I am writing this post as an interested external observer. I’d be very grateful for any views, insights, comments etc. from prison staff, whether serving or retired.
I will start by arguing that, in a general sense, the closer people who work within the Pillars are to the problems of exclusion, crime, imprisonment etc. (i.e. Focus Group characteristics) the more willing they are to appreciate (and therefore believe) that more creative methods of working are needed to solve problems presented.
Throughout my career in this area of work I have met many prison officers that have good will towards people in custody and their families and wish to be involved in assisting them. Indeed, prison officers are one of the few statutory professionals that actually journey with very distressed and debilitated families.
The reasons why I believe that officers are a huge (and I don’t use that word lightly) and often untapped reserve, are:
~ (As I stated above) – they live with people who have suffered trauma, who have serious addiction problems, and who mostly live chaotic lives for long periods of time.
~ They get to know families due to arranging visits, phone calls, occasions etc. Thus they learn quickly what is going on in families, who is trustworthy, who is not, even who is in danger, who is safe, who is wise, who has leadership potential etc.
~ Not only do they deal with trauma directly, (unlike many other professionals in education, health and justice) they also deal with the aftermath – sometimes for a long time.
~ They develop skills in managing anger, anxiety, fear, etc. in others, and negotiating difficulties with people who can be very unreasonable.
~ They have a vested interest in keeping those who are in prison emotionally well in themselves.
And very importantly:
~ Because most people who go to prison are young immature men and women, officers (both male and female) are powerful role models.
In short – officers have a relationship (the thing that has potential for most change) with people in prison and their families, and (as we mentioned previously) they are culturally familiar with their situation.
Also (and, once again contrary to what is portrayed in media and entertainment in general) men and women serving time in prison often think about things very deeply. Remembering the Chapter on Symmetry – they will be attracted to people who match the depth that they have themselves.
This is rarely experienced in the external world of shunting from professional to professional, short, hurried meetings, and the asymmetric diagnosis/prognosis.
Deep conversations have a much greater chance of occurring in encounters within prison, and officers are very well placed to make use of such conversations to enhance awareness or even, simply, offer a meaning to prisoners’ experiences. I believe that it is far easier to find meaning in something if we are experiencing it in the context of a sense of belonging, which is something that those in custody can have when in prison.
This, of course, brings us right back to family – it is likely that the deep conversations that have meaning, (which officers have potential to be part of), are about family, children and relationship, and very possibly are a yearning for a sense of belonging in some stable entity outside the prison.
We are always trying to improve prison conditions and thereby reduce the likelihood that those who are released will re-offend. (A person who continually re-offends is called a recidivist).
There are some good exemplars of prison regimes particularly in places like Scandinavia but we can’t simply transfer the Scandinavian model to Ireland because there is a substantial cultural difference between their countries and ours.
However we can learn a lot from others and graft what we learn onto the best of what we can come up with that is sympathetic to, or matches, our own culture.