You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy >>
2019 >>
[2019] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 38
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Articles
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Author Info
| Download
| Help
Hopkins, Anthony; Bartels, Lorana; Oxman, Lisa --- "Lessons in Flexibility: Introducing a Yoga Program in an Australian Prison" [2019] IntJlCrimJustSocDem 38; (2019) 8(4) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 47
- Introduction
- Readers are invited to imagine that it is a hot afternoon in Canberra, Australia in mid-January 2017. Ten male prisoners have gathered
in the newly opened gymnasium at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), which houses all adult prisoners in the Australian Capital
Territory (ACT). Many of these prisoners (commonly referred to as detainees in the ACT and generally referred to as participants
in this paper) are heavily muscled and covered in tattoos. Despite such external appearances, there is no sense of threat in the
gym. Instead, the yoga teacher (ME), first-author (AH) and a prison psychologist working at the AMC (LM), who have arrived to deliver
and participate in the program respectively, are greeted with easy smiles and the slightly nervous laughter of those risking ridicule.
Mats are rolled out. The teacher gives brief instructions. The laughter subsides as participants sit, close their eyes and begin
to focus on their breath. These men have come to participate in an eight-week yoga program,1 a first for the AMC and the first yoga
prison program in Australia to be the subject of evaluation.
- This is the start of a research-driven pilot program designed to bring a less conventional wellbeing intervention to prisoners, to
document the process of implementation and evaluate its impact. The pilot was unashamedly a scoping and relationship-building exercise
and we acknowledge our bias in favour of such programs from the outset. Each of us was hopeful throughout the conception and delivery
of the project that undertaking a yoga program would be effective in improving prisoners’ wellbeing. This position is supported
by international research that demonstrates the potential of yoga to enhance prisoners’ mental and physical wellbeing (see
Auty et al. 2017; Bilderbeck et al. 2013; Kerekes et al. 2017). Insofar as the program could be demonstrated to have a positive impact
on prisoner wellbeing, we hoped the research would provide a foundation for making yoga available as a regular program at the AMC
and in other Australian prisons. It would also provide a foundation for further study in Australian correctional centres.
-
- This article describes the project and reports on the process of introducing a yoga program in an Australian prison; elsewhere, we
draw on quantitative and qualitative data to consider the impacts on participants (Bartels et al. 2019; see also Hopkins et al. 2019).
The article begins by surveying the international research on the impact of yoga in prisoner populations, providing justification
for an Australian pilot. The paper then considers the evidence with respect to Australian prisoners’ physical and mental health,
which paints a stark picture of compromised wellbeing. A description of the program, its establishment, integral partnerships and
its delivery follows, drawing on the perspective of prisoners, the teacher (ME) and LM and AH who attended and participated in each
of the eight sessions run by ME. The purpose of this discussion is to identify key learnings for future programs, as well as strengths
and weaknesses in the way the program operated. The article concludes by summarising the various perspectives to provide guidance
for future yoga program providers and correctional institutions.
-
- Yoga in prison: The international evidence
- To our knowledge, this is the first research on a prison yoga program in Australia. As part of the preparation for this project, we
contacted all correctional agencies in Australia to determine if they currently offer yoga programs to prisoners and whether they
could provide any evaluation research on such programs. Although some agencies indicated that they offered or had offered such programs
in the past (see also Rudd 2017; Wright 2011), none reported any research on these initiatives. This would appear to be consistent
with Griera and Clot-Garrell’s (2015, 155) reference to the ‘camouflaged but increasingly prominent presence of holistic
practices in the penitentiary context’. In this section, we summarise the recent international evidence in respect of yoga
prison programs, although the methodological limitations of this research (see Auty et al. 2017; Karup 2016; Muirhead and Fortune
2016; Wimberley and Xue 2016) are acknowledged.
-
- Auty et al. (2017) completed a systematic review and two meta-analyses to examine whether prison yoga and meditation programs are
significantly related to increased psychological wellbeing and improvements in behavioural functioning, although most of the programs
studied focused on meditation, rather than yoga, and their discussion tended to conflate the two. Auty et al. (2017) found that participants
who completed a prison yoga or meditation program experienced small improvements in their psychological wellbeing and behavioural
functioning. Programs of longer duration had a slightly larger positive effect on behavioural functioning, compared with more intensive
programs. They suggested that yoga and meditation programs ‘have the potential to provide a cost-effective supplementary treatment’,
while ‘techniques that improve an individual’s ability to cope with difficult emotions could be valuable’ (692).
They concluded that ‘the evidence suggests that yoga and meditation have favourable effects on prisoners’ (689).
-
- Muirhead and Fortune’s (2016) literature review on yoga in prisons considered five programs, two of which were also examined
by Auty et al. (2017) (Bilderbeck et al. 2013; Landau and Gross 2008). They found that the studies ‘point towards the rehabilitative
benefits of yoga and meditative practices’ (62).
-
- Wimberly and Xue (2016) examined 10 papers referencing nine studies, including all those included by Auty et al. (2017) and Muirhead
and Fortune (2016). They found that the five hatha yoga programs examined demonstrated statistically significant decreases in stress,
depression, anxiety and neuroticism, while the three programs that focused on philosophy and spirituality were associated with improvements
in aggression, anxiety, impulse control, spirituality and reincarceration.
-
- Two more recent studies adopted a randomised design. Kerekes et al. (2017) reported on the findings of a study of a 10-week yoga program
in nine Swedish prisons, in which 77 participants were randomly assigned to a weekly 90-minute yoga class, while 75 were assigned
to a control group, whose participants were asked to participate in 90 minutes of exercise each week. The authors found significant
improvements on 13 of the 16 measured variables (e.g., less perceived stress, better sleep quality) among the yoga group, compared
with improvements on two variables in the control group (perceived stress and psychological wellbeing). The yoga group was also more
likely to show improved emotional wellbeing and improvements in computer tests that measure attention and self-control, as well as
reductions in antisocial behaviour. The authors accordingly concluded that ‘yoga practice can play an important part in the
rehabilitation of prison inmates’ (2017: 1).
-
- Danielly and Silverthorne (2017) reported on female participants in a 10-week trauma-focused yoga program in two correctional facilities
in South Carolina (United States). Participants were randomly allocated to the treatment group (n = 33) or a waitlist (i.e., control
group, n = 17), with waitlisted participants joining the subsequent class. Anxiety and self-control scores decreased and increased
respectively for the treatment group, although these findings were not statistically significant. In contrast, the control group
reported a worsening or no change in these measures. The authors concluded that yoga ‘is a relatively inexpensive intervention
that could benefit both inmates and prison staff by reducing some negative behaviours and possibly mental health problems’
(2017: 9).
-
- Karup (2016) presented qualitative findings from 11 semi-structured interviews. She also examined 30 letters written by 10 prisoners
between 2008 and 2015 to the Prison Phoenix Trust, a charity whose mission is to introduce yoga and meditation to prisoners across
the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland.2 Karup (2016: 40) concluded that participating in yoga ‘helped prisoners by reducing stress
and alleviating the tendency to ruminate in prison ... [and] appeared to create opportunities for recovering a sense of self through
its positive impact on feelings of control and self-worth’ and suggested that yoga may offer a supplementary form of rehabilitation.
-
- Griera’s (2017) ethnographic study of yoga delivered in intensive mode in three prisons in Spain also provided a qualitative
analysis, including surveys with 54 prisoner program participants and interviews with a subset of these participants, yoga teachers,
social educators and other prison personnel (n = 25), supplemented by the researcher’s own fieldnotes from participating in
the yoga sessions. Although Griera did not seek to determine the impact of the yoga program on participants quantitatively, her findings
show some of the meanings yoga can provide to practitioners in a prison setting. A related paper by Griera and Clot-Garrell (2015)
involved interviews with prisoners and prison staff and described the yoga class in greater detail. The authors noted that ‘[t]he
particular scenography of the yoga class—with the music, incense, mats laid out around the room and lights partially turned
off—also aids inmates in crossing the threshold of the everyday reality of prison’ (2015: 147).
-
- Viorst (2017) also undertook qualitative research, conducting interviews with eight former prisoners who had participated in a prison
yoga program in San Quentin Prison in the United States for at least 18 months. Viorst (2017:20) found that interviewees identified
the non-physical aspects of yoga, namely, breath control and meditation to be ‘especially effective in rehabilitative efforts’.
All participants described reduced aggression and ‘greater emotional intelligence and awareness’ (2017: 24). The perceived
positive effects would appear to be supported by the psychological tests, which indicated that all interviewees had low levels of
depression, anxiety and verbal aggressiveness, coupled with a high degree of self-control and self-awareness.
- Australian prisoners’ physical and mental health
- When we consider prisoners as a population and the data on their physical and mental health, we find a disturbing picture of compromised
wellbeing, especially relative to the general Australian population. For example, Butler et al. (2006: 273) found that prisoners
were far more likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder; the ‘overall prevalence of any psychiatric illness was 80% for
prisoners and 31% (weighted) for the community. The contrast between prison and the community was most pronounced for substance use
disorder (66% vs. 18%)’.
-
- The most recent picture of the health of Australian prisoners was presented by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ([AIHW]
2019). Overall, the AIHW found that:
-
-
- The data on those entering prison found that:
- • 29 per cent reported a long-term health condition or disability that limited their daily activities and/or affected their
participation in education or employment;
- • 22 per cent tested positive to hepatitis C;
- • 75 per cent were current smokers and 69 per cent smoked daily;
- • 65 per cent had engaged in illicit drug use in the previous year;
- • 34 per cent reported a high risk of alcohol-related harm in the preceding 12 months;
- • 40 per cent had been told by a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or nurse that they had a mental health disorder;
- • 26 per cent reported high or very high levels of psychological distress;
- • 23 per cent were taking medication for a mental health disorder; and
- • 21 per cent reported self-harm.
- The AIHW also found that 33 per cent of prison entrants had only completed schooling up to Year 9; 54 per cent were unemployed in
the month leading up to their incarceration; 33 per cent were homeless in the period leading up to their incarceration; 18 per cent
had had a parent incarcerated during their childhood; and 38 per cent had dependent children. Of those about to be discharged from
prison, only 22 per cent had organised paid employment to commence within two weeks of their release, while 78 per cent were expecting
to receive government social security payments. Taken together, this information not only conveys the poor health of Australian prisoners,
but the challenges they face in their lives more generally.
-
- The present study
- The quantitative and qualitative methods and findings from our project are described in more detail in Bartels et al. (2019).3 Pre-
(n = 8) and post-program (n = 9) quantitative wellbeing data were collected with participants’ consent, using a number of well-accepted
psychological testing measures.4 Although the limitations of the small sample size are acknowledged, our findings indicated that
participants showed statistically significant improvement, including reduced levels of stress and depression, as well as increased
self-esteem and goal-directed behaviour. Qualitative data collected through pre- and post-program audio-recorded interviews revealed
positive impacts, including increased flexibility, improved sleep and mental wellbeing. No participants demonstrated negative outcomes.
-
- We intended to undertake follow-up interviews two months after the program ended. Unfortunately, though invitations were extended
to all participants, only two program completers attended. We were not in a position to determine the reason for this; however, as
one of those who did attend explained, there had just been a death at the AMC and this may have affected participants’ desire
to speak on the day. We also invited those who had initially expressed interest and completed wellbeing testing to attend to talk
to us about why they did not participate in the program. One person attended and we have included his feedback below.
-
- In this paper, we discuss the process of developing and delivering the program, drawing on the observations of the prisoner participants.
We have privileged their voices wherever possible to provide a richer sense of their subjective experiences. Both ME, who volunteered
his time and expertise, and LM, who enthusiastically supported the program, were asked to provide their feedback on the program and
this feedback is also included here. This paper also incorporates the observations of AH, who participated in the program as an embedded
researcher.
- Establishing the program
- The project was conceived on the basis of our personal experience with yoga and meditation, as well as our professional experience
with prisoner populations. It was informed by the emerging international literature supporting the efficacy of such interventions.
Our aims were to introduce a yoga program at the AMC and investigate the impact of such a program on the wellbeing of prisoner participants,
with the introduction of the yoga program itself part of the research initiative. This distinguishes the research from research undertaken
to evaluate existing programs. Significantly, the literature review on yoga in prison above describes evaluations of existing yoga
programs. Accordingly, our research provides a unique opportunity to explore and report on the process of establishing the program,
identifying key learnings to support the introduction of similar programs elsewhere. In this section, we consider the crucial partnerships
required for the program.
- ACT Corrective Services
- Establishing and running a wellbeing intervention in a correctional setting is a challenging, and often time-consuming, enterprise.
This is particularly so if the impetus for such a program originates from outside the correctional centre itself. Correctional authorities
have to be persuaded that there is merit in such a program and it will not harm the prisoners in their care or present a security
risk. Further, although no financial contribution was sought from ACT Corrective Services, managing the logistics of internal programming
and providing a staff member to facilitate delivery was a cost in itself.
-
- The process of persuasion commenced with high-level meetings with ACT Corrective Services, AMC management and AMC Prison Psychological
Services. AH and LB, who have worked on justice reform and research in conjunction with the ACT Government, drew upon their existing
relationships to commence the process. Having initially proposed an intensive meditation program, it was ultimately agreed that a
yoga pilot would be trialled instead.
-
- To understand some of the logistical challenges faced in the delivery of the program, it is necessary to have a basic understanding
of the correctional centre itself (see Bartels and Boland 2016). The AMC houses all adult prisoners in the ACT, remand and sentenced,
women and men of all security classifications. This meant that movement within the centre had to be carefully managed, with prisoners
often needing to be escorted from different sections across the facility. As participants in the program came from different locations,
this occasionally led to delays as custodial officers faced competing priorities. However, ACT Corrective Services demonstrated their
support for the program throughout and apologised for delays in bringing prisoners to be interviewed or attend the program.
-
- The task of coordinating delivery from inside the AMC, as well as identifying and selecting the participant cohort, fell to LM, a
clinical psychologist. LM is also a trained fitness instructor who, among other things, had taught mindful stretching. She participated
in the classes alongside the prisoners, encouraged them and supported the group to practise in an unavoidable two-week interval discussed
below. She was also integral in identifying the importance of holding a graduation ceremony on the final day of the program, at which
time those participants who had completed the program were given their own yoga mats.
-
- The Yoga Foundation and yoga community
- Although we have practised yoga in our personal lives, we did not have the expertise to deliver the program. Accordingly, we approached
the Yoga Foundation (2018), which delivers yoga programs in Sydney to marginalised communities and helped to locate a volunteer yoga
teacher based in Canberra. ME had significant experience teaching yoga and, as it emerged, importantly, he also had professional
experience working within the controlled environments of onshore asylum-seeker detention centres. Drawing on his contacts, ME sourced
yoga mats from a Canberra yoga studio, which generously donated them to the program.
- Participant selection and engagement
- The project was conceptualised as a small-scale pilot, with the value of the research being both discussing the process of establishing
and delivering the program and reporting on its outcomes. In circumstances in which there is an absence of published research on
yoga (and meditation) programs in Australian correctional settings, laying a foundation for future program offerings and further
research is critical. Given the small scale and research aims, it was not possible to identify a control group. Although we acknowledge
that this is a limitation of the present project, it is broadly in keeping with the international experience (cf. Danielly and Silverthorne
2017; Kerekes et al. 2017). It was agreed early in the planning stage that only males would be invited to participate in the pilot
program. Posters prepared by the authors were placed around the prison and selection of the participants was undertaken by ACT Corrective
Services.
- In total, 18 prisoners expressed interest in the program, with all 18 participating in initial interviews and completing wellbeing
measures in December 2016. None of the participants had done yoga before, although some had limited meditation experience, principally
through prison programs. Of the initial 18 prospective participants, eight completed the program. A ninth joined in the second week
and also completed the program, though he was not one of the 18 who expressed initial interest. Completion was defined as having
attended a minimum of five of the eight yoga classes taught by ME. Of the 10 who participated in the initial interview but did not
complete the program, seven did not attend any classes. Two attended the first class and did not continue and one attended two classes
before being released from prison.
- Program delivery
- As outlined in the introduction, the program commenced in January 2017. Each class ran on Monday afternoons for approximately one
hour. The program ran for 10 consecutive weeks, although it was originally envisaged that it would last eight weeks. This occurred
because ME had overseas commitments during the program. The unavoidable delivery gap occurred after two classes had been held, laying
the foundation for practice. LM was concerned about the group losing momentum and interest. To address this, she invited the participants
to attend at the same time during ME’s absence so that they, with her guidance, could practise what had been learned to that
point. This had not been planned into the program, but was an example of fluid adaptation and an effective partnership; it was very
well received by the participants, who commented on this in their post-program interviews, noting the commitment LM showed to them
and the program. The remaining six classes were held after ME’s return.
-
- The classes proceeded on the basis of an experiential or ‘learning-by-doing’ model. As ME explained in his post-program
interview, his objective was to teach participants a basic 20-minute routine that they could practise by themselves. This included
‘sun salutations’, stretches, balancing poses and meditation. An instruction sheet was provided after the second class
with basic movements and poses shown in picture form. Breath awareness was explicitly built into the learning of each movement and
as part of routine progression from movement to movement. Classes also started and finished with periods of breath awareness meditation
without movement. Practice outside formal classes was encouraged, though ME did not check in with participants to determine whether
any practice had taken place.
-
- No effort was made by the authors or ACT Corrective Services to define or control the way ME would deliver the program or the actual
yoga program that he would deliver. There was no suggestion that he should focus on any particular aspect of yoga practice or theory
or explicitly tailor his teaching for the environment. There was also no suggestion of the extent to which meditation or breath awareness
would be a specific focus.
-
- The final class concluded with a graduation ceremony. This was suggested by LM, who was cognisant of the benefits of celebrating prisoner
success. The senior manager of Corrections Psychological Support Services attended the ceremony and made a short speech congratulating
the participants. Following this, each participant was presented with a yoga mat donated by a local yoga studio.
-
- Correspondence:
- Dr Anthony Hopkins, Senior Lecturer and Barrister-at-Law, Director of Law School Clinical and Internship Courses, ANU Law School,
ANU College of Law, ANU, Acton, Canberra ACT 2600. Email: anthony.hopkins@anu.edu.au
- Professor Lorana Bartels, Criminology Program Leader, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, ANU, Acton, Canberra ACT 2600. Adjunct
Professor, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra and Faculty of Law, University of TasmaniaEmail: lorana.bartels@anu.edu.au
-
- References
-
Lessons in Flexibility: Introducing a Yoga Program in an Australian
Prison
Anthony Hopkins, Lorana Bartels, Lisa Oxman
Australian National University, Australia
Abstract
International research provides support for yoga as a wellbeing
intervention in prison. Until recently, no systematic research had
been
undertaken in Australia to assess the effectiveness of a yoga program, or
consider the challenges of implementation. In 2017,
the authors, in partnership
with Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Corrective Services and the Yoga
Foundation, introduced a pilot
yoga program at the Alexander Maconochie Centre
in the ACT. This paper draws on comments from the prisoners who participated in
the
program and the yoga teacher, as well as the perspectives of a prison
psychologist and the lead author, both of whom also participated
in the program.
The paper reflects on the lessons learnt from developing and delivering a prison
yoga program and advocates for the
expansion of such programs in Australian
prisons.
Keywords
Australian corrective services; meditation; prison; yoga.
|
Please cite this article as:
Hopkins A, Bartels L and Oxman L (2019) Lessons in flexibility:
Introducing a yoga program in an Australian prison. International Journal for
Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 8(4): 47-61. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i4.1046
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International Licence. As an open access journal, articles are free to
use with proper attribution. ISSN: 2202-8005
Introduction
Readers
are invited to imagine that it is a hot afternoon in Canberra, Australia in
mid-January 2017. Ten male prisoners have gathered
in the newly opened gymnasium
at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC), which houses all adult prisoners in
the Australian Capital
Territory (ACT). Many of these prisoners (commonly
referred to as detainees in the ACT and generally referred to as participants
in
this paper) are heavily muscled and covered in tattoos. Despite such external
appearances, there is no sense of threat in the
gym. Instead, the yoga teacher
(ME), first-author (AH) and a prison psychologist working at the AMC (LM), who
have arrived to deliver
and participate in the program respectively, are greeted
with easy smiles and the slightly nervous laughter of those risking ridicule.
Mats are rolled out. The teacher gives brief instructions. The laughter subsides
as participants sit, close their eyes and begin
to focus on their breath. These
men have come to participate in an eight-week yoga
program,[1] a first for the AMC and
the first yoga prison program in Australia to be the subject of evaluation.
This is the start of a research-driven pilot program
designed to bring a less conventional wellbeing intervention to prisoners, to
document the process of implementation and evaluate its impact. The pilot was
unashamedly a scoping and relationship-building exercise
and we acknowledge our
bias in favour of such programs from the outset. Each of us was hopeful
throughout the conception and delivery
of the project that undertaking a yoga
program would be effective in improving prisoners’ wellbeing. This
position is supported
by international research that demonstrates the potential
of yoga to enhance prisoners’ mental and physical wellbeing (see
Auty et
al. 2017; Bilderbeck et al. 2013; Kerekes et al. 2017). Insofar as the program
could be demonstrated to have a positive impact
on prisoner wellbeing, we hoped
the research would provide a foundation for making yoga available as a regular
program at the AMC
and in other Australian prisons. It would also provide a
foundation for further study in Australian correctional
centres.
This article
describes the project and reports on the process of introducing a yoga program
in an Australian prison; elsewhere, we
draw on quantitative and qualitative data
to consider the impacts on participants (Bartels et al. 2019; see also Hopkins
et al. 2019).
The article begins by surveying the international research on the
impact of yoga in prisoner populations, providing justification
for an
Australian pilot. The paper then considers the evidence with respect to
Australian prisoners’ physical and mental health,
which paints a stark
picture of compromised wellbeing. A description of the program, its
establishment, integral partnerships and
its delivery follows, drawing on the
perspective of prisoners, the teacher (ME) and LM and AH who attended and
participated in each
of the eight sessions run by ME. The purpose of this
discussion is to identify key learnings for future programs, as well as
strengths
and weaknesses in the way the program operated. The article concludes
by summarising the various perspectives to provide guidance
for future yoga
program providers and correctional
institutions.
Yoga in
prison: The international evidence
To our knowledge, this is the first research on a prison
yoga program in Australia. As part of the preparation for this project, we
contacted all correctional agencies in Australia to determine if they currently
offer yoga programs to prisoners and whether they
could provide any evaluation
research on such programs. Although some agencies indicated that they offered or
had offered such programs
in the past (see also Rudd 2017; Wright 2011), none
reported any research on these initiatives. This would appear to be consistent
with Griera and Clot-Garrell’s (2015, 155) reference to the
‘camouflaged but increasingly prominent presence of holistic
practices in
the penitentiary context’. In this section, we summarise the recent
international evidence in respect of yoga
prison programs, although the
methodological limitations of this research (see Auty et al. 2017; Karup 2016;
Muirhead and Fortune
2016; Wimberley and Xue 2016) are
acknowledged.
Auty et al.
(2017) completed a systematic review and two meta-analyses to examine whether
prison yoga and meditation programs are
significantly related to increased
psychological wellbeing and improvements in behavioural functioning, although
most of the programs
studied focused on meditation, rather than yoga, and their
discussion tended to conflate the two. Auty et al. (2017) found that
participants
who completed a prison yoga or meditation program experienced small
improvements in their psychological wellbeing and behavioural
functioning.
Programs of longer duration had a slightly larger positive effect on behavioural
functioning, compared with more intensive
programs. They suggested that yoga and
meditation programs ‘have the potential to provide a cost-effective
supplementary treatment’,
while ‘techniques that improve an
individual’s ability to cope with difficult emotions could be
valuable’ (692).
They concluded that ‘the evidence suggests that
yoga and meditation have favourable effects on prisoners’
(689).
Muirhead and
Fortune’s (2016) literature review on yoga in prisons considered five
programs, two of which were also examined
by Auty et al. (2017) (Bilderbeck et
al. 2013; Landau and Gross 2008). They found that the studies ‘point
towards the rehabilitative
benefits of yoga and meditative practices’
(62).
Wimberly and Xue (2016)
examined 10 papers referencing nine studies, including all those included by
Auty et al. (2017) and Muirhead
and Fortune (2016). They found that the five
hatha yoga programs examined demonstrated statistically significant decreases in
stress,
depression, anxiety and neuroticism, while the three programs that
focused on philosophy and spirituality were associated with improvements
in
aggression, anxiety, impulse control, spirituality and
reincarceration.
Two more
recent studies adopted a randomised design. Kerekes et al. (2017) reported on
the findings of a study of a 10-week yoga program
in nine Swedish prisons, in
which 77 participants were randomly assigned to a weekly 90-minute yoga class,
while 75 were assigned
to a control group, whose participants were asked to
participate in 90 minutes of exercise each week. The authors found significant
improvements on 13 of the 16 measured variables (e.g., less perceived stress,
better sleep quality) among the yoga group, compared
with improvements on two
variables in the control group (perceived stress and psychological wellbeing).
The yoga group was also more
likely to show improved emotional wellbeing and
improvements in computer tests that measure attention and self-control, as well
as
reductions in antisocial behaviour. The authors accordingly concluded that
‘yoga practice can play an important part in the
rehabilitation of prison
inmates’ (2017:
1).
Danielly and Silverthorne
(2017) reported on female participants in a 10-week trauma-focused yoga program
in two correctional facilities
in South Carolina (United States). Participants
were randomly allocated to the treatment group (n = 33) or a waitlist
(i.e., control
group, n = 17), with waitlisted participants joining
the subsequent class. Anxiety and self-control scores decreased and increased
respectively for the treatment group, although these findings were not
statistically significant. In contrast, the control group
reported a worsening
or no change in these measures. The authors concluded that yoga ‘is a
relatively inexpensive intervention
that could benefit both inmates and prison
staff by reducing some negative behaviours and possibly mental health
problems’
(2017:
9).
Karup (2016) presented
qualitative findings from 11 semi-structured interviews. She also examined 30
letters written by 10 prisoners
between 2008 and 2015 to the Prison Phoenix
Trust, a charity whose mission is to introduce yoga and meditation to prisoners
across
the United Kingdom (UK) and
Ireland.[2] Karup (2016: 40) concluded
that participating in yoga ‘helped prisoners by reducing stress and
alleviating the tendency to
ruminate in prison ... [and] appeared to create
opportunities for recovering a sense of self through its positive impact on
feelings
of control and self-worth’ and suggested that yoga may offer a
supplementary form of
rehabilitation.
Griera’s
(2017) ethnographic study of yoga delivered in intensive mode in three prisons
in Spain also provided a qualitative
analysis, including surveys with 54
prisoner program participants and interviews with a subset of these
participants, yoga teachers,
social educators and other prison personnel
(n = 25), supplemented by the researcher’s own fieldnotes from
participating in
the yoga sessions. Although Griera did not seek to determine
the impact of the yoga program on participants quantitatively, her findings
show
some of the meanings yoga can provide to practitioners in a prison setting. A
related paper by Griera and Clot-Garrell (2015)
involved interviews with
prisoners and prison staff and described the yoga class in greater detail. The
authors noted that ‘[t]he
particular scenography of the yoga
class—with the music, incense, mats laid out around the room and lights
partially turned
off—also aids inmates in crossing the threshold of the
everyday reality of prison’ (2015:
147).
Viorst (2017) also
undertook qualitative research, conducting interviews with eight former
prisoners who had participated in a prison
yoga program in San Quentin Prison in
the United States for at least 18 months. Viorst (2017:20) found that
interviewees identified
the non-physical aspects of yoga, namely, breath control
and meditation to be ‘especially effective in rehabilitative
efforts’.
All participants described reduced aggression and ‘greater
emotional intelligence and awareness’ (2017: 24). The perceived
positive
effects would appear to be supported by the psychological tests, which indicated
that all interviewees had low levels of
depression, anxiety and verbal
aggressiveness, coupled with a high degree of self-control and
self-awareness.
Australian prisoners’ physical and mental
health
When we consider prisoners as a population and the data
on their physical and mental health, we find a disturbing picture of compromised
wellbeing, especially relative to the general Australian population. For
example, Butler et al. (2006: 273) found that prisoners
were far more likely to
be diagnosed with a mental disorder; the ‘overall prevalence of any
psychiatric illness was 80% for
prisoners and 31% (weighted) for the community.
The contrast between prison and the community was most pronounced for substance
use
disorder (66% vs.
18%)’.
The most recent
picture of the health of Australian prisoners was presented by the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare ([AIHW]
2019). Overall, the AIHW found
that:
... people in prison have significant and complex
health needs, which are often long-term or chronic in nature. They have higher
rates of mental health conditions, chronic disease, communicable disease,
acquired brain injury, tobacco smoking, high-risk alcohol
consumption, recent
illicit drug use, and recent injecting drug use, than the general
population’ (2019, vi). In addition,
because nearly all prisoners are
ultimately released back into the community, improving prisoners’ health
and wellbeing ‘benefits
the entire community (2019: iv).
The data on those entering
prison found that:
• 29 per cent reported a long-term health
condition or disability that limited their daily activities and/or affected
their
participation in education or
employment;
• 22 per cent tested positive to
hepatitis C;
• 75 per cent were current smokers
and 69 per cent smoked daily;
• 65 per cent had
engaged in illicit drug use in the previous
year;
• 34 per cent reported a high risk of
alcohol-related harm in the preceding 12
months;
• 40 per cent had been told by a
doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or nurse that they had a mental health
disorder;
• 26 per cent reported high or very
high levels of psychological distress;
• 23 per
cent were taking medication for a mental health disorder;
and
• 21 per cent reported self-harm.
The AIHW also found that 33 per cent of prison entrants
had only completed schooling up to Year 9; 54 per cent were unemployed in
the
month leading up to their incarceration; 33 per cent were homeless in the period
leading up to their incarceration; 18 per cent
had had a parent incarcerated
during their childhood; and 38 per cent had dependent children. Of those about
to be discharged from
prison, only 22 per cent had organised paid employment to
commence within two weeks of their release, while 78 per cent were expecting
to
receive government social security payments. Taken together, this information
not only conveys the poor health of Australian prisoners,
but the challenges
they face in their lives more
generally.
The present
study
The quantitative and qualitative methods and findings
from our project are described in more detail in Bartels et al.
(2019).[3] Pre- (n = 8) and
post-program (n = 9) quantitative wellbeing data were collected with
participants’ consent, using a number
of well-accepted psychological
testing measures.[4] Although the
limitations of the small sample size are acknowledged, our findings indicated
that participants showed statistically
significant improvement, including
reduced levels of stress and depression, as well as increased self-esteem and
goal-directed behaviour.
Qualitative data collected through pre- and
post-program audio-recorded interviews revealed positive impacts, including
increased
flexibility, improved sleep and mental wellbeing. No participants
demonstrated negative
outcomes.
We intended to
undertake follow-up interviews two months after the program ended.
Unfortunately, though invitations were extended
to all participants, only two
program completers attended. We were not in a position to determine the reason
for this; however, as
one of those who did attend explained, there had just been
a death at the AMC and this may have affected participants’ desire
to
speak on the day. We also invited those who had initially expressed interest and
completed wellbeing testing to attend to talk
to us about why they did not
participate in the program. One person attended and we have included his
feedback below.
In this
paper, we discuss the process of developing and delivering the program, drawing
on the observations of the prisoner participants.
We have privileged their
voices wherever possible to provide a richer sense of their subjective
experiences. Both ME, who volunteered
his time and expertise, and LM, who
enthusiastically supported the program, were asked to provide their feedback on
the program and
this feedback is also included here. This paper also
incorporates the observations of AH, who participated in the program as an
embedded
researcher.
Establishing the
program
The project was conceived on the
basis of our personal experience with yoga and meditation, as well as our
professional experience
with prisoner populations. It was informed by the
emerging international literature supporting the efficacy of such interventions.
Our aims were to introduce a yoga program at the AMC and investigate the impact
of such a program on the wellbeing of prisoner participants,
with the
introduction of the yoga program itself part of the research initiative. This
distinguishes the research from research undertaken
to evaluate existing
programs. Significantly, the literature review on yoga in prison above describes
evaluations of existing yoga
programs. Accordingly, our research provides a
unique opportunity to explore and report on the process of establishing the
program,
identifying key learnings to support the introduction of similar
programs elsewhere. In this section, we consider the crucial partnerships
required for the program.
ACT Corrective
Services
Establishing and running a
wellbeing intervention in a correctional setting is a challenging, and often
time-consuming, enterprise.
This is particularly so if the impetus for such a
program originates from outside the correctional centre itself. Correctional
authorities
have to be persuaded that there is merit in such a program and it
will not harm the prisoners in their care or present a security
risk. Further,
although no financial contribution was sought from ACT Corrective Services,
managing the logistics of internal programming
and providing a staff member to
facilitate delivery was a cost in
itself.
The process of
persuasion commenced with high-level meetings with ACT Corrective Services, AMC
management and AMC Prison Psychological
Services. AH and LB, who have worked on
justice reform and research in conjunction with the ACT Government, drew upon
their existing
relationships to commence the process. Having initially proposed
an intensive meditation program, it was ultimately agreed that a
yoga pilot
would be trialled
instead.
To understand some
of the logistical challenges faced in the delivery of the program, it is
necessary to have a basic understanding
of the correctional centre itself (see
Bartels and Boland 2016). The AMC houses all adult prisoners in the ACT, remand
and sentenced,
women and men of all security classifications. This meant that
movement within the centre had to be carefully managed, with prisoners
often
needing to be escorted from different sections across the facility. As
participants in the program came from different locations,
this occasionally led
to delays as custodial officers faced competing priorities. However, ACT
Corrective Services demonstrated their
support for the program throughout and
apologised for delays in bringing prisoners to be interviewed or attend the
program.
The task of
coordinating delivery from inside the AMC, as well as identifying and selecting
the participant cohort, fell to LM, a
clinical psychologist. LM is also a
trained fitness instructor who, among other things, had taught mindful
stretching. She participated
in the classes alongside the prisoners, encouraged
them and supported the group to practise in an unavoidable two-week interval
discussed
below. She was also integral in identifying the importance of holding
a graduation ceremony on the final day of the program, at which
time those
participants who had completed the program were given their own yoga
mats.
The Yoga
Foundation and yoga community
Although we
have practised yoga in our personal lives, we did not have the expertise to
deliver the program. Accordingly, we approached
the Yoga Foundation (2018),
which delivers yoga programs in Sydney to marginalised communities and helped to
locate a volunteer yoga
teacher based in Canberra. ME had significant experience
teaching yoga and, as it emerged, importantly, he also had professional
experience working within the controlled environments of onshore asylum-seeker
detention centres. Drawing on his contacts, ME sourced
yoga mats from a Canberra
yoga studio, which generously donated them to the program.
Participant selection and
engagement
The project was conceptualised as
a small-scale pilot, with the value of the research being both discussing the
process of establishing
and delivering the program and reporting on its
outcomes. In circumstances in which there is an absence of published research on
yoga (and meditation) programs in Australian correctional settings, laying a
foundation for future program offerings and further
research is critical. Given
the small scale and research aims, it was not possible to identify a control
group. Although we acknowledge
that this is a limitation of the present project,
it is broadly in keeping with the international experience (cf. Danielly and
Silverthorne
2017; Kerekes et al. 2017). It was agreed early in the planning
stage that only males would be invited to participate in the pilot
program.
Posters prepared by the authors were placed around the prison and selection of
the participants was undertaken by ACT Corrective
Services.
In total, 18 prisoners expressed interest in the
program, with all 18 participating in initial interviews and completing
wellbeing
measures in December 2016. None of the participants had done yoga
before, although some had limited meditation experience, principally
through
prison programs. Of the initial 18 prospective participants, eight completed the
program. A ninth joined in the second week
and also completed the program,
though he was not one of the 18 who expressed initial interest. Completion was
defined as having
attended a minimum of five of the eight yoga classes taught by
ME. Of the 10 who participated in the initial interview but did not
complete the
program, seven did not attend any classes. Two attended the first class and did
not continue and one attended two classes
before being released from
prison.
Program
delivery
As outlined in the introduction,
the program commenced in January 2017. Each class ran on Monday afternoons for
approximately one
hour. The program ran for 10 consecutive weeks, although it
was originally envisaged that it would last eight weeks. This occurred
because
ME had overseas commitments during the program. The unavoidable delivery gap
occurred after two classes had been held, laying
the foundation for practice. LM
was concerned about the group losing momentum and interest. To address this, she
invited the participants
to attend at the same time during ME’s absence so
that they, with her guidance, could practise what had been learned to that
point. This had not been planned into the program, but was an example of fluid
adaptation and an effective partnership; it was very
well received by the
participants, who commented on this in their post-program interviews, noting the
commitment LM showed to them
and the program. The remaining six classes were
held after ME’s
return.
The classes
proceeded on the basis of an experiential or ‘learning-by-doing’
model. As ME explained in his post-program
interview, his objective was to teach
participants a basic 20-minute routine that they could practise by themselves.
This included
‘sun salutations’, stretches, balancing poses and
meditation. An instruction sheet was provided after the second class
with basic
movements and poses shown in picture form. Breath awareness was explicitly built
into the learning of each movement and
as part of routine progression from
movement to movement. Classes also started and finished with periods of breath
awareness meditation
without movement. Practice outside formal classes was
encouraged, though ME did not check in with participants to determine whether
any practice had taken
place.
No effort was made
by the authors or ACT Corrective Services to define or control the way ME would
deliver the program or the actual
yoga program that he would deliver. There was
no suggestion that he should focus on any particular aspect of yoga practice or
theory
or explicitly tailor his teaching for the environment. There was also no
suggestion of the extent to which meditation or breath awareness
would be a
specific focus.
The final
class concluded with a graduation ceremony. This was suggested by LM, who was
cognisant of the benefits of celebrating prisoner
success. The senior manager of
Corrections Psychological Support Services attended the ceremony and made a
short speech congratulating
the participants. Following this, each participant
was presented with a yoga mat donated by a local yoga studio.
Perspectives on the program
Participants
It was generally acknowledged by participants that the yoga program was
considered a unique, unconventional and ‘weird’
offering. It may be
that this deterred some prisoners from indicating interest or participating. P3
stated that other prisoners who
were not engaged in the program ‘had a bit
of a laugh, but stuff ‘em’. He explained that this changed once the
program commenced, as other prisoners ‘wanted to know about it’ and
a few ‘were even upset that they didn’t
sign up’. P6 expressed
the view that while yoga was an unknown in the prison, there was ‘no
stigma or judgement’
attached to participating. Indeed, in his view, there
was ‘a bit of envy from those who were a bit dirty they didn’t
keep
going’. P5 similarly commented that there was no ‘shame about it or
nothing’ and that, after the program started,
‘a lot of them [other
prisoners] wanted to do it’. P7 had explained what he was doing to other
prisoners, stating: ‘they
would just laugh. Some people wanted to join up
but it was too late’. P1 referred to other prisoners who learned about the
program from him when he returned from the class as being ‘dirty that they
didn’t put in for it’.
Cohort selection
In terms of selection of future cohorts of prisoners, P5 took the view that
those suffering from depression should be a focus. He
stated that the AMC should
identify ‘people that are really depressed that are going to be here for a
long time’, stating
‘it might just help them ease their mind a bit
... it would help bring them up’. P3 referred to the need to ensure
cohesive
groups were selected for any future program, bearing ‘jail
politics’ in mind. In particular, he noted that participants
were
‘mains’, rather than
‘protection’.[5] In his
view, the prison should consider offering separate programs for those in
‘protection’ and ‘mains’.
P6 suggested that the future success of any yoga program depended on ensuring
that participants selected to participate ‘are
really serious about
changing themselves’. This was echoed by P2, who felt that some
‘paperwork’ might be appropriate
‘to weed out those who
don’t really want to do it’. He referred to another prisoner who had
not participated in
the program, saying that he had been deterred by the notion
that it would not be a serious program.
Practice outside class
After program completion, participants were asked if they did any practice
outside the classes they attended. All but one participant
engaged in limited
practice outside class, while P4 indicated that he ‘just wasn’t
motivated really’. P5 said that
‘now and then I tried to give it a
quick go’. He explained that he tried ‘the stretching, sitting on
your hands,
downward dog, upward dog ... because I had the sheet’. P3
explained that he used the stretches outside class for lower back
pain, but
‘it was not something you would really do in the yard’. P6 commented
that he would do yoga stretching ‘a
couple of times a week’ outside
class after weight training. P2 also stated that he did ‘a little
bit’ and ‘tried
some of the warrior poses and the leg
stretches’. He stated that he intended to continue but indicated that he
was restricted
in his efforts to practice outside the classes because he did not
have his own cell. He said it was ‘a bit difficult having
a cellie
[cellmate] who has no idea and is looking at you like “what the fuck are
you doing?” It was sort of awkward’.
Similar to P6, he explained
that it was not possible to do yoga in the yard because ‘everyone looks at
you’. P7 and P8
both stated that they used the stretching exercises
outside class. P8 also did some breathing exercises, referring to the breath
awareness exercises being consistent with another prison program he was involved
with, ‘Stress Less’. P1 explained that
he had done yoga stretching
outside class, using a blanket on the floor of his cell. It was clear from the
participants’ comments
that they would have welcomed access to space to
use for practice outside formal class. P3 indicated that this would
‘definitely’
make a difference to him.
Yoga teacher
Participants commented very favourably on the ME and this was demonstrated by
their thanks and appreciation conveyed to him at the
end of the program. In
particular, they reflected on his competence and attitude. For example, P8
expressed the view that ‘he
knew what he was doing’. P5 referred to
ME as ‘pretty cool’, referring to his patience when participants
were unable
to complete routines or needed to rest. P3 stated, ‘he went
through it really well and he was really patient with us and he
had a
laugh’. He stated that ‘patience is the main thing’. P6 also
referred to ME’s patience and described
him as ‘awesome’,
noting the clarity with which he gave instructions and his understanding of
prisoners. In relation
to the selection of any future teacher, P6 was clear that
they needed to be ‘patient’, ‘really down to earth’
and
‘non-judgemental’. P2 similarly referred to the teacher positively,
noting that he was clear in his instructions.
However, P2 indicated that he
would have benefited from more ‘feedback’ and
‘reassurance’ in relation to
whether he was getting the poses right.
P2 also noted that his capacity to follow instructions and observe demonstrated
poses was
improved when the format moved from two rows, one on either side of
the teacher, to a circle around the teacher. In his view, the
circle format was
‘much better’. When asked about the teacher, P7 stated
‘everything was good’, explaining
that ‘if you did it wrong,
he just had a laugh and showed you how to do it properly’. Like the other
participants, P1
referred to the teacher’s patience and willingness to
adapt the program for him. He said, ‘he was understanding of my
injury ...
When I explained it properly to him, the next week, he came back with different
stretches for my back and stuff, which
I felt he’d sort of done for
me’.
Prison psychologist
Participants were almost uniformly positive about the involvement and
contribution of LM, the prison psychologist. For example, P5
referred to her as
‘a good person’ with a ‘good vibe about her’. In
particular, her effort to continue the
program in ME’s two-week absence
was noted with enthusiasm. P5 noted that ‘she was pretty hectic when she
done it ...
I thought it would be more soft but she was harder actually. It was
good. I enjoyed it’. P3 also referred to LM’s involvement
in the two
sessions she ran and in general as ‘really good’ and ‘really
helpful’, commenting on the positive
feedback she had given them:
‘she always told us we were doing a good job. That sort of makes you want
to do it more’.
P6 described LM’s involvement as
‘awesome’, referring to her as ‘supportive’. P2 referred
to the benefit
of having a ‘couple of extra lessons’ run by LM. He
saw her involvement as positive, but expressed the view that ‘she
is a
different sort of person to others we interact with’. Consistent with
others, P1 referred to LM as a ‘nice person’
with the
prisoners’ ‘best interests at heart’. In contrast, P7 and P4
were neutral about LM’s involvement,
stating that ‘it didn’t
really make a difference’ (P4) or ‘not a big [difference]’
(P7).
Non-participating prisoner
The fact that 18 prisoners expressed interest in the program and completed
pre-program wellbeing testing, but only nine completed
the program, clearly
raises questions about the reasons for attrition. It is possible that some of
those who did not attend had in
fact been released from custody, as occurred
with a prisoner who attended the first two classes. In an effort to understand
why some
prisoners did not attend, we invited those non-attending prisoners who
remained at the AMC to speak with us when we were conducting
follow-up
interviews with participants two months after the program. Only one
non-participating prisoner attended, but his contribution
is of value, even if
it may not be representative of the nine in the original cohort who ultimately
did not participate or the AMC
population more generally.
When asked what prevented him from attending the program, NP1 responded:
‘I just wasn’t in the right frame of mind’.
When asked if
there was something that we could have done to help him attend, he explained
that it was just his ‘mindspace’.
He went on to say that he was now
ready to do the yoga program, because ‘the other boys are doing it,
it’s a community
thing’. This insight suggests that if yoga programs
were held on a regular basis, prisoners would be drawn to participate as
a
consequence of observing the effect on those already participating. NP1 noted
that participants ‘came back all happy and
that. They got a lot from it.
It took stuff off their mind. That’s what I got told’.
Yoga teacher
ME was interviewed after completion of the program to help develop an
understanding of how and why the program worked and identify
key learnings for
future prison yoga programs. We had already conducted the post-program
participant interviews at the time we spoke
to ME and, though the data had not
been analysed, it was clear that participants viewed the program as a success.
Therefore, the
interview with ME was conducted in light of this.
For ME, the key to success had been the work of LM, whom he described as
having great ‘enthusiasm’ for the program, ‘rapport’
with the participants and a willingness to organise things from the inside. ME
reflected on the fact that he had not realised just
how difficult logistics
could be within the prison and how such a program depended on the support of
correctional staff responsible
for the management and movement of prisoners. He
noted that it was rare for him to be able to offer a full one-hour class, due to
late arrivals. Indeed, he was surprised by how many competing appointments and
commitments had to be managed.
When asked about the essential attributes of a yoga teacher in a custodial
environment, ME explained: ‘it’s not a normal
yoga class. You really
have to be adaptable and flexible’. This required ‘having a lot of
different ways of communicating
and presenting things; always adapting whatever
plans you had, [or] just forgetting about it halfway through because you have a
sense
of how people are going’. In his view, it would help to be an
experienced teacher, so that the poses and technical aspects
are second nature,
thereby enabling the teacher to focus on the ‘environment [and] the
mood’. Indeed, he suggested that
knowledge of the poses only accounted for
about 20 per cent of the teaching responsibility, the rest being taken up with
reading
the participants’ engagement and mood. He also acknowledged that
for those who have not worked in controlled environments,
the experience could
be quite intimidating.
ME indicated that he had a lesson plan for each occasion, but invariably this
would have to be adjusted during the class. Taking breath
awareness meditation
as an example, he explained that his objective might be to have participants
sitting and meditating quietly
on their breath for five minutes, but he found
that he needed to adapt and build up to this. Moreover, this process of building
capacity
was non-linear, as the capacity of each participant to concentrate
depended on unknown aspects of their prison experience at the
time they attended
the class. He referred to a particular participant who was very focused one
week—like a model student in
a community-based yoga class—and the
next week was pacing around and unable to settle.
In terms of starting and settling the group in, ME stated that he initially
did not really know ‘how things would go’.
He noted that joking and
banter punctuated the first class or two, but then seemed to disappear and was
replaced by more focused
attention, although he felt he could not rely on this.
Reflecting on the challenge involved in keeping participants focused and
motivated
in class and preventing them distracting others, ME noted that no
protocols or rules had been established at the outset. In one particular
class,
the problem of distraction became acute and he felt it would have been very
helpful to use agreed rules or protocols as a
way to address the challenge.
Despite this, he noted that generally the participants were ‘pretty
decently behaved’,
even in circumstances in which they may have decided
they could do no more in a particular class. He was clear that the issue of
behaviour management would require further focus and attention for any future
program offering. In reflecting on the program, ME
indicated that he could have
been given more advice with respect to aligning his teaching with the objectives
of the research, in
order to promote their achievement. We believe this presents
a useful observation for any future such programs that seek to adopt
a research
framework from the outset.
Noting the struggle many participants experienced with breath-work and
stillness, ME reflected that they might benefit from a more
direct introduction
of meditation, whether introduced as part of yoga or separately. He noted:
[T]hese people are anxious, suffering all sorts of things, and bored, so it is
really hard for them to just sit. It would be really
good to think about how
other mindfulness meditation could be delivered ... how to incorporate it if
you’re doing yoga or teach
it separately.
In ME’s view, the gym—an indoor basketball court—was not an
ideal yoga space. It was large and amplified noise,
muffling his instructions.
It was also difficult to run the program in a space where prisoners would one
minute be playing basketball
and the next be asked to sit and focus their
attention on breath and yoga poses. Accordingly, it would preferable to offer
the program
in a quieter space, not associated with boisterous sporting
activities.
In considering whether a yoga program could be offered on an ongoing basis,
ME reflected on the importance of prisoners experiencing
a sense of
accomplishment. In his view, whatever the length of the program, there needed to
be a goal to enable participants to experience
success after having committed
themselves to the program. In this regard, he again noted the efforts of LM, who
organised certificates
for participants who successfully completed the program,
together with instigating and facilitating the graduation ceremony, in which
each participant was given their own yoga mat to keep.
Prison psychologist
As noted above, we interviewed LM about her perceptions of the program. She
indicated that ME was ‘a really good choice of instructor
because he was
very calm, unassuming and quiet’, making him ‘a really good match
for that demographic’. She took
the view that a male instructor was ideal
for male prisoners. She also suggested that having a member of staff attend was
important
for behaviour management and to ensure respect for the teacher, noting
that that staff member would have an ongoing relationship
with the prisoners.
She did not think that the participating staff member would have to be a member
of the prison psychological services
team and suggested that the program could
run successfully with a ‘fit uniformed staff member’, for example,
‘an
activities officer’. In her view, prisoners ‘just like
seeing one of us be equal to one of them. I think that’s
really
important’.
LM also reflected on the importance of adaptation, bringing in the concept of
challenge and ensuring that sessions changed their rhythm
to avoid the risk of
boredom. She had been concerned about this at one point and encouraged ME to
introduce a new challenge at the
beginning of the next class, which helped to
re-engage participants’ interest. This is an important observation for
future
programs and could easily be incorporated, with a new practice or pose
being identified in each class as the ‘new challenge’.
For LM, perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest challenge was logistics. She
reported that it took her two-and-a-half hours each Monday
to organise and
arrange prisoner movements to the class, participate and then arrange prisoner
movements from the class. She referred
to this as ‘operationally’ a
long process. She reflected that some movement challenges—including on a
Monday that
was a public holiday—could be addressed if each prisoner was
given a letter that they could provide to officers in charge of
their management
indicating that they had been approved to participate. In her view, this might
avoid the need for repeated personal
communication of approval.
Discussion and conclusions
Viorst (2017: 30) recently commented on ‘the potential benefits of yoga
for prisoners and for society at-large through cost-effective
mindfulness
interventions in incarceration settings’, while Auty et al. (2017: 706)
concluded that ‘there is sufficient
evidence to date to suggest that yoga
and meditation practices have promising effects on prison populations’.
They also observed
that:
[T]he practicability of initiating yoga and meditation programs in prison
settings should be considered. The various potential benefits
of practicing yoga
or meditation are easily achievable, due to favourable logistics in terms of
program delivery. Yoga and meditation
classes require little equipment and can
cater for relatively large groups. Classes can be provided in a cost-effective
manner. (2017:
694)
The objective of this paper was to set out our experiences of establishing a
pilot yoga prison program in Australia, in the hope that
this may assist other
yoga teachers and correctional agencies in following suit. To our knowledge,
this is the first time that a
detailed picture of the process of establishing
such a program has been set out.
Several themes emerged from our experience. First, it is clear that
relationships—among prisoners and with the teacher and correctional
staff—are key to the success of such a program. In particular, we would
support the implementation of programs that promote
prisoners’ innate
dignity and worth and treat them with respect, as would be the case in a
community yoga program. We also
understand better than we did at the outset how
complicated the logistical aspect of delivering such a program is. Accordingly,
even
programs that are delivered on a voluntary basis require the commitment of
correctional staff and, ideally, active participation
in the program by a staff
member. We believe LM’s support for and participation in the classes, as
well as her behind-the-scenes
work to move participants to and from class, were
crucial to it running smoothly and effectively. In the context of whether the
program
is run on a voluntary or paid basis, several participants remarked that
they appreciated that ME was donating his time to run the
program. We are aware
that yoga programs are run on a voluntary basis in the UK by the Prison Phoenix
Trust and in New Zealand by
the Yoga Education in Prisons Trust (2018). Our
experience working with the Yoga Foundation suggests that Australian yoga
teachers
may also be willing to donate their time to such a project. However, we
would advocate paying yoga teachers for their time, out of
respect for their
training and profession and in recognition of the benefits of such programs.
We suggest that consideration be given to ensuring that the space in which
any yoga program is held is conducive to the practice,
including its quiet
meditative aspects. That said, one benefit of running the pilot program in a
gymnasium was the adaptation made
by the teacher to move the class from a
standard row format to a circle with him at the centre. This increased both the
potential
to communicate and also the sense of participation and equality, with
no participant in any better position to receive instruction
than any other. The
choice of location should be made to best facilitate prisoner movement to and
from class, addressing a key logistical
challenge.
We suggest that rules and protocols be established at the outset, ideally in
collaboration with program participants, to manage issues
such as distracted or
uncommitted participants. Providing a pictorial guide for yoga practice to
assist prisoners motivated to practise
outside class would also be of
assistance.[6] We note that
establishing a program of this nature may also take more than one iteration to
engage participants across a prison;
our experience suggests that as early
adopters speak to other prisoners about the benefits of the program, interest
will grow among
those who may initially be wary of something ‘weird’
like yoga. We would also advocate the inclusion of a graduation
program at the
end of a set period, which should be communicated to participants at the outset.
Some participants indicated that
they had never completed a program in their
lives and were excited and grateful to receive their certificate and yoga mat.
Giving
participants a mat to keep may promote ongoing practice, while the role
of graduation rituals has been recognised in the desistance
literature (Maruna
2001).
Finally, we recognise that working to advance prisoner wellbeing may be
viewed to presupposing an acceptance of incarceration and
the rapidly rising
rates of incarceration in Australia. This is not our position (see e.g. Bartels
2016). However, whether the focus
is on wellbeing, desistance or decarceration,
there can be no turning away from the lives of those we incarcerate. Regardless
of
both their offending and the merits of imprisoning them, each prisoner is a
person with inherent dignity, worthy of concern and compassion
(Hopkins and
Bartels 2019). Indeed, for far too many, their pathway to offending is very much
a function of compromised wellbeing
resulting from life circumstances not of
their choosing. We hope that this article will be understood as joining in the
body of scholarship
that turns towards the lives and experiences of prisoners.
We also hope that it may help open the door for more yoga and meditation
programs in Australian prisons.
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to Marcus Edwardes and Lia McInnes, without whom we would not
have been able to run the program discussed in this
paper. We also acknowledge
the generous support of ACT Corrective Services, Power Yoga Canberra, Prison
Phoenix Trust and the Yoga
Foundation in establishing the program.
Correspondence:
Dr
Anthony Hopkins, Senior Lecturer and Barrister-at-Law, Director of Law School
Clinical and Internship Courses, ANU Law School,
ANU College of Law, ANU, Acton,
Canberra ACT 2600. Email: anthony.hopkins@anu.edu.au
Professor Lorana Bartels, Criminology Program
Leader, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, ANU, Acton, Canberra ACT
2600. Adjunct
Professor, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of
Canberra and Faculty of Law, University of TasmaniaEmail: lorana.bartels@anu.edu.au
Lisa Oxman, Clinical Psychologist/Clinical Supervisor, ANU. Acton,
Canberra ACT 2600. Email: lisa.oxman@anu.edu.au
References
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2019) The Health of
Australia’s Prisoners 2018. Canberra: AIHW.
Auty K, Cope A and Liebling A (2017) A systematic review and meta-analysis of
yoga and mindfulness meditation in prison. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61: 689–710. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X15602514
Bartels L (2016) Criminal justice law reform challenges for the future:
It’s time to curb Australia’s prison addiction.
In Levy R et al.
(eds) New Directions for Law in Australia: Essays in Contemporary Law
Reform. Canberra: ANU Press.
Bartels L and Boland J (2016) Human rights and prison: A case study from the
Australian Capital Territory. In Fishwick E, Marmo M
and Weber L (eds)
Routledge International Handbook of Criminology and Human Rights.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Bartels L, Oxman L and Hopkins A (2019) “I would just feel really
relaxed and at peace”: Findings from a pilot prison
yoga program in
Australia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X19854869
Bilderbeck A, Farias M, Brazil IA, Jakobowitz S and Wikholm C (2013)
Participation in a 10-week course of yoga improves behavioral
control and
decreases psychological distress in a prison population. Journal of
Psychiatric Research 47: 1438–1445. DOI:
10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.06.014
Butler T, Andrews G, Allnutt S, Sakashita C, Smith N and Basson J (2006)
Mental disorders in Australian prisoners: A comparison with
a community sample.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40: 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1614.2006.01785.x
Danielly Y and Silverthorne C (2017) Psychological benefits of yoga for
female inmates. International Journal of Yoga Therapy 27: 9–14. https://doi.org/10.17761/1531-2054-27.1.9
Griera M (2017) Yoga in penitentiary settings: Transcendence, spirituality,
and self-improvement. Human Studies 40: 77–100.
Griera M and Clot-Garrell A (2015) Doing yoga behind bars: A sociological
study of the growth of holistic spirituality in penitentiary
institutions. In
Becci I and Roy O (eds) Religious Diversity in European Prisons. London:
Springer.
Hopkins A and Bartels L (2019) Paying attention to the person: Compassion,
equality and therapeutic jurisprudence. In Stobbs N, Bartels
L and Vols M (eds)
The Methodology and Practice of Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham:
Carolina Academic Press.
Hopkins A, Oxman L and Bartels L (2019) First-ever Australian study shows how
yoga can improve the lives of prisoners. The Conversation, 17 July.
Available at http://theconversation.com/first-ever-australian-study-shows-how-yoga-can-improve-the-lives-of-prisoners-120226
(accessed 9 September 2019).
Karup A (2016) The Meaning and Effect of Yoga in Prison. MPhil Thesis.
University of Cambridge.
Kerekes N, Fielding C and Apelqvist S (2017) Yoga in correctional settings: A
randomized controlled study. Frontiers in Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00204
Landau P and Gross J (2008) Low reincarceration rate associated with Ananda
Marga Yoga and meditation. International Journal of Yoga Therapy 18:
43–48.
Maruna S (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their
Lives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Muirhead J and Fortune C (2016) Yoga in prisons: A review of the literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 28: 57–63. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.avb.2016.03.013
Prison Phoenix Trust (2018) The Prison Phoenix Trust. Available at http://www.theppt.org.uk (accessed 9
September 2019).
Rudd K (2017) Yoga behind bars. Australian Yoga Journal. Available at
https://www.yogajournal.com.au/2017/04/07/yoga-behind-bars/
(accessed 9 September 2019).
Viorst (2017) Former Inmates’ Perception of the Prison Yoga
Project. Honours Thesis. University of Colorado, United States.
Wimberly A and Xue J (2016) A systematic review of yoga interventions in the
incarcerated setting. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 43:
85–107.
Wright A (2011) Violent criminals offered yoga classes at Port Phillip Prison
Herald-Sun, 21 June. Available at https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/violent-criminals-offered-yoga-classes-at-port-phillip-prison/news-story/7ffea68396ee96de74205edfada77d7f?sv=10a6370bb2af74efb57f94a0d1daf60a
(accessed 9 September 2019).
Yoga Education in Prisons Trust (2018) Welcome to the Yoga Education in
Prisons Trust. Available at http://www.yogainprisonstrust.org
(accessed 9 September 2019).
Yoga Foundation (2018) Transforming Lives One Breath at a Time.
Available at http://www.theyogafoundation.org.au
(accessed 9 September 2019).
[1] For the purposes of this
research, we use the following definition of yoga: ‘Yoga practices are the
physical, psychological,
and spiritual practices or disciplines that aim to
transform body and mind ... it typically involves holding stretches as a
low-impact
physical exercise and is often used for therapeutic purposes. Yoga
often takes place in a class setting and may involve meditation,
imagery, breath
work and music’ (Auty et al. 2017, 690).
[2] The second and third authors
were employed at the University of Canberra at the time the research was
undertaken.
[3] This project has ethics
approval from the University of Canberra (HREC 16-160).
[4] One participant who completed
the program joined after the initial interviews and only completed the
post-program interview and questionnaires.
His data were not included in the
quantitative analysis, but his responses to the post-program qualitative
interview were included.
[5] ‘Mains’ refers to
prisoners who are part of the mainstream prison population. Those in
‘protection’ are separated
from ‘mains’ because they are
considered to be at risk from other prisoners for various reasons, including
offence type
(e.g., child sex offenders), and may be identified by the prisoners
themselves or prison management.
[6] Such materials are made
available in the UK through the Prison Phoenix Trust. Although we did not
disseminate their materials in
our program, preliminary discussions suggest that
they would be willing to work with Australian yoga teachers and/or correctional
agencies to make such materials more widely available.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IntJlCrimJustSocDem/2019/38.html