Cambios en las empresas fabricantes

The research was interested in examining prisoners’ perceptions of participating in the programme. Strict inclusion or exclusion criteria were not imposed. However, it was required that prisoners had participated on BrightHorizons for a minimum of three months. This was to ensure that all potential participants had completed the training and induction processes required of the role, and had enough experience of participating in BrightHorizons to provide insights into its influence on their rehabilitation and its delivery processes. It was also decided that ex-BrightHorizons participants who were still in the prison were eligible to take part – provided they had previously completed the minimum three months. This was partly to maximise the sample size, and also carried the benefit of gathering some fully retrospective accounts of participation, which provided insights into the longer-term impact of participating. The sampling technique can be described strategically as both purposeful (Marshall, 1996; Emmel, 2013; Patton, 2015) and convenience (Saumure and Given, 2012; Robinson, 2014). That is, prisoners were identified and selected on the basis that they were knowledgeable about and experienced with the programme; and that they were available and willing to participate (Palinkas et al., 2015). It should be stressed that participants self-selected, which could have limited the extent to which the views gathered were representative of all prisoners with experience of BrightHorizons (see section 4.5.3).

4.3.4 Participant recruitment

Recruitment of participants was facilitated by BrightHorizons staff. As an ‘outsider’ with no independent access to the prison, there was no real alterative way of approaching and recruiting prisoners14_{. This raises the possibility of selection bias – here the possibility that} BrightHorizons staff selected those who had favourable experiences on the programme (see section 4.5.3). Potential participants were invited to take part voluntarily and anonymously within programme time (eg. when they would usually otherwise be working at BrightHorizons). Former BrightHorizons participants were contacted individually by

14 _{Alternative methods of recruitment include: researcher presentations to group meetings; direct researcher}

approach to prisoners, including by letter; peer recruiters, and initial informed provision followed by prisoners enrolling by initiating contact with the researchers outside of the closed setting (eg. by telephone) (Sutton et al., 2003; Stiles et al., 2012; Abbott et al., 2018). However- as was the case in the current study- researchers usually cannot make direct contact with prisoners, thus prison staff identifying and recruiting participants is a common recruitment method in research with prisoners (Abbott et al., 2018).

100 programme staff. This was only a small proportion of the sample. The majority were participating in BrightHorizons at the time of their interview. However, a few had either left permanently, left and returned, or were in the process of re-joining (see table 1). Staff distributed a recruitment leaflet (see Appendix B) to all eligible prisoners, verbally explained the research, and informed prisoners they could volunteer to take part by letting a member of staff know. A more detailed information sheet (see Appendix C) was also distributed, which emphasised that participation was entirely voluntary and that they were free to withdraw at any point, and that participation (or otherwise) in the research would not affect their parole or any administrative or programming decisions. This mitigated the risk that they had been coerced to take part by a misguided belief that cooperating with the research would affect their status in the CJS (Copes, Hochstetler and Brown, 2013). Prisoners also had a chance to ask questions directly of the research team during induction visits completed prior to data collection. Two familiarisation visits were made to each prison, throughout which introductions were made to participating prisoners and staff members. Event Days, training sessions and Information Days were observed. The induction process served two purposes- to ensure that the researcher had a chance to communicate information about the study to potential participants (to mitigate against coercion (see section 4.4.1) and selection bias (see section 4.5.3), and to increase rapport (see section 4.5.5)), and that the researcher was familiar with the prison and BrightHorizons’ policies and procedures.

Once all potential participants had been informed about the research and given a chance to put themselves forward, managers compiled a list of names of those who had expressed an interest. Dates and times for interviews were arranged via email initially, and subsequently either via email or when visiting the prison for interviews, on a rolling basis. Interviews were confirmed several days beforehand and rescheduled if necessary.

Participant recruitment was an ongoing process. The high risk of attrition common to prison research was managed throughout (Fox, Zambrana and Lane, 2011). Attrition was a risk for several reasons, such as prisoners choosing to drop out of the study or programme, being moved to a different prison or being released before their interview. BrightHorizons staff helped reduce this risk by taking release dates into consideration when scheduling interviews. As far as the research team were made aware, there were only two prisoners who put themselves forward for the study but could not be interviewed- one who was released, and another who left the programme and was deemed too vulnerable to participate. Only one eligible prisoner

101 chose not to participate from the outset. Thus, as far as can be told the response rate was almost 100 percent – the vast majority of those identified as suitable were prepared and able to participate.

4.3.5 Participant characteristics

There are no prescriptive sample sizes in qualitative research (Yardley, 2000; Payne and Payne, 2004). The final sample size was 27 participants- 20 male and seven female (see table 1 for participant characteristics15_{). Males made up a greater proportion of the sample, partly due to} there being two male prisons and one female, and partly a reflection of the overrepresentation of males in the prison population. Participants had been taking part in BrightHorizons for at least three months, and up to four years and eight months. Ten were aged 18-30, fourteen were aged 31-50, and one was over 50 years old. Seven were white, 17 were black, two were Asian, and one was mixed-race. 18 were serving sentences of five years or longer (12 of them life sentences), and nine were serving sentences of under five years. The longest sentence was 22 years and the shortest one year and nine months. 17 were in prison for a violent crime, six for acquisitive crime, and four for drug-related offences.

As set out in section 1.5.4 prisoners had to meet a strict selection criterion to be eligible to participate in BrightHorizons. Thus, all participants in the current sample had been in the prison for a minimum of 12 weeks. They were at least ‘Standard’ and working towards ‘Enhanced’ or were of ‘Enhanced’ IEP status (see footnote 5), with no adjudications in the previous 6 months. They were not appealing against their sentence and stated that they took full responsibility for their offence16_{. They had no convictions against children or young people or} convictions of a sexual nature. They were willing to follow guidance from any rehabilitation programme or offending behaviour programme that they attended. They were willing to follow healthcare guidance and medication if necessary, and were required to disclose any medical conditions/diagnosis that may have required additional support and/or impact ability to work at interview. They were willing to undertake any training and activities required of the role and

15 _{Most of this information was compiled by BrightHorizons staff from official prison records and passed on to}

the research team. Where information was missing, details were taken from interview transcripts where possible. As indicated, some details went unknown.

102 have their progress monitored. Finally, they had passed a security, mental health and risk assessment.

This criterion (set by the programme), combined with the fact that BrightHorizons was a voluntary programme, has implications for the sample. Namely, that insights were captured from a group of particularly well-adjusted, low-risk and highly motivated prisoners. Something which does not generally reflect the prison population (see also Wilson, Gallagher and MacKenzie, 2000; Graffam, Shinkfield and Lavelle, 2014). The implications of this for the current findings and their applicability to less motivated prisoners are discussed in sections 4.5.4 and 9.4.

103 Table 1: Participant characteristics

Pseudonym Age Length of participation on BrightHorizons (years, months) Programme status

Index offence Sentence length (years, months) Time served (years, months) First time in prison

Matthew 28 4, 8 Left and

returned; participating for the second time Joint Enterprise Murder 12 9 Yes Anthony 43 1 Current participant Death by dangerous driving 12, 6 4 Unknown Ed 26 4 Participating part-time Joint Enterprise Murder 12 9 Yes Sanjay 36 0, 8 Current participant Possession and intent to supply class A drugs and driving whilst disqualified 2, 9 Unknown No

Darren 32 0, 6 Ex-participant Drugs-related 2, 8 Unknown Unknown

Drew 32 0, 3.5 Current participant Fraud 1, 9 0, 6 Yes Lauren 32 4 Current participant Conspiracy to cause GBH with intent 16 5, 3 Yes Claire 29 0, 9 Current participant Murder 15 9, 6 Yes

104 Henry 46 0, 6 Current participant Conspiracy to possess firearms ammunition with the intent to enable others to endanger life 14 Unknown No Kevin 54 3, 5 Current participant Burglary 4 1, 9 No

Jordan 50 1, 6 Left and

returned; participating for the second time Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life 10 8 No

Elouise Unknown Unknown Current

participant

Murder Life,

tariff unknown

12 No

Keira 24 0, 8 Ex-participant Joint

Enterprise Manslaughter

5 Unknown Yes

Steven 23 0, 4 Ex-participant Fraud and

money laundering 2, 5 0, 5 Yes Erica 28 1 Current participant Conspiracy to supply class A drugs 11 2, 6 Yes Corey 28 0, 5 Current participant Joint Enterprise Murder 13 11 Yes

105 James 31 0, 7 Current participant Conspiracy to supply class A drugs 13 3, 6 No Ollie 30 0, 7 Current participant Murder 22 12 No Mick 34 0, 6 Participating part-time Murder 15 11 No Joe 34 0, 3.5 Ex-participant in the process of re-joining Fraud 3, 9 1, 3 No Jonathan 45 0, 7.5 Current participant Attempted murder, possession of a firearm, armed robbery 15 11 No Tyreese 22 0, 4 Current participant Robbery and attempted robbery 4, 3 2, 11 Yes

Joanna 25 Unknown Current

participant

Possession of a firearm

5 0, 7 Yes

Tabitha Unknown 0, 4 Ex-participant Joint

Enterprise Murder 13 12 Yes Gary 31 0, 4 Current participant Murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to supply firearms ammunition 16 12 Unknown

106 Marvin 36 0, 3 Current participant Burglary and handling stolen goods 3, 6 0, 8 No Kieran 37 1 Ex-participant in the process of re-joining on a part-time basis Murder and conspiracy to rob 22 14 No

107

4.3.6 Interview procedure

The data collection period began with two pilot interviews at the larger men’s prison on 4th

July 2016, and ran until 26th June 2017. The purpose of the pilot was to test the appropriateness of the procedure and instruments, to inform any necessary modifications (Van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001). The interview schedule was tested for wording, order of questioning and ease of understanding; the information sheet and consent form for similar issues; and the audio- recorder for suitability. The pilot also enabled the researcher to practice and refine the interview process and effective techniques (Holloway, 1997). Finally, it allowed for any practical problems to be identified, such as issues relating to prison access, taking the recorder into prison, and having suitable interviewing space. All research materials and equipment were found to be suitable. A few minor changes were made to the interview schedule following the pilot study (see also section 4.4.3). Some of the prompts/follow-up questions were moved to ensure questions were grouped more logically together and to reduce repetition, and the wording of some questions was refined to increase clarity. Two questions were added- one relating to the impact of the wider prison on rehabilitation, and one set of questions specifically about release. Given that no major changes were made, data from pilot interviews was analysed along with data from the main study.

As noted, most interviews were conducted when prisoners would normally have been working on BrightHorizons. All interviews were scheduled around daily regimes at each prison, and any specific events within the prison and/or BrightHorizons on any given day. A maximum of two interviews were conducted each visit. Interviews were conducted in spaces designated to BrightHorizons within each prison, which differed slightly between prisons. In two of the three prisons the interviews took place in the kitchens, adjoined but separate to the main space. This did not pose any issues to the data collection process because a solid wall and door ensured the interviewing space was separate from where the rest of the BrightHorizons team were training- out of sight, mostly out of earshot, and adequately protective of privacy.

In the third prison, however, interviews took place in the BrightHorizons office. This caused some problems because the office and the adjoining main room in which the BrightHorizons team were training were separated by a glass door and partition, which was less private and ran the risk of participants being distracted. To minimise this, participants were invited to sit with their backs to the main room throughout the interview. Interviewing in the office also meant

108 that in this prison BrightHorizons staff had to interrupt interviews periodically to answer the phone or for other administrative reasons. On these occasions, the participant was stopped politely, the interview and recorder paused immediately, and only resumed once the staff member had left the room. This was vital for upholding confidentiality, but could disturb the flow of conversation. The office was also between the main door and main room, meaning interviews were sometimes interrupted by people passing through. This was rare, and mitigated by a sign asking entrants to use the side door. Noise levels from the main room could also cause distraction. This was the case in all of the prisons, but most detrimental in the third, due to the glass being a less effective sound barrier than the walls in the other prisons. Noise disturbance was minimised by staff.

Some aspects of the data collection process varied slightly from prison to prison, but the general procedure is outlined here. On arrival at the prison security checks were carried out. To secure permission to bring the recorder into the prisons, a security form was completed by BrightHorizons managers in advance. This had to be approved, and the recorder was checked against the information on the form by gate staff upon each visit. Maintaining access to the prisons was thus an ongoing process, and the few issues that were encountered had to do with taking the recorder in (Liebling, 1999; Reiter, 2014; Fox, 2016). Following the completion of security checks a visitor’s pass was allocated, before being collected from the gate by a member of BrightHorizons staff and escorted to the interview site. A discussion was usually then held with staff, in which staff divulged anything that should be known prior to meeting the participant and received a brief update on the research. Upon arrival at BrightHorizons, all staff and prisoners were greeted, and a short time spent chatting informally, before moving into the separate interviewing space with the participant. To maintain confidentiality and privacy there was nobody else in the room throughout the interviews (albeit see previous paragraph). BrightHorizons staff were in adjoining rooms at all times and on hand if assistance was required. Interviews were conducted at a table or desk, with researcher and participant facing one another and the recorder in between.

When they arrived for their interview participants were given a brief overview of the study and a chance to ask questions. It transpired early on that not all participants had received an information sheet prior to attending their interview, therefore many had agreed to take part with little idea of what this entailed. In these cases, everything in the information sheet was covered verbally. This included: brief aims and potential outcomes of the research; durations of the

109 interview and project; the requirements of participation; what would happen with the data they provided; the potential costs and benefits of taking part, and what to do if they had any problems as a consequence. All prisoners were given a copy of the information sheet to keep. Once satisfied that the participant had been adequately informed about the study to provide informed consent (see section 4.4.1), consent was obtained. Participants were given a consent form requiring them to sign their agreement with a series of individual statements reflecting the nature and conditions of the research (see Appendix D). Specific consent for the interview to be recorded was also obtained. Participants were then reminded again that they did not have to participate, could choose not to answer any question/s that they did not wish to answer, and could withdraw at any time without having to provide a reason and without reprimand.

Once the participant was happy to proceed, the recorder was switched on and the interview began. The interview schedule was used as a guide throughout, and largely dictated the general order of discussion, however the exact direction and content of interviews was participant-led. Instances when participants diverged considerably from the topic for a significant length of time, they were politely steered back to the interview schedule. Prisoners sometimes also initiated chit-chat that was irrelevant to the research and occasionally bordering on overly- personal, mid-way through the interview. To navigate this without causing offence or upset to the participant, a certain amount of chat was indulged, before again steering participants back to the interview schedule. At the end of questioning, participants were asked if there was anything they would like to add, the recorder was stopped, and they were thanked and debriefed. Some initiated brief informal further conversation, whilst others left immediately. Most interviews lasted between 45 and 75 minutes- the shortest being 42 minutes and the longest one hour and 45 minutes.When interviewing had finished for the day, thanks were extended and goodbyes made to all, before being escorted back to the gate.

Two further stages followed the interviews. Firstly, if it had not been possible to complete fieldnotes privately in the prison, these were written up at the earliest opportunity. Fieldnotes are a way of documenting important contextual information and facilitating reflexivity throughout the research process (Maharaj, 2016; Phillippi and Lauderdale, 2018). The purpose of taking fieldnotes was to obtain a precise and detailed account of the entire interview process (Braun and Clarke, 2013). In order to do so, personal interpretations of what transpired throughout the exchange are necessary- for example, notations of how the participant looked or spoke during particular moments in the interview can be conceptually relevant in the final

110 write-up of the story (Liebling, 1999). Thus, fieldnotes documented details that could not be captured by audio-recordings, such as interruptions, interferences or situations that may have influenced the nature of responses, and non-verbal behaviours and body language. Relevant information from informal conversations with staff or prisoners, personal reflections on each visit, and initial analytical thoughts and ideas were also noted. Any important details from fieldnotes were transferred onto interview transcripts to aid the analysis process, and fieldnotes were regularly referred to throughout analysis as a reminder of the wider context of each interview. Secondly, audio files were uploaded securely and at the earliest convenience to a