‘I thought I was screwed before I started that program’: The impact on self-belief of the Peace Education Program at Adelaide Women’s Prison

Abstract

The Peace Education Program, created in 2012, is a complementary programme supplementing official rehabilitation interventions offered in correctional centres across the globe. It is a mixed media programme with 10 modules that aims to encourage participants’ appreciation of their inner resources. Findings presented are based on the qualitative research undertaken at Adelaide Women’s Prison with 15 participants who completed the programme, and six facilitators. This article focuses on one of the key aspects of this study: the impact of the programme on the self-belief of the participants and how this related to their confidence in their ability to desist from offending, as described in their words. Participants described how this relatively new, complementary programme had assisted them in discovering their inner resources, promoting self-belief and self-confidence. This was inter-related with an enhanced realisation of their own agency in their desistance journey.

Introduction

In recent years, the discourse surrounding incarceration and rehabilitation has evolved to recognise the intricate connections between individual psychology, social environments and the potential for personal transformation, particularly within prisons. Desistance literature, and in particular the Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward et al., 2012; Willis and Ward, 2013), emphasises the importance that discovering – or re-discovering – self-belief plays in the envisaging of a future that is better than one’s past, and the sense of failure represented by incarceration in the present. Fostering self-belief among incarcerated individuals has emerged as a pivotal aspect of effective rehabilitation programmes. Wide-ranging complementary programmes have proliferated in recent years, aiming to offer personal resources for people who are justice involved with the possibility of improving their well-being and self-belief (Auty et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2016; Cursley and Maruna, 2015; Muirhead and Fortune, 2016). Complementary prison programmes that prioritise self-belief signify a progressive shift in criminal justice, offering individuals the opportunity to reclaim agency, realise their potential and contribute to their overall well-being.

This article presents findings from an exploratory study of the Peace Education Program (PEP) at Adelaide Women’s Prison (AWP), focussing on how their participation in the programme impacted the women’s sense of self-belief, and how this was linked to their confidence regarding their desistance journey. The PEP is media-based and comprises 10 modules: peace, appreciation, inner strength, self-awareness, clarity, dignity, understanding, choice, hope and contentment. In inviting participants to consider their lives (and the human condition in general), the PEP aligns with those complementary programmes that seek to expand the resources of the individual and potentially thereby to increase motivation for the suite of official core programmes (Auty et al., 2017; Muirhead and Fortune, 2016; Bartels et al., 2019).

Studies that explore the relevance of such programmes to desistance offer to make significant contributions to knowledge and expand the repertoire of services offered in the carceral environment. By exploring the impact of the PEP on women’s self-belief and their beliefs about avoiding future offending, this article contributes to the evidence base on complementary programmes. This article will first present the literature on agency and self-efficacy, locus of control, belief in redeemability (BIR) and how these relate to complementary programmes, before describing the methods and results of the present study of the PEP.

Literature review

Self-efficacy and agency

Self-belief in the language of criminology focuses primarily on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 2000; Bonta and Andrews, 2016), and ‘agency’ (Bandura, 2000; Healy, 2016), dovetailing with ‘internal locus of control’ (Rotter, 1966). While there may be debate about the terminology, the relevance of these concepts to the cessation of offending would, however, generally be regarded as crucial, facilitating self-esteem, hope, self-confidence, optimism and BIR (Maruna, 2016; Maruna and King, 2009; O’Sullivan et al., 2018).

The phrase ‘self-efficacy’ was first developed by Bandura (1977). He proposed that self-efficacy was the vital precondition for behavioural change, determining ‘whether coping behaviour will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences’ (p. 191). After more than two decades of further work, Bandura (2000) recognised that those with lower self-efficacy would be more likely to give up and attribute their failures to internal processes engendering feelings of helplessness (pp. 17-18). Self-efficacy and agency in the context of the desistance literature appear central to a robust sense of progression away from the ‘spoiled identity’ (Goffman, 2009) of an ‘offender’, and thus crucial to believing in the ability to take control of one’s life. While self-efficacy relates more to self-cognitions regarding ability, agency relates more to practical capacity, though in practice there is usually an inter-relationship between the two (Bandura, 2000). Bandura (2000) defined agency as ‘rooted in the belief in the power to make things happen’ (p. 20). On this basis, self-efficacy would seem to be a prerequisite for agency. Agency could also be defined as the belief of the individual in their ability to use their personal resources to achieve their desired outcome or goal (Barnett and Wood, 2008; Lloyd and Serin, 2012). Agency is invaluable in successfully maintaining change-motivation when faced with the challenges surrounding reintegration.

Bonta and Andrews (2016) acknowledge that self-efficacy is a key predictive factor regarding offending. Agency has similarly been identified by numerous desistance theorists as related to the cessation or otherwise of offending. Lloyd and Serin (2012) and Barnett and Wood (2008) relate agency to the belief that one has the resources to achieve their goal. The terminology of agency was identified by Maruna (2001), whose ‘desisters’ were five times more likely to use agentic language when compared with ‘persisters’, or those who continued offending.

Social context

Desistance from offending does not occur in a social and relational vacuum. The importance of the social context in facilitating or frustrating desistance is acknowledged by Healy (2016), defining agency as the inter-relationship of the individual and their social context, with the reality of the latter constraining the options available to the individual (p. 56). For the women in Bernard’s (2015) study, ‘The answer to why they did not reoffend lies in the combination of the use of their individual agency and the receipt of critical support from and meaningful engagement within their communities’ (p. 108).

Anderson and McNeill (2019) acknowledged the bilateral effect of internal and external factors (p. 16), suggesting cognitions do not occur in a vacuum without the social context. They therefore suggest that programmes facilitate agency as the ‘capability to act independently and to make choices within the social structure’ (p. 6). Healy (2016) echoes Bandura (2000) this perception in defining agency as the inter-relationship of the individual and their social context, acknowledging the reality of the constraints of the latter on the options available to the individual (p. 56). Healy (2013) also pointed out that the possibility of success is a critical factor in determining motivation for desistance (p. 565). Healy (2014) stresses that to be successful, the envisaged identity of a life of desistance must be valued strongly and attainable, thereby enabling agency. Her study suggests that the ability to picture an improved ‘future self’ is more important than past behaviour, background or thinking styles. However, without external supports and opportunities to enable hopes for the future to be realised, ‘the imagined identity remains a chimera’ (p. 888); which rather tends to the reality of social inequality, and the fact that the playing cards of life are not dealt out fairly for all.

Farrall and Calverley (2006) point to the irony of the various restrictions of choice and agency consequent upon incarceration that therefore inhibit maturation in terms of learning the ability to take responsibility for choices and decisions. Indeed, one of the major deprivations of incarceration is loss of the ability to make choices. The importance of agency has been recognised in approaches to correctional programming. The GLM (Ward et al., 2012; Willis and Ward, 2013) evolved in response to a perception of the limitations inherent in the Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR) model which had informed correctional programming (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Bonta and Wormith, 2013). The GLM sought to provide a more strengths-based, collaborative, individualised and holistic approach. This model identifies seven ‘primary goods’, or prerequisites for leading a productive life without recourse to offending, with agency being described by Willis and Ward (2013) as being the principal source of a person’s identity and values. Chu et al. (2014: 4) include in their categorisation of primary goods that are most relevant to this project: ‘excellence in agency’, which they clarify as ‘autonomy and self-directedness’.

Agency and self-efficacy can help foster a sense of hope and optimism, which have been linked with desistance (Anderson and McNeill, 2019). LeBel et al. (2008) comment on the connection between agency and hope, the latter being required to enable the successful pursuit of goals. They identify the necessity of having both ‘the will’ as necessary to achieve an outcome, plus also having the ‘ways’ (or having belief in one’s ability), and the available means to achieve the goal (p. 136). This has been applied in research on programmes for people who offend. Marshall et al. (2013) produced a programme with the objective of countering the low self-esteem and shame of sexual offenders by encouraging hope and optimism in the offender’s abilities to meet their needs for primary goods in socially acceptable ways (p. 182). The research of Martin and Stermac (2010) demonstrated that lower hope and lower agentic thinking correlated with higher risk of recidivism scores. Thus, hope can be a protective factor, and absence of hope, a risk factor. They therefore suggest the value of investing resources to boost hope, but do not specify which resources would achieve that objective and how those resources would be provided.

Locus of control

Locus of control has an integral relationship with agency and self-efficacy. It is described by Rotter (1966) in his Social Learning Theory as being based on the distinction between those who can perceive that the consequences of their actions are under their control (internal locus of control) or conversely, those who perceive themselves as relatively powerless and attribute consequences to external factors beyond their control (external locus of control). Tyler et al. (2020) emphasise that locus of control is subject to positive or negative reinforcement. They therefore perceive the collaborative practices of the GLM (Ward et al., 2012; Willis and Ward, 2013) as encouraging agency with the co-creation of achievement goals and fostering hope and self-belief. They also note that it is linked with self-esteem.

BIR

The concept of BIR (Maruna and King, 2009) was originally applied regarding the attitudes and beliefs of the public towards the punishment and the potential for rehabilitation of offenders. However, this concept is equally important for agency and self-belief for people who are justice involved: if people who offend lack self-efficacy beliefs about their ability to change, then this will add to the structural impediments they will inevitably face. O’Sullivan et al. (2018) measured offenders’ (under the supervision of community corrections) beliefs in their ability to change, and identified optimism (hope), agency and a sense of belonging as being related to the narrative of desistance. They suggest a link between self-belief and desistance, with the former being predictive of success in the latter.

Complementary programmes

Complementary programmes have burgeoned in the carceral environment in recent decades and seek to supplement and reinforce the efficacy of official rehabilitation interventions by offering participants means for personal development and positive mental health. They are wide-ranging, including art therapy, music therapy, yoga and meditation programmes. These programmes lead the field in terms of the volume of research data on individual programmes (Bartels et al., 2019; Samuelson et al., 2007), systematic reviews (Wimberly and Xue, 2016) and meta-analyses (Auty et al., 2017; Muirhead and Fortune, 2016). These systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight the issue with the lack of standardisation between the programme contents, since there is no single, universally agreed curriculum. In general, evaluation of yoga programmes in prisons tend to focus on improvement in mood as being related to probable improvement of behaviour while in custody, and a greater ability to potentially focus and benefit from the core/RNR programmes. Self-esteem is also measured in some studies (Auty et al., 2017; Wimberly and Xue, 2016).

Increasingly, music and arts-based programmes have also been used in prisons. Cursley and Maruna (2019) described such programmes as not being based on addressing criminogenic needs ‘but rather on helping a person realise their inner potential, discover new interests, and achieve new things’ (p. 257). Cursley and Maruna’s (2015) research of the ‘Changing Tunes’ programme found that ‘changing self-perceptions led to a sense of agency and control’, and optimism for the future (p. 2). Research by Chen et al. (2016) found that music therapy improved self-esteem. Cheliotis and Jordanoska (2016) relegate arts-based programmes to ‘secondary desistance’ but acknowledge they can effect ‘attitudinal changes; increased learning capacity and motivations; and social skills building’ (p. 2), which could reduce the risk of re-offending; adding that ‘this is no small feat’ (p. 13).

The gendered needs of justice-involved women

Much of the research and literature referenced above is based on studies with males. Prior to the critical lens of feminists the assumption had been that research on males in prison, and the treatments that have flowed from that research, would be equally applicable to women (Latessa et al., 2020). In particular, the research related to RNR has been singled out as being based almost entirely on males, with the assessment tools and programmes used and promoted by this model therefore sharing that male-centric bias (Van Voorhis et al., 2010). ‘What works’ sees gender, age and race as relatively unimportant compared with peers, attitude and personality (Latessa et al., 2020). In this paradigm, it could appear that the GLM is more sympathetic to the needs of women, in terms of allowing a more therapeutic approach focused on ‘better lives’ and empowerment. It follows therefore that programmes and the risk (or strength) assessments that preceded and inform them should reflect the unique needs of women in prison. Brown and Bloom (2018) comment that ‘the collateral consequences of prison sentences exacerbate . . . already existing deficits’ (p. 6). Focussing on the gendered inequalities in research and consequent provision of services, they argue that further educational opportunities could enable women to acquire both greater social capital, skills and thus the prospects of employability while also supporting the development of identity transformation and a greater sense of agency.

There are gendered differences in offending pathways (Daly, 1994). Intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 2013; Fader and Traylor, 2015; Russell and Carlton, 2013) emphasises the cumulative and compounding nature of disadvantage including gender, race and social class, which constrain socio-structural opportunities. The World Health Organization (2009) in their report on correcting the gender inequality regarding women’s health in prison ascribe the more complex health needs of women as deriving from ‘lives of poverty, drug use, family violence, sexual assault, adolescent pregnancy, malnutrition and poor health care’ (p.20). The report estimated that ‘at least 75% of women arriving in prison have some sort of drug or alcohol related problem at the time of arrest’ (p. 24) and suggests that this correlates with factors including having ‘fewer resources (education, employment and income) than men’; living with a partner with a substance abuse problem; and having experienced trauma and developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The connection between trauma and substance abuse is further acknowledged by Hauzinger (2018) and Wright et al (2012).

In Australia, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), in their latest data release (2020) state that 65% of the incarcerated women they surveyed reported having had a mental health diagnosis before entering prison, 40% were taking mental health-related medication and 31% reported a history of self-harm. They also acknowledge that intergenerational trauma is also associated with poorer mental health, among other health and well-being issues, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in prison (p. 10).

Gender-responsive programmes such as ‘Seeking Safety’ (Najavits, 2002), and ‘Moving On’ (Latessa et al., 2020) seek to include self-esteem, self-efficacy, trauma and emotional self-regulation. Self-esteem/self-efficacy and self-confidence have all been identified as important for women’s journey towards desistance (Van Voorhis et al., 2010). They describe these constructs as ‘highly relevant to the notion of empowerment’, providing protective factors relevant for desistance (p.265). They found that low self-efficacy was ‘significantly related to outcome measures’ in all three of their samples of women people in prison (p.277). Goodwin (2016) states that her research demonstrated the relevance of low self-confidence for females in prison believing in their ability to create new pro-social identities. She commented that this was particularly problematic for women who had been in controlling abusive relationships, since these experiences had eroded their self-esteem. However, Russell and Carlton (2013) argue that gender-responsive efforts in the penal system ignore and thus distract from systemic intersectional disadvantage and marginalisation that have more relevance to offending than individual pathology.

Methodology

The study investigated the impact of the PEP at AWP, focussing on participants’ sense of identity, with reference to potential desistance from offending. This section first describes the PEP, before providing an account of the data collection and analysis relevant to self-belief.

PEP

The programme seeks to encourage participants to look at themselves and become aware of their strengths. The tone is therefore supportive and encouraging rather than critical, with the use of humour also serving to make the content non-confrontational. At AWP the programme is delivered in 10 sessions (PEP 3), or five sessions using the shorter PEP Collection, by volunteer facilitators who play the media and facilitate discussion and activities relevant to the specific module. The materials draw on public talks by the programme’s originator Prem Rawat, as well as interviews with him by media personalities, interviews with programme participants and interviews with the public. Animated stories and music with other visual effects are effective in enhancing the verbal content.

The media content is interspersed with breaks for participants to reflect and comment if they so wish on that material, either in their workbooks or verbally in the group. The Warden of Dominguez State Jail in San Antonio, Texas, where the programme was first created in 2012, Dr Michael Gilbert (Executive Director of the National Association of Community and Restorative Justice), appears in the movie Inside Peace, which is used at AWP as an introduction to the programme. He describes the programme as impacting participants’ sense of self-identity and self-worth, and the ‘Reflections’ period as not simply an opportunity to be listened to and be heard, but also an opportunity for participants to express their vulnerability and drop their masks. The ‘Reflections’ segment also demonstrates respect for participants’ own responses on the content of the modules, there being no attempt to inculcate ‘correct’ answers.

While the words ‘agency’ and ‘self-efficacy’ are not used directly in the PEP material, the analysis of the material found a strong emphasis on the ability of, and the desirability for, the individual to take control of their lives, and to believe in themselves. Much of the content of the programme is framed as encouraging and empowering, and thereby facilitating agency: ‘You have the power, you have the power to shape your life the way you want to shape your life’ (PEP 3, module 1). This also became evident during the analysis of participants’ words.

The programme frequently emphasises the importance, consequences of and responsibility for, choice. Rawat describes how when incarcerated people realise that they can change their lives, ‘that is the day nothing is the same anymore. Hope happens’ (PEP 3 module 9). He adds that, without hope, people will end up returning to prison. Speaking to an audience of prison inmates, he emphasises the importance of realising that they are in the position in which they find themselves because of choices they had made, and the same ability to choose could keep them out of prison ‘forever’ (PEP 3 module 3). There is also considerable congruence between the concept of ‘inner peace’, as described in the PEP material, and having an internal locus of control, emphasising that everyone has the innate ability to feel peace, and that each individual, in choosing whether to connect with that inner peace or not, is exercising agency.

Data collection

Fifteen programme participants and six facilitators were interviewed for the project. Programme participants self-selected voluntarily, and this equally applied to participation in the research. This was also emphasised in the participant information and consent forms (PICFs), and in interview with the researcher. The participants were only recruited from attendees of the programme with the primary facilitator, since the researcher had confidence that he had understood and was supportive of the requirements of the research, though another programme was co-occurring at the time of the research with different facilitators. The primary facilitator advised that the only programme selection question asked was ‘are you likely to be here long enough to be able to complete the course?’ They had attended an introductory programme which described the nature of the course and included a screening of Inside Peace, after which they decided whether to enrol or not.

Given that participation in complementary programmes is voluntary and lacks extrinsic/instrumental motivation, one can assume the PEP participants at AWP had a degree of receptivity and positive bias regarding inner peace and self-development. This would apply similarly, one would anticipate, to the facilitators’ motivation in doing this work.

Most of the participants interviewed had attended all 10 modules. Seven of the participants identified as Aboriginal, one participant identified as Maori and one as Persian. The remaining six participants identified their ethnicity as Australian. Facilitators were from professional backgrounds and were mostly retirees.

Ethics approval was obtained from La Trobe University (HEC20462) and approval by the South Australia Department for Correctional Services. Variations had to be sought to progress the research, owing to the restrictions due to COVID-19 at the time, such as conducting interviews by phone rather than face-to-face (Turner, 2023). All interview participants were provided with an information and consent form. This emphasised that participation was entirely voluntary, the objective was to assess the programme, that interviews would be recorded and that there would be no extrinsic benefit from participation in the research. Semi-structured interviews focused on participants’ opinions about the programme itself (including any criticisms, suggested improvements or any sense of gender bias) and any impact on how they felt about themselves (including taking responsibility for their offending, any behavioural change they had already noticed and confidence regarding their ability to desist in the future). All the interviews were transcribed verbatim. To ensure confidentiality, participants were assigned pseudonyms randomly.

Analysis

Analysis for this project was conducted by the first author using NVivo software. Using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis stages approach, after familiarisation with the data, inductive and deductive coding based on the themes identified in the literature was used. To ensure rigour and quality of the coding and analytic process, the first author met regularly with the second and third authors to discuss emerging findings and themes. The coding process led to several overarching themes and sub-themes, with the concept of self-belief emerging as a key theme. For the purpose of this article, we focus on five key themes that emerged from the analysis of qualitative interviews with participants and facilitators: agency and empowerment, self-esteem, self-identity, taking responsibility and confidence in ability to avoid re-offending.

Findings

Agency and empowerment

The participants’ words often reflected expressions of belief in themselves and in their ability to change, and that changing themselves would not be as hard as they had previously anticipated. Many realised that their situation was not due to other people but to themselves, speaking with increased confidence – and even enthusiasm – about the future. Overall, participants talked of an increased self-awareness and sense of empowerment. This is apparent in participants’ words about their life choices and a degree of optimism about their ability to improve their lives.

There is a clear overlap between participants’ comments regarding their growth in self-understanding and the growth in their sense of agency. This is evidenced by comments such as Annette’s, who expressed that she had realised that only she could change herself: ‘I always had it in my head that I can’t do this, I can’t – but I can!’ Similarly, Grace expressed that prior to the programme, ‘I had just started giving up on myself, going to that program made me realise and understand you know, that no one else can help me, I’ve got to help myself’. She described how she came to understand that only she could take greater control of her life, that she had been waiting for someone to come and save her, but now realised that ‘no one can, I’ve got to learn to help myself . . . I have to do it’.

Bernie described in strong terms: ‘I thought I was screwed before I started that program, yeah, in a bad place’, and that the programme had helped her no longer feel this way. During the interview, she acknowledged how much more control and responsibility she had for her own life than she had previously realised:

Just knowing, more clarity about my internal strengths was a big eye-opener for me, a lot of it just hit right home . . . it’s made me realise that the only person who can change the way I do things is me. And I’ve also realised it’s not going to be as hard as I thought it would.

Jess explained that in addition to increasing her sense of self-worth, the programme had also helped her feel ‘capable’. Several participants commented on the programme having given them greater awareness of their inner strengths. Clair’s words below show how the programme had made her think more deeply about life and her sense of her own identity:

. . . you’ve got routines in here and out there, but when you sum it all up, you really can’t function unless you actually have that peace, and inner strength, and guidance within your own sense of where you know you’re bound to if that makes sense.

Some participants talked about a story featured in the programme, the story of the good wolf and the bad wolf, which in many ways illustrates the concept of agency (with the choice of which wolf to feed being critical). Annette commented that she had been feeding the bad wolf, which led to the course of self-destruction she had been embarked on prior to her incarceration. Realising that one has the power to make choices is fundamental to agency, and realising that no one else has the right to take control of one’s life is of considerable value for women who have been in abusive relationships, such as Grace: ‘I’ve been in, like, domestic violence . . . I feel like that, I have to put up with it, but now I feel I no longer have to put up with that’.

How the facilitators at AWP have chosen to implement the programme involves a conscious choice to encourage participants to exercise agency. For a facilitator (Alan), the development of agency was extremely important. As he explained, he had perceived that participants generally had experienced little sense of control in their lives and had missed out on opportunities to become ‘strong, independent, self-directed personalities’. To enable the participants to feel a greater sense of agency, Alan described how he introduced the optional additional supplement of art materials relevant to the module topic. This had proven quite successful for some participants in assisting their ability to focus, especially if they were in substance withdrawal, and some participants referred to their appreciation of this adjunct material. Clair expressed how the handouts with drawings enabled her to express her responses to the subject in a more visual and non-verbal way:

(I wanted to) draw how I felt and cos I can draw as well, just having that outlet, not just having to sit there and listen, and having that paper in front of us, being able to put down how we felt whatever it was we got out of it was probably the best aspect of that course other than all the other you know interesting thoughts that he puts into your head and makes you think about.

Clair’s comments support Alan’s contention that participants can feel a greater sense of agency if they are permitted to pursue whichever learning style works best for them.

Several participants expressed appreciation for the relatively relaxed style of facilitation, and the less-prescriptive format of the programme in comparison to other programmes on offer. Bernie commented that she had expected the PEP to be ‘another one of those courses that told you what to do’. Clair elaborated on her comment that the PEP was ‘by far the best one I’ve done. Yep’, explaining her response as in part due to the emphasis being on ‘finding yourself again’, rather than focussing on the past. Like Bernie, she also appreciated the less-prescriptive format:

. . . to get what you want out of it, instead of going ‘no this is how you should feel, this is what we want to see out of you, this is the end result that it has to be, you know, cos we get a lot of that in courses . . . you didn’t have to have an outcome where you get a tick, they’ve got that right

Faye echoed this perspective on the relatively ‘laissez-faire’ atmosphere created by the facilitators, explaining that ‘if you want to absorb it in you can, and if you don’t you can just drift off’, which she experienced as contrasting with programmes she had previously undertaken. Another facilitator, Bill, specifically commented on the way their style of facilitation encouraged agency in participants:

Their lives are so regulated, they are told what to do and when to do it all day every day, and for them to be given that agency I think is really important, and it’s part of the humanitarian nature of the course, I think, to not be at all prescriptive.

Several facilitators commented on the growth of agency and inner strengths in participants such as Cara who noted how she had observed that participants came to ‘feel that they can change their lives. They do feel that empowerment’. Facilitator Fred felt that the programme generally touched on various aspects of the women’s lives that were ‘very meaningful’ for them, particularly with specific concepts such as dignity, respect, and having choice/control. He explained: ‘not allowing anyone else to have control, and having somewhere to turn that is not at the whim of their circumstances, which of course aren’t very ideal’.

Self-esteem/self-worth

Another major theme to emerge was around participants’ subjective assessments on how the programme had affected their sense of self-esteem and self-worth, with the majority expressing a positive impact. Grace was very clear that she had acquired greater self-confidence and self-belief through the programme:

I can do it too. I can change and stay out of here . . . it made me feel capable, and it also made me feel a lot more self-worth than what I had before, or not realising the self-worth that I had before doing it.

Grace also expressed powerfully how her low self-esteem was interlinked with her experiences as a victim of domestic violence, which contributed to her thinking: ‘I’m a failure, I’ve failed at everything I do, you know?’ For Olivia, increased self-confidence would help her ‘to be able to move forwards in life’ and was something from which she thought everyone could benefit.

When talking about the changes she had experienced after the programme, Annette expressed that the programme provided her with the skills to appreciate herself and her life: ‘I am enough, and I deserve this preciousness of life. I never ever felt like that before’. Just those three words – ‘I am enough’ – seem to encapsulate the essence of self-belief. Similarly, Bernie described in strong terms: ‘I thought I was screwed before I started that program, yeah, in a bad place’, and that the programme had helped her no longer feel this way. Self-belief and self-worth seemed to also resonate with Martha. In her words, Martha described the change in her self-perception after the programme, in acquiring both a greater sense of self-worth and enabling her to frame her offending as a lapse that she was able to rectify:

Yes, most definitely, I’m not worthless, I’m actually a good person, I just got influenced and misled by a wrong group of people . . . from a program like that, it makes you feel worthy, and even though this might be a little failure at the moment, it’s a mistake, whereas I’ve got the power to make sure I don’t go into that limelight again.

When discussing observed improvements in participants’ self-esteem, facilitator Bill emphasised the programme’s focus on the individual’s inner strengths:

. . . pointing out the strengths and the qualities that a person already has, and the constant reinforcement of that notion, really does fill a sense of confidence, self-awareness, and dignity that is very, very helpful to these folk who are really in a bad place, and often have been treated very badly during their lives.

Bill’s words illustrate and confirm how a programme based on principles more in accord with the GLM (which focuses on strengths) than the RNR model (deficit-based) can prove more effective in improving self-esteem – particularly for those who have considerable previous experience of having that low self-esteem reinforced.

Facilitator Emma similarly commented on how the programme seemed to meet the needs of most of the women:

to have self-value, and a need not to be down on themselves. I think Rawat tells them quite clearly that they’re valuable, as human beings, and I think that’s one of the fundamental things they need to hear in there.

Both participants and facilitators commented on how the programme could improve participants’ sense of self-identity and self-worth, an important component of positive self-perception, which is the focus of the next segment of analysis of the interviews.

Self-identity

The majority of participants claimed that they had acquired greater self-knowledge through attending the programme. For example, Ella explained: ‘I thought I learnt much about myself’. Similarly, Annette described that the main thing that she had got out of the programme ‘was learning about me, about being able to look inside myself, and knowing that it’s me that can change everything about me’. She explained how she had come to realise the importance of self-knowledge: ‘I went “that’s so right”, so yeah, I knew then that I needed to work on this knowing me more. And that’s amazing’.

Dana also acknowledged that before she had started the course, she had been wanting to ‘get to know me again’, and that she had also acquired a better appreciation about being ‘a human being’. She expressed that it had enabled her to love herself. Clair expressed a similar sentiment, in that the programme had helped her to ‘where I wanted to be in my own skin’. She commented:

I’m more content, not with what I’ve done, but with who I am . . . I’m a beautiful person, and to actually listen to him [Rawat] speak reminded me of who I really am, because I know I am that person, and I get taken a lot in the wrong light, . . . I don’t really care what they think, it’s what I think.

Harriet expressed that she had needed to know ‘who you are as a person’, in order to find peace, and that the programme had helped her know herself a lot better. Similarly, Grace expressed that she had got to know herself better: ‘I didn’t know nothing about this until I watched it, and I learnt a lot about myself, you know, what I can do when I get out, and to do that. It’s all about me, you know’. Her words also show an understanding of self-responsibility, and her intent to change her behaviours when she returns to the community. Some of the participants related acquiring greater self-knowledge to obtaining a greater understanding of their emotions. Jess stated that the programme ‘definitely helped with the way that I understand my own emotions, yeah’. For Kym, it helped to confirm the learnings she was making in her life.

Facilitator Alan acknowledged that there were in fact various educational or other classes available to the women but described them as too short to match fully the long-term ‘psychological capacities, and the psychological needs, of the people in there’. He commented on how the programme contributed to a shift in participants’ identities, or more particularly to a reaffirmation of themselves prior to their criminal offending:

A number of people have said over the course of the program that I know there’s something inside me, I know there’s more inside me, I know I can do this – meaning, overcome whatever has put them in prison – I know I’m a good person, I know I’ve got value.

Taking responsibility

The importance of the individual acknowledging the relationship between their behaviour and its consequences, rather than blaming ‘the system’ or other people, is repeatedly emphasised in the programme material. When the theme of taking personal responsibility for their offending was explored with the participants, most expressed that they were already taking accountability. Clair responded on this issue: ‘Of course it’s easier to point the finger than taking ownership of anything you ever do, but not for me because I’ve never had a problem with that’.

For some, however, the programme appears to have served to sharpen an awareness of their sense of responsibility. Olivia realised that being incarcerated was ‘all (her) fault’, but was encouraged by the programme inspiring her to grasp that everyone was capable of change: ‘it was my fault all along, but it helped me realise that just because I made a mistake, doesn’t mean I can’t make things better when I come out of here’. Similarly, Bernie attributed the programme to increasing her awareness of her failure to take responsibility for her offending during previous incarcerations, and that she now had gained a more positive sense of empowerment regarding creating a more pro-social future:

For once in my life I’m actually realising that I can do something about me being here, and I can do something about changing my life. And just going to this program has helped me go, this is what I can do, and I can make my life better, this is how I can do it.

India also admitted that ‘It’s a lot easier to blame everyone around you besides yourself’, and that the programme had helped focus about her responsibility for the choices she had made, though she described prison as ‘a bit of a learning curve in itself’. Jess made similar comments about how the programme:

definitely clarified a few things that I was probably ignoring about my situation, or just suppressing . . . to take responsibility for the whole thing. I always took responsibility for being in jail, but there was always that ‘but if I hadn’t been hanging out with this person’, you know.

For Kym, responsibility applied to all her daily actions in her quest to be a better person. She expressed that taking responsibility was more than making a verbal declaration, but about actually changing actions as a means of reparation. As she explained:

you can take responsibility on all sorts of levels, you can take responsibility saying ‘I take responsibility and I’m sorry’, or you can take responsibility saying ‘I take responsibility and I’m sorry, and this is what I’m going to do to make things better’, you know, that’s sort of what I’ve taken.

From Faye’s words, the programme enabled her to look at the consequences of her actions, her own role in her offending, and the necessity of taking responsibility. It also served to give her some hope for the future, and a deeper sense of agency:

. . . it opened my eyes a lot more to things that I shouldn’t have done, and could have done a lot differently and yeah now you’ve got to deal with it, and try and get out and try and stay out. You forget about you’re the main reason why you’re in here, and that definitely opens your eyes that there is life after here and you can definitely get better, you have to want it, yeah.

Confidence in the ability to avoid re-offending

Based on the interviews, it became apparent that most participants felt increased confidence about their ability to stay out of prison. A couple of participants stated that they already felt confident about this prior to commencing the programme, but also felt that these intentions were reinforced by the programme. For example, Layla acknowledged that she had decided prior to commencing the programme that she would stay out of prison, but her confidence in her ability to do so increased after the programme, and expressed the desire to prevent other people she knew from offending by encouraging them to do the programme.

Layla indicated that if she had previously been aware of her self-worth and the preciousness of her life, she would not have offended in the first place, indicating a degree of connection between self-belief, and belief in the ability to desist from offending.

Many of the participants described how the programme had increased their confidence in reintegrating after leaving prison. India came up with an evaluation of her confidence levels in the form of a scale: ‘At the moment, I would say on a scale of one to ten, I’d be a seven’, whereas she evaluated herself as a ‘three’ prior to undertaking the programme. Grace’s level of confidence was influenced by the participants in the Inside Peace movie. She expressed how powerful it was to see that they did not let rejections put them off finding employment. As she said: ‘they kept going . . . If those men can do it, then I can do it too. I can change and stay out of here’. Jess stated that she felt ‘extremely confident, I really do’, particularly as the PEP had increased her sense of self-worth, and thus her confidence in herself.

Annette’s confidence in her own abilities were tinged with realism about the obstacles to success:

Very confident. I won’t be back. And yeah, I know a lot of people say ‘I won’t be back’, but I won’t be back so yeah it’s going to be a hard road, because losing my mother and my husband I struggled with addiction, which is what got me to prison, but being away, and wasting my precious short amount of days in here, is not worth any drug. Yeah, I feel more confident now, because I always had it in my head that I can’t do this, I can’t, but I can! I believe in myself so much more.

Annette’s words demonstrate that she appreciated the value of having strong supports available for her post release: ‘I’ve got strong supports out there now, so as long as I turn to them, and keep my head level, then I’m good’. Clair also acknowledged that she was fortunate to have the support of her family, even if they did not fully understand her struggles to stay clean. She attributed to the programme that she had been able to re-evaluate her identity and to appreciate that she had the benefit of ‘a good family’ of origin:

So being in that course really makes you think about who I was before any of that, cos I had a good childhood, a good family. Really, there’s a lot less chance of me coming back to jail – the program has really enlightened me.

The majority of participants (12/15) seemed unequivocal about the contribution of the programme to their level of confidence in their abilities to desist, such as Bernie’s brief words: ‘heaps more . . . I thought I was screwed before I started that program, yeah’. Some put numbers to their change in perspective. For example, Dana had gone from 50% to 100% confident, with Faye expressing that ‘I was probably 50/50 beforehand, but now I’m up there, 85 to 90% feeling confident about things’. She attributed this to the program, which encouraged her to think more clearly and to want to change her life. She was realistic enough to feel a little daunted, knowing ‘it’s hard enough to be in here, let alone to be out there, but I’ve kind of got to prove it to myself and to the court, and to my family and friends, that I can be a better person, yeah’.

Martha also appeared very clear both that the PEP had helped clarify her confidence regarding an offence-free future and in her statements of intent:

I see this as an opportunity for me to get myself into a better order, a better mind-frame I guess, being in this situation, from that program . . . It’s a big difference, I know what I want to do when I get out, I know what I can do to stay out, and I know what I’ve got to focus on. A lot clearer, yep. It’s helped me, and I re-read things when I get disheartened with stuff, I go like through my notes.

This included the acquisition of an increased sense of self-reliance and becoming less dependent on the influence of others.

Discussion

The primary question for evaluations of complementary programmes such as the PEP is whether they can demonstrate any improvements in behaviours and/or cognitions that are likely to result in reductions in offending. The ‘Intermediate Outcomes Measurement Instrument (IOMI)’ (Maguire et al., 2019) by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in the United Kingdom acknowledged that progress towards desistance should be judged by broader criteria than merely reductions in recidivism, acknowledging that a wider range of interventions that are adjunctive to the core cognitive–behavioural programmes may provide pathways towards desistance.

The findings presented in this study show that the PEP participants at AWP described various learnings from the programme relating to a growth in agency, empowerment and self-belief, identified as potentially relevant to desistance (Bonta and Andrews, 2016; Lloyd and Serin, 2012; Maruna, 2001). The importance of and the limited knowledge about how intra-individual factors related to the change process is addressed by Serin et al. (2013). They note the importance for the change process of ‘personal strengths that sustain motivation and commitment to change’ (p.50).

For women, the acquisition of empowerment is particularly important, as emphasised by intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 2013; Fader and Traylor, 2015), which acknowledges the cumulative disadvantages experienced by women. The connection for women who have experienced abuse between self-esteem, self-confidence and empowerment is particularly acute (Van Voorhis et al., 2010). As dynamic factors, they are potentially amenable to improving negative self-beliefs with appropriate interventions to encourage the perception of being a worthwhile human being, regardless of the situation.

Participants in this study expressed greater hope in themselves and optimism for the future, a factor that has been identified in the literature as conducive of desistance (Anderson and McNeill, 2019; LeBel et al., 2008; O’Sullivan et al., 2018). Following completion of the PEP, several participants reported in their interviews having acquired a belief that they were good people who had made a mistake that they were capable of rectifying, similar to Maruna’s desisters (2001), who espoused a ‘redemption script’ narrative.

Facilitators also allowed the development of agency in allowing participants to take from the programme what and how they wanted, thereby catering to different learning styles. Several participants expressed appreciation for this flexible and undemanding approach. This contrasts with the teaching methods required by the manualised RNR-based programmes (Bonta and Andrews, 2016), but accords with the strengths-based co-authoring of desired futures promoted by the GLM (Ward et al., 2012; Willis and Ward, 2013). The PEP shares the benefits in being facilitated by volunteers with an enthusiasm for their roles, a weakness with manualised programmes acknowledged by Bonta and Andrews (2016). While the PEP does not aim to tackle issues such as cognitive distortions and rationalisations, the programme still appeared to increase the assumption of responsibility for their situation for some participants.

Future research

Whether any programme content is internalised and will thus translate into more pro-social behaviours, either while in prison or on returning to the community, requires research beyond the scope of this study. Simply acquiring information on a purely cognitive level does not necessarily predict long-term behavioural change. Nor does change-talk necessarily result in action, and should maybe be regarded as ‘expressions of intent’ rather than concrete evidence of progressing to desistance. However, self-belief and empowerment involve a greater degree of internalisation than solely cognitive learnings. More research is needed on how these could impact desistance in practice, and indeed whether self-belief could be a useful supplement to CBT-based programmes.

Future evaluations could use a randomised longitudinal design and incorporate an analysis of reconviction data. Longer-term follow-up would shed light on how much any treatment gains from the programme ‘stick’ 3 or 6 months after completion. A longitudinal study could assess to what extent programme learnings are maintained, though the high natural turnover of people in correctional settings may make that problematic and only prove viable with people who are incarcerated long-term.

Another avenue for future research, which would avoid the issues of people being released very shortly after completing the programme, would be to conduct follow-up data collection in the community. Several of the facilitators expressed the hope that this could happen and were perhaps disappointed that this option was beyond the scope of the present study.

While the data collected shed light on how participants at AWP responded to the PEP, in order to promote generalisability, further research with different demographic groups could provide further insights, such as who is most likely to benefit from the programme, and at what stage of their sentence. with potential adaptation of the programme for specific audiences incorporating those results.

While acknowledging the opportunities for further in-depth study, the results demonstrate the strong impact of the programme on participants’ self-belief and the potential benefits of this programme in promoting rehabilitation and desistance.

Conclusion

The PEP is a relatively recent contributor to the range of complementary programmes and is offered globally on a somewhat ad hoc basis. Consequently, there is a paucity of research in the literature regarding the efficacy of the programme, and thus this study makes an original and preliminary contribution to knowledge. This article analysed the impact of the programme on the self-belief of the participants at AWP using qualitative semi-structured interviews. From the participants’ own words, despite the relative brevity of the programme, the growth in their understanding and experience of self-belief or agency was considerable. Many participants reported acquiring an increased sense of self-esteem, of their individual resources, of optimism for their future, and a feeling of empowerment. Self-belief and empowerment are particularly important for women who have experienced multiple intersectional deprivations and, too frequently, trauma in its many forms.

In addition, many appeared to have an enhanced understanding of their choices, their responsibility for their actions, and most participants (12/15) clearly expressed that this had strengthened their resolve and confidence that they could avoid re-offending. These factors in combination could potentially serve to reduce vulnerability to the criminogenic influence of others and indicate that the PEP could be a valuable complementary tool to facilitate desistance.

The results of this study therefore appear to validate further research on the programme in the correctional space, and the potential of the PEP to make a unique contribution to the range of tools that have the potential to promote desistance from offending.