DAF02 – Exploring Accountability and Governance in UK Prison Systems

Project description:

Recent issues surrounding prison releases in error in the UK have highlighted a system under immense strain, leading to significant public safety concerns. High-profile cases, including multiple prisoners erroneously freed from establishments such as HMP Chelmsford and HMP Wandsworth, have triggered manhunts, political scrutiny, and urgent calls for greater accountability, transparency, and systemic reform. Government figures show that 262 prisoners were mistakenly released between April 2024 and March 2025, more than double the previous year, and dozens more have been freed in error since April 2025. Some have required re-arrest, and a small number remain at large, prompting an independent review and new release checks by the Ministry of Justice.

These events have exposed longstanding weaknesses in the UK’s prison release processes and broader accountability structures, undermining public trust and confidence and show how fragile oversight mechanisms can become when services operate under staffing shortages, operational pressures, and weak governance. This project proposes to examine how prisons can develop robust accountability structures that engage multiple internal and external actors, including prison staff, healthcare teams, probation services, Independent Monitoring Boards, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, NGOs, and families. The goal is to examine how systemic improvements in accountability can reduce operational failures and enhance institutional learning and safety.

The current crisis offers an opportunity to study accountability mechanisms in British prisons. The government has announced up to £10 million investment over six months to introduce AI-powered tools and upgrade archaic paper-based systems, alongside new governance structures including monthly Justice Performance Boards. This period of reform provides an optimal window to investigate how accountability structures evolve during crisis and reform and whether technological and procedural interventions effectively address systemic failures.

Aim of the project:

This PhD project aims to investigate how accountability mechanisms within UK prisons operate, fail, or could be strengthened, particularly in relation to visibility, transparency, and governance. The research will examine how prisons can develop robust accountability structures that engage multiple stakeholders including prison staff, healthcare professionals, probation services, NGOs, oversight bodies, and families.

The project will draw on critical accounting, public governance, and sociological theories of accountability. For instance, Andrew’s (2007) analysis of Australian private prisons show how profit motives and contractual arrangements can undermine accountability. This project extends such insights to the UK prison context, where different pressures and systemic failures create distinct accountability gaps.

In this context, the research may relate to one or several of a range of different topics and contexts, including but not limited to, for instance:

1. How do current accountability structures in UK prisons enable or constrain transparency in decision-making and operational processes, including prisoner release?

2. What role does visibility play in the incidence and management of events including releases in error, violence, self-harm, and escapes?

3. How can strong governance strengthen accountability between prison management, frontline staff, oversight bodies, and external stakeholders?

4. What institutional, cultural, and structural conditions support (or undermine) the development of accountability mechanisms in UK prisons?

5. What barriers and enablers exist to effective accountability in resource-constrained and operationally pressurised correctional settings?

6. How can AI enhance or complicate accountability in prisons, and what governance frameworks are needed to ensure transparency, auditability, and human oversight in automated decision-making processes?

7. How is the information needed for accountability is generated and how may advances in technology (including AI) may influence this process.

8. How does individual-level accountability among prison staff and leadership (e.g. responsibility, blame, discretion, and professional judgement) shape organisational functioning, decision-making, and culture within prisons?

9. What role do society, the media, and other external stakeholders play in demanding, shaping, and enforcing accountability in the prison system?

10. How do everyday micro-accountability practices interact with formal governance mechanisms to shape accountability outcomes in prisons?

The research will establish a foundation for future comparative studies examining accountability across different national correctional systems and public sector contexts. It will contribute to debates on prison resilience, ethical governance, and prison accountability.

Methodology:

The research will employ a qualitative approach. Possible approaches include:

- Document analysis: Examination of policy documents, inspection reports, incident investigation reports, and guidance materials related to prison operations and accountability mechanisms.

- Case study analysis: In-depth investigation of 2-3 UK prisons representing different security categories, organisational structures, and performance records and variation in accountability practices.

- Semi-structured interviews: 20/40 interviews with prison governors, senior management, staff, probation officers, members of Independent Monitoring Boards, NGO representatives, and officials from oversight bodies such as HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

Ethical considerations:

Given the sensitive nature of prison research, ethical approval will be sought from the Open University's Human Research Ethics Committee. The research will require formal access permissions with individual prison establishments. Participant anonymity will be protected, and all data will be handled in accordance with GDPR and university research ethics guidelines.

Should prison access not be granted, the project would make use of alternative data sources (e.g. publicly available reports, inspection data and policy documents etc) and/or shift to non-prison but closely related accountability settings (e.g. probation services, private security contractors, or NGOs working with prisons).

Expectations:

The doctorate is expected to develop specific research questions within this area and gradually develop working papers over the period of three years that are publishable in internationally recognised academic journals such as Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, or Public Administration.

It is hoped that the prospective candidate will demonstrate an interest in developing both a theoretical/conceptual and empirical contribution within this field.

We envisage the scope of research project to be flexible according to the interests and background of the PhD candidate. However, we are only seeking quantitative research methodologies for this project.

Applicant specification:

The candidate must express a keen interest in accounting research with a focus on accountability, transparency and governance. Individuals with industry experience, willing to bring their experiences and knowledge are encouraged to apply.  The candidate must have a prior experience with qualitative research methodologies (e.g., a postgraduate dissertation).

About the supervisors:

Anwar’s research is interdisciplinary and centres on themes of accountability, sustainability and environmental accounting, corporate governance issues, the social and environmental impacts of organisations and socially responsible investing. He is particularly interested in accounting as a social and institutional practice, investigating how accounting operates in everyday life and is embedded within cultural, social and religious contexts. Anwar is currently investigating the role of accountants in the move towards sustainability, with particular emphasis on accountant's attitudes towards sustainability, identity group norms and professional and societal norms. Additionally, he is exploring how accountabilities are enacted within governance structures in religious institutions, with a particular focus on everyday practices of accountability.

Key reading:

Agyemang, G., 2024. Let's have a relook at accountability. The British Accounting Review, 56(1), p.101262.

Ahrens, T., 1996. Styles of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(2-3), pp.139-173.

Alawattage, C., Graham, C. and Wickramasinghe, D., 2019. Microaccountability and biopolitics: Microfinance in a Sri Lankan village. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 72, pp.38-60.

Arnaboldi, M., Busco, C. and Cuganesan, S., 2017. Accounting, accountability, social media and big data: revolution or hype?. Accounting, auditing & accountability journal, 30(4), pp.762-776.

Bovens, M., 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework 1. European law journal, 13(4), pp.447-468.

Ebrahim, A., 2003. Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World development, 31(5), pp.813-829.

Gray, R. (2006) Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour?: Wrong question? Right time? Accounting and Business Research, 36 (1), pp. 65-88.  

Messner, M., 2009. The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), pp.918-938.

Rached, D.H., 2016. The concept (s) of accountability: form in search of substance. Leiden Journal of International Law, 29(2), pp.317-342.

Roberts, J., 1991. The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, organizations and society, 16(4), pp.355-368.

Rubenstein, J., 2007. Accountability in an unequal world. the Journal of Politics, 69(3), pp.616-632.

Shenkin, M. and Coulson, A.B., 2007. Accountability through activism: learning from Bourdieu. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(2), pp.297-317.

Sinclair, A., 1995. The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, organizations and Society, 20(2-3), pp.219-237.

Tregidga, H., Milne, M. and Kearins, K., 2014. (Re) presenting ‘sustainable organizations’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), pp.477-494.

Unerman, J. and O'Dwyer, B., 2006. Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), pp.349-376

‘Twelve more prisoners released in error, with two still missing, says Lammy’ BBC News article.

'Better prisons: less crime’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee report.