INTRODUCTION

In the practice of penitentiary social work, we meet incarcerated persons who may face various social problems. Some of these problem areas can directly contribute to a person’s placement in pre-trial detention or in the execution of a prison sentence. The provision of help by penitentiary social workers is grounded in Act No. 221/2006 Z. z. on pre-trial detention in the wording of later regulations and in Act No. 475/2005 Z. z. on the execution of imprisonment in the wording of later regulations. In the period 2013–2021, the number of suspects placed in institutions for pre-trial detention and institutions for the execution of imprisonment ranged from 1,216 to 1,528 persons, and the number of convicted persons from 8,537 to 8,811 persons. In light of this, we consider social counseling to be a method that has an appropriate place in everyday penitentiary social work. Orientation of social workers toward work with incarcerated persons from their placement in the detention facility until release from it creates space for a wide use of social counseling, which can be applied in dealing with incarcerated persons both in casework or group work, and also in various resocialization programs and activities, as a method aimed at reducing rates of recidivism, prisonization, or used in the application of the dynamic security concept (eliminating/reducing the occurrence of security incidents).

From the results of the survey conducted among ZVJS social workers (N = 21), reported by Valentovičová (2017, p. 90), it follows that, according to 85.70 % of respondents, a substantial part of the support they provide consists of individual and group counseling, crisis intervention, help and similar social worker-provided support for suspects and convicted persons. The importance of social counseling in work with incarcerated or released persons is also reflected in studies by Bareša (2018) or Marešová - Kotulan – Martinková (2009).

Although the execution of the research in custodial conditions itself can be demanding in some cases (e.g., due to obtaining permits for implementation of research in detention institutions individually, due to staff capacities needed for distributing and collecting questionnaires, etc.), we were able to include suspects who, from our practical experience, also have an interest in support from social workers to address social problems arising not only as a result of placement in pre-trial detention but also for other more long-term reasons.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of the research was to determine whether and to what extent social counseling is used, and which areas generate the greatest interest among incarcerated persons. Within the study, besides the content (thematic) aspect, we also aimed to identify selected factors that occur in the process of social counseling.

SAMPLE SELECTION TYPE, METHODS, AND RESEARCH DESIGN

For data collection we used a questionnaire format, which is useful in the penitentiary environment because it makes it possible to reach a broad prison population and provides respondents with anonymity. Jůzl (2017, p. 324) notes that the advantage of questionnaire data collection lies in the ability in a short time to reach a large number of respondents and in the statistical processing of the data.

For data collection, we used empirical quantitative research in the form of a structured questionnaire, which was divided into 3 sections (demographic data, content of social counseling, and process of social counseling). The questionnaire contained 21 items in total, including closed questions. Verešová and colleagues (2011, p. 28–29) state that the use of a questionnaire with this type of questions facilitates the formalization of primary research data. In preparing it, we took into account the different mental level of the prison clientele, and therefore we aimed to formulate each questionnaire item as clearly as possible.

Suspects and convicted persons participated in the research, and at the time of the research they were placed in institutions for pre-trial detention and institutions for the execution of imprisonment, that is, in combined institutions or in institutions profiled only for the execution of imprisonment, specifically suspects assigned to the relaxed regime of pre-trial detention and convicted persons assigned to the internal differentiation group “B” with minimum security level. The sample selection type was purposive.

PLACE OF RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION AND SIZE OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE

Based on the above-defined sample selection criteria and after incorporating changes extracted from the pilot study (pilot data are not part of the presented contribution), we carried out data collection in:

  • Ústave na výkon väzby a Ústave na výkon trestu odňatia slobody Prešov (hereinafter only “ÚVV a ÚVTOS Prešov”),
  • Ústave na výkon väzby a Ústave na výkon trestu odňatia slobody Žilina (hereinafter only “ÚVV a ÚVTOS Žilina”),
  • Ústave na výkon trestu o odňatia slobody a Ústave na výkon väzby Leopoldov (hereinafter only “ÚVTOS a ÚVV Leopoldov”),
  • Ústave na výkon trestu o odňatia slobody pre mladistvých Sučany (hereinafter only “ÚVTOS Sučany”),
  • Ústave na výkon trestu o odňatia slobody Levoča (hereinafter only “ÚVTOS Levoča”), and
  • Ústave na výkon väzby a Ústave na výkon trestu odňatia slobody Bratislava (hereinafter only “ÚVV a ÚVTOS Bratislava”).

Data collection for the study was conducted from 08. 02. 2023 to 09. 03. 2023. A total of 180 questionnaires were distributed in the research. See Table 1.

Table 1 Number of distributed questionnaires to/from individual prison institutions

Table 2 Sex of respondents

Table 3 Current legal status

The individual questionnaire items were designed to focus on collecting data related to both process and content aspects of social counseling.

Perceived support from the social worker in solving their social problem

In each stage of social counseling, the successful resolution of a social problem depends on building an advisory relationship between the client and the social worker (e.g., Schavel 2008, Gabura 2005, 2013, Mydlíková 2005, 2009, Masters 2004). A perceived social support from the social worker is also part of this relationship.

Figure 1 Perceived support from the social worker

A large support from the social worker was felt by 43.45 % (N = 63) of respondents, versus 10.35 % (N = 15) of respondents who felt no support. We did not use a standardized questionnaire to measure the degree of perceived support, and instead operationalized the individual options of this item (see Notes).

Number of currently perceived unresolved social problems

Social counseling theory states that even when clients identify a specific social problem, other related problems are usually attached to it, which clients may not be aware of, but which do contribute to shaping the main issue.

The most frequent response among respondents, with 35.86 % (N = 52), was that they do not currently feel any unresolved social problems. The smallest group, 11.04 % (N = 16), consisted of respondents who felt rather many unresolved current social problems. With a difference of one response, the second least represented group was 11.72 % (N = 17) respondents who felt many current unresolved problems. Rather few unresolved problems were reported by 18.62 % (N = 27), and few by 22.76 % (N = 33) respondents.

Figure 2 Number of currently perceived unresolved social problems

Possibility of participating during imprisonment in solving their social problems

Placement of persons in prison institutions also creates space for interventions aimed at solving social problems that may have contributed to their imprisonment.

From the respondent sample, 54.48 % (N = 79) constituted the group that would use the opportunity to address social problems related to their imprisonment during placement in a prison institution, and 14.48 % (N = 21) somewhat likely would do so. 4.14 % (N = 6) respondents would not use such an opportunity, and 8.97 % (N = 13) would rather not use it. A neutral attitude was declared by 17.93 % (N = 26) respondents.

Figure 3 Ability to participate in solving their social problems

Interest in using advisory help from the social worker

Clients do not always have access to social counseling support (e.g., due to lack of a social counseling post, lack of information about the possibility to resolve their social problems, and so on), or they may not deliberately seek such support on their own initiative (e.g., due to mistrust, low motivation, poor previous experiences, etc.).

A positive interest in using advisory help from the social worker during placement in a prison institution was expressed by 50.35 % (N = 73) of respondents and somewhat positive by 14.48 % (N = 21). 8.97 % (N = 13) disagreed and 2.76 % (N = 4) somewhat disagreed. A neutral attitude was expressed by 23.45 % (N = 34).

Figure 4 Interest in using advisory help from the social worker****

Frequency of solving their social problems through the social worker

In this item we examined how often incarcerated persons address their social problems through the social worker. For comparison of the suspect and convicted groups, we presented not only the overall evaluation but also an individual presentation of data from both groups of respondents.

The group that contacts the social worker every time they need help solving their problem made up 27.59 % (N = 40) of respondents, often contacts them 11.72 % (N = 17), contacts them rarely 30.34 % (N = 44), almost never 11.03 % (N = 16), and never contacts them for help with problem-solving 19.31 % (N = 28).

Figure 5 Frequency of solving one’s social problems through the social worker – all respondents

In the following tables we present a comparison of answers from the two respondent groups - suspects and convicted persons.

The group of suspects that always contacts the social worker for help with solving their problem constituted 30 % (N = 18), often does so 18.33 % (N = 11), rarely 25 % (N = 15), almost never 10.00 % (N = 6) and never 16.67 % (10 respondents).

Table 4 Frequency of solving problems through the social worker - suspects

Among convicted respondents, 25.88 % (N = 22) always contact the social worker for help with solving their problem. They do so often 7.06 % (N = 6), rarely 34.12 % (N = 29), almost never 11.76 % (N = 10) and never 21.18 % (N = 18).

Table 5 Frequency of solving problems through the social worker - convicted persons

Perceived support from family

During placement in a prison institution, family and close persons (or, where applicable, informal partners) are a significant source of material and emotional support for suspects and convicted persons.

Valentovičová (2019, p. 86), based on her own research findings on a sample of convicted persons (N = 876), reports that 41% (N = 359) of respondents receive psychological support from family, 31% (N = 272) financial support, 21% (N = 184) material support, 5% (N = 44) no support, and 2% (N = 17) another type of support.

The largest group of respondents, 78.62 % (N = 114), were those who agreed with the statement. The smallest group, 2.76 % (N = 4), consisted of respondents who expressed a more negative stance. A negative stance was expressed by 6.20 % (N = 9), and a more favorable stance by 8.28 % (N = 12) respondents. A neutral stance was held by 4.14 % (N = 6) respondents. Agreement with the statement was the most frequent response in every evaluated prison institution.

Figure 6 Perceived support from family

Importance of access to counseling support

Access to counseling support by incarcerated persons is considered crucial within penitentiary social work. Counseling support (access to it) should be available to suspects and convicted persons from transfer to pre-trial detention or from the start of serving a prison sentence, throughout the course of placement in those institutions, and until release from the prison sentence. We intentionally did not include release from pre-trial detention, since in this institution, given its nature and purpose, we do not have a term of expected sentence end or parole for such cases.

Access to counseling support during placement in pre-trial detention or imprisonment is considered very important by 42.76 % (N = 62) of respondents, important by 35.17 % (N = 51), unimportant by 4.14 % (N = 6), not very important by 4.83 % (N = 7), and a neutral stance by 13.10 % (N = 19).

Figure 7 Importance of access to counseling support

Perceived possibility to request help in individual areas of social counseling

As with every client being an individual, and as interest arising from personal needs and deficits differs, interest in individual areas of social counseling may also vary. Every incarcerated person enters a prison institution (or is already there) with their own needs. What one incarcerated person considers a problem may not be perceived as a problem by another.

In the family and partnership area, 59.31 % (N = 86) of respondents perceive the possibility of requesting social counseling as very important, 11.04 % (N = 16) as rather important, 13.79 % (N = 20) a neutral stance, 2.07 % (N = 3) as rather unimportant, and 13.79 % (N = 20) as completely unimportant.

In the financial area, 57.93 % (N = 84) perceive the possibility of requesting social counseling as very important, 15.17 % (N = 22) as rather important, 13.10 % (N = 19) a neutral stance, 4.14 % (N = 6) rather unimportant, and 9.66 % (N = 14) completely unimportant.

In the state social support area, 43.45% (N = 63) perceive the possibility of requesting social counseling as very important, 25.52 % (N = 37) as rather important, 17.93 % (N = 26) a neutral stance, 4.14 % (N = 6) rather unimportant, and 8.96 % (N = 13) completely unimportant.

In the employment area, 51.03 % (N = 74) perceive the possibility of requesting social counseling as very important, 13.79 % (N = 20) as rather important, 20.69 % (N = 30) a neutral stance, 4.83 % (N = 7) rather unimportant, and 9.66 % (N = 14) completely unimportant.

In the housing area, 43.45 % (N = 63) perceive the possibility of requesting social counseling as very important, 13.10 % (N = 19) as rather important, 17.93 % (N = 26) a neutral stance, 5.52 % (N = 8) rather unimportant, and 20 % (N = 29) completely unimportant.

The possibility of requesting social counseling in the addictions area is perceived as very important by 37.24 % (N = 54), as rather important by 12.41 % (N = 18), a neutral stance by 23.45 % (N = 34), rather unimportant by 7.59 % (N = 11), and completely unimportant by 19.31 % (N = 28).

The possibility of requesting social counseling in the area of dealing with offices and institutions is perceived as very important by 49.66 % (N = 72), rather important by 22.07 % (N = 32), neutral by 14.48 % (N = 21), rather unimportant by 2.07 % (N = 3), and completely unimportant by 11.72 % (N = 17).

Figure 8 Perceived possibility to request help in individual areas of social counseling

Respondents’ expectations of the social worker

It is possible that during the first contact of the social worker with a client, the client will “expect the practitioner to assume responsibility for solving their problem, which is primarily due to the client’s previous experience with other professionals, such as doctors or lawyers. These professionals in their practice strongly occupy an expert position and therefore decide what and when their client should do. The social worker, however, should under no circumstances accept such expectations, but should strive to help the client become aware of their own responsibility for solving their difficulties and to participate actively in solving their problems” (Levická, 2006, p. 117).

Providing information on how to proceed independently was expected by 32.41 % (N = 47) of respondents, while 63.45 % (N = 92) leaned toward expectation of joint participation in problem-solving. An expectation that the social worker would solve the helper’s problems without their participation was held by 4.14 % (N = 6) respondents.

Figure 9 Respondents’ expectations of the social worker

Use of help in individual areas of social counseling

In this item we examined which of the social counseling areas we defined were practically used by respondents during placement in a prison institution.

In the family and partnership area (help with contacting close persons, help repairing damaged relationships, etc.), 43.45 % (N = 63) used help, versus 56.55 % (N = 82) who did not.

In the financial area (personal bankruptcy, debts, enforcement orders, etc.), 27.59 % (N = 40) used help versus 72.41 % (N = 105) who did not.

In the state social support area (information on entitlements regarding social benefits, financial help, and pension), 34.48 % (N = 50) used help versus 65.52 % (N = 95) who did not.

Help in the employment area (job search assistance, labour market orientation, suspension of trade activity, etc.) was used by 23.45 % (N = 34) versus 76.55 % (N = 111) who did not use it.

In the housing area (search for appropriate accommodation where needed, etc.) help was used by 23.45 % (N = 34) versus 76.55 % (N = 111) who did not use it. Identical data were also recorded in the employment area.

Help in the addictions area (treatment options, resocialization stays, etc.) was used by 16.55 % (N = 24) versus 83.45 % (N = 121) who did not use it.

In the area of interaction with offices and institutions (any kind of support when contacting offices and institutions), use of help was reported by 44.83 % (N = 65) versus 55.17 % (N = 80) who did not.

Figure 10 Use of help in individual areas of social counseling

Frequency of using counseling help in individual areas

Knowledge deficits about available options and ways of addressing present social problems may make orientation in a given area more complex for incarcerated persons (e.g., due to not knowing the process of solving a specific problem, unfamiliarity with the issue, lack of needed skills, and so on). For this reason, the frequency of using social counseling may differ by area.

In the family and partnership area, 15.86 % (N = 23) of respondents always use social counseling, 3.45 % (N = 5) often, 25.52 % (N = 37) rarely, 6.21 % (N = 9) almost never, and 48.97 % (N = 71) never.

In the financial area, 13.10 % (N = 19) always use social counseling, 8.97 % (N = 13) often, 12.41 % (N = 18) rarely, 13.10 % (N = 19) almost never, and 52.41 % (N = 76) never.

In the area of state social support, 14.48 % (N = 21) always use social counseling, 6.21 % (N = 9) often, 13.79 % (N = 20) rarely, 11.04 % (N = 16) almost never, and 54.48 % (N = 79) never.

In the employment area, 12.41 % (N = 18) always use social counseling, 6.21 % (N = 9) often, 13.79 % (N = 20) rarely, 11.72 % (N = 17) almost never, and 55.86 % (N = 81) never.

In the housing area, 9.66 % (N = 14) always use social counseling, 5.52 % (N = 8) often, 9.66 % (N = 14) rarely, 9.66 % (N = 14) almost never, and 65.52 % (N = 95) never.

In the addictions area, social counseling is used always by 10.35 % (N = 15), often by 2.07 % (N = 3), rarely by 10.35 % (N = 15), almost never by 7.59 % (N = 11), and never by 69.66 % (N = 101).

Social counseling in the area of dealing with offices and institutions is used always by 20.00 % (N = 29), often by 2.76 % (N = 4), rarely by 21.38 % (N = 31), almost never by 11.03 % (N = 16), and never by 44.83 % (N = 65).

Figure 11 Frequency of using counseling support in individual areas

DISCUSSION

From the results of determining the respondents’ subjectively perceived social support toward the social worker, it follows that 44 % (N = 63) of respondents feel strong support versus 10 % (N = 15) of respondents who feel no support. Seal et al. (2007 in Dadi et al. 2019) state that social support facilitates transition from prison to community life, prevents recidivism, and increases the likelihood of reintegration. “In the intervention process, the client should have both emotional and practical support in the social worker” (Schavel, Čisecký 2005, p. 106).

As many as 35.86 % (N = 52) stated in the research that they currently feel no unresolved social problems, which may reflect sufficient meeting of current needs, whether by social workers, family, or other sources of help, compared with 11.04 % (N = 16) of respondents who felt rather many and 11.72 % (N = 17) who felt many currently unresolved social problems.

Regarding positive interest in using the possibility of solving their social problems that may have contributed to imprisonment, up to 68.96 % (N = 90) of respondents would use it. The possibility of using social counseling to address other social problems was positively expressed by 64.83 % (N = 94) of respondents. From the presented data one can observe significant interest of incarcerated persons in addressing causes of criminal behavior. Gabura (p. 179, 2013) states that “a motivated client resolves their problems faster and more efficiently than an unmotivated one” and “participates more actively in counseling work, participates in finding and formulating goals and alternatives for solving problems, and invests more effort and energy in counseling.”

A task of social counseling is to support clients in participating in the resolution of their social problems and actively involve them in this process. Shared participation with the social worker in solving their problem(s) was declared by 63.45 % (N = 92) of respondents.

Overall, access to counseling support is considered very important or important by 77.93 % (N = 113), as opposed to 8.97 % (N = 13) who consider it unimportant or not very important. The perception of the importance of requesting help in individual areas of social counseling among incarcerated persons may depend on their current needs, awareness of deficits and shortcomings in a specific area, inability or lack of information in that area, and their own ability to realistically assess the occurrence of a problem in that area. In all seven counseling areas we defined, the most frequent response from respondents was numerical value 1 – very important, meaning respondents viewed the possibility of requesting help as very important in each area.

Preferences of incarcerated persons regarding use of counseling support in each social counseling area may differ. In our selected research sample, from the perspective of legal status and internal differentiation (see p. 3), it is possible that an influencing factor in questionnaire completion was the possibility that respondents used mutual help while being placed in units with allowed free movement, where interactions occur among inmates. The least used social counseling area among respondents was addictions at 16.55 % (N = 24), compared with the most used area of contact with offices and institutions at 44.83 % (N = 65). With a difference of only 1.38 % (N = 2), the second most used area was family and partnership at 43.45 % (N = 63).

The frequency of using social counseling may depend on many factors, e.g., motivation to solve a social problem, possession of knowledge in that area, previous experiences in the same or similar area, interest in solving a given problem/situation, the priority assigned by the incarcerated person to solving the problem, trust in the counselor/institution, etc. The fact that incarcerated persons did not use counseling in some defined areas does not necessarily mean that these problems are absent in those persons. The most used area is contact with offices and institutions, where 20 % (N = 29) of respondents always use the social worker’s help. The least frequently used area was addictions, where 69.66 % (N = 101) never used it.

CONCLUSION

The restriction of personal freedom represents a major interference in life not only for affected persons but also for their families and close persons. In this respect, social work in pre-trial detention focuses especially on support directed toward solving problems associated with changes in the previous social situation of the suspect, which can be both practical and emotional. In contrast, execution of imprisonment offers broader space and, above all, an opportunity to work with convicted persons (e.g., through individual and group counseling activities, participation in resocialization programs, etc.).

Through their work, social workers participate in influencing suspects and in dealing with convicted persons. This includes motivating incarcerated persons to resolve their problems, maintaining and strengthening family ties, and taking an active approach to job searching, gaining and maintaining work competencies. In addition, social workers can recommend and mediate participation in resocialization programs and crisis intervention services for suspects and convicted persons (Kleskeň, 2016, p. 34).

Since as of 01. 03. 2023 the number of suspects was 1,431 persons and convicted persons 8,616 persons who were placed in prison institutions, and 60 suspects and 85 convicted persons were included in the study, we cannot generalize the presented data to the entire prison population. Despite this, we believe the presented content will contribute to interest in research activity and further development of penitentiary social work.

Author: Mgr. Tomáš Banás, PhD.

NOTES TO THE TEXT

Operationalization of perceived support from the social worker: - strong support (they spent enough time with me, were willing to help me, explained what I needed, discussed each option with me, listened to me, communicated with me repeatedly, etc.); - neither strong nor small support, I have a neutral stance (although the social worker contacted me regarding the provision of help, I did not feel a high level of interest from them in solving my problems; on the other hand, it was not indifference); - small support (they did not spend as much time as I needed, they did not communicate with me as needed, etc.); - no support (they did not communicate with me, they did not express interest in solving my problem, they did not listen to me, etc.).

The source of all graphs and tables used in the text is own processing, 2023.

REFERENCES/

BAREŠ, P. 2018. Rodinná situace v práci institucí věnujících se penitenciární a postpenitenciární péči. Praha: Vydal Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí, v. v. i., 2018. 116 s. ISBN 978-80-7416-324-1.

DADI, A. F. et al. 2019. Status of Perceived Social Support and Its Associated Factors Among Inmate Prisoners in Northwest Amhara, Ethiopia. [online]. BMC Research Note, 2019. [citované 2022-01-09]. Dostupné na: https://1library.net/document/eqo061kq-status-perceived-support-associated-factors-prisoners-northwest-ethiopia.html

GABURA, J. 2013. Teória a proces sociálneho poradenstva. Bratislava: IRIS, Vydavateľstvo a tlač, s. r. o., 2013. 309 s. ISBN 978-80-89238-92-7.

JŮZL, M., 2017, Penitenciaristika jako věda žalářní. Praha: Univerzita Jana Amose Komenského, 2017. 384 s. ISBN 978-80-7452-131-7.

KLESKEŇ, L. 2016. Sociálna práca s obvinenými, odsúdenými a prepustenými. Bratislava : Iris, 2016. 110 s. ISBN 978-80-89726-56-1.

LEVICKÁ, J. 2006. Na ceste za klientom. Trnava: Oľga Váryová, 2006. 334 s. ISBN: 80-969454-0-8.

MAREŠOVÁ, A. – KOTULAN, P. – MARTINKOVÁ, M. 2009. Výzkum prvovězněných žen. Praha: Institut pro kriminologii a sociální prevenci, 2009. 211 s. ISBN 978-80-7338-082-3.

SCHAVEL, M., ČIŠECKÝ, F. a OLÁH, M.. 2008. Sociálna prevencia. 3. vyd. Bratislava: Vysoká škola zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce sv. Alžbety, 2008. ISBN 978-80-89271-22-1.

VALENTOVIČOVÁ, Z. 2017. Sociálna práca v meniacej sa Európe. In Zborník vedeckých prác, RES SOCIALIS 2017, Trnava: Vydala Katedra sociálnej práce | Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave, 2017. ISBN 978-80-568-0060-7, s. 87-92.

VALENTOVIČOVÁ, Z. 2019. Význam udržiavania rodinných vzťahov pre osoby vo výkone trestu odňatia slobody : dizertačná práca. Trnava : Trnavská Univerzita v Trnave, Fakulta zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce, 2019. 160 s.

VEREŠOVÁ, M. a kol., 2011, Sociálna psychológia. 2. doplnené vydanie. Nitra: Enigma Publishing s. r. o., 2011. 295 s. ISBN 978-80-8133-002-5.