‘I’ve lived and bred violence my whole life’: understanding violence in the Irish Prison Service through the lens of the power threat meaning framework

ABSTRACT

In 2018 the Irish Prison Service (IPS) opened the National Violence Reduction Unit (NVRU), which became home to a small amount of prisoners managed under the Violently Disruptive Prisoner (VDP) policy, who were repeatedly engaged in very serious violence in prison. The NVRU shifted practice under the VDP policy to a joint operational-psychological approach, with the aim of understanding the violent behaviour of these prisoners and working with them to reduce it. This study explored NVRU prisoners’ understandings of the origins, experiences and expressions of their violent behaviour through the lens of the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF). Despite difficulties engaging this cohort, half (n = 3) of all prisoners residing in the NVRU during its first year participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants identified six themes: (1) power, (2) threat, (3) meaning, (4) threat response, (5) function of threat response and (6) moderating factors. In doing so they identified many a priori elements of the existing provisional PTMF, whilst also contributing novel elements related to their specific and subjective personal experiences. These findings are interpreted in the context of existing empirical research. Implications for future research, and policy and practice within and beyond the NVRU, are suggested.

KEYWORDS:

• prison
• violence
• power threat meaning framework
• qualitative research

Introduction

Violence and misconduct are not uncommon in prisons or other custodial settings. For example, the most recent statistics published by the Irish Prison Service (IPS) revealed that 249 prisoner-prisoner and 91 prisoner-staff assaults were recorded in Irish prisons in 2021 (IPS, 2021). Despite a relatively small (but growing) prison population,¹ the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the United Nations have previously commented on seemingly high levels of violence in Irish prisons (Martynowicz & Moore, 2018). In 2015, having made similar observations, the Irish State Claims Agency (SCA) conducted a review of violent incidents. They identified that most violent incidents at this time could be attributed to less than 1% of the imprisoned population, who presented with complex backgrounds and needs – a finding which has also been observed in Northern Irish prisons (Butler et al., 2021a).

Since 2014, the IPS have managed an even smaller subset of these prisoners under the Violently Disruptive Prisoner (VDP) policy; but the nature of their management has changed drastically during this time. In their recent study, Gallagher and colleagues. (2022) qualitatively explored previous practice under the initial VDP policy through the experiences of VDP policy prisoners and prison officers. Participants described previous practice as operationally-driven, focusing primarily on containing the risk these prisoners posed. They characterised the regime as restrictive (e.g. limited out-of-cell time, lack of autonomy), solitary (e.g. isolated environments, limited human contact) and controlled (e.g. staff-intensive, barrier handling²). They cautioned the negative impact the ‘wrong’ staff (e.g. punitive, antagonistic) could have on VDP policy prisoners, and emphasised issues of inconsistency and inappropriateness in the management of these prisoners. Participants discussed the negative impact they felt the previous VDP policy had on prisoners (e.g. psychological wellbeing, humiliation, feeling misunderstood), consistent with the extensive existing literature (Scharff Smith, 2006). They also observed a paradox, whereby the violence of VDP policy prisoners seemed to increase as a result of their management. This is in line with an earlier observation by the SCA that, despite the use of isolative and barrier handling practices, some particularly challenging prisoners have still seriously assaulted staff (2016).

Acknowledging the negative consequences of managing prisoners in this way, and the emerging evidence pointing to its ineffectiveness, the IPS established the National Violence Reduction Unit (NVRU) in November 2018. Contrastingly, practice in the NVRU aimed to be psychologically-informed in multiple ways at the policy (e.g. focus on intervention and progression), management (e.g. national oversight by a multi-disciplinary committee, co-led by an operational governor and senior psychologist), environmental (e.g. informed by Psychologically Informed Planned Environment [PIPEs] and Enabling Environment [EEs] initiatives), staff (e.g. specialised selection and training, annual health checks) and prisoner (e.g. intensive psychological assessment and intervention) levels.

Continuing a designated programme of research evaluating the changing management of VDP policy prisoners in the IPS, this paper, through the lens of the Power Threat Meaning Framework ([PTMF] Johnstone et al., 2018a; see page 10), explores NVRU prisoners’ subjective understandings of their violence. Firstly, however, it briefly summarises our existing theoretical and empirical understandings of the origins, experiences and expressions of prison violence, and violent and offending behaviour generally, and highlights how the PTMF may aid these understandings.

Origins of violent behaviour

The vast literature exploring the causes and correlates of prison violence can generally be divided into two lines of thinking. Importation theory proposes that prison violence can be attributed to the various individual experiences, characteristics, beliefs and values one brings with them into prison (Edgar et al., 2003). Indeed, the empirical literature has consistently identified various demographic (e.g. male, younger age), psychological (e.g. substance use, mental health issues) and criminogenic (e.g. violent index offence, multiple convictions) risk factors for prison violence (McGuire, 2018; Schenk & Fremouw, 2012; Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2020). Contrastingly, deprivation theory proposes that prison violence can be attributed to the ‘pains’ of the deprived prison environment one experiences upon imprisonment (Edgar et al., 2003). Though less-explored, some environmental (e.g. poor physical conditions), interactional (e.g. mistreated by staff) and organisational (e.g. illegitimate treatment) factors have also been reported (Gadon et al., 2006; McGuire, 2018; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2020). More recently, however, integrated models have acknowledged that both types of factors are likely to interact to influence prison violence (Edgar et al., 2003). For instance, general strain theory proposes that the experience of imprisonment presents many strains, including the denial of positively valued goals (e.g. restricted participation in programmes and services), the removal of positively valued stimuli (e.g. limited contact with family and friends) and the presentation of noxious stimuli (e.g. overcrowding). Whether one copes with these strains in conventional (e.g. seeking out job assignments) or deviant (e.g. violence) ways, however, depends on their personal characteristics (e.g. age) and values (e.g. connection with family [Blevins et al., 2010]). More recently, Steiner and Wooldredge (2020) have proposed a multi-level social control-opportunity framework for understanding prison violence, which integrates the influences of individual (i.e. prisoner or prison officer), environmental (i.e. prison) and managerial (i.e. exercised power and its perceived legitimacy) factors alongside social control and lifestyle theories.

Butler and colleagues highlighted the importance of considering cultural context in their studies of violence in Northern Irish prisons. Many well-evidenced risk factors were not identified in these samples, while additional unique factors (e.g. religion, nationality) of particular importance in the Northern Irish cultural context were, concluding that ‘cultural context matters when attempting to generalise the potential causes and correlates of [violent] behaviour from one jurisdiction to another’ (2021b). Generally, individual risk factors were found to be most influential in Northern Ireland, despite increasing emphasis on the importance of environmental considerations in England and Wales (see Akerman et al., 2018). Butler and colleagues also found that prison violence was more often attributed to individual factors, while prison misconduct was more often attributed to environmental factors (2021c). In the Republic of Ireland, although some individual and environmental factors were also reported, prisoners and prison officers involved with the previous VDP policy identified interactional factors as most influential to prison violence and disruption (Gallagher et al., 2022). However, these stratified understandings of prison violence have been criticised for conceptualising prisons as unique environments requiring specific theories, where more holistic frameworks which focus on violence, and indeed human behaviour, more generally may offer greater utility (Steiner et al., 2014).

Recently, our understanding of human behaviour and outcomes has paid due focus to the influence of various lifetime adversities, perhaps prompted by Felitti and colleagues' (1998) seminal adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study, and the vast body of literature which has followed. Indeed, this literature consistently evidences clear links between various types of adversity and various types of offending behaviour, including violence (Hocken et al., 2022; Jones & Willmot, 2022; Smith, 2022; Willmot, 2022). Despite this, these links are yet to become truly embedded within forensic research and practice (Hocken et al., 2022; Jones & Willmot, 2022). Numerous barriers to change have been suggested, including negative societal attitudes towards and the stigmatisation of offenders, penal systems which focus on harm caused over harm experienced and prioritise containment over care, and a lack of funding to make genuine efforts towards the provision of rehabilitation (Hocken et al., 2022; Jones & Willmot, 2022). Nonetheless, some good progress has been made. For example, the Good Lives Model (GLM) promotes a shared understanding of offending behaviour (and violence) grounded in the identification of unmet, or ineffectively met, human needs throughout life (Smith, 2022; Willmot & Siddall, 2022). Innovative approaches to managing prisoners and prison violence, particularly in England and Wales, have too made significant progress towards becoming trauma-informed, such as the Enabling Environments (EE) framework, Rehabilitative Culture initiatives, Psychologically Informed Planned Environments (PIPEs) and Therapeutic Communities [(TCs); see Akerman et al., 2018; Willmot & Siddall, 2022]. The NVRU represents a similar effort in the Republic of Ireland. Additionally, the PTMF highlights the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway (OPDP) as a ‘good practice example’ which embeds PTMF principles (Johnstone et al., 2018b). Indeed, forensic professionals have argued the PTMF is well-positioned to further trauma-informed approaches in forensic settings (Smith, 2022; Willmot & Siddall, 2022). Central to this process, and also advocated by the PTMF, is the genuine involvement of service-user voices, for example through qualitative methodologies (Johnstone et al., 2018a; Jones & Willmot, 2022).

Experiences of behaving violently

Most literature exploring experiences of violence has duly focused on the experiences of victims. However, to truly understand violence, it is essential to consider how engaging in violence may be experienced by perpetrators. Reinforcing what we have long understood about the origins of violence, recent empirical literature has consistently noted very high rates of adversity, trauma symptomology and diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and/or Complex PTSD among prison populations (Facer-Irwin et al., 2019; Facer-Irwin et al., 2021; Frizton et al., 2021; Gray et al., 2003; Ternes et al., 2020). This is particularly the case amongst seriously violent offenders, with prevalence rates of offence-related trauma ranging from 33% to over 50% (Pink & Gray, 2022). While a large proportion of violent perpetrators are also victims of violence themselves, the second most traumatising event experienced by this cohort is the committal of their own violent offence(s) (Ternes et al., 2020). Several mediating factors have been suggested to help explain this relationship. In committing serious violence, one may alter their self-perception, ultimately losing control and perceiving themselves as a threat (Frizton et al., 2021). Altered mental states, particularly amongst perpetrators with mental health issues, have also been identified as important mediating factors (Gray et al., 2003). Additionally, in perpetrating serious violence, offenders are also witnesses of said serious violence (Pink & Gray, 2022; Ternes et al., 2020). Moderating factors have too been identified, including the closeness of the perpetrator’s relationship to the victim (Ternes et al., 2020), and whether the perpetrator feels justified or guilty about the offence (Gray et al., 2003).

Understanding one’s experiences of behaving violently is crucial, considering not only the substantial adverse effects trauma can have on the individual, but also its likelihood of increasing violence and aggression (Facer-Irwin et al., 2019; Pink & Gray, 2022). Recognising that acts of violence increase the likelihood of imprisonment or re-imprisonment, and that these institutions are often traumatising or re-traumatising (Hocken et al., 2022; Malik et al., 2021), it is not difficult to see how intertwined cycles of trauma and violence can be perpetuated.

Expressions of violent behaviour

Prison violence occurs along the continuum of prison misconduct, which involves any breaking of the prisons’ rules (Butler et al., 2021c). While examples of prison violence may be easy to identify (e.g. verbal/physical/sexual abuse), defining violence more generally is not so simple. In their comprehensive text on prison violence, Edgar and colleagues (2003) described violence as a ‘slippery’ concept that ‘evades easy description and fixed definition’ (p. 23). They highlighted the various types of existing definitions (e.g. wide, restricted, limited), and the various types of perspectives (e.g. psychological, social, legal) they promote. Critically, they emphasised that understandings of violence cannot be confined to singular levels. For example, much violence literature has traditionally contrasted reactive violence (i.e. reacting to a situation, being provoked) and instrumental violence (i.e. planned, a means to an end). There have even been suggestions that as reactive violence is associated with more arousal and negative emotions, these perpetrators are more likely to experience trauma symptomology (Facer-Irwin et al., 2021; Ternes et al., 2020). Subsequent research has not confirmed this, and modern understandings of violence recognise that violent acts likely involve both reactive and instrumental elements (Ternes et al., 2020). Instead, it has increasingly proved more useful to consider expressions of violence in terms of the functions they serve for individuals.

Focusing on prison violence specifically, Edgar and colleagues (2003) identified self-defence, retaliation, punishment, defending honour, communication and settling differences as important functions for prisoners. Butler (2008) has discussed related functions, including relieving frustration, deterring victimisation, self-defence, demonstrating masculinity, demanding respect from others, achieving status and protecting identity. Crucially, they have highlighted the central role of shame in these processes (Butler, 2008; Butler & Drake, 2007; Butler & Maruna, 2009). In their previous study of VDP policy prisoners, Gallagher and colleagues (2022) identified both strategic (e.g. obtain better treatment, removal from general population) and psychological functions (e.g. relieving tension, enjoyment, protecting against low self-esteem) of violence for these prisoners. The PTMF, which centralises the functionality of various threat responses, is well-placed to provide a lens through which to understand the origins, experiences and expressions of violence.

The power threat meaning framework (PTMF)

The PTMF, lead-authored by Dr Lucy Johnstone and Prof. Mary Boyle, was introduced by the British Psychological Society (BPS) Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) in 2018 as a holistic framework for understanding the origins, experiences and expressions of emotional distress and troubled/troubling behaviour. The PTMF considers four core elements: (1) the negative operation of various types of power in one's life, (2) the threats that this posed, (3) the subjective meaning of these experiences to the individual and (4) the functional threat responses they used to survive. It also proposes that various exacerbating and ameliorating factors can moderate this process. Taken together, it suggests seven different provisional general patterns of understanding: (1) identities, (2) surviving rejection, entrapment and invalidation, (3) surviving disrupted attachments and adversities as a child or young person, (4) surviving separation and identity confusion, (5) surviving defeat, entrapment, disconnection and loss, (6) surviving social exclusion, shame and coercive power and (7) surviving single threats. The authors highlight that these patterns cut across the boundaries of what is typically considered ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, are shaped by social, political and cultural contexts, and that community versions of these patterns will exist. Patterns will likely exist within these general patterns, and individuals will vary in their ‘fit’ to these patterns. Crucially, these patterns do not represent discrete clusters, are not one-to-one replacements for diagnostic clusters, and do not provide universal explanations for specific types of threat responses (or ‘symptoms’).

Despite its primary intention of offering an alternative to the traditional diagnostic model of mental illness, the PTMF has lent itself to forensic psychology through its broad focus on distress and troubled/troubling behaviour, and its alliance with recent shifts towards trauma-informed understandings and practices (see Willmot & Siddall, 2022). Indeed, the PTMF accommodates many recommendations from the existing prison violence literature outlined above in that it provides a holistic framework which is not confined to any one level of understanding, it highlights the importance of considering individual meaning, and it centralises the role of functionality in human behaviour. Reis and colleagues (2019) were the first to explore the utility of the PTMF in a forensic context, using it to co-create personal narratives of imprisonment with men on the OPDP. These men emphasised the negative operation of legal (e.g. injustice in prison) and interpersonal (e.g. bullied by other prisoners) power, which threatened their relational outcomes and identities, leaving them angry, vulnerable, uncertain and hopeless. As a result, they relied on a range of related threat responses, including violence, to survive imprisonment. More recently, and also focused on time in custody, Gallagher and colleagues (2022) demonstrated the utility of the PTMF in interpreting prisoners’ and prison officers’ experiences of the previous VDP policy in the IPS. In addition to highlighting the psychological and strategic functions of violence, participant narratives illustrated the negative operation of material (e.g. impoverished prison environment) and interpersonal (e.g. isolative prison conditions) power, threatening various core human needs (e.g. agency, human interaction), and leading to meanings embedded with feelings of fear, injustice, humiliation and neglect.

Current study

Building on the foundation laid by the first study in this integrated programme of research (Gallagher et al., 2022), the overall aim of this qualitative study was to gain an understanding of the origins, experiences and expressions of the violent behaviour of NVRU prisoners, from the perspectives of these prisoners. It aimed to generate this understanding through the lens of the PTMF. In doing so, it aimed to identify what elements of the existing – and provisional - PTMF could be identified by this specific cohort. Relatedly, it aimed to identify what, if any, novel features related to the origins, experiences and expressions of violence could be identified by these prisoners, and perhaps added to the application of the PTMF, through research and practice, in other forensic settings and/or with similar cohorts.

Method

This study received full ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee (Humanities) at University College Dublin, and the IPS Research Office.

Participant recruitment

Criteria for referral to the NVRU include: (1) engagement in serious repetitive or escalating violence towards others in custody and/or (2) carrying out or orchestrating a single serious or significant act of violence or disorder and/or (3) demonstrating behaviour that is significantly dangerous to others, where there is evidence that deems this risk/threat is credible. Upon observing any of these criteria, a governor may submit a standardised referral form to the National NVRU Committee (NVRUC). If the NVRUC deem the referral to be appropriate, the prisoner transfers to the NVRU to undergo an assessment period. Assessment periods are estimated to last four months, but vary depending on multiple factors (e.g. prisoner needs and engagement, staff resources). Thereafter, following discussion between the NVRUC and the internal NVRU multi-disciplinary team (MDT), the prisoner either remains in the NVRU and commences their individualised intervention period there, or is transferred elsewhere in the prison estate with recommendations for their management. The NVRUC and NVRU MDT may discuss and agree on the de-selection of prisoners from the NVRU where: (1) there is clear evidence of a reduction in violence risk factors using a structured risk assessment tool, (2) evidence of sufficient self-management skills to enable the individual to cope without violence in a less secure setting and (3) sustained behavioural changes evidenced through the achievement of care and management plan goals, and where any further progress cannot be demonstrated in the NVRU (IPS, 2019).

This study aimed to recruit prisoners residing in the NVRU during the first year of its implementation. All prisoners who were transferred to the NVRU during this time (n = 6) were eligible to participate. It was planned that each prisoner would be invited to participate in the study at three time-points: the mid-point of their estimated assessment period (Time 1), the mid-point of their estimated intervention period (Time 2), and just before exiting the NVRU (Time 3). These timelines were advised by the Senior Psychologist in the NVRU. The aim was not to compare data at different time-points, but rather capture prisoners’ journeys throughout the NVRU. A similar study involving prison officers working in the NVRU during its first year was conducted concurrently to this study, as part of the same research project and by the same authors. These data are analysed in a separate paper (Gallagher et al., 2023).

All eligible prisoners were invited to participate at these time-points by either a psychologist or prison officer, who explained the research, ascertained their interest in participating, and obtained their informed consent. Any operational (e.g. significant risk of violence) and psychological (e.g. acutely mentally unwell) barriers to participation were identified at this time, with invitations to participate postponed to a more appropriate time, if necessary and possible. Three prisoners (P1, P2 & P3) participated at Time 1, and one prisoner (P1), who also participated at Time 1, participated at Time 3. P1 was not invited to participate at Time 2 due to the short amount of time remaining on their sentence after their Time 1 participation. P2 and P3 declined to participate in subsequent time-points following their Time 1 participation. The other three prisoners residing in the NVRU during this time declined to participate in the research in its entirety. Thus, 50% of eligible NVRU prisoners successfully participated in the study.

Data collection

Prisoners participated in semi-structured interviews, conducted by the lead author, in private visiting rooms in the NVRU. All meetings were conducted in either completely closed (i.e. behind Perspex screens; n = 2), semi-closed (i.e. behind metal bars; n = 1) or completely open (i.e. no physical separation; n = 1) conditions, dependant on advice from NVRU staff. In line with the time-points outlined above, all interviews were conducted between March 2019 and February 2020. Semi-structured interview schedules included open-ended questions informed by the PTMF which aimed to identify experiences of the negative operation of power, the threats these posed, the meaning of these experiences to prisoners, the threat responses they used to survive, and any moderating factors (i.e. exacerbating and ameliorating factors) which influenced this process. The interview schedule (Appendix 1) remained the same at all time-points. Interviews were audio-recorded, lasting an average of 35 min. Relevant demographic and offending data were also extracted from prisoners’ records on the Prison Information Management System (PIMS) by the lead author, for the purpose of describing the sample.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 24 was used to analyse quantitative PIMS data and produce descriptive statistics. Qualitative data analysis was informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2022) reflexive thematic analysis approach - both deductive and inductive variations - whilst also incorporating elements of codebook approaches, such as framework and template analysis. The lead author first familiarised themselves with both the PTMF and the interview transcripts. The main PTMF document (Johnstone et al., 2018a) was reviewed to identify and extract 7 different types of power, 9 different categories of threats, 22 different kinds of meanings, and 54 examples of threat responses serving 9 different types of functions, mediated by 16 exacerbating and 16 ameliorating factors. These elements were imported into a codebook (Appendix 2). The lead author then familiarised themselves with participant transcripts through manual verbatim transcription, reading and noting initial impressions. Once familiar with both the PTMF and participant transcripts, the lead author searched each transcript, line by line, to identify any a priori PTMF elements, guided by the developed codebook. This process aligned with Braun and Clarke’s deductive variation of reflexive thematic analysis, which involves the selective identification of theoretical and researcher-driven codes in particular aspects of a dataset. Thereafter, Braun and Clarke’s inductive variation of reflexive thematic analysis was integrated, whereby the lead author searched each transcript once more, identifying any additional elements which were not accounted for by the PTMF a priori codes, but were of interest to the research question. These novel, data-driven codes (indicated by asterisks in the results section) were added to the codebook, which then underwent several phases of data reduction, revision and refinement, documented by an audit trail. A credibility check was also conducted with an external researcher, who was provided with an excel file containing all 101 codes, accompanied by 101 participant extracts illustrating these codes. The external researcher was asked to indicate on the excel file if they agreed with, disagreed with, or were unsure of each code-extract match. Where they were unsure or disagreed, they were asked to provide a comment explaining this in a designated column, before returning the excel file. The external researcher initially agreed with 95% of code-extract matches, and were unsure of 5% of matches. Both researchers discussed areas of uncertainty, guided by the comments of the external researcher, leading to minor amendments to the data (e.g. renaming, removal or merging of codes). The external researcher then reviewed the amended code-extract matches, and agreed with 100% of code-extract matches.

Reflexivity

The lead author is female, with no previous personal experiences of the criminal justice system or imprisonment. She has been funded by the IPS to conduct independent research on the management of serious violence in Irish prisons since 2017. She has completed one previous study as part of this project (Gallagher et al., 2022) which explored the experiences of VDP policy prisoners (and the prison officers working with them) before the implementation of the NVRU. Two prisoners in the current study also participated in this previous study. Findings of the previous study were discussed in the context of the PTMF, which highlighted the utility of the PTMF in this area. This led to the decision to use the PTMF to explore the violent behaviour of prisoners in the NVRU in more depth.

Results

Quantitative data

The mean age of participating prisoners (n = 3) was 28.33 years (SD = 2.31). All prisoners were single, white, Irish males. All prisoners were sentenced at the time of data collection. On average, prisoners were convicted of 13 offences (SD = 5) during their current custodial periods, including index offence(s) and subsequent offences committed in prison. These included assault offences (n = 23), theft/robbery/burglary offences (n = 6), weapons offences (n = 3), criminal damage offences (n = 2), false imprisonment (n = 1) and murder (n = 1). During their periods of incarceration, prisoners committed an average of 65.33 incidents of misconduct (SD = 19.73), during which they broke on average 162 prison rules (SD = 82.71), and as a result received an average of 151.33 (SD = 30.02) sanctions. A comparison of prison misconducts and sanctions during comparable time periods prior their transfers to the NVRU, and during their first year in the NVRU, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of number and characteristics of misconducts during comparable periods before transfer to the NVRU and in the NVRU

	Pre-NVRU				In-NVRU
	PA	PB	PC	Total prisoners	PA	PB	PC	Total prisoners
Types of prison rules broken
Abusive language/behaviour	6	7	6	19	0	4	5	9
Non-compliance	8	7	4	19	0	6	10	16
Harming others	4	12	3	19	0	10	9	19
Any other	4	3	3	10	0	4	5	9
Prohibited articles	3	0	0	3	0	0	4	4
Property damage	3	0	2	5	1	1	9	11
Collective indiscipline	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Substances	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	30	29	18	77	1	25	42	68
Types of sanctions administered
Prohibition on activities	3	15	4	22	0	6	3	9
Prohibition on outside contact	6	21	3	30	0	6	2	8
Caution	1	10	5	16	1	7	6	14
Prohibition on material possessions	1	10	2	13	0	3	2	5
Not stated	1	0	0	1	0	1	12	13
Postponement/forfeiture of gratuities	0	0	1	1	0	0	3	3
Confinement in cell	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
Total	14	56	15	85	1	23	28	52

Note: Participating prisoners were assigned the identifiers PA, PB and PC, which do not correspond to the identifiers P1, P2 and P3 which accompany qualitative extracts, in order to protect their anonymity. Total prisoners refers to the combined figures of the 3 participating prisoners, not all prisoners resident in the NVRU. Individualised, comparable time periods were utilised when extracting PIMS data. For example, as PA had spent 8 months in the NVRU, the 8-month period prior their transfer was selected for ‘pre-NVRU’ comparisons. The same process was followed for PB and PC.

Qualitative data

Qualitative data analysis resulted in 6 themes, 35 sub-themes and 101 codes. These are presented in Table 2 and discussed below, accompanied by illustrative participant extracts where participants are identified by P1, P2 and P3. Sub-themes are underlined.

Table 2. Themes, Sub-themes and Codes Resulting from Qualitative Analysis

Theme	Sub-themes	Codes
1. Power	1.1. Biological	Substance (ab)use
		Disability
	1.2. Coercive	Violence throughout life-course
		Violence in society
		Violence from authority figures
	1.3. Legal	Abuse of authority status
		Systemic injustice in prison
		Isolative prison conditions
	1.4. Material	Untreated mental illness
		Homelessness
	1.5. Interpersonal	Parental loss & separation
		Strained family relationships
		Bullying
		Manipulation
2. Threat	2.1. Relational	Bereavement
		Lack of protection
		Abandonment & neglect
		Boundary crossing
		Shaming & humiliation
		Hostility
		Control
		Isolation
	2.2. Emotional	Emotional overwhelm
	2.3. Social	Injustice & unfairness
		Social defeat
	2.4. Environmental	Unsafe spaces
	2.5. Bodily	Physical danger
		Loss of control
	2.6. Meaning construction	Unequal power relations
	2.7. Identity	Violent identities*
		Sub-ordinate identities
		Shameful identities
		De-valued identities
	2.8. Value base	Loss of values & purpose
3. Meaning	3.1. Emotional	Overwhelmed
		Afraid
		Guilty
	3.2. Humiliated	Humiliated by peers
		Humiliated by prison officers
	3.3. Targeted	Injustice & unfairness
		Hated*
	3.4. Abandoned	Rejected
		Alienated
	3.5. Different	Alien
		Misunderstood
	3.6. Helpless	Violent behaviour can’t be changed
		Prison power dynamics can’t be changed
		Life can’t be changed
	3.7. Meaninglessness	Indifferent
	3.8. Normality*	Violent experiences
		Violence cycle
		Violent identity
	3.9. Identifying the positives*	Resilient
		Self-development
		Proving others wrong
		Helping others
		Hopeful
4. Threat Responses	4.1. Behaviours	Fight response
		Violence
		Impulsivity
		Suicidal thinking & actions
		Substance (ab)use
		Psychosis
	4.2. Thoughts	Paranoia
		Entitlement
		Confused self-image
		Deep thinking
	4.3. Feelings	Emotional numbing
		Emotional dysregulation
		Anger
		Guilt
		Tension*
		Fearlessness*
	4.4. Interactions	Isolation & avoidance
		Distrust
5. Function of Threat Responses	5.1. Regulating feelings & meeting emotional needs	Violence to obtain pleasure
		Violence to relieve tension
		Substance (ab)use to relieve tension
		Psychosis to cope with trauma events
	5.2. Protection from physical danger	Violence to protect from physical danger in prison
	5.3. Maintaining a sense of control	Violence to maintain a sense of control in prison
	5.4. Preserving identity, self-image & self-esteem	Violence to protect against low self-esteem
		Violence is justified
	5.5. Preserving place in the social group	Preserving place in prison
		Preserving place in society
	5.6. Communicating distress & eliciting care	Psychosis to communicate distress & elicit care
	5.7. Learned survival strategies*	Violence is a learned & successful survival strategy
6. Moderating Factors	6.1. Exacerbating factors	Adverse childhood experiences
		Lack of support network
		Repeated & long-lasting exposure to threats in prison
		Lack of control in prison
		Intentional interpersonal threats
		Lack of institutional support in prison
		Chronicity of threats in all aspects of life
		Substance (ab)use*
	6.2. Ameliorating factors	Good support network
		Supportive prison conditions
		Substance (ab)use*
		Self-belief*
		Hope for the future*

Note: * indicates novel codes or sub-themes identified by participants. All other codes were developed a priori from the PTMF.

Theme 1: Power

Prisoners identified five different types of power which have operated negatively in their lives. Reflecting primarily on life before prison, participants highlighted the influence of biological power. One prisoner spoke about growing up with a disability, while another discussed their struggles with substance (ab)use: ‘I suppose a lot of the drugs I might have been taking when I was outside […] before I was in prison I was getting into fights sometimes as well’ (P2). Material power was also evident before prison. One prisoner spoke of how their mental illness went undetected and untreated for years, while another prisoner noted ‘I was homeless […] before prison’ (P3). Coercive power played a central role in the lives of all prisoners, from being surrounded by violence in society, to experiencing violence directly throughout their life-courses: ‘I’ve lived and bred violence my whole life’ (P1). Much of this violence was at the hands of authority figures, including state caregivers, police officers and prison officers: ‘They want you to kick off, they want you to be violent, so they can use their violence’ (P1). These abuses of authority statuses also evidence legal power. Participants highlighted the related systemic injustice they experienced in prison, with such incidents often experienced as being ‘swept under the carpet’ (P1). The isolative conditions under which prisoners were held in prison were also emphasised: ‘There’s a lot of aspects to it like. You could say a hundred and one things, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing and that’s just solitary’ (P1). The isolation experienced in prison was also evident in prisoners’ familial relationships, with parental loss and separation, and strained family relationships, demonstrating interpersonal power: ‘I don’t have a good relationship with my family you know, and it doesn’t help when I’m in prison’ (P2). Prisoners also noted experiences of bullying in prison, by both prisoners and prison officers: ‘Staff can bully ya as well […] everyone in here can bully ya’ (P3). Additionally, one prisoner described experiences where their peers manipulated them ‘for money, for robbing drug dealers and for asking [me] to kill people’ (P1). Overall, the experiences reported here by prisoners paint a picture of difficult life circumstances, coloured by the negative operation of multiple types of power: ‘That’s why I’m here […] I’ve had a hard life […] everyone in here’s had a hard life’ (P3).

Theme 2: Threat

These experiences threatened prisoners’ core human needs in eight different ways. Relational threats included the bereavement and abandonment/neglect prisoners experienced due to parental loss/separation and strained family relationships. Strained family relationships also resulted in hostility, as did the violence experienced from authority figures: ‘[I] hated the system and hated prison officers and hated anyone that represented authority […] I seen that as a red flag’ (P1). Experiences of violence from authority figures also threatened prisoners’ levels of protection and control. Experiences of bullying and being manipulated by others threatened prisoners’ boundaries. Prisoners were isolated in these relationships, and by the isolative prison conditions they lived in. Threats of shame/humiliation were central to prisoners’ experiences of violence from authority figures and bullying: ‘People trying to make an eejit out of ya. Ya get people like that, ya get people that, people try to laugh at ya or trying to pick on ya or bully ya’ (P3). The emotional threats arising from these various experiences, particularly experiencing violence from authority figures and being managed under the VDP policy, has left prisoners emotionally overwhelmed: ‘I’ve made [progress] in here, but sometimes I still get wound up, know what I mean. I can hold myself together, I know I can. But sometimes I break down and go crazy’ (P3). These same experiences posed social threats to prisoners, due to the injustice and unfairness they encountered. Prisoners also experienced social defeat and environmental threats as they continually found themselves in unsafe spaces, both outside and inside prison: ‘It’s a big ass bad world out there […] It’s just constant violence. So either you go with it yeah, or you’ll be left behind. I’ll always go with it’ (P1). Prisoners faced bodily threats due to the physical danger evident in incidents of violence from authority figures. One prisoner who experienced substance (ab)use issues also highlighted the loss of control they sometimes experienced as a result: ‘Just your judgement isn’t there like you know, when you’re intoxicated. If you’re on drugs or drink or something you’re not really thinking properly you know’ (P2). At the core of many of these experiences are unequal power relations, which threatened prisoners’ meaning construction:

Everything that happened, happened to me when I was young, then going on to the streets and then being bullied and being around drugs and watching people shootin’ up in front of ya. Just like, it’s horrible like. You know how do you make sense of that like? I have no idea. It’s not easy like (P1).

As a result, subordinate identities were imposed on prisoners. One prisoner adopted a shameful identity, due to his internalised guilt related to his index offence: ‘That makes me feel bad about myself […] I find it a bit hard sometimes you know, living with it’ (P2). Another prisoner experienced the imposition of a de-valued identity due to their disability: ‘I have that for years, know what I mean. And bullied, and nobody really understood me, nobody really understood me’ (P3). Perhaps unique to this cohort, prisoners also discussed adopting violent identities*: ‘All I know is violence. I’m good at violence’ (P1). Relatedly, prisoners experienced threats against their value base, whereby they experienced a lack or loss of pro-social or moral values. For example, one prisoner described his indifference towards and entitlement to violence: ‘You just feel as if you’re right like, you know, that it’s the right thing, you know. Sometimes, not all of the time’ (P2).

Theme 3: Meaning

Participants identified nine different types of meanings they had developed from various (often adverse) experiences they had experienced throughout their lives, expressed through various thoughts, feelings and bodily reactions. Prisoners felt quite emotional about these experiences, which were often overwhelming. One prisoner spoke of their fear of being barrier handled (i.e. managed with staff in riot gear), while another prisoner described the guilt they felt about their past experiences: ‘The reason I’m doing [this] sentence, I find it a bit hard sometimes you know. Living with it like, you know’ (P2). Prisoners re-iterated feelings of humiliation, due to how they have been treated by prison officers and prisoners. They also spoke of feeling targeted as a result of the unjust and unfair treatment they have experienced in prison, with one prisoner expressing they felt hated* by the IPS: ‘There’s a lot of hatred for me in the system. A lot, a lot, a lot of hatred’ (P1). Prisoners described feelings of abandonment due to the rejection and alienation they have experienced from various others throughout their lives: ‘It’s me against the world at the moment’ (P1). On the one hand, they expressed that these experiences, and the violence they used to help survive them, made them feel different to others, and alien and misunderstood: ‘I’m just totally warped. In prison, in prison, know what I mean’ (P3). On the other hand, they felt helpless to change their violent behaviour, prison power dynamics, and overall life circumstances: ‘It’s all I know. Some things you’re just not able to unlearn’ (P1). Relatedly, prisoners expressed a sense of meaninglessness and indifference towards their various experiences before and in prison: ‘Looking back now I just don’t know. I don’t really care that much’ (P2). They highlighted the normality* of these experiences to them, particularly those where they were subjected to or surrounded by violence, and how they have perpetuated normalised violence cycles and violent identities: ‘I was just copying what I seen and what has been done to me. So if you go through that, being violent isn’t really hard to follow’ (P1). The PTMF proposes an extensive range of negative thoughts, feelings and bodily reactions which can result from the negative operation of power and threats this poses. Interestingly, this cohort identified the positives* that arose for them out of some of these experiences. These included self-development, enhanced resilience, motivation to prove others wrong and using their own experiences to help others. Ultimately, despite everything they have been through, prisoners managed to remain hopeful: ‘I’m looking forward to me future. I have a good future ahead of me, know what I mean’ (P3).

Theme 4: Threat response

Participants identified the various threat responses which have helped them survive the above experiences, including behaviours, thoughts, feelings and interactional responses. Most obviously, one behaviour which has helped prisoners survive is violence. One prisoner described their violence as a fight response to threatening situations, whilst also highlighting its impulsive nature: ‘Sometimes I just feel as if I have to, you know, that I have to be violent. Just happens then like, you know. If somethings annoying me or something’ (P2). For some prisoners, these experiences have also resulted in mental health related symptoms and behaviours including psychosis and suicidal actions: ‘Suicide will always be there, strongly, it’s in my core like’ (P1). All prisoners have relied on substance (ab)use to survive various experiences throughout their lives: ‘Drugs help. They’re the only thing that help’ (P3). Prisoners have also developed certain types of thinking in response to threats. One prisoner described the paranoid thoughts they developed as a result of their experiences: ‘You’re in an environment where you’re on your own in solitary confinement, and your head is your own worst enemy, and you know paranoid’ (P1). One prisoner expressed an entitlement to violence – ‘Violence is necessary, know what I mean. It’s necessary sometimes, know what I mean. You need it’ (P3) – while another prisoner highlighted a more confused self-image regarding their violence: ‘You just feel as if you’re right like, you know, that it’s the right thing, you know. Sometimes, not all of the time […] Sometimes you might have a regret’ (P2). One prisoner described their deep thinking, including anticipating, imagining and ruminating: ‘I tend to focus on that rather than focus on the good, cause’ I’m so used to the negative’ (P1). In terms of feelings, one prisoner demonstrated both emotional dysregulation when they ‘break down and go crazy’ and emotional numbing: ‘Like I came down here [to the NVRU], it does nothing to me, know what I mean. Does nothing to me. I’m [X number of] years [in prison]’ (P3). While one prisoner expressed feeling guilty about their past experiences, another prisoner reported feeling angry about them, particularly their years of management under the VDP policy: ‘But even seeing the suits you know, cause’ I had them for years like. It just stirs up a lot of mixed emotions for me like. It just makes me very angry’ (P1). This same prisoner also expressed that while they regularly experienced tension* – ‘I’m always on the edge, just waiting for something to tip me over’ (P1) – they also felt fearless*:

Very little frightens me. Like I wouldn’t be afraid of getting in a fight with a bloke, or I wouldn’t be afraid of getting in a fight with five blokes. Cause’ if they overpower me so what? Because I’ve been there, done that, and what? You’re going to have to kill me, only way to put me off is kill me, so (P1).

Prisoners also discussed interactional responses, including a distrust of others, particularly authority figures and those who have bullied them, thus resorting to isolation and avoidance: ‘Everyone in here can bully ya, know what I mean. So ya just sit in your cell and do your time and don’t come out, know what I mean’ (P3).

Theme 5: Function of threat response

Participants identified seven different types of functions that their developed threat responses served. Various threat responses worked to regulate feelings and meet the emotional needs of prisoners. One prisoner described how they used violence to obtain pleasure: ‘Sometimes you feel good like, you know. You feel good after it like’ (P2). One prisoner relied on their violence to relieve tension: ‘Just a release, from all the built up tension. Like you feel like your head is going to explode but then you lash out’ (P1). Another prisoner resorted to substance (ab)use to achieve this: ‘[Taking drugs] calms your head down […] It calms your head right down, know what I mean […] It’s good for your head, yeah’ (P3). One prisoner identified that a psychotic episode was their way of coping with a specific trauma event. For them, this also served the function of communicating distress to and eliciting care from prison officers when they needed it: ‘They talked to me. The last time I went through a psychosis I got charges […] this time I went through a psychosis and nothing even happened’ (P1). One prisoner viewed violence as a means of protection from physical danger, particularly in prison, coming from either other prisoners or prison officers: ‘It was to avoid getting hit by them most of the time before’ (P1). This same prisoner also described how violence makes them feel like they are maintaining a sense of control in prison: ‘Makes ya feel powerful. Makes ya feel, even though ya don’t have control, it makes ya feel like ya have control, ya know. Prisoner control’ (P1). Prisoners sometimes thought violence was justified in order to protect against their identity, self-image and self-esteem:

I cut up Officers before because they were slagging me and laughing at me and they were making an ass out of me, just making a joke out of me. Because I had prisoners [bullying me] as well, so I was violent with them. Ya can’t be taking any shit, ya know what I mean (P3).

Prisoners spoke about how violence was used to preserve a place in the social group, both in wider society and in prison: ‘You have to be violent in some circumstances like. I could walk out on that landing and boom, have an argument with someone over something, and bang, violence will come out of me straight away’ (P1). Ultimately, prisoners expressed that violence was a learned survival strategy* for them, which had proved successful in various difficult experiences throughout their lives: ‘Because I know violence so well and it’s helped me survive I think it’s become second nature for me, you know’ (P1).

Theme 6: Moderating factors

Participants identified a number of factors which moderated the influence of the negative operation of power, and the threats this posed, on their threat responses, specifically their violent behaviour. Exacerbating factors are those which made the violent behaviour of prisoners worse. Prisoners described how many of their difficult life experiences occurred at, and continued from, a young age. They also experienced a lack of a (good) support network, including family and peers, to help deal with these experiences: ‘I was talking to my brother […] and he had a go at me over the phone and really wrecked my head like, you know. And then I was fighting after that like’ (P2). The interpersonal and intentional nature of the bullying and abuse of authority statuses experienced by prisoners also exacerbated their violence. In prison, a lack of control and the repeated and long-lasting threats they experienced under the continued management of the VDP policy too exacerbated their violence:

Like if someone came in to you and started punching the hell out of you once, the next time it happens to ya you go ‘well I’ve been through it once, it’s not too bad’. But then when it happens three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times yeah, you start to say ‘is that all you have? Is that all you got? Is that it?’. You become, you dish out what they’ve done to you, to them, so it becomes a never ending cycle’ (P1).

Relatedly, prisoners reported experiencing a lack of institutional support, primarily evident in how they felt they were treated by some prison officers: ‘The way you’re treated by prison officers sometimes isn’t good, ya know what I mean […] [they] manipulate ya and wind ya up’ (P3). Ultimately, prisoners suffered the chronicity of various threats in various aspects of their lives, throughout their lives, further exacerbating their violence. One prisoner noted how substance (ab)use made their violence worse, while another prisoner identified this as an ameliorating factor that helped them to not be violent: ‘Drugs is something that makes it easier, yeah’ (P3). Prisoners identified some internal, or personal, ameliorating factors, including remaining hopeful for the future, and developing self-belief: ‘I’m also comfortable speaking […] you have the choice now of saying like here, why are you being like this’ (P1). They also identified some external, or environmental, ameliorating factors, such as having a good support network: ‘I’m always good around me family. I love me family more than anything, know what I mean’ (P3). Overwhelmingly, however, prisoners identified the support they received in the NVRU as the most influential protective factor against their violence. One prisoner commented on the ‘peaceful’ social climate, while others discussed the contained but supportive nature of the regime, highlighting access to the gym and mental health support as beneficial: ‘Talking to someone about certain things, you know’ (P2). One prisoner reflected that although it felt strange to have positive relationships and interactions with prison officers for the first time, this was a hugely influential ameliorating factor against their violence:

They come and talk to ya, they don’t come in and fold ya up, they actually talk to ya and talk ya down to a level of where you are like on the same level. And they’re being human towards me, which is something alien to me like (P1).

Discussion

This study explored the origins, experiences and expressions of the violence, and other related behaviours, of prisoners residing in the NVRU in the IPS. It did so through the perspectives of these prisoners, framed by the PTMF. Adopting a primarily qualitative methodology, these prisoners participated in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis integrated reflexive thematic analysis and codebook approaches to identify both a priori and novel elements of the PTMF in these accounts, resulting in 6 themes: (1) power, (2) threat, (3) meaning, (4) threat response, (5) function of threat response and (6) moderating factors. Notably, novel elements included the imposition and/or adoption of violent identities, feeling hated, a sense of normality in relation to adverse experiences, identifying the positives out of adverse experiences, feelings of tension and fearlessness as threat responses, the use of violence as a learned survival strategy, substance (ab)use as both an exacerbating and ameliorating factor, and self-belief and hope for the future as additional ameliorating factors. These results move beyond the semantic-level description of prison life for VDP policy prisoners obtained previously by Gallagher and colleagues (2022), to a more latent-level and whole-life understanding of the origins, experiences and expressions of the violence of NVRU prisoners, from their own perspectives.

PIMS data were extracted and descriptively analysed for the purpose of contextualising this sample, and did not lend itself to inferential statistical testing. While conclusions regarding the NVRU cannot be drawn from this data, it does offer some interesting observations. Rates of violent incidents before and during their time in the NVRU appeared to vary from prisoner to prisoner, with PA demonstrating a reduction in violence, PC an increase, and PB’s violence remaining about the same. Overall it appears that in the NVRU less sanctions were imposed on these prisoners, though it also appears that PC experienced increased sanctions. The sanctions seem to have focused less on prohibition, particularly of contact with the outside world, and no participating prisoners experienced in-cell confinement as punishment. However, these data are clouded by the increased number of unstated sanctions administered to these prisoners in the NVRU. Overall, the quantitative data presented here may point to the individualistic nature of prisoners’ violence reduction journeys, which perhaps warrant nuanced management.

The qualitative results produced in this study are considered in light of the relevant existing literature, including that concerning prison violence, trauma in forensic contexts, the application of the PTMF in these contexts, and the core components of the PTMF – particularly pattern 6, ‘surviving social exclusion, shame, and coercive power’, which is proposed as characteristic of many men in the criminal justice system (Johnstone et al., 2018a). Like those typically described by this pattern, prisoners in this study reported multiple experiences of the negative operation of almost all forms of power. Just as the prisoners in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study had done, they highlighted the legal power initiated by their imprisonment and furthered by their experiences of systemic injustice in prison. While the prisoners in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study noted the coercive power they experienced at the hands’ of other prisoners, participants of the current study emphasised abuse by authority figures, inside and outside prison. In failing to fulfil their roles of safety and protection, these abuses of authority statuses also involved the negative operation of both social and interpersonal power. Indeed, pattern 6 in the PTMF highlights the prominence of social and relational threats experienced by this group. Threats against identity were also evident in this study. Like those in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study, prisoners in this study discussed the imposition of subordinate and de-valued identities, while additionally noting the violent identities they have adopted as a result of their experiences.

Prisoners in this study identified a range of meanings they have developed from their various life experiences, consistent with the existing evidence-base. While the many adversities they experienced should not be typical of one’s life-course, they highlighted the normality of these experiences to them, and thus the normality of violence as a means to survive. Indeed, the cycle of violence, where victimisation and offending become intertwined - initiated by the negative operation of coercive power from early life - is well-documented (Utting & Woodall, 2022). In this study, prisoners thought that this cycle of violence followed them into prison, where they believed it was further perpetuated by the sense of injustice and unfairness they felt as a result of their treatment. Just like the prisoners in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study, this led to an overwhelming feeling of helplessness and powerlessness. Unlike those in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study, prisoners in this study also identified positives they have taken from their various experiences, such as enhanced resilience and hope for the future. However, it is important to acknowledge that these positive features were limited both quantitatively and qualitatively, and that the positive framing of negative experiences may also be an adaptive threat response.

Indeed, and consistent with existing evidence, prisoners identified a vast spectrum of 18 different threat responses they have used to survive. These include violence, which is likely their most learned, practiced and successful threat response, amongst many other behaviours (e.g. suicidal thinking and actions, substance abuse), thoughts (e.g. paranoia, confused self-image), feelings (e.g. emotional numbing, fearlessness) and interactional responses (e.g. isolation and avoidance, distrust). The range and amount of threat responses identified by these prisoners emphasises the importance of not viewing violent behaviour in isolation, but rather exploring the network of related threat responses an individual may draw from to survive threatening situations. Also of importance is considering the various functions these threat responses serve. As previously mentioned, the functionality of prison violence has been well-evidenced (Butler, 2008; Edgar et al., 2003). Prisoners in Reis and colleagues' (2019) study focused primarily on the strategic functions of their threat responses, whereas, similar to Gallagher and colleagues' (2022) previous study of this cohort, prisoners in this study identified both strategic (e.g. self-protection, eliciting care) and psychological (e.g. regulating feelings and meeting emotional needs) functions of violence and related threat responses. In line with Butler, who has highlighted shame as an important catalyst for prison violence, prisoners in this study discussed their use of violence to preserve identity, self-image and self-esteem (Butler, 2008; Butler & Drake, 2007; Butler & Maruna, 2009).

Participants in this study confirmed a well-acknowledged observance in the prison literature, in that many elements of prison life can have exacerbating and/or ameliorating effects. For instance, P3 viewed their substance (ab)use as an adaptive threat response, and something which helped them to not be violent, while P1 viewed their substance (ab)use as a maladaptive threat response, and something which made their violence worse. Similarly, participants noted that having a good personal support network helps them to refrain from violence, while a lack of personal support often had the opposite effect. Consistent with literature exploring the effects of staff sub-cultures on prisoners (see Akerman et al., 2018; Hocken et al., 2022), participants highlighted both the exacerbating effects of negative staff characteristics and approaches, and the ameliorating effects of positive staff relationships and interactions, on their violence.

Implications

Theory and research

The authors of the PTMF highlight its provisional nature, and ‘testing’ of its utility as a research tool has been limited, even more so in the forensic context. This study used the PTMF to explore the perspectives of a specific cohort in a unique environment. It proved useful, and some additional novel elements were contributed to the framework as a result. Further research should continue to utilise the PTMF in similar and different contexts, drawing and developing on the codebook produced by this study. In doing so, and as the PTMF authors themselves emphasise, it is important to recognise that while the framework itself is new, the vast and diverse evidence-base on which it is built is not (Ramsden, 2019; Willmot & Evershed, 2018). Indeed, considering the core elements of the PTMF in forensic contexts, clear links can be identified with well-researched concepts in the criminological literature (e.g. the functionality of prison violence). Future research should continue to acknowledge this evidence-base, incorporating it into the framework of understanding that the PTMF provides. As advocated by the authors of the PTMF (Johnstone et al., 2018a) and those promoting the utility of the PTMF in forensic contexts (Jones & Willmot, 2022; Reis et al., 2019; Willmot & Evershed, 2018), and demonstrated in this study, qualitative methodologies are best placed to explore the origins, experiences and expressions of distress and troubled/troubling behaviour. This study aimed to represent the voices of prisoners through semi-structured interviews and a holistic analytic framework. Learning from patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives in health research, future research in forensic psychology should explore more collaborative qualitative methodologies, whereby service-users, the primary stakeholders of any research, are more intrinsically involved in the research process. Equally, for such research to meaningfully implicate policy and practice, it must be valued and encouraged at organisational levels.

Policy and practice

The underpinning values of the PTMF align well with the joint psychological and operational approach implemented in the NVRU, and similar contexts. Thus, it can have valuable implications for both psychological and operational practices in these settings. The PTMF can be used as a therapeutic tool as much as a research tool. However, those utilising the PTMF in therapeutic spaces should remain mindful that the PTMF offers just one way of understanding the origins, experiences and expressions of distress and troubled/troubling behaviour, and the understandings that make most sense to the service-user are most valuable. To this end, the PTMF can, and should, be adapted to suit individual needs, as demonstrated in the diverse good practice examples contained in appendices 2 to 14 of the PTMF overview document (Johnstone et al., 2018b). Appendix 1 of this document also includes a guide to using the PTMF in therapeutic spaces to co-create personal narratives, which may then inform therapeutic interventions. Reis and colleagues (2019) demonstrated the benefits of using the PTMF in this way in their study with men experiencing long-term imprisonment. Willmot and Evershed (2018) highlighted the ways in which the PTMF can aid clinical interviews with forensic clients given diagnoses of personality disorders.

The holistic nature of the PTMF can help facilitate in-depth psychological formulations of harmful behaviour, including violence – a crucial first step in any efforts to reduce it. Formulations with similar client groups can be informed by the results presented here, particularly the novel additions to the PTMF which are perhaps unique to seriously violent prisoners. For example, this study emphasised the cycle of violence experienced by participants, initiated by the negative operation of coercive power in early life, maintained by the normality of these experiences to these prisoners and the violent identities they have adopted, and further perpetuated by their use of violence as a multi-functional survival strategy. While the PTMF may be well-placed to guide inputs from psychological services, participants in this study also reported experiences of serious mental illness, addiction, disability and homelessness, which necessitate multi-disciplinary and multi-agency working with a range of therapeutic services.

Similar joint working with operational staff is imperative to the success of any efforts to understand and reduce violence in prison settings. Such efforts, within and beyond the NVRU, should pay special attention to moderating factors. Participants in this study identified elements of prison life which they felt exacerbated (e.g. negative staff-prisoner relationships/interactions,) and ameliorated (e.g. peaceful/supportive social climate) their violence. Many of these factors are controllable, and prison authorities should prioritise addressing these in the short-term, alongside developing in-depth understandings of these prisoners in the long-term, to make genuine progress towards reducing prison violence. Relatedly, the pivotal role of operational staff in the lives of these prisoners should not be underestimated. Participants in this study discussed various negative experiences with authority figures from early life, who in abusing their authority statuses posed many relational threats to these prisoners. Unfortunately, these experiences were mirrored for some participants in prison, who reported maltreatment by some prison staff, before coming to the NVRU. Fortunately however, and despite their relatively short time in the NVRU, prisoners reflected on the positive relationships they have begun to build with prison officers. Observing a shift from physical security to relational security, prisoners reported an increase in both the quantity and quality of their interactions with prison officers. They highlighted that NVRU prison officers seemed motivated to work with VDP policy prisoners in a different way; to help, not hurt. The compassion and empathy they experienced, particularly in one-to-one interactions with personal officers, allowed them to see prison officers as human beings for the first time. One prisoner expressed disbelief at being able to laugh and joke with NVRU prison officers, representing a stark contrast from previous interactions he had experienced. It is reasonable to assume that the psychologically-informed managerial style (e.g. co-led by operational governor and senior psychologist), training (e.g. bespoke psychological training prior to joining the NVRU) and development (e.g. regular individual and group check-ins) practices in the NVRU played a role in driving this shift. These observations are consistent with the extensive legitimacy literature, which has continually highlighted how the exercise of power at managerial and prison officer levels, and how this is perceived by prisoners, can influence prisoner behaviour and outcomes (see Liebling et al., 2011). As such, prison officers in the NVRU and other similar environments should be mindful of the importance of their interactions and how prisoners may experience them, and should be appropriately supported to continuously foster positive relationships with prisoners.

Strengths and limitations

Building on the descriptive, semantic foundation laid in the first study of this cohort (Gallagher et al., 2022), this study aimed to generate a more in-depth, latent understanding of these prisoners. While previous research was confined to exploring experiences in prison, the current research adopts a whole-life perspective, whereby participants reflected on their lives before and in prison. This study explored these reflections through a holistic framework – the PTMF – thus not limiting understandings to singular levels or theories. Although the PTMF has begun to gain traction in forensic psychology, this study is the first to fully apply the PTMF to this specific cohort of prisoners, ultimately demonstrating its utility in this area. At the same time, detailed description of the participants, setting and circumstances of this research allows others to assess the transferability of these findings to other settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Furthermore, this study complimented the use of the PTMF with an appropriate qualitative methodology, recognising that these are best-placed for exploring in-depth and subjective understandings and meanings. Recognising that no ‘one size fits all’ in qualitative research, this study integrated both reflexive thematic analysis and codebook approaches to best address its research questions. Doing so allowed for the identification of both a priori and novel elements of the PTMF, thus contributing to the further development of this provisional framework. The quality of this adapted methodology was ensured through the transparency of its description, a detailed audit trail and an external researcher check. Though prison officers in the NVRU participated in concurrent research exploring their understandings of the prisoners they work with (Gallagher et al., 2023), it was deemed most appropriate to analyse and present these understandings separately, so as to ensure that prisoners’ voices, being considerably less in number, were adequately represented.

Though half of all men residing in the NVRU during its first year successfully participated in this study, the small sample size (n = 3) must still be acknowledged. We encountered significant difficulties recruiting an already limited prisoner sample, with three of the six eligible NVRU prisoners declining to participate in the research. While no reasons were provided for non-participation, NVRU staff emphasised the difficulty of engaging this cohort of prisoners. In order to capture prisoners’ understandings throughout their NVRU journeys, it was planned that all prisoners would participate in the research at multiple time-points during their first year in the NVRU. However, only one prisoner (P1) consented to repeat participation. While this prisoner is understandably over-represented in the data, we ensured – as much as possible – that prisoners were equally represented by extracts in our results, and only selected extracts from P1’s subsequent participation where these accounts added something novel to the data. Although prisoners were given time to adjust to their new environments in the NVRU before being invited to participate in the research, the new approach experienced by prisoners in the NVRU starkly contrasted how they were previously managed (see Gallagher et al., 2022), and apprehension and guardedness would not be unsurprising. Future research in the NVRU may benefit from the assimilation of prisoners to the NVRU, and the assimilation of the NVRU to the wider IPS context.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study explored the origins, experiences and expressions of the violence of prisoners residing in the NVRU in the IPS. It did so novelly, using an adapted qualitative methodology informed by the PTMF. Importantly, it gave voice to these prisoners, acknowledging the value of their self-understandings in facilitating the understandings of others. These understandings of the origins, experiences and expressions of violence may provide a foundation from which violence reduction efforts can be built.

Acknowledgements

We thank the IPS for their funding of this research study, and the NVRU for their facilitation of data collection. We particularly thank those prisoners who participated in this study, and shared their valuable understandings with us.

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

Due to the sensitivity of the data contained in this study, it cannot not be publically accessed or provided by the authors.³

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Irish Prison Service.

Notes

1 4618 on 31st March 2023; 90 per 100,000 (World Prison Brief, 2023).

2 Barrier handling is a local term, referring to the use of Control & Restraint procedures and Personal Protection Equipment in the management of VDP policy prisoners.

3 Grant number not applicable.

4 No sub-themes of meaning were identified a priori in the PTMF, only codes. As such, sub-themes were created at a later stage of analysis.

5 No sub-themes of threat responses were identified a priori in the PTMF, only codes. As such, sub-themes were created at a later stage of analysis.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Prisoner Interview Schedule

Opening

1. Why were you transferred to the NVRU?

Understanding the Origins, Maintenance and Expression of Violence

Threat Response

2.	How would you describe your violent behaviour?

Function of Threat Response

3.	What does violence do for you?

Power

4.	What happened in prison that led to you being violent?
5.	What happened in your life outside prison that led you to being violent?

Threat

6.	How have these experiences in prison led you to being violent?
7.	How have these experiences in your life outside prison led you to being violent?

Meaning

8.	What do these experiences in prison mean to you? / How do you make sense of these experiences in prison? Ø Prompt: What do you think about these experiences? Ø Prompt: How do you feel about these experiences?
9.	What do these experiences in your life outside prison mean to you? / How do you make sense of these experiences in your life outside of prison? Ø Prompt: What do you think about these experiences? Ø Prompt: How do you feel about these experiences?

Exacerbating Factors

10.	Is there anything in prison that makes your violence worse?
11.	Is there anything in your life outside prison that makes your violence worse?

Ameliorating Factors

12.	Is there anything in prison that helps you to not be violent?
13.	Is there anything in your life outside prison that helps you to not be violent?

Closing

14.	What are your hopes for the rest of your time in the NVRU?
15.	Is there anything else you would like to say before we end the interview?

Appendix 2

A Priori Themes, Sub-Themes and Codes

Theme 1: Power

1. Sub-theme 1: biological/embodied power

2. Sub-theme 2: coercive power/power by force

3. Sub-theme 3: legal power

4. Sub-theme 4: economic/material power

5. Sub-theme 5: social/cultural capital

6. Sub-theme 6: interpersonal power

7. Sub- theme 7: ideological power

Theme 2: Threat

1. Sub-theme 1: relational

2. Sub-theme 2: emotional

3. Sub-theme 3: social/community

4. Sub-theme 4: economic/material

5. Sub-theme 5: environmental

6. Sub-theme 6: bodily

7. Sub-theme 7: knowledge/meaning construction

8. Sub-theme 8: identity

9. Sub-theme 9: value base

Theme 3: Meaning⁴

Codes

1. Unsafe, afraid, attacked

2. Abandoned, rejected

3. Helpless, powerless

4. Hopeless

5. Invaded

6. Controlled

7. Emotionally overwhelmed

8. Emotionally empty

9. Bad, unworthy

10. Isolated, lonely

11. Excluded, alienated

12. Trapped

13. Defeated

14. Failed, inferior

15. Guilty, blameworthy, responsible

16. Betrayed

17. Shamed, humiliated

18. Sense of injustice/unfairness

19. Sense of meaninglessness

20. Contaminated, evil

21. Alien, dangerous

22. Different, abnormal

Theme 4: Threat Response⁵

Codes

1. Preparing to ‘fight’/attack

2. Preparing to ‘flee’

3. Freeze response

4. Hypervigilance, startle responses, insomnia

5. Panic, phobias

6. Fragmented memory encoding

7. Memory suppression (amnesia)

8. Hearing voices

9. Dissociating

10. Depersonalisation, derealisation

11. Flashbacks

12. Nightmares

13. NEAD (non-epileptic attack disorder)

14. Emotional numbing, flattening, indifference

15. Bodily numbing

16. Submitting, appeasing

17. Giving up, ‘learned helplessness’, low mood

18. Protesting, weeping, clinging

19. Suspicious thoughts

20. Emotional regression, withdrawal

21. ‘High’ or extreme moods, rapid mood changes, ‘emotional dysregulation’

22. Holding unusual beliefs

23. Having unusual visual, olfactory, tactile sensations

24. Physical sensations, tension, dizziness, physical pain, tinnitus, sensations of heat or cold, exhaustion, skin irritation, gastrointestinal problems

25. Emotional defences, denying what has happened, idealising people

26. Intellectualisation (avoiding feelings and bodily sensations)

27. Attention/concentration problems

28. Confused/unstable self-image/sense of self

29. Confused/confusing speech and communication

30. Self-injury of various types

31. Self-neglect

32. Dieting, self-starvation

33. Bingeing, over-eating

34. Self-silencing

35. Self-blame and self-punishment

36. Body hatred

37. Compulsive thoughts

38. Carrying out rituals and other ‘safety behaviours’

39. Collecting, hoarding

40. Avoidance of/compulsive use of sexuality

41. Impulsivity

42. Anger, rage

43. Aggression, violence

44. Suicidal thinking and actions

45. Distrust of others

46. Feeling entitled

47. Reduced empathy

48. Distrust

49. Striving, perfectionism, ‘drive’ response

50. Using drugs, alcohol, smoking

51. Over-working, over-exercising

52. Giving up hope/loss of faith in the world

53. Relational strategies: rejection and maintaining emotional distance, seeking care and attachments, taking on caring roles, isolation/avoidance of others, dominance, seeking control over others

54. Ruminating, reflecting, anticipating, imagining, interpreting, meaning-making

Theme 5: Function of Threat Response

1. Sub-theme 1: regulating overwhelming feelings

2. Sub-theme 2: protection from physical danger

3. Sub-theme 3: maintaining a sense of control

4. Sub-theme 4: seeking attachments

5. Sub-theme 5: preserving identity, self-image and self-esteem

6. Sub-theme 6: preserving a place within the social group

7. Sub-theme 7: meeting emotional needs/self-soothing

8. Sub-theme 8: communication about distress/elicit distress

9. Sub-theme 9: finding meaning and purpose

Theme 6: Moderating Factors

Sub-Theme 1: Exacerbating Factors

1. Early developmental stage

2. Lack of person to support/confide in/protect

3. Multiple kinds of danger

4. Long-lasting/repeated danger

5. Severity of the danger

6. Escapability or ‘trappedness’

7. Lack of predictability and control over the threat

8. Physical invasiveness of the threat

9. Closeness in time/co-occurrence to other threats

10. Threat to sense of self

11. Interpersonal and intentional threat

12. Sense of betrayal by individual or institutions

13. Perceived social threat

14. Greater number of perpetrators

15. Threat that occurs within an emotional or attachment relationship

16. Chronicity of background threat, either environmental or personal

Sub-Theme 2: Ameliorating Factors

1. Later developmental stage

2. Having someone to support/confide in/protect

3. Singular/less types of danger

4. Short-lasting/singular occurrences danger

5. Less severe danger

6. Ability to escape from danger/‘get out’

7. Ability to predict/control the threat

8. Threat is not/less physically invasive

9. Threats do not occur close together/at same time

10. No threat to sense of self

11. Not interpersonal or intentional threat

12. No betrayal/being supported by individuals/institutions

13. No social threat

14. Lesser number/singular perpetrator

15. No threat within an emotional/attachment relationship

16. Threat is not chronic, environmentally or personally