Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
ELMIP – Empowering Learning Models in Prison
Final Evaluation Report of Overall Training
Curriculum, Materials and Workshops of
Detainees and Prison Staff in the Cyprus Prison
November 2019
Project Number: JUST-AG-2016/JUST-AG-2016-03
Implementation period: 01.12.2017 – 30.11.2019
Implementation period: 01 November 2015 – 30 November 2017
1 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
4/10/2018
PROJECT COORDINATOR
European University of Cyprus
PROJECT PARTNERS
Enoros Consulting Ltd (Cyprus)
Central Prisons Department (Cyprus)
Ergoplan A.E. (Greece)
Author: Olga Solomontos-Kountouri, Assistant Profesor of Developmental Psychology,
Enoros Consulting collaborator
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Theoretical background of the program .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Program objectives for prison staff .................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 Program objectives for detainees ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Program implementation for prison staff......................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Program implementation for detainees ........................................................................................................... 9
2. Prison staff final report ............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Methodology for data collection from the prison staff ...................................................................................... 12
2.2 Results of ELMIP evaluation from prison staff (Comparison of pre-test and post-test & focus group interview
results) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Demographics ....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Education –Training – Work ................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.3 Emotional Intelligence ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.2.4 Social skills ................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.5 Radicalism .................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.6 Views of prison staff on detainees’ educational program........................................................................... 20
2.3 Effectiveness of the program for prison staff ..................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Focus group interview results from prison staff................................................................................................. 23
3. Detainees’ final report .......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Methodology for data collection of detainees ................................................................................................... 25
3. 2 Results of ELMIP evaluation from detainees (Comparison of pre-test and post-test & focus group
interview results) ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Demographics .............................................................................................................................................. 27
3.2.2. Education –Training – Work ................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.3 Basic Skills ............................................................................................................................................. 33
3.2.4 Emotional intelligence .......................................................................................................................... 37
3.2.5 Social skills ............................................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.6 Religion – Radicalism ............................................................................................................................ 40
3.2.7 Problems of detainees .......................................................................................................................... 44
3.2.8 Future self of detainees ............................................................................................................................... 46
3 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.3 Effectiveness of the program for detainees ....................................................................................................... 48
3.3 Results from the focus group interview of detainees .................................................................................. 49
4. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 51
4.1 Prison staff .......................................................................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Detainees ............................................................................................................................................................ 53
4.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................. 56
References ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Tables
Table 1: Units taught, dates, number of participants and instructors the prison staff’s ELMIP program ...... 8
Table 2: Units taught, dates, number of participants and instructors of the detainees’ ELMIP program .... 11
Table 3: Type of test, date and number of participants from prison staff .................................................... 12
Table 4: Emotional intelligence of prison staff .............................................................................................. 16
Table 5: Emotional and cognitive empathy of prison staff ........................................................................... 17
Table 6: Social skills of prison staff ................................................................................................................ 17
Table 7: Radicalism knowledge and skills of prison staff .............................................................................. 18
Table 8: Factors associated with the emergence of radicalism .................................................................... 19
Table 9: Views of prison staff on detainees’ educational program .............................................................. 20
Table 10: Contribution of training programs ................................................................................................. 20
Table 11: Themes from focus group interview of prison staff ...................................................................... 23
Table 12: Type of test, date and number of participants from detainees .................................................... 25
Table 13: Detainees history of imprisonment at pre-test ............................................................................. 28
Table 14: Emotional intelligence of detainees at pre and post-test ............................................................. 38
Table 15: Emotional and cognitive empathy of detainees at pre and post-test ........................................... 38
Table 16: Social skills of detainees and pre and post-test............................................................................. 39
Table 17: Religion of social circle of detainees in pre-test and post-test ..................................................... 42
Table 18: Support marriage with a person from different religion in pre-test and post-test ...................... 42
Table 19: Reasons for religious fanaticism from pre-test and post-test ....................................................... 43
Table 20: Themes from detainees focus group interview ............................................................................. 49
Figures
Figure 1: Opinions on educational program usefulness from prison staff .................................................... 19
Figure 2: Reasons for changing careers ......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3: Reasons for working ....................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4: Basic Skills at pre-test ..................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 5: Basic Skills at post-test ................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6: Necessity of basic skills at pre-test ................................................................................................. 35
Figure 7: Necessity of basic skills at post test ................................................................................................ 36
Figure 8: Utility of basic skills at pre-test....................................................................................................... 36
Figure 9: Utility of basic skills at post-test ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 10: Opinions of detainees for Religion & Radicalism at pre-test ....................................................... 40
Figure 11: Opinions of detainees for Religion & Radicalism at pre-test ....................................................... 41
Figure 12: Personal problems of detainees at pre-test ................................................................................. 44
Figure 13: Personal problems of detainees at post-test ............................................................................... 44
5 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Figure 14: Bullying and Victimization at pre-test .......................................................................................... 45
Figure 15: Bullying and Victimization at post-test ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 16: Plans and aspirations following release at pre-test ..................................................................... 46
Figure 17: Plans and aspirations following release at post-test .................................................................... 47
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
1. Introduction
The European Security Agenda and the EU Council conclusions of the 20th of November 2015 set out to strengthen the anti-terrorist opposition. In this context, the EU Justice Program invited institutions from European countries to put forward proposals for actions to combat radicalization leading to terrorism and violent extremism, in particular actions related to de-radicalization and rehabilitation programs for prisoners as well as training for prison staff.
The problem of radicalization in the Cyprus Prison Department is at its birth, as prisoners can be described as vulnerable to radicalization. Therefore, our proposal for Cyprus Prison Department focused on the implementation of a prevention program aimed at the smooth integration of detainees into society, which in turn would reduce recidivism rates and would prevent the attraction of radicalism and extremism. This, as it presented in this report, have been achieved through the development of a preventive educational program, which has been implemented in specialized workshops for both detainees and prison staff.
1.1 Theoretical background of the program
The theoretical background of the program based on three theories. Namely, desistance theory (Maruna, 2001; McNeill, 2006), identity theory (Erikson, 1968) and social-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The desistance theory explains how criminals could stop their delinquent behaviours. According to desistance theory there are three important factors, which support the decision and the procedure for desist from crime:
(α) development of personal maturity,
(β) changing on social bonds that are connected with life transitions (stop relation with criminal circles and bonds to healthy circle),
(γ) personal narration – identity transformation.
The definition of identity refers to a stable view each person has for its self, concerning the questions: ‘who am I’, ‘which are my goals for life’, ‘what is my status in society’, ‘what kind of occupational career I wish for me’, ‘which are my religious, moral and political beliefs’, ‘who am I as a man/woman’? (Erikson, 1968).
The development of identity gives sense to the existence, the feeling of whole and stable self, the distinction from others and the continuity of existence (diachronic and synchronic stability). The acquisition of a complete identity contributes to social dedication and faithfulness and represents person’s ability to accept and defend social morality and beliefs (Erikson, 1968).
The unsuccessful identity formation causes role confusion or a negative identity, which is controversial with the promoted identity given by family or the society (Erikson, 1959). The imprisonment, the disengagement from family and society, the connection with criminals, causes the formation of a negative identity which is accompanied by reduction of personal sense (responsibility), institutionalization and stigmatization. However, some other findings showed that the specific experience (imprisonment) might motivate them to the redemption, the renewal and the reinforcement of their identity (Rowe, 2011; Toyoki & Brown, 2013).
Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) ecological model explains how development could be affected from the various contexts. On the core of the model is the person’s biological and psychological makeup, based on individual and genetic developmental history. This makeup continues to be affected and modified by the
7 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
person’s immediate physical and social environment (microsystem) as well as interactions among the systems within the environment (mesosystems). Other broader social, political and economic conditions (exosystem) influence the structure and availability of microsystems and the manner in which they affect the person.
Finally, social, political, and economic conditions are themselves influenced by the general beliefs and attitudes (macrosystems) shared by members of the society.
Besides the three basic theories, evidences of the role of education as a protective factor against delinquency is taken into consideration. More years in formal education reduces the possibilities of delinquency and imprisonment (Lochner & Moretti, 2004). Low levels of education are connected with criminality (Fabelo, 2002) and delinquency (Savolainen et al., 2012). Educational programs for detainees facilitate the process for employment (Lockwood, Nally, Ho, & Knutson, 2012; Filella-Guiu & Blanch-Plana, 2002; Graffam, Shinkfield, & Lavelle, 2014). A qualitative study on how young detainees in Cyprus prison department conceive their identity and how they view the role of education in identity development showed that education works as vehicle to identity reformation (Solomontos-Kountouri & Hatzitoffi, 2016).
Based on the mentioned theories and evidences we set the program’s objectives for prison staff and detainees:
1.2 Program objectives for prison staff
To train prison staff to acquire skills and competences in order to deal with detainees in a more
sensitive and understanding manner taking into account diverse cultural and religious norms,
values and expressions.
To build good prison staff-detainees interpersonal relationships;
To train prison staff to apply policies in a framework of respecting human rights, providing safety
and dignity in their treatment of detainees. These policies should adhere to basic fundamental
principles of fairness and the rule of law.
To improve the knowledge of prison staff regarding identifying, assessing and remedying
radicalized behaviors by familiarizing themselves with best practices along the lines of Council of
Europe and EU recommendations.
To gain a better understanding of the importance of their role in the implementation processes of
rehabilitation and reintegration programs.
1.3 Program objectives for detainees
To empower detainees to take control over personal, social and economic conditions in order to improve their life situations during incarceration and/or probation period that would have lasting effects for their re-integration to society;
To enhance their potentials for employment after their release;
To foster active citizenship skills;
To strengthen their communication, emotional and interpersonal skills;
To establish a solid base of values and beliefs connected with established social institutions and mainstream social processes.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
1.4 Program implementation for prison staff
• 50 participants with regular attendance: Group A & Group B of prison staff • 9 workshop units in each cycle, which started on July 14, 2018 and ended on September 13, 2019
(see Table 1) • 3 hours lasted each workshop course • 6 instructors taught the workshops
The workshops were held at the Correctional Officer Academy in Nicosia.
Topics Group Α Group Β Number of
prison staff
Instructors
Unit 1˸
Team building, introduction to
definitions
14.7.2018 28.7.2018 50 Tassos Tratonikolas
Unit 2˸
Identity, stereotypes and prejudice
3.8.2018 24.8.2018 50 Tassos Tratonikolas
Unit 3˸
Migration, xenophobia and racism
6.9.2018 7.9.2018 50 Eleni Takou
Unit 4˸
Human rights, correction and
protective context
22.10.2018 29.10.2018 50 Athina Demetriou
Unit 5˸
Emotional intelligence and
empowerment processes
15.11.2018 6.12.2018 50 Olga Solomontos-
Kountouri &
Eleonora Leontiou-
Papalouka
Unit 6˸
Development of communicational
skills and mediation skills
4.4.2019 11.4.2019 50 Olga Solomontos-
Kountouri & Ioanna
Hatzicharalambous
Unit 7˸
Aggressive radicalism and prison
context
16.4.2019 19.4.2019 50 Athina Demetriou
Unit 8˸
Evaluation and management of
dangerous situations
23.4.2019 24.42019 50 Athina Demetriou
Unit 9˸
Reintegration
13.9.2019 13.9.2019 50 Olga Solomontos-
Kountouri & Tassos
Tratonikolas
Table 1: Units taught, dates, number of participants and instructors the prison staff’s ELMIP program
9 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
1.5 Program implementation for detainees
• Detainees group A: Average attendance is 14.4 with a range of 23 to 4 participants
• Detainees group B: Average attendance is 19.3 with a range of 38 to 8 participants
• 20 workshop units in each cycle, which started from July 12, 2018 and ended May 16, 2019
• 2 hours lasted each workshop course
• 12 trainers worked as instructors
• The workshops are held in 2 schools of the Cyprus Prison Department in Nicosia (see Table 2).
Topics Date Time/Group Time/Group Instructors
Unit1
Team building, team rules
12/7/2018 GROUP Α΄
8.00-10.00
18
GROUP Β΄
10.00-12.00
38
Olga Solomontos-Kountouri, Ioanna
Hatzicharalambous, Evi
Therapontos, Tassos Tratonikolas,
Sofoklis Sofokleous, Maria
Kountouri, Sofia Peletie
Unit 2
Self-image
26/7/2018 8.00-10.00
18
10.00-12.00
32
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Maria Kountouri, Sofia
Peletie
Unit 3
Self-esteem
2/8/2018 8.00-10.00
20
10.00-12.00
18
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis
Unit 4
Stress management
9/8/2018 8.00-10.00
19
10.00-12.00
20
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Sofia Peletie, Ioannis
Maurommatis
Unit 5
Greek Language Literacy
23/8/2018 8.00-10.00
18
10.00-12.00
18
Evi Therapontos, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Sofia Peletie, Ioannis
Maurommatis
Unit 6
Mathematical Literacy
30/8/2018 8.00-10.00
19
10.00-12.00
23
Evi Therapontos, Sofia Peletie,
Ioannis Maurommatis
Unit 7
Identification of emotions
13/9/2018 8.00-10.00
18
10.00-12.00
23
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Sofia Peletie, Ioannis
Maurommatis
Unit 8
IT Literacy First Part
20/9/2018 8.00-10.00
16
10.00-12.00
23
Evi Therapontos, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Unit 9
Identification of anger and
violence
27/9/2018 8.00-10.00
17
10.00-12.00
22
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis,
George Pepetsios
Unit 10
Anger management and
healthy anger expressions
4/10/2018 8.00-10.00
15
10.00-12.00
22
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis,
Mikaela Frangopoulou
Unit 11
Conflict solution
management
18/10/2018 8.00-10.00
14
10.00-12.00
20
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis,
Mikaela Frangopoulou
Unit 12
Empowerment of emotional
resilience/ management of
difficult situation
22/11/2018 8.00-10.00
18
10.00-12.00
16
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis
Unit 8
IT Literacy Second Part
27/12/2018 8.00-10.00
16
10.00-11.00
17
Evi Therapontos, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis,
Mikaela Frangopoulou
Unit 13
Budget management
3/1/2019 8.00-10.00
17
10.00-11.00
18
Evi Therapontos, Sofoklis
Sofokleous, Marios Assiotis
Unit 14
Developing work profile to
maximize employment
potentials
14/2/2019 8.00-10.00
18
10.00-11.00
19
Tassos Tratonikolas, Kristallo
Arkadiou, Sofoklis Sofokleous
Module 15
Job finding tools, Curriculum
Vitae, Reference letters,
Phone interview.
20/2/2019 8:00-10:00
9
10:00-12:00
18
Tassos Tratonikolas Kristallo
Arkadiou, Sofoklis Sofokleous
Unit 16
Communicational skills.
Verbal and non-verbal
communication, interview.
15/3/2019 8:00-10:00
8
10:00-12:00
12
Tassos Tratonikolas, Kristallo
Arkadiou, Sofoklis Sofokleous,
Marios Assiotis
11 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Unit 18
Multicultural society,
definition of coherence,
acceptance and social
coherence.
11/4/2019 8:00-10:00
7
10:00-12:00
15
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Kristallo
Arkadiou, Sofoklis Sofokleous
Unit 19
Multiculturalism,
intercultural competences
and skills
18/4/2019 8:00-10:00
4
10:00-12:00
8
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Kristallo
Arkadio, Sofoklis Sofokleous
Unit 20
Religion and Extremism
24/4/2019 8:00-10:00
6
10.00-12.00
12
Evi Therapontos, Kristallo Arkadiou,
Sofoklis Sofokleous, Marios Assiotis
Unit 17
Human Rights, social values,
civic engagement
16/5/2019 8:00-10:00
8
10:00-12:00
12
Ioanna Hatzicharalambous, Kristallo
Arkadiou, Sofoklis Sofokleous
Table 2: Units taught, dates, number of participants and instructors of the detainees’ ELMIP program
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
2. Prison staff final report
2.1 Methodology for data collection from the prison staff
The methodology for data collection from the prison staff in three different time periods is presented
below. The project consortium proceeded with the conduct of the first and second cycle of survey (pre-
test and post-test questionnaires) and collected data through Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing
(CAPI). One focus group interview was conducted by the two academic coordinators of the program. The
duration of the interview was 45 minutes. Researchers were taking notes because recording is forbidden
in the prison premise. Table 3 presents the time of the test and the number of participants in each test.
Type of test Time of test N of participants
PRE-TEST May 2018 53
POST TEST September 2019 42
FOLLOW UP TEST - Focus group
interview
October 2019 5
Table 3: Type of test, date and number of participants from prison staff
The objectives of each test are the follows:
• Pre-test: to record the profile of prison staff, their education record, their level of emotional and social
competence and their opinion on radicalization and on detainees’ training.
• Post-test: to re-test the participants on the above topics and to ascertain whether there would be any
improvement in knowledge and competence and to record their opinion for ELMIP program.
• Focus group interview: to confirm post-test findings on ELMIP evaluation and to identify any further
needs.
The content of the tests:
Pre-test questionnaire contains questions on the following:
• Demographics
• Education - Training Work
• Emotional skills
• Social skills
• Radicalism
• Views on detainees’ education
13 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Post-test questionnaire contains questions on the following:
• Repetition of pre-test
• 4 open-ended questions for the program’s utility
Focus group interview contains questions on the following:
• Opinions about the program
• Benefits from the program
• Opinions for detainees’ reintegration
• Suggestions for future programs
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
2.2 Results of ELMIP evaluation from prison staff (Comparison of pre-test and post-test & focus group
interview results)
2.2.1 Demographics
Pre-test participants from prison staff
In the pre-test, 53 prison staff (40 male / 13 female) from Cyprus Prison Department, age range between
26 - 54 (M = 36.35, SD=6.46) answered the questionnaire. The duration of their service in prison was
between 6 months to 34 years (Μ=10.34. SD=8.56). 51 were correctional officers και 2 were chief
correctional officers.
Post-test participants from prison staff
In the post-test, only 42 prison staff, out of the initial 53 answered the questionnaire. The gender of
prison staff who participated in the study was: 32 males and 10 females, age range between 27 - 57 (M =
38.02, SD=6.74). The Mean of years in prison service for the prison staff was 11.612 and the SD was 7.629.
The years of services range from one year to 32 years of service. The great majority of the prison staff
were correctional officers, in particular 40 out of 42, 2 were Chief correctional officers.
53 prison staff answered the pre-test questionnaire and 11 of them did not participate in post-test. 42
prison staff took part in post-test. Looking on the age-range, gender, the range of service in prison, the
positions the sample is quite representative.
2.2.2 Education –Training – Work
Pre-test: Education of prison staff
The education of the prison staff in pre-test was: 21 (39,6%) graduated from University, 8 (15,1%) acquired
a College degree, 16 (30,2%), had finished High School, 7 (13,2%) attended a Technical School, and 1 (1,9%)
attended an Evening Gymnasium.
The majority (66%), 35 of them had not attended any further education or training programs, while 16
(30,2%) said they had acquired some form of further education and training. Those who had attended
such programs referred to the specific topics listed below:
Training in Criminal Psychology
Training for transmitted diseases
First Aid
Training for security in prisons
Cooking
Foreign languages (i.e., Russian)
Completion of the courses of the Prison’s Academy
Master in Public Administration
Police academy training
Training in the Child Rights Protection Committee
15 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Training for private military protection
Exercise for becoming a member of the Cyprus Bar Association
Fifty (94.3%) prison staff stated that it was very important for them to acquire further training and
education on effective management practices and methods or managing detainees. Only 3 (5,7%) prison
officers indicated that a training program or further education on the issue was relatively important to
them.
In their majority (84.9%) answered positively that they believed that the skills they would acquire from
the educational program would help them in the development of their professional career. Only 2%
stated that any training or education program could help them in their career, however it was not a
decisive factor.
60,4% of the prison officers agreed that further acquired skills would improve the image that their
managers have for them.
Half of prison staff (54,7%) stated that the skills they would acquire from the educational programs would
improve the image that the detainees have for them. Another 28,3% responded that acquiring new skills
would help them in a satisfactory level to improve the image that the detainees have for them.
Post-test: Education of prison staff
The education of the prison staff in post-test was: 16 (38,1%) graduated from University, 5 (11,9%)
acquired a College degree, 12 (28,6%), had finished High School, 6 (14,3%) attended a Technical School
and 3 (7,1%) attended an Evening Gymnasium.
Prison staff declared that 23 (54,8%) of them have not attended further education and training programs,
while 14 (33,3%) said they had acquired some form of further education and training. From those 3
acquired an MA, the other 11 had attended various training programs, such as topics listed below:
Security/ IT
Radicalization
Police academy training
Communication skills workshop
Psychology therapy approaches
Cooking & food management
ΜA in Business
MA in Children Human Rights
Foreign languages courses
First Aid certificate
Moreover, prison staff in their majority 90.5% (38) stated that it was considered very important for them
to acquire further training and education on effective management practices and methods to manage
detainees. Only 1 (2,4%) prison officer indicated that a training program or further education on the issue
was relatively important to him. Prison staff in their majority (85.7%) believed that the skills they would
acquire from the educational program were very important in helping them in the development of their
professional career. The 14,3% stated that any training or educational program was relatively important
in helping them in their career.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Prison officers are quite good educated for their position, a third of them attended further education.
Most of them showed interested in pre-test for taking extra training lessons on effective management
practices and methods to manage detainees. They also believed that the skills they would acquire from
the educational program were very important in helping them in the development of their professional
career. Their positive attitude towards education is also obvious from their dedication to attend ELMIP
program.
2.2.3 Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence was measured by using 10 statements in which participants declared how much
they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Particularly, strongly disagree = 0, disagree = 1, neither
agree nor disagree = 2, agree = 3, strongly agree = 4. Then the Mean and the Standard Deviation of all
responses in each statement were calculated and presented in Table 4, for both pre-test and post-test.
Pre-test Post-test
a/a N Mean SD N Mean SD
1 When seeing a friend crying I feel like crying too
53 3.09 .838 41 3.00 .894
2 When someone who I care about feels sad, I feel sad too
53 3.49 .576 42 3.24 .726
3 I’m sorry when something bad is going on in a character of a story
53 2.98 .747 42 2.86 .952
4 When my friend is disappointed, I feel disappointed too
52 3.17 .834 41 2.85 .963
5 I can imagine how my closest persons feel, still if they don’t share it
51 3.55 .577 42 3.43 .668
6 I'm in the position to recognize feelings of other people
53 3.25 .585 42 3.17 .621
7 I can figure out when my own people worry about me, even though they don’t say it
53 3.55 .637 42 3.31 .563
8 I can figure out how others react to the things that I am doing
53 3.25 .648 42 3.26 .587
9 I'm in the position to feel when someone who is with me starts to get angry, even and if he/she does not say it
52 3.56 .539 42 3.45 .550
10 I'm in the position to feel how my friends feel by the way they act
53 3.55 .539 42 3.43 .547
Table 4: Emotional intelligence of prison staff From the Means and SD, we can conclude that prison staff exhibited quite high levels of emotional intelligence in pre-test. In the post test the level in each statement is a bit lower. One explanation of this could be that after the completion of the program their awareness on emotional intelligence increased and they were stricter in their judgments with their selves. We need to mention that in post-test there
17 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
were 11 prison officers less than from pre-test. Another explanation is that there is only one ELMIP lesson on emotional intelligence. Therefore, they might need more lessons. Moreover, the emotional intelligence of prison staff is already high. The emotional intelligence scale is composed by two sub-scales: a) the cognitive empathy, which concerns four items: 5, 6, 7, 8. In the cognitive empathy the person can understand the feeling of other persons. b) the emotional empathy, which concerns six items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,10. In the emotional empathy the person feels the feelings of the other persons. The Table 5 shows that the cognitive empathy of prison staff is a bit higher than the emotional empathy in both pre and post-test. However, as we discussed above the results in post-test are a bit lower than in pre-test.
Table 5: Emotional and cognitive empathy of prison staff
2.2.4 Social skills
Pre-test Post-test
a/a N Mean SD N Mean SD
1 I can easily cooperate with other people 53 3.42 .602 42 3.33 .650
2 I always wait for my turn 53 3.85 .361 42 3.67 .526
3 I’m usually friendly and helpful 52 3.56 .539 42 3.55 .550
4 I listen to others with attention and I understand what they are saying to me
53 3.64 .665 42 3.40 .665
5 When I disagree I'm going into dialogue and express my opinion through arguments
53 3.45 .637 42 3.29 .742
6 When I’m in front of an injustice event I can talk and defend the fellow human who is offended
53 3.53 .639 42 3.33 .612
7 I can find different solutions for my problems
53 3.49 .608 42 3.40 .665
8 When I have one problem or one issue, I share it with the right people and I ask for their opinion
53 3.02 .772 42 2.93 .894
Total 53 3.4949 .36074 42 3.3631 .45180
Table 6: Social skills of prison staff
Pre-test Post-test
N MEAN Standard Deviation
N MEAN Standard Deviation
Emotional empathy 53 3.3 .455 42 3.1349 .56487
Cognitive empathy 53 3.39 .455 42 3.2917 .49975
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Social skills scale is measured by using 8 statements in which participants declared how much they agree or
disagree with the statement. Particularly, strongly disagree = 0, disagree = 1, neither agree nor disagree = 2, agree =
3, strongly agree = 4. Then the Mean and the Standard Deviation of all responses in each statement were calculated
and were presented in Table 6. From the Means and SD in Table 6 we can conclude that prison staff exhibited quite
high levels of social skills in pre-test, while the level of social skills in post-test is a bit lower. The total mean of the
scale is 3.49 and SD=.36 for pre-test and for post-test is 3.3631 and SD=.45180. We can apply the same explanation
as with the emotional intelligence, that through the lessons their awareness increased and they applied more firm
criteria for their social skills. We need to mention that in post-test there were 11 prison officers less than from pre-
test. Another explanation is that there is only one ELMIP lesson on social skills. Therefore, they might need more
lessons. Moreover, the social skills of prison staff is already high.
2.2.5 Radicalism
Prison staff were asked to agree or disagree with four statements concerning the phenomenon of
radicalism in prisons and the society in general, and on how capable they were in recognizing and
managing detainees with radical ideas. Table 7 presents the Means and Standards Deviation from pre and
post-test. There is an increase from pre-test to post-test concerning knowledge of radicalism in the
society, the abilities of recognize and managing of radicalism in detainees. This means that ELMIP
program worked effectively for increasing knowledge and giving skills to prison staff on radicalization.
Pre-test Ν=53 Post test Ν=42
Mean SD Mean SD
How much do you think you are informed
about the phenomenon of radicalization in the
society
2.17 .849 2.93 .745
How much do you believe that the
phenomenon of radicalization is existed in
prison
2.32 .956 1.71 .970
Do you think you are capable to recognise
prisoners with radical trends?
2.38 .686 2.95 .970
Do you think you are capable to manage
detainees with radical trends?
2.11 .751 2.81 .707
Table 7: Radicalism knowledge and skills of prison staff
Prison staff were asked their opinion, which of the following factors are associated with the emergence of
radicalism. The answers were given on five-point scales, with 4 meaning “A lot” and 0 meaning “None”.
Then the Means and the Standard Deviations of all responses in each statement were calculated and
presented in Table 8 for pre-test and post-test. From the Means and SD below we can conclude that
prison staff after the lessons of ELMIP expressed the right view about which factors determine better the
19 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
emergence of radicalism. In post-test religion comes first and second nationality, which was the opposite
in pre-test. The other factors which are not so important for the emergence of radicalism comes after in
both tests.
Pre-test Post test
a/a
N Mean Standard Deviation
N Mean SD
1 Gender 53 2.45 1.119 42 2.67 1.074
2 Age 53 2.62 .756 42 2.67 1.243
3 Nationality 53 3.4 .927 42 3.60 .587
4 Religion 53 3.3 .952 42 3.69 .563
5 Duration of prison sentence 53 2.75 .875 42 2.71 1.088
Table 8: Factors associated with the emergence of radicalism
Pre-test Post-test
Figure 1: Opinions on educational program usefulness from prison staff
Prison staff asked to rate how useful was for them to participate in training programs concerning human
rights and multicultural learning. The results in Figure 1 show their answers in pre-test and post-test.
The prison staff in their great majority both in pre and post-test believed that a training program
dedicated to basic human rights and multicultural aspects, would be useful for their work. It seems that
before the implementation of the educational program they were more enthusiastic.
20.8
79.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
How useful will be for you a program for human rights
Enough A lot
30.9%
69%
0
50
100
Enough A lot
Per
cen
tHow useful will be for you a program
on human rights?
18.9
79.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
How useful will be for you a program
on cultural diversity?
Enough A lot
35.764
0
50
100
Enough A lot
Per
cen
t
How useful will be for you a program on cultural diversity?
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
2.2.6 Views of prison staff on detainees’ educational program
Prison staff were asked to rate the extent that educational programs could keep detainees from radical/
extremist ideas. The answers were given on five-point scales, with 4 meaning “A lot” and 0 meaning
“None”. Then the Means and the Standard Deviations of all responses in each statement were calculated
and they presented in Table 9 both in pre-test and post-test. Prison staff pointed out that the referred
training programs can help to a very high extent. According to their answers we can rated the programs
for the most important to the least important as follows: Social skills development, professional skills
development, emotional skills development, basic literacy skills, basic budgeting skills, and basic IT skills.
The conclusion is that prison staff have a faith that educational program helped the prevention of
radicalism. The rate in post-test is higher than in pre-test. This means that the prison staff after the training
increased their faith in detainees’ educational program.
Pre-test Post-test
a/a N Mean Standard
Deviation
N Mean Standard Deviation
1 Basic literacy skills 53 3.45 .607 42 3.52 .505
2 Basic numeracy skills 53 3.13 .785 42 3.29 .636
3 Basic IT skills 53 2.90 .922 41 2.95 .835
4 Basic budgeting skills 53 3.13 .878 42 3.36 .656
5 Professional development skills 53 3.57 .605 42 3.69 .517
6 Emotional development skills 53 3.57 .572 42 3.69 .517
7 Social development skills 53 3.64 .558 41 3.71 .559
Table 9: Views of prison staff on detainees’ educational program
Furthermore, prison staff were asked to rate the extent of contribution of these kind of programs to
detainees’ smoother integration and reducing recidivism both in pre and post-test. Prison staff believed
strongly, both in pre and post-test, that these kind of programs could indeed support to a high extent the
detainees and their lives upon their release (see Table 10).
Detainees Educational Training Program may contribute to:
Pre-test N=52 Post-test N=42
Mean SD Mean SD
The smooth integration into society after detainees release
3.65 .590 3.62 .492
Reduce recidivism after detainees release 3.50 .728 3.59 .498
Table 10: Contribution of training programs
21 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
2.3 Effectiveness of the program for prison staff
Prison staff were given four open ended questions concerning the effectiveness of the educational
program and training they have received at post-test. Their answers are grouped together according to
the closed proximity of the main theme they mentioned. Follow are the themes that were retrieved from
each question and the percentages of the prison staff mentioned each theme.
What new knowledge do you think you have learned from the ELMIP program?
a) Issues related to radicalization (what it is, diagnosis and prevention of radicalization behaviors,
risks and risk groups) 40%. (17 answers)
b) Skills (emotional intelligence, social skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills) 31%. (13
answers).
c) Human rights / respect for diversity / multiculturalism. 26% (11 answers)
d) The significance of the role of the prison guard (influence, recognition of psychological needs,
difficulties and symptoms and management). 24% (10 answers)
e) Reintegration, education and rehabilitation of detainees 14%. (6 answers)
What new skills do you think you have learned from the ELMIP program?
a. Ability to recognize, identify, diagnose and manage various behaviors (e.g. radicalization). 43%
(18 answers)
b. Emotional intelligent and empathy. 19% (8 answers)
c. Communication / interpersonal Skills. 19% (8 answers)
d. Conflict management / problem solving / creating a safe environment. 19% (8 answers)
e. Awareness / respect for the different cultures. 12% (5 answers)
f. Teamwork and collaboration. 12% (5 answers)
g. Social skills. 5% (2 answers)
h. I knew these skills. 2% (1 answer).
i. Psychological empowerment. 2% (1 answer)
How do you think you can apply the knowledge and skills you have acquired from the ELMIP program
to approaching and dealing with detainees?
a) Communication and crisis management / collaboration. 31% (13 answers)
b) Identify and recognize of radicalization and racism. Risks prevention and management. 24% (10
c) answers)
d) Encouraging detainees to participate in reintegration trainings. Positive practices of prison staff
19% (8 answers)
e) Acquire further experience and knowledge. 17% (7 answers)
f) Hold a different attitude towards detainees. Activities with detainees. 14% (6 answers)
g) Significance of difference. 12% (5 answers)
h) Applying emotional intelligence skills. 10% (4 answers)
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Is there anything you want to improve on the ELMIP program?
1. 64% (27) prison staff answered that there is nothing that they want to improve, because it is
an excellent program with excellent trainers, well-structured and with interesting workshop
exercises.
2. There are 33% (14) prison staff, who made the following suggestions
A. Joint detainees and prison staff training - 7% (3 answers)
B. Prison-specific program 2% (1 answer)
C. Establishment of a psychosocial support and reintegration group. 2% (1 answer)
D. Meetings to be more frequent (not once a month) and training time to be more. 10% (4
answers)
F. Staff training 2% (1 answer)
G. More detailed analysis and presentation of case studies 10% (4 replies)
23 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
2.4 Focus group interview results from prison staff
In the focus group interview 5 prison staff took part (3 women and 2 men). The interview took place on
the Prison Department premise. The two academics, who are responsible for the scientific supervision of
ELMIP, performed the interview. The two academics took notes of the answers of the prison staff. The
recording is not permitted in the prison premises. Then the notes were put together and the main
themes were extracted from the data.
There are three main themes coming out of the data as it is shown in Table 11:
a. Knowledge that the prison staff gained from ELMIP program, indicating 9 areas of knowledge
b. Skills that the prison officers have learned from ELMIP program, indicating 7 skills areas
c. Application of both knowledge and skills, indicating 3 main applications
BASIC KNOWLEDGE SKILLS APPLICATION
Radicalism
Human Rights
Multiculturalism
Immigrant and racism
Importance of the role
of prison officer
Issues for detainees’
education and
rehabilitation
Learning skills
Population composition
in prison
Understanding
foreigners detainees
Communication skills
Awareness and respect to
diversity
Emotional intelligence and
empathy
Social skills
Team work and
cooperation
Time management
Psychological
empowerment and self –
knowledge
It depends from each one’s
status
It helps us to the talks with
detainees
Application of different
techniques
Table 11: Themes from focus group interview of prison staff
Further than the above mentioned themes prison staff mentioned the good organization and the
interesting content of the program. They said that experiential way of learning and the use of case
studies in the lessons help them a lot understand radical tendencies of detainees, more than
before. They also learned to identify some signs of radicalism. They also mentioned that they
realized how important is their role in smoother reintegration of prisoners into society.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Some important quotation from prison officers are the followings:
“Only the programs, we are not helping the reintegration of detainees into society. We see
detainees who released from prison but they had no money to live. Social services do not help
them. Then they come back in jail. When they come they said to us that they had no money, they
had no home, and they come back.’
“All companies want a white criminal record. It is very difficult for the open prison to help them
find a job because of that. As a prison, we have reached the maximum we can do. People
stigmatize prisoners and do not accept them.”
“Some women who have been released, feel that they are too close to us, they say their news,
sending messages from outside to thank us.”
“Some asking us what they will do with their lives. We are proud of women who stand up and
continue to live in a right way. They do not forget us and thank us.”
“Too little from us is too much for them. It is easier for a prisoner to approach you because we
have an anthropocentric approach. Prisoners are interested in having a relationship with us and
even when they released.”
“When we hold them closed to us and trust them, they turn to become our right hand and they
are willing to help us.”
“They help us because they feel it when they have been asked. We mobilize them and they feel
conscious. Many of them like to ask them for help.”
25 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3. Detainees’ final report
3.1 Methodology for data collection of detainees
The methodology for data collection for detainees in three different time periods is presented below. The
project consortium proceeded with the conduct of the first and second cycle of survey (pre-test and post-
test questionnaires) and collected data through Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), at the
presence of a prison officer who was helping when needed. Focus group interview was conducted by the
two academics coordinators of the program and the duration was 60 minutes. Researchers were taking
notes because recording is forbidden in the prison premise. Table 12 presents the time of the test and the
number of participants in each test.
Type of test and time Time of test N of participants
PRE-TEST May 2018 31
POST TEST September 2019 29
FOLLOW UP TEST Focus group October 2019 8
Table 12: Type of test, date and number of participants from detainees
The objectives of each test are the following:
• Pre-test: to record the profile of detained, the level of training in literacy skills, as well as the level of
emotional and social skills.
• Post-test: to retest the same scales, to check if there would be any improvement in their skills and to
record their views on ELMIP program.
• Focus group interview: to confirm post-test findings and to identify further needs.
The content of the tests:
Pre-test questionnaire contains questions on the following:
Pre-test Questionnaire
Demographics
History of imprisonment
Personal problems
Education – vocation
Basic Literacy Skills
Emotional Skills
Social Skills
Radicalism
Future Self
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Post-test Questionnaire
Repetition of pre-test
4 open-ended questions for programs utility
Focus group interview contains questions on the following:
Opinions about the program
Benefits from the program
Future self after release
Suggestions for future programs
27 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3. 2 Results of ELMIP evaluation from detainees (Comparison of pre-test and post-test & focus group
interview results)
3.2.1 Demographics
Pre-test participants from detainees
In the pre-test, 31 (27 males / 4 females) in Cyprus Prison Department, age range between 21 - 63 (M =
38 and SD=8.03) answered the questionnaire. Their nationality is: 27 Greeks, 1 Rumanian, 1 Syrian, 2 did
not declared their nationality. Their religion is: 29 Christian Orthodox, 1 Muslim and 1 did not declare.
Their marital status: 9 single, 10 married, 11 divorced, 1 did not declare. Their children: 18 of them had
children, 11 had one child, 4 had two children, 2 had three children and 1 had four children.
Post-test participants from detainees
In the post-test, 29 (27 males / 2 females) in Cyprus Prison Department, age range between 22 - 54 (M =
34,77 and SD=8.95) answered the questionnaire. Their nationality is: 23 Greeks, 1 Albanian, 1 Syrian, 1
Brazil and 1 from Venezuela. Their religion is: 26 Christian Orthodox, 1 Muslim and 1 Catholic. Their
marital status: 11 single, 9 married, 8 divorced, 1 did not declare. Their children: 17 of them had children,
8 had one child, 6 had two children and 3 had three children.
We need to say that the participants from the pre and post-test are not exactly the same. Due to the
following reasons the participants changed: many of them either released or moved to open prison during
the program, some others wanted to join the program.
Pre-test detainees’ history of imprisonment
Detainnes in the pre-test were asked to indicate both the date of their imprisonment and the date of
their release. Table 13 presents that 20 out of 31 detainees proceeded with indicating both dates. The
majority entered in the prison setting in 2016, while their release ranges from 2 months to 7 years.
Besides they declared the history of their imprisonment, 21 detainees said that it was their first time in
prison, 10 detainees stated that they had entered prison for the second time. The age of their first
imprisonment ranged from 17 -34 years old.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Date of
imprisonment
Frequency Percentage
%
21.01.2010 1 3,2
16.08.2013 1 3,2
30.04.2014 1 3,2
27.03.2015 1 3,2
01.10.2015 1 3,2
09.10.2015 1 3,2
01.01.2016 2 6,5
02.02.2016 1 3,2
19.02.2016 1 3,2
07.04.2016 1 3,2
16.04.2016 1 3,2
07.06.2016 1 3,2
10.06.2016 1 3,2
30.11.2016 1 3,2
21.02.2017 1 3,2
22.07.2017 1 3,2
21.09.2017 1 3,2
14.12.2017 1 3,2
04.04.2018 1 3,2
Total 20 64,5
Missing System 11 35,5
Total 31 100,0
Date of release
Frequency Percentage
%
24.05.2018 1 3,2
13.09.2018 1 3,2
08.11.2018 1 3,2
01.01.2019 1 3,2
20.02.2019 1 3,2
22.03.2019 1 3,2
13.08.2019 1 3,2
05.10.2019 1 3,2
25.03.2020 1 3,2
28.04.2020 1 3,2
01.10.2020 1 3,2
01.01.2021 1 3,2
06.06.2021 1 3,2
20.10.2021 1 3,2
03.03.2022 1 3,2
01.01.2025 1 3,2
********** 1 3,2
Total 17 54,8
Missing System 14 45,2
Total 31 100,0
Table 13: Detainees history of imprisonment at pre-test
Post-test detainees’ history of imprisonment
In the post-test detainees did not give much details for the date of imprisonment and the date of release,
but they answered about the history of imprisonment. 5 detainees declared that this is not their first time
of imprisonment, while 23 stated that this is their first time as detainees. The age that detainees entered
for the first time in the prison setting ranged from 15 -53 years of age.
3.2.2. Education –Training – Work
Pre-test: Education of detainees before imprisonment
Concerning the education of detainees in pre-test, 7 (22,6%) graduated from University, 3 (9,7%) acquired
a College degree, 4 (12,9%) had finished High School, 6 (19,4%) attended a Technical School, 6 (19,4%)
attended Gymnasium and 5 (16,1%) attended only primary school.
29 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Many detainees (58,1%), 18 of them had attended further education and training programs, while 13
(41,9%) said they do not attend any further education program. From those who had stated that they had
undergone such programs referred to the specific topics listed below:
English Language
Insurance consultant
Public Relations / Journalism / Aesthetics / Nutrition
Art management
Electrician
Master in Financial planning
Car Engineer / technician / martial arts
Motorcycle Engineer
Maritime studies / Law
Builder
Seminars related to the profession
Solderer
Apprenticeship system
Telecommunications technician
Master in Sports Management
Post-test: Education of detainees before imprisonment
Concerning the level of education of detainees in post-test, 6 (20,7%) graduated from University, 1 (3,4%)
acquired a College degree, 4 (13,8%) had finished High School, 4 (13,8%) attended a Technical School, 11
(37,9%) attended Gymnasium and 3 (10,3%) attended only primary school.
In addition, 13 (44,8%) of the detainees had attended further education and training programs, compared
to 14 (48,3%) that had not attended any additional education or training program prior to their
imprisonment. The 13 detainees, who stated that they have completed a program for
further education and training, provided the type of course they had participated in. The various topics
are listed below:
Type of further education that detainees have attended before the imprisonment.
Public Relations
Various Seminars
Technical professions (builder / mechanic/ driver/ chef / painter)
Computer Science
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Carer of people with paralysis
Psychology courses
Pre-test: Education of detainees during imprisonment
Most of the detainees 74,2% (23) had attended educational programs organized by the Department of
Prison, while 25,8% (8) had not attended any training programs at all. The 23 detainees who attended
educational programs during their imprisonment stated the type of course or seminar they attended for
further education and training. Below are the participants’ answers:
English
Painting
Psychology
Russian
Bookbinding
Biology
Literacy
Literature/ poetry
Russian
Graphic Arts
Jewelry making
Music
Wood sculpture
Rehab program
First aid
Crafts
Soldering
Computer lessons
Detainees in their majority 80,7% (25) stated that it was important for them to acquire further training and
education during their imprisonment. Four of them (12,9%) stated that it was moderately important for
them to attend an educational program in prison, while only 2 (6,5%) stated that it was not important for
them the educational program in prison.
Post-test: Education of detainees during imprisonment
The majority of detainees 20 (69%) had attended educational programs organized by the Department of
Prison, while 7 (25,8%) had not attended any training programs at all. The 20 detainees who attended
educational programs during their imprisonment stated the type of course or seminar they had attended
for further education and training. Below are the detainees’ answers:
31 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Type of training that detainees received in prison
Greek Language
Psychology
Addiction recovery
First Aid
Painting Graphic Design / hagiography / needlework / crafts
Computer lessons
Electrician
Technical training
School courses
Detainees in their majority stated that it was important for them to acquire further training and education
during their imprisonment. More specifically, 25 (86,2%) stated that attending further training programs
was very to quite important, while only 3 (10,3%) stated that it was moderately important for them to
attend an educational program. In comparison with pre-test more people liked education after the ELMIP
program.
Pre-test: Vocation before the imprisonment
Detainees were asked about their prior employment. In their majority 24 (77,4%) they stated that
they had paid jobs before their imprisonment, whereas 7 (22,6%) did not have any previous paid
employment. The 24 detainees which possessed paid jobs indicated their positions below:
Sports Trainer
Teaching in college about aesthetics and nutrition,
Working on radio and television
Repairs and sales of motorcycles
Entrepreneur
Owner of a betting agency
Butcher shop
Real estate transactions
Tailor
Cook
Lifeguard
Woodcutter
Builder
Furniture designer
Sales assistant
Financial advisor
Taxi driver
Technician
Telecommunications technician
Plumber
Courier
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Security officer
Delivery man
While indicating that they had paid jobs, 18 (58,1%) of the detainees also stated that they had a stable job
before their imprisonment. While 11 (35,5%) they did not had a stable job before imprisonment.
Figure 2: Reasons for changing careers
The majority of detainees indicated that the low salary was the most common reason for changing a job,
while bad working conditions and lack of interest were also quite important in taking such a decision.
Personal reasons weighed last in taking decisions concerning changing profession (see Figure 2).
Figure 3: Reasons for working
Detainees in pre-test were asked about their motivation for working or wanting to acquire a job in the
future. In Figure 3, their majority stated that their main reason was to earn money so as to sustain
themselves and their families.
15%
20%
40%
17%
8%Bad relations with the employer
Bad working conditions
Low salary
Lack of interest
Personal reasons (drugs, criminal record)
25.80%
29.00%
16.10%87.10%
To feel that others appreciate me
To learn an occupation
A way for time to pass quickly
To earn money
33 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Post-test: Vocation before the imprisonment
In post-test detainees in their majority 23 (79,3%) they stated that they had paid jobs before their
imprisonment, whereas 4 (13,8%) did not had any previous paid employment.
The 23 detainees which possessed paid jobs indicated their jobs below:
Sports Trainer
Teaching in college about aesthetics and nutrition,
Working on radio and television
Repairs and sales of motorcycles
Entrepreneur
Owner of a betting agency
Butcher shop
Real estate transactions
Tailor
Cook
Lifeguard
Woodcutter
Builder
Furniture designer
Sales assistant
Financial advisor
Taxi driver
Technician
Telecommunications technician
Plumber
Courier
Security officer
Delivery man
In post-test 21 (72,4%) of the detainees stated that they had a stable job before their imprisonment.
While 6 (20,7%) said that they did not had a stable job.
3.2.3 Basic Skills
Pre-test basic skills of detainees
Detainees were asked to rate their basic skills as shown in Figure 4. Concerning mathematical knowledge
participants stated that they were able to do any additions or subtractions with numbers up to 100. In
particular, 54,8% rated their knowledge in mathematics with the higher value (5=Very easy). Similar are
the results for reading a text in Greek and understanding what they were reading. On the other hand,
only 19,4% of the participants reported that they could use the PC very easily and 35,5% could handle
personal finances.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Figure 4: Basic Skills at pre-test
Post-test basic skills of detainees
Figure 5: Basic Skills at post-test
54.80%
51.60%
54.80%
54.80%
19.40%
35.50%
25.80%
35.50%
38.70%
32.30%
38.70%
38.70%
16.10%
12.90%
6.50%
12.90%
32.30%
25.80%
3.20%
3.20%3.20%
Read a text in Greek?
Understand something you read in Greek eg. apage
Addition with numbers up to 100?
Subtractions with numbers up to 100?
Using a PC?
Handle your personal finances(eg, make abalance sheet of income and expenses)
Very difficult Relatively difficult Moderate Relatively easy Very easy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Read a text inGreek
Understandsomething you
read in Greek eg.a page
Addition withnumbers up to
100
Subtraction withnumbers up to
100
Using a PC Handle yourpersonal
finances (eg.Make a balancesheet of incomeand expenses)
Basic Skills
Relatively difficult Moderate Relatively easy Very easy
35 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Detainees were asked to rate their basic skills. Figure 5 shows that concerning mathematical knowledge
detainees stated that they were able to do any additions or subtractions with numbers up to 100. In
particular, 61% find that addition and subtraction up to 100 was very easy and the rest find it relatively
easy. Around 57% find that reading a text in Greek and understanding what they were reading was easy
and around 30% found it relatively easy. On the other hand, only 20% of the detainees reported that they
could use the PC very easily and 50% could handle personal finances.
In comparison with pre-test, detainees showed more competence on basic skills than in pre-test.
Pre-test: Necessity of basic skills
Figure 6: Necessity of basic skills at pre-test
Detainees were asked about the necessity of the above mentioned basic skills for their future lives.
Figure 6 shows that 71% of them stated that language skills were necessary to a very high extent, as well
as the ability to manage personal finances (61,3%). Furthermore, 58,10% stated that computer skills were
also very important. Similar views were expressed for mathematical skills.
71%
54.80%
58.10%
61.30%
25.80%
35.50%
25.80%
38.70%
3.20%
9.70%
9.70%
3.20%
Language skills
Mathematical skills
Computer skills
Managing personal finances
None necessary Not very necessary Moderate
Quite necessary Very necessary
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Post-test: Necessity of basic skills
Figure 7: Necessity of basic skills at post test
Detainees in post-test were also asked about the necessity of the above mentioned basic skills for their
future lives. Figure 7 shows that 75,9% of them stated that Mathematical skills were the most important
as indicated in the chart. 72% stated that both language skills and managing personal finances were
necessary to a very high extent. Furthermore, 65,5% stated that computer skills were also very important.
In comparison with pre-test, detainees indicated that the necessity of basic skills were more important in
their lives than before the ELMIP educational program.
Pre-test: Utility of basic skills
Figure 8: Utility of basic skills at pre-test
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Language Skills Mathematical Skills Computer Skills Ability to managePersonal Finance
Necessity of Basic Skills
Very Important Moderate Important
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very high High Moderate Small
Per
cen
t
Professional career
01020304050
Per
cen
t
Image
37 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Regarding the utility of basic skills that detainees could acquire from further education programs, 81,2%
of them believed that these skills would help them in developing their professional career in a high and
very high extent. While, 75% stated that any acquired skills could help them to improve their image to a
high and a very high extent (see Figure 8).
Post-test: Utility od basic skills
Figure 9: Utility of basic skills at post-test
In post-test, regarding the skills which detainees could acquire from further education programs, 85,5% of
them believed that these skills would help them in developing their professional career in a high and very
high extent. Detainees asked to expressed their views concerning whether the acquired skills could help
them to improve the image that others had for them. Figure 9 shows that 78% of them reported that it
could help them in a high and very high extent to improve their image.
In comparison with pre-test, detainees indicated that the utility of basic skills for improving their
professional career and in improving their self-image was a bit more important than before the ELMIP
educational program.
3.2.4 Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence was measured by using 10 statements in which participants declared how much
they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Particularly, strongly disagree = 0, disagree = 1, neither
agree nor disagree = 2, agree = 3, strongly agree = 4. Then the Mean and the Standard Deviation of all
responses in each statement were calculated and presented in Table14 for both the pre-test and the post-
test. From the Means and SD below we could conclude that detainees improved their emotional
intelligence in all items from pre-to post test. This means that the ELMP educational program worked in
the right direction to improve detainees’ emotional skills.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Professional Career Image
Utility of basic skills
Enough High Moderate Small None
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Pre-test Post-test
a/a N Mean SD N Mean
SD
1 When seeing a friend crying I feel like crying too 31 2.26 1.125 27 2.59 .971
2 When someone who I care about feels sad, I feel sad too
31 2.90 1.012 27 3.07 .781
3 I’m sorry when something bad is going on in a character of a story
31 2.61 .761 27 2.56 .892
4 When my friend is disappointed, I feel disappointed too
31 2.45 1.150 27 2.56 1.086
5 I can imagine how my closest persons feel, still if they don’t share it
31 3.29 .588 27 3.48 .753
6 I'm in the position to recognize feelings of other people
31 2.81 .749 27 3.11 .641
7 I can figure out when my own people worry about me, even though they don’t say it
31 3.35 .551 27 3.48 .802
8 I can figure out how others react to the things that I am doing
31 3.00 .730 26 3.08 .628
9 I'm in the position to feel when someone who is with me starts to get angry, even and if he/she does not say it
31 3.04 .744 27 3.22 .577
10 I'm in the position to feel how my friends feel by the way they act
31 3.16 .688 27 3.11 .577
Table 14: Emotional intelligence of detainees at pre and post-test
The emotional intelligent scale is composed by two sub-scales: a) the cognitive empathy, which concerns four items: 5, 6, 7, 8. In the cognitive empathy the person can understand the feeling of other persons. b) the emotional empathy, which concerns six items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,10. In the emotional empathy the person feels the feeling of the other persons. The Table 15 shows that the cognitive empathy of detainees is a bit higher than the emotional empathy. It also shows that both cognitive and emotional empathy improved between pre and post-test.
Table 15: Emotional and cognitive empathy of detainees at pre and post-test
Pre-test Post-test
N Mean Standard Deviation
N Mean Standard
Deviation
Emotional empathy 31 2.7323 .59737 27 2.8519 .57612
Cognitive empathy 31 3.1129 3.1129 27 3.2840 .50703
39 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.2.5 Social skills
Pre-test Post-test
a/a N Mean SD N Mean SD
1 I can easily cooperate with other people 31 2.74 .729 27 3.11 .892
2 I always wait for my turn 31 3.26 .815 27 3.22 .641
3 I’m usually friendly and helpful 31 3.26 .682 27 3.33 .679
4 I listen to others with attention and I understand what they are saying to me
31 3.19 .749 26 3.23 .710
5 When I disagree I'm going into dialogue and express my opinion through arguments
31 3.06 .854 27 3.30 .724
6 When I’m in front of an injustice event I can talk and defend the fellow human who is offended
31 3.19 .792 27 3.19 .834
7 I can find different solutions for my problems
31 3.10 .700 27 3.33 .679
8 When I have one problem or one issue, I share it with the right people and I ask for their opinion
31 2.74 .999 27 2.89 .892
Total 31 3.068
5
.5212
6
27 3.194
4
.5408
0
Table 16: Social skills of detainees and pre and post-test
Social skills scale was measured by using 8 statements in which participants declared how much they
agreed or disagreed with the statement. Particularly, strongly disagree = 0, disagree = 1, neither agree nor
disagree = 2, agree = 3, strongly agree = 4. Then the Mean and the Standard Deviation of all responses in
each statement were calculated in both pre-test and post-test and presented in Table 16. From the
Means and SD below we could conclude that detainees exhibited high levels of social skills, and also that
in post-test the social skills are a bit higher than in pre-test. This again means that ELMIP educational
program seem to have an add up value in the social skills of detainees.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.2.6 Religion – Radicalism
Pre-test opinions of detainees on religion and radicalism
Figure 10: Opinions of detainees for Religion & Radicalism at pre-test
In the pre-test concerning religion, most participants remained neutral. 64,5% neither agrees or disagrees
with the statement that states with strong religious beliefs have fewer ruined governments. In addition,
48,4% and 41,9% of the participants respectively remained neutral with the below statements:
In general, the faith, tradition and dignity of my religious group are under pressure and a constant
threat
People have the right to take revenge when state institutions refuse their rights and freedoms.
As for statements with high scores (value 5: totally agree), 45,20% detainees expressed the view that they
were persons who were following the religious and functional practices of their religion. As for the
statements rated with low scores, 19,4% of the participants totally disagree (score 1) with the statement
“In general, the faith, tradition and dignity of my religious group are under pressure and a constant threat”
(see Figure 10).
16.10%
9.70%
6.50%
16.10%
3.20%
3.20%
45.20%
38.70%
25.80%
35.50%
16.10%
19.40%
29.00%
35.50%
41.90%
35.50%
64.50%
48.40%
6.50%
16.10%
12.90%
6.50%
9.70%
6.50%
3.20%
9.70%
6.50%
6.50%
19.40%
I am a person who faithfully follows the religious andfunctional practices of my religion.
In general, citizens' rights and civil liberties are respectedby state institutions in Cyprus.
People have the right to take revenge when stateinstitutions refuse their rights and freedoms.
It is the duty of every religious to protect the values and the religious dignity by any means inside and outside the
country's borders.
States with strong religious beliefs have fewer ruinedgovernments.
In general, the faith, tradition and dignity of my religiousgroup are under pressure and a constant threat
Totally disagree Disagree Neither agree neither disagree Agree Totally agree
41 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Post-test opinions of detainees on radicalization and religion
Figure 11: Opinions of detainees for Religion & Radicalism at pre-test
In post-test concerning religion, most detainees remained neutral or disagree as shown in Figure 11. 49%
agree that was the duty of every religious to protect the values and dignity. 41% agreed that that civil
liberties were respected in Cyprus. 41% agreed and 35% strongly agreed that they were religious people.
Around 40% believed that people had the right to revenge. Around 40% believed that faith and tradition
of their religious group were under pressure.
Comparing the opinions of detainees at pre-test and post-test we could conclude that in post-test their
opinions become more strong than in the pre-test.
Comparison of pre-test and post-test opinions of detainees on topics relevant to multiculturalism and social
cohesion.
Table 17 shows the social circle of detainees in pre-test and post-test. The majority of detainees declared
that their social circle was composed of people with the same religion in both pre-test and post-test. There
was a bit more diversity in the circle of detainees in pre-test.
3.4 3.4 3.40
3.400 0
20.713.8
20.713.8
20.7
37.934.5
20.7
37.9 37.941.4 41.4
27.6
48.3
24.131
34.5
17.210.3
17.2
6.910.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
I am a person whofaithfully follows the
religious andfunctional practices
of my relegion
In general, citizens'srights and civil
liberties arerespected by state
institutions in Cyprus
People have theright to take revenge
when stateinstitutions refuse
their rights andfreedoms
It is the duty of everyreligious to protectthe values and thereligious dignity byany means insideand outside the
country's borders
States with strongreligious beliefs have
fewer ruinedgoverments
In general, tha faith,tradition and dignityof my religious groupare under pressure
and a constantthreat
Religion - Radicalism
Totally Disagree Disagree Neither agree neither disagree Agree Totally Agree
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage
%
People with the
same religion like
mine
21 67,7
People with
different religion
from mine
3 9,7
Mixed 3 9,7
I don’t know and it
never bothered me
before
4 12,9
Total 31 100,0
Frequency Percentage
%
People with the
same religion like
mine
17 58,6
Mixed 4 13,8
I don’t know and it
never bothered me
before
6 20,7
Total 27 100
Table 17: Religion of social circle of detainees in pre-test and post-test
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency %
Yes, off course 10 32,3
I will accept him, but I will
not approve him 12 38,7
I will oppose in case the
other person is actively
practicing his religion
1 3,2
I don’t know and it never
bothered me before 8 25,8
Total 31 100,0
Frequency %
Yes, off course 9 31
I will accept him, but I will
not approve him 10 34,5
I will oppose in case the
other person is actively
practicing his religion
2 6,9
I don’t know and it never
bothered me before 7 24,1
Total 27 100,0
Pre-test Post-test
Table 18: Support marriage with a person from different religion in pre-test and post-test
Table 18 shows the opinion of detainees in pre-test and post-test regarding their attitudes towards a mix-
ethnic marriage. In pre-test, 38,7% expressed the view that if a member from their family environment
got married with someone from a different religion, that individual would be accepted in the family,
however, they would not approve of him/her. On the contrary, 32,3% expressed the exact opposite view
that they would accept the individual and approved and accepted the diversity of this person.
43 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
In the post-test 31% detainees (similar percentage to pre-test) would accept the marriage, 34,5% would
accept them but not approved them (a bit lower than in pre-test). Therefore, in pre-test and post-test the
opinions are very similar.
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency %
Economic incentives (eg
unemployment, poverty) 12 38,7
Low level of education 12 38,7
Social Exclusion 3 9,7
Insufficiency of religious
leaders 1 3,2
Insufficiency of political
leaders 2 6,5
Frequency %
Economic incentives (eg
unemployment, poverty) 7 24,1
Low level of education 12 41,4
Social Exclusion 2 6,9
Insufficiency of religious
leaders 3 10,3
Insufficiency of political
leaders 1 3,4
Table 19: Reasons for religious fanaticism from pre-test and post-test
Table 19 shows the opinion of detainees in pre and post-test concerning the reason for religious
fanaticism. Regarding the main reasons which lead individuals to religious fanaticism 12 (38.7%) detainees
in pre-test stressed that economic incentives and low level of education were the main factors in their
opinion to lead individuals toward religious fanaticism the other reasons were for lesser importance. In
post-test detainees in their majority 41% stressed that the main factor was the low level of education,
then 24% said that was due to the economic deprivation, and low percentage believed that the fanaticism
was due to religious and political leaders. Probably the ELMIP educational program influenced them to
form stronger opinion about education positive effects on person open mindless.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.2.7 Problems of detainees
Figure 12: Personal problems of detainees at pre-test
In pre-test detainees were asked to state how much were bother by some personal problems (see Figure
12). The biggest problem was the health problem, 51,6% said it was very big and 25.8% said it was quite
big. Second comes the lack of support from friends or their own people, for 38,7% was very big and for
19,4% was quite big. Third comes the drug problem, for 38,7% and for 9,7% was quite big. Then comes the
problem with stress and last the problem with alcohol.
Figure 13: Personal problems of detainees at post-test
38.70%
51.60%
22.60%
19.40%
38.70%
19.40%
25.80%
32.30%
22.60%
9.70%
16.10%
9.70%
22.60%
6.50%
3.20%
16.10%
3.20%
3.20%
9.70%
6.50%
9.70%
9.70%
19.40%
41.90%
41.90%
Lack of support from friends or your own people.
Problems with your health.
Problems with depression or anxiety.
Drinking problems.
Drug problems
No problem A little bit Moderate Quite big Very big
7.4
22.2
11.1 11.1
29.6
3.7
11.114.814.8
22.2
14.818.5
11.1
18.522.2
40.7
29.633.3
48.1
11.1
29.6
14.8 14.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Problems with yourhealth
Drinking problems Lack of support fromfriends or yous own
people
Problems withdepression or
anxiety
Drug problem
Identification of Problems
No problem A little bit Moderate Quite big big Very big
45 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
In Figure 13, the problem that detainees mentioned in post-test are in similar order of the pre-test with
different percentages. For most of detainees, health problem was a very big problem (48,3%), similar to
pre-test. Second comes the lack of support from friends or their own people (30%). Drug misuse seems to
be a problem for 14%, then depression was a problem for 14%, and lastly alcohol misuse was a problem
for 11%. Although the order of the problems was the same in pre-test and post-test, the percentages are
lower in post–test. This shows an improvement in personal life of detainees.
Figure 14: Bullying and Victimization at pre-test
Figure 14 shows how detainees rated themselves in pre-test concerning bullying and victimization in
prison in the past two months. The majority stated that they had not offended or hurt anyone (61.30%),
while 35.5% stated that they had offended or hurt an individual once or twice. When asked if they had
been offended or hurt themselves by an individual the majority (48.4%) stated that they had never been
in one of the situations. Moreover, 25.8% stated that they had been offended or hurt by someone once or
twice and a few respondents stated they had been offended or hurt either once a week (3.2%) or almost
on a daily basis (6.5%) in the past two months.
Figure 15: Bullying and Victimization at post-test
61.30%
48.40%
35.50%
25.80%
3.20%
12.90%
3.20%
6.50%
How often do you offend or hurt someone in the last twomonths?
How often have you been offended or been hurted thepast two months?
Almost every day Once a week Twice or three times a month One or twice Never
59.3
3733.3
11.13.7
44.4
3.7
010203040506070
How often have youoffended or hurt
someone the past twomonths
How often have youbeen offended or hurt
yourself by an individual
Bullying & Victimization
Never Once or twice Twice or three times the month Amost every day
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Figure 15 shows how detainees rated themselves in post-test concerning bullying and victimization in
prison in the past two months. The majority stated that they had not offended or hurt anyone (59,3%),
while 33.3% stated that they had offended or hurt an individual once or twice. The percentages are the
same as in pre-test. When asked if they had been offended or hurt themselves by an individual the
majority (44.4%) stated that they had been offended or hurt by someone once or twice and a few
detainees stated they had been offended or hurt almost every day.
It seems that there is no change in bullying and victimization rate from pre-test to post-test.
3.2.8 Future self of detainees
Figure 16: Plans and aspirations following release at pre-test
Figure 16 presents the wishful thoughts for detainees at pre-test concerning their future self after the
release. Most of them stressed out that their main inspiration and wish was not to return to prison (64,5%).
Moreover, 61,3% of participants expressed the need to live with their family again and 58,10% to start
working again. Some of them, referred to additional goals and desires such as being more down to earth
and more conscious, making fewer mistakes, working and writing a second poetry book, transferring their
experiences to others and breaking old habits.
58.10%
12.90%
61.30%64.50%
9.70%16.10%
9.70%3.20%
38.70%
3.20%
After my release I want to:
47 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Figure 17: Plans and aspirations following release at post-test
Figure 17 presents the future plans of detainees after their release from prison in post-test. Most of them
stressed out that their main inspiration and wish was to find a job (65,5%). Then 58.6% of detainees
expressed the need to live with their family again and not to return in the jail. Some of them, referred to
additional goals and desires such as to be improved as a person (41.4%), to continue their studies (13.8).
Some, maybe the immigrants, declared that they want to leave Cyprus.
The order of the wishes and the percentages are different in pre-test and post-test. However, the four more
important wishes are the same: not be in a jail, find a job, be with the family and change as a person for
the better.
65.5
58.6 58.6
10.3
41.4
13.8
20.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
To find a job I will bedevoted to myfamily/create
family
Not to returnin jail
To find myfriends
To beimproved as a
person
Continue myeducation
To leaveCyprus
Future Self
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.3 Effectiveness of the program for detainees
Detainees were given four open ended questions concerning the effectiveness of the educational
program and training they had received at post-test. Their answers were grouped together according to
the closed proximity of the main theme they mentioned. Follow there are the two main themes retrieved
from the four questions and the percentages of the detainees mentioned each item in each theme.
a. The learning outcomes from ELMIP
1. Psychology Improvement / Empowerment / Self Improvement 36% (15 persons)
2. Sociality / relationships / teamwork / friendship 26% (11 persons)
3. Financial Management from PEPEL Program 24% (10 persons)
4. Curriculum Vitae / Job Search 24% (10 persons)
5. Management of emotions and different situations, social skills 19% (8 persons)
6. Human rights and respect for diversity 7% (3 persons)
7. Computer Knowledge 2% (1 person)
b. What did you like more?
1. Development of social skills/ socialization/ improving relationships/ teamwork. 45% (13 persons)
2. Variety of different programs. 28% (8 persons)
3. Career and occupational guidance courses. 15% (4 persons)
4. Listen others opinions. 15% (4 persons)
5. Having a pleasant time. 15% (4 persons)
6. Discussions on respect and diversity. 7% (2 persons)
c. Suggestions for improvement
1. Detainees gave only 4 suggestions, the rest of detainees said that everything is fine in the
program
2. I would like to have the opportunity to have a discussion on an equal position with people from
outside the prison, such as students or other organized groups. To have a seminar together and
exchange opinions on equal terms.
3. To learn other topics such as how to raise a child
4. Have other similar programs / More often such programs
5. More time and smaller teams.
49 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
3.3 Results from the focus group interview of detainees
In the focus group 8 detainees took part (3 women and 5 men). The interview took place on the Prison
Department premise. The two academics, who are responsible for the scientific supervision of ELMIP,
performed the interview. The two academics took notes of the answers of the prison staff. The recording
is not permitted in the prison premise. Then the notes were put together and the main themes were
extracted from the data.
There are four main themes coming out of the data as it shown in Table 20:
a. Knowledge that detainees gained from ELMIP program, indicating 3 areas of knowledge
b. Skills that detainees learned from ELMIP program, indicating 7 skills areas
c. Values that detainees gained from the program, indicating 5 main values
d. Program methodology, in which detainees indicated 4 elements of program methodology
BASIC KNOWLEDGE SKILLS VALUES PROGRAM
METHODOLOGY
• Career guidance courses
• Preparation for professional activation
• Literacy skills
• Empowerment of relations
• Socialization
• Friendship, Relations
• Management of feelings of loneliness
• Investigate the way of thinking in some issues
• The way others perceive some issues
• See things from a different view
• Respect others
• Acceptance
• Team work
• Self-awareness
• Friendship
• Mixed groups
(gender and
nationality)
• Spending time in a
useful way
• Trainers’ interest and
prison
coordination
• Pleasant time
Through the week
Table 20: Themes from detainees focus group interview
Further than the above themes detainees gave some very illustrative quotations for the program:
“We develop feelings of acceptance of ourselves and our mistakes, therefore, it is like we have been
accepted (by others) without criticism.”
“Spending time with us, it seems that we are drinking a coffee together.”
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
“I have improved myself by having someone to help me.”
“Not to be forgotten and through the training programs we had right people and (we would like ) to
continue to have more programs.”
“We changed our psychological condition, we found a way we like.”
“To spend our time useful, beneficial and effective. To face the world with love. I feel like I am out of
prison.”
51 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Prison staff
Demographics
53 prison staff answered the pre-test questionnaire and 11 of them did not participate in post-test. 42
prison staff took part in post-test. Looking on the age-range, gender, the range of service in prison, the
positions o prison officers we consider that the sample is quite representative.
Education
Prison officers have quite good education for their position, one third of them attended further
education. Most of them showed interested in pre-test for taking extra training lessons on effective
management practices and methods to manage detainees. They also believed that the skills they would
acquire from the educational program would be very important in helping them in the development of
their professional career. Their positive attitude towards education was also obvious from their
dedication to attend ELMIP program.
Emotional intelligence
From the comparisons of the Means and SD, we can conclude that prison staff exhibited quite high levels
of emotional intelligence in pre-test and in post -test. In the post test the level in each statement is a bit
lower. One explanation of this could be that after the completion of the program their awareness on
emotional intelligence increased and they were stricter in their judgments with their selves. We need to
mention that in post-test there were 11 prison officers less than from pre-test. Another explanation is
that there is only one ELMIP lesson on emotional intelligence. Therefore, they might need more lessons.
Moreover, the emotional intelligence of prison staff is already high.
Social skills
From the comparisons of Means and SD we conclude that prison staff exhibited quite high levels of social
skills in pre-test and in post-test. However, the level of social skills in post-test is a bit lower. The total
mean of the scale is 3.49 and SD=.36 for pre-test and for post-test is 3.3631 and SD=.45180. We can apply
the same explanation as with the emotional intelligence, that through the lessons their awareness
increased and they applied more firm criteria for their social skills. We need to mention that in post-test
there were 11 prison officers less than from pre-test. Another explanation is that there is only one ELMIP
lesson on social skills. Therefore, they might need more lessons. Moreover, the social skills of prison staff
are already high.
Radicalism
From the comparisons of Means and Standards Deviation from pre and post-test showed an increase
concerning knowledge of radicalism in the society and the abilities of recognizing and managing of
radicalism in detainees. This means that ELMIP program worked effectively for increasing knowledge and
giving skills to prison staff on radicalization.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
From the comparisons of Means and SD we can conclude that prison staff after the lessons of ELMIP
expressed the right views about which factors determined better the emergence of radicalism. In post-
test religion came first and nationality second, which was the opposite in pre-test. The other factors
which are not so important for the emergence of radicalism comes after in both tests.
Prison staff asked to rate how useful was for them to participate in training programs concerning human
rights and multicultural learning. The prison staff in their great majority both in pre and post-test believed
that a training program dedicated to basic human rights and multicultural aspects, would be useful for
their work. It seems that before the implementation of the educational program they were more
enthusiastic.
Views on detainees’ educational program
According to prison staff answers we rated the programs for the most important to the least important as
follows: Social skills development, professional skills development, emotional skills development, basic
literacy skills, basic budgeting skills, and basic IT skills. The conclusion is that prison staff had a faith that
educational program would help the prevention of radicalism. The rate in post-test is higher than in pre-
test. This means that the prison staff after the training increased their faith in detainees’ educational
program.
Furthermore, prison staff were asked to rate the extent of contribution of this kind of programs to
detainees’ smoother integration and in reducing recidivism both in pre and post-test. Prison staff believed
strongly both in pre and post-test that this kind of programs could support to a high extent the detainees
and their lives upon their release.
Open-ended questions and focus group interview evaluation of ELMIP program:
In the open-ended questions and in the focus group interview we received a very positive feedback on
various aspects of ELMIP educational program for prison staff. Their evaluation is concerned on
a. The knowledge that the prison staff gained from ELMIP program, indicating areas of knowledge such
as: radicalism, human rights, multiculturalism, immigrant and racism, Importance of the role of prison
officer, issues for detainees’ education and rehabilitation, learning skills, population composition in
prison and understanding foreigners’ detainees
b. The skills that the prison officers had learned from ELMIP program, indicating: communication skills,
awareness and respect to diversity, emotional intelligence and empathy, social skills, team work and
cooperation, time management, psychological empowerment and self – knowledge
c. Application of both knowledge and skills, indicating that it was depended from each one’s status, it
was helped them to do the talks with detainees and applied different techniques in their everyday
routines.
Further than that they mentioned personal gains from co-operation, discussions and pleasant activities
with the co-prison staff and interesting instructors.
53 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
4.2 Detainees
Demographics
In the pre-test, 31 detainees, from both genders (most men0, from different ethnic backgrounds (most
Greek Cypriots), different religions (most Christian orthodox), different marital status, most of them have
children, took part in the survey. In post-test 29 detainees with similar background took part. We need to
say that the participants from the pre and post-test are not exactly the same. Due to the following reasons
the participants changed: many of them either released or moved to open prison during the program, some
others who come in prison wanted to join the program.
Education –Training – Work
Their level of education varied from primary school to university. Many detainees had attended further
education and training programs prior to imprisonment. Most of the them had attended educational
programs organized by the Department of Prison. Detainees in their majority stated both in pre and in post-
test that it was important for them to acquire further training and education during their imprisonment.
Concerning the interest in educational program during imprisonment and comparing pre-test and post-
test, more people liked education after the ELMIP program.
Vocation before the imprisonment
In regard to prior employment, the majority of detainees had various paid jobs before their imprisonment.
One third did not have a stable job before imprisonment. From those the majority indicated the low salary
as the most common reason for changing a job, while bad working conditions and lack of interest were also
quite important in taking such a decision. Their basic motivation for working or wanting to acquire a job in
the future is to earn money so as to sustain themselves and their families.
Basic Skills
In relation to basic skills: mathematical knowledge such as additions or subtractions with numbers up to
100, reading a text in Greek and understanding what they are reading, using a PC and handle personal
finances, detainees found easy the mathematics, then the Greek language, then the handling of personal
finances and last the use of a PC. In comparison of pre-test with the post-test, detainees showed more
competence on basic skills after the ELMIP Program.
Necessity and Utility of basic skills
Detainees indicated that the necessity of basic skills was important in their lives both in pre-test and post-
test. However, comparing the two tests, the necessity is higher in the post–test, after the ELMIP educational
program.
Similarly, in comparison with pre-test, detainees indicated that the utility of basic skills for improving their
professional career and for improving their self-image is more important in post-test than in pre-test, after
the ELMIP educational program.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Emotional intelligence
Comparing the Means and SD of emotional intelligence in both pre and post-test we conclude that
detainees improved their emotional intelligence in all items from pre-to post test. These means that the
ELMP educational program worked in the right direction to improve detainees’ emotional skills.
Social skills
Similarly, comparing the Means and SD of pre and post-test we conclude that detainees exhibited high
levels of social skills, and also that in post-test the social skills are a bit higher than in pre-test. This again
means that ELMIP educational program seem to have an add up value in the social skills of detainees.
Religion – Radicalism
Comparing the opinions of detainees for radicalism and religion at pre-test and post-test we can conclude
that in post-test their opinions become more strong than in the pre-test.
Comparison of pre-test and post-test opinions of detainees to topics relevant to multiculturalism and social
cohesion: (a) the majority of detainees declared that their social circle is composed of people with the same
religion in both pre-test and post-test. There is a bit more diversity in the circle of detainees in pre-test. (b)
concerning the acceptance of a mix marriage, in pre-test and post-test the opinions were very similar.
Regarding the main reasons which lead individuals to religious fanaticism detainees in pre-test stressed
that economic incentives and low level of education as the main factors to lead individuals toward religious
fanaticism. In post-test detainees the majority stressed that the main factor was the low level of education,
and second the economic deprivation. Probably the ELMIP educational program influenced them to form
stronger opinion about education’s positive effects on person’s open mindless.
Problems of detainees
The problem that detainees mentioned in pre and post-test were in similar order but in different
percentages. For most of detainees, health problem was a very big problem. Second came the lack of
support from friends or their own people. Third was the drug misuse, then depression is a problem and
lastly alcohol. Although the order of the problems was the same in pre-test and post-test, the percentages
were lower in post–test. This shows an improvement in personal life of detainees, probably due to
improvements in prison conditions.
Concerning bullying and victimization, it seems that there was no change in bullying and the rate from pre-
test to post-test.
55 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Future self of detainees
The order of the wishes and the percentages were different in pre-test and post-test. However, the four
more important wishes were the same: not be in a jail, find a job, be with the family and change as a person
for the better.
Open-ended questions and focus group interview evaluation of ELMIP program:
In the open-ended questions and in the focus group interview we received a very positive feedback on
various aspects of ELMIP educational program for detainees. Their evaluation is concerned on:
a. Knowledge that detainees gained from ELMIP program, indicating: the career guidance courses, the
preparation for professional career and the literacy skills
b. Skills that detainees learned from ELMIP program, indicating: the empowerment of relations amongst
them, the socialization, the friendships and generally the good relations, the management of their
feelings and of the loneliness, the investigation of the way of thinking in some issues, the way others
perceive some issues, and to see things from a different view
c. Values that detainees gained from the program, indicating: the respect of others, the acceptance, the
team work, the self – awareness and friendship
d. Program methodology, in which detainees indicated: 4 the mixed groups (gender and nationality), the
spending of time in a useful way, the instructors’ interest and the positive prison department
coordination, and the pleasant time during the workshops.
It is important to mentioned that both prison staff and detainees worried about the future of detainees
when they would release. They stated that there is no official support and they highlighted the need for an
institution which will offer support to ex-detainees during the very sensitive period after prison release.
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
4.3 Recommendations
ELMIP Program for prison staff should be adopted as part of the curriculum of Prison officers’
academy. Prison staff, who did not attend the program, should attend the program. Any new prison
staff in the initial training should also take part in the ELMIP program.
At least 3 to 4 more lessons on emotional intelligence and on social skills should be added in prison
staff ELMIP training program. For prison staff there were only two lessons concerning emotional
intelligence and social skills, while there were 8 lessons for these two topic for detainees. Results
showed that detainees improved their emotional intelligence and social skills through the program,
while prison staff remained the same or even scored less.
ELMIP Program for detainees should be offered in a new group of detainees as part of detainees’
educational program. And ELMIP program could become part of detainees’ education and training
program and be offered every year in new groups of detainees.
Based on (a) ELMIP good results, (b) positive evaluation from both prison staff and detainees, (c)
recommendations for further programs from both prison staff and detainees, and (d) the excellent
cooperation amongst the members of the consortium a new European Program should be
prepared. The new proposal will include good practices and successful content from the existing
program and new elements should be added, such as skills on digital literacy, more skills on job
search and job finding, and include a training for detainees’ family members.
A strong message coming out from both prison staff and detainees is the creation of a mediating
institution between prison and society. After detainees’ release there is no official institution
that will deal with supporting ex-detainees to settle in family, employment and society. This strong
message should be given to policy makers (parliament members, ministry of social justice,
government) through the present report, press conference and personal conducts.
57 The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A.J, & Lavelle, B. (2014). Corrections education and employment
assistance ‘Down Under’: Current and emerging practices and paradigms. London Review of
Education, 12(2), 63-76.
Fabelo, T. (2002). The impact of prison education on community reintegration of inmates: The
Texas case. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 106-110.
Filella-Guin, G. & Blanch-Plana, A. (2002). Programme for job finding imprisonment and career
development: An evaluation of a guidance. Journal of Career Development, 29 (1), 55 –
68. doi: 10.1177/089484530202900104
Lochner, L., & Moretti. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmate,
arrests, and self-reports. The American Economic Review, 94, 155-189.
doi:10.1257/000282804322970751
Lockwood, S., Nally, J.M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2012). The effect of correctional education
on postrelease employment and recidivism: A 5-year follow-up study in the State of
Indiana. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 380-396. doi:10.1177/0011128712441695
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 6,
39-62. doi: 10.1177/1748895806060666
The ELMIP project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Rowe, A. (2011). Narratives of self and identity in women’s prison: Stigma and the struggle for self-
definition in penal regimes. Punishment & Society. 13, 517-591. doi: 10.1177/1462474511422151
Savolainen, J., Hughes, L.A., Mason, W.A., Hurtig, T.M., Ebeling, H., Moilanen, I.K., …
Taanila, A.M. (2012). Antisocial propensity, adolescent school outcomes, and the risk of
criminal conviction. The Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 54-64.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00754.x
Solomontos-Kountouri, O. & Hatzittofi, P. (2016). Past, present, emergent and future identity of young
inmates. Journal of Adolescence, 47, 119-124.
Toyoki, S., & Brown, D. A. (2013). Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized identities through
discourse. Human Relations. 67, 715-737. doi: 10.1177/0018726713503024