“Purely for You”: Inmates’ Perceptions of Prison Visitation by Volunteers in the Netherlands

Participants

We interviewed 21 inmates across six different penitentiary institutions (see Table 1). We selected six institutions using intensity sampling (Patton, 2001): We searched for prisons in which volunteer visitation programs were firmly established. In selecting these prisons, we also paid attention to maximal geographical distribution over the country, inclusion of both male and female inmates, and inclusion of the different volunteer organizations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Overview Characteristics Respondent Group (n = 21).

	n
Age
18-29	2
30-39	9
40-49	5
50-59	4
Missing	1
Gender
Male	17
Female	4
Country of origin
The Netherlands	12
The Netherlands Antilles	3
Suriname	1
Other countries	5
Convicted
Yes	19
No	2
Detention time (of those convicted)
<1 year	1
1-2 years	2
2-4 years	3
4-8 years	3
8-12 years	3
>12 years	4
Missing	3
Previously in detention
Yes	5
No	11
Missing	5
Volunteer organization
Exodus	9
Gevangenenzorg	8
Humanitas	4
Bonjo	0

In selecting individual respondents, we used targeted sampling (Patton, 2001). We asked volunteers and prison clergy to help us get into contact with prisoners who received volunteer visits. We requested them to show the inmates who did receive volunteer visits a letter in which we explained our study, and to let us know which inmates wished to participate.

We used the inclusion criterion that inmates experienced three conversations or more with a volunteer during their present detention period. Our consideration was that inmates who had already had several conversations with volunteers would have a more thorough experience of the potential value of these conversations. We also used as a second inclusion criterion that inmates were fluent in either Dutch or English. It is important to remark that the population parameters could not be retrieved in the Netherlands. This is due to the fact that inmates have the right to contact volunteer organizations and ask for volunteers without anyone in the prison knowing. Often, inmates feel ashamed for not having visitors and asking for a volunteer. So via general registrations, no description of the population of prisoners receiving volunteer visits could be retrieved. And because the volunteering organizations generally do not have proper registration systems, we could not establish a total number of inmates who receive volunteers or other characteristics of this population.

Creating entrance and recruitment of respondents was extremely difficult. In the six selected institutions, the number of prisoners actually receiving volunteer visits turned out to be lower than estimated by the volunteer organizations. This procedure limited our possibilities to use elaborate sampling strategies; in particular, one of the volunteer organizations was eventually not able to provide us with a respondent in one of the six selected institutions (see Table 1). Sometimes selected prisoners were released or replaced before we could interview them. In particular, the fact that we did not have free access to prisoners but were dependent on volunteers and prison clergy for introduction of our study obscured our view of how many respondents were approached, how many of the approached inmates refused to cooperate and for what reasons. We do know that about three prisoners quit their appointment with us, for instance, because this was planned (by prison staff) during favorite activities like sport. The circumstances were harsh—for instance, incidents happened in which interviews were disturbed as drugs were found nearby the interview by a special team with dogs, or interviews were cancelled due to an outbreak of prisoners. Given these circumstances, it was a challenge to gather enough interviews to reach a point of saturation.

Data Collection

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with inmates, using a topic list and open-ended questions (see Box 1). This ensured that certain issues would be addressed in the limited time that we had in each interview—due to strict time programs in prisons—but also gave us the freedom to “establish a conversational style” (Patton, 2001, p. 343) and adjust our questions and reactions to individual respondents. Each of the three researchers conducted several interviews. To enhance internal reliability, a topic list was used and researchers discussed conduction of the interviews and data analysis thoroughly throughout the research process; they regularly listened to and discussed each other’s interviews to achieve consistency in interview style. Respondents were interviewed in a private room, without anyone except interviewer and respondent present. The interviews lasted between ½ hr and 1 hr, and were audio-recorded.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Box 1.

Topic List and Some Important Interview Questions.

1. Getting into contact: Expectations, hope, specific reasons What did you hope for when asking for a volunteer visit? What were your expectations before you met with the volunteer? Did you have a specific reason to ask for a volunteer visit? 2. Volunteer visits: Frequency and duration How often are you visited by a volunteer? Does the volunteer come for a visit on special occasions? How long does the volunteer stay when coming for a visit? Is this a fixed amount of time or does that vary? 3. Content and tone of the conversations What is discussed during the volunteer visits and what is not? Can you express your concerns to the volunteer? And if you can, how does the volunteer respond? Are there others with whom you can discuss what you discuss with the volunteer? What are similarities and differences compared to conversations that you have with others (content and tone)? 4. Nature and quality of the relationship How would you describe the connection with the volunteer (e.g., safe, strong, trustful, supportive, or opposites of these)? What is the significance for you of your connection with the volunteer? What is the significance of your connection with the volunteer compared with your connections to other people? 5. Role of volunteer in prisoner’s vision of the future How do you hope that the contact with the volunteer continues in the future? Particularly, after release? What (if anything) do you take with you from this contact to your life outside?

Data Analysis

For analysis of the data, we largely followed the Quagol-method (Dierckx de Casterlé, Gastmans, Bryon, & Denier, 2012). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and each interview was thoroughly read by the interviewing researcher. The main storylines of the interview were combined in a narrative interview report that was read by all three researchers and discussed (Dierckx de Casterlé et al., 2012). Based on this report, a thematic overview was constructed for each interview, in which the themes that we considered characteristic for the interview with respect to the central question were collected. By discussing these overviews together and going back and forth between original data, narrative reports, and thematic overviews, we arrived at definitive thematic overviews. We then explored what were the main global themes that we found in relation to the central question in a horizontal reading of the different narrative reports and thematic overviews, across the different interviews. We established these themes in a dialogical process between the researchers and by again moving backward and forward between original data, narrative reports, and thematic overviews.

Ethical Considerations

Participants were informed both in writing and verbally about the interview and the procedure before the interviews. We carefully went through the consent form with participants before asking them to sign. We explained that they could stop the interview at any moment and that neither participating in nor withdrawing from the interview would have any negative or positive effects on their imprisonment.

Harshness of Prison Life

When respondents explain what volunteer visits mean to them, they explicitly point to the harshness of prison life. Several factors are of importance here. Inmates feel powerless when trying to arrange things like getting necessary medicine or medical check-up, or receiving training: “This is a swamp. Absolutely nobody. You need to find out everything yourself and when you write a request no one responds for months” (Robert, 42 years). They are also uncertain about the future. This uncertainty also entails loss of confidence in society, in other people, or in themselves.

Because of what has happened to me, I have lost confidence in people anyway. And yes, there were moments when I didn’t trust anyone anymore. Not even my family, absolutely nobody. And yes, inside of these walls, nobody for sure. (Anna)

Respondents describe the prison as a negative and loveless environment, and this contributes to their experience of imprisonment as harsh. They indicate that much of the talk among inmates is rough.

Well, in that room, the work room, you have conversations, they just make me mad, you hear how they kill . . . How they rape . . . about sex and those things, yes, how they steal. (Richard, 55 years)

According to respondents, guards generally confirm their negative thoughts. They perceive guards as indifferent or even feel humiliated by them.

Wearing a Mask

Respondents emphasize that it is almost impossible to speak freely in the negative environment of the prison units. They feel that they cannot confide in their fellow inmates as there is much gossip among inmates. It may even be dangerous to talk with fellow inmates about personal matters or problems: This may be seen as a sign of weakness and lead to threats or physical violence. Several respondents describe their reaction to this negative environment in terms of “wearing a mask”:

R: When I am on the floor, I need to wear a mask. I: What kind of mask is that? R: That you act as if, like, I am not afraid of you, because they try to dominate you, that is the joke here, if you do not dominate them, then they will dominate you. (Jacob, 51 years)

Prisoners also wear a mask in contact with guards: “Whatever I say here to a guard, they write it down. And then, suddenly, everything is known to the Public Prosecution Service” (Peter, 37 years).

Talking in Confidence

Respondents describe one-on-one visits by volunteers as rare opportunities to talk confidentially in prison. It is essential for inmates that volunteers are people “from outside” who have no connection with the judiciary system. It is also important that, as members of volunteer organizations, volunteers are bound by a vow of secrecy. “She looks at it from the outside and she goes back outside afterwards. She doesn’t tell it . . . and also there is the vow of secrecy and . . . She does not tell anybody” (Bianca).

Respondents explain that, apart from the vow of secrecy, listening without judgment and prejudice is the crucial factor in trusting volunteers. When volunteers listen nonjudgmentally, inmates feel safe enough to (eventually) take off the protective mask that they are wearing at the units:

With her, I do not need to wear a mask. You can just be yourself during the hour that she is here, without wearing a mask. And that is wonderful. For a moment, I can be Anna. (Anna)

When inmates can speak freely, without fear for repercussions, the conversations function as an outlet where they can discuss matters that they keep to themselves at the units. “And with V. I talk about everything. From A to Z. Inside, outside, my life, my past, my present, my future. Everything” (Frank, age unknown). Sex and sexuality are not discussed in conversations with volunteers, but apart from these themes, inmates feel free to discuss (almost) anything. The conversations may be casual or about difficult subjects, or even about the offense:

What is also hard in here: you need to be proud of your offense, you need to show off about your offense. They walk around with pictures of their victims. With V., I can talk about my offense, not proud, but the way I feel it myself, that every day I am still ashamed that I did it. (Jacob)

Being Taken Seriously

Several respondents explain that volunteers not only approach them without judging, but even with genuine attention and interest. They feel that volunteers take them seriously and are curious about who they are as a person: “She comes here to see me, to look at me, who I am, who I really am, and that makes it so much more meaningful, these conversations, when someone wants to see that real you, you see?” (Marco, 34 years). Respondents point out how this contrasts with contact with staff members and professionals in prison:

I feel that the psychologist does not take me seriously. [. . .] Like, well, it’s just work. Especially since I have borderline and when I see things in black and white she says “it is your borderline that does this.” Whereas V. says the opposite, like, no, you are a human being, you are allowed to be sad, to have those feelings. (Esther)

One respondent explains how he encourages other inmates, who are often suspicious at first, to talk to volunteers:

And then, afterwards, they come to me: ‘You were right, man. Good people, nice people. At first I thought that he might be sent by the Ministry of Justice, I was scared that I would have to be careful of what I said’. And I tell them: ‘You do not need to be scared at all, these people come here purely for you’ (Michel, 38 years)

The experience of being taken seriously is reinforced when inmates feel that they matter to the volunteer. Respondents conclude that they do matter to the volunteer for several reasons. Some point to the fact that volunteers spend time and energy on them without receiving a financial reward.

Furthermore, inmates conclude that they matter to the volunteer when the volunteer is touched by their stories or even cries: “Especially that he started to cry, yes, that really meant something” (Patrick, 38 years). Respondents also refer to tokens of attention like postcards that they receive from the volunteer. In this way they feel that volunteers also think about them in between visits.

Reciprocity and Friendship

Although in the conversations the focus is on inmates, volunteers regularly share their own personal stories with inmates in a reciprocal exchange. They talk about their family, their work, their interests, or about their own struggles in life. So, the contact between inmates and volunteers is not a one-way affair but has a reciprocal character. Not only do inmates feel treated as fellow human beings by volunteers, but they also view volunteers as fellow human beings.

In the material we see that inmates are, to some extent, considerate of the needs of volunteers. For instance, inmates are cautious not to fill the whole conversation with complaints as this would be tedious for the volunteer. Sometimes they refrain from mentioning the harshness of prison life when they think that this would shock the volunteer.

Over time, inmates may start to care about the volunteers who visit them in return:

In the beginning I had no special intention, and yes, during these conversations you get stronger with each other and no intention changed into nice that you are here, good to see you, how are you? With sincere concern, even some care: how are you? Are you really all right? (Marco)

Respondents describe this experience of reciprocal caring in terms of having a pal or of friendship. “Yeah, he is just, how can I explain that, yes, I have no friends so, ok, this is a friendship, you know, we are building a friendship” (Patrick). Embracing or hugging at the beginning of a visit may be an expression and confirmation of friendship with the volunteer: “So we hug each other and are glad to see one another again. So that really is friendship” (Erik, 30 years).

Practical Support

Volunteers offer inmates more than just conversations: They also help with all kinds of practical issues. This may, for instance, involve providing inmates with clothes or moving their possessions to a new address. Volunteers also help out with practical affairs that require access to the Internet like registering for housing after release, searching information about institutions, regulations, or a specific person.

Another area in which volunteers offer practical support concerns preparing for the period after detention. Volunteers help inmates to find out how to arrange financial matters, housing, and work after release. This help may be offered in name of the volunteer organization that the volunteer represents or on a more personal basis: “So he is arranging something for me, you know. He had a former employee who started his own supermarket. He said, I will try to get into contact with him, he said, maybe you can work there” (Frank).

A specific domain where volunteers offer practical support concerns contact between inmates and their family members. On special occasions, volunteers drive family members of inmates to the prison who, due to for instance illness, cannot travel and come to visit without help. Respondents explain how valuable this is to them: “Especially that he brought my mother, he really won me with that, he brought my mother, on my birthday, and bought flowers too, yes, he is a very kind man” (Patrick).

Advice and Food for Thought

In conversations with respondents, volunteers turn out to do more than just listen without judgment; they also respond to what they hear. Here volunteers play the role of a coach: They support and stimulate learning processes around the issues that inmates bring up in the conversations. There are different ways in which volunteers take up a coaching role. A relatively direct way is expressing approval or disapproval. They may, for instance, show respect when an inmate solved a conflict with fellow inmates without using violence. Or they warn inmates not to act in a certain way: “R: He lectures me sometimes. I: How? R: You shouldn’t do this, you shouldn’t do that.[ . . .] So he looks after me, so to speak. And that is really good” (Jacob).

Another way of coaching that volunteers practice is giving advice.

My lawyer says, he hopes we can redo the legal proceedings. But, yes, they may demand once again that I will be detained under a hospital order, and I was talking about this to V., yes, and V. made it clear to me that, if I were you, I would just make the best of how things are now, then basically you have four more years to go and that’s it. (Lucas, 47 years)

Volunteers also give advice in situations concerning dealings with others: fellow inmates, staff members, family members, or friends. This advice generally extends beyond a specific situation: Volunteers advice inmates not to react to a provocation or to say no in a certain situation: “That’s also what she taught me as well; don’t let other people’s bad behavior change your good heart. So I’m trying to keep that” (James, 42 years). In this way, volunteers may initiate a thinking process:

And when I am back upstairs, in that cell. Then I think and think and think and think and I do not forget what she told me, because I write down what she said. So later I read it again and then I think, oh, I should not do this or that, so I do actually take those advices to heart. (Arthur, 38 years)

When volunteers coach inmates in specific situations, they sometimes explicitly refer to the worldview that inspires their way of coaching. In our material, Buddhist and Christian worldviews are mentioned. In coaching from a Buddhist perspective, inmates are encouraged to focus on what is positive and not on what is negative:

In the beginning, I had these feelings of revenge and remorse. Then he said—he is a Buddhist, you know, and a calm person—he said, that is all negative energy, boy. And at first I thought: that’s easy to say! But later I thought, well, there is actually some truth in it. Yes, I don’t know, since V. is here, there are many issues that now, well, I feel I should handle differently. (Lucas)

In coaching from a Christian perspective, reading the Bible and prayer may play a prominent role:

When my volunteer comes to visit me, we only talk about the Bible. We start with prayer, then we read a few chapters, and maybe I then tell something that happened to me that week and we pray about that. (Henry 53 years)

A Role Model

Respondents see the volunteer who visits them as an inspiring example of how to live. This is in the first place related to the fact that volunteers lead an “ordinary” life in society, without criminality. Society may seem far away for inmates, especially when they have few or no connections with people outside. Volunteers are role models who show that it is possible to live a stable and quiet life:

When I speak with him I see all those things, I see holiday, I see a future, a good future. When he talks about his family I can see how he is quietly in his home. [. . .] And I like that and want that for myself. (Simon, 55 years)

More specifically, volunteers are role models for inmates who struggle with addiction. Inmates see that their volunteer can be happy and content without using drugs:

She’s very peaceful herself eh? And content. You know what I mean? And I think to myself, you see, that feeling, it’s a natural feeling, you know, it’s not from taking any drug or pill. You know what I mean? So, yeah, I would also like to have that same feeling of content and peace. (James)

Inmates also see volunteers as an example of positivity, in stark contrast to the negativity that inmates experience in prison in general. It also occurs that inmates see volunteers even more comprehensively as examples of beautiful, pure, or good human beings:

What does she teach me? To be a good human being. When I look at her, I see a woman of pure gold. Just completely pure. I appreciate that a lot, and then I also wonder, maybe I can work on myself by helping other people (Michel)

According to respondents, volunteers are not only an example for themselves but for everyone. Inmates feel that people in general are selfish and focused on making money. They feel that these people should follow the example of volunteers who, without asking anything in return, visit strangers in their spare time.

Feeling Peaceful

Respondents describe conversations with volunteers as beneficial in themselves. However, respondents also describe how they benefit from volunteer visits later on. They may, for instance, feel relieved after the conversation, once they are back at the unit, or more peaceful: “R: After the conversation I feel, well, I feel well in my skin. I: And is that more calm, or how would you describe that, or more cheerful or . . . R: More cheerful. Yes. Peaceful” (Henry). Furthermore, conversations with a volunteer may help inmates not to lose courage, to have something to look forward to: “The Friday she comes brightens up the whole week, so that I can sleep well and think well” (Richard).

Restoring Trust and Self-Esteem

Respondents also describe how volunteer visits help to restore trust that has been damaged before or during detention. Trust may be restored on several levels. In the first place, inmates may have lost trust in society. The fact that at least one person comes to visit may give inmates the feeling that they are not altogether written off:

In my situation I have lost trust in everything, yes in everything, but also in the Justice system, in society. So . . . the fact that she comes to visit, that someone from society comes to visit me here, throws a whole new light on the situation. That maybe it’s not all as bad as I thought. (Henry)

Respondents also describe how contact with a volunteer contributes to the restoration of their trust in others or in themselves; it helps them to build confidence and self-esteem. In particular, conversations with a volunteer may help inmates to resist negative influences from an environment in which criminality often is the accepted norm: “Without V., there would be a chance that I would become a real criminal, that I would slide down to that level” (Jacob). Finally, volunteer visits have effect on inmates’ trust in the future: “I know it’s good for my development, it’s good for my reintegration back in society, you know what I mean? To be in contact with her, it keeps me on the straight and narrow a bit” (James).

Lack of Chemistry

Respondents not only describe the value of volunteer visits; they also point to two potential obstacles to fruitful contact. The first one concerns a lack of chemistry between inmate and volunteer. When volunteers come to visit for the first time, inmates meet with a stranger and there is no guarantee that the match works. Several respondents speak about “clicking” with a volunteer:

It was just so that I could tell my story, that there would be someone with whom I would click. Because that was the whole point for me, that we would click, if that would not be the case I would just have left. (Arthur)

Sometimes inmate and volunteer click from the start; the inmate feels comfortable with the volunteer and the conversation flows easily. But it may also take time for volunteer and inmate to click. It also happens that there is no chemistry between inmate and volunteer, not even after several conversations. However, this does not necessarily imply that inmates break off contact with the volunteer. One respondent tells about the volunteer who has been visiting him over the last months:

We can talk with each other, but there is no connection. [. . .] In fact we don’t talk, not about my deepest feelings. I keep those to myself. When I really have a connection with someone, then I also show my deepest feelings, but we do absolutely not click in that way. (Peter)

Our material suggests that there are cases where inmates, due to personal problems or the context of detention, do not want to bond with anyone including volunteers. Inmates may try to protect themselves from getting attached to the volunteer: “In here, it is like this: you may get attached to certain people and when they suddenly say ‘well, we will not come to visit any more’ you might easily get depressed” (Erik).

Imposing Worldview Beliefs

The second obstacle to beneficial volunteer visitation is connected with the way in which volunteers handle their worldview beliefs. We see in the material that on several occasions, volunteers explicitly state beliefs connected to their worldview in conversations with inmates. How this is experienced by inmates varies. Respondents who share the worldview of the volunteer may experience references to this worldview as an incentive to integrate their beliefs more thoroughly in their lives: “And V. can talk about it so beautifully, he is a preacher outside, he knows the whole Bible by heart. So when I am released, I am certainly going to go to church more often” (David, 46 years). However, there are also respondents who feel that the volunteer imposes her or his own worldview beliefs. The volunteer insists, for instance, that the inmate should visit church, keeps sending postcards with biblical texts, or keeps mentioning her or his worldview in the conversation: “They really should leave their church at home. One day I will not be able to take it any more” (Peter). Still, it seems that these respondents do not easily address their irritations in the conversations. They seem to accept the emphasis on the volunteer’s worldview into the bargain for fear of losing the contact.

Limitations of the Study

Some limitations of this study need to be addressed. First of all, as Mears et al. (2012) suggested, we chose to focus on a specific visitor type, namely volunteer visitation to control for selection bias. However, possibly other selection bias occurred. Only Dutch- or English-speaking inmates have been interviewed so that inmates from ethnic minorities may have been underrepresented. Furthermore, those inmates that have strong positive or negative experiences might have participated more often considering targeted sampling was used.

Another limitation may be that participants responded to some extent in a socially desirable way, particularly because of the vulnerable and dependent position they have in prison. We got multiple signals that on the floors respondents are not open about their need for social contact with a volunteer. We also learned that inmates did not quit the conversations when these did not meet their expectations.

Furthermore, we did not pay attention to relevant volunteer variables—such as their experience as a prison volunteer, gender, age, worldview, or education—in selecting respondents. It might well be that volunteer characteristics play a role in the evaluation of volunteer visits by prisoners. For instance, the imposition of worldview beliefs by volunteers—the second potential obstacle to valuable volunteer visits according to inmates—may depend to some extent on training, education, or worldview of the volunteer. It therefore seems recommendable to conduct further, more extended research on the value of volunteer visits according to prisoners in which volunteer variables are taken into account.

A final limitation is that this study focused on the experience of inmates with volunteer visitation during their imprisonment. The period after imprisonment is not taken into account. Interviewing inmates after their release would possibly give more insight into (spillover) effects of visitation regarding reentry. This would be interesting for future research.