Moving forward at the front line

Chaplains

Chaplains were key to the experiment. They were my liaison point with the prisons and the practitioners responsible for the target population, the STP waiting-list, and were busy people (Petersilia, 1989). Chaplains had to champion the RCT if it was to succeed as they were well-placed to confound it if they doubted the methodology or did not accept its importance. I had to ensure that they understood the rationale for random assignment, allay any ethical dilemmas they may have, encourage them in their supply of cases, and support them when they met resistance to RCT procedures.

Chaplains assumed responsibility for identifying eligible men and holding research presentations but not all were good delegators or administrators. Moreover, the working practices within Chaplaincies seemed quite fragmented. Chaplaincies relied on several part-time assistants and volunteers. Nearly all ST coordinators were part-time employees or volunteers; sometimes they were paid by PFEW and sometimes by HMPS. Their time was limited to a maximum of two days per week. Volunteer ST coordinators were also

78 _{The prisoners’ questions indicated that they had carefully read the consent form before they signed it (see Chapter}

8). Subsequently practitioners often told me that the men were ‘very suspicious’ and ‘quite sophisticated’ in their interaction with prison authority.

busy people as they juggled their family priorities with their prison work. For example, a ST coordinator left one prison giving domestic circumstances as the reason.

HMPS functioned on Emails; meetings within the prison, and sometimes the same department, were arranged and coordinated by Email. Consequently Email was not always the quickest means of communication. Chaplains confirmed my impression that anything that could not be classified directly to a specific department was sent to them. As they were responsible for the pastoral care of inmates, they could be called at a moment’s notice to deal with a crisis. For instance, one Chaplain collected me from the gate, escorted me to his office, and then left me while he went to inform a prisoner that his father had died. The circumstances were unusually difficult and the Chaplain was gone for some time. It should be noted that I would not have been allowed to enter the prison at all except that there were other Chaplaincy staff in the office.

The Chaplains unanimously supported the experiment but recruitment began just as the government began to implement budget cuts and efficiency measures. This changed staffing levels, workloads, and working practices (Roman et al., 2012; Sherman, 2010; Strang, 2012). Chaplaincies where there were fewer changes coped better. Furthermore, I increasingly concentrated on conducting observations (Lipsey et al., 2006) and so devoted less attention to their sample production. I continued to offer encouragement, prioritising prisons that were recruiting slowly. I telephoned regularly and had problem-solving conversations when I visited. Except when in prisons, I was constantly available by telephone should Chaplains need advice or reassurance.

Although unfailingly courteous, some Chaplainsand ST coordinators were slow to organise research presentations. Whilst there were often several people working in Chaplaincies, they were unconnected with the STP and so were never asked to assist. Without staff to whom recruiting cases could be delegated, presentations were not held. Planning recruiting presentations did not become 'routine' because they were only necessary when the next ST course approached as holding research presentations too far in advance risked higher attrition (Asscher et al., 2007; Gueron, 2002; Roman et al., 2012; Strang, personal communication).

When ST courses were imminent several factors prevented recruiting efforts. These included annual leave, training sessions, or lack of time (caused by other staff absence). Having assumed responsibility for cooperating with the RCT Chaplains seemed to infer that they could not delegate outside people directly involved with STP administration. I met one Chaplain (not the Coordinating Chaplain) who disliked the STP on the grounds of its cost to HMPS. This Chaplain was acting as Coordinating Chaplain so I was in some difficulty. I asked the ST coordinator at that prison (a volunteer) to arrange research presentations but no cases were supplied. This situation arose despite the Governor and Offender Manager’s support for the experiment (see Chapter 9).

As other experimentalists have discovered, once initial enthusiasm began to wane, slow starts themselves became obstacles (Roman et al., 2012). That is, at prisons where recruiting began quickly, their success in supplying cases fuelled enthusiasm for further recruiting. For prisons with delays, low numbers of cases themselves became decelerants. I attended prisons regularly and was always received with apparent pleasure. However, it was obvious that morale was affected by budget-cutting, uncertainty about further ST courses, and staff losses. I always tried to be positive but the prisons that had held few or no research presentations seemed to find it harder to get started. After 18 months (June 2013) the earliest prisons to supply cases were clearly the most productive. This is consistent with the literature (Torgerson & Torgerson, 2008). Even though they were all working in similar environments, the prisons that supplied regular, large batches

demonstrated that progress provided its own propulsion.

Two prisons rapidly produced cases; one operated by HMPS, the other by a private company. At the private prison a uniformed officer recruited cases, in the public prison PFEW employed the ST coordinator who worked closely with the Chaplain. The common denominator was organisational efficiency, an assertive method of inviting prisoners to research presentations, and ensuring that the presentation was included in the men’s daily schedule; they followed-up immediately if men failed to attend. This was not coercion, rather an approach of ‘come and see’ instead of ‘would you like to’. The less productive prisons had no common factors although three lost Chaplains, staff members, or

volunteers early in the experiment. Without someone at the site to prioritise the experiment, case production was slow. Notwithstanding the unexpected lack of

presentations, in all prisons the percentage of attendees who consented was consistently high (83.1% overall) (see Chapter 6).

Governors

Governors’ permission to implement the RCT was necessary but individually they were barely involved. I met a Governor at every prison at some stage of the RCT’s

implementation but, as recruiting began, few were free to meet me when I attended the prison. My visits had to suit Chaplaincy timing and fit with ST course observations rather than Governors’ schedules.

There was some staff turnover of Governors as they moved around the prison service in the same way as any other officer. Thus new Governors had not had the opportunity to meet me and discuss the implications of allowing an RCT in their establishments. There were other changes at Governor level that threatened the experiment (see below). To forestall potential problems, I attempted to meet all new staff soon after they took up their appointments.

All the Governors expressed an interest in the RCT and some were keen to have informal progress reports. Nevertheless, my contact with them was largely through Chaplains as Governors had delegated decision-making to them. Governors’ authority was important, though, as they supported the integrity of random allocations when other officers

threatened it (see Chapter 6).

Governors managed their prison budgets and, as prisons were charged for the STP, their support for further courses was paramount to ensuring the continued availability of treatment places.