was the youngest person to have ended their life in custody at this time. ... across England and Wales, the Prison Service's approach to the care of suicidal and.
The Listener Scheme in Prisons: Final report on the Research Findings
Michelle Jaffe Presented to Samaritans July 2012
Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to all those individuals who made this research possible. Firstly, thanks go to staff at Samaritans’ General Office for supporting and funding the research, including Dr Stephanie Stace, Maria Foster, Jane van Zyl, Pam Blackwood and Joe Ferns. A number of Samaritans branches, Regional Prison Support Officers, prison co-ordinators, Listeners, and other volunteers were also extremely supportive during the planning stages of the research. I would particularly like to thank Ruth Acty and Kathy Biggar for their encouragement and assistance. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Research Institute for Law, Politics and Justice at Keele University for part-sponsorship, and those staff from Keele who supervised the research – Dr Mary Corcoran, Professor Susanne Karstedt (who has moved to the University of Leeds), and Professor Julius Sim. Last, but certainly not least, thanks go to all of the prisoners and prison staff who took part in and facilitated the research, without whom, the research would not have been possible. Michelle Jaffe
i
Contents List of tables and figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Listener scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peer support between prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research and evaluation on the Listener scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 7 8 10 12
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sampling and prison selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the survey sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 14 15 16 19 20
Findings 1 – Knowledge about Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How prisoners find out about Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What prisoners know about Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 23 26
Findings 2 – Views towards Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prisoner views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staff views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29 29 32
Findings 3 – Take-up of Listener support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of help-seeking intentions by prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for non-take-up of Listener support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intentions to seek Listener support among prisoners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36 37 41 44
Findings 4 – Patterns of usage of Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actual help-seeking from Listeners by different prisoner groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems taken to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of usage of Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46 46 47 48
Findings 5 – Talking to Listeners about problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accessing Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positive and negative feelings after talking to a Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preferences for specific Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The benefits of talking to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53 53 55 57 59
Findings 6 – Volunteering as a Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
ii
Motivation to become a Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training from Samaritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positive impact on Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64 67 69
Findings 7 – Listener work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reaching out to prisoners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proximity to callers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support for Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72 72 73 78 80
Findings 8 – Impact on staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workload and time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitating the Listener scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 84 85
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reputation of the Listener scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Take-up of Listener support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is valued by service users? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The boundaries of Listener support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volunteering as a prisoner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support systems for Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89 89 90 91 93 93 95 96
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
iii
List of tables and figures Tables Table 1 – Characteristics of the four prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2 – Data obtained from each prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 3 – Demographic characteristics of the prisoner survey sample . . . . . . . . . . Table 4 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5 – Positive and negative views towards Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6 – Help-seeking intentions: types of problems and sources of support . . . . Table 7 – Prisoners’ reasons for not talking to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8 – Help-seeking intentions of prisoners who have not talked to Listeners . . Table 9 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners of prisoners who have not talked to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 10 – Problems taken to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 11 – When prisoners talked to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 12 – Feelings after talking to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 19 21 25 30 38 42 43 44 47 49 55
Figures Figure 1 – Take-up of the Listener scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 – Number of times prisoners talked to Listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 – Prisoners’ willingness to recommend Listeners to other prisoners . . . . . Figure 4 – Willingness to become a Listener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
36 51 57 65
Executive summary Knowledge about Listeners
Most prisoners know about Listeners and have some knowledge about the nature of Listener support.
Only a very small number of prisoners claim to not know about the Listener scheme and support available.
The publicity material displayed in prisons is effective in making prisoners aware of the existence of Listeners.
Prison staff are also a significant source of support about Listeners.
Approximately half of prisoners believe that Listeners offer information and/or advice to prisoners suggesting that prisoners associate Listeners with being helped in prison.
Evidence was found for prisoners associating Samaritans and Listeners with confidentiality.
Views towards Listeners
Positive perceptions of Listeners are much more common than negative perceptions among prisoners. This suggests that Listeners have a good reputation among potential callers.
Perceptions of trustworthiness and confidentiality were important in the formation of views towards Listeners among prisoners.
Prisoners who had not had social contact with Listeners felt unable to indicate positive or negative views about Listeners
The finding that approximately a third of prisoners were unable to indicate positive or negative perceptions of Listeners highlights the importance of promoting prisoner knowledge of the support available from Listeners by increasing opportunities for social contact between prisoners and Listeners.
Staff expressed positive views about Listeners and the scheme, however it was recognised that some staff found it difficult to accept and support the scheme.
1
Staff highlighted that the reputation of the scheme was fragile and that in the interests of security that they preferred to call upon particular Listeners, who they trusted, to respond to prisoners.
Take-up of Listener support
The sources of support prisoners indicated that they preferred were strongly influenced by the nature of the problem.
Peers, namely other prisoners and Listeners, are most frequently perceived as a source of support for ‘emotional or mental health problems’.
Whilst Listeners were overall the least favoured sources of support compared with the others, prisoners were most likely to seek support from Listeners for ‘emotional or mental health problems’ which is consistent with the use of Samaritans services on the outside.
The majority of prisoners in the sample had not talked to a Listener about a problem suggesting that there is scope for widening access to, and take-up of, Listener support by prisoners.
Not knowing a Listener was a barrier to take-up of Listener support.
Prisoners who have not talked to a Listener indicated a preference for sources of support outside of prison.
Un-sentenced and first time prisoners were more likely to indicate a willingness to seek help from Listeners for a number of problems.
Patterns of usage of Listeners
The evidence suggested that the Listener scheme is far reaching and has consistent levels of usage by different prisoner groups.
The findings suggested that language barriers might inhibit take-up of Listener support.
It is positive that prisoners also approach Listeners to talk about a wide range of problems.
2
The majority of prisoners who talk to Listeners about problems do so because they are ‘feeling low, upset or depressed – this consistent with the aims of the Listener scheme and Samaritans’ services more generally.
Listener support was most frequently accessed during the early stages of prisoners’ sentences or imprisonment. The feelings associated with adapting to prison, or coming to terms with a prison sentence prompt prisoners to talk to Listeners
Prisoners most frequently access Listeners during the evening and night when they are locked in their cells and are the only source of support prisoners have access to. However a significant proportion of the sample accessed Listeners during the day providing evidence that Listeners are both available and used by prisoners at a variety of different times.
Listener support is usually accessed by prisoners for a short duration which suggests that Listeners play a role in supporting prisoners during a particularly difficult time.
Talking to Listeners about problems
Prison staff used prisoners’ requests to talk to Listeners as an opportunity to ask them about their problems. This could be experienced as intrusive by prisoners and inhibit them from seeking help from Listeners.
Over half of prisoners who had talked to Listeners reported feeling mastery, hope and relief after the call.
Some prisoners noted the skill of Listeners in helping them to explore their problems and feelings.
Whilst not all prisoners found Listener support beneficial, and whilst not all negative feelings were eradicated, it must be remembered that negative feelings are a consequence of the prison environment and therefore are not necessarily associated with talking to a Listener.
The fact that high proportions of prisoners would recommend Listeners to other prisoners suggests that prisoners had positive experiences of Listener support. For some prisoners, this recommendation would be dependent on the Listener available, or the type of problem.
3
Almost three fifths of prisoners indicated a preference for talking to the same Listener.
Prisoners’ positive experiences were associated with particular Listeners; a positive experience with one Listener did not mean prisoners felt it would be replicated with another. Prisoners described the benefit of Listener support in terms of a cathartic effect where they could release and off-load their feelings.
Prisoners valued gestures of care and support by Listeners. The ability of Listeners, as peers, to show that they understood and cared about the problems of prisoners, was significant for those who talked to them, and helped them to open-up to Listeners about their problems.
Evidence was found for practical forms of guidance and assistance provided to prisoners by Listeners.
Volunteering as a Listener
Evidence was found for a significant interest in becoming Listeners by prisoners. In particular male and Asian prisoners were most likely to indicate that they would like to become Listeners.
Listeners reported that past experiences, such as difficulties in coping, had motivated them to volunteer.
Prisoners see the Listener role as a desirable role to adopt.
Listeners felt that the training provided by Samaritans prepared them well for the job they had to do, however the nature of Listener work meant that they also continued their learning once they had begun to support prisoners.
Listeners felt that improved communication skills were one of the main outcomes of the Listener training. This impacted positively on their relationships with callers, staff and with their families and friends on the outside.
Listeners felt that they had fostered more positive and respectful relationships with prison staff as a result of their volunteering.
Becoming a Listener helped prisoners to adopt more socially acceptable roles.
Many Listeners had career aspirations to work in counselling or social work as a result of their experiences volunteering.
Listeners reported being able to cope with their own problems and their imprisonment better since becoming a Listener.
4
Listener work
Many Listeners do not wait to be called out by prisoners but are proactive in offering support and sometimes reached out to prisoners in more social and informal ways.
Listeners’ proximity to their callers meant that they were often approached by Listeners informally or asked by a member of staff to support another prisoner.
This informal support that Listeners provided prisoners blurred the boundaries of times where they were ‘on-‘ or ‘off-duty’, and reduced the opportunities where Listeners were able to retreat from the Listener role and work.
The face-to-face nature of Listeners’ contacts with their callers meant that signs of prisoner distress such as self-harm were highly visible to Listeners.
Listeners described feeling a sense of responsibility for the outcomes for their callers. Some Listeners stretched the boundaries of Listener support by offering guidance, assistance or practical help to their callers.
It is a challenge for Listeners to be non-judgemental when all of their calls are face-to-face and they live in the same environment as those they support.
Whilst the logic of confidentiality was understood and advocated by many prison staff, this was not the case for all staff.
Staff suggested that Listeners signposted them to prisoners in need of support or who were not using the service properly.
The policy of confidentiality sometimes put Listeners in a position where they were under pressure from staff to disclose the nature of their calls.
Listeners placed emphasis on the need for support between Listeners when they needed to off-load about the calls they had taken.
The support meetings with Samaritans were vital as they presented one of the few opportunities Listeners had to withdraw and off-load about their calls. The support meetings did not always occur on a weekly basis and at a frequency that Listeners would have liked.
Impact on staff
The majority of prison staff stated that the presence of the Listener scheme impacted positively on their workload and on the prison environment.
5
The presence of Listener support was claimed by staff to reduce their workload by not having to sit with prisoners in distress for lengthy periods of time and by preventing the escalation of prisoners’ problems.
Staff felt that a good working relationship with Samaritans was crucial in the successful operation of a Listener scheme, however did not always feel that they fully understood the workings of the prison.
Listeners were dependent on staff to facilitate access to their callers. Prisoners and Listeners provided examples where they felt staff did not facilitate the contact as promptly as they would have liked. This was most likely to occur at night time.
Staff did not always find it easy to facilitate the Listener scheme.
Listener work sometimes conflicted with the work of staff and the prison regime.
6
Background This final report is submitted by Michelle Jaffe to Samaritans to outline the findings of the research project ‘The Listener Scheme in Prisons’. This doctoral research, entitled ‘Peer support and seeking help in prison: a study of the Listener scheme in four prisons in England’, submitted in March 2012, was sponsored by Samaritans and the Research Institute for Law, Politics and Justice at Keele University. This first section provides the background to the study and a description and brief history of the focus of the research, the Listener scheme in prisons.
The Listener scheme The Listener scheme involves Samaritans volunteers visiting prisons to select, train and support prisoners who become ‘Listeners’. The Listeners work within the same framework as Samaritans by providing non-judgemental, non-directive, confidential emotional support. Prisoners who volunteer to become Listeners are required to undergo a comprehensive training process. Listeners in each establishment are supported by the local Samaritans branch who regularly visit to support and de-brief Listeners, and furthermore, to provide on-going training. Whilst the current research focuses on the Listener scheme, it is worth noting that the Listener scheme is not the only way in which Samaritans reach out to prisoners in need. The majority of the prisons across England and Wales now have cordless phones which prisoners can access at any time of the day or night to call Samaritans. Further to this, Samaritans offer face-to-face support to prisoners where the operation of a Listener scheme is not considered feasible, for example on grounds of age (Safer Custody Group, no date; Samaritans, 2011a: 29). Whilst a detailed history of Samaritans’ work in prisons can be found elsewhere (see Samaritans, 2011a), a brief outline is provided here to contextualise the report and existing knowledge about the Listener scheme. During the 1980s, Samaritans became increasingly concerned about dramatically rising levels of suicide and self-harm among prisoners. This was alongside a growing awareness and concern by the Prison Service and prison researchers of the issues of suicide and self-harm in prison (Biggar & Neal,
7
1996: 208). As part of an outreach strategy, targeting groups potentially in need of emotional support or unable to access it, Samaritans had started work to establish links with prisons to inform prisoners and staff of their work and provide support (The Samaritans, 1990) and visited prisons to deliver training and awareness sessions to staff, promote Samaritans’ support in educational classes, and visit prisoners, sometimes providing confidential support to them. In 1991 the nature of Samaritans’ contact with prisons began to change as a result of the tragic suicide of Philip Knight, a 15 year old boy remanded in HMP Swansea, who was the youngest person to have ended their life in custody at this time. This led HMP Swansea to trial a very different approach to suicide prevention in the form of a peer befriending scheme which formalised prisoners’ support of one another (Davies, 1994: 125). Once piloted in HMP Swansea, the ‘Listener scheme’ was taken up by other prisons at a rapid rate. By 1993 twenty schemes had been established; this grew to seventy schemes in 1995, and by 1996 there were one hundred schemes (Samaritans, 2011a: 13-14). Despite this, Samaritans volunteers were sometimes met with resistance, particularly because of the policy of confidentiality which staff found it difficult to accept. Furthermore, volunteers had to learn to work in an extremely challenging environment. Alongside the take-up of the Listener scheme in prisons across England and Wales, the Prison Service’s approach to the care of suicidal and self-harming prisoners was changed by encouraging support from a wider range of staff and not healthcare staff alone. Thus, a multi-disciplinary, as opposed to a medical approach had been adopted (HMPS, 1992; 1993; 1994). By 1997 it had become policy for prisons to work with Samaritans (Prison Service Instruction 32/1997). Samaritans has continued to work in partnership with the Prison Service, and has assisted with the development of policy for suicidal prisoners and to support the on-going work of Listeners in prison (for example Prison Service Order 2700). Figures from 2010 indicate that 123 Samaritans branches were supporting 158 prisons across the UK, approximately 1,500 new Listeners were trained, and Listeners took over 90,000 calls (Samaritans, 2011b). Today there are currently approximately 120 schemes in England and Wales. In some establishments there are particularly high levels of use, with one female prison reporting almost 500 contacts within a three
8
month period during 2001 (Howard League, 2001b: 7), and a large busy local male prison1 reporting approximately 8,000 contacts during 2009.2
Peer support between prisoners Peer support between prisoners has becoming increasingly common during the last two decades since the introduction of the Listener scheme. Whilst the Listener scheme is currently the best established and most widespread scheme across England and Wales, other examples include:
Insiders scheme (led by the Prison Service) – prisoners act as a source of information and advice about prison life, especially to new and first time prisoners;
Toe by toe (supported by the Shannon Trust) – prisoners helping their peers to improve reading skills;
Peer advisers (supported by the St Giles Trust) – prisoners are trained to assist and guide their peers on employment, benefits and housing for their release.
Peer support, whereby prisoners mentor, support or advise other prisoners, has become the most common volunteering activity available to prisoners across England and Wales approximately 1 in 14 prisoners are estimated to be involved in peer support schemes in prisons (Farrant & Levenson, 2002: 9). In general, researchers have claimed that volunteering in prison results in altered selfperceptions, and improved behaviour among prisoners (Blair, 2006; Hunter & Boyce, 2009; Pollack, 2004; Stewart, 2004; Taylor, 2008). Volunteering by prisoners has been claimed to be a means through which prisoners can demonstrate ‘active citizenship’ (Edgar, Jacobson & Biggar, 2011; Farrant & Levenson, 2002) by ‘giving back’ (Maruna (1997: 85). Prisoners are in a good position to be able to support each other given their shared experiences and knowledge of prison life (Soloman, 2004: 397) and are a readily available source of support. Peer support schemes utilise and formalise existing supportive networks and relationships between prisoners (Pollack, 2004: 702). It has been suggested that prisoners feel more comfortable talking to their peers who are able to “speak the same language” and have the ability to empathise and relate to one 1
A local prison is where prisoners are sent when they are awaiting trial or sentencing. They may also be held there for a while after sentenced, or for the duration of a short sentence. 2 Source: statistics kept by Samaritans on the number of Listener contacts.
9
another (Devilly et al, 2005: 231; Hall & Gabor, 2004: 24). Whilst it is not clear from existing research evidence if prisoners do in fact prefer peer over staff sources of support (Devilly et al, 2002: 229), it is thought that some prisoners prefer support from their peers as a consequence of more equal and reciprocal relationships (Davidson et al, 2006: 446-7; Philip & Spratt, 2007: 49; White, 2004: 3). Prisoners’ use of peer support mechanisms and their help-seeking preferences are pertinent issues of concern to Samaritans and the Prison Service given the disproportionate levels of mental health problems, drug and alcohol misuse, learning difficulties, and personality disorder present among the prisoner population (Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, 2007). The ‘active listening’ approach adopted by Samaritans is claimed to facilitate the ‘release’ of feelings and enabling callers to explore their options and move forward with their problems (Samaritans, 2007: 10). However, prison is not a place where it is easy to open-up and talk about feelings, emotions or problems (Borrill et al, 2004: 7). Furthermore, methods that prisoners choose to express their feelings and cope with their problems, for example self-harming, are commonly misinterpreted as attention seeking or manipulation by staff (Hayes, 1995: 436; Howard League, 1999; 2001a; 2003). Very little research on peer support has been directly concerned with the perspective of the service user or potential service users. In part this is due to the fact that it is easier to identify staff and peer supporters, and the sensitive nature of approaching vulnerable service-users who access services on a confidential basis.
Research and evaluation on the Listener scheme The current study sought to address the fact that, despite the presence of the Listener scheme in prisons for just over two decades, there is very little research on it. Much of the research that has been conducted consists of small scale studies, often focused on a single establishment, or in-house reviews carried out by the Prison Service or Samaritans. Whilst anecdotally, the Listener scheme is associated with positive effects for prisoners, Listeners and prison staff, there is currently a lack of research evidence to support this claim. A small number of studies have reflected on the benefits of the Listener scheme, for example, Liebling (2005: 436) suggests that whilst peer support may not appeal to all prisoners, for those that would use it, positive experiences are
10
reported. Power et al (2003: 124) found evidence that suicidal prisoners in particular experienced benefits from talking to Listeners. Furthermore, it has been found that Listeners and prison staff feel that the Listener scheme has an impact on the well-being of callers (Davies, 1994; Snow, 2000). It has also been noted that additional benefits of the scheme include more positive relationships between prisoners and staff in general, and freeing up staff time (Davies, 1994; Snow, 2000; Snow & Biggar, 2006). The policy of confidentiality that Listeners are expected to adhere to is a central issue of concern. A lack of trust in and knowledge about Listeners, have been purported to act as barriers to prisoners’ willingness to talk to Listeners (Snow, 2000). Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that staff have reservations about the policy of confidentiality (Snow, 2000; Snow and Biggar, 2006). The most well-established research finding is of the positive impact that volunteering has for prisoners who become Listeners. Samaritans volunteers have noted the positive effects that becoming Listeners has on prisoners (Samaritans, 2011a: 33-4). Prisoners who become Listeners have reported enhanced feelings of self-worth and confidence, better relationships with prisoners and staff, and an improved ability to communicate with others (Dhaliwal & Harrower, 2007; Snow, 2000). For Listeners, Richman (2004) claims that this results in Listeners achieving a more professional and enhanced status, compared with other prisoners. Whilst research has attempted to identify the benefits to Listeners of volunteering, very little research has explored the challenges or risks of volunteering in the prison environment. Outside in the community, Samaritans volunteers attend duties at their local branch once a week and only a minority of the calls they take are face-to-face. On the other hand, not only are all of Listeners’ contacts face-to-face, they live alongside their callers who are fellow prisoners. Listeners do not have the luxury of going home after a duty. Furthermore, prisoners volunteering in prison are subject to power imbalances and have their own problems caused by their imprisonment to contend with, at the same time as supporting other prisoners. In addition to the small volume of research projects that have been conducted, Samaritans has also conducted a small number of reviews specifically concerned with the Listener scheme. In 2000, Samaritans assessed ‘Resources in prisons’ (The Samaritans, 2000). The aim of the review was to assess how effectively resources were being deployed by Samaritans branches in their activities in prisons. The review
11
revealed that the funding provided to Samaritans branches by prisons was extremely inconsistent and varied from the provision of no funding at all, to over-payment in some instances. The cost associated with prison outreach work, and the scarcity of available resources, led to a recommendation to concentrate on maintaining Listener schemes in prisons where the risk of suicide was the greatest. These establishments became known as ‘Risk 1’ prisons which were all large male local establishments where prisoners were held prior to or just after trial or sentencing. Following this, the ‘Risk 1 Project’ was conducted. This was the largest and most significant research project on the Listener scheme conducted prior to the current study. Samaritans’ fact finding mission in ‘Risk 1’ establishments aimed to review the work of Samaritans and Listeners (Samaritans 2001a; 2001b; 2001c; Samaritans, 2004: 6). It was highlighted that staff and Listeners felt that the Listener scheme has helped to foster more positive relationships in prisons, and was making a contribution to suicide prevention in prisons. However, it also highlighted that in some instances, Listeners were being paid, some staff were not fully facilitating the scheme and there was a need to improve relationships between some Samaritans branches and prisons at a local level. The recommendations made (Samaritans, 2001: 15-20) included:
A need to improve training for Listeners to improve consistency in practice;
Further training to equip Samaritans volunteers working in prisons;
An on-going need to raise awareness of the work of Samaritans and Listeners with prison staff, with particular reference to the policy of confidentiality.
This research led to a number of important developments for the Listener scheme aimed at promoting best practice (see Samaritans 2011a), the most significant of which was the launch of a new mandatory training package in 2006 (‘Listener Initial Training’).
This research Research on Samaritans’ services face two challenges, firstly the confidentiality and anonymity of callers. In prison, callers are more easily identified and accessed than in the community on the outside, however only limited statistics on caller rates are held, and therefore very few conclusions can be made about users of the service and their positive or negative experiences. Whilst Samaritans collect statistics on the number of calls Listeners have in each establishment, these statistics do not allow an assessment
12
of which prisoners are more likely to talk to Listeners, what problems are taken to Listeners, prisoners’ experiences of using the service, prisoners’ reasons for not talking to Listeners, and prison officers’ experiences of working with Listeners and facilitating the scheme. The current research project was designed to generate this kind of data through a survey of prisoners, and interviews with prisoners, Listeners and prison staff, which could inform the development of the Listener scheme by both Samaritans and the Prison Service. In particular it was considered important that the service-user perspective was considered. The second challenge faced by research on Samaritans’ services is the complexity of the issue of suicide which makes it difficult to establish a link between a particular intervention or source of help and rates of suicide and selfharm. Further to this, the danger is to simply focus on the matter of suicide, which results in overlooking the wider benefits and impacts of Listener support, and directs attention away from how the scheme operates in prison. This report first outlines the methodology adopted for the current study with respect to sampling and the adoption of both survey and interview methods of data collection. The key findings are presented with respect to the following areas: prisoners’ knowledge about Listeners, staff and prisoner views towards Listeners, take-up of Listener support by prisoners, usage of Listener support, prisoners’ experiences of talking to Listeners, volunteering as a Listener, conducting Listener work and the impact of the scheme on staff. Finally, the conclusions that can be made are discussed, in addition to a number of recommendations for Samaritans of issues worthy of review, monitoring or further attention.
13
Methodology Methodology This section describes the methodology adopted for the study. The research questions are presented first. This is followed by a description of the sampling and prison selection strategies, and an outline of the survey of prisoners, and the interviews with prisoners, Listeners and prison staff. Ethical issues are discussed next, and finally the characteristics of the prisoner survey sample are provided.
Research questions The objective of the research was to investigate the operation of the Listener scheme in four prisons across England and Wales by drawing out the separate perspectives of prisoners, Listeners and prison staff. The research aimed to answer a number of key questions: 1. How is the Listener scheme perceived, accepted and used by prisoners and prison staff? The views of staff (as facilitators), prisoners (as potential users, or current users of the Listener scheme), and Listeners (as the providers of emotional support) aid an understanding of the use and non-use of the Listeners in different prisons and among different prisoner groups. 2. How do prisoners use the Listener scheme in their patterns of coping and helpseeking? By investigating the help-seeking preferences of prisoners who have and have not spoken to Listeners about problems, and though exploring the views and experiences of prisoners who have talked to Listeners about their problems, the use of the Listener scheme can be understood with the context of the perceived routes of care and sources of support in prisons. 3. How do Listeners perceive their participation in the scheme to have impacted on their lives in prison? Listeners may report experiencing personal changes through the training provided by Samaritans, and their experiences as Listeners in prisons. For example becoming a Listener might be related to more positive relationships with prison staff, or friends and family for example, and Listeners may have adopted skills which influence other areas of their life positively such as work or education.
14
Sampling and prison selection The research adopted sampling and prisons selection strategies sensitive to the specific coping and adaptation processes of different prisoner groups such as females, males and young offenders. A number of key themes emerge in the literature on prisoners coping, adaptation and help-seeking:
Women tend to be imprisoned further away from their home location, and experience particularly acute effects due to separation from their families (Carlen & Worrall, 2006: 125; Walker & Worrall, 2000). There is much research to suggest that women experience imprisonment in unique ways compared with men (Bosworth, 1999; Jiang & Winfree, 2006; Walker & Worrall, 2000).
It has been observed that men are less likely than women to discuss their feelings and emotions in prison (Cowie et al, 2002: 463; Pollack, 2004: 701-2). Women are also claimed to be more likely to talk about problems and seek help from their peers than men (Bosworth, 1999; Carlen, 1983; MIND, 2007)
It has been observed that a barrier to help-seeking by male prisoners may be the negative connotations associated with it, such as appearing weak or emotional in an environment where competitiveness and aggression are common (Deane, Skogstad & Williams, 1999: 66).
Younger prisoners are claimed to exhibit lower levels of help-seeking which could be explained by their lack of ability to articulate their feelings, compared to adults who have more developed social skills (Spain, 2005: 65).
Of concern is the growing number of foreign national prisoners in prisons across England and Wales who now make up 14% of the total prison population (Prison Reform Trust, 2010). Many will be unaware of the support available to them, and their ability to access such support could be hindered by language or cultural barriers.
In light of the above evidence, four different prison establishments were strategically selected to capture social diversity and specific conditions of the operation of the Listener scheme among prisoners. Table 1 shows the characteristics of each establishment where the research was conducted. In each establishment visited a strategic random sample of prisoners were approached to take part in the survey. The random selection was intended to optimise the chances that prisoners with a range of ethnic backgrounds as well as foreign national prisoners were included in the sample.
15
Table 1 – Characteristics of the four prisons Prison 1
Prison 2
Men
Men
Adult prisoners (with a wing of
Adult prisoners
young offenders)
Operational capacity 1100
Operational capacity – 1000
Public sector
Private sector
Remand and short sentence
Remand and sentenced prisoners
Up to Category B prisoners
prisoners
Any category prisoners
Prison 3
Prison 4
Women
Men
Adult prisoners
Young offenders
Operational capacity – 300
Operational capacity – 500
Private sector
Public sector
Remand and sentenced prisoners
Sentenced prisoners (up to 10
‘Closed’ conditions
years)
‘Closed’ conditions
N.B. ‘Young offenders’ are prisoners aged 18-21 years, and Adults are aged 21 and over. A young offender will be transferred to an adult male prison when they turn 21 if they will be in prison after they are 22. The figure of ‘operational capacity’ has been rounded to the nearest 100 and was current for 2007 at the time when access was being negotiated.
Data sources This research adopted both survey and interview methods; this was further supported by a review of the relevant literature and policy documents. Survey of prisoners (minimum of 70 completed questionnaire obtained in each establishment) – The survey of prisoners explored a number of key areas including:
Demographic and individual variables (e.g. age, ethnicity and sentencing status);
Knowledge about Listeners, sources of knowledge, and positive and negative perceptions of Listeners;
Take-up of the Listener scheme and reasons for non-take-up;
Problems taken to Listeners and outcomes of talking to Listeners;
Prisoners’ help-seeking intentions for different problems from different sources of support.
16
The design of the questionnaire for prisoners was informed by the prison literature and existing quantitative research on the areas of interest (e.g. Liebling, 2004; Moos, 1975; Toch, 1992). Four different self-completion questionnaires were used. The majority of the questions on each questionnaire were the same, however each also had a small number of questions in relation to the specific nature of contact that prisoners previously had with Listeners. This ensured ease of completion for prisoners and avoided the use of more complex questionnaire structures using filter questions. The four questionnaires therefore were designed for the following four groups: 1. Prisoners who had not heard of Listeners 2. Prisoners who had heard of Listeners, but who had never talked to one about a problem 3. Prisoners who had talked to a Listener about a problem in the current prison 4. Prisoners who had talked to a Listener about a problem in another prison To assess the appropriateness and relevance of the questionnaire items for prisoners, it was initially tested through interviews with four prisoners after they had completed a questionnaire in Prison 1 (one prisoner who had not talked to a Listener; one who had talked to a Listener; a young offender aged between 18 and 21; and a prisoner who required the questionnaire to be delivered in an interview format). This provided evidence that prisoners had a clear understanding of the questions asked of them. Although the questionnaire required only that prisoners ticked boxes, many prisoners in fact annotated the questionnaire with further insightful comments. For those who experienced difficulties with reading and/or writing, or who had language difficulties, the questionnaire was offered in a confidential interview format. Semi-structured interviews with prisoners (approximately 3 in each establishment): Interviews were conducted with prisoners who had talked to a Listener about a problem in their current or in a previous prison. These prisoners volunteered to be interviewed on a detachable page included in the questionnaire. The following areas were explored in the interviews:
The circumstances under which prisoners talk to Listeners;
Experiences of accessing and using the Listener scheme, and any issues or problems encountered;
Other sources of support considered or used;
Outcomes and issues associated with seeking Listener support in prison.
17
Semi-structured interviews with Listeners (approximately 3 in each establishment) – Interviews were conducted with Listeners in each prison visited. Efforts were made to recruit Listeners from different areas within the establishment to be interviewed with the assistance of safer custody teams who introduced the researcher; Listeners could therefore be made aware of the research and recruited for interviews. The interviews aimed to explore a number of topics including:
Motivations for becoming a Listener;
Take-up of the Listener scheme by prisoners, strategies adopted by Listeners to encourage take-up, and the range of issues they are called upon to deal with by prisoners and staff;
Experiences of training and support received from Samaritans;
Experiences of supporting other prisoners;
Issues that arise in the operation of the scheme and how they are resolved;
Listeners’ perceptions of how becoming a Listener has impacted on their lives in prisons, and any personal changes experienced as a result of the training and role they adopt.
Semi-structured interviews with prison staff (approximately 3 in each establishment) – Interviews were conducted with prison staff to generate knowledge from a stakeholder perspective. Staff might have a variety of different forms of contact with the Listener scheme through managing wings, responding to prisoners’ requests to talk to a Listener or prisoner induction. A range of different staff (including senior officers, a chaplain, induction wing staff and Safer Custody staff) were interviewed. Relevant staff were identified during the research visits via a snowballing strategy. The interviews explored a number of themes including:
Views towards, and experiences of, facilitating the Listener scheme;
Issues encountered in the operation of the Listener scheme;
How the Listener scheme impacts on staff work patterns and responsibilities.
The research design and methodology proved effective during the data collection phase and prisoners, Listeners and prison staff were willing to take part in the research, and provided interesting and insightful accounts of their experiences with the Listener scheme. Table 2 shows the data that was obtained from each establishment.
18
Table 2 – Data obtained from each prison No. of
No. of
No. of interviews
questionnaires
with staff
1
73
3
3
5
2
101
2
5
4
3
73
3
3
4
4
84
4
3
3
Total
331
12
14
16
Prison
interviews with Listeners
No. of interviews with prisoners
Research Ethics3 Prisoners were asked if they had heard of Listeners and if they had ever talked to one about a problem and their response determined which of the four abovementioned questionnaires was provided. Prospective survey respondents were approached at times when they would be in their cells or on their wings to invite them to participate in the research and complete a questionnaire. This enabled the research to be explained to them out of the earshot of other prisoners and prison staff. It was important to ask this in private to avoid the identification of prisoners who had used Listeners through participation in the research. A time for collection of completed questionnaires was arranged and all completed questionnaires were collected and left the establishment in sealed envelopes. All prisoners, Listeners and prison staff interviewed were provided with information sheets and a verbal explanation of the research which assured them about the anonymous and secure storage of data, so that informed consent and permission to record the interview could be obtained. Furthermore, informed consent to take part in the research was obtained from all survey respondents. Where prison staff felt that a prisoner was unable to provide informed consent (for example due to mental health issues, learning difficulties, or language barriers), the individual was not approached to take part in the research. Furthermore, prisoners considered ‘at risk’ of harm to themselves or others as assessed by prison staff4 were also not approached to take part in the research. No prisoner under the age of 18 was
3
Ethical approval for this research was granted by the following bodies: Samaritans, Keele University Ethics Committee, and the Prison Service’s National Research Committee. 4 Including those who were currently or recently on an ACCT (Assessment, Care, Custody, Teamwork) plan and deemed as potentially at risk of suicide or self-harm, or currently in need of support or monitoring by prison staff.
19
approached to take part in the research5. Prisoners who were currently Listeners were not asked to complete the questionnaire and were instead invited to take part in an interview. Prisoners were informed that should any information be disclosed which raised concern about their own or another’s safety, that the researcher was under obligation (in accordance with the prison rules) to disclose this to a member of staff. Further to this, all interviewees had an opportunity to ask questions before, during and after the interview was conducted. Prisoners interviewed about their experiences of talking to Listeners were offered postinterview support during the debrief process in case the interview led them to recount any difficult or painful memories. It was observed however, that prisoners enjoyed taking part in the research and having an opportunity to talk about their experiences.
Characteristics of survey sample A brief overview of the main demographic characteristics of the sample of prisoners obtained in this research is provided here. Although it was not an aim of the prison selection and sampling strategies to obtain a representative sample, this overview enables a comparison to be made with national trends and figures and furthermore, a number of the analyses featured in this report will utilise the sample’s demographic characteristics to identify any trends or differences between different prisoner groups. Table 3 presents the demographic characteristics of the prisoner survey sample. Almost four fifths (77.9%) of the survey respondents were male and the rest (22.1%) were female prisoners. Among the general prison population across England and Wales, female prisoners account for approximately 5% of the total population (Prison Reform Trust, 2010: 24). Just over two thirds of the sample were aged 30 years old or under. The mean age of prisoners in the sample was just over 28 years (28.06). The youngest respondent was 18, and the oldest was 62 years of age. With reference to the ethnic origin of the survey sample, table 3 shows that the majority of the sample (61.9%) classed themselves as ‘White British’. Over a third (38.2%) were from a minority ethnic group. Among the general prison population, less than a third (27%) are from a minority ethnic group. The fact that their representation in the sample is slightly elevated compared to national trends highlights the success of the sampling strategy in ensuring inclusion of these groups in the research. Despite this however, the smaller numbers from each distinct group prevent any further detailed analysis comparing these minority ethnic groups. In line with national trends,
5
Listener schemes are not in operation for ‘juvenile’ prisoners (15-17 year olds).
20
approximately 13% (Prison Reform Trust, 2010: 28) were not born in Britain (13.3%), and furthermore 8.5% of the sample spoke a language other than English as their first language. Table 3 – Demographic characteristics of the prisoner survey sample Demographic characteristic Women
% (n)
n
22.1% (73)
Gender
331 Men
77.9% (285)
18-30 years
68.6% (227)
Age
328 31+ years
30.5% (101)
White British
61.9% (205)
White European
4.5% (15)
Black
16.6% (55)
Asian
9.4% (31)
Mixed
4.5% (15)
Other
2.4% (8)
Ethnicity
329
English
90.6% (300)
First language
328 Not English
8.5% (28)
Britain
86.4% (286)
Not Britain
13.3% (44)
Not first time
58.0% (192)
First time
42.0% (139)
Un-sentenced
28.4% (94)
Sentenced
70.1% (232)
Country of birth
330
Prior imprisonment
331
Sentencing status
326
On average, prisoners in the total sample had spent approximately seven months in prison. The majority of the respondents (70.1%) had been sentenced. The rest of the sample (28.4%) had not yet been sentenced; among the general prison population approximately 15% of prisoners are un-sentenced and on remand. Of the 230 (71.2%) of prisoners who had been sentenced, just over a fifth (22.7%) were serving shorter sentences of one year or
21
less, approximately half were serving sentences of one to four years, and just over a quarter (27%) were serving longer sentences of more than four years. Finally, just over two fifths (42%) of the sample of prisoners were ‘first timers’ i.e. it was the first term of imprisonment they had served, and the remainder had been in prison before their current term of imprisonment.
22
Findings 1 – Knowledge about Listeners This first section presenting the findings of the research provides the background to prisoners’ perceptions and use of peer support by exploring how prisoners find out about Listeners and what they know about them. This is done primarily by analysing data obtained from the survey of prisoners (n=331) and also where relevant drawing from the accounts provided by interviewees. How prisoners find out about Listeners The first opportunity prisoners have to find out about Listeners is upon entry to prison via reception, and during the initial induction process. The purpose of induction is to allow prisoners time to adjust and adapt to their new environment, and find out information about the processes and facilities in the establishment. In other words, the induction process aims to assist prisoners in their transition to prison life. In addition new arrivals are screened for potential mental health or learning needs for example. Prisoners are provided with a large variety and volume of information about: the prison regime, work and education opportunities, support networks, family visits, purchasing goods, keeping in contact with people on the outside, and healthcare services. Prisoners on induction are under closer supervision and monitoring during these initial days where the risk of suicide is elevated as they adjust to the new environment. However, prisoners may not spend the intended period on the induction for a variety of reasons; if they have been in custody before they might be placed straight onto a normal residential wing; or if a large influx of prisoners has entered the establishment within a short time, there may not be space to accommodate them all on the induction wing for the intended period of time, or even at all. Listener support is seen by the Prison Service as an important aspect of provision for new prisoners and therefore has placed emphasis on their presence during prisoner reception and induction (see Prison Service Order 2700). In each of the four prisons visited for this study, Listeners were claimed to have a presence at reception and induction. These claims were supported by the accounts provided by Listeners and prison staff in the interviews. For example one Listener stated: “Everyone who comes into this prison is aware of the Listeners, what they do and how they can access us.”
23
(Adult male Listener, Prison 1). It was the view of prison staff that Listeners informing prisoners about the availability of Listener support on arrival to prison was very much “part of procedure”: The Listener scheme is explained through the induction process where [prisoners] see a Listener the next morning. And there’s always one available in reception when they first arrive that night. So there’s the option of seeing a Listener straight away when you come in. (Senior officer, Residential wing, Prison 2) Prisoners could find out about Listeners and Listener support available to them via a number of different methods during their time in prison. For example:
Publicity material such as posters, stickers, leaflets or other materials on display in the establishment;
An introduction talk provided by Listeners during prisoners’ first few days in prison (this was claimed to take place in all of the four establishments visited for this research);
Other prisoners or prison staff could tell prisoners about Listeners or recommend that they talk to one.
In addition if it is not their first time in a prison they are likely to already know about Listeners from another establishment, or a previous sentence served at their current establishment. Survey respondents were asked ‘How did you come to know about Listeners?’ and could select from the following options: ‘A member of staff told me about Listeners’ (Staff), ‘Another prisoner told me about Listeners’ (Another prisoner), ‘A Listener explained it to me’ (Listener), ‘I saw a poster about Listeners’ (Advertisement), ‘I know about them from another prison’ (Another prison), or ‘I found out about them another way’ (Other). Respondents were asked to indicate all the ways they found out about Listeners. The data presented in table 4 shows that prisoners most frequently find out about Listeners via publicity material which is on display in prisons (53.1%). This is not surprising as posters were easily observable in each establishment visited, and furthermore, a small number of prisoners mentioned having seen a DVD about Listeners, or a short piece on ‘prisoner TV’.
24
Table 4 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners Source of knowledge
% (n)
Advertisement
53.1% (170)
Staff
46.9% (150)
Another prison
34.4% (110)
Another prisoner
29.4% (94)
Listener
21.3% (68)
Other
9.7% (31)
n=320 N.B. This was a multiple response question. Respondents could tick more than one source of knowledge about Listeners.
The results in table 4 also indicate that just under half (46.9%) are informed about Listeners by a member of staff. Prison staff are a significant source of knowledge about Listeners. Not only that, but prison staff were often reported by prisoners as having recommended Listeners to them when they were feeling low. It is also interesting to note that just under a third (29.4%) had been told about Listeners by another prisoner which suggests that ‘word of mouth’ is also an importance source of knowledge for prisoners. Despite the fact that Listeners had a strong presence on reception and induction in all the establishments visited, just over one fifth (21.3%) of the survey sample claimed to have found out about Listeners via Listeners themselves. It may be that prisoners are not fully aware about Listeners when they first come into contact with them during a period where they are absorbing large volumes of information. Furthermore, these results highlight the role of prison staff as a significant source of knowledge about Listeners compared with other sources of knowledge. When the sources of prisoners’ knowledge about Listeners were analysed according to demographic variables very few significant differences are found (see Appendix 1). With respect to age, prisoners over the age of 30 were significantly less likely to find out about Listeners via another prisoner, or a Listener but where significantly more likely to find out about Listeners via advertising material (see Appendix 1, table A1.1). Women were significantly more likely to find out about Listeners from another prisoner (40.8%) than men (26.0%) (see Appendix 1, table A1.2). This is in line with research which describes the unique nature of women’s imprisonment and the more supportive
25
and social nature of the relations that take place between women, where it is likely that they will recommend to one another potential sources of support. It is also shown that 25% of prisoners for whom English was not their first language found out about Listeners via prison staff, compared with 48.8% of prisoners who spoke English as their first language (see Appendix 1, table A1.4). Prisoners who did not speak English as their first language, were significantly less likely to find out about Listeners via a member of staff, than prisoners for whom English was their first language therefore suggesting that language is important in finding out about Listener support. Only six survey respondents (1.8%) out of the total sample of 331 prisoners claimed to have not heard of Listeners. Four of these prisoners were foreign national prisoners, and did not speak English as their first language. This small sub-group of six prisoners were provided with a brief description of the work of the Listeners and were asked if they would consider talking to a Listener if they had a problem. Four indicated that they would talk to a Listener, which included three of the foreign national prisoners. That such a small proportion of prisoners had not heard of Listeners, highlights the effectiveness of current strategies adopted of raising awareness of Listener support. However, given that two thirds of this small group would consider talking to a Listener if they had a problem, demonstrates the need to ensure that all prisoners know about Listeners and the potential support available to them so that all prisoners can make use of such support if required. The small number of this sub-sample of prisoners prevent any further comparisons of the characteristics of prisoners who had and had not heard of Listeners to be analysed.
What prisoners know about Listeners The approach Samaritans train Listeners to adopt is congruent with Samaritans’ services on the outside, with emphasis on a non-directive, person-centred approach where options are explored. However, the analysis of the survey data revealed that a significant percentage of prisoners saw Listeners as having more informative or advisory capacities. Prisoners were asked ‘What is your idea of what Listeners do?’ to elicit their knowledge of the support offered by Listeners. They could select from the following list: ‘Listeners give information to prisoners about prison life’ (Information), Listeners help prison staff’ (Help staff), ‘Listeners help prisoners to solve personal
26
problems’ (Problem-solving) and ‘Listeners give advice to prisoners’ (Advice). Respondents could indicate more than one idea about what Listeners do. Prisoners most frequently associated Listeners with advice (60.9% (195)) and problem-solving (50.6% (162)). Just over two fifths (42.8% (137)) saw Listeners as a source of information. Furthermore, just under three quarters (74% ((237)) were aware that Listeners were available at any time of the day or night. This highlights that the majority of prisoners were aware of the availability of Listeners, but that there is scope for improving knowledge about their availability. Prisoners annotated the questionnaires with remarks supporting the above findings: One prisoner stated that Listeners “help you with problems you have and give you advice”, another prisoner suggested that Listeners had an “advice and problemsolving” role. It was also suggested that Listeners were on hand to “explain what prison life was like.” Prisoners’ ideas about Listeners support was analysed according to demographic variables (see Appendix 2). Few significant differences were found. Men were significantly more likely to place emphasis on the problem-solving and informational role of Listeners than women prisoners; 46.4% of men compared with 30.6% of women prisoners indicated that they thought Listeners were a source of information (see Appendix 2, table A2.2). The fact that prisoners perceive Listeners as sources of help, advice and information could reflect the perceived outcomes of seeking Listener support. In other words, Listeners are seen as generally helpful individuals. It is also possible that Listeners do in fact adopt a more informative or advisory role. The association of the Listener scheme with Samaritans was noted by a small number of the prisoners interviewed; the link implied that the same principle of confidentiality would be upheld by Listeners: I understand that they are part of the Samaritans in here, that’s who it’s run by, the Samaritans. So their business is confidentiality – that’s what I understand it to be in here as well. So if I want to talk to a prisoner, who won’t talk to others, then I go through them. (Adult male prisoners, Prison 1) You see on the posters about confidentiality, it’s one of the main things that people understand about them. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1)
27
Regardless of any other advisory or problem-solving role prisoners might think Listeners have, confidentiality is a principle that is associated with Samaritans and Listeners by some prisoners.
Summary – Knowledge about Listeners
Most prisoners know about Listeners and have some knowledge about the nature of Listener support.
Only a very small number of prisoners claim to not know about the Listener scheme and support available.
The publicity material displayed in prisons is effective in making prisoners aware of the existence of Listeners.
Prison staff are also a significant source of support about Listeners.
Approximately half of prisoners believe that Listeners offer information and/or advice to prisoners suggesting that prisoners associate Listeners with being helped in prison.
Evidence was found for prisoners associating Samaritans and Listeners with confidentiality.
28
Findings 2 – Views towards Listeners Views towards Listeners and the reputation of the Listener scheme are important areas of consideration as they impact on the take-up of the scheme by prisoners and its facilitation by prison staff. This section moves on to consider the views of prisoners and staff towards Listeners. Firstly, the prisoner survey and interview data is explored to reveal positive and negative perceptions of Listeners among prisoners. Secondly, the interview data obtained from prison staff is analysed with respect to their views towards Listeners.
Prisoner views The questionnaire probed prisoners about their perceptions of Listeners, both positive and negative. Respondents were asked ‘If someone told you the following about Listeners, would you agree or not?’ They were provided with the following statements: ‘Listeners are easy to talk to’ (Easy to talk to), ‘Listeners cannot be trusted’ (Untrustworthy), ‘Listeners have a good reputation in here’ (Good reputation), ‘Listeners push themselves on you’ (Pushy), ‘Listeners are friendly towards prisoners’ (friendly) and ‘Listeners grass on prisoners’ (Informers). Respondents could select from the following options for each statement: ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Strongly disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’. Table 5 shows that positive perceptions of Listeners were more common than negative perceptions among the prisoner survey sample. For example, 68.3% of prisoners agreed or strongly agreed that Listeners were friendly, and 57.2% of prisoners agreed or strongly agreed that Listeners had a good reputation. The quotation below highlights how observing the behaviour of Listeners and assurances of confidentiality, even testing the trustworthiness of Listeners helped prisoners to form positive views and encourage take-up of Listener support: One [Listener] went out and spoke to a prisoner, and I said, “what did he say to you?” And he said, “I can’t tell you it’s confidential.” So that gives me enough to know he’s not going to walk around and go telling people if he’s got this problem or that problem. (Male young offender, Prison 4)
29
30 4.6% (15)
Informers 6.2% (20)
1.5% (5)
8.9% (29)
50.8% (165)
44.0% (143)
47.1% (153)
Agree
26.5% (86)
46.5% (151)
34.5% (112)
4.0% (13)
8.6% (28)
6.2% (20)
Disagree
14.8% (48)
20.3% (66)
12.9% (42)
1.2% (4)
1.5% (5)
1.5% (5)
disagree
Strongly
48.0% (156)
29.8% (97)
36.9% (120)
26.5% (86)
32.6% (106)
25.8% (84)
Don’t know
n=325 N.B. Dark shading highlights positive perceptions of Listeners, and light shading highlights negative perceptions of Listeners.
1.8% (6)
Pushy
17.5% (57)
Friendly
6.8% (22)
13.2% (43)
Good reputation
Untrustworthy
19.4% (63)
Easy to talk to
agree
Strongly
Table 5 – Positive and negative views towards Listeners
Furthermore prisoners felt reassured by the degree of training prisoners had to undertake to become a Listener: You can trust them, and I know that Listeners when they do their job. They’ve got to go through some kind of period to begin with, I think it’s just to show that they are trustworthy and stuff. So I think they have to go through a trial basis. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) The degree of training and monitoring that Listeners are subject to therefore encouraged prisoners to trust Listeners. The survey data presented in table 5 further highlights that the majority of prisoners do not hold negative views towards Listeners. 10.8% of surveyed prisoners agreed or strongly agreed that Listeners were informers, and a slightly higher percentage felt that Listeners were untrustworthy as indicated by the 15.7% who agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. One prisoner annotated the questionnaire stating that “[Listeners are] drug runners and cannot be trusted in some jails”. A further comment by another prisoner suggested that perceptions of individual Listeners were also important: “[Here there is] only one good Listener who is mature”. It was evident from both the survey and interview data that not all prisoners trusted or would make use of Listeners: You do hear people talk about the Listeners that they are grasses, but that’s their perspective of someone. We are all individuals at the end of the day and we think different thoughts about different things. It’s just their mind-set, they believe that the Listeners are there to get information from them and to pass it on to the officers, but that’s not my opinion of them. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) Trust in the confidentiality of Listeners was therefore of central importance with respect to negative views of Listeners. A lack of trust caused a barrier to talking to Listeners and negative perceptions when trust was absent. A small number of the prisoners who had talked to Listeners were under the impression that there were ‘restrictions’ to confidentiality with respect to suicide and self-harm. Overall, these results suggest that positive perceptions of Listeners are more common than negative perceptions and that trust and confidentiality plays an important role in the formation of positive and negative views towards Listeners. However, table 5 also
31
draws attention to a further important issue when analysing prisoners’ perceptions of Listeners. Across all of the items, approximately a third of prisoners failed to indicate positive or negative views about Listeners for each of the statements. Annotations to the questionnaires revealed why prisoners felt unable to indicate positive or negative views; one questionnaire respondent said “I don’t know as we don’t have them on this wing” and another prisoner noted “I’ve never talked to a Listener so can’t comment”. These comments suggest that social contact with Listeners played an important role in the formation of views about them, and in encouraging take-up of Listener support. The survey data was explored further by comparing positive and negative perceptions among different prisoner groups. For this, two overall measures of positive and negative perceptions were created (see Appendix 3 for a description of these aggregate measures). No significant differences with respect to positive or negative perceptions of Listeners between men and women prisoners, between those who have been in prison before or not, and between prisoners who are sentenced and unsentenced (see Appendix 3, table A3.3). However, prisoners who spoke English as their first language were significantly more likely to have positive perceptions and significantly less likely to have negative perceptions than those who did not speak English as their first language. Furthermore, prisoners born in Britain were significantly more likely to have positive perceptions of Listeners and significantly less likely to have negative perceptions than prisoners who had not been born in Britain. The findings suggest that language barriers, and potentially also cultural issues, may inhibit more positive attitudes towards Listeners. A series of correlations conducted found no relationship between positive or negative perceptions of Listeners with age, and with the number of months prisoners had spent in their current prison (see Appendix 3, table A3.4).
Staff views All of the staff interviewed expressed positive views about the Listener scheme and often described Listeners as model prisoners who were well-behaved and who had made a significant contribution to the prison environment. Staff felt that Listeners were prisoners who were coping with prison better or who were ‘turning their lives around’ as the following quotations illustrate:
32
When I first met [name of Listener] that was in Separation and Care, she used to selfharm, and she was very withdrawn, had got a lot of problems. She applied to be a Listener and she got through and it changed her completely. She was so much more confident and she came off her ACCT book. (Prison officer, Safer Custody, Prison 3) I suppose it develops their confidence actually. And it helps with their maturity, responsibilities, it’s just another feather in their cap towards becoming better people, taking on more responsibility and wanting to help. It has turned a lot of people round. (Senior officer, Residential wing, Prison 4) They have been well behaved on the wings; they’ve been confident. When I’ve said no to something, instead of flaring up, or starting to shout, they have gone away, and then come back and argued it in a sensible matter, in a normal human fashion. As opposed to if they hadn’t had that course [Listener Initial Training] they would have been blaring and screaming without using people skills. (Prison officer, Residential wing, Prison 3) These quotations suggest that becoming a Listener helped prisoners to become more effective communicators and demonstrated that they were taking steps to improve themselves. A small number of prison staff described how Listeners had proved themselves and demonstrated to staff they were skilled and could be trusted as the following prison officer suggests: At first I was like quite surprised. I thought, “Prisoners? Doing this?” I think that’s going to be anyone’s reaction when you are new in a prison, until you see them and they prove themselves, and then you realise they are actually very good. (Prison officer, Lifer wing, Prison 3) Staff often reported selecting Listeners who they knew, who tended to be in close proximity, and like prisoners were also suspicious of Listeners from other wings who they did not know well. Using a Listener on the wing they were working on posed less of a security risk. As will be discussed later, the confidentiality that Listeners adhere to meant that staff felt it was important to be able to trust Listeners and were sometimes suspicious of their activities. As a result, staff explained that the reputation of Listeners
33
was fragile and that where trust had been broken by one Listener, this had an impact on the reputation of Listeners as a whole: What happens is that some of the Listeners use [their] freedom to go and see their mates, pass information – not Listener information or Samaritan information - just general chit-chat information from one wing to another. Some staff see this happening and that de-values the process. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 2) Furthermore, it was recognised that some staff struggled with the concept of the Listener scheme and found it difficult to accept and support: I would say quite a lot of staff, they know about the Listeners, they know where they are, but they just see them as prisoners. They just cannot get it out of their head that they are prisoners. They treat them like prisoners, and that they shouldn’t be allowed to do this, that and the other, and there is a lot of conflict there. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 2) I suppose [I] initially [felt] a little bit of trepidation because you think, well prison staff are trained in security. Having Listeners talk to prisoners about things that are confidential and not being allowed to tell us seemed strange. And even now, I dare say there are probably some staff who don’t trust Listeners. But having been involved in it a long time, [I think] it’s a brilliant scheme, fantastic. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) Thus, whilst positive views about Listeners are common among prison staff, there is still room for improving views and awareness of the work and approach of Samaritans and Listeners.
Summary – Views towards Listeners
Positive perceptions of Listeners are much more common than negative perceptions among prisoners. This suggests that Listeners have a good reputation among potential callers.
34
Perceptions of trustworthiness and confidentiality were important in the formation of views towards Listeners among prisoners.
Prisoners who had not had social contact with Listeners felt unable to indicate positive or negative views about Listeners
The finding that approximately a third of prisoners were unable to indicate positive or negative perceptions of Listeners highlights the importance of promoting prisoner knowledge of the support available from Listeners by increasing opportunities for social contact between prisoners and Listeners.
Staff expressed positive views about Listeners and the scheme, however it was recognised that some staff found it difficult to accept and support the scheme.
Staff highlighted that the reputation of the scheme was fragile and that in the interests of security that they preferred to call upon particular Listeners, who they trusted, to respond to prisoners.
35
Findings 3 – TakeTake-up of Listener support This section begins to explore factors that influence help-seeking from Listeners in the context of their overall patterns of help-seeking for different problems from different sources of support. Figure 1 shows that the majority (81.0%) of the total sample of prisoners knew about Listeners but had not talked to one about a problem. Figure 1 – Take-up of the Listener scheme
n=331
It can also be noted that the levels of take-up of the Listener scheme were consistent across all four establishments where the research was conducted (see Appendix 4). Findings section 4 explores patterns of actual usage of the Listeners among different prisoner groups in more depth. However, the data presented below begin to explore prisoners’ help-seeking intentions and the factors that encourage or hinder take-up of Listener support.
36
Patterns of help-seeking by prisoners This first discussion sets the overall context in which seeking help from Listeners takes place by considering prisoners’ help-seeking preferences. Survey respondents were questioned about which problems they would seek support for and to whom they would go to, for six different problems. They were asked: “Imagine that you have the kind of problems listed below. Who would you go to for help?” They were presented with the following different types of problems: ‘Problems with my life outside prison’ (Outside problems); ‘Problems with prison staff or other prisoners’ (Inside problems); ‘Drug or alcohol problems’ (Substance misuse problems); ‘What I have done to other people’ (Offence problems); ‘What I can do to change my life’ (Changing life problems); and ‘Feeling low, upset or depressed’ (Emotional or mental health problems). Prisoners could select ‘Listeners’, ‘other prisoners’, ‘prison officers or prison staff’, and ‘partner, friends or family’ for each of the six problems. Respondents could tick more than one source of support for each type of problem. Table 6 shows that the help-seeking preferences of prisoners, is strongly influenced by the nature of the problem. Prisoners are more likely to select sources of support inside prison (i.e. prison officers or staff and prisoners) for ‘inside problems’ (see light shading on table 6) and are more likely to select sources of support outside prison for problems related to the outside (see dark shading on table 6).6 For ‘inside problems’, 62.9% survey respondents indicated that they preferred prison staff and prisoners compared with 16.7% who would seek help from people on the outside. 51.6% of survey respondents indicated that they would turn to people on the outside for ‘outside problems’, compared with 29.1% who would turn to prison officers or staff and prisoners. Similarly, people on the outside were favoured by 57.6% of the sample for ‘changing life problems’. This is logical since life is more realistically changed on the outside. Prisoners indicated a slight preference for inside sources of support over outside sources of support for substance misuse problems. Whilst substance misuse problems might begin outside and continue for prisoners on their release, the impact of the prison environment might create or worsen problems, and moreover, prisoners have access to drug treatment programmes in prison which explains the role of both inside and outside sources of support. 6
Whilst Listeners can be considered a source of support inside prison, they are also prisoners, and therefore the analysis of intentions to seek help from Listeners is considered separately from the data on other sources of support inside prison.
37
38 11.3% (36)
29.9% (95)
317
29.4% (94)
320
299
29.4% (88)
9.7% (29)
11.7% (35)
36.8% (110)
33.4% (100)
Substance misuse problems
310
42.9% (133)
12.3% (38)
14.2% (44)
14.5% (45)
32.9% (102)
Offence problems
314
21.0% (66)
11.1% (35)
13.1% (41)
28.3% (89)
57.6% (181)
Changing life problems
312
28.8% (90)
20.2% (63)
21.2% (66)
22.8% (71)
42.6% (131)
Emotional or mental health problems
N. B. This was a multiple response question. Respondents could tick more than one source of support for each problem. Dark shading highlights the results with respect to sources of support on the outside, and light shading highlights results with respect to sources of support inside prison. Listeners are considered separately from sources of support inside prison as they are also prisoners.
n
Would not seek help
Listeners
12.8% (41)
24.2% (77)
15.3% (49)
Prisoners
38.7% (123)
13.8% (44)
Prison officers or staff
16.7% (53)
51.6% (165)
Inside problems
People on the outside
Outside problems
Table 6 –Help-seeking intentions: Types of problems and sources of support
Overall, these results suggest that prisoners target the source of support most likely to be able to help them for the specific problem they are experiencing.7 In other words, help-seeking is problem-driven. For ‘offence problems’ there is a less clear picture over favoured sources of support: 32.9% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek help from people on the outside, compared with 28.0% who would seek help from inside sources of support. Hence, both inside and outside sources of support appear to play an equally important role. Prisoners can address these problems through offending behaviour programmes in prison for example, but that is only part of the problem as offending takes place on the outside. Therefore prisoners seek out so sources of support from both inside and outside of prison. For ‘emotional or mental health problems’ table 6 shows that there is an equal split between inside sources of support (44.0%) and sources of support on the outside (42.6%). Both inside and outside sources of support are important here. Prisoners already have established emotionally supportive relationships with people on the outside. Additionally, while in prison, prisoners form relationships with staff and prisoners and may seek out support to people in close proximity to them and at times where contact with the outside is both restricted and limited. Listeners were the least favoured source of support for all types of problems with approximately 10-13% of respondents indicating that they would seek help from Listeners for most of the problems. When the problems most frequently taken to each source of support in table 6 are considered the above findings are further reinforced. People on the outside are most frequently seen as a source of support for ‘outside problems’ and ‘changing life problems’. Regardless of whether staff and prisoner groups are considered separately or together, sources of support on the inside are favoured for ‘inside problems’. The second most common problem prisoners would take to staff is ‘substance misuse problems’, however the second most common problem would take to prisoners is ‘emotional or mental health problems’. This shows that staff are more likely to be seen as a form of practical help and that prisoners are more likely to be seen as a source of emotional support. ‘Emotional or mental health problems’ are where the role of 7
7 For the purposes of these analyses, partners, friends and family were considered ‘outside’ sources of support and the remaining groups were considered ‘inside’ sources of support. However, it is recognised that some may also be sources of support available on the outside (e.g. doctors, citizen’s advice bureau, mental health nurses). These sources of support are more proactive, and theoretically more readily available to prisoners inside than outside and are therefore categorised as ‘inside’ sources of support.
39
prisoners, and Listeners, is enhanced compared with the other types of problems. Hence, the role of peers is particularly important for problems of an emotional nature, and we see a small role for peers overall across all problems. The problem most likely to be taken to Listeners was ‘emotional or mental health problems – 20.2% of the survey sample would talk to a Listener about these problems, and this is consistent with Samaritans’ services on the outside and the purpose of the Listener scheme, and suggests that prisoners identify Listener support with the type of support that is provided on the outside. Approximately a third of prisoners would not seek help at all for each of the six problems, although the figure for ‘offence problems’ is slightly higher compared to the others. Whilst this indicates that there is room for increasing take-up of all sources of support, including Listeners, for each problem, there is a need to generate more knowledge on alternative coping responses to help-seeking by prisoners. Furthermore, the interview data explored in subsequent sections of this report suggests that a lack of help-seeking does not necessarily suggest that a prisoner has not received support or accessed it in more informal ways. The above survey data were also analysed to identify any demographic differences in prisoners’ help-seeking. A measure of prisoners’ overall levels of intentions to seek help was created (see Appendix 5 for a description of how the aggregate measure was created and descriptive statistics). No significant age differences in overall levels of help-seeking. But women report significantly higher levels of help-seeking intentions than men (see Appendix 5, table A5.2). Furthermore, prisoners for whom English is not their first language indicate significantly lower levels of help-seeking intentions than those for whom English is their first language. Once again we see that there is a language barrier in access to support. The interviews with prisoners revealed that confidentiality and trust were clearly important aspects facilitating the disclosure of problems to any source of support. For example, two prisoners explained: It’s very hard to trust a person isn’t it. […] If you haven’t got trust, what have you got? You’ve got nothing. (Adult female prisoner 4, Prison 3)
40
I trust my personal officer. But other than that, no. I have known officers and have told them something in confidence, and then I’ve heard them telling someone else, and that’s breaking trust really isn’t it? (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) The second quotation highlights that an important consideration for prisoners when help-seeking is knowing the probable outcomes of disclosing problems, and trusting that the knowledge the source of support will acquire will be dealt with appropriately. When it came to seeking help from other prisoners, interviewees explained that they were proactive in reaching out to one another when they saw someone in need of support: If I am seen not talking to anyone and sitting in a cell on my own, or I don’t look happy, certain people sometimes will come up to me and are like “alright mate, do you want to talk?” Or they even just come up to you and get you out for a game of cards. Just so you are not sitting there on your own. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) Mutual support, and reaching out to one another, was particularly pertinent in the women’s prison visited for this study. These findings reinforce that a lack of helpseeking does not necessarily reflect a deficit of support. They also reinforce that trust is a central concern for prisoners when making decisions about seeking help.
Reasons for non-take up of Listener support As highlighted above, 81.0% (268) of the survey sample had heard of Listeners but not talked to one. This subgroup of prisoners who had not talked to a Listener, were asked ‘Why have you not talked to a Listener about a problem while you have been in prison?’ and were provided with the following options: ‘I do not feel like talking to Listeners’ (Do not feel like talking), ‘I do not trust Listeners’ (Lack of trust in Listeners), ‘I worry what other prisoners will think’ (Concerned about image), ‘I had no problem I would have talked to Listeners about’ (Not needed Listener support) and ‘I never talk to anyone about my problems’ (Does not talk about problems).
41
Table 7 - Prisoners’ reasons for not talking to Listeners Reason for not talking to a Listener
% (n)
Not needed Listener support
49.2% (128)
Prefer other sources
27.3% (71)
Does not talk about problems
14.6% (38)
Lack of trust in Listeners
12.3% (32)
Concerned about image
3.8% (10)
n=236 N.B. This was a multiple response question. Respondents could select more than one reason why they had not talked to a Listener.
The most common reason for not talking to Listeners indicated by almost a half of this subgroup (49.2%) was because they did not feel they had a problem they would talk to a Listener about. Less than a third (27.3%) indicated that they preferred other sources of support to Listeners, and 14.6% indicated that they preferred not to talk about their problems. A reason for a lack of willingness to talk to Listeners is made clearer by two prisoners who annotated their questionnaires with further comments, the first of which stated “I never talk to anyone about my problems that I don’t know.” The second prisoner said: I am generally a very happy individual but I guess even if I weren’t I would feel embarrassed about spilling my feelings out to a Listener as I don’t feel comfortable talking openly to anyone I don’t know. (Prisoner survey respondent, Prison 1) Interviewed prisoners also indicated that it was important for prisoners to know a Listener or have one on their wing who they could become familiar with before talking to them: I think that, people would use Listeners on this wing, but at the minute we haven’t got one on this wing. A lot of them come and talk to me about their problems because I am sort of like the wing representative. (Adult male prisoners, Prison 1)
42
Therefore, a barrier to seeking help from Listeners, is not knowing a Listener. There was some evidence in prisoners’ responses for some issues relating to trust of Listeners as 12.3% indicated that they had not spoken with a Listener because they did not trust them. Only a small percentage (3.8%) had not talked to a Listener out of concern about what other prisoners would think about them and receiving support from Listeners. The help-seeking intentions of prisoners who had not talked to Listeners were analysed, this sub-group were asked ‘Is there anyone else you would talk to about your problems?’ Table 8 shows that prisoners who have not talked to Listeners tend to indicate an overwhelming preference for outside sources of support (72.2%). Another group who 34.8% of this sub-group would turn to is other prisoners. This demonstrates that these prisoners are not necessarily unlikely to turn to their peers for support more generally.
Table 8 – Help-seeking intentions of prisoners who have not talked to Listeners Source of support
% (n)
Outside sources
72.2% (164)
Prisoners
34.8% (79)
Prison officers
28.2% (64)
Prison Chaplains
25.1% (57)
Counsellors
17.2% (39)
Healthcare
11.9% (27)
Psychologists
10.1% (23)
Other sources
7.5% (17)
n=227 N.B. This was a multiple response question. Respondents could select each source of support they would talk to about their problems.
43
The help-seeking intentions with respect to Listeners were also analysed for prisoners who had not talked to a Listener. Table 9 further reinforces that Listeners associated with emotional or mental health problems. The figures of help-seeking intentions for Listeners of this sub-group are slightly lower than the overall figures presented in table 6, suggesting that these prisoners are slightly less likely to use Listener support. Table 9 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners of prisoners who have not talked to Listeners Problems
% (n)
Outside problems
7.3% (19)
Inside problems
8.1% (21)
Substance misuse problems
7.9% (19)
Offence problems
8.0% (20)
Changing life problems
5.9% (15)
Emotional or mental health problems
12.3% (31)
n=262 N.B This was a multiple response question. Respondents could select each problem they would take to a Listener
Table 9 further illustrates that among prisoners who had not yet talked to Listeners, that some of them would seek help from Listeners if they had particular problems. Therefore it cannot be presumed that all prisoners who have not yet talked Listeners would not do so at all.
Intentions to seek Listener support among prisoners The data discussed here draws from the total sample of surveyed prisoners (n=331), and considers a number of further analyses conducted to determine if there are any differences in the intentions to seek help from Listeners among different prisoner groups (see Appendix 6).
44
Few significant differences were found. Although, significantly more of first time prisoners (17.4%) would seek help from Listeners for ‘offence problems’ compared with prisoners who had been in prison before (8.4%) (see Appendix 6, table A6.6). Furthermore, for ‘offence problems’, ‘changing life problems’ and ‘emotional or mental health problems’ un-sentenced prisoners were almost twice as likely to seek help from Listeners than sentenced prisoners (see Appendix 6, table A6.7). These findings indicate that prisoners who have not yet been sentenced, and to a lesser extent first time prisoners, are more willing to talk to Listeners.
Summary – Take-up of Listener support
The sources of support prisoners indicated that they preferred were strongly influenced by the nature of the problem.
Peers, namely other prisoners and Listeners, are most frequently perceived as a source of support for ‘emotional or mental health problems’.
Whilst Listeners were overall the least favoured sources of support compared with the others, prisoners were most likely to seek support from Listeners for ‘emotional or mental health problems’ which is consistent with the use of Samaritans services on the outside.
The majority of prisoners in the sample had not talked to a Listener about a problem suggesting that there is scope for widening access to, and take-up of, Listener support by prisoners.
Not knowing a Listener was a barrier to take-up of Listener support.
Prisoners who have not talked to a Listener indicated a preference for sources of support outside of prison.
Un-sentenced and first time prisoners were more likely to indicate a willingness to seek help from Listeners for a number of problems.
45
Findings 4 – Patterns of usage usage of Listeners The findings discussed in this fourth section focus on data obtained from the survey respondents who had talked to a Listener about a problem in their current prison (n=45), or in a previous prison (n=12) and the interviews with 16 of them where their experiences were explored in greater depth. The Listener and staff interview data is also drawn from where relevant to illustrate the findings. This section explores usage of Listeners in terms of the problems prisoners take to Listeners, when prisoners talked to Listeners, and the number of times they talked to them. However, the first part of this section considers take-up of the Listener scheme among different prisoner groups by comparing the demographic characteristics of those who had and had not talked to Listeners, drawing from the total sample of surveyed prisoners (n=331).
Actual help-seeking from Listeners by different prisoner groups A number of further analyses were conducted to assess any differences in the levels of take-up of the Listeners scheme by different prisoner groups according to demographic variables (see Appendix 7). It is important to analyse the ability of the Listener scheme to reach different prisoner groups to identify where take-up of Listener support could be encouraged. Few significant differences were found suggesting that the Listener scheme is far reaching and has consistent levels of usage by prisoners regardless of their demographic characteristics. Whilst the figures do appear to suggest that levels of take-up among the female prison population are slightly higher, this finding is not statistically significant (see Appendix 7, table A7.2). Furthermore, no significant differences were found with respect to ethnicity, although it is worthy of note that no ‘White European’ prisoners indicated that they had talked to a Listener, and therefore use among this group may benefit from further exploration, particularly given the recent increase in Eastern European prisoners, as reported by a number of prison staff met during the course of the research (see Appendix 7, table A7.5). However, 19.1% of prisoners for whom English was their first language had spoken to a Listener, compared with 0% of prisoners for whom English
46
was not their first language (see Appendix 7, table A7.3). Language barriers therefore appear to play an important role in help-seeking, with respect to Listeners.
Problems taken to Listeners Prisoners who had talked to Listeners were questioned about the types of problems they took to Listeners. They were asked “What problems have you contacted a Listener about?” Table 10 – Problems taken to Listeners Prisoners who took the problem to Listeners Emotional or mental health problems
78.2% (43)
Outside problems
58.7% (29)
Inside problems
18.2% (10)
Changing life problems
16.4% (9)
Substance misuse problems
12.7% (7)
Offence problems
5.5% (3) n=55
Table 10 shows that the most common motivation for talking to Listeners, for almost four fifths (78.2%) of these prisoners, was ‘emotional or mental health problems’. Over half of the prisoners (58.7%) sought support from a Listener in relation to problems with their life outside prison, and just under a fifth (18.2%) in relation to problems with prison staff or prisoners in the establishment. A quarter (25.5%) of this sub-sample of surveyed prisoners listed additional reasons why they had talked to a Listener, these included: bereavement, self-harm, mental health issues, seeking information about prison, bullying and issues related to sentence length or recall. Another respondent indicated that she spoke to a Listener after their partner had also been imprisoned. In line with the above survey findings the interviews with prisoners who had talked to a Listener about a problem, confirmed that prisoners sought support from Listeners for a
47
wide variety of different problems: for example coping with the shock of imprisonment, bereavement, substance misuse, relationship difficulties, literacy problems and feeling lonely to mention but a few. Self-harming was mentioned more in the women’s prisons visited for the research. These results indicate that Listeners called upon to support prisoners for a wide variety of different problems although it is evident that prisoners most frequently contact a Listener when emotional support is needed. This is consistent with the aims of the Listener scheme and Samaritans’ services more generally.
Patterns of usage of Listeners Survey respondents were asked when they had talked to a Listener. Table 11 shows that Listener support was most frequently accessed by half of the prisoners (50.9%) during their first few days in custody. Further to this, a quarter (25.5%) talked to a Listener after they had been sentenced. This suggests that Listener support is most frequently accessed by prisoners as they adjust to the reality of their imprisonment and/or their sentence. It is well established in the research literature that the initial phase of imprisonment is a high risk time for prisoners, particularly from a suicide prevention perspective. These results indicate that the feelings associated with adapting to prison or coming to terms with a prison sentence prompt prisoners to talk to Listeners. It is important to note here however, that the seemingly small percentage (5.5%) of prisoners who talked to Listeners near to their release, may not be a finding replicated in establishments that are specifically designed for prisoners at the end of their sentences (i.e. male and female ‘open’ prisons). In these establishments, it is likely that this figure would increase where anxiety or distress prior to release is a more relevant and pertinent. It can be concluded from these findings however that in the closed establishments visited (male adult local prisons, closed female and young offender establishments); the initial period of custody appears to be the most crucial time where Listeners need to be available and accessible by prisoners.
48
Table 11 – When prisoners talked to Listeners When prisoners talked to Listeners
% (n)
First few days of imprisonment
50.9% (28)
During trial
14.5% (8)
After sentencing
25.5% (14)
Near to release
5.5% (3)
Daytime
29.9% (16)
Evening
34.5% (19)
Night
30.9% (17)
n=55 N.B. This was a multiple response question. Respondents could select more than one time of day or stage of imprisonment where they had talked to a Listener. Dark shading highlights the stage of prisoners’ imprisonment, and light shading highlights the time of day when Listener support was accessed.
The results from table 11 further indicate that Listener support is most likely to be accessed when prisoners are locked in their cells. Approximately two thirds (65.4%) of prisoners talked to a Listener during the evening or night. During the evenings and nights prisoners are much less active than during the day and they are confined to their cells; during this time they have the time to think about their problems which can cause them distress. Therefore being able to call out a Listener during this time is likely to hold significance for those prisoners who have difficulty coping with it. Whilst the evenings and nights are likely to be the busiest times for Listeners, a third of prisoners (29.1%) also indicated that they had spoken to a Listener about a problem during the day. This indicates that prisoners seek support from Listeners during the day, and that prisoners are possibly accessing Listener support in different areas of the prison (for example during work, education or association). The interviews with the prisoners who had talked to a Listener confirmed that the early phase of imprisonment and time spent in cells were times where Listener support was most likely to be accessed, as the following quotations highlight:
49
I was very down, very depressed. I had been in quite a strong relationship, and obviously I had been ripped away from that, so it was really hard to start with […] And it was all the bad feelings I had when I first came in. […] So I was really down. When you are on your own, in a cell on your own, you do tend to do a lot of thinking – especially if you’ve just come in. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1) It helps to talk about it because if you keep it on your mind you’ll end up blowing up in your cell, and you won’t be able to get to sleep, and it will be on your mind all night, and you end up crazy if you don’t get it off your chest. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) Prisoners explained that problems heightened by time spent in their cells and causing a need to talk. Similar feelings might also be elicited by a change in circumstances such as being put on a new wing, or experiencing drug detox for example: It was about a month [after I came in]. I’d finished the detox within three weeks. I was in a cell with someone who was sleeping pretty much throughout the day and throughout the night. […] I couldn’t get a wink of sleep because of the detox, and I was thinking about everything, just going over it all, and the last year outside. So I needed to talk to someone. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) The prisoners interviewed indicated that feelings prior to seeking out Listener support tend to be characterised by a build-up and a need to let them out, and get them off their chest. It is good to have someone there that understands that you do feel isolated when you are locked behind a door, and that you don’t feel isolated when you are out working. It is good to know as well that there is someone there for you, someone you can turn to. You don’t have to sit and worry, and not eat, and not get anywhere really. Your mind is not really in here with your problems so you are not really moving forward, you are just staying still. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) As the quotation above demonstrates, this is particularly significant given the availability of Listeners at times when other sources of support are not accessible, when prisoners are locked up in cells.
50
Listener support is designed to be short-term, available to prisoners during a period of particular difficulty or distress. Survey respondents were asked how many times they had talked to a Listener about a problem. Figure 2 shoes the number of times prisoners talked to Listeners. Figure 2 – Number of times prisoners talked to Listeners
n=55
Approximately three quarters of prisoners had spoken to a Listener up to three times. Figure 2 shows that Listeners are most commonly called upon to support prisoners for a short duration only such as during a particularly difficult time such as when they initially adjust to custody. Smaller percentages of prisoners talk to Listeners for more sustained periods; approximately one in ten of this group had spoken to a Listener in excess of ten times.
51
Summary – Patterns of usage of Listeners
The evidence suggested that the Listener scheme is far reaching and has consistent levels of usage by different prisoner groups.
The findings suggested that language barriers might inhibit take-up of Listener support.
It is positive that prisoners also approach Listeners to talk about a wide range of problems.
The majority of prisoners who talk to Listeners about problems do so because they are ‘feeling low, upset or depressed – this consistent with the aims of the Listener scheme and Samaritans’ services more generally.
Listener support was most frequently accessed during the early stages of prisoners’ sentences or imprisonment. The feelings associated with adapting to prison, or coming to terms with a prison sentence prompt prisoners to talk to Listeners
Prisoners most frequently access Listeners during the evening and night when they are locked in their cells and are the only source of support prisoners have access to. However a significant proportion of the sample accessed Listeners during the day providing evidence that Listeners are both available and used by prisoners at a variety of different times.
Listener support is usually accessed by prisoners for a short duration which suggests that Listeners play a role in supporting prisoners during a particularly difficult time.
52
Findings 5 – Talking to Listeners about problems This section explores prisoners’ experiences of talking to Listeners about problems mainly drawing from the survey data of the 57 prisoners who had talked to Listeners, and the 16 of them who were interviewed but also drawing from comments made by staff or Listeners where relevant. This section begins by considering the importance of prisoners’ experiences of accessing Listeners. It goes on to explore the positive and negative feelings that prisoners felt after they had talked to a Listener, and their preferences to talk to specific Listeners. Following this, the benefits that prisoners identified as arising from talking to Listeners are discussed in order to identify the value of the Listener scheme for prisoners.
Accessing Listeners Listener support is intended to be confidential, however it is worthy of note that in prison, whilst it cannot be anonymous, because prisoners who talk to Listeners can often be clearly identified by staff who might use that knowledge to indicate that a prisoner has problems and needs closer supervision. How prisoners access Listeners, the barriers they face, and dilemmas it poses, will impact on how and when Listeners are used by prisoners. For example, staff are gatekeepers to many sources of support in prison including Listeners and people on the outside. The interviews with prison staff revealed that they used prisoners’ requests to speak to Listeners as an opportunity to ask prisoners about their problems: If somebody said to me “Can I see a Listener?” I would probably say “Why what’s up, has something happened?” Maybe then, nine times out of ten they might say “I’ve just had some bad news in a letter.” They’d probably tell you, but some of them would say, “Piss off I’m not telling you, it’s got nothing to do with you.” But I’d say most of them would tell you. (Prison officer, Induction wing, Prison 1) I have always asked [a prisoner who requests to speak to a Listener] what the problem is, and if it is something I feel I can help them with, or if they are willing to talk to me, I’ve then played that role and then done my best to help them out as best I can. That
53
doesn’t always work. Sometimes they just don’t want to talk to me. But sometimes they have wanted to talk to me, and I have been able to sort it. Then I’ve said “Do you still want a Listener?” and then they’ve said no they don’t. (Prison officer, Residential wing, Prison 3) Whilst undoubtedly staff were asking out of care and concern for prisoners, this may be seen as intrusive by prisoners who have decided to seek help from Listeners and not other sources of support. When I called for a Listener, it took four or five hours and they turned around and said “Why do you want to talk to the Listener?” I just said I would talk to the Listener when he came. The officer was trying to get it all out of me. […] He weren’t very keen on getting me the Listener to be honest with you. (Male young offender, Prison 4) Prisoners may feel deterred from using Listener support if staff are reluctant to facilitate their request to speak to a Listener, or if staff ask them questions about their problems which they may not wish to discuss with prison staff. It is important to remember that sometimes prisoners did not necessarily request Listener support. A small number of prisoners explained that Listeners had in fact approached them as the following quotation illustrates: When I first came in [the Listener] explained who she was and everything, and I did give a brief, at that time, I did give a brief description of what had happened with my mum and everything, I didn’t really go into detail. Then I went to Church because it was – would have been – my mum’s birthday, and I went to light a candle for her. The Listener was there, and I broke down in church and that’s when she came and you know ‘would you like a hug?’ gave me a hug. That’s when I then went into a bit more depth about what had happened and everything. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) This example highlights how the proactive offer of support by Listeners can sometimes reach prisoners who would not necessarily have accessed the service otherwise.
54
Positive and negative feelings after talking to Listeners Survey respondents were asked about their positive and negative feelings after they had spoken to a Listener. They were presented with a series of statements: ‘I felt hopeful about the future’ (Hope), ‘I felt anxious’ (Anxiety), ‘I felt that I could sort the problem out’ (Mastery), ‘I felt angry’ (Anger) and ‘I felt relieved’ (Relief). Respondents were asked to indicate along a four point scale to show how they felt: with 1 meaning that they ‘Did not feel that way at all’; up to 4 meaning that they ‘Felt that way very much so’. Table 12 – Feelings after talking to Listeners Did not feel
Felt that way
that way at all
very much
1
2
3
4
7.3% (4)
38.2% (21)
41.8% (3)
12.7% (7)
Mastery
21.8% (12)
25.5% (14)
38.2% (21)
14.5% (8)
Relief
14.5% (8)
27.3% (15)
29.1% (16)
29.1% (16)
Anxiety
29.1% (16)
30.9% (17)
21.8% (12)
18.2% (10)
Anger
50.9% (28)
25.5% (14)
10.9% (6)
12.7% (7)
Hope
n=55 N.B. Dark shading highlights positive feelings after talking to a Listener, and light shading highlights negative feelings after talking to a Listener.
Table 12 shows that over half of prisoners felt mastery, hope and relief after talking to Listeners (see dark shading). Prisoners felt supported by Listeners and had confidence in their abilities as the quotations below illustrate: It did help me think about why have I just done all this and it made me realise that, I knew that I’d be leaving the people I loved behind anyway; but he made me realise that in more depth. So it was a bit weird how he sort of knew the right things to say. It was like we had known each other for years, but we hadn’t. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1) She was very understanding, didn’t rush me or make me feel like I was on a time limit of how long I could talk to her. She talked to me and let me confide in her to the extent
55
that I wanted to, and let me talk as long as I wanted to. […] I ended up with a smile on my face and felt a lot more contented, like a weight off my shoulders. It was just the way she was talking to me, made me feel like I wanted to open up to her. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) These prisoners highlight the benefit of being able to off-load and talk to a skilled Listener who could help them to talk about and explore their problems. Furthermore, talking to a Listener enabled prisoners to feel a greater sense of mastery and autonomy over the issues they discussed with Listeners: I left the room feeling a lot better than when I entered the room to be honest with you. And I’ve just accepted that I’ve just got to be positive and do my time and things will work out for me. I have got to remain positive. I got a job in the workshops a couple of days later, [it] took mind off stuff and I was earning a bit of money so I can get some phone credit and phone my family and stuff. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) Further to this, table 12 shows that 40% of this sub-group felt anxiety and 23.6% felt anger after talking to Listeners (see light shading). Not all prisoners found it helpful to talk to a Listener: I didn’t really feel anything to be honest, I was just telling him everything and he was nodding his head saying “yes”, “no” and that. After he said I can’t really tell you what to do he weren’t really all that much help to be honest. I would have liked for him to talk back to me and give advice. (Male young offender, Prison 4) Whilst not all prisoners felt more hopeful or relieved, or were still anxious after talking to a Listener, it must be borne in mind that it is likely to depend on the nature of the problem they talked to Listeners about. Not only that, but these negative feelings and a lack of positive feelings are also consequences of the prison environment. The negative feelings do not necessarily arise out of talking to Listeners and may not be entirely relieved through talking to a Listener. Further to this, talking about problems and feelings is unlikely to be beneficial for all prisoners. Prisoners were asked ‘Thinking of your own experience, would you recommend the Listeners to another prisoner?’ Figure 3 shows that almost two thirds (61.5%) of
56
prisoners would definitely recommend Listeners to other prisoners. A further 15.4% indicated that their recommendation would depend on the specific Listener available. Only a very small percentage (3.8%) would definitely not recommend Listeners. Overall, the results presented in figure 3 indicate that prisoners would recommend the Listeners to others, although for some the recommendation is problem and Listener specific. This supports the assertion that prisoners had positive experiences of Listener support. Figure 3 – Prisoners’ willingness to recommend Listeners to other prisoners
n=52
Preferences to talk to specific Listeners It is the practice of Samaritans and Listeners to put mechanisms in place to guard against dependency or manipulation of volunteers by callers. This means that a rota system is normally in place whereby callers talk to whichever Listeners is ‘on-duty’ or
57
on call when they request to speak to one. The interview data revealed that once a relationship had been established with one Listener, prisoners preferred to receive any further support from the same Listener: I called [Listeners] out two times that week. It wasn’t the same one that came, really it was a bit uncomfortable. I had already explained the problems to one person. It was a bit difficult when the other one came because I had to explain it again. (Young offender prisoner, Prison 4) Prisoners therefore felt more comfortable talking to the same Listener to continue the support they had experienced the first time. It was clear from the accounts of prisoners that a positive experience with one Listener might not necessarily be replicated with another Listener. The Listener who I was speaking to went and broke my confidentiality, and it was all around the wing within like 20 minutes of me talking to him. So I said I never want to speak to him and always spoke to another Listener and got closer with this other Listener….. We’d sit in his cell and have a cup of coffee and a few cigarettes like, and I used to speak to him….. He said, “whatever you say don’t go no further than these four walls, whatever you say stays between us”. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1) Trusting Listeners was not easy and required prisoners to make a leap of faith, as the following prisoner explains: Once you get to know them, you realise that they are not as bad as you thought they were. You’ve got to put – OK not your full trust – but you’ve got to lean to give them a bit of confidence. Everybody is not the same, they are each an individual person. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) It is worthy of note that almost three fifths (58.9%) of this subgroup of prisoners who had talked to Listeners about a problem indicated a preference for talking to the same Listener. This is understandable given the nature of the problems which prisoners take to Listeners and the trusting relationship which develops as the prisoner opens up to the Listener. Earlier findings noted that prisoners formed views and built trust in particular Listeners with whom they had social contact with. In the interests of avoiding
58
the dependency of callers, or risks to volunteers it would not necessarily be beneficial to implement a policy whereby prisoners can request to see the same Listener each time. However it would be of benefit to further explore the mechanisms, and frequency, of follow-up support that Listeners offer prisoners.
The benefits of talking to Listeners Following on from the earlier findings about a build-up of feelings, heightened by confinement in a cell, prompted prisoners to request to speak to a Listener, the interviews with prisoners provided evidence for the cathartic effect of talking to Listeners, as a consequence of the release of feelings. Interviewees talked about the relief of getting problems off their chest, feeling like a weight had been lifted, releasing the pressure, feeling less burdened by their problems, and avoiding bottling their problems up which risked explosions as the following quotations demonstrate: We need to talk, we need to offload at the end of the day. If we bottle it up then sooner or later it is just going to explode. Because I’ve got enough problems, and if I can share, sharing with people helps, it really does. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) To be able to have someone to talk to about your problems, it takes stress off your shoulders. (Male young offender, Prison 4) Staff also recognised the benefits of Listener support for prisoners who could off-load, as the quotation below illustrates: If a boy has got to be banged up, he can release some of his pressure to another lad through talking and it will take his mind off things. Because it is easy for them to get pushed over the edge over stupid little things, even just a small thing like their trainers being lost, and it ends up being such a big thing in their heads. If you get wound up in the night over something really silly, in the morning they come out and it just goes blazing, and they do something really stupid. So I think [the Listener scheme] is a good idea for safety, it calms them down. (Prison officer, Induction, Prison 4)
59
Moreover, having an opportunity to talk through their problems resulted in prisoners feeling heard and understood. This was particularly significant in prison where their daily lives were characterised by powerlessness and a strict routine. Listeners felt that they were in a unique position to be able to understand the concerns and frustrations of other prisoners: The advantage is that we understand, we know where they are coming from. When we speak to them we speak with feeling, in depth. You know, it is not like an onlooker just looking in and making assumptions. We live the life we live, so when an inmate says something, which could just be a little thing you know, we will know what it means to him because we live in the same environment. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) Prisoners interviewed placed emphasis on the importance of feeling understood and acknowledged as people, and of the significance of someone who cares in the prison environment: You know [Listeners] don’t have to do it but they do. […] Someone caring for you while you are in prison, when everyone else is banging on the door and swearing and insulting staff or whatever, so someone who has the frame of mind that they can care for someone else, it makes you feel a hell of a lot better about yourself. It picks you up and puts you in a good space and frame of mind. (Adult male prisoner, Prisoner 2) Listeners are there to help you and to listen to you when other people won’t listen, and some people don’t listen. (Male young offender, Prison 4) There was authenticity to the care and concern exhibited by Listeners because they understood the problems of their callers. It was evident that Listeners also recognised this and actively used their shared experiences and position to help prisoners feel that they could open up about their problems as the prisoner below explains: I did stiffen up at first and couldn’t speak. The [the Listener] told me something that he’d been through which eventually opened me up, and I couldn’t stop speaking. We were in there for about two and a half – three hours just talking. […] It made me more confident to speak to him again if I needed to, which I have done. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1)
60
Listeners’ knowledge of prison life could be used to help their callers feel understood and create conditions where they felt comfortable opening-up. Whilst, in a strict sense, Samaritans and Listeners adopt a strong caller-centred approach, where volunteers do not normally self-disclose, here we see how shared experiences can help create conditions more conducive to opening-up in the prison environment. Some prisoners also reported more practical forms of guidance and assistance being offered by Listeners: [The Listener] said don’t lend stuff off anyone. I had people asking me if I wanted tobacco when I first came in. He said “they’ll make you pay double back” and stuff. So that helped me out because there was people who didn’t speak to a Listener who came in at the same time, and they were on the same wing as me, and they took tobacco and stuff and were getting into loads of debt and had to get moved off and stuff. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 1) Prisoners interviewed explained that gestures of care and support after the ‘call’, reinforced to prisoners the support available from Listeners and was valued. For example: I got a big brown envelope with some paper and a couple of envelopes with a little note saying, “here’s some writing paper – you need to write to your family.” I think there were some stamps as well. And the Listener did that off his own back. So he did think about me. I was in trouble with money and stuff, and I know you do get letters off the prison to send out but they are second class letters and you can only sent out two a week. I got to write more letters than I could have done. (Adult male prisoner, Prison 2) Furthermore, it was particularly significant when Listeners visited a prisoner after having supported them to make sure they were still coping, in need or further support, or would simply say ‘hello’ as they saw each other in different areas of the establishment as one female prisoner explains: Even though she helped me in my room and came and spoke to me and that, when she saw me [she] said hi, and I thought she wouldn’t remember me. You know I
61
thought it was just her job that she was there to help me and that was it; but she was really polite the times that I have seen her you know in passing by. That let you know and feel that they are genuine and really want to help you, and I think that’s what you need – especially in here when you just feel so low that you don’t know where to turn. (Adult female prisoner, Prison 3) The above examples highlight the ways in which Listeners demonstrated to prisoners that they recognised the frustrations and emotional difficulties elicited by imprisonment and prisoners felt that the care and concern from Listeners was genuine as a result of these gestures.
Summary – Talking to Listeners about problems
Prison staff used prisoners’ requests to talk to Listeners as an opportunity to ask them about their problems. This could be experienced as intrusive by prisoners and inhibit them from seeking help from Listeners.
Over half of prisoners who had talked to Listeners reported feeling mastery, hope and relief after the call.
Some prisoners noted the skill of Listeners in helping them to explore their problems and feelings.
Whilst not all prisoners found Listener support beneficial, and whilst not all negative feelings were eradicated, it must be remembered that negative feelings are a consequence of the prison environment and therefore are not necessarily associated with talking to a Listener.
The fact that high proportions of prisoners would recommend Listeners to other prisoners suggests that prisoners had positive experiences of Listener support. For some prisoners, this recommendation would be dependent on the Listener available, or the type of problem.
Almost three fifths of prisoners indicated a preference for talking to the same Listener.
Prisoners’ positive experiences were associated with particular Listeners; a positive experience with one Listener did not mean prisoners felt it would be replicated with another. Prisoners described the benefit of Listener support in
62
terms of a cathartic effect where they could release and off-load their feelings.
Prisoners valued gestures of care and support by Listeners. The ability of Listeners, as peers, to show that they understood and cared about the problems of prisoners, was significant for those who talked to them, and helped them to open-up to Listeners about their problems.
Evidence was found for practical forms of guidance and assistance provided to prisoners by Listeners.
63
Findings 6 – Volunteering as a Listener Although the aim of the Listener scheme is to provide support to prisoners, we now turn to analyse the additional, yet important, impact of Listener work on those prisoners who volunteer to become Listeners themselves. Here the data generated from interviews with 14 Listeners, exploring the impact of being a Listener is the focus. We first briefly consider why prisoners volunteer to become Listeners.
Motivation to become a Listener Survey respondents were asked ‘Would you like to become a Listener yourself?’ Figure 4 shows that 39.0% of prisoners would like to become a Listener, and 31.1% would not. Furthermore, 27.8% were not sure if they would like to become a Listener or not. Prisoners’ willingness to become a Listener was analysed according to demographic variables where a number of notable differences can be identified (see Appendix 8). First, men are approximately three times more likely than women to express a willingness to become Listeners (see Appendix 8, table A8.2). Interestingly, prisoners who have been born in Britain are more likely than those born in another country to be unwilling to become a Listener, whereas foreign national prisoners are more likely to be unsure (see Appendix 8, table A8.4). There also appear to be ethnic differences; for example, 71.4% of Asian prisoners indicated that they would like to become Listeners, compared with 38.9% of Black prisoners and 35.1% of White British prisoners. Furthermore, the analysis of the willingness of different ethnic groups to become Listeners does not suggest that there is less of a willingness to become a Listener among minority ethnic groups (see Appendix 8, table A8.5).
64
Figure 4 – Willingness to become a Listener
n=324 Listeners interviewed were asked to reflect on their motivations to volunteer. Many Listeners described an altruistic concern for other prisoners, often arising from their own prior selfishness or self-centredness in the past. Approximately half of the Listeners interviewed that past experiences such as depression or a close friend or family member going through a period of depression prompted a desire to help others. One Listener explained: I had been sectioned, and coming back into prison – this was not the first time I had been in – wasn’t a great feeling. There were people there for me who I got talking to. I didn’t know they were Listeners at the time, but after talking to them for a while they explained what they did. I thought I might want to do something along the same sort of lines. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2)
65
The Listener role was clearly admired by prisoners and seen as a desirable position to adopt. A small number of Listeners talked about having observed Listeners and admiring their role and the status they had: Upon seeing what the Listeners do, and seeing them around the jail, they were people that you look up to, and I thought that I would like to do that, I would like to walk down like that and be able to help people rather than just take. […] I just kept seeing the Listeners everywhere I went, the stickers and the T-Shirts and the way they was getting treated was different. They were not like any other prisoners. All the other prisoners laugh and joke and go around the jail with no ambition, no drive. But every time you saw a Listener he was smiling and he was always going somewhere. It was kind of like he wasn’t a prisoner, because he always had something to do. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) A senior officer interviewed verified that the Listener role was a desirable role for a prisoner to take on. It’s got a very good reputation among prisoners. It’s held in high regard. I can evidence that by the number of wing applications we have of lads wanting to be Listeners. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) It appears that a willingness to become a Listener is common among prisoners. However, in the female establishment visited, it was acknowledge that they had difficulty in the past: We advertised but we wasn’t really getting any application forms back. So we had an afternoon where Samaritans came in and sat in [the main through area]. They had lots of donuts with them and the Listeners sat with them. The every time prisoners were in free flow, they had a chance to talk to them and fill in a form. I think we had about 80 girls put their name on the list. (Prison officer, Safer Custody, Prison 3)
66
Training from Samaritans Listeners commented extremely positively on the quality of the training they received from Samaritans and how thoroughly it prepared them for the work they were expected to undertake. [The training} is intense. […] You do a lot of work. Some people don’t last the two days. A lot of people end up dropping out because they know they can’t do it. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) In time you realise that the Samaritans’ role plays are generally what you are going to encounter as a Listener. So in that way it was good. The more you did, the more confident you got, the more you learned. You get to know what questions to ask, you can plan it. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) It was evident that Listeners felt more confident and competent as a result of their volunteering, and that their experience of imprisonment had been improved by becoming a Listener. This was an on-going source of motivation and drive: It has given me the confidence to grow in myself. Stuff [that] I wouldn’t have even tried, I have actually now completed. That’s why I am a totally different person. And I am looking forward to life now instead of just living it day by day, I have something to focus on and see what I get out of. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1)
Listeners felt that the training enabled them to become skilled and competent listening ears and communicators, not just with their callers, but with people both inside and outside of prison. For example, some Listeners described an increased awareness of the importance of body language and the tone of their voice in how willing an individual was to open up to them. Listeners learned how to show others that they were paying attention, that they understood, and cared about their problems: The training is vital, you realise afterwards how much the training actually means. It’s the little things, you know eye contact, body language, if you slouch down he’s going think you’re not interested. You have to make good eye contact but not freak them out.
67
So the training is very, very essential, because these people are on the edge. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) I took so much back from that training. You know when they read out a situation to you, I’ve learnt how you ask the right questions, the appropriate questions [and] how you get information out of the contact that you are going to see. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) All of the Listeners interviewed reported generally very positive relationships with prison staff and felt that they were working with prison staff to make the prison environment a more humane and caring one, where there was a reduced chance of suicide: [T]he staff, officers and prison governors, have a different level of respect for me than they would if I was just another prisoner. Because some of the things we do, they understand how difficult it is to do the job that we do, and it’s just they know that we are not just messing about, we are actually trying to help, actively trying to make the prison environment a better place for everyone. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) The majority of staff are absolutely fine with the Listeners and our effort to reduce the levels of suicide and self-harm. Because it is not just the Listeners’ input, it’s the staff input as well. […] We do our bit as inmates to help other inmates, but the staff do their bit as well to listen to us. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) Furthermore, approximately half of the Listeners interviewed reported improved relationships with people on the outside as a direct consequence of their improved communication skills. Despite the emphasis Listeners placed on the skills they had acquired from the training provided by Samaritans, Listeners also highlighted the complexity of the role they adopted by explaining that their learning did not end once they had completed the training:
68
No matter how many role plays that you do, it will not prepare you for the first time that you go out, because it is completely different. And you just cope with it the best way that you can. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) Everyone’s different and if I’m honest there are occasions where speaking to people, you sort of learn as you go along being a Listener. You are pretty much thrown in at the deep end when you first start off, and as long as you just, you know, relax and try to talk to people in a reasonable way, it seems to work. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) It is important to remember that the face-to-face nature of Listener support means that Listeners are directly confronted with the problems of prisoners and that this presents additional challenges to those that Samaritans volunteers would face on the outside. This is explored more fully in section 7.
Positive impact on Listeners Volunteering as a Listener was clearly a significant role to adopt in an environment where prisoners had been stripped of their former roles. It was a source of positive feelings and made Listeners feel valued and appreciated as individuals. This was a direct result of the feedback and responses they received in response to their behaviour. Listeners also reported that by joining the Listener scheme, it had helped them to adopt more socially acceptable roles and change their lives and behaviour in line with the expectations of the role: The minute I joined the Listeners I kind of changed. It’s like putting a suit on for the first time. You kind of feel like somebody, you can walk with your head up high. You’re not just the average scally kid off the scabby estate in a trackie [tracksuit]. People look at you different, and that’s what it was like for me. The Listeners just have people’s respect and trust. That’s a good thing, and I will never lose it or break it. It is an amazing feeling.[…] It’s changed my mind, my heart, my soul, and sent me on a different path from what I was on when I came in. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) It has helped and I have got respect from prison officers […] If you want to be a Listener you want to be a model. You have people around you and you don’t do any
69
bad behaviours. You do good things because other people are watching you, and then in a way you are helping yourself be a better person. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) You are representing your group and the Samaritans. They put a lot of time and trust in you, and as a prisoner that means a lot. So you would never break that time and trust. And like when you are on [duty], you can’t kind of be like messing about if someone’s got a problem, you kind of just like stick with the role. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) Becoming a Listener therefore gave prisoners an incentive to become prisoners who were helpful, respected and who could be trusted. Listeners’ accounts highlighted the importance of becoming a Listener to them and their commitment to the role. A real sense of dedication and purpose was evident in the way Listeners talked about their work. The majority of the Listeners interviewed suggested that becoming a Listener had altered their career aspirations and prompted them to consider mentoring, counselling or social work for example: I’d like at some point to become a probation officer because I truly believe that someone like me, that has gone through a number of years in and out of prison, had a few issues with drugs and drink, I have gone through it enough times to say to somebody “this is what’s happened to me and this is what could happen to you in a few years’ time.” (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) Before I came into doing the Listener work, I wanted to do plumbing. But now I’ve worked with the Listeners and going to listen to people, I wanna do youth work now, actually helping young people who have got into trouble, and help certain things that they are going through. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) In the interviews, Listeners described how helping others with their problems helped them to understand and cope with their own problems: It helps you to understand people more, and understand yourself then. I mean listening to some people can help me understand my own problems sometimes. It’s almost like amateur psychology, you can learn a lot off other people even though it’s somebody else’s problem. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1)
70
Sometimes the callers that you go out to help you, because sometimes they are going through the same thing that you are going through. I know you can’t advise them, we are just there for listening purposes, and understanding. But there [are] some things when you speak to them, and you come out the door and think “she’s helped me” and they’ve not known it. So it works both ways. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) Here we see that listening to the problems of others was a learning process for Listeners which was of particular value as they coped with their own problems.
Summary – Volunteering as a Listener
Evidence was found for a significant interest in becoming Listeners by prisoners. In particular male and Asian prisoners were most likely to indicate that they would like to become Listeners.
Listeners reported that past experiences, such as difficulties in coping, had motivated them to volunteer.
Prisoners see the Listener role as a desirable role to adopt.
Listeners felt that the training provided by Samaritans prepared them well for the job they had to do, however the nature of Listener work meant that they also continued their learning once they had begun to support prisoners.
Listeners felt that improved communication skills were one of the main outcomes of the Listener training. This impacted positively on their relationships with callers, staff and with their families and friends on the outside.
Listeners felt that they had fostered more positive and respectful relationships with prison staff as a result of their volunteering.
Becoming a Listener helped prisoners to adopt more socially acceptable roles.
Many Listeners had career aspirations to work in counselling or social work as a result of their experiences volunteering.
Listeners reported being able to cope with their own problems and their imprisonment better since becoming a Listener.
71
Findings 7 – Listener work Understanding volunteering in prison is important because the prison environment is characterised by a lack of privacy and control over the lives of those individuals confined there. This section considers some of the challenges Listeners face as they conduct their voluntary work in prison where they live alongside those prisoners they support. First, the more proactive aspects of Listener work are discussed; this is followed by a consideration of some of the implications for Listeners of their proximity to their callers. We will also take a closer look at the policy of confidentiality that Listeners are required to adhere to and the implications this has for Listeners conducting their work in prison. Finally, the support systems in place for Listeners and how Listeners felt about these are then considered.
Reaching out to prisoners In line with the findings from the prisoner interview data, Listeners described how they often proactively approached prisoners they considered in need of support. One Listener described watching out for other prisoners as a core part of his role: If I see someone that looks like they are having a hard time, for example if they come from the phone and they look down and I see a tear, and they are wiping their eyes, or they are sitting alone on association, I will approach them and say, “I’m a Listener, and even if you don’t want to speak to a Listener, I’m still here to help, you can talk to me. Remember everything is confidential, you can say as much or as little as you want, just want to let you know that I am here if you need to talk to me.” And you get some good response from that, people do wanna talk, if you give them the opportunity and don’t pressure them into it. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) As a Listener you are always looking out, rather than just waiting for the call, you are looking to see if someone needs you. It’s just a matter of knocking on the door if someone isn’t coming out of their pad, you just knock on the door and say, “Are you alright? Do you want to come up for a brew?” (Adult male Listener, Prison 1)
72
However, it is important to note that Listeners were careful not to be too pushy and recognised that not all prisoners wanted to make use of Listener support, or be seen talking to a Listener in front of others, for fear that it could expose their problems or vulnerability. Listeners therefore often informally socialised with prisoners, as evident in the following accounts: When they [healthcare prisoners] get association, I sit with them in the TV room and hear them out, on ‘social’8 because it’s not like all work and no play. You’ve got to give them something to make them feel normal. You can’t just be there all the time asking them how they feel. There’s listens and there’s socials right? (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) On association we go up to see someone, and see how they are doing, play a game of pool. In here it’s the little things that really do make a big difference. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) This more informal and proactive work conducted by Listeners is not easy to record and will not be reflected in current statistics that are collected by Samaritans. Nevertheless it represents an important aspect of Listener work, that is reported as beneficial by prisoners, staff and Listeners, and deserves recognition.
Proximity to callers The proximity of Listeners and prisoners enabled prisoners to assess individual Listeners as valid sources of support and approach Listeners more informally. As highlighted above, this was a two-way process as Listeners also approached prisoners on a more informal and social basis too. These informal activities blurred the boundaries between the times when a Listener was ‘on-duty’ and ‘off-duty’ and risked overburdening Listeners by the volume of prisoners they were called upon to support as the below quotations highlight:
8
‘Social’ is the term prisoners sometimes refer to when describing their ‘association’ time out of their cells with other prisoners on their wing, which normally takes place during the evenings.
73
It’s like, yeah I’m a Listener but if it’s on the same wing, then they tend to come to your pad all the time and you do need your space sometimes because everyone’s got their own problems, and you can’t put your own problems on the back burner every time [a prisoner] wants help. So you have got to have that space where you can get away from that. It gets too much when people are like coming to your pad all the time just coming by or sitting down. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) A lot of people know that I am a Listener, especially a certain person on our wing, and it’s like “I’m not on duty!” Sometimes it’s a burden to you because you need a break, but you just kind of like all of a sudden get your Listener head on. Sometimes that’s hard, especially if you are not on duty. But you do it; you do it because you need to. Someone out there is in pain. […] Sometimes you think, “no, I can’t do this”, especially when you head is a little bit over run, and then you get a callout and it’s then more like “I’m glad I went to that one.” It’s brilliant. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) This meant that Listeners are not able to retreat or step back from volunteering in the same way that Samaritans volunteers on the outside are able to. Listeners are subject to the on-going difficulties and frustrations associated with prison life and the inability to step back could burden Listeners or lead to an invasion of their privacy at times where they wished to relax and focus on themselves. It also meant that it lead to a blurring of the boundaries of when they were approached as Listeners, or when they were approached as friends and Listeners described slipping in and out of the role as the situation demanded. It was not always clear when they were acting as a Listener, and this could lead them to feel that they were always acting in a Listener capacity: Well, we have the friendships, but I think we are always Listeners. […] I am always talking to people. I probably wouldn’t do it that much if I wasn’t a Listener. Does that make sense? But because I am a Listener, I put myself out there and put myself on offer and then give people that support more often than before, because I feel that is what we are here for. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) This was particularly the case where Listeners were located on wings where prisoner distress was particularly acute (for example health care wings) or where staff had established good relationships with particular Listeners resulting in an over-reliance on
74
those they knew and trusted. One Listener describes a very stressful experience where he was heavily burdened with supporting prisoners on a healthcare wing: I was on call every second I was on [healthcare] for two years. I couldn’t sleep. I think [the officers] used me as much as they could. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) Clearly the presence of Listener support facilitated prison staff in their daily work and it was therefore reassuring for them to offer a trusted Listener to prisoners who they were concerned about. These results highlight that even when Listeners are not on duty, they are regarded as Listeners all the time by both staff and prisoners. A second issue, brought to the fore as a consequence of the proximity Listeners had to their callers and the face-to-face nature of all of their contacts, was the visibility of prisoner distress. This was particularly the case where prisoners were self-harming or who indicated that they were suicidal. This clearly had an impact on Listeners as these quotations demonstrate: I went to see someone, and not mentioning any names of course, they had just cut their wrist, and literally, I was in there five minutes after it had been bandaged up. There was still a bit of blood on his trainer and his bed, and he was standing there holding his bandage. And it’s a bit of a shock to think, “Why? Why would you do that?” But other people have different ways of dealing with things which I might not understand. It is my job to try and be open minded, and help them through a tough time. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) There are the self-harmers, who can …. if I am really honest they can be quite scary. Because you know the person is self-harming, and you can see that they are selfharming, and you then know that they can go back to the cell and they might just selfharm. But he might go a little bit too far and he’s dead. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) Self-harm was a particularly visible message that prisoners were not coping in what is considered a safe and acceptable way. This degree of visibility meant that unlike Samaritans volunteers on the outside, Listeners in prison were much more likely to find out how prisoners coped after talking to them. This led Listeners to feel a real sense of responsibility for the welfare of other prisoners as the following quotations highlight:
75
Sometimes you will see them and they are alright, and sometimes they come crashing back down, and you just think, “Oh no! What am I not doing right?” (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) If you see someone at the night time, and you leave their cell. In the morning if you see them and they are still like that, maybe they have got an injury from the night before, it’s quite difficult, because you think, “what do I do?” You think, maybe, “did I push them over the edge? Did I push them past that point where they wanted to hurt themselves? Or was it just gonna happen anyway?” (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) These quotations reinforce the importance of support systems for Listeners in how they cope with listening to the problems they potentially come into close contact with and live alongside in prison. Additionally, the majority of the Listeners interviewed described how the proximity they had to their callers meant that they felt a tension between simply listening and wishing to do more to assist their callers arising from their knowledge about prison life and the sense of responsibility they felt for their callers. It can be difficult, and although we follow the rules as much as possible, there are occasions where they are slightly bent. We have got to, we can’t help it because obviously that person is going to go away [and] end up getting in a situation which he really shouldn’t be in. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) Some Listeners maintained that they stuck to their non-interventionist role but provided specific forms of help and assistance to other prisoners that technically could be considered as part of their listening role. For example, Listeners described how they helped and guided prisoners in subtle ways: We say to [callers] “If you want, I will speak to the staff on your behalf about this problem.” That’s not because you’re the world’s expert on whatever it is bothering them. It’s that they might not be able to speak to staff, their vocabulary might not be up to scratch, they might not know the way to come across and explain themselves. (Adult male Listener, Prison 1)
76
Well we are mainly there to just listen – obviously! Sometimes listening isn’t enough, I tend to go off a little bit and sometimes offer advice, possible solutions. I never sort of say to them “this is what you have to do” I just say have you thought about maybe trying this. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Listeners felt it was necessary to stretch the boundaries of the support they offered because of the proximity to their callers. Finally, one further issue that arose out of living in close proximity to their callers, was the pressures that Listeners could be subject to as prisoners. This is highlighted by the fact that particular groups of prisoners are disliked by other prisoners, they considered low in the prisoner hierarchy, and are often separated on different wings for their own protection. Some Listeners described how it was particularly difficult supporting prisoners who had committed crimes of a sexual nature: Sometimes the things that you hear, you probably have your own opinion on what you think about it, and you have to keep your own opinions to yourself and just be there. So that alone is a challenge, having to – whether you like it or not – just take it. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) Whilst many Listeners were able to suspend their judgement and take the call, for a small number of Listeners it was not always possible to do this when they knew the nature of the crime committed by the caller: You might go through [with] the call, and somebody has told you something about their crime, that you might not agree with, or you definitely don’t agree with, and it takes a big person to say “I do not agree with what you just told me, but I am going to ignore it, I didn’t hear it, don’t say it again.” Some people would just react to it straight away. You hear a lot of things listening, and sometimes you just have to think, “can I deal with it in the right way, or is it gonna get the better of me.” […] Abuse is … the big one. If someone mentions something about abuse, sexual, I don’t want to hear it, sorry. I know they’ve got problems but I am going to give them the Samaritans phone. I can’t hear it, sorry. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4)
77
The dilemma faced by the Listener quoted above shows how it is a challenge for Listeners to be non-judgemental when their calls are all face-to-face and when they live in the same environment as those they support.
Confidentiality As highlighted in the background section of this report, the policy of confidentiality has not been easy for staff to accept and has sometimes been met with resistance. Whilst it is accepted at a national level, and is generally accepted by staff at a local level too, the interviews with prisoners and Listeners revealed that there is room for improving awareness among staff about Listener confidentiality. Some staff placed emphasis on the centrality of complete confidentiality: [Confidentiality] is just something we’ve come to terms with over the years. We understand why and just accept it really. We understand that that’s the way it has to be, because you start breaking their confidence, the system will break down and won’t work because the lad won’t trust them. (Prison officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) Whilst the logic of confidentiality is understood and advocated by many prison staff, for other staff its practice is challenging and not easy to accept when they are responsible for the well-being of prisoners: As a manager I have called one of the Listeners into the office and tried to get some information. If there is some information they discuss with their clients, then they won’t even mention it to the senior officer or the wing manager because they feel it is breaching the roles. I respect them for that. But sometimes as a manager you need to know what the situation with prisoners is, because manage them, and need to know what is going on, especially when they are on an ACCT document. (Senior officer, residential wing, Prison 2) Not all staff fully understood the policy of confidentiality that Samaritans and Listeners adopt and suggested that Listeners signposted them to prisoners who were potentially at risk. This was not considered a breach of confidentiality as no detail was being disclosed to staff:
78
There’s sort of like a secrecy thing with the Listeners. I’m sure that I have been in some meeting somewhere, where we were told that [Listeners] are not allowed to tell you unless it’s of an escape, or attacking an officer or something like that. We’ve been lucky on [this wing], if he [Listener] thought [a prisoner] was going to do something you know he’d tell us. If the lad said “I’m going to hang myself tonight”, perhaps he might not say – “he’s gonna hang himself tonight”, but he might say “I’d keep an eye on him tonight”. So there’s a way round of saying things isn’t there. (Prison officer, Induction, Prison 1) We had a lad on here, and he requested a Listener a few days in a row. So I said to one of my Listeners, “Is he abusing you? Or does he really have problems?” And he kind of like closed off, and I said “I am not asking what he said”, and as soon as he realised I’m not prying he said, “No his problems are real.” And that was it. […] You can kind of tell by the reaction of the Listeners when you open up and say, “right, I’ve got prisoner so and so has requested a Listener”, and they either go, “OK” or “uh OK” and roll their eyes. You know so you can kind of tell whether the users are abusing or whether it is genuine. (Prison officer, Residential wing, Prison 4) If there are any serious problems they will let us know. I have had Listeners come up to me and say “You need to keep an eye on him.” (Prison officer, induction wing, Prison 4) Signposting was justified on the grounds that it protected Listeners from misuse and ensured the safety of vulnerable prisoners in need of monitoring and further support. Listeners described how they were sometimes put under pressure by prison staff to disclose the nature of their contact with prisoners in more overt ways as the following quotation demonstrates: “Are they OK? What were they talking about What were you saying to them” And we just say, “no comment”, we can’t say anything. But I think that was because we were new. I think they do it with all the new [Listeners]. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3)
79
This quotation raises concern as it implies that staff might try to influence new Listeners in order to obtain confidential information. Unfortunately confidentiality incites suspicion among prison staff who are concerned with the security of the prison and well-being of prisoners: There was one lad, he gave us a call, and because we are so confident with him and he started talking to us, [prison staff] think we are just friends. So they stop me going to him, which is wrong because when I last saw him, he said he sometimes thinks of doing things to himself and that he doesn’t want to talk to anyone else but me. The officers ain’t happy with that. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Staff might be cautious or restrict Listeners’ access to their callers where they are suspicious as the nature of the calls. Furthermore, the policy of confidentiality meant that staff felt they were not fully aware of the nature of Listener work and their contact with both prisoners and Samaritans. They explained that it resulted in them not being able to fully explain exactly what the Listener role consisted of. The only thing I don’t like is that I am not allowed to sit in with the Listeners during the training because it’s confidential. Now, my problem is, alright I have a job description of what the lads do, but I’m afraid for me to be able to challenge staff, I need to know what the Listeners’ training is. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) The findings presented here suggest that staff would benefit from greater clarity about the policy of confidentiality and that the issue of signposting is worthy of further attention by Samaritans.
Support for Listeners It is important to remember that the challenges faced by Listeners, arising out of the close proximity they live to their callers outlined in the previous section, are heightened by the policy of confidentiality that they are expected to adhere to. One Listener explains:
80
With listening to people, and getting to know everything, and keeping it all confidential, it is quite hard. The majority have the normal problems staying in a prison. But some, if they have serious issues, like with their family, and they’re feeling lonely, and they try suicide or self-harm … you know, you have got all of the burden. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) We are all human, we’ve all got feelings. But at that moment in time, your feelings get put to one side and you listen to their problem, and you offer them some emotional support for what they are going through. And after the call out you might feel so upset because you have just heard something that has brought back old memories. That’s when you have got your fellow colleagues, your fellow Listeners that you can go and talk to, and you can cry your heart out, because we then become the caller. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) Listeners therefore placed emphasis on how it was important to seek support from their fellow Listeners at these times. Not only was this because of the confidentiality that they needed to keep within Listeners and Samaritans, but it was also because Listeners had become comfortable with one another and felt able to confide in each other. However, some Listeners explained that it was not always that easy to be able to access their fellow Listeners when in need to off-load themselves. It starts off as people you’ve never met before, and it’s like meeting some new people, like a social club, talking about things. Even if they are on different wings, it’s like branching out. We do offer each other support but in prison it is difficult to get to each other all the time. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) In some establishments, Listeners visit prisoners in pairs, which enable them to support one another after a call with a prisoner. The current research did not find any evidence of Listeners working in pairs to attend calls together. In particular, Listeners noted how the support meetings with Samaritans provided a valued and much-needed opportunity to off-load themselves, in a similar way to their callers off-loading onto them:
81
We are like a little family, we are quite tight. The Samaritans are always there for us. So we know whatever problems we have ourselves, we could just tell them about. The support meetings are basically so we can just let it all out and support each other. It’s like an offloading thing. That’s really good because you don’t have to carry the burden. (Adult female Listener, Prison 3) They are a time to unload, no officers are in the room and the Listeners are there and all confidentiality can be dropped, everyone can speak openly about everything they have heard and witnessed. It is a good idea for everyone to connect, and open up, let everything out that they have been holding in. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) [The support meetings] are great. All the Listeners are in the meeting to get things off their chest, to know what they are going through, to really and truly be safe and free from what we had on our chest. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Where Listeners were not receiving regular or frequent visits from Samaritans they expressed a desire for this to become more regular to ensure that they were supported. When asked what Samaritans could do to improve the situation for Listeners, one Listener replied: Better support and come to the jail more often. Because they take too long to come, we miss them. They are nice ladies and we feel comfortable with them. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Listeners, particularly those in the young offender’s institution, highlighted the importance of the support meetings with Samaritans. Support is particularly crucial given all of the challenges they face as they conduct their work that have been highlighted by this research.
Summary – Listener work
Many Listeners do not wait to be called out by prisoners but are proactive in offering support and sometimes reached out to prisoners in more social and
82
informal ways.
Listeners’ proximity to their callers meant that they were often approached by Listeners informally or asked by a member of staff to support another prisoner.
This informal support that Listeners provided prisoners blurred the boundaries of times where they were ‘on-‘ or ‘off-duty’, and reduced the opportunities where Listeners were able to retreat from the Listener role and work.
The face-to-face nature of Listeners’ contacts with their callers meant that signs of prisoner distress such as self-harm were highly visible to Listeners.
Listeners described feeling a sense of responsibility for the outcomes for their callers. Some Listeners stretched the boundaries of Listener support by offering guidance, assistance or practical help to their callers.
It is a challenge for Listeners to be non-judgemental when all of their calls are face-to-face and they live in the same environment as those they support.
Whilst the logic of confidentiality was understood and advocated by many prison staff, this was not the case for all staff.
Staff suggested that Listeners signposted them to prisoners in need of support or who were not using the service properly.
The policy of confidentiality sometimes put Listeners in a position where they were under pressure from staff to disclose the nature of their calls.
Listeners placed emphasis on the need for support between Listeners when they needed to off-load about the calls they had taken.
The support meetings with Samaritans were vital as they presented one of the few opportunities Listeners had to withdraw and off-load about their calls. The support meetings did not always occur on a weekly basis and at a frequency that Listeners would have liked.
83
Findings 8 – Impact on Staff Staff might have a variety of different forms of contact and engagement with Samaritans and Listeners for example – facilitating Listener movements, facilitating meetings, dealing with operational difficulties or being supported after a death in custody. This final findings section considers the impact of the Listener scheme in prisons on prison staff in terms of their workload and their role in facilitating the scheme.
Workload and time The staff interviewed saw the Listener scheme as impacting positively on the prison environment and their workload. Listeners were seen as a very useful resource for prison staff to make use of: [O]n the wings where there are Listeners based, they tend to be quieter, settled, you get less hassle, less problems from those wings than the ones that don’t. (Prison Chaplain, Prison 1) We got a lad on here, who when he first came on here was struggling a little bit and he was asking for a Listener. The Listener came out and he said “Can I go downstairs on association later?” I said “Why? Do you need to talk to somebody?” and he was like “yeah.” The prisoner was actually getting bullied, and this Listener, because he is well respected by other lad – which makes a big difference – he was able to come down, and approach the lads that were bullying [the prisoner], and nipped it in the bud. As far as I am aware, the bullying stopped. (Prison officer, Residential wing, Prison 4) The support Listeners offered to prisoners prevented the further workload caused by distressed prisoners when they self-harmed or would not engage with the prison regime. Ten out of the twelve prison staff interviewed described how the presence of the Listener scheme saved them time, reduced their workload and gave them time to use elsewhere:
84
I think it can make our job easier. I think for the wing staff, they’ve got a full wing of 33 girls on there, they haven’t always got the time to be sat talking to a prisoner. You know and if they think they can use a Listener, or recommend a Listener to a prisoner, then it does make their job a bit easier. [Listeners] can sit with them a couple of hours; you know where you just haven’t got the time to do that as wing staff. (Prison officer, Safer Custody, Prison 3) It reduces work for them [staff]. I always try to promote the Listeners in staff training to say, “look, by allowing a Listener to go and see a prisoner, they actually reduce or stop a prisoner from self-harming or killing themselves.” And actually the amount of paperwork that goes with either of those instances can impact on staff. If a prisoner just cuts up, he has got to be seen by healthcare, the forms have got to be done, he’s got to be watched regular. That all impacts on their daily routine. So by a Listener going to see a prisoner, and stop him from doing that, has a massive impact on their workload. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 2) Listeners were therefore seen as valuable assets and a resource for prison staff.
Facilitating the Listener scheme A small number of prison staff interviewed described their relationship with Samaritans. These interviewees explained that the relationship between the member of prison staff whose role it was to liaise with Samaritans, and the Samaritans prison team coordinator, was considered crucial in the successful operation and support of the Listener scheme. Get a good rapport with Samaritans, make them feel welcome instead of do-gooders. They are the experts with the Listeners. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) We’ve got a good relationship with the Samaritans. It we’ve had a death in custody, we ring Samaritans and they come in straight away. (Prison officer, Safer Custody, Prison 3) However:
85
Samaritans don’t always understand the dynamics of what we do in a prison, and [the role of the Safer Custody manager] is to be able to create harmony between them and the Prison Service. […] There have been problems in the past with some volunteers being very opinionated, not understanding why things cannot work in the prison, and this has caused major conflict. (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 2) Whilst working relationships are positive, it is important to ensure Samaritans are also educated about the prison regime in which they have to support Listeners. Listeners were heavily dependent on the cooperation of prison staff to access their callers. The staff interviewed described how they did not always find it easy to facilitate the Listener scheme: When it is five to eight and staff are ready for going home, or any other time staff are going home and a lad says he wants a Listener, then of course it delays staff going off on time. Which I am sure you can appreciate, when staff have been at work all day, they would like to get off on time. (Senior officer, Skills and Development unit, Prison 4) If the cell bell has been pressed and the lad is asking for a Listener, instead of maybe getting them in ten minutes it might be an hour. Generally the calls are at night time, so we do say to the lads “look there’s less staffing, they might be dealing with another issue.” (Senior officer, Safer Custody, Prison 4) Difficulties were reported by Listeners with reference to prisoners who requested to speak to them during the night in terms of the time it took for prison staff to respond and facilitate these requests: The caller could say “I called you at 8 o’clock” but the night staff might not have got to me until say 10 o clock. The caller will say “Well, where have you been?” and I say “sorry but they’ve only just come to me.” (Adult male Listener, Prison 1) Sometimes, if we are on duty at night time, an officer will come to the door and say “I’ve got six listens for you.” Six people can’t all ring their cell bells at one time, so obviously there must be some sort of back-log there […] I’ve know a person to get on
86
the bell at 10 o’clock at night and get seen at 2 o’clock in the morning. That’s four hours to wait. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) When it is night time, the only callers I see are from the wings close by rather than the other wings further away. […] There are times when its hard because officers don’t want to let us go on another wing (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Relatedly, examples were provided by prisoners, Listeners and prison staff of instances where it took a lengthy period of time to facilitate access to a Listener after a request had been made. These problems were most often reported to occur at night: To be honest, they are not that good at it, because when I called for a Listener, it took like four or five hours. […..] He weren’t very keen on me getting a Listener to be honest with you, he would rather I use the phone, and wait ‘til the morning to speak to my personal officer. (Male young offender prisoner, Prison 4) Waiting for such a significant period of time could serve to cause prisoners more distress and in the example above, being made to feel that the member of staff does not want to facilitate the request might inhibit help-seeking by prisoners. One Listener suggested that in his establishment, where the wings were more spaced out, this resulted in staff reluctance to use prisoners who were further away on other wings: When it’s night time the only ones I see are from the wings close by instead of going to other wings, because it will be too late for it. Or they don’t even have time to do that. So they would rather get other prisoners out who are in localness to each other. (Male young offender Listener, Prison 4) Another pressing issue of concern was problems that arose when Listener and staff protocol were at odds with one another. It was evident that at times, the work of Listeners conflicted with the work of prison staff and that sometimes conflicts could have severe consequences, as the following example illustrates: There was this lad and I knew he was [feeling] down, and one night he finally approached me with tears in his eyes. Then all of a sudden the officer was banging on the doors saying “come on” and I said “listen, I don’t care if everybody’s behind their
87
doors, look at him, he’s crying and is upset and just approached me.” […] So she said that we can go in the Listener suite after roll count which is protocol. But I said, “Surely what should happen is Listeners’ protocol?” but she didn’t want to know. So twenty minutes later another officer is calling her [the officer] down, “Quick, quick, this lad is trying to take his own life.” It was almost a near miss. The next day, I get a nicking. This officer who I had the argument with had put in a nicking saying that I had assaulted her and I got suspended while there was the investigation. (Adult male Listener, Prison 2) Whilst this Listener was eventually cleared of these allegations, it is of concern that a distressed prisoner was put in a position where Listener support was taken from them in such an abrupt manner. This example highlights the lack of power Listeners have in comparison to staff and the degree of control staff can exert over Listener work.
Summary – Impact on staff
The majority of prison staff stated that the presence of the Listener scheme impacted positively on their workload and on the prison environment.
The presence of Listener support was claimed by staff to reduce their workload by not having to sit with prisoners in distress for lengthy periods of time and by preventing the escalation of prisoners’ problems.
Staff felt that a good working relationship with Samaritans was crucial in the successful operation of a Listener scheme, however did not always feel that they fully understood the workings of the prison.
Listeners were dependent on staff to facilitate access to their callers. Prisoners and Listeners provided examples where they felt staff did not facilitate the contact as promptly as they would have liked. This was most likely to occur at night time.
Staff did not always find it easy to facilitate the Listener scheme.
Listener work sometimes conflicted with the work of staff and the prison regime.
88
Conclusions This final report has presented and discussed the main findings for the research project entitled ‘The Listener Scheme in Prisons’ which sought to investigate the operation of the Listener scheme in four prisons by drawing out the separate perspectives of prisoners, Listeners and prison staff. The findings presented in this report enable a number of conclusions and recommendations to be made, in addition to the identification of some areas where further attention is worthy. These are discussed in this final section. Further to this a number of recommendations are highlighted.
Reputation of the Listener scheme This research has demonstrated that the large majority of prisoners have knowledge of the Listener scheme, and that advertising strategies are effective in making prisoners aware of Listener support. In particular, prison staff play an important role in explaining the support available to prisoners, and in recommending that they talk to a Listener when prisoners appear to be in distress. Whilst it was claimed that Listeners provide an introduction talk to all new prisoners shortly after their arrival, prisoners did not report Listeners as being a key source of information. Whilst it is extremely positive that prison staff are promoting and raising awareness of the Listener scheme in prisons, it is recommended that opportunities should be created after the reception and induction processes, where Listeners can inform prisoners about the support they offer and their availability. Prisoners were much more likely to indicate positive views about Listeners than negative views. The Listener scheme appears to have a good reputation among prisoners and furthermore, the Listener role is seen as a desirable role for prisoners to adopt as indicated by the fact that over a third of prisoners surveyed expressed a desire to become a Listener. It is noteworthy that a significant proportion of the prisoner survey sample felt unable to indicate positive or negative views about Listeners. This was explained by prisoners as the result of a lack of social contact with Listeners which meant that they felt unable to form views about prisoners who they had not actually met. Linked to this, it also emerged that views were formed about individual Listeners
89
and were not generalised by prisoners to the group as a whole. In particular, having a Listener on a wing provided opportunities where prisoners could observe the behaviour of Listeners and decide whether or not to seek help from them. Wings where prisoner distress may be particularly acute, such as wings for drug detox prisoners or healthcare may benefit from having a resident Listener, where prisoners can build trust in, and access, Listeners. However, these are likely to be burdensome places for Listeners to reside as they are renowned for being noisy, stressful and unhealthy places to reside. However, as a result of their behaviour, Listeners tend to be placed on wings for prisoners who have earned the highest level of privileges. It would therefore be problematic to attempt to distribute Listeners across wings as evenly as possible throughout each establishment as it is recognised that not all wings are equally desirable to Listeners, or fair in terms of the burden they may be placed under, and privileges they would be denied of. Samaritans and Listeners should explore ways that social contact can be increased between Listeners and prisoners to encourage both the formation of positive views towards Listeners, and take-up of Listener support by prisoners.
Take-up of Listener support The patterns of help-seeking intentions by prisoners showed that the source of support selected is strongly influenced by the nature of the problem, and moreover, that prisoners make informed decisions, based on social contact with potential sources of support, about which particular individuals should be approached for help and support. Evidence was found for a wide variety of problems prisoners took to Listeners. However the dominant type of problem that was associated with the Listener scheme, as indicated by both prisoners’ help-seeking preferences, and the actual problems taken to Listeners, were ‘emotional or mental health problems’. This is consistent with Samaritans’ services on the outside. The majority of the prisoners surveyed for this research had not made use of Listener support. Whilst there is undoubtedly room for strategies that could encourage higher levels of take-up by prisoners, it must also be remembered that the prisoners who chose to use Listener support did so under specific circumstances. Prisoners reported accessing Listeners most frequently during the early phase of custody. It is important to
90
note that the prisons visited were all ‘closed prisons’ and no ‘open prisons’, where prisoners tend to be located at the end of their sentences, were visited. Therefore, further work needs to be conducted to investigate the operation of the Listener scheme in these kinds of establishments so that a comparison can be made. Future research could consider the operation of the Listener scheme in prisons where there are ‘open’ conditions, and where prisoners are nearing the end of their sentences. Furthermore, Listeners were most often accessed by prisoners during the evenings and night time when they were locked up in their cells. It is particularly significant that Listeners are available at times when other sources of support are more limited or not available at all. When prisoners are confined to their cells, this can lead to the build-up of distress and create a need for prisoners to off-load to relieve the stress and negative feelings. It can be concluded that Listeners assist prisoners in coming to terms with their imprisonment and periods of confinement. It is important for the Prison Service, Samaritans and Listeners to ensure that Listeners are available to support prisoners 24 hours a day, particularly during the evenings and night time when prisoners are locked in their cells and are most likely to need Listener support. It was evident that prisoners’ requests to talk to a Listener were not always responded to promptly by prison staff, particularly during the night. This not only led to prisoners waiting long periods of time to talk, but also put pressure on Listeners who might have a back-log of calls to respond to. Not only that, but at times staff questioned prisoners about their problems, at the time when they had asked to speak to a Listener. This could be experienced as intrusive by prisoners despite the best intentions of staff in offering support. Samaritans and the Prison Service need to work together to ensure that access to Listeners is facilitated in a timely manner. Alternative methods in which staff could offer additional support to prisoners who request to speak to Listeners should be explored.
What is valued by service-users? The survey and interview data with prisoners who had talked to Listeners, generated evidence considering the service-user perspective, which prior to this research had not been obtained. These prisoners provided a valuable insight about what they perceived
91
to be the benefits and outcomes of Listener support, and the aspects that they valued in particular. The confidential nature of Listener support appealed to prisoners for whom trust was a central concern when selecting sources of support. Prisoners described approaching Listeners on a more informal basis, and valued Listeners’ discretion in not disclosing the nature of their discussion. Whilst the fact that Listeners were peers was not always a source of motivation to seek help from Listeners, when talking to Listeners, prisoners reported that the emphatic, caring and understanding responses by Listeners was a beneficial way in which Listeners supported them. Many of the prisoners interviewed explained that an effect of talking to Listeners was a feeling of having been helped and a greater sense of mastery over their problems; for example, having the space to talk about problems, and being helped by a Listener to explore them, often helped prisoners to see them in a new light. Not only that, but prisoners described talking to Listeners as having a cathartic effect by being able to off-load and release pent up feelings. This was particularly the case for those prisoners who accessed a Listener when they were locked in their cell. The positive experiences that prisoners had with Listeners is further reinforced by the large proportion who would recommend Listeners to other prisoners. Whilst in some instances prisoners did in fact receive more practical or advisory forms of support from Listeners, an outcome of exploring their feelings with Listeners was a sense of feeling helped and that they could deal with their problem. The majority of the prisoners surveyed who had talked to Listeners indicated a preference to talk to the same Listener. The reasons for this were twofold. Firstly, prisoners did not want to have to explain their problem a second time and to another individual. Secondly, and most importantly, because very often prisoners had developed trust in a particular Listener and did not necessarily feel comfortable opening up to another Listener. Most prisoners accessed Listeners for a short-term period, normally between one and three times, therefore it is worthwhile consider whether prisoners should talk to the same Listener or a different Listener. Whilst it is important that Samaritans put in place practices that reduce the opportunities for prisoners to become dependent on Listener support, or misuse Listener support, it is worthwhile looking at follow-up structures that could enable prisoners to be offered support from the same Listener given the specific conditions of the prison environment and the help-seeking preferences of prisoners.
92
The core aspects of Listener support that were valued by prisoners were therefore: confidentiality, the cathartic effect of off-loading, the support and care expressed by Listeners, the practical help and information provided by Listeners, and the follow-up offer of support. Whilst this research has highlighted a number of positive outcomes for prisoners in receipt of Listener support, research that considers the service-user perspective needs to be on-going to illustrate and monitor the impact of Listener support.
Language barriers The analysis of the data with respect to demographic variable enabled the identification of some issues and characteristics that are specific to prisoners for whom English is not their first language. These prisoners were less likely to report finding out about Listeners via prison staff, less likely to have positive perceptions of Listeners, more likely to have negative perceptions of Listeners, were overall less likely to seek help, and were also less likely to have talked to a Listener about a problem. These findings suggest that there are language barriers and possibly cultural issues that influence the engagement and awareness these prisoners have of Listeners and Listener support. It would be worthwhile exploring how to raise awareness and encourage take-up among prisoners whose first language is not English. Access to the Listeners should be widened for prisoners who may be hindered by language barriers for example.
The boundaries of Listener support Whilst many Listeners and prisoners talked of the benefits of ‘active listening’, examples were found of Listeners providing more practical forms of help and guiding prisoners in subtle ways that were often considered technically in line with Samaritans’ guidelines. The specific conditions of the prison environment that Listeners were working and living in led some Listeners to stretch the boundaries of the support they offered to prisoners. Listeners explained that they felt a sense of responsibility for the outcomes of their callers, who they lived alongside, and therefore sometimes felt that
93
they could not let a prisoner make a mistake or not get the help Listeners felt they needed. Listeners strongly related to the experiences of their callers and were acutely aware of the consequences certain actions would have for their callers. The emphatic responses by Listeners stretched the boundaries of Listener support and could reduce consistency in how the Listener scheme operates from establishment to establishment. In prison, the use of prisoners in supporting their peers is justified on grounds of their shared experiences, yet at the same time operating within guidelines and expecting them to not use this shared experience, represents a difficulty of the translation of Samaritans practice in prisons. Samaritans need to consider the role of Listeners in prison and whether the support they offer to prisoners extends beyond emotional support. This report has highlighted that a significant amount of Listener work takes place on an informal, sometimes social, and discrete basis. Whilst this has advantages for prisoners not wishing to use formal channels of help-seeking, and whilst many Listeners felt it was very much part of their role to proactively offer support, it did mean that it reduced the opportunities in which Listeners were able to step back or take a break from their volunteer and have their own space. The boundaries of when prisoners were volunteering as a Listener, and when they were ‘off-duty’ was blurred by the way in which many prisoners sought out Listener support informally by approaching them on the wing for example. It is positive that prison staff felt able to ask Listeners to approach prisoners they felt were in need of support, however this also contributed to a blurring of the boundaries of when Listeners were ‘on-‘ and ‘off-duty’. In other words, prisoners who become Listeners are always seen as Listeners and are often called upon by staff and prisoners. Samaritans need to monitor the informal use of Listeners. Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that Listeners are fully supported and have opportunities to withdraw, or take a break from their Listener role. Further to this, current recording practices mean that statistics summarising the number of calls Listeners have are collected to demonstrate the use of Listener support. The findings outlined in this report highlight that Listeners conduct much informal, proactive and social forms of work as a Listener that will not be captured by these statistics. This work represents an important aspect of Listener work that is reported as beneficial by prisoners, staff and Listeners, that deserves recognition. Samaritans need to consider how contacts are recorded, and the information that is captured by these statistics. Research evidence should be
94
generated on an on-going basis to demonstrate the wide range of ways in which Listener support is accessed, offered and used.
Volunteering as prisoner The significance of adopting the role of the Listener in prison should not be underestimated. The Listeners who took part in the research were extremely enthusiastic about their Listener work and described the positive impact it had had on their lives in prison and in their relationships with others. In particular, enhanced communication skills were considered the main outcome of the training provided by Samaritans. This not only ensured their ability to support their callers, but also influenced relationships and interactions with others, and improved the overall prison experience for them. The Listener role was seen as a desirable one to adopt and was associated with pro-social and positive behaviours. Undertaking the role assisted prisoners in adopting the positive characteristics and behaviours associated with the role. More research is needed to consider if there are long term benefits and impacts of adopting the Listener role for prisoners. In line with Samaritans’ services on the outside, Listeners are trained to adopt a nonjudgemental approach with their callers. This is particularly important in the prison environment where prisoners have been sent there as punishment for a crime and where they face being stigmatised by the general public. Whilst Listeners felt that the peer nature of the support they offered to prisoners was an important feature of their service, there were however particular groups of prisoners who they found difficult to support due to the sensitive nature of their offence. Samaritans should review practice with respect to Listeners and callers located on vulnerable prisoner wings or units. The policy of confidentiality that Listeners were expected to adhere to sometimes put them in a challenging position with respect to their relationships with prison staff. The nature of the relationship between Listeners and prison staff is complex because of the power imbalance and this is an inherent feature of prison life. This was particularly evident at times where Listeners and staff protocol conflicted. Confidentiality has always been one of the core challenges faced by Listeners and Samaritans running the
95
Listener scheme in prisons, and this is unlikely to change. Whilst Listeners’ relationships with prison staff were reported by both parties in positive terms, it was evident that the policy of confidentiality sometimes meant that Listeners were pressured by staff to disclose the nature of their contact with prisoners. This situation sometimes led to staff exerting control over the access Listeners and prisoners had to one another, and incited suspicion among staff. Some staff were unclear about the role of Listeners and the definition of confidentiality according to Samaritans and Listeners. This definition was further blurred by accounts which suggested that some Listeners ‘signposted’ to prison staff if a prisoner needed ‘keeping an eye on’ or was misusing the service. Full and serious breaches of confidentiality were considered rare, but signposting was reported to be more common. Staff would benefit from more information about the policy of confidentiality. Whilst some staff expressed a desire for a more conditional definition of confidentiality, others simply expressed a desire to observe the training in order to understand the work that Listeners conduct. Whilst the actual training sessions for Listeners are necessarily confidential, further clarity for prison staff about the nature of the work of Listeners could be achieved by running mock training sessions that staff could observe. It is also important that Samaritans volunteers are also informed about the working practices and regimes in prisons to help them to maintain positive working relationships with liaison staff in prisons.
Support systems for Listeners The model of volunteer support adopted by Samaritans is superior compared to what many other organisations have in place. In theory, the mutual support that Listeners offer one another, and the weekly support meetings that should take place with Samaritans and Listeners, is an effective support system for the Listener scheme. However, Listeners did not always find it easy to access their fellow Listeners to offload about their calls and callers, and did not attend calls with prisoners in pairs in any of the establishments where the research took place. Samaritans should assess the potential benefits of Listeners working in pairs more frequently to strengthen support systems between Listeners. Of even greater concern is that some branches were not able to attend weekly meetings to support the team of Listeners. Whilst Listeners were extremely enthusiastic about the work they conducted and did feel able
96
to call Samaritans if needed, the degree of responsibility Listeners are adopting, the additional pressures and challenges they face as prisoners volunteering, and the burden they may be put under by staff and prisoners, means that Samaritans need to ensure that weekly support meetings take place with Listeners so that they frequently and regularly provide opportunities for Listeners to off-load. These support meetings provided a valuable opportunity for Listeners to off-load themselves, and presented one of the few opportunities Listeners have to step back from their volunteering. The importance of a strong support system for Listeners cannot be underestimated.
The Listener scheme in prisons Supporting the Listener scheme in prison is not a straightforward task, and it requires that the impact of the prison environment on how it operates, is understood. The research detailed in this report has provided evidence for a wide range of benefits of the Listener scheme for prisoners, Listeners and prison staff. It is hoped that it will prompt much more future research that will enable Samaritans to monitor the use and impact of Listener support, and ensure that best practice continues to be developed.
97
References Biggar, K. and Neal, D. (1996) ‘Caring
Cullompton: Willan Publishing. p121-
for the suicidal in custody: developing a
128.
multi-disciplinary approach’, Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 33(3): 207-
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Tallamelli, L.,
213.
Chauhan, P. & Smith, P. K. (2002). ‘Knowledge, Use of and Attitudes
Blair, J. (2006) ‘Self-discovered
Towards Peer Support: A Two-Year
learning - peer tutoring at Blundeston
Follow Up to the Prince's Trust Survey’,
prison’, The Research and
Journal of Adolescence, 25: 453-467.
Development Bulletin, 4(2): 5-10. Davidson, L., Chinman, M., Sells, D. Borrill, J., Teers, R., Paton, J., Regan,
and Rowe, M. (2006) ‘Peer support
L. and Cassidy, T. (2004) ‘The impact
among adults with serious mental
on staff of a self-inflicted death in
illness: a report from the field’,
custody’, Prison Service Journal, 151:
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(3): 443-450.
2-10. Davies, B. (1994) ‘The Swansea Bosworth, M. (1999) Engendering
Listener Scheme: Views from the
Resistance: Agency and Power in
Prison Landings’, The Howard Journal,
Women's Prisons. Aldershot, Ashgate.
33(2): 125-135.
Carlen, P. (1983) Women's
Deane, F. P., P. Skogstad, & Williams,
Imprisonment: A Study of Social
M. W. (1999) ‘Impact of Attitudes,
Control. London: Routledge & Kegan
Ethnicity and Quality of Prior Therapy
Paul.
on New Zealand Male Prisoners' Intentions to Seek Professional
Carlen, P. and Worrall, A. (2006)
Psychological Help’, International
‘Analysing women's imprisonment’ in
Journal for the Advancement of
Jewkes, Y. and Johnston, H. (Eds.)
Counselling, 21: 55-67.
Prison Readings: A Critical Introduction Dhaliwal, R. & Harrower, J. (2009)
to Prisons and Imprisonment.
‘Reducing prisoner vulnerability and
98
providing a means of empowerment:
HMPS (1993) New Suicide Awareness
evaluating the impact of a Listener
Training Pack. AG3/1993. London:
scheme in the Listeners’, British Journal
HMPS.
of Forensic Practice, 11(3): 35-44 HMPS (1994) Caring for the Suicidal in DeVilly, G. J., L. Sorbello, Eccleston, L.
Custody. IG 1/1994. London: HMPS.
& Ward, T. (2005) ‘Prison-Based PeerEducation Schemes’, Aggression and
Howard League (1999) Desperate
Violent Behavior ,10: 219-240.
Measures: Prison Suicides and their Prevention. London: The Howard
Edgar, K., Jacobson, J. and Biggar, K
League for Penal Reform.
(2011). Time well spent: a practical guide to active citizenship and
Howard League (2001a) Suicide and
volunteering in prison. London: Prison
Self-harm Prevention 1: Court Cells and
Reform Trust.
Prison Vans. London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.
Farrant, F. and J. Levenson (2002). Barred Citizens: Volunteering and
Howard League (2001b) Suicide and
Active Citizenship by Prisoners.
Self-harm Prevention 2: Repetitive Self-
London, Prison Reform Trust.
harm Among Women and Girls in Prison. London: The Howard League for Penal Reform.
Hall, B. and Gabor, P. (2004) ‘Peer suicide prevention in a prison’, Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and
Howard League (2003) Suicide and
Suicide Prevention, 25(1): 19-26.
Self-harm Prevention 4: The Management of Self-Injury in Prisons.
Hayes, L. M. (1995) Prison suicide: an
London: The Howard League for Penal
overview and a guide to prevention’
Reform.
The Prison Journal, 75(4): 431-456. Hunter, G. and Boyce, I. (2009) HMPS (1992) Caring for Prisoners at
‘Preparing for employment: prisoners’
Risk of Suicide and Self-Injury: The
experience of participating in a prison
Way Forward. S.A.S. Unit: London.
training programme’, The Howard Journal, 48(2): 117-131.
99
Jiang, S. and L. T. Winfree (2006)
http://www.mandbf.org.uk/resources/res
‘Social Support, Gender, and Inmade
earch/.
Adjustment to Prison Life: Insights from a National Sample’, The Prison Journal,
Pollack, S. (2004) ‘Anti-Oppressive
86(1): 32-55.
Social Work Practice with Women in Prison: Discursive Reconstruction and
Liebling, A. (Assisted by H. Arnold)
Alternative Practices’, British Journal of
(2004) Prisons and Their Moral
Social Work, 34: 693-707.
Performance: A Study of Values, Quality and Prison Life. Oxford: Oxford
Power, K., Swanson, V., Luke, R.,
University Press.
Jackson, C. and Biggam, F. (2003) Act and Care: Evaluation of the Revised
Liebling, A. (2007) ‘Prison suicide and
SPS Suicide Risk Management
its prevention’ in Jewkes, Y. (Ed.)
Strategy. Occasional Paper Series
Handbook on Prisons. Devon, Willan
01/2002. Stirling: Anxiety and Stress
Publishing. Pg 243-446.
Research Centre, University of Stirling.
Maruna, S. (1997) ‘Going straight:
Prison Reform Trust (2010). "Bromley
desistance from crime and life
Briefings: Prison Factfile." Retrieved
narratives of reform’ in Lieblich, A. and
June, 2010, from
Josselson, R. (Eds.) The Narrative
www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk.
Study of Lives. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Prison Service Instruction 32/1997 The
p59-93.
Role of The Samaritans. London: HMPS.
MIND (2007). Men’s Mental Health downloaded from www.mind.org/Information/Factsheets/
Prison Service Order 2700. Suicide and
Men.
Self-harm Prevention (2002) Updated: Suicide Prevention (2007) Retrieved
Philip, K. and Spratt, J. (2007) A
October 2006, and October 2007, from:
Synthesis of Published Research on
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/reso
Mentoring and Befriending (for the
urcecentre/psispsos/listpsos/ .
Mentoring and Befriending Foundation). Retrieved September 2010, from
Richman, J. (2004). Listeners: Inmate Care Workers in HMP and Suicide
100
Policy. Paper presented to the BSA
Prisoners (Final report). Ewell: Risk 1
Medical Sociology Group 36th Annual
Project Team, The Samaritans.
Conference: University of York. Samaritans (2001c) Developing Safer Custody Group (no date) Prisoner
Listener Schemes: Consistent
Peer Support: Good Practice Guide for
Implementation of the Risk 1 Strategy.
Peer Support Schemes. London:
Ewell: James Waghorn, The
HMPS, Home Office.
Samaritans.
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health
Samaritans (2004) Risk 1 Project: A
(2007) Briefing 32 - Mental Health Care
Strategy for Higher Risk Prisons – Task
in Prisons. London, The Sainsbury
Force Report. Samaritans
Centre for Mental Health. Samaritans (2007) Samaritans Samaritans, The (1990) Befriending in
Emotional Support Services: Results of
Prisons. (Compiled by Kathy Bigger).
a Website Survey. Ewell: Samaritans.
Slough: The Samaritans.
www.samaritans.org.
Samaritans, The (2000). Resources in
Samaritans (2011a) A History of the
Prisons: Recommendations for Best
Listener Scheme and Samaritans'
Practice Following a Review of how the
Prison Support (compiled by Michelle
Financial, Human and Information
Jaffe). Ewell: Samaritans.
Resources of The Samaritans are Deployed for the Purposes of
Samaritans (2011b) Information
Befriending Prisoners. Surrey, The
Resource Pack 2011. Ewell:
Samaritans.
Samaritans. Retrieved January 2012, from
Samaritans, The (2001a) Risk 1
http://www.samaritans.org/about_samar
Project: Strategies for Higher Risk
itans/samaritans_publications/irp_downl
Prisoners. Ewell: Risk 1 Project Team,
oad.aspx.
The Samaritans. Snow, L. (2000) ‘The role of formalised Samaritans, The (2001b) Risk 1
peer-group support in prisons’ in G.
Project: A Strategy for Higher Risk
Towl, L. Snow & M. McHugh (Eds.). Suicide in Prisons. Leicester: BPS.
101
Snow, L. and Biggar, K. (2006) ‘The
Taylor, C. (2008). "Volunteering for All?
role of peer support in reducing self-
A Qualitative Study of Women Ex-
harm in prisons’ in Dear, G. E. (Ed.)
Offenders' Experiences of Volunteering.
Preventing Suicide and Other Self-harm
The Griffins Society." Retrieved
in Prison. Basingstoke: Palgrave
December 2010, from
Macmillan. p153-166.
http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/Resear ch_Paper_2008_01.pdf..
Soloman, P. (2004) ‘Peer support/peer provided services: underlying
Walker, S. and A. Worrall (2000) ‘Life
processes, benefits and critical
as a Woman: The Gendered Pains of
ingredients’, Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Indeterminate Imprisonment’, Prison
Journal, 27(4): 392-401.
Service Journal, 132: 27-37.
Spain, A. C. (2005) ‘Bullying among
White, W. (2004) The History and
young offenders: findings from a
Future of Peer-Based Addiction
qualitative study’ in Ireland, J. L. (Ed.)
Recovery Support Services. Prepared
Bullying among Prisoners: Innovations
for the SAMHSA Consumer and Family
in Theory and Research. Cullompton,
Direction Initiative 2004 Summit, March
Willan Publishing: 62-83.
22-23. Washington, DC.
Stewart, E. (2004) ‘Andy Ludlow www.samaritans.org
awards 2004: Advising for outside inside’, London Housing, August: 8-11.
102
Appendices
103
Appendix 1 Sources of knowledge about Listeners and demographic variables
Table A1.1 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners and age Source
18-30 years
31+ years
Staff
48.2% (106)
45.4% (44)
Another prisoner
32.7% (72)
21.6% (21)
Listener
25.0% (55)
12.4% (12)
Advertisement
48.2% (106)
63.9% (62)
Another prison
37.7% (83)
27.8% (27)
Other
7.7% (17)
13.4% (13)
Statistics ᵪ² = .215 df = 1 ᵪ² = 3.985 df = 1 ᵪ² = 6.441 df = 1 ᵪ² = 6.692 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.907 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.530 df = 1
p .643 .046 .011 .010 .088 .112
n=317 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A1.2 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners and gender Source
Women
Men
Staff
50.7% (36)
45.8% (114)
Another prisoner
40.8% (29)
26.0% (65)
Listener
19.7% (14)
2107% (54)
Advertisement
60.6% (43)
51.0% (127)
Another prison
31.0% (22)
35.3% (88)
5.6% (4)
10.8% (27)
Other
n=320 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
104
Statistics ᵪ² = .537 df = 1 ᵪ² = 5.786 df = 1 ᵪ² = .128 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.027 df = 1 ᵪ² = .465 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.714 df = 1
p .464 .016 .721 .154 .495 .190
Table A1.3 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners and sentencing status Source
Not sentenced
Sentenced
Staff
43.2% (38)
47.6% (109)
Another prisoner
27.3% (24)
30.1% (69)
Listener
17.0% (15)
23.1% (53)
Advertisement
53.4% (47)
52.4% (120)
Another prison
21.6% (19)
39.3% (90)
9.1% (8)
10.0% (23)
Other
Statistics ᵪ² = .499 df = 1 ᵪ² = .251 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.403 df = 1 ᵪ² = .026 df = 1 ᵪ² = 8.838 df = 1 ᵪ² = .065 df = 1
p .480 .617 .236 .872 .003 .798
n=317 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A1.4 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners and first language English first
English not
language
first language
Staff
48.8% (144)
25.0% (6)
Another prisoner
30.8% (91)
12.5% (3)
Listener
21.0% (62)
20.8% (5)
Advertisement
53.2% (157)
50.0% (12)
Another prison
35.9% (106)
16.7% (4)
8.1% (24)
29.2% (7)
Source
Other
n=319 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
105
Statistics ᵪ² = 5.052 df = 1 ᵪ² = 3.595 df = 1 ᵪ² = .000 df = 1 ᵪ² = .092 df = 1 ᵪ² = 3.646 df = 1 ᵪ² = 11.189 df = 1
p .025 .058 .983 .761 .056 .001
Table A1.5 – Sources of knowledge about Listeners and country of birth Source
Born in Britain
Not born in
Staff
48.2% (135)
38.5% (15)
Another prisoner
30.4% (85)
23.1% (9)
Listener
21.8% (61)
15.4% (6)
Advertisement
51.8% (145)
61.5% (24)
Another prison
36.4% (102)
20.5% (8)
7.9% (22)
23.1% (9)
Other
Statistics
p
Britain
n=319 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
106
ᵪ² = 1.307 df = 1 ᵪ² = .873 df = 1 ᵪ² = .845 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.307 df = 1 ᵪ² = 3.838 df = 1 ᵪ² = 9.038 df = 1
.253 .455 .358 .253 .050 .003
107
52.2% (105)
36.3% (73)
7.0% (14)
Advertisement
Another prison
Other 30.8% (4)
23.1% (3)
38.5% (5)
15.4% (2)
7.7% (1)
46.2% (6)
17.0% (9)
Asian
10.7% (9)
28.6% (8)
42.9% (12)
21.4% (6)
28.6% (8)
46.4% (13)
n=318
34.0% (18)
60.4% (32)
24.5% (13)
24.5% (13)
43.4% (23)
Black
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
20.9% (42)
31.3% (63)
Another prisoner
Listener
50.2% (19)
European
British
Staff
White
White
6.7% (1)
40.0% (6)
66.7% (10)
20.0% (3)
33.3% (5)
20.0% (3)
Mixed race
Other
0.0% (0)
25.0% (2)
50.0% (4)
12.5% (1)
50.0% (4)
50.0% (4)
Table A1.6 Sources of knowledge about Listeners and ethnicity
.341
.962
.465
.849
.028
ᵪ² = 1.003 df = 5 ᵪ² = 4.612 df = 5 ᵪ² = 2.004 df = 5 ᵪ² = 12.506 df = 5
.353
p
ᵪ² = 5.658 df = 5
ᵪ² = 5.548 df = 5
Statistics
Appendix 2 Prisoners’ ideas on the role of Listeners and demographic variables
Table A2.1 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and age Role
18-30 years
31+ years
Information
45.2% (99)
37.8% (37)
Help staff
14.2% (31)
16.3% (16)
Problem-solving
53.4% (117)
43.9% (43)
Advice
65.8% (144)
52.0% (51)
Statistics ᵪ² = 1.534 df = 1 ᵪ² = .253 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.469 df = 1 ᵪ² = 5.377 df = 1
p .215 .615 .116 .020
n=317 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A2.2 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and gender Role
Females
Males
30.6% (22)
46.4% (115)
5.6% (4)
17.3% (43)
Problem-solving
38.9% (28)
54.0% (134)
Advice
56.9% (41)
62.1% (154)
Information Help staff
n=320 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
108
Statistics ᵪ² = 5.701 df = 1 ᵪ² = 6.183 df = 1 ᵪ² = 5.119 df = 1 ᵪ² = .622 df = 1
p .017 .013 .024 .430
Table A2.3 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and prior imprisonment Been in prison
Not been in
before
prison before
Information
41.0% (77)
45.5% (60)
Help staff
16.5% (31)
12.1% (16)
Problem-solving
54.3% (102)
45.5% (60)
Advice
63.8% (120)
56.8% (75)
Role
Statistics ᵪ² = .641 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.181 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.403 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.602 df = 1
p
.424 .277 .121 .206
n=320 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A2.4 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and sentencing status Role
Not sentenced
Sentenced
Information
43.2% (38)
43.2% (99)
Help staff
17.0% (15)
14.0% (32)
Problem-solving
48.9% (43)
51.5% (118)
Advice
60.2% (53)
61.6% (141)
n=317 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
109
Statistics ᵪ² = .000 df = 1 ᵪ² = .475 df = 1 ᵪ² = .181 df = 1 ᵪ² = .048 df = 1
p .994 .491 .671 .826
Table A2.5 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and first language English first
English not first
language
language
Information
43.2% (128)
39.1% (9)
Help staff
15.2% (45)
8.7% (2)
Problem-solving
51.7% (153)
34.8% (8)
Advice
61.8% (183)
52.2% (12)
Role
Statistics ᵪ² = .147 df = 1 ᵪ² = .719 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.440 df = 1 ᵪ² = .836 df = 1
p
.701 .396 .118 .360
n=319 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A2.6 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and country of birth Not born in Role
Born in Britain
Statistics
p
Britain Information
43.1% (121)
42.1% (16)
Help staff
15.3% (43)
10.5% (4)
Problem-solving
51.6% (145)
42.1% (16)
Advice
61.6% (173)
57.9% (22)
n=319 p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
110
ᵪ² = .012 df = 1 ᵪ² = .608 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.208 df = 1 ᵪ² = .190 df = 1
.911 .436 .272 .663
111
14.9% (30)
53.5% (108)
63.9% (129)
Help staff
Problem solving
Advice 66.7% (8)
41.7% (5)
16.7% (2)
66.7% (8)
58.5% (31)
45.3% (24)
15.1% (8)
37.7% (20)
Black
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
46.0% (93)
European
British
Information
White
White
n=318
53.6% (15)
50.0% (14)
14.3% (4)
35.7% (10)
Asian
53.3% (8)
40.0% (6)
13.3% (2)
40.0% (6)
Mixed race
0.0% (0)
Other
50.0% (4)
37.5% (3)
12.5% (1)
Table A2.7 – Ideas about the role of Listeners and ethnicity
.056
1.000
.721
.789
ᵪ² = .107 df = 5 ᵪ² = 2.863 df = 5 ᵪ² = 2.418 df = 5
p
ᵪ² = 10.794 df = 5
Statistics
Appendix 3 Positive and negative perceptions of Listeners The positive perceptions of Listeners aggregate measure was created by summating scores for the following items: ‘Listeners are easy to talk to’, ‘Listeners have a good reputation in here’ and ‘Listeners are friendly towards prisoners’. Respondents could answer on a five point scale – Strongly agree (coded as 1), ‘Agree’ (coded as 2), ‘Don’t know’ (coded as 3), Disagree (coded as 4) and ‘Strongly disagree (coded as 5). The three items were recoded so that a higher score reflected more positive perceptions of Listeners. Scores on the measure could range from 3 (less positive perceptions) to 15 (more positive perceptions). A mean of 11.15 indicated generally positive perceptions of Listeners (se table A3.1 for descriptive statistics). Table A3.1 – Descriptive statistics for the positive perceptions of Listeners aggregate measure Statistic
Value
Mean
11.15
Median
12
Mode
12
Cronbach’s alpha
.804 n=325
The negative perceptions of Listeners aggregate measure was created by summating survey respondents’ scores for the following items: ‘Listeners cannot be trusted’, ‘Listeners push themselves on you’ and ‘Listeners grass on prisoners’. Respondents could answer on a five point scale – Strongly agree (coded as 1), ‘Agree’ (coded as 2), ‘Don’t know’ (coded as 3), Disagree (coded as 4) and ‘Strongly disagree (coded as 5). The three items were recoded so that a higher score reflected more negative perceptions of Listeners. Scores on the measure could range from 3 (less negative perceptions) to 15 (more negative perceptions). A mean of 7.40 indicated more balanced perceptions of Listeners (see table A3.2 for descriptive statistics).
112
Table A3.2 – Descriptive statistics for the negative perceptions of Listeners aggregate measure Statistic
Value
Mean
7.40
Median
7
Mode
9
Cronbach’s alpha
.689 n=325
Positive and negative perceptions of Listeners and demographic variables
Table A3.3 – Perceptions of Listeners and demographic variables (t tests) Demographic variable
Positive perceptions of
Negative perceptions of
Listeners
Listeners
Gender
t (323) = -.1857, p = .064
t (96.445) = 1.221, p = .225
Prior imprisonment
t (33.745) = -.054, p = .957
t (323) = -.071, p = .943
Sentencing status
t (319) = .386, p = .700
t (319) = 1.306, p = .192
First language
t (321) = 2.591, p = .010
t (33.745) = -4.522, p = .000
Country of birth
t (322) = 2.047, p = .041
t (322) = -2.160, p = .031
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened
Table A3.4 – Perceptions of Listeners and demographic variables (correlations) Demographic variable
Age
Number of months spent in current prison
Positive perceptions
Negative perceptions
of Listeners
of Listeners
039
-.059
p = .489
p = .294
n=322
n=322
-.011
.011
p = .840
p = .840
n=315
n=315
N.B. Table displays Pearson’s r correlation coefficients p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened
113
Appendix 4 Levels of take-up of Listener support across the four prisons
Table A4.1 – Levels of take-up of the Listener scheme across the four prisons Contact with Listeners Heard of Listeners but not talked
Prison 1
Prison 2
Prison 3
Prison 4
86.3% (63)
81.2% (82)
74.0% (54)
82.1% (69)
8.2% (6)
13.9% (14)
20.5% (15)
11.9% (10)
2.7% (2)
3.0% (3)
4.1% (3)
4.8% (4)
2.7% (2)
2.0% (2)
1.4% (1)
1.2% (1)
73
101
73
84
Talked to a Listener in current prison Talked to a Listener in a previous prison Not heard of Listeners n
N. B. Chi square = 6.286, df = 9, p = .711.
114
Appendix 5 Levels of help-seeking intentions by prisoners
The overall levels of help-seeking intentions aggregate measure was created by summating the number of problems prisoners would take to each source of support. Scores on the measure range from 0 to 24: lower scores on the scale reflect lower levels of help-seeking intentions, and higher scores reflect higher levels of help-seeking intentions (see table A5.1 for descriptive statistics). The distribution of the measure, and a mean of 5.66, highlights that overall, prisoners’ help-seeking intentions were low.
Table A5.1 – Descriptive statistics for the level of self-reported helpseeking intentions aggregate measure Statistic
Value
Mean
5.66
Median
6
Mode
6
Levels of help-seeking intentions and demographic variables: Table A5.2 – Levels of help-seeking intentions and demographic variables (t tests) Demographic variable
Help-seeking intentions
Age
t (291) = .564, p = .573
Gender
t (86.110) = 2.173, p = .033
Prior imprisonment
t (294) = -.215, p = .830
Sentencing status
t (291) = -.174, p = .862
First language
t (292) = -.2375, p = .018
Country of birth
t (293) = -.904, p = .367
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened
115
Appendix 6 Intentions to seek help from Listeners for different problems and demographic variables
Table A6.1 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and age Problem
18-30 years
31+ years
Outside problems
12.7% (28)
13.5% (13)
Inside problems
10.9% (24)
12.8% (12)
Substance misuse problems
11.2% (24)
6.1% (5)
Offence problems
12.4% (27)
12.2% (11)
Changing life problems
12.3% (27)
8.7% (8)
Emotional or mental health problems
19.7% (43)
22.0% (20)
Statistics
p
n
.832
317
ᵪ² = .045 df = 1 ᵪ² = .237 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.757 df = 1 ᵪ² = .003 df = 1 ᵪ² = .856 df = 1
.627
315
.185
296
.957
307
.355
315
ᵪ² = .201 df = 1
.654
309
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A6.2 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and gender Problem
Women
Men
Outside problems
16.7% (12)
11.7% (29)
Inside problems
14.3% (10)
10.5% (26)
Substance misuse problems
10.9% (7)
9.4% (22)
Offence problems
16.2% (11)
11.2% (27)
Changing life problems
14.5% (10)
10.2% (25)
Emotional or mental health problems
21.4% (15)
19.8% (48)
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
116
Statistics ᵪ² = 1.235 df = 1 ᵪ² = .786 df = 1 ᵪ² = .143 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.243 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.000 df = 1 ᵪ² = .086 df = 1
p
n
.226
320
.375
318
.706
299
.265
310
.317
314
.770
312
Table A6.3 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and first language
Problem
English
English first language
not first
Statistics
p
n
.830
318
.206
316
.086
297
.561
308
.552
312
.382
310
language
Outside problems
13.0% (38)
11.5% (3)
Inside problems
12.1% (35)
3.8% (1)
Substance misuse problems
10.7% (29)
0.0% (0)
Offence problems
12.0% (34)
16.0% (4)
Changing life problems
11.5% (33)
7.7% (2)
Emotional or mental health problems
19.7% (56)
26.9% (7)
ᵪ² = .046 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.598 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.954 df = 1 ᵪ² = .337 df = 1 ᵪ² = .354 df = 1 ᵪ² = .764 df = 1
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A6.4 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and country of birth Born in
Not Born in
Britain
Britain
Outside problems
13.3% (37)
9.8% (4)
Inside problems
11.2% (31)
12.2% (5)
Substance misuse problems
9.6% (25)
10.5% (4)
Offence problems
11.8% (32)
15.8% (6)
Changing life problems
11.0% (30)
12.5% (5)
Emotional or mental health problems
19.2% (52)
27.5% (11)
Problem
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
117
Statistics ᵪ² = .463 df = 1 ᵪ² = .033 df = 1 ᵪ² = .031 df = 1 ᵪ² = .491 df = 1 ᵪ² = .080 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.491 df = 1
p
n
.526
319
.856
317
.860
298
.484
309
.777
313
.222
311
118
13.3% (26)
12.2% (24)
20.9% (41)
Offence problems
Changing life problems
Emotional or mental health problems 26.7% (4)
6.7% (1)
13.3% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
13.3% (2)
19.1% (9)
12.5% (6)
14.9% (7)
13.6% (6)
10.0% (5)
6.0% (3)
Black
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
10.0% (19)
12.6% (25)
Inside p[problems
Substance misuse problems
16.0% (32)
European
British
Outside problems
White
White
17.2% (5)
10.3% (3)
3.6% (1)
7.1% (2)
20.0% (6)
10.0% (3)
Asian
13.3% (2)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
7.1% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
race
Mixed
25.0% (2)
13.5% (1)
25.0% (2)
12.5% (2)
0.0% (0)
12.5% (1)
Other
Table A6.5 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and ethnicity
ᵪ² = 1.186 df = 5
.946
.776
.347
ᵪ² = 5.99 df = 5 ᵪ² = 2.506 df = 5
.767
.187
ᵪ² = 7.482 df = 5 ᵪ² = 2.563 df = 5
.280
p
ᵪ² = 6.282 df = 5
Statistics
310
312
308
297
316
318
n
Table A6.6 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and prior imprisonment Been in
Not been
prison
in prison
before
before
Outside problems
10.9% (20)
15.3% (21)
Inside problems
9.4% (17)
13.9% (19)
Substance misuse problems
7.5% (13)
12.7% (16)
Offence problems
8.4% (15)
17.4% (23)
Changing life problems
9.6% (17)
13.2% (18)
Emotional or mental health problems
16.9% (30)
24.4% (33)
Problem
Statistics
ᵪ² = 1.358 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.556 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.237 df = 1 ᵪ² = 5.705 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.057 df = 1 ᵪ² = 2.670 df = 1
n
p
.422 .212 .135 .017 .304 .102
320 318 299 310 314 312
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A6.7 – Intentions to seeking help from Listeners and sentencing status Not Problem
Sentenced
Statistics
p
n
.347
317
.160
315
.210
296
.037
307
.039
311
.013
309
sentenced Outside problems
15.4% (14)
11.5% (26)
Inside problems
15.4% (14)
9.8% (22)
Substance misuse problems
12.8% (11)
8.1% (17)
Offence problems
18.2% (16)
9.6% (21)
Changing life problems
16.7% (15)
8.6% (19)
Emotional or mental health problems
28.9% (26)
16.4% (36)
ᵪ² = .886 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.979 df = 1 ᵪ² = 1.571 df = 1 ᵪ² = 4.373 df = 1 ᵪ² = 4.277 df = 1 ᵪ² = 6.165 df = 1
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
119
Appendix 7 Actual help-seeking from Listeners and demographic variables
Table A7.1 – Actual help-seeking from Listeners and age Help-seeking
18-30 years
31+ years
Statistics
Not talked to a Listener
83.4% (186)
79.8% (79)
ᵪ² = .613
Talked to a Listener
16.6% (37)
20.2% (20)
df = 1
p
n
.434
.322
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A7.2 – Actual help-seeking from Listeners and gender Help-seeking
Women
Men
Statistics
Not talked to a Listener
75.0% (54)
84.6% 214)
ᵪ² = 3.560
Talked to a Listener
25.0% (18)
15.4% (39)
df = 1
p
n
.059
325
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A7.3 – Actual help-seeking from Listeners and first language
Help-seeking
Not talked to a Listener Talked to a Listener
English
English first language
not first
Statistics
p
n
.016
323
language 100.0%
80.9% (241)
(25)
19.1% (57)
0% (0)
ᵪ² = 5.807 df = 1
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A7.4 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and country of birth Born in
Not Born in
Britain
Britain
Not talked to a Listener
81.0% (230)
92.5% (37)
ᵪ² = 3.206
Talked to a Listener
19.0% (54)
7.5% (3)
df = 1
Help-seeking
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
120
Statistics
p
n
.073
324
121 12.7% (7)
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
0% (0)
13.8% (4)
21.2% (41)
Asian
Talked to a Listener
European
British
Black
78.8% (160) 100.0% (3) 87.3% (48) 86.2% (25)
White
White
Not talked to a Listener
Help-seeking
20.0% (3)
80.0% (8)
race
Mixed
0% (0)
100.0% (8)
Other
Table A7.5 – Actual help-seeking from Listeners and ethnicity
df = 5
ᵪ² = 7.515
Statistics
.185
p
323
n
Table A7.6 – Actual help-seeking from Listeners and prior imprisonment
Help-seeking
Not been in
Been in prison before
prison
Statistics
n
.695
325
before
Not talked to a Listener
83.2% (158)
81.5% (110)
ᵪ² = .153
Talked to a Listener
16.8% (32)
18.5% (25)
df = 1
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
122
p
Appendix 8 Willingness to become a Listener and demographic variables
Table A8.1 – Willingness to become a Listener and age Willingness to become
18-30 years
31+ years
No
30.2% (67)
35.4% (35)
Not sure
26.1% (58)
34.3% (34)
Yes
43.7% (97)
30.3% (30)
a Listener
Statistics ᵪ² = 5.293 df = 2
p
n
.071
321
p
n
.000
324
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A8.2 – Willingness to become a Listener and gender Willingness to become
Women
Men
No
43.7% (31)
28.5% (72)
Not sure
40.8% (29)
24.9% (63)
Yes
15.5% (11)
46.6% (118)
a Listener
Statistics ᵪ² = 22.504 df = 2
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A8.3 – Willingness to become a Listener and first language Willingness to become
English first
a Listener
language
English not first
Statistics
p
n
.207
323
language
No
32.8% (97)
18.5% (5)
Not sure
27.4% (81)
40.7% (11)
Yes
39.9% (118)
40.7% (11)
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
123
ᵪ² = 3.150 df = 2
Table A8.4 – Intentions to seek help from Listeners and country of birth Willingness to become a
Born in
Not Born in
Listener
Britain
Britain
No
33.8% (95)
16.7% (7)
Not sure
26.3% (74)
42.9% (18)
Yes
39.9% (112)
40.5% (17)
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
124
Statistics ᵪ² = 6.905 df = 2
p
n
.032
323
125
35.1% (71)
Yes
53.3% (8)
20.0% (3)
25.0% (7)
3.6% (1)
Asian
38.9% (21) 71.4% (20)
40.7% (22)
20.4% (11)
Black
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
26.2% (53)
Not sure
26.7% (4)
European
British
38.6% (78)
White
White
No
become a Listener
Willingness to
40.0% (6)
26.7% (4)
33.3% (5)
race
Mixed
25.0% (2)
37.5% (3)
37.5% (3)
Other
Table A8.5 – Willingness to become a Listener and ethnicity
df = 10
ᵪ² = 25.624
Statistics
.004
p
322
n
Table A8.6 – Willingness to become a Listener and prior imprisonment Been in
Not been
prison
in prison
before
before
No
35.6% (67)
26.5% (36)
Not sure
19.1% (36)
41.2% (56)
Yes
45.2% (85)
32.4% (44)
Willingness to become a Listener
Statistics
ᵪ² = 18.849 df = 2
p
n
.000
324
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
Table A8.7 – Willingness to become a Listener and sentencing status Willingness to become
Not
a Listener
sentenced
Sentenced
No
24.4% (22)
35.1% (81)
Not sure
25.6% (23)
29.9% (69)
Yes
50.0% (45)
35.1% (81)
Statistics ᵪ² = 6.378 df = 2
p > .05 is not significant and significant results are emboldened.
126
p
n
.040
321
