and central headquarters. One example from our WB research was when, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governors had to think about how many body bags they may need. While it is the responsibility of HMPPS to take care of all of its staff, a good prison governor needs to display a certain amount of resilience in order to be effective in this difficult working environment.
2.1.2 Attention to detail: due to the challenges of the prison working environment and the number of people that governors are responsible for they must be someone who understands the complexities of their role and the responsibilities which come with this. They must have knowledge of the various policies relating to staff and prisoners and how these can be used to benefit those they care for (EDI). At the same time, they need a certain amount of creativity and the ability to make bold decisions so that they can be responsive to the individual challenges that their own establishments present. Such qualities should allow headquarters to have more faith in governors to act under their own autonomy (WB).
2.1.3 Procedural justice: governors need to model procedural justice by being consistent, transparent, and fair in their decision making and application of policies and show knowledge and understanding in relation to EDI matters (WB & EDI).
2.1.4 A people person: the main aspect of any prison governor role is working with people, whether that be prisoners, prison staff, partner agencies, and those in the community. A good governor needs to not only have good people and social skills, but they must also like people and be available to them. They need to be supportive and demonstrate authentic care and empathy for those employed in the service and value them as individuals. In our EDI research we heard many accounts of where governors were supportive but also where that care had abruptly ended when a new line manager was put in place and previously agreed reasonable adjustments were no longer held to meet the business need (EDI).
2.1.5 A good role model: At the same time, a good prison governor needs to lead by example and must practice what they preach. This includes taking their full leave allowance, not overworking, not working when sick and seeking support when it is required. Several governors, for example, told us how while they might suggest to their staff that they seek support from the HMPPS employee assistance programme, they would never access such support themselves due to fears of being seen by others as weak (WB). Others spoke about the power of hearing senior managers speak about their own struggles and how they overcame them (EDI).
2.1.6 A willingness to keep learning: a good prison governor cannot get stuck in their ways. They should be willing to get out of their prisons and see what is happening in other establishments, be willing to engage in leadership training and learn from those around them. This could include reverse mentoring (EDI).
3.1 Prison officers seeking promotion opportunities need to be better supported by their immediate line managers and governing governors. This includes:
3.1.1 Actively encouraging all staff at all prison grades, where appropriate, to tick the reasonable adjustments/disability box when undertaking promotion interviews and assessment boards. If the box is ticked, then the vacancy manager must get in touch with the candidate to discuss the candidate’s needs. Our research suggests this is not the current experience of prison staff. Needing reasonable adjustments must not be viewed as a weakness or be used to discriminate against the individual. These are the current fears of serving officers and explains why some do not tick the box. Best practice includes providing the questions before the interview and checking with the individual that they understand what is being asked of them (EDI).
3.1.2 Better communication between regional directors and local establishments so that managers and governors are aware of the feedback officers receive after failing assessment boards. Our research suggests that line managers were not aware what career development goals officers needed to achieve (SI). Line managers and governors should then proactively work with officers so that gaps in skills and knowledge can be filled and the officer is fully supported in working towards another assessment panel. Such support could include coaching, with our evaluation of the Spark Inside prison staff coaching programme showing positive benefits in terms of career development and skills acquisition. Coaching across all levels also positively impacted retention (SI).
3.1.3 The re-introduction of an appraisal process for all staff would help to identify and nurture talent. Currently appraisals are only used with those on probation. This should be extended and could include peer mentoring.
3.1.4 Ensuring that all promotion opportunities (even interim and short-term opportunities) are fully advertised and are not allocated on the sole discretion of the governing governor. Our research participants (PGA members) recalled many occasions where interim roles are being given to those favoured by the governor rather than through a transparent process (WB & EDI).
3.1.5 This feeds into the notion that many of our research participants (PGA members) did not feel that their face fitted. Many spoke about ‘jobs for the boys’. One stated: “It’s not about the process. It’s about the underlying culture and the underlying view that people talk about it as [being] all fair and transparent. No, it’s not. You know that behind that closed door there are discussions that go on, there are perceptions that are made before you even walk through that door. And if you don’t fit…it doesn’t matter what the process is because the process can be manipulated to fit what their perceptions are” (WB). Fairer and more transparent processes are needed.
3.1.6 HMPPS needs to be more flexible in the prison leadership jobs that it creates. There is no reason why an operational prison governor position (including governing governor) could not work on a job share or part time basis. This would help those who may not be able to take on full time governor positions due to parental responsibilities, age, disability or just because they want to maintain a better work/life balance (EDI).
3.1.7 Succession planning is currently ineffective as evidenced by governors stating they are neither motivated nor have the ambition to progress further in their careers with many exploring options to leave due to the prison working environment (WB & EDI).
4.1 A lack of funding and autonomy creates challenges for prison leaders when attempting to engage with local communities. In addition, public-facing media representations of prisons predominantly cast a negative light on prisons and the role that they play in the community and wider settings. This has further negative implications for local community engagement:
4.1.1 Prison staff often live within the community local to the prison establishment. Engaging with staff and their families outside of the working day by providing enrichment activities therefore creates an opportunity for prison leaders to engage with the local community. Commenting on previously having had the ability to facilitate such activities, a prison governor from the WB study explained “if you go back to the early days of my career . . . we've done garden parties, we've done barbecues, we’ve done family days, and lots and lots of stuff for staff welfare to build the community and we don't have the resources, the time or the money to do anything now. We're not allowed to buy staff food . . . it’s just saving public money”.
4.1.2 A significant challenge for prison leaders to engage with the community is the frequent negative reporting about prisons in the media. The risk of receiving negative press for positive and innovative initiatives is often referred to by prison leaders as risking failing “The Daily Mail test”. In the WB study, a prison governor explained “staff support groups . . . the gym and healthy eating . . . a session of yoga, those kinds of staff wellbeing days really work well. But without any money to spend and without . . . ending up in the Daily Mail, which is the other thing, you can't really do anything”. The risk of negative feedback from the community was also discussed in relation to positive initiatives for prisoners: “. . . there was a fear that the Daily Mail market would see prison as a cushy number. So, [prisoners are] not allowed any satellite channels or anything like that".
4.1.3 Prison leaders can successfully engage with local communities through partnership working. A recent example of community engagement was the delivery of an art exhibition in 2024 at the University of Hull in partnership with HMP Hull (AE). The exhibition, Confined Creativity: Unveiling the Art of Isolation, showcased artwork by men serving sentences at HMP Hull at the University of Hull’s campus-based art gallery. The exhibition was open to the public for three months, free of charge, and was attended by hundreds of visitors from within and beyond the local community. Receiving overwhelmingly positive responses from visitors, the exhibition was also featured in media reports. The partnership between the prison and the university facilitated the prison leadership team’s engagement with the local community, enabling visitors to celebrate the positive initiatives in prison that are otherwise hidden from public view. This enabled the local community (and beyond) to understand more about the positive initiatives that happen in prisons that serve, and are a core part of, the local community.
HMPPS
5.1 Prison leaders believe they are held responsible and accountable for the success or failings of their areas of work, but do not have the autonomy to be able to influence this. Our research demonstrates leaders feeling:
5.1.1 Their autonomy has been removed which, for those based in prisons, was influenced by the moving of key functions out of establishments to headquarters. This has resulted in less control in key areas of work, but they are held to account for the performance of this work for example, from education providers, in the recruitment of staff, and resource provision.
5.1.2 They have been asked to “earn autonomy” through a system activated when they have reached Governor status even though they have passed the requirements for these roles, leading some to question why little trust is given to them in a senior role (WB).
5.2 This reduction in perceived autonomy does not foster a culture of learning from mistakes, instead resulting in:
5.2.1 Feeling frustrated that they are penalised for outcomes that they have not been able to influence in the way they would have liked.
5.2.2 Feeling stifled in their ability to be innovative and consider solutions they feel would be responsive to their particular setting/context/population.
5.2.3 Describing themselves as “mavericks”, feeling they have to break rules to be able to do something they feel is in the best interest of their work (WB).
5.3 Prison leaders are fearful of the consequences of failings, perceiving that punitive measures may be taken against them rather than a culture of learning from mistakes being present. To increase a culture of learning from mistakes, the issues uncovered below need to be addressed:
5.3.1 Leaders are fearful of failings which increases the frustration that they do not always feel they have the autonomy to be able to prevent issues.
5.3.2 If taking innovative actions, leaders describe feeling they are “breaking the rules” and risk punishment for this, particularly if what they have done was unsuccessful. In exception were leaders nearing retirement age suggesting they could be more innovative as they were coming to the end of their careers and “they can’t get me now”.
5.3.3 Perceptions of being “moved out” rather than performance managed or actions that help to develop and learn from mistakes are common regarding leaders who are thought to have been ineffective.
5.3.4 Innovation and being a maverick is celebrated when it is successful but leaves other leaders feeling they would have been treated differently if they had taken similar actions or if it had failed. This was described as innovation being ok when “their face fit” and promotes a culture of competitiveness rather than learning from each other.
5.3.5 If innovation fails, there are perceptions their ability to progress in their career will be affected, resulting in people being less willing to do anything different (WB).
5.4 Providing opportunities for innovation, trusting those in senior positions, support for responsiveness to local context/populations, support for testing new ideas which are then evaluated, and providing structured platforms for regular open discussions about ways of working, free from perceived punishment, is required to help foster a culture which can learn from mistakes whilst holding people responsible in a way which is fair. Appraisal systems could help to foster a culture of discussing innovation and any learning from this, linking to progression opportunities and development of staff. This also demonstrates value to staff through providing dedicated safe and confidential space to discuss their careers and wellbeing.
Recruitment, training, and retention
6.1 Retaining the prison workforce is a significant challenge due to several factors:
6.1.1 A culture where some feel excluded. This may be based on sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, caring responsibilities etc. Staff feel that they are discriminated against which effects career and promotion opportunities (EDI).
6.1.2 A culture where overworking is expected and encouraged, with this leading to poor health and wellbeing (WB).
6.1.3 A culture which allows presenteeism (working when sick) and discourages people from seeking support for mental health. Our research shows that people are too afraid to talk about needing support for mental health because they fear that it will affect promotion opportunities and/or could result in them being managed out of the service. This is particularly problematic because prison staff often work in stressful and dangerous environments. Our research participants spoke about putting trauma into mental boxes but how the lids of the boxes were beginning to rattle (WB).
6.1.4 When prison staff ask for reasonable adjustments (due to caring responsibilities, disability, or menopause symptoms) these often take a long time to consider and are not always approved. Where adjustments or flexible working arrangements are agreed these are often changed at short notice because they no longer fit the business need. This often happens when there has been a change in line manager (EDI).
6.1.5 A lack of trust in the systems and processes around promotions and the complaints system (WB & EDI).
6.1.6 A lack of support in career development and skills training (SI).
6.1.7 Staff don’t feel valued, either by the public (not generally included in the definition of hidden heroes during Covid-19) or the employer. This isn’t just about pay (WB). Staff feel valued when they are supported in their career development, when they feel the service is investing in them (SI) and their needs (reasonable adjustments and flexible working arrangements) are properly considered (EDI).
6.1.8 Managers feel they have little autonomy but all the responsibility of running their establishments. This can increase pressure but decrease job satisfaction (WB).
6.1.9 All such factors place staff on a path to disenchantment which often leads to them wanting to leave the service. Positive actions to re-enchant staff include good self-care, appropriate support mechanisms and greater autonomy (WB).
6.1 A career in the prison service can be made more attractive by:
6.2.1 Ensuring that staff at all levels feel valued.
6.2.2 Being more flexible in working arrangements so that those wanting to work part-time can do so.
6.2.3 Ensuring that health and wellbeing is prioritised and that appropriate support mechanisms are available for staff at all levels. Our participants told us that while there was support for prison officers there was little that was appropriate for prison governors (WB).
6.2.4 Having structured support so that officers at all levels have appraisals focused on their career development and have someone who they can turn to for advice and support without feeling judged or that this will be viewed as a weakness.
6.2.5 A culture which is more inclusive and does not encourage overworking and presenteeism.
7.1 Prison staff culture is shaped by attitudes and relationships. Our research findings offer evidence of the existing culture amongst prison governors, which is shaped by five factors:
7.1.1 Workload challenges: Prison governors frequently work far beyond their contracted hours with workloads significantly outweighing the available time for tasks to be completed. Governors feel that “the MoJ is very underhand about that [long hours] culture”. This has caused a reluctance to take reasonable time off work for sickness or annual leave purposes (WB)
7.1.2 Macho culture: Our research findings evidence that prison governor (and wider prison staff) culture is dominated by a ‘macho’ culture where physical and emotional strength and workload stamina are required to avoid being seen as vulnerable or weak by other prison staff and prisoners. As reported by a research participant, “it becomes about [governors’] ego and not about what’s the best thing [for the prison]”. Another governor commented “If you want to do well, it’s expected that you just flog yourself . . . into the ground”. The existing ‘macho’ culture poses a barrier to staff seeking wellbeing support, risking burnout and reduced staff retention (WB). In addition, the ‘macho’ culture excludes those whose ‘face does not fit’, for example, those who identify with the protected characteristics of sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, and race (EDI).
7.1.3 Expectations of self and others: Expectations of prison governors come from several sources including prisoners, staff, peers, managers, headquarters, ministers, the public and the media. The normalisation of working excessive hours has negatively impacted the expectations that governors have for themselves and each other. Meeting these expectations has multiple negative outcomes including governors being reluctant to seek promotion opportunities or working consistently to excess resulting in illness and in some cases, burnout. Wider expectations include the ability to demonstrate resilience in the face of work-related and personal challenges, and to deliver results with limited resources (WB).
7.1.4 Autonomy and responsibility: When governors are trusted and supported by their managers, their autonomy tends to be higher which increases innovation and pride in their work. However, prison governors feel that their autonomy has been removed over time. Despite being restricted in their ability to be autonomous; governors remain responsible for decisions and actions that are imposed by external factors, and accountable for the outcomes regardless of whether they themselves believe it is the appropriate course of action (WB).
7.1.5 Them and us divisiveness: The culture at this organisational level is also impacted by a lack of role appreciation across various working roles including governing governors, other governor grades and senior managers, and those working in headquarters. Bureaucracy, inconsistency in communication clarity and perceived power imbalances have negative implications for culture preventing the facilitation of organisational networks characterised by trust, shared values, and common goals (WB).
7.2 People detained in prisons are affected by the environment they are in. If this is perceived as being badly run, people detained are directly impacted. Evidence from two research projects show how issues with leadership and lack of resources and autonomy impact on those who are being cared for in the system (SUV & ASD).
7.3 The perceptions of men in a Category C male prison on substance use and violence suggested the following were factors that increased the level of violence (SUV):
7.3.1 A reduced regime: leading to more time spent in their cell and boredom which also exacerbates substance use and the link this then has to violence (through issues such as debt, bullying, and paranoia).
7.3.2 A lack of access to meaningful activity: again, leading to more time in cell, less focus on rehabilitation and resettlement as a future goal, and links to substance use.
7.3.3 Poor staff-prisoner relationships: including inexperienced staff that results in people in prison not feeling safe, and staff being authoritative which results in more punitive measures and hinders therapeutic relationships.
7.4 Evidence from a service evaluation for the NHS into the support for autistic people and people with learning disabilities in prisons across the Midlands found awareness and support for this group was lacking (ASD):
7.4.1 Staff reflected on the negative impact of understaffing, limited resources, and limited staff training on providing support for autistic people or people with a learning disability.
7.4.2 People detained in prison reported being held in care and separation units (segregation) to manage challenging behaviours related to neurodiversity, negatively impacting their wellbeing and potentially their progress through the system. Additional reports of being punished through physical restraint or removal of incentives were present.
7.4.3 Autistic people and people with learning disabilities are vulnerable in prison. They risk being exploited or abused and if the prison is not well run, the risk of this increases. People told us they felt safer whilst held in the care and separation units.
7.4.4 A lack of joined up working between departments in prisons and across prison establishments, particularly in relation to information sharing, results in support not being delivered, support being removed, or changes in diagnosis, all of which are detrimental to the person detained.
7.4.5 An example of good practice which helped to provide positive support for people detained in prison were Prisoner Led Initiatives which helped to provide opportunities for people in prison to have an input into the running of prisons.
7.4.6 A further example of good practice included prisons where joined up working across partners delivering services in prison was established, facilitating greater support for those detained in prison and a more holistic response to their needs. This required collaboration and support from senior leaders across HMPSS and NHS to facilitate this.
January 2025