Prisoners’ participation and involvement in prison life: Examining the possibilities and boundaries
| Author | Dorien Brosens |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818773616 |
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818773616
European Journal of Criminology
2019, Vol. 16(4) 466 –485
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818773616
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Prisoners’ participation and
involvement in prison life:
Examining the possibilities
and boundaries
Dorien Brosens
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
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.
Keywords
Focus groups, involvement, participation, participation pyramid, prison life
Introduction
The participation and involvement of prisoners in prison life are themes that have
recently moved up political agendas in Europe. Article 50 of the European Prison Rules
stipulates: ‘Subject to the needs of good order, safety and security, prisoners shall be
allowed to discuss matters relating to general conditions of imprisonment and shall be
encouraged to communicate with the prison authorities about these matters’; Article 27.6
states that ‘recreational opportunities, which include sport, games, cultural activities,
hobbies and other leisure pursuits, shall be provided and, as far as possible, prisoners
Corresponding author:
Dorien Brosens, Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050,
Belgium.
Email: dorien.brosens@vub.be
773616EUC0010.1177/1477370818773616European Journal of CriminologyBrosens
research-article2018
Article
Brosens 467
shall be allowed to organize them’ (Council of Europe, 2006). These rules indicate that
prisoners are seen as active citizens rather than just passive recipients of services (Edgar
et al., 2011). This increasing awareness and appeal for more participation seems to be
contrary to the essence of prisons. Although correctional institutions control and con-
strain individuals’ autonomy and choices (Hannah-Moffat, 2000), according to Woodall
et al. (2013) their task could be to create more empowered individuals and to give them
the possibility of taking control over their own life following release from prison.
However, ‘we rarely hear about the good work being done in prisons or the men and
women who have grown up, matured and changed their lives while incarcerated’
(Inderbitzin, Walraven, et al., 2016: 86). This study aims to provide an insight into the
different types of prisoner participation and involvement in prison life that are available,
the advantages and disadvantages thereof, and the processes that can enhance or limit
their participation and involvement in prison life.
Types of prisoner participation and involvement in prison
life
Ladder of citizen participation: Different levels of participation and
involvement
Arnstein (1969) developed the ‘ladder of citizen participation’ and identified different
levels of participation, because ‘there is a critical difference between going through the
empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of
the process’ (1969: 216). His ladder contains eight participation levels that each indicate
the degree of power citizens have in determining the end product. The two bottom rungs
are called ‘manipulation’ and ‘therapy’, and are considered to be levels of ‘non-partici-
pation’. The next three levels are ‘informing’, ‘consultation’ and ‘placation’, which are
also called ‘levels of tokenism’. Citizens receive information and are consulted or asked
to provide advice, but the right to take decisions is retained by the power holders.
‘Partnership’, ‘delegated power’ and ‘citizen control’ are the last three rungs, and are also
called ‘degrees of citizen power’. Partnership means that citizens engage and negotiate
with power holders, while at the level of delegated power and citizen control citizens
have control over the decision-making process (Arnstein, 1969).
More recently, this ladder of citizen participation has been applied to the participation
of prisoners (for example, Nacro, 2014; Taylor, 2014) and is limited to five levels. The
bottom rung is ‘informing’, meaning that objective information is provided to prisoners
about their rights and ways to participate in the organization (Taylor, 2014), or to help
them to understand problems, alternatives, opportunities and solutions (Nacro, 2014).
The next level is ‘consulting’; the views of prisoners have been sought (Taylor, 2014)
and the prison management commits to act on these views, if possible. Consulting pris-
oners can be by means of surveys, panel discussions, suggestion boxes or focus group
interviews (Nacro, 2014). The third rung is ‘involving’; this indicates that prisoners’
concerns, aspirations and advice are fed into decision-making processes. At this level,
prisoners are thus involved in decision-making to some degree. The fourth rung is ‘col-
laborating’ (Nacro, 2014; Taylor, 2014); this implies that prisoners participate in
To continue reading
Request your trial