Prisoners’ participation and involvement in prison life: Examining the possibilities and boundaries

Abstract

Prisoners’ participation and involvement in prison life are becoming important topics featuring on European political agendas. To investigate the different types of prisoner participation and involvement in one prison in Belgium, the experiences of prisoners and professionals, and the processes that enhance or limit prisoners’ participation, 11 focus groups have been conducted with prisoners ( N = 36) and professionals ( N = 42). A thematic analysis of this data identifies that various formal and informal participation initiatives exist, but several barriers between prisoners, prison staff and prison management impede (structural) participation. Implementing and increasing the participation and involvement of prisoners requires organizational and cultural changes. The article concludes by discussing practical issues raised by the study, as well as some limitations.

Do Perceptions of Legitimacy and Fairness Matter in Prison? Examining How Procedural and Distributive Justice Relate to Misconduct

“…Such broadcasts can contextualize reports on facility safety for residents and staff. Another example that holds the potential to implement findings related to both normative and instrumental perceptions could involve an incarcerated council of sorts that actively participates with staff and management (Brosens, 2019). Such models have been fruitful in European countries, where councils foster a voice for those in custody (Inderbitzin et al, 2016), improved resident–staff relations (Bishop, 2006), and improve working conditions for staff (Edgar et al, 2011).…”

Rethinking Incarcerated Women's Leisure as Subjected to Coercive and Normative Prison Missions

“…Leisure involvement does not empirically increase a prison's safety (Frey and Delaney 1996), yet many authors insist that individual benefits such as reducing tensions and violence can or should be leveraged to monitor and manage detained people (Batchelder and Pippert 2002;Bodin et al 2007;Walakafra-Wills 1983;Wiebe and Nesbitt 2000). Fitting leisure into an incentive system could facilitate detained people's collaboration (Ambrose and Rosky 2013;Bilderbeck, Farias, and Brazil 2014;Brosens 2019;Gallant, Sherry, and Nicholson 2015;Martin and Kaledas 2010;Sempé et al 2006). One review argues that leisure is intentionally deployed to camouflage coercive missions by controlling unruly prisoners or enforcing conformity through behavior contracts and incentive systems.…”

“…Organizational issues in access to leisure can impede prison's normative missions by affecting individual's preparedness for returning to society (Frey and Delaney 1996). Access may be limited due to logistic issues such as material costs, program funding, service provider salaries, scheduling conflicts, restrictions to information and resource flow (Batchelder and Pippert 2002;Brosens 2019;Finio 1986; Louviere 2017; Nugent and Loucks 2011; Sweeney 2010). Some structural issues can also limit access: problems informing people who speak another language, are illiterate, or are newly detained; exclusion of criminally not responsible detainees; and lack of a culture encouraging involvement in prison life (Brosens, 2019).…”

“…Access may be limited due to logistic issues such as material costs, program funding, service provider salaries, scheduling conflicts, restrictions to information and resource flow (Batchelder and Pippert 2002;Brosens 2019;Finio 1986; Louviere 2017; Nugent and Loucks 2011; Sweeney 2010). Some structural issues can also limit access: problems informing people who speak another language, are illiterate, or are newly detained; exclusion of criminally not responsible detainees; and lack of a culture encouraging involvement in prison life (Brosens, 2019). Overcrowding and understaffing in women's prisons can also limit access to leisure resources and spaces (Pedlar et al 2018;Nugent and Loucks 2011).…”

Rethinking Incarcerated Women's Leisure as Subjected to Coercive and Normative Prison Missions

“…Leisure involvement does not empirically increase a prison's safety (Frey and Delaney, 1996), yet many authors insist that individual benefits such as reducing tensions and violence can or should be leveraged to monitor and manage detained people (Walakafra-Wills, 1983;Wiebe and Nesbitt, 2000;Batchelder and Pippert, 2002;Bodin et al, 2007). Fitting leisure into an incentive system could facilitate detained people's collaboration (Sempé et al, 2006;Martin and Kaledas, 2010;Ambrose and Rosky, 2013;Bilderbeck et al, 2014;Gallant et al, 2015;Brosens, 2019). One review argues that leisure is intentionally deployed to camouflage coercive missions by controlling unruly prisoners or enforcing conformity through behavior contracts and incentive systems.…”