ELMIP – Empowering Learning Models in Prison · Learning Models in Prison Final Evaluation Report of Overall Training Curriculum, Materials and Workshops of ... Ergoplan A.E. (Greece)

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


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


3.3 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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


Sofokleous, Ioannis Maurommatis

Unit 4

Stress management

9/8/2018 8.00-10.00

19

10.00-12.00

20


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


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



Maurommatis

Unit 8

IT Literacy First Part

20/9/2018 8.00-10.00

16

10.00-12.00

23




Unit 9

Identification of anger and

violence

27/9/2018 8.00-10.00

17

10.00-12.00

22


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



Mikaela Frangopoulou

Unit 11

Conflict solution

management

18/10/2018 8.00-10.00

14

10.00-12.00

20




Unit 12

Empowerment of emotional

resilience/ management of

difficult situation

22/11/2018 8.00-10.00

18

10.00-12.00

16



Unit 8

IT Literacy Second Part

27/12/2018 8.00-10.00

16

10.00-11.00

17




Unit 13

Budget management

3/1/2019 8.00-10.00

17

10.00-11.00

18


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


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


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


Unit 19

Multiculturalism,

intercultural competences

and skills

18/4/2019 8:00-10:00

4

10:00-12:00

8


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



Table 2: Units taught, dates, number of participants and instructors of the detainees’ ELMIP program


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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?


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


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


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)


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)


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.


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.”


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


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


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.


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


%

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.


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


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:


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


Plumber

Courier


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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

Emotional empathy 31 2.7323 .59737 27 2.8519 .57612

Cognitive empathy 31 3.1129 3.1129 27 3.2840 .50703


3.2.5 Social skills

Pre-test Post-test


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.


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


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


Pre-test Post-test


%

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


%

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.


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.


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


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


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:


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


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.


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.”


“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.”


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

Documents

ELMIP – Empowering Learning Models in Prison · Learning Models in Prison Final Evaluation Report of Overall Training Curriculum, Materials and Workshops of ... Ergoplan A.E. (Greece)