Trauma-Informed Prisons: paradox or paradigm

Institutional violence is the systemic reproduction of oppressive policy and practice (for example, housing children in unregulated accommodation; releasing people from prison with no fixed abode; assessing universal credit and Personal Independence Payment) in ways that harm large groups of vulnerable people.

This type of violence prevents victims from satisfying their basic needs and is an avoidable impairment of the fundamental means necessary for human existence, as Vincenzo Ruggiero has observed.

Prison is an institution that perpetuates systemic violence and trauma, continuing and enforcing the harms done against oppressed people, whether working-class, minoritised by race, faith, sex, or discriminated against for their gender roles, disabilities, religious practices and more.

According to a recent evidence review on prison violence:

The prison environment … plays a considerable role in how prisoners behave... poor conditions... controlling regimes, or... circumstances in which rules are... adhered to... can each heighten tensions and induce stresses potentially giving rise to conflict and assault.

Given this significantly oppressed, largely poor and – despite being often 'guilty' of crime – vulnerable population, how does trauma and environmental or institutional violence manifest, and does it matter? Should people in prison be subject to hostile environments? Have they, indeed, done something ‘to deserve it’? Is it possible to have trauma-informed prisons, or is this an oxymoron?

Violence reduction tends to focus on direct violence between individuals or groups. However, to create a less violent society, the focus must be the whole system rather than the individual.

Sociologist, and principal founder of peace and conflict studies, Johan Galtung, coined the phrases 'negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’. The former focuses on the absence of conflict (such as a ceasefire or a post-war period); the latter, on a lasting state of peace that challenges structures and cultures of violence, making violence less likely to recur.  

Our current society appears to focus on creating negative peace by imprisoning those who threaten the potential state of perceived peace (‘criminals’). However, it does not change the systems and structures that generate violence. Indeed, our prison population steadily increases over time.

Statistics from the Ministry of Justice demonstrate that the criminal justice system is oppressive, racist, and harmful, with prisons themselves being the epitome of a trauma-inducing and trauma-perpetuating environment.

• On 31 March 2021, prisoners who self-declared as being from Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background represented 21,394 (or 28 per cent) of all prisoners, about 17 per cent of whom identified as Muslim.
• Between 2012 and 2020, the rate of self-harm among prisoners in public prisons in England and Wales went up in every ethnic group. The increase was biggest among prisoners with ‘mixed ethnicity’ – from 136 to 443 self-harm incidents per 1,000 prisoners, an increase of 226 per cent.
• There were 55,542 self-harm incidents in the 12 months to December 2020, down 13% from the previous 12 months, comprising a 16% decrease in male establishments and a 0.5% increase in female establishments. However, the statistician’s comment on data from the same report reads: “In 2020 we have seen falls in the number of self-harm and assault incidents, and an increase in deaths in the year to March 2021”.

Another passing fad?

A trauma-informed approach...or system is trauma-informed if it demonstrates a realisation of the widespread impacts of trauma and potential pathways toward recovery; a recognition of the signs and symptoms of trauma in individuals and groups; a response that involves fully integrating knowledge about trauma into practices and policies; and efforts to prevent re-traumatisation of individuals and groups.

Champine and others

The roots of trauma-informed practice include acknowledging power, privilege, and oppression. The terms culturally appropriate, anti-racist and anti-oppressive have become synonymous with trauma-informed practice in recent years.

This connection can be correct; truly trauma-informed practice will always be aware of different cultural norms, anti-racist and anti-oppressive.

Whereas work in prison can use a trauma-informed lens, the prison institution itself cannot be trauma-informed. The idea of the trauma-informed prison estate, soon to be expanded by 10,000 cells and complemented by new laws that potentially imprison children for longer, is nonsensical.

The criminal justice system and the reality of the prison estate simultaneously oppress individuals and communities and support racist policy by both action and inaction. Cycles of prison reform, ‘rehabilitative culture’ or ‘transforming justice’, which trend and wane according to leadership, are not grounded in realistic long-term thinking.

Why should ‘trauma-informed’ be more than another passing fad?

The lack of long-term thinking and political bravery required to create sustainable change leaves space for performance activism, including from the voluntary sector. It amounts to very little change on the ground, though perhaps leaves many in the sector feeling good about our efforts.

No matter how pretty we attempt to make things look, our prisons are there to uphold the status quo and enforce many of the oppressive and racist practices we are yet to dismantle and redesign. That must be our strategic focus as we work towards genuine freedom.

The Critical Care series is intended to provoke, promote and invite colleagues from a range of situations and positions, to think through and engage in debate about the ways we lead, follow, invest and deliver our own individual and institutional authority.