Human Rights and Prisons

10. Staff

Law and policy framework

The Corrections Act (s11(6) states that every prison must have sufficient staff, of each gender, to ensure that all provisions of the Act, and associated regulations, are carried out in the prison. Prison managers and officers are expected to ensure the safe custody and welfare of received prisoners (s12, s14).
According to the Regulations (r6), prison managers are responsible for the ‘fair, safe, secure, orderly and humane management and care of…prisoners’. Managers must ensure that staff members are fully instructed, and performing their duties with diligence and competence; that prison staff (and prisoners) are prepared for emergency situations; that prisoners, staff and visitors are given information about their rights, duties, and responsibilities; that all those who enter the prison comply with the Corrections Act, regulations and rules; and that all records are given to entitled persons in a timely manner.
Staff members must act in accordance with the Act and Regulations (r10). They are expected to act promptly, and with initiative, in emergency situations; they must notify the prison manager of any situation that might affect the health or safety of any person in the prison; and, they must notify others if a prisoner does not appear to be in good physical or mental health, or appears to be depressed, at risk of self-harm or in need of special attention and care.

10.1 General Staffing Issues

Prison officers often regard themselves as an ‘unvalued, unappreciated occupational group’ (Crawley and Crawley, 2008:134). Prison officers are faced with quick criticism when something goes wrong and there is little appreciation of the work challenges that they face. There is little emphasis on, or understanding of, the good practices of individual staff members, and units, within the public realm.

The Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into the Prisons System (1989:s24) noted that the ‘majority of prison officers were able people who do an extremely difficult job to the best of their ability in physical conditions which would not be tolerated by most workers’. This remains the case today. For instance, at times, staff have to deal with: poor prison conditions; the realities of dealing with individuals with severe mental health problems; the pressures of dealing with those who are depressed or who self-harm or commit suicide; the ever-present danger of assault, as well as verbal or physical intimidation; the need to maintain close watch, and division, between prisoners who are conflictual, and so on (Jacobs, 2004). Further, families of staff members must also live with the stress and fears of officers.
Such staffing stresses are not assisted by the levels of staffing afforded to New Zealand institutions. In the Department of Corrections 2005/06 Annual Report, it was highlighted that New Zealand had a higher prisoner/frontline staff ratio than Australia, Canada, England and Wales, and Scotland. During 2005/06, the ratio of prisoners to full time equivalent frontline staff in New Zealand was identified at 2.5:1. This is compared to recent rates of 1.9:1 in both Australia and Canada; 2.1:1 in England and Wales; and 1.5:1 in Scotland. While such ratios are fraught with difficulties – in that how the data is collated varies from country to country (for instance, whether it includes administrative as well as frontline staff) – the issue of staffing levels remains important. The Department of Corrections (2009c) has since indicated that local ratio levels have dropped to approximately 2.3:1. This improvement will invariably decrease pressures on staff as well as prisoners.
As the Department of Corrections (2008:23) has established, the Department operated at a level of high pressure on operations, with ‘significant quality degradation and considerable negative impact on staff’ during 2005/06 and 2007. During this period, there were also times when the Department operated ‘at a high risk of failure, and a significant negative impact on staff’.
In this context, it is no surprise that – without the right support – staff can burn out, there can be high levels of absenteeism, and staff will leave. The top priority is, then, to recruit, train, nurture, promote, and improve prison personnel. Part of this approach is the need to build a professional culture of excellence within prison officer ranks.
In New Zealand, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to enhance the professional development of staff and to support them in gaining skills and experience. These include:

• 
  Changes to staff selection processes, based on research into factors which predict reduced turnover and ‘high performance’ as a Corrections Officer.
  
• 
  A new year-long induction process, during which time the new employee will receive line-management support.
  
• 
  Tactical Communications training, that provides prison officers with the skills to de-escalate situations by calming angry prisoners.
  
• 
  Tailored development programmes for senior staff and managers, to enable them to manage their staff more effectively.
  
• 
  Annual PRIDE awards and new recognition awards to acknowledge outstanding conduct and professionalism.
  
• 
  Improved, more relevant, staff training on ethics and integrity.
  
• 
  Executive Scholarships, to support workers to complete advanced qualifications.
  
• 
  The introduction of a major staff safety programme and Occupational Health and Safety Boards in all Correctional workplaces.
  

These advances should be consolidated, and care taken to ensure that the drive for efficiences does not work against this professionalisation and safety of staff. Moreover, at a general level, fuller research on Correctional staff – including on their recruitment, training, conduct and culture – would be valuable in New Zealand.

10.2 Culture

Unlike the literature on police culture, the culture of prison officers has only recently been of criminological research consideration. In the UK, Crawley and Crawley (2008), and Liebling (2008) have each considered the characteristics of prison officer culture. These characteristics include:

• 
  An expectation of solidarity between members – to be able to rely on colleagues in a ‘tight spot’; and, to sustain officers against criticism by groups who ‘do not understand’ the pressures of the job;
  

• 
  Cynicism and suspicion – with regards to prisoners but also to those who are regarded as unsympathetic outsiders; only they can understand what it is like to work in prison. Cynicism is also directed to senior managers;
  

• 
  Feelings of social isolation – based on the perception that those outside the prison devalue their work; feeling stigmatised by the nature of their work; inward-looking;
  

• 
  Strong informal communications – rapid dissemination of information and gossip or rumour;
  

• 
  Humour – using humour as a survival mechanism, a defence mechanism, morale raiser, to incorporate new arrivals, or to invoke exclusion;
  

• 
  Emphasis on physical courage – having pride in being able to handle any situation; linked to machismo; prizing the ability to undertake control and restraint effectively and quickly, or to handle difficult prisoners; feelings of power within the prison setting;
  

• 
  Desensitization – as staff become accustomed to drug-taking, self harm, or the routinization of conflict or violence;
  

• 
  Domestic character – as officers also have to provide care and domestic duties; many officers will develop relationships with those who are held over a longer period;
  

• 
  Multi-skilled – having a preparedness to work as a team; to take a problem-solving approach; and to engage in a variety of tasks on a daily basis.
  

Of course, occupational culture (that is, the informal rules and norms that underpin how officers relate to each other and prisoners, or how they respond to institutional changes) can vary between prisons and even within prisons. Prison managers have the capacity to set or change the cultural tone of individual institutions. Similarly, workers within particular units can sustain very different cultures from other prison areas. Discretion is operationalised in different ways across the prison estate.

It is evident that occupational culture evolves over time. In New Zealand, for instance, it is only relatively recently that women were deemed to have the appropriate skills to work as prison officers (Newbold, 2005). It is clear, too, that this culture is dependent on a whole range of factors, such as the ‘type and function of the prison, the prison’s history (for example the number of disturbances and the quality of industrial relations), the ratio of young to old and experienced to new staff, the nature of the regime, the ratio of staff to prisoners, the rate of staff turnover and the architecture of the prison itself’ (Crawley and Crawley, 2008:141-2). In addition, it would seem that changes to organisational structures as well as the introduction of new technologies would also impact on organisational culture.
Beyond this, culture is also dictated by the values that are imposed over officer performance. For instance, as Newbold (2008:396) suggests, ‘officer performance is gauged by objective administrative criteria such as numbers of escapes, assaults, disturbances, failed drug tests and suicides’. While these are undoubtedly important factors within a prison environment, they are based on the prevention of negative outcomes. Taking a human rights approach would mean reworking this criteria to include constructive outcomes that officers might engage in – such as treating individuals with dignity or fairness; the generation of positive behaviours; providing appropriate health care services; or, compliance with legal and policy frameworks. ‘In practical terms, human rights must be recognized as a distinct major line of [correctional] business, in the same way that public safety/security and safe reintegration are recognized as such’ (Zinger, 2006:132).
Traditionally, human rights have not been an integral part of prison officer work or thinking. In her extensive research in England and Wales, Elaine Crawley (2004) demonstrated how some officers (although not all) were resistant to the idea of prisoners’ rights. She details how some officers frequently denigrated prisoners, using terms such as ‘vultures’, ‘animals’, ‘scum’ or ‘inadequates’ when talking about them. Reflecting public attitudes, some prison officers also saw that prisoners already had too many rights, and that management cared more about them than uniformed staff (this is also evidenced in McDermott and King, 2008). From their view, rights should be privileges. Of course, there were exceptions to these ideas and practices. However, in this cultural context, officers who worked to attain prisoners’ rights were viewed as weak or not a ‘proper officer’.