We ought to measure the success of rehabilitative work in terms of permanent accommodation, sustained work, rather than in terms of reconvictions. If housing and work help people not to offend, and I think they do, then it makes sense to monitor housing and work before expecting to see a change in convictions. (A.25)
You need to talk to individuals to find out what went wrong, why, when and where, and what went well. That’s the only way you’ll find out why things work or don’t work. The statistical picture may tell you what’s happening, but it doesn’t tell you why. (A.11)
As far as prisons are concerned we must keep the Inspectorate. They look at quality rather than quantity and that’s what’s important. (A.20))
WORP will be assessed by monitoring why some groups or agencies haven’t been able to do what they said they’d do. The monitoring is going to be a learning process rather than a blaming process. (WORP Team Member)
Secondly, there should be a diminution in the managerialist enterprise because of the deleterious effects it is having on prison and non-custodial project managers whose discretion to act in risky circumstances has been atrophied to the point where society is no longer getting the benefit of their experience and expertise. This is not because managers are dragging their feet about implementing change but because they are too often required to spend more time on bureaucratic audit than on working towards implementation of the changes which that audit is inappropriately trying to measure. Moreover, much of the managerialism of the past twenty years has not been primarily concerned with its ostensible objective of efficient goal achievement but rather with disciplining staff. This has resulted in a culture of recrimination which has become a hindrance to innovative action. Thus, although all prisons personnel are likely to insist that prisons must be highly rule-governed places, of late many of them have ventured the
opinion that regulations
maybe one can may perhaps
have too much of a good be deemed pathological
thing – when
that accretions they function
institutional objectives rather context, it is very innovative
than help realise them (cf. Sparks et al 1996). In this for the Prison Service’s Women Team currently to be
examining aspects of prison security to conventions are necessary in women’s relaxed.
assess just how many prisons, and to what
of the existing security extent some might be
Fundamental Issues Affecting Resettlement of Women Prisoners There remain two other issues which are fundamental to the resettlement of women prisoners: the decline of the welfare state in the UK; and complex issues relating to conceptions of risk and responsibility in relation to the employment of people with criminal convictions. These issues, beyond the scope of this particular research, would certainly require to be taken into consideration in future policy developments and evaluations and would also benefit from further elaboration in future empirical investigations into public attitudes to employing ex-prisoners, or, indeed, to employing anyone with a criminal conviction.
Sub hypothesis 4.5. There are contradictions between the principles and the practices of imprisonment and the principles and practices of rehabilitation which are irreconcilable. The grounds for this assertion are argued below and constitute the conclusion to this discussion of the Project’s 4 main hypotheses. The argument that imprisonment and rehabilitation are opposed processes can be made in a variety of ways, and several of our respondents made one or more of those arguments.