Crisis and Change in the British and Dutch Prison Services

Understanding Crisis-Reform Processes

Sandra L. Resodihardjo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351947503
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Jurisprudence
• Index: Law

What happens when incidents result in a policy sector losing its legitimacy? When a malfunctioning policy sector receives so much negative public attention that it has to fight for its survival? This study describes three such cases in detail within the British and Dutch Prison Services, examining the incidents, the negative response of the media and Members of Parliament to these incidents, and the way in which policy-makers tried to deal with the crises. This book establishes under which conditions such crises led to reform.

Chapter 1
Crisis and Reform in the Public Sector

Reform is difficult to accomplish. Political science and public administration literature is rife with examples of the barriers that hamper reform. If one would want to reform a policy sector, one could stumble over a number of obstacles, including budgetary obligations (which limit options because there is no money), goals set by outsiders (if parliament passes a law with new goals for the organization, the organization has to use its resources to obtain these goals), the paradigm of the policy sector (which includes values that dictate how to achieve goals, how to deal with certain problems and how not to) and reluctant civil servants (who could decide not to implement reform ideas).

Despite these many obstacles, reform – defined in this book as intended fundamental change of the policy and/or administration of a policy sector – does occur (cf. Heyse et al., 2006).¹ Departments in ministries become agencies (for instance, the Dutch Immigration Services or the Child Support Agency in England), new ministries are created (the Department of Homeland Security in the United States of America), government’s monetary policy changes (from a Keynesian model to a monetarist model; cf. Hall, 1993), constitutions are amended (Germany’s article 16 concerning asylum; cf. Alink, 2006), armed forces change their recruiting systems from conscription to all-voluntary forces (cf. Noll, 2005) and policies are changed (such as the social security policy changes in the Netherlands and Belgium; cf. Kuipers, 2006). These are just a few of the many examples of reform that occur regularly in the domain of public administration. Yet, if literature claims that reform is so difficult to obtain because of the many obstacles hampering reform, how does it come about?

Three answers are possible. First, political and bureaucratic leaders may introduce reform (Doig and Hargrove, 1990; ‘t Hart, 2000; Terry, 2003; Noll, 2005; Heyse et al., 2006). Second, reform is stumbled upon through the incremental policy process. Policy makers change policies by taking small steps that hardly deviate from existing policies (Lindblom, 1959, 1979; Harrison et al., 1990). These small changes, however, can add up over time and result in drastic change that may surprise policy makers (Lindblom, 1979: 521; cf. Rose and Davies, 1994: 36). The third manner in which reform can come about is interesting because incremental policy making, which is the standard method of making policy, is actually disrupted. Crises disrupt policy-making processes and present opportunities for reform. It is this last assumption – that crises can lead to reform – which is investigated in this book.

Although there is no such thing as an official crisis-reform thesis in the crisis or reform literature, it is possible to group the works of several authors together under this banner because these authors basically advocate the same argument (cf. Keeler, 1993; Kingdon, 1995; Cortell and Peterson, 1999). Their line of argument runs as follows. During crises, the policies, paradigm (which dictates how to achieve goals and implement policies), goals and functioning of a policy sector come under attack. The crisis poses a severe threat to the core values of a social system. Actors have to decide quickly how to deal with the crisis while the situation is highly uncertain (Rosenthal et al., 2001: 6–7). A crisis has two effects. First, actors – policy makers in this book – are under extreme pressure to find solutions to end the crisis. Media and Members of Parliament (MPs) question the functioning of the policy sector and demand better performance. Their message is clear: policy makers either have to deal with the crisis or resign. The second effect is that questioning the policies, paradigm, goals and functioning of a policy sector results in a declining support for these policies, paradigm, goals and functioning. Normally, these policies, paradigm and goals act as constraints because they limit what policy makers can do in terms of reform. Goals, for instance, are difficult to change, and so is the paradigm that dictates how to achieve these goals. However, as support for the paradigm, policies and goals declines, such constraints diminish. Consequently, it will be easier for people to push for reform as they can introduce new policies and goals that differ from the old ones. Moreover, other constraints, such as money, will also diminish as MPs will increase policy makers’ budgets to deal with the crisis.

As a result, or so the line of inquiry suggests, policy makers looking to end the crisis will have more leeway to suggest measures that were hitherto unacceptable or even unheard of. Moreover, so-called entrepreneurs can use the situation of lessened constraints to get a certain problem on the agenda, change the way a problem is defined – which will have consequences in determining the appropriate measures to deal with the problem (cf. Rochefort and Cobb, 1994) – or push for a favourite solution (Kingdon, 1995; Cortell and Peterson, 1999).

In short, the crisis-reform thesis postulates that policy makers are not only under pressure to find solutions to end the crisis, they also have increased freedom to suggest alternative measures. Crises present opportunities as the incremental policy-making process is disrupted.

Although the authors of the crisis-reform thesis claim the same thing (a crisis is an opportunity because constraints diminish, allowing policy makers to deal with the crisis and entrepreneurs to push for favourite solutions), a certain vagueness remains in the thesis. For starters, the authors do not employ a clear and widely shared body of concepts and terminology. Neither crisis, constraints, diminishing constraints, entrepreneurs nor reform are defined clearly. Definitions vary or do not exist at all. Moreover, the assumptions underpinning the model are not clearly expressed. Authors do not proceed beyond, for example, stating that constraints will diminish as a consequence of pressure, urgency and need. Exactly how this process works remains unclear. Which constraints are to diminish remains unclear as well. Furthermore, nothing is said about the broader framework in which crises occur. The theory states that crisis will lead to reform as actors can use the situation of diminished constraints to push for reform. It is as if the crisis occurs in a vacuum – only the crisis matters, not its context. As a result, no attention is paid to the possibility of a crisis as an accelerant of trends already occurring in the larger societal and political context of a policy sector.

Existing theory contains interesting ideas on the crisis-reform process, but lacks empirical findings to construct a coherent crisis-reform thesis. Empirical research conducted in this study should help to streamline current theory on the crisis-reform process. This study therefore takes a first step in opening the black box of the crisis-reform process by answering the following question: Under what conditions do crises in policy sectors lead to reform?

To answer this question, it is necessary to focus the research by studying a single type of crisis (instead of the many types of crises mentioned in the literature) in a single policy sector. Such a focus will ensure that the selected cases generate results which can be compared in order to determine the conditions under which crises lead to reform.

The type of crisis selected for this book is one which occurs in policy sectors: the institutional crisis. Such a crisis occurs when the institutional structure of a policy sector ‘experiences a relatively strong decline in (followed by unusually low levels of) legitimacy’ (Boin and ‘t Hart, 2000: 13). In other words, incidents show that a policy sector is not functioning as it ideally should. As a consequence, media and MPs start to question the functioning of the policy sector. They demand better performance of the policy sector, while questioning the policy sector’s rules, regulations, policies, goals and paradigm. This increase in negative attention from media and MPs towards the policy sector indicates that the policy sector’s legitimacy is in decline. Hence, actors working in the policy sector face an institutional crisis.

The selected policy sector is the prison service. The prison service is a clearly demarcated policy sector where only one ministry is in charge, the prison service is a clear and distinct organization within this ministry and the number of actors is limited and well known. This makes building case studies easier, as it is clear which actor to focus on while the number of actors one has to collect data on remains manageable.

By selecting cases from two countries, it is possible to conduct a comparative case analysis which takes the context and events of the various cases into consideration (Kaarbo and Beasley, 1999; Yin, 2003; Rueschemeyer, 2003). The two countries differ markedly on two accounts: parliamentary system and media. The Dutch parliamentary system can be labelled a consensual system where building consensus is key. The emphasis on consensus building is not only found in the parliamentary tradition of the Netherlands, but also between government and other organizations (cf. Bovens et al., 2001: 19). The British parliamentary system is more adversarial and characterized by a dominant Cabinet (Gallagher et al., 1992: 54; Hague and Harrop, 2001: 239–40; Hueglin, 2003). In addition, Dutch media attention towards the prison service is usually low key and nonexistent (unless something happens such as an escape), while the British media addresses the prison service almost daily in their newspapers. When there are no incidents to pay attention to (such as escapes), topics in the British media range from pleas to either cut or increase jail sentences to privatization of prisons and court escort services. Moreover, the British media are much more outspoken and judgemental when it comes to the prison service than their Dutch counterparts. Despite these dissimilarities, cases from these two countries can be selected for comparative analysis because of the similarities within the two prison services: the structure of prison services is quite similar and both prison services face similar problems and constraints as they need to keep prisoners contained and treat them properly on a small budget. In addition, the selected cases all focus on matters related to security and prison conditions.

For this study, the following three cases were selected: escapes and cell shortage in the Netherlands (1992–1993), and escapes (1994–1995) and riots (1990–1991) in Britain. The three cases are characterized by an institutional crisis with reform as the end result. The cases diverge, however, in the paths taken to this outcome making it possible to further our understanding of how and when crises lead to reform.

In order to understand the different paths taken to reform, the literature concerning the crisis-reform thesis will be discussed in Chapter 2. Following a description of the barriers normally hampering reform, the basic functions of the crisis-reform thesis is explained as well as the crisis-reform patterns one should be able to discern in a case if the theory is correct. In order to be able to discern these patterns, we need to know what to look for in a case. Chapter 2 ends with a clarification on how to find the most important concepts of the thesis in reality. Chapter 3 provides a brief introduction to the two prison services and describes the status quo prior to the outbreak of the crises. As such, this chapter offers background information for the reader and provides the information needed to determine the occurrence of reform following the crises. The three cases are presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Each case chapter contains a description of the events. For each case, the existence of an institutional crisis and reform is established. The extent to which the theoretical patterns of reform can be discerned in the three cases is discussed in Chapter 7. In this chapter, it becomes clear that the crisis-reform thesis does not completely explain the crisis-reform processes in these three cases. Other conditions are at work which are currently not addressed in the crisis-reform thesis. Chapter 8 provides an explanation of these additional conditions and introduces alternative paths to reform.

Note

1. Please note that the definition of reform used in this study is neutral. Consider, for instance, the effects of the escapes in 1994–1995 on the Prison Service of England and Wales: a massive redirection from Woolf’s need to balance justice, security and control to an overwhelming focus on security. In general, criminologists will not label this change in direction as reform because of the negative effects it created for the prisoners. In this book, however, the change is labelled reform because it fits the definition. Moreover, no normative stance is taken towards the effects – be they positive or negative – of reforms described in this book.

Chapter 2
The Crisis-Reform Thesis: How Crises Can Lead to Reform

Introduction¹

Most scholars of public administration and political science tend to agree that re-designing policy and organizations within a policy sector is difficult. Their research shows that it is hard to get reform proposals on the political agenda (Kingdon, 1995) and even harder to overcome barriers such as vested interests and sunk costs that prevent reform proposals from being accepted by parliament (Wilsford, 1994; Shepsle, 2001). In the unlikely event that parliament does accept them, successful implementation of these proposals often proves a challenge in itself (Caiden, 1991; Cortell and Peterson, 2001; Patashnik, 2003).

In spite of all these difficulties, reform – that is, intended fundamental change of the policy and/or administration of a policy sector – does occur (Heyse et al., 2006). The Dutch Minister of Agriculture, for example, restructured the agricultural sector in the late 1990s. This sector was infamous for the way farmers were able to block any reform (Breeman et al., 2000). In the Dutch Prison Service, a long tradition of one person to a cell, supported by a coalition of governors, prison officers and Members of Parliament, was abandoned when double-bunking was introduced in 2002 (Dekker et al., 2003). In Germany, the right to asylum had traditionally been a sensitive subject due to Germany’s Nazi past and the effects of unification. In the early 1990s, a coalition of CDU/CSU, FDP, and SDP managed to reform article 16 of the Basic Law in order to limit the influx of asylum seekers (Alink, 2006). If reform is really as difficult as conventional wisdom has it, the question arises how and why it can sometimes happen.

All the above mentioned examples of reform were preceded by crises. Crisis is an interesting phenomenon because it is often identified as a necessary catalyst for reform (cf. Keeler, 1993; Kingdon, 1995; Cortell and Peterson, 1999).² Crises create possibilities and opportunities. Constraints that normally limit policy makers when they want to propose reform tend to lessen in times of crisis. As a result, policy makers can formulate reform proposals that were unacceptable or even unheard of before the crisis. In short, crisis presents an opportunity for reform, or so these authors claim.

The idea that crisis facilitates reform will be referred to in this book as the crisis-reform thesis. In reality, there is no such thing as an official crisis-reform thesis, but it is possible to group the works of several authors on crisis and reform together under this banner because these authors basically advocate the same argument. They argue that a crisis can overcome the barriers that normally halt reform. Solutions that were hitherto unthinkable become acceptable. Crisis presents an opportunity, which can be exploited to push for reform. The thesis is often suggested and intuitively accepted as one way in which reform actually comes about. This book aims to explore under what conditions crises lead to reform.

In order to do so, this chapter presents the crisis-reform thesis and explains which patterns one may expect to occur if crisis is to lead to reform.³ Starting with a description of the barriers blocking reform, the chapter then continues to explain how these barriers can be overcome by describing the most important concepts of the crisis-reform thesis. Having described the patterns of the crisis-reform process, the chapter concludes with an explanation how these crisis-reform patterns can be discerned in reality and which data are needed for this research.

Barriers to Reform: A Review of the Literature

Conventional wisdom dictates that it is difficult to reform policy and organizations within a policy sector. It suggests, and empirical research tends to bear out, that pol...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Crisis and Reform in the Public Sector
• 2 The Crisis-Reform Thesis: How Crises Can Lead to Reform
• 3 Two Prison Systems: Pre-Crisis Descriptions
• 4 The Dutch Prison Service: Cell Shortages and Escapes (1992–1993)
• 5 Riots and Reform in England (1990–1991)
• 6 The Escapes from Whitemoor and Parkhurst (1994–1995)
• 7 Recognizing Patterns of Reform
• 8 Alternative Paths to Reform
• Appendices
• References
• Index