Prisoner Interpretations and Expectations for the Ethical Governance of HMIP Survey Data

Abstract

The value of and the need for rich data for criminal justice research is increasingly apparent, especially following recent restrictions on primary data collection due to COVID-19. Whilst the benefits of using administrative data for research are well established, less understood are the perspectives of data contributors and their expectations for the ethical governance and use of these data. This study describes the findings from a preliminary study comprising four focus groups with a total of seventeen adult males serving sentences in a Category A prison in England. Participants were asked to offer opinions about the possibility of making survey data collected from them as part of the prison inspection process more widely accessible, beyond the organizational priorities for which it was initially collected. Generally, participants were content for survey data to be shared with recipients who intended to use the data to bring about change within prisons; this aligns with the purpose for data collection. Participants were opposed to data being made accessible to recipients who might produce spurious findings. We discuss implications for the future accessibility of a vast wealth of prisoner survey data in England and Wales and highlight the importance of consultation with incarcerated persons on this subject.

Keywords:

• data ethics
• criminal justice
• prisons
• administrative data
• surveys

Notes

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See House of Commons Justice Committee, Report of Session 2015–2016, 3.

2 See HMIP, Inspection Framework, 13.

3 See Cook, “Woodrow Wilson's Ideas,” 294; HM Government, Open Data White Paper, 6; Janssen et al., “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths,” 258; Den Eynden and Corti, “Managing and Sharing Research Data,” 2.

4 See HMIP, “Our Expectations,” 1.

5 See Gov.uk, “Guidance,” 1.

6 See HMIP, Inspection Framework, 13.

7 See Cook, “Woodrow Wilson's Ideas,” 294; HM Government, Open Data White Paper, 6; Janssen et al., “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths,” 258; Den Eynden and Corti, “Managing and Sharing Research Data,” 2.

8 See Office Journal of the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, 47.

9 Van den Eynden and Corti, “Managing and Sharing Research Data,” 26.

10 See DeHart and Shapiro, “Integrated Administrative Data,” 271; Corti et al., “Confidentiality and Informed Consent,” 1.

11 See Kennedy et al., “Public Understanding and Perceptions,” 3; Samson et al., About Data About Us, 3; Waind, Trust, Security and Public Interest, 1.

12 See ADR UK, Administrative Data, 1; Bowstead et al., Uncovering Internally Displaced People; Guiney, Excavating the Archive, 89; Jennings et al., Collating Longitudinal Data, 1005.

13 See Connelly et al., Role Of Administrative Data, 4; Bowstead et al., Uncovering Internally Displaced People.

14 See ADR UK, “Administrative Data,” 1.

15 See Jennings et al., “Collating Longitudinal Data on Crime,” 1005.

16 See Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, “Research,” 1.

17 See Smith et al., “Challenges of Doing Criminology,” 260.

18 See Holt, “Exploring Strategies,” 467.

19 See Kennedy et al., “Public Understanding and Perceptions,” 3; Samson et al., About Data About Us, 3.

20 See Kennedy et al., “Public Understanding and Perceptions,” 3.

21 See Den Eynden and Corti, “Managing and Sharing Research Data,” 26; Hoofnagle et al., “General Data Protection Regulation,” 66.

22 See Kennedy et al., “Public Understanding and Perceptions,” 3.

23 See Samson et al., About Data About Us, 3.

24 See Mil and Hopkins, Big Data: Public views, 2.

25 See Waind, Trust, Security and Public Interest, 1.

26 See Summers et al., “Legal and Ethical Considerations,” 183.

27 See Corti et al., “Confidentiality and Informed Consent,” 1.

28 See Oman, “Measuring Social Mobility,” 3.

29 See Waind, Trust, Security and Public Interest, 1.

30 See Mehay et al., “Tactics for Mitigating Risks,” 59.

31 Bosworth et al., “Doing Prison Research,” 259.

32 See Turner, Public Confidence in Criminal Justice, 39.

33 See Mehay et al., “Tactics for Mitigating Risks,” 59; Bosworth et al., “Doing Prison Research,” 259.

34 See McKendy, “Agency of Men in Prison,” 474.

35 See ibid.; Bottoms, “Coming Crisis,” 1; Jacobs, Liberal State, 130.

36 See Howard League, “Response to HMIP,” 6.

37 See Copes et al., “Inmates’ Perceptions,” 185.

38 See Moser et al., “Coercion and Informed Consent,” 8.

39 See ibid.; Copes et al., “Inmates’ Perceptions,” 185.

40 See Moser et al., “Coercion and Informed Consent,” 8.

41 See Gov.uk, “Research At HMPPS,” 1.

42 See Parvizi et al., “Institutional Review Board Approval.”

43 See Zetinigg and Gaderer, “Validating Offenders’ Accounts,” 292.

44 See Liebling, “Doing Research in Prison,” 151.

45 See Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, “Overview,” 1.

46 See Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, “Agency Partners,” 1.

47 See Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, “Research,” 1.

48 See ADR UK, “Administrative Data,” 1.

49 See Digital Economy Act 2017.

50 See Bosworth et al., “Doing Prison Research,” 259.

51 See Gov.uk, “Research At HMPPS,” 1.

52 See HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Annual Report 2018–2019, 4.

53 See Bryman, Social Research Methods, 26.

54 See Ryan and Bernard, “Techniques to Identify Themes,” 93.

55 See Maxfield and Babbie, Research Methods, 184.

56 See Dantzker and Hunter, Research Methods, 129.

57 See Stewart and Shamdasani, Focus Groups, 90.

58 See Bennet, “Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment,” 110.

59 See Schafer and Graham, “Missing Data,” 147.

60 See Dantzker and Hunter, Research Methods, 129.

61 See Copes et al., “Inmates’ Perceptions,” 185.

62 See Samson et al., About Data About Us, 3.

63 See Mehay et al., “Tactics for Mitigating Risks,” 59; Bosworth et al., “Doing Prison Research,” 259.

64 See Corti et al., “Confidentiality and Informed Consent,” 1.

65 See Cook, “Woodrow Wilson's Ideas,” 294; HM Government, Open Data White Paper, 6; Janssen et al., “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths,” 258; Den Eynden and Corti, “Managing and Sharing Research Data,” 2.

66 See Guest et al., “How Many Interviews,” 60.

67 See Bosworth et al., “Doing Prison Research,” 259.

68 See HM Government, Open Data White Paper, 6; DeHart and Shapiro, “Integrated Administrative Data,” 271; Corti et al., “Confidentiality and Informed Consent,” 1.