Literature Review for PhD doctorate

Steffen Zdun

THE MEANING OF AGENCY IN PROCESSES

OF DESISTING FROM DELINQUENT

BEHAVIOUR IN PRISON: AN EXPLORATORY

STUDY AMONG JUVENILE INMATES IN

GERMANY

The impact of youth prisons and other repressive measures is subject to public and scientific debates for years. The meaning of individual agency has, however, been largely neglected in the context of understanding processes of desistance among juvenile inmates. This text addresses differences in perceiving the institutional setting, interrelations with other inmates and the authorities as well as participation in educational training. Based on a larger study of qualitative, retrospective interviews in German youth prisons, three exemplary cases are presented illustrating different developments during incarceration. Overall, three cases document several obstacles and requirements that are supportive in the individual process of developing agency, rethinking prior behaviour and maintaining modified ways of behaviour. The three cases also provide some explanations why many young inmates maintain delinquent behaviour.

Keywords delinquent behaviour; adolescence; desistance; agency; youth prisons

Like the future of the juvenile justice system, the effects of different measures, sanctions and diversions have been discussed over the years in Germany and other countries (Bereswill, 2004; Sherman & Strang, 2007). One essential problem in this regard is the heterogeneity of addressees. They not only differ in demographic aspects, such as age, gender, social and cultural origin, but also in the impact which certain measures (may) have on the individual, such as stimulating the processes of resocialization in prison.

Desistance research has shown that imprisonment may alter one’s attitudes and behaviour and contribute to less delinquency upon release if an inmate develops a new script of identity, which may be based on conformity and social engagement (Maruna, 2001; Maruna & Roy, 2007). Such developments can be grounded in the very experience of being imprisoned and in one’s reflections on previous behaviour and future options, even though they may also result in subsequent difficulties in adjusting the new self-image to the outside world (Bereswill, 2004). Apart from the ways of coping with these obstacles, it appears also worthwhile to better understand those causes and pathways of individual developments in prison that might best contribute to

Journal of Social Work Practice Vol. 26, No. 4, December 2012, pp. 459–472

ISSN 0265-0533 print/ISSN 1465-3885 online q 2012 GAPS

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2012.677811

permanent desistance from delinquent behaviour, but also to persistence. Recent research has shown that many inmates do have difficulties with changing their modes of thinking, thus maintaining and partly expanding delinquent and defiant attitudes (Maruna, 2001; Zdun, 2012). Although the latter may somehow also be due to the restrictive setting of closed institutional custody, they tend to cope with this situation by establishing an image of supremacy towards other inmates as well as towards the authorities. On the whole, little is known about the differences of individual agency for behavioural changes among inmates.

Mulvey et al. (2004, p. 223) define agency as ‘confidence that they [individuals] have control over the activities in which they engage and the people with whom they associate’. This goes beyond cost – benefit ratios, and Maruna and Farrall (2003, p. 179) add that ‘sense of purpose in life or a commitment to occupational success might be more influential forces’ and would better contribute to lasting changes, than fear and avoidance strategies. Bottoms et al. (2004) and Maruna (2001) demand further consideration of agency in the context of desistance, claiming that neither social and structural improvements are sufficient if one’s individual attitude towards desistance is defective or misguided (Prochaska et al., 1997) nor one’s motivation if it does not correspond with adequate conditions and support (Mulvey et al., 2004). However, Laub and Sampson (2003, p. 279) add that behavioural changes do not have to be ‘necessarily a conscious or deliberate process’. Thus they argue: ‘We need to capture changes in decision-making, shifts in the perceptions of risks and rewards of crime, and fluctuations in the meanings of “doing crime” versus “going straight”.’ (Laub & Sampson, 2001, p. 55).

On the whole, agency has to be examined in the context of individual developments and behavioural changes because it is not a constant parameter, although it can be stabilized (Maruna & Farrall, 2003). Bottoms (2006) demands a further in- depth examination of individual coping with recidivism in such processes. Thereby he refers to destabilizing biases if an individual gets used to interpreting everyday difficulties just as an outcome of his own (dis)abilities or if a person feels regularly discriminated against instead of being encouraged. In addition, Kazemian (2007) reminds us of the meaning of situational temptations and opportunities. High self- efficacy and trust in one’s own options would on the contrary rather contribute to stable behaviour patterns (Bereswill, 2004; Mulvey et al., 2004). These insights are supported by my previous research that found formerly delinquent immigrants quite quickly desist from former behaviour after arrival, if their agency and motivation are acknowledged and if they receive sufficient support from new inmates and institutions that have been known to regularly compensate for lack of support from the family in the first period after immigration (Zdun, 2012). However, desistance research has paid little attention to imprisonment, and in particular there are no comprehensive studies on the differences of agency among inmates with regard to behavioural changes.

This paper addresses this neglected issue and explores the experience of being imprisoned from the perspective of young male immigrants in German youth prisons, and different modes of coping with imprisonment are reconstructed by using qualitative data. Therefore, I show – based on retrospective interviews – certain patterns derived from the empirical material of three cases from the study, demonstrating differences in perceiving the institutional setting, interrelations with other inmates and the authorities as well as participation in educational training.

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE46 0

Despite the gaps in desistance research and in particular in respect of agency, other strands of criminology have at least addressed related issues and therefore provide a background for this research. This includes the above-mentioned research on the effectiveness of different measures of diversion and sanctions, illustrating, for example, in how far they may increase individual skills and competencies as well as self-efficacy (Bereswill, 2004; Cullen et al., 2011). However, this kind of research primarily addresses the likelihood of recidivism (after having participated in these measures) and partly the processes of resocialization; rather increased self-efficacy is considered a result of the intended development and the very process of individual changes is one’s agency is neglected. Recidivism is perceived as an individual or institutional failure rather than a possible step in the process of desistance.

Other research indicates alternative explanations for lack of delinquent behaviour during imprisonment, going beyond changes of individual attitudes. This is demonstrated, for example, by cooperative behaviour by some prisoners, primarily aiming at better treatment or early release as well as participation in educational and vocational trainings to have better job opportunities after imprisonment (Stern, 1947; Brewster & Sharp, 2002; Batiuk et al., 2005), without any particular intention to desist permanently from prior offences. This partly coincides with the seminal work of Goffman (1961) and Sykes (1958), indicating that the rigid structures and authoritarian modes of contact in prison extremely restrict the opportunities of inmates and may cause such a pressure on the individual that he/she behaves conventionally towards the authorities only, without changing his/her very attitudes. This kind of research should be considered with caution as it is rather tricky to differentiate between such ‘superficial’ changes and a ‘true’ change of one’s attitudes and agency to maintain desistance; not just because the latter may also fail and hence does not seem to be different from the others at first sight. Perceiving desistance as a process, it appears important to pay close attention to the individual development of motivations and intentions of conventional behaviour. Truly meant change need not occur on the first days of imprisonment, and a lack of respective intention might, for example, be overcome by positive experiences in the very course of cooperative behaviour.

Data and methodology

As Bottoms (2006) emphasizes, examining the processes of changing agency requires in-depth qualitative research. The individual developments and interpretations involved cannot be adequately investigated by way of quantitative measures (Flick, 1995). The qualitative approach allows for considering the role of circumstances and for describing and interpreting changes in agency after imprisonment.

The sample comprised young male immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany, aged between 18 and 20 years. This part of the population was chosen because it is partly known for establishing sub-cultural groups in prison that rather reject social integration (for an overview, see Zdun, 2012), ensuring a wide spectrum of individual behaviours. All interviewees had several violent encounters and had committed different kinds of street offences. They were imprisoned for 1 – 3 years, predominately because of aggravated assault, but some also for robbery or drug trade. All in all, the intensity and frequency of prior offences did not vary much between the

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 61

interviewees who were considered persistent offenders rather than serious offenders. Moreover, they did not differ significantly in respect of poor social, economic and educational backgrounds. They had migrated from similar areas, namely small- and middle-sized cities in Kazakhstan and Russia. Finally, the duration of stay in Germany was controlled, ranging from 2 – 6 years.

These sampling criterions were chosen to ensure interviewees had similar initial conditions at the beginning of the prison sentence. Moreover, we chose these inmates because they had a certain chance to use their time of imprisonment for behavioural changes. First, the sample referred to a typical age at which processes of desistance often occur (Moffit et al., 2002; Bottoms, 2006). Second, inmates were chosen who – at least to our knowledge – had not been involved in (organized) criminal groups before imprisonment; otherwise their opportunities and motivation to rethink their prior behaviour might have been significantly reduced. Moreover, for all interviewees it was their first prison sentence. Third, the duration of each imprisonment term lasted long enough to generally allow for substantial processes of behavioural change. The interviews were conducted after at least 6 months of imprisonment.

The recruitment of the interviewees in different German youth prisons had to consider various institutional restrictions and required several permissions. However, based on the sampling criteria with regard to gender, age, duration of stay and kinds of offences, the prison staff firstly requested a general readiness for participation from the pool of matching cases. After this pre-selection, we explained the goals of our research as well as the measures for confidentiality, and all open questions were answered before conducting each interview. No suggested interviewee rejected participation.

Interviews lasting between 90 min and 2 h were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The narratives were critically analysed, examining and comparing their latent meaning. This followed a hermeneutic interpretation:

based on the theoretical conviction that the narrating experience already conveys an interpretation. ( . . . ) The aim of understanding the text is not a complete reconstruction of facts or causalities. The aim is rather to grasp the latent meanings of subjective self-representations and social action.

(Bereswill, 2004, p. 319)

In addition, even though alternative explanations can never be completely ruled out in respect of interpreting case studies, competing interpretations of the data were rejected for two reasons. First, all explanations are not just based on singular quotations of the respective interviews but on the overall content of these cases. Second, these explanations had been validated by cross-case comparison with further cases that indicate the same interpretation; the three youths just serve as exemplary cases for patterns found in the whole sample.

Results

The empirical data show not only prison routine, but also perceptions and the interpretation of individual experiences in different domains. Interestingly, as a matter

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE46 2

of fact the data do not indicate any substantial differences among the interviewees at the beginning of the prison sentence that would allow predicting certain pathways; the latter rather seemed to be individual developments. Initially, the interviewees reported similar, ambivalent attitudes in respect of how they might cope with imprisonment and whether they should use this time to rethink their prior life and behaviour. Another common topic that eventually turned out to be quite relevant for the individual development was prior experiences of social and institutional failure.

Three exemplary cases were used to illustrate three different pathways in prison which could be derived from the empirical data. The first case (Anatol) stands for those showing no or defiantly developing no agency to abandon delinquent behaviour. The second case (Maxim) stands for those partly adjusting to institutional norms for their own benefit, but showing no substantial agency to become completely non-delinquent (after imprisonment). The third case (Yuri) stands for those demonstrating agency to question prior behaviour in prison and to stay non-delinquent upon release.

Anatol: defiant and fatalistic maintenance of delinquent behaviour

Anatol was 18 years old and served a 2-year sentence for repeated aggravated assault. He was interviewed after 14 months of imprisonment. His narrative contains various experiences of constraint and failure as well as fatalistic views of life. As mentioned above, repeated experiences of social and institutional failure cut across most interviews. However, Anatol did not only perceive them as a former constraint in life but also developed and shared the impression with others in a sub-cultural group that imprisonment and its everyday routines are another kind of constraint that asks for opposition.

I had to take so much shit in my life; I cannot stand it anymore, especially here. I and my friends agree that we have to demonstrate that we are stronger than them.

Therefore, such groups stick to deviant rules and norms that are also common in the milieu of street culture (Anderson, 1998; Stewart et al., 2006). Primarily, Anatol and his ‘mates’ reject cooperation with the authorities and try to act indifferently to sanctions, demonstrating their strength of will, power and supremacy and encourage each other for that. Moreover, they tend to behave superior towards other inmates, suppressing ‘weak’ individuals and fighting against rivals (see Zdun, 2012). In contrast to others, inmates like Anatol do not intend to hide this behaviour; it might rather get worse during the prison term, maintaining their rejection of responsibility.

Why should we hide like cowards? We are real men. ( . . . ) I guess I even fight more often here and blackmail more losers than before. This is what we do and what they deserve.

Anatol’s lack of agency for behavioural change and resocialization is further expressed by his perception of crime. Note that although Anatol claims that he perceived such changes at least as an option at the beginning of his prison sentence, he rather quickly abandoned such thoughts due to a combination of lack of self-efficacy and support at first failure.

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 63

Well, it is true, before I got here and even in the beginning I thought about changing. I even tried to do so for a while. But this was just in vain, waste of time. Although I acted according to their rules, they treated me badly. They are all racists and don’t want us to change.

Instead he chose an easier way to gain recognition and stabilize his self-image, which appears to explain the strong grip of such sub-cultures and even the acceptance of institutional sanctions for repeated norm violations. Anatol and his mates also shared quite fatalistic views of life. This includes not only the attitude of having nothing to lose in the course of this behaviour but also the general perception of having few options apart from crime and social welfare to make a living after imprisonment; regular labour is neither perceived as an option nor are opportunities earnestly used to improve one’s degree of education or to participate in vocational training.

Future? I have got no future. I have nothing. I will not starve, not in Germany. But if I don’t want to live just by the money of the state I have to do something else. I guess I will come back to rob people or try some other things with guys that I met here. What else should I do?

Note that often this rigid view and behaviour do not appear to be ‘imported’ to prison, it rather refers to a lack of motivation and support but also to first experiences of failure in the new environment as well as to a permanent enforcement of defiant behaviour as a plausible reaction – from the point of view of these sub-cultural groups – to perceived deprivation and discrimination in prison.

You are right man, this is also true. I told you that I wanted to learn a profession here. I even promised this to my mum. But I quickly learned how things work here, my friends told me. I will never get a chance in here or out there.

Although it cannot be denied that indeed young men like Anatol face various difficulties on the German labour market upon release due to their poor educational level and the very fact of being an ‘excon’, it is essential for such narratives – in contrast to others – that these inmates quickly appear to lose any ability to maintain and develop their initial agency to overcome prior behaviour and shape their own destiny.

Maxim: rational and opportunistic maintenance of delinquent behaviour

Maxim was 19 years old and served an 18-month sentence for aggravated assault and drug dealing. He was interviewed after 13 months of imprisonment. His narrative illustrates rather rational and opportunistic but also ambivalent views of life. Prior experiences of failure are mentioned, but Maxim quickly tried to avoid further failure in prison by adjusting to institutional rules. He perceives these rules less as constraints than as limitations that structure his daily routine. He actively tries to reduce his personal restrictions and increase his opportunities by cooperative behaviour.

After a few days I knew everything, how to talk, how to behave and so on. I do as they want and therefore I get what I want.

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE46 4

Note that he does not perceive this as a kind of submission to the authorities but feels superior towards them, which even increases his self-efficacy. He feels in control of the situation because he decides whether to be in conflict with the prison staff or to be treated in the best possible way. Moreover, he perceives defiant inmates, such as Anatol, as ‘losers’ because they are not able to increase their chance of early release and avoid repeated experiences of failure in prison.

They [wardens] treat everyone in the same way. If you behave well, they treat you well, if you act badly, you get into trouble. I decide about how they treat me, not them. Look at these stupid gangs, they think that they are strong and in charge. They are nothing, just idiots. ( . . . ) I had enough problems with the authorities; here, they don’t get me.

In addition, he feels superior towards other inmates because he still demonstrates his strength and power by hidden fights, which contributes to his self-efficacy but not to changes of attitude towards violent behaviour. He interprets this strategy also as rational because it allows him not only to avoid sanctions and maintain good relations with the staff but also to stick to prior conflict behaviour among peers, also rejecting his own responsibility for respective actions.

I am clever. The wardens never notice that I fight with others. You have to show who you are and it helps to let off some steam. ( . . . ) There is nothing wrong about this; you must just not get caught.

So, what makes him able to follow a different path than Anatol? The essential differences seem to be that Maxim is pretty motivated to avoid further institutional sanctions. Moreover, he is able to maintain less fatalistic views which appear to refer to first successes and support by individual wardens. Although his changes look like an avoidance strategy rather than a consistent agency-based development of non- delinquent attitudes, it is noteworthy that he maintains a kind of cooperation because the pay-off enforces this behaviour.

Everything goes well for me here. As I told you, I get what I want, of course restricted by prison’s limitations. I guess I may even be released earlier because the authorities got used to like me.

However, what keeps him from substantially changing his delinquent attitudes and behaviour? At the core of his narrative, various examples can be found which illustrate and explain his ambivalence. He behaves cooperatively and participates in a vocational training but he does not really believe that this might improve his future at all. Note that due to prior experiences of failure he perceives his way as the best way of coping with imprisonment and foremost as a chance for early release and better treatment while anticipating further failure upon release. Thus he maintains a deviant behaviour to gain recognition and self-efficacy among peers.

Well, I do here what I can to make things work, but let’s be realistic. I already tried things out there, I started two vocational trainings but I failed. Who will take

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 65

me after this? On the surface I am the nice guy, but things will get tough out there again. I am ready for this.

All in all, instead of consequently rethinking his prior life and developing agency for non-delinquent behaviour, Maxim chooses an easier way, without questioning himself and earnestly making progress for the future.

Yuri: development of agency for non-delinquent behaviour

Yuri was 18 years old and served a 20-month sentence for aggravated assault and robbery. He was interviewed after 12 months of imprisonment. Although young men like Yuri do not necessarily develop non-delinquent attitudes right after being imprisoned, his narrative illustrates various changes of attitudes and positive views of life of the kind that one can make his own destiny from the moment on that one earnestly rethinks one’s past. Note that this moment may just occur several months after starting a prison sentence, and it may refer to various reasons; Yuri did so suddenly after 7 months due to an unexpected comment by a warden.

One day, one of them merely told me that I failed because of myself all these years. I don’t know why, I just had to think about it for a couple of days but he was right. Just like this.

Apart from the question whether such developments occur as a slow process or a sudden change,

1 it is especially relevant that an individual reaches a certain point of

awareness that makes him not only realize that he has done wrong before – many persisters share this thought – but also that he has the opportunity to change his life, shape his own destiny and to not fail anymore.

Of course I knew before what is right and wrong, who doesn’t? I just understood in these days that it is all up to me, that I can still change and that everything else is the past once I move on.

In contrast to trying to make sense of the randomness and magnitude of pathways and (perceived final) triggers in the development of this awareness, it seems rather fruitful to examine the processes behind and beyond this change.

Yuri entered prison with several prior experiences of social and institutional failure, but he was not drawn into a defiant sub-cultural group like Anatol and never developed such fatalistic views of life. Note that Yuri’s narrative illustrates that this must not necessarily happen due to generally rejecting such groups or decisive plans to change his life; this may also happen by chance.

2

I know such groups; I even participated in the first weeks. I could easily say now that they are all wrong but I understood them at that time. I was just lucky enough to have some quarrels with the leader, so I was rather on my own.

But what happens with inmates like Yuri and how do they behave until they want to change? Yuri got used to entertaining rather neutral relations towards the authorities,

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE46 6

avoiding ‘unnecessary’ sanctions, and fought his share of fights with other inmates, improving his self-efficacy and maintaining deviant behaviour. He did not show any particular interest in avoidance strategies but acted – from his point of view – in the same way towards the authorities and peers as before, just based on the restrictions and routines of imprisonment.

I guess I behaved in the beginning pretty much like before. Like in the streets you don’t seek trouble with the authorities and talk to them just when it’s necessary. I also proved to the guys that I am a man in this period.

In addition, he did not display particular interest in educational and vocational programmes because he initially shared the ambivalent view of Maxim that participating in these measures will not substantially change his opportunities upon release.

But what happened during his process of changing? Although the very order of rethinking different domains and aspects of prior life varies from the moment he engages in this process, it is noteworthy that Yuri – in contrast to Maxim – tried to make a consistent shift. It is most important to consider that this change does not only require the development of agency but also a lot of individual energy – if available – support by others; individual and external sources seem to reinforce each other.

So many things happened at the same time; I had to think about my whole life. I don’t know where to start. I can just say that it is impossible only to change one thing, I had to change everything: the fighting, my self-control, friends, relations to the family and so on. I just had to realize this and believe in myself. However, I also thought that I won’t make it on some days. But then there were the people here and outside that guided and supported me. Without them it would be too tough. ( . . . ) Sometimes it’s harder and sometimes easier, but I am getting along better now than in the beginning.

In other words, questioning one’s own life and identity as well as taking responsibility is a big piece of work, supposedly in particular in such a restrictive setting that largely lacks positive peer role models. Although the following assumption requires further empirical scrutiny based on longitudinal data, the findings also support Maruna and Farrall’s (2003) claim that agency for behavioural change is far from being a parameter that simply exists or not, but rather an unstable condition that depends on situations and – particularly in the first period of its development – has to be permanently stabilized.

While Yuri developed and increased his agency and was rethinking and changing his attitudes, his daily interactions did also change. First, he no longer behaved just neutral but rather friendly towards the authorities, demonstrating his behavioural shift. This was – at least from his perception – not based on opportunism (although he quickly noticed subsequent improvements of his situation) but on his modified views and subsequent encouragement.

I guess I had to show them that I was changing. I wanted especially to let this warden know that he was right. I didn’t want to make friends with him but his

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 67

acceptance. He was the first who realized my change, and I have better relations with many of them now due to my behaviour. It is important that some really support me.

Second, he openly explained his change towards other inmates, symbolically refraining from prior behaviour and also making new alliances. However, this did not entirely take him out of the ‘game’ of demonstrating strength and masculinity among the peers. Provocations and even physical attacks may happen on a daily basis, even though generally they seem to become less over the time of imprisonment – i.e. they occur more often at the beginning of a prison sentence when one must especially demonstrate that one is capable of defending oneself (Zdun, 2012) – and especially towards desisters like Yuri. In so far, he still had to fight at times. But, firstly, he adopted strategies of de-escalation to avoid physical harm in some cases and, secondly, he interpreted the few brawls on other occasions solely as self-defence and no longer as proofs of masculinity. Note that the de-escalation strategies soon became a vehicle to gain self-efficacy, while fights seemed not to matter anymore in this respect; this substantial change appeared to be informed and guided by the prison staff.

Most guys know that I am different now, but they did not change. Of course they play their games also on me at times, or there are newcomers that want to show off. Although I don’t need this anymore, I may have to defend myself. But I learned some tricks how to calm them down or I just go away. A social worker showed me how to do this. When you ask me what feels better, the latter shows me that I am on the right way.

Moreover, he lost his ambivalence towards educational and vocational trainings. Although he still perceived that it will be difficult to be accepted by society and possible employers upon release, his development mainly referred to the increasing agency that it is and always has been just up to him to go straight and make his own destiny.

I am just restarting my life. I cannot expect to achieve everything by a few steps and manage to get what I want on the very day of my release. The main work will just start then. Of course some things will go wrong, but what would be the point of falling into old habits?

In respect of the above-mentioned variability of agency, his beliefs in a better future are also not permanently stable but rather require repeated experiences of success, support and the development of realistic prospects for the future.

I have my ups and downs, who doesn’t? But I noticed that I need goals. When I’ve got something to acquire that I can achieve, then I work on it until it’s done. But I also realized that I cannot do everything on my own. When I need help, I ask for it now. I wouldn’t have come so far without support in the last months.

All in all, Yuri has become aware that he has to change his life and that he is able to do so. He has made the first steps of this process, although this turned out to be difficult at times. He has been able to maintain these changes due to the development of increasing

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE46 8

agency, getting the required support and subsequent experiences of success in the course of his modified behaviour.

Discussion

The development of agency to abandon delinquent behaviour during imprisonment is possible for young inmates but requires not only one’s awareness that such a shift is necessary and can be done but also support in different domains of life. Although it cannot usually be predicted which prisoners will rethink prior behaviour and even if it seems misguided to believe that certain triggers might be repeatedly used by practitioners for stimulating such processes, the findings in this research seem to indicate some aspects that should be considered in respect of supporting this clientele.

First, the three different cases suggest that neither desistance in general nor the development of agency can be forced. Moreover, although we know that in many countries prison systems are often far from being ‘machines of resocialization’, youth prisons bear at least a certain potential for clear-cut shifts (Maruna, 2001; Bereswill, 2004). This requires a supportive environment but particularly personal readiness to change. In contrast, first negative experiences, such as perceived lack of institutional support or even feelings of discrimination, may reduce the very chance that this ‘sensitive’ clientele reaches the point at which they might actually rethink their lives. Young inmates seem largely to lack self-efficacy, so that it is necessary to convince them that they should at least try to cooperate with the authorities in order to improve their lives, instead of being seduced or individually choosing the easier way of sticking to old habits. However, superficial cooperation with the authorities must not be misunderstood as a behavioural change in this regard; hence it seems advisable to uncover the motivations for cooperation at the individual level. If those are misguided, the pathways during imprisonment are at least questionable. It might, for example, be possible to promote bigger changes by more encouragement and support in respect of one’s agency towards future prospects.

Second, the individual development of an awareness that one has to change and is able to do so is merely the first step of a long-term process. The individual has to rethink and question several domains of his/her prior life. He/she has, for example, to realize the interrelations of former failures, the motivations for his/her delinquent behaviour and his/her difficulties in interpersonal relations. Although the inmates have to do most of this on their own, the relevance of positive experiences and external support has to be acknowledged. Without such experiences they would lack the most required feedback, namely that they are on the right way; a lack of such experiences might increase the risk of recidivism due to low self-efficacy. Furthermore, external support of different agents, in particular wardens, social workers, parents, partners and friends, is not only a positive experience in itself, but also an option to inform, guide and stabilize the process of developing agency. The involvement of different agents is, on the one hand, more likely to allow for addressing different domains in life and providing different inputs. On the other hand, it may contribute to improve the very relations with one’s social environment before release. This may be useful because this environment has the biggest potential to function as a stabilizer when the individual has to face the obstacles of the outside world again (Bereswill, 2004).

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 69

On the whole, the findings appear to indicate some new findings in the context of agency. First, changes are particularly motivated by a certain kind of awareness which goes far beyond realizing that prior behaviour was wrong. However, it seems, secondly, necessary to rethink such ways of behaviour in different domains of life and not just concerning prior offences; this requires agency and may culminate in Maruna’s (2001) ‘new script of identity’. Third, the confidence in oneself which Mulvey et al. (2004) describe in our initial definition of agency has subsequently also to consider multiple domains of life, such as confidence in being able to stay non-delinquent in prison and beyond, to (re)build relevant social relations, to make a living and fulfil further future plans. Fourth, agency is not just developed, it may fluctuate in the different domains of life; therefore, it is as well the process of changing in general requires positive experiences and support, i.e. increasing self-efficacy and guidance, providing for instance alternative ways of behaviour, instead of just condemning earlier ones. Finally, although these developments cannot be enforced, the systematic provision of such experiences and support should be self-evident, not only for stabilizing performed changes but as already paving the very ground to develop the initial awareness that one has to and is able to change.

The findings have various limitations. Due to its qualitative nature, the sample is non-representative. However, our approach did not aim at representativeness of the subjects but at the exploratory reconstruction of individual cases. Moreover, the sample is selective: female inmates were not considered, and the interviewees belonged to just one age group, a specific group of migrants and a rather similar set of offenders. Although serious and repeatedly imprisoned offenders may indeed also become non-delinquent, their pathways may vary from our findings. In addition, there is a methodological issue about using studies on young men in different prisons. Despite the cross-case validation among all cases of the sample, it cannot be completely ruled out that different prison regimes affect the behaviour of the inmates in different ways (see Sparks et al., 1996). Furthermore, particularly for juvenile inmates it is well known that the very experiences of getting caught by the police, trials and the restrictive setting of a prison may have permanent deterring effects (Polinsky & Shavell, 1998). The sample did not include such individuals and it may be worthwhile to study how those individuals use prison time and how their agency develops. All in all, different sampling bears potential for further insights.

Moreover, our data were retrospective. Bottoms (2006) argues that such data run the risk of being biased. Cognitive developments, fading memory of life events and changing interpretation of experiences during the life-course are the main problems of retrospective research. Longitudinal data appear useful for overcoming these difficulties in future research. Apart from such issues, longitudinal data might additionally allow for a better understanding of different pathways during the period of imprisonment and beyond. Maxim, for example, may have changed his rather opportunistic attitude and partly fatalistic views over the time. Furthermore, Yuri might have lost his agency due to repeated failure or decreasing support. Such possible developments cannot be ruled out by the respective data and require longitudinal approaches.

Despite this lack of knowledge, the results are promising because they support findings of a large body of studies of desistance and add insights on the meaning of agency in prison that have been largely neglected. The findings suggest that agency is of

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE47 0

major relevance for the process of questioning and changing delinquent attitudes and behaviour. But note that agency is not a causal factor for desistance; it is one important aspect among others. How situational opportunities are used and how an individual develops depend largely on him/herself but also on the social environment and institutions as well as structural aspects. Our findings partly illustrate the importance of the interaction of these elements for reinforcing positive or negative dynamics in developmental processes.

Notes 1 Because only Yuri’s narrative is presented here, it has to be mentioned that other

interviewees of this kind, indeed, documented rather slow processes of changing which were supported by lasting encouragement by relatives, partners or institutional agents; partly even prison staff.

2 In addition, the narratives of other inmates of Yuri’s kind illustrate that such prisoners may initially also perceive imprisonment in a similar way as Maxim and just change after a while.

References

Anderson, E. (1998) ‘The code of the streets’, Atlantic Monthly, vol. 5, pp. 81 – 94. Batiuk, M., Lahm, K., McKeever, M., Wilcox, N. & Wilcox, P. (2005) ‘Disentangling the

effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history analysis’, Criminal Justice, vol. 5, pp. 55 – 74.

Bereswill, M. (2004) ‘Inside-out: resocialisation from prison as a biographical process. A longitudinal approach to the psychodynamics of imprisonment’, Journal of Social Work Practice, vol. 18, pp. 315 – 336.

Bottoms, A. (2006) ‘Desistance, social bonds, and human agency: a theoretical exploration’, in The Explanation of Crime, eds P. -O. Wikström & R. Sampson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 243 – 290.

Bottoms, A., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Holmes, D. & Muir, G. (2004) ‘Toward desistance: theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study’, The Howard Journal, vol. 43, pp. 368 – 389.

Brewster, D. & Sharp, S. (2002) ‘Educational programs and recidivism in Oklahoma: another look’, The Prison Journal, vol. 82, pp. 314 – 334.

Cullen, F., Jonson, C. & Nagin, D. (2011) ‘Prisons do not reduce recidivism: the high cost of ignoring science’, The Prison Journal, vol. 91, pp. 48 – 65.

Flick, U. (1995) Qualitative Forschung: Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften, Rowohlt, Reinbek.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asyle. Über die soziale Situation psychiatrischer Patienten und anderer Insassen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

Kazemian, L. (2007) ‘Desistance from crime. Theoretical, empirical, methodological, and policy considerations’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 23, pp. 5 – 27.

Laub, J. & Sampson, R. (2001) ‘Understanding desistance from crime’, Crime and Justice, vol. 28, pp. 1 – 69.

Laub, J. & Sampson, R. (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

JUVENILE INMATES IN GERMANY 4 71

Maruna, S. (2001) Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Maruna, S. & Farrall, S. (2003) ‘Desistance from crime: a theoretical reformulation’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 43, pp. 171 – 194.

Maruna, S. & Roy, K. (2007) ‘Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “Knifing Off” and desistance from crime’, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 23, pp. 104 – 124.

Moffit, T., Caspi, A., Harrington, H. & Milne, B. (2002) ‘Males on the life-course- persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: follow up at age 26 years’, Development and Psychopathology, vol. 14, pp. 179 – 207.

Mulvey, E., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A., Chassin, L., Knight, G., Brame, R., Schubert, C., Hecker, T. & Losoya, S. (2004) ‘Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders’, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 2, pp. 213 – 236.

Polinsky, M. & Shavell, S. (1998) ‘On offense history and the theory of deterrence’, International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 18, pp. 305 – 324.

Prochaska, J., Norcross, J. & Diclemente, C. (1997) Jetzt fange ich neu an, Knaur, München.

Sherman, B. & Strang, H. (2007) Restorative justice: the evidence, Smith Institute, London. Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. & Hay, W. (1996) Prisons and the problem of order, Clarendon Press,

New York. Stern, L. (1947) ‘Parole: success or failure: a study of parolees from Philadelphia prisons’,

The Prison Journal, vol. 27, pp. 343 – 354. Stewart, E., Schreck, C. & Simons, R. (2006) ‘“I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me”.

Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents?’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 43, pp. 427 – 458.

Sykes, G. (1958) The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Zdun, S. (2012) ‘Herausforderungen mit jungen Russlanddeutschen im deutschen Jugendstrafvollzug’, Soziale Probleme, vol. 23, forthcoming.

Steffen Zdun is research associate and lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences at the

TU Braunschweig. His research interests are juvenile delinquency, desistance and

prevention of crime. [E-mail: [email protected]]

JOURN AL OF S OCIAL WORK PRACT ICE47 2

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Practice is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.