Anything that could be called a 'rehabilitation revolution’ has to make a significant impact deep into the structure of prison life. It can be done, it has been done.
Michael Howard hoves into my mind's eye. Under his stewardship, the prison experience was profoundly changed, demonstrating that given the political will it is possible. Unfortunately, the effects of what I shall call - rather unfairly - the Howard Agenda were uniformly negative in terms of rehabilitation.
Notoriously, the largest cultural shift under Howard was a rebalancing of the elements involved in running a safe, stable prison in favour of 'security'. It's effects have been pervasive and often conflict with any rehabilitative policy.
The first and largest policy shift that we noticed was the anti-drugs policy. Up to the mid-1990's, prisons were riddled with cannabis. A broad staff view was that, 'a stoned prisoner is a happy prisoner’. And happy prisoners are not causing problems. The dope in itself caused very few difficulties. Nevertheless, the idea that prisoners could be enjoying an spliff with their supper bun wasn't one that sat well with Howard. Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) was introduced and security was massively increased on Visits arrangements.
The intended policy outcome may have been unobjectionable - to cut drug use (even unproblematic drug use). The actual consequences, however, were a disaster and ramped re-offending through the roof for a generation.
There was, historically, little call for heroin in prisons. It was regarded as being a 'dirty' drug, in the main not being not socially acceptable. The mid 1990's saw a shift, not just in prisons but in the wider society. As heroin use outside increased, then the number of heroin users that came to prison also rose. And these people were faced with drug testing.
In this schema it is an unfortunate fact that cannabis can be detected by drug tests for up to 30 days after use. Heroin is out of the system in 3 days. If you take drugs then with heroin you have a far, far better chance of not being detected via a random drug test.
The combination of these factors led to a collapse in the amount of cannabis in prisons and a surge in heroin use that continues to this day. Dope smokers tend not to rob and steal in a desperate rush for the next fix, heroin users do. And these people returned to the streets to rob you.
Alongside this, the oppressive security measures placed upon our domestic visits also influenced heroin use. A small bag of heroin is far easier to smuggle than a lump of cannabis. The unthinking will, at this point, be asking why even greater security isn't imposed, such as American style visits, through glass. The counter-intuitive answer is that this raises re-offending rates. As security increased from the mid 1990's, and the prison population has doubled, then the number of visitors has halved. Our friends and families object to being prodded and poked just to share our company.
Relationships collapse and families fragment. Such a pity that one of the most important influences on re-offending is a stable home life for the prisoner to return to.
The anti-drug effort unleashed under Howard did manage to influence the prison culture. In doing so, its outcomes were to nurture a generation of heroin addicts and increase the re offending rates. This highlights the dangers of piecemeal policy-making and the failure to appreciate the power of the 'law of unintended consequences'.
There were two other 'rehabilitative' efforts that were born from the last Tory government, targeted education and psychological treatments. Education provision became a victim of managerialism coupled with simplistic thinking. Rather than being eclectic and transformational - education in its best sense - it became fixated upon 'basic skills', i.e. literacy and numeracy.
The central driver in this was the claim that prisoners are so ill educated that they are unqualified for 90% of jobs. This may well be true. The solution imposed was to ensure that we were functionally literate and numerate. All funding and managerialist targeting focused upon this, to the exclusion of all else. I seemed to be one of the few who appreciated that whilst being literate and numerate is necessary for employment, it is not sufficient.
In focusing all efforts on this policy, prisons abandoned most of the Vocational Training Courses (VTC). Painting and decorating, landscaping, horticulture, industrial cleaning, TV repair... all the skills that could make a person either employable or able to start off on their own were destroyed.
And this remains the situation, despite the fact that there is no demonstrable link between educational achievement and re-offending. It may seem obviously true that there is but, as with much criminological, the obvious need not be in any way
correct.
The final illustration of the rehabilitative efforts began under Howard is Offending Behaviour Programmes. I cannot over-emphasise how much prisoners despise these. Give any con a gun and one bullet, line up a screw, a governor, a probation officer and a psychologist - and the psychologist is the one who should be worried. OBP were introduced from North America and are based on the idea that we commit crimes because we have 'cognitive deficits'. We think differently, apparently. And so we are forced to undertake endless psychological treatments aimed at curing this mental deviation. Of course, these things are all voluntary; we just don't get released unless we do them.
These courses have led to prisons being jammed, we are detained longer merely to undergo these treatments, which can last for years. The direct cost has been over £200 millions. The indirect cost - keeping people in prison longer at £43K a year to have these treatments - has never been calculated. It never will.
The idea that criminality can be 'cured' is an ancient one and deeply attractive to policy makers. This is why, 15 years after their introduction, OBP surge onwards. The evidence for their effectiveness is, at best, slim and the wider psychological community - that does not rely on prison employment - regards them with justifiable scepticism. They suck resources from genuine schemes that could lead to reduced re-offending.
These policy details are mere illustrations intended to evidence two points. Firstly, to highlight the dangers in forcing such change as Ken Clarke seems to intend. There must be a continual awareness of unintended consequences. Prisons - and prisoners -comprise a whole, and to interfere with one aspect of functioning may harm others, to the detriment of the whole. Getting prisoners off cannabis led to heroin, divorces and increased re offending. Never, never, forget to consider the wider effects of a single policy change.
Secondly, the changes wrought by Michael Howard demonstrated that change is possible. The seeming monolith that is 'prison' is actually a fractured entity, seething with competing and vested interests. Nevertheless, with the right strength of political will, change is possible.
Ken Clarke's 'rehabilitation revolution' is not as impossible as it sounds. If he has the will, he can alter the culture of prisons so that they offer their charges genuine opportunities to reshape their lives. But this must be done with great care and consideration. Any idiot can churn out new policies - and they do - but few of our political masters have managed to do so for the general good.
