‘Silo Mentalities’ and Their Impact on Service Delivery in Prison-Community Transitions: A Case Study of Resettlement Provision at a Male Open Prison

Abstract

Set against a backdrop of persistently high reoffending rates and the emergent ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ (TR) agenda, the main argument in this article is derived from research of resettlement provision at a male open prison. Findings indicated that staff showed limited knowledge of the resettlement pathways of the Offender Management Model (OMM) and this had a direct impact on the purpose, range, and content of service delivery prior to release. Characteristics of a ‘silo mentality’ were identified within the prison's organisational framework which detracted from providing a sufficiently focused level of service according to the multi‐faceted requirements of the seamless sentence and the ‘through the gate’ ethos. The implications of this ‘myopic exclusivity’ for resettlement policy, design and practice of the prison and for the wider context of the penal system itself are not insignificant. They will present further major challenges and questions for TR.

Negotiating barriers: prisoner and staff perspectives on mental wellbeing in the open prison setting

“…The breakdown in communication, co-operation and coordination has been associated with the development of silos within organisations, that can be "detrimental to the resilience of organisations and communities" (Fenwick, Seville and Brunsdon 2009, p.ii). As noted by Moore and Hamilton (2016), policy makers are becoming concerned about the impact that silos may have on resettlement and the authors suggest a silos mentality is "endemic" across the criminal justice system. The barriers surrounding masculinity will also be challenging to overcome due to the pervasive nature of the issues.…”

“…Effective information sharing between staff members and a multidisciplinary approach is identified as being crucial to the management of the ACCT process (MOJ, 2011) and this may highlight a need for staff training or a refresher in this area to ensure all staff are approaching this in the same way. Following the required processes with ACCT has been highlighted as a weakness across the prison setting previously and a staff bulletin was released that aimed to address this (MOJ, 2011) which may suggest a disjoint between policy and local delivery or a lack of consistency with individual staff approaches (Moore and Hamilton, 2016). Information sharing is an integral part of effectively negotiating the barriers to providing and accessing support for mental wellbeing across the prison estate and in offender health more broadly (Byng et al, 2012) Peer Support Roles…”

“…Another member of staff remarks on the governance surrounding the Listener role, the positive impact the Listeners appear to have in relation to self-harm and how prisoners may prefer to speak with a peer: The primary focus in the open prison setting towards employment is important but the concern is that other aspects that may link to offending behaviour or resettlement such as mental and physical health, drugs and alcohol and maintaining relationships (HMIP, 2014) may not be addressed, or an assumption made that these other aspects have already been addressed in the closed setting, rather than an appreciation of the dynamic nature of these interplaying factors (Moore and Hamilton 2016;Moore 2012;Hedderman 2007). HMIP (2007) indicated that two factors, as identified by prisoners, were essential to help with emotional and mental health issues; 1) activity, and 2) support from staff and other prisoners.…”

The Enigmas of Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Forms of Capital, Desistance and the Contextualisation of Carceral‐Community Offender Transitions

“…The prison system lacks key resources for the most basic provision during custody and post‐discharge for many offenders, let alone operationalising Bourdieusian theory. Problems of delivery are compounded by internal organisational deficiencies and the divisive impact of silo mentalities, intra‐ and inter‐institutions, which detract from offering a coherent, integrated and clearly targeted service (Moore and Hamilton ). A joint report by the Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation in England and Wales (HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons ) concluded that offender management in prisons was not working and ‘should be subject to a fundamental review’ (Maguire and Raynor , p.139).…”

“…A joint report by the Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation in England and Wales (HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons ) concluded that offender management in prisons was not working and ‘should be subject to a fundamental review’ (Maguire and Raynor , p.139). The problems identified were, inter alia the ‘absence of a broad rehabilitative culture within many prisons’, lack of communication and co‐operation between departments (see Moore and Hamilton ), poor record keeping, insufficient understanding of the role of offender supervisors in prisons and guidance given, and too little emphasis on ‘managing risk and reducing offending’ rather than ‘practical resettlement problems’ which is the more common focus (Maguire and Raynor , p.140). ‘End to end’ offender management (offender manager in the community and supervisor in prison) may be replaced by a more systems based ‘handover model’ of organisational progression that could include input from more stakeholders (Maguire and Raynor ).…”