HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE CHANGE IN PLACES OF DETENTION Training and the demilitarization of prison systems in former Soviet countries 4. Drivers and contributing factors for culture change in detention In former Soviet countries, despite the transfer of prison systems from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice, many of the training courses for new senior staff continued to include up to 50 per cent military training, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies: ‘Changes in the curriculum tended to be additions to the existing curriculum. Fundamental changes in structure and ethos will require an equally fundamental change in the curriculum and training approach’. As well as internal culture change initiatives, a number of factors can contribute to driving culture change within places of detention and increasing its sustainability. As there are many sources of cultural influence, these factors are also found on different levels: within the places of detention themselves, in relation to the legal and policy frameworks, within other institutions and actors, and the broader society. An important step is also getting the need for culture change on the agenda. Some measures have been mentioned in the section above – here we look at others that can help to bring about culture change in detention (the list is not exhaustive): International Centre for Prison Studies, ‘Demilitarisation’ in Prison Services in Central and Eastern Europe, A Position Paper. k. Supervision and reinforcement As we saw earlier, the informal rules, as set by managers through tacit social approval, are more likely to have a bearing on culture in places of detention than formal policies. The importance of proper supervision, staff evaluation and reinforcement, through incentives and sanctions, therefore cannot be overstated. As a former UK police officer explained: the policy ‘has got to be enforced: you have to have people who will sell it, focus on it and manage deviations. These will be managers closer to the ground’. ‘At the beginning, we had a small number of staff who were on board about changes, the majority who thought ‘we’ll see how it goes’ and again a small number who were opposed….Our experience was that later people who were initially sceptical wanted to give it a chance – if they do something and it works, they get on board. Prisoners were on board as well, because they were involved in the decision-making on things that affected them.’ Former prison director in Australia l. Addressing resistance: showing it’s better for everyone There will always be people opposed to change. Some may fear losing status or worsening work conditions. It can also threaten vested interests, such as opportunities for corruption. It is therefore important to emphasise that a human rights culture will be better for everyone, and let staff and detainees see this in practice. a. Getting culture change in places of detention on the agenda In most societies, ensuring the rights of detainees is not a priority in politics or public opinion. Some drivers are therefore needed so that decision-makers recognise the need for a human rights culture change in places of detention. More visible drivers for change include high profile incidents such as deaths or other violent incidents in custody, which cause public shock and outrage. Independent public inquiries mandated by the parliament or government following such incidents may highlight systemic human rights problems and the need for cultural change. At the same time, less visible drivers such as regular independent monitoring of places of detention, peer- to-peer exchanges among detaining authorities, and the influence of individuals who are open to change in decision-making positions can help to start change processes before such crises occur. Civil society and persons deprived of their liberty can also play a role in getting the need for change on the agenda. For example, from the late 1960s in Sweden a series of prison strikes supported by prisoners’ rights groups called for better treatment and a more humane prison system.65 Following stalled talks with prison administration, the then Justice Minister set up a committee with terms of reference that opened the door to a far-reaching reorganisation of the entire prison system.66 This led to new legislation being enacted in 1974 which was much more liberal on the treatment of offenders and led to significant changes in the Swedish penal system. This example also highlights the positive impact of ensuring that detainees are aware of their rights. 65. R Nilsson, ‘A well-built machine, a Nightmare for the Soul’: The Swedish Prison System in Historical Perspective’, Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies, vol. 1, 2002, p17. For a detailed account of prisoner strikes and related negotiations in Sweden in 1970 and 1971, see T Mathiesen, ‘Organisation among the Expelled’, in Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, vol. 4, Universitetsförlaget, 1974, pp129-172. 66. Former Head of the Research Group, Prison & Probation Service Sweden, in communication with the author. 16 | Penal Reform International | Institutional culture in detention: a framework for preventive monitoring