Scottish Prisons Assessment and Review of Outcomes for Women (SPAROW): exploratory baseline study

Annex One: Prison Climate Questionnaire (PCQ) Development and Six Prison Climate Domains

PCQ Development

To measure the multidimensional construct prison climate in the Netherlands, the prison climate questionnaire (PCQ) was developed from earlier versions of a prisoner survey administered by the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency, in combination with extensive research on other existent instruments, a review of the literature, and a pilot study (Bosma et al 2020). Bosma et al (2020) in particular discuss the limitations of existent instruments in relation to their quality and reliability (particularly psychometric quality), their lack of theory driven conceptulisation of the construct of prison climate, and their limited applicability to general/broad prison populations.

Bosma et al (2020) explain how the pilot study tested and validated an early version of the PCQ with a population-based sample of individuals accommodated in Dutch prisons, and present tests of the PCQs factor structure, reliability and validity to assess the PCQ as “an adequate instrument to measure prison climate and its underlying domains,” they state:

“In sum, the prison climate domains correlated in a theoretically and empirically conceivable manner and it is thus credible that the scales measured one and the same central construct. This also indicates that although prison climate is a concept that leans on a subset of different constructs, these separate constructs are interrelated, and combined measure one central construct: prison climate.” (Bosma et al 2020)

The Life in Custody (LiC) Study has also been developed to include a unique research project on prison visitation: The Dutch Prison Visitation Study (DPVS), and two additional sub-projects that utilise data from the PCQ and administrative data^[29].

Six Prison Climate Domains

The LiC Study published papers provide insights central to explaining each of the six core prison climate domains. In summary^[30], Van Ginneken et al (2018) highlight that staff-prisoner relationships are a key determinant of quality of life in custody, given the dependence of individuals in custody on prison staff to receive basic goods and services, and to negotiate their privileges and autonomy. The authors note that good staff-prisoner relationships are of interest for staff to maintain for safety and order within the prison. However, good staff-prisoner relationships are not always an indicator of safety and order, for example prisoners themselves could end-up being more in control if staff are hesitant to assert their authority.

The authors state that: ““Right” staff-prisoner relationships are characterised by respect and fair and confident use of authority, so that (vulnerable) prisoners are protected from victimisation and exploitation” (Van Ginneken et al 2018), which relates to the PCQ questions on procedural justice.

Bosma et al (2020) further highlight that: “staff-prisoner relationships are key to understanding the moral quality of prison life, as well as safety and order in prison.”

On prisoner relationships, LiC Study research on social organisation in prison found that social relationships among prisoners were similar to friendship networks in non-custodial settings for example: “including reciprocity and transitivity in social ties (“the friends of my friends are my friends”), and homophily (i.e. a preference for similar others) on major sociodemographic dimensions such as religion and age” (Sentse et al 2021).

Van Ginneken et al (2018) note that although safety and order in custody is a key priority for prison Governors, contextual factors are important to consider alongside imposing higher security measures. The authors discuss evidence where individuals (with similar risk classifications) accommodated in a high security prison were more likely to re-offend and return to custody than individuals accommodated in a low security prison. The authors also highlight other studies that have identified various contextual predictors of misconduct and violence such as: “lack of staff experience, poor prison management, limited programme availability, prison size and composition of the population.”

Bosma et al (2020) also highlight that safety and order are closely related to other prison climate domains, particularly relationships in prison and autonomy.

On contact with the outside world^[31], Van Ginneken et al (2018) highlight that the quality of prison life is important not only to individuals in custody but also their loved ones. Visits in custody, facilities for visits and other modes of contact can provide emotional support, alleviation of pain from separation of loved ones, and facilitate (albeit minimal) parental contact with children. Similarly, Bosma et al (2020) highlight that: “Given the separation from loved ones, contact opportunities (through visits or phone calls) are important for maintaining relationships with the outside world.”

However, Van Ginneken et al (2018) note that because contact through in-person visits and through phone calls are often strictly monitored, such contact can cause distress and a more negative than positive visitation experience. Further, the authors note that some individuals in custody may choose not to have visits because of the distress they experience, rather than any emotional relief.

Van Ginneken et al (2018) state that facilities in custody relates to “general facilities and amenities, physical conditions and health care facilities.” The authors also highlight other studies (e.g. Boone et al 2016) that also consider food quality and exercise provision to be of importance, alongside quality of health care.

Bosma et al (2020) highlight that the quality of facilities and care provided, and how people in custody experience these can contribute to their negative or positive experience of prison climate and their well-being i.e. the poorer quality experienced by individuals contributes to their more reported negative experiences of prison climate and their well-being, whilst the more better quality experienced contributes to more reported positive experiences.

Van Ginneken et al (2018) also consider the overlap of facilities with autonomy, for example being able to cook for yourself may contribute to more self-autonomy in custody and potentially better quality of meals/nutrition.

Van Ginneken et al (2018) explain that access to exercise facilities can make a positive contribution to experiences of meaningful activities in custody. Further, the authors explain that participating in meaningful activities can help individuals in custody to pass time and relieve boredom, but also participation can be experienced as meaningful and useful after release. They note for example, that jobs in custody may be experienced as meaningful where skills are developed and responsibilities are given, which may include more autonomy to move around the prison. Further, they also discuss meaningful activities that help others, and activities such as religion or sport that individuals in custody might find meaningful, as follows:

“Helping other prisoners as “listener” can be used as opportunity for growth and giving back. Other meaningful activities may be creative in nature, which may be a way to maintain (or reconstruct) a sense of identity, exercise peaceful resistance to the loss of autonomy and cope with trauma. Some prisoners also find meaning in religious services or sport.” Van Ginneken et al (2018)

Bosma et al (2020) also highlight that meaningful activities in custody can help and support individuals in custody to cope with their time in custody and on release, by occupying their time in custody, and providing opportunities for personal growth and developing and learning new skills for release.

More autonomy experienced in custody is generally associated with more positive perceived quality of prison life (Van Ginneken et al 2018; Bosma et al 2020). Prison deprives individuals of their autonomy, however individuals in custody may have some opportunities to make their own decisions and still have some freedom to move around the custodial establishment (e.g. to work, for recreation/gym/activities, and education classes), which may help to alleviate some of the harms of imprisonment individuals may experience (Bosma et al 2020).