Abstract
Objective
To test the process and impact of a complaints handling prototype to enhance the practical application of procedural justice (PJ) principles in a prison setting.
Methods
A randomised control trial and process evaluation involving 50 staff participants and 120 of their complaint responses. Complaint responses were quantitatively assessed for their PJ content, sentiment, and readability. Perceptions of the value of the prototype and how it had been implemented were examined qualitatively, through interviews or focus groups with six staff and five prison residents.
Results
The complaints prototype brought about statistically significantly improved PJ practice overall, and the impact was maintained over the 6-month follow-up. The prototype resulted in no change in the sentiment of words used. Concerningly, a statistically significant increase in the required reading age was observed.
Conclusions
The prototype improves prison staff’s use of PJ principles when responding to complaints. The approach is experienced as feasible and worthwhile.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The data comprise complaints from all five categories. Note that these data come from an information management tool rather than official statistics. The data are ‘live’ and remain subject to change; the figure will not be 100% accurate as the data are not always subject to full checks.
Selection criteria included: a Category C prison holding adult men, with a population of around 500 (or more), with levels of complaints (and appeals) higher than wanted, not having implemented any PJ-specific development work or work on the complaints process in the previous 12 months, a Complaints Clerk in post who is supportive of PJ practice, and a senior leadership team who is supportive of local PJ development work.
Due to the daytime regime scheduling in the prison, meeting in-person would have meant residents losing out on their association time. To enable people to take part, but not forgo this time, the option of written involvement was offered too.
Generally accepted interpretations of Cohen’s Kappa: below .40, poor; .40 to .75, fair to good; greater than .75, excellent.
datayze.com.
For example, Complaints relating to security matters are directed to the Security Department, those relating to sentence planning and assessment are directed to the Offender Management Unit, those relating to issues on the wings are directed to the Residential Units, and so on.
Whilst this may be a point to consider during future implementation of the prototype, the methodology of an RCT precludes this.
The example given related to a query as to whether the complainant was listed for different meals for dietary reasons. The responder could simply confirm that they were. In this case, the query should really have been submitted on an application form or addressed via a telephone call between the wing staff and catering department, and a complaint form not been used.
Responses to applications from people in prison to move to open prison conditions.
This is standard practice. The reason for this feedback from study participants was because the trial initially ‘cross-allocated’ residential complaints—they were allocated to any staff member based on any of the residential areas/wings. This was identified as operationally problematic and resolved within the early days of the trial.
References
Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334
Antrobus, E., Thompson, I., & Ariel, B. (2019). Procedural justice training for police recruits: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9331-9
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Lann, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2014). Procedural justice and prisoners’ mental health problems: A longitudinal study. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 24, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1881
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., Eichelsheim, V. I., & Van der Lann, P. H. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550710
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 43, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643
Bello, P. O., & Matshaba, T. D. (2022). The effects of procedural justice on obligation to obey, and compliance among incarcerated offenders in South Africa. The Prison Journal, 102, 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221136197
Bierie, D. M. (2013). Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (2000–2007). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028427
Blasko, B., Friedmann, P. F., Rhodes, A., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). The Parolee-Parole Officer relationship as a mediator of criminal justice outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814562642
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Butler, M., & Maruna, S. (2009). The impact of disrespect on prisoners’ aggression: Outcomes of experimentally inducing violence-supportive cognitions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802190970
Campbell, C. M., Labrecque, R. M., Schaefer, R. L., Harvis, M., Zavita, K. R., Reddy, L., & Labranche, K. (2020). Do perceptions of legitimacy and fairness matter in prison? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47, 1630–1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820916901
Choi, J., Ishoy, G. A., & Lee, J. (2021). Exploring cynicism toward prison administrations as a mediator of the association between quality of treatment and inmate misconduct. Crime, Law and Social Change, 76, 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09961-2
Day, J. C., Brauer, J. R., & Butler, H. D. (2015). Coercion and social support behind bars. Testing an integrated theory of misconduct and resistance in US prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814546352
Fitzalan Howard, F., & Wakeling, H. (2020). People in prisons’ perceptions of procedural justice in England and Wales. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47, 1654–1676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820964501
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Litmanovitz, Y., & Haviv, N. (2023). What works in police training? Applying an evidence-informed, general, ecological model of police training. Police Quarterly, 26, 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111221113975
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press.
Liu, L., Visher, C. A., & O’Connell, D. J. (2019). The strain of procedural justice on parolees: Bridging procedural justice theory and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 66, 250–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719839376
Liu, L., Miller, S. L., & Visher, C. A. (2021). The strain of procedural injustice in parole among former prisoners: A test with mixed-gender sample. Justice Quarterly, 38, 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1637011
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9240-0
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2017). Where did it all go wrong? Implementation failure—and more—in a field experiment of procedural justice policing. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9278-7
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 51, 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00289.x
McArthur, C., Bai, Y., Hewston, P., Giangregorio, L., Straus, S., & Papaioannou, A. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care: A qualitative evidence synthesis. Implementation Science, 16, 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01140-0
Morris, Z., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104, 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
Reisig, M. D., & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802089768
Rosenbaum, D. P., & Lawrence, D. S. (2012). Teaching respectful police-citizen encounters and good decision making: Results of a randomized control trial with police recruits. National Police Research Platform.
Sahin, N., Braga, A. A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. K. (2017). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 701–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9308-7
Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2018). Prison officer legitimacy, their exercise of power, and inmate rule breaking. Criminology, 56, 750–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12191
Tait, S. (2011). A typology of prison officer approaches to care. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811413804
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44, 26–31.
Voisey, J., Fitzalan Howard, F., Wakeling, H., Cunningham, N., Lane, S., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2022). Closing the evidence to practice gap: How can we embed procedural justice principles into complaint responses to prisoners? Prison Service Journal, 263, 13–23.
Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vovak, H., Zastrom, T., Braga, A. A., & Turchan, B. (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, e2118780119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211878011
Abderhalden, F. P., & Alward, L. (2022). Jailed individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice and suicidal ideation: An empirical examination. Crime & Delinquency, 70, 414–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106942
Edgar, K., & Tsintsadze, K. (2017). Tackling discrimination in prison: Still not a fair response. Zahid Mubarek Trust and the Prison Reform Trust. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://thezmt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Tackling-Discrimination-Report-Final.pdf
Fitzalan Howard, F., Box, G., & Wakeling, H. (2023). Examining procedural justice perceptions in probation in England and Wales. HMPPS. Retrieved from [August 23, 2023]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/examining-procedural-justice-perceptions-in-probation-in-england-and-wales
HMIP (2022a). HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales. Annual Report 2021–22. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/annual-report-2021-22/
HMIP (2022b). Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Featherstone. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/hmp-featherstone-4/
HMPPS (2019). Prisoner complaints policy framework. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prisoner-complaints-policy-framework
Lammy, D. (2017). Lammy review: Final report. An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report
Ministry of Justice (2022). Prison education statistics and accredited programmes in custody April 2021 to March 2022. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-education-and-accredited-programme-statistics-2021-2022
PPO (2022). Annual Report: 2021/22. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://www.ppo.gov.uk/document/annual-reports/
van Hall, M., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2022). Detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice: an examination throughout the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221132229
Wheller, L., Quinton, P., Fildes, A., & Mills, A. (2013). The Greater Manchester Police procedural justice training experiment: The impact of communication skills training on officers and victims of crime. Retrieved from [April 17, 2023]: https://library.college.police.uk/docs/college-of-policing/Technical-Report.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Table 5
Appendix 2
Table 6
Dear [add first name],
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Your complaint has been given the reference [add reference]. {if relevant} I apologise for sending you an interim response but I did this because I wanted to have all the facts available before I responded
Having read your complaint it is my understanding that your issue(s) is(are) in relation to [confirm your understanding of the complaint]. [Add in understanding of the impact this may have had for the individual]
I spoke with you about your complaint on [add date]. You confirmed [add what was discussed]. I asked you if you had any evidence you wanted me to consider during the investigation. You gave me [add evidence e.g., kiosk receipt or letters etc.]
I have now investigated [confirm what you have investigated] by [state what you have done e.g., spoken with specific staff or checked paperwork, camera footage or property cards]
I have carefully considered all aspects of your complaint, and I am able/unable to uphold this for the following reasons. [Explain why you are or are not upholding the complaint; and if we got something wrong then it is right to apologise and explain how we will make it right and/or prevent it happening again]
Following your complaint I have / will (where applicable) [add the specific actions]
EITHER (if not in their favour)
I understand this may not be the outcome you were hoping for and I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the support available to you here at HMP Featherstone [provide examples of relevant support/signposting]
OR (if in their favour)
I hope this response settles the matter for you
Yours sincerely,
[Add your name]
[Add your position]
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitzalan Howard, F., Voisey, J., Cunningham, N. et al. From evidence to practice: how to increase procedurally just practice in the handling of prison complaints. J Exp Criminol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09609-2
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09609-2