Changes in subjective wellbeing of prisoners on remand

• Pages: 181-191
• Published date: 10 June 2019
• Date: 10 June 2019
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-01-2018-0003
• Author: Oscar Bloem,Erik Bulten,Robbert-Jan Verkes
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Prisoner health,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice

Changes in subjective wellbeing

of prisoners on remand

Oscar Bloem, Erik Bulten and Robbert-Jan Verkes

Abstract

Purpose –Low levels of subjective wellbeing in prisoners may relate to mental health problems and

difficulties in reintegration after imprisonment. The development of subjective wellbeing during imprisonment

is mostly unclear. The purpose of this paper is to explore this development in a longitudinal study in

association with mental disorders and socioeconomic factors.

Design/methodology/approach –Subjective wellbeing was assessed via a visual analogue scale and

retrieved at admission to remand prison and then again after four and eight weeks. Changes in subjective

wellbeing between time-points were analyzed taking into account mental disorders and socioeconomic

factors, which were assessed by use of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview –Plus and the

Camberwell Assessment of Need –Forensic Version, respectively.

Findings –On average, subjective wellbeing declined directly after remand prison admission, but differences

between individuals were found. At remand prison admission, subjective wellbeing significantly improved

rather than declined in prisoners with alcohol and substance use disorders, housing problems,

unemployment prior to incarceration and in relatively older prisoners. Other related factors did not add

significance to this model. In contrast, during remand imprisonment subjective wellbeing displayed an overall

increase. For this increase, no predicting factors were found. However, prisoners with an antisocial

personality disorder are more at risk of experiencing a decrease in wellbeing during remand imprisonment.

Originality/value –In general, the Dutch prison system appears not to result in a decrease in subjective

wellbeing in prisoners suffering from a mental disorder during remand imprisonment.

Keywords Criminal justice system, Pre-trial detention, Substance abuse, Prisoners, Mental health,

Subjective wellbeing

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Imprisonment severely challenges a person’s wellbeing (Maxwell et al., 2013) and may result in

unintended negative effects, such as inadequate low levels of wellbeing or risks to health. In most

countries, fundamental human rights are respected and attempts are made not to harm

prisoners’physical or mental health. Risk of harm to mental health in this context can be defined

in terms of disproportionate psychological suffering or impaired psychological function because

of incarceration, or in terms of aggravating difficulties experienced when reintegrating back into

the community. Changes in psychological functioning may be considered to be reflected in

subjective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing can be described as the balance an individual

experiences between mental, physical and social resources and challenges (Dodge et al., 2012).

Being imprisoned can be seen as a significant challenge to this balance, as prisoners are

deprived of the autonomy of managing their own lives. Prison deprivation and the experienced

approach by prison staff influences social and emotional wellbeing and also relates to mental

health (Beijersbergen et al., 2014; Gibbs, 1987; Maxwell et al., 2013). Subjective wellbeing was

found to be higher in a less deprived prison setting (Andersen et al., 2003).

When assessing subjective wellbeing in prisoners, factors other than imprisonment itself, such as

socioecomonic class and the presence of mental disorders, have to be taken into account.

Lower socioeconomic classes are overrepresented in prisoners (Andersen, 2004) and many

Received 19 January 2018

Revised 9 July 2018

15 September 2018

1 October 2018

Accepted 1 October 2018

The authors thank the Department

of Safety and Justice and

specifically the (former) prison of

Amsterdam and its prisoners for

their approval and cooperation in

this study. The authors thank the

authors’Dutch colleagues from

Rob Giel Onderzoekcentrum,

Psychiatrie, UMC Groningen, who

translated and validated the Dutch

version of the CANFOR, and

provided the instrument for the

authors’use.

Oscar Bloem is based atthe

Custodial Institutions Agency,

Ministry of Security and Justice,

Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

and BehaviouralScience

Institute, Radboud Universiteit

Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The

Netherlands.

Erik Bulten is based at the

Forensic Psychiatric Centre

Nijmegen, Pompefoundation,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands

and Behavioural Science

Institute, Radboud Universiteit

Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The

Netherlands.

Robbert-Jan Verkes is based

at the Forensic Psychiatric

Centre Nijmegen,

Pompefoundation, Nijmegen,

The Netherlands; Department

of Psychiatry, Radboud

Universiteit Nijmegen,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands

and Department of Criminal

Law, Law School, Radboud

Universiteit Nijmegen,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

DOI 10.1108/IJPH-01-2018-0003 VOL. 15 NO. 2 2019, pp. 181-191, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1744-9200

j

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH

j

PAG E 18 1