CREATING REHABILITATIVE PRISON ENVIRONMENTS: ANTICORRUPTION POLICIESDr. Emiliano Blanco *I. INTRODUCTION
When I assumed the position of National Director in 2014, one of the first steps needed
was to define the objectives of the prison administration. These objectives would be thereduction of reoffending and recidivism, 1 public protection and the promotion of desistancefrom crime. This may appear as a trivial question, but in our tradition, it is central, due to,on the one hand, that these objectives where not seen as the purposes of punishment(because of the influence of critical criminology in our region), and on the other hand, as
an aid to orientate and organize the reform process of our system.
Having our objectives in mind, an action plan was implemented to ensure its realization,
based primarily on the need of having an objective system. To this end, it was fundamental
to generate a solid database to be used in the decision-making process.
Likewise, in order to achieve better standards with a positive impact on rehabilitation,
the following actions were taken: the implementation of the initial risk assessment system;
the categorization of prisons according to physical, electronic and dynamic security levels;and the adoption of simple and clear standard procedures. Additionally, we have promoted
evidence-based criminological research as a basis for the decision-making process, we haveconducted a thorough examination and monitoring procedure to assess the institution’s
management processes, and we have developed a policy to promote public integrity and toprevent corruption. All these measures have been introduced to minimize discretionary
decisions, so that the system is more objective and a science-based theoretical foundationis built for our work.
II. FOSTERING REHABILITATIVE ENVIRONMENTS
We would like to mention the importance of the “environment” of a prison, which has
been the subject of several studies. What these studies have indicated is that the moral
quality of a prison is closely related to its rehabilitative capacity. That is, the higher moral
quality of the prison, the more rehabilitative capacity it has. We will later refer to thesestudies, which have been undertaken at our institution based on the research conducted byProfessor Alison Liebling.
President, International Corrections and Prisons Association Latin America (ICPA-LA); Former National
Director of the Federal Prison Service of Argentina.
1
We will use the terms “reoffenders” and “recidivists” to refer to two different groups of inmates, we will
use the term “reoffender” to refer to those inmates who have not been convicted but are admitted to an SPF
prison for a second time, and we will use ‘recidivist’ for those who have been officially declared as such bya court.
*- 61 - 61 -

On the basis of that statement, and the creation of rehabilitative environments being the
topic of the panel, we would like to share two distinct actions that SPF carried out between
2014-2019 in order to attain this goal: the corruption prevention policy and staff
management.
III. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES
Anti-corruption policies have the ultimate goal of creating an environment of integrityin any given institution. Given the question “why should prison administrations prevent
corruption?”, the answer becomes evident as we accept that only a culture defined bytransparency and commitment to ethical values allows the creation of healthy environments
that, in turn, favour the reduction of reoffending and the rehabilitation of offenders.
Corruption has extremely negative consequences, and when corrupt practices become
widespread, they become an obstacle to the attainment of the objectives of reoffending
reduction, the promotion of desistance and public protection, and other standards such as
the Mandela Rules.
In particular, corruption affects the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the system,
generates inadequate working conditions, and creates inequities and grievances that affectthe levels of violence of any prison establishment.
For these reasons and many others, it is necessary to guarantee healthy environments,
and with that in mind, it should be noted that the mere sanction of corrupt practices isinsufficient, as the damage of that particular corrupt act has been made. This punitive
approach should be complemented with a preventive approach, one that promotes public
integrity.
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF CORRUPTION IN PRISON ENVIRONMENTS
Prisons are closed environments, which conspires against the idea of transparency.
Moreover, the relations between staff and inmates have been described as having a“negotiated nature”. According to Goldsmith, who has studied the phenomenon ofcorruption in prison environments, the transactional nature of the relationship between
inmates and staff implies that some degree of corruption will always be present, which goesagainst the usual “zero tolerance” government policies on corruption.
At this point, it is important to notice that the environment has a direct impact on theindividual’s behaviour. It has been proved that the pressure of authority and peer pressure
are key conditioning factors of our behaviour (Milgram and Asch experiments). For
example, on Asch’s experiment, it was proved that individuals conform or follow thegroup’s behaviour, even when the group appears to be wrong, either because they start tobelieve that the group is right, or out of fear of contradicting others.
This principle applies to the phenomenon of corruption in prisons, the environment ofa prison and the behaviour of the individuals in it vary depending on whether our system isaffected by marginal corruption or systemic corruption.

- 62 - 62 -

A marginal corruption scenario occurs when the system works in accordance with its
regulations, and the control organisms detect and sanction corrupt practices when they dooccur. Systemic corruption, on the other hand, occurs when the organizational culture ispermissive of the breach of regulations, corrupt practices are seen as natural, the control
organisms are not effective, impunity is the rule, and those who try to abide the law are set
apart and fear reprisals if they decide to report wrongdoing.
V. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION
It has already been indicated that the problem of corruption, and of corruption in the
penitentiary setting, is extremely complex and must be approached from a multidisciplinary
perspective. Strictly speaking, the efficient cause of corruption is always a decision madeby the subject who performs the act of corruption. The fact that there is discretion indecision making by a public official is not in itself a determining factor of corruption, since
the official can fulfil his duties and act with principles of ethics, honesty and probity. Alongthese lines, if we take as an example the factor that the public official has economic or
financial problems, this situation does not in itself carry a risk of corruption, since theofficial can maintain its integrity and ethics in the exercise of the public function, especiallyto keep their job.
Therefore, the causes of corruption are not determining factors but factors whose
presence facilitates the occurrence of an act of corruption. These factors can be studied witha view on ethical and moral, legal, cultural, sociological, criminological, psychological,
anthropological, economic, political, personal, social, institutional, philosophical andhistorical perspective.
These facilitating elements may be related to personal or individual aspects (subject
values, mood, etc.), organizational aspects of the institution (high level of bureaucracy,
insufficient salaries to cover basic needs, etc.), or external aspects, such as pressure fromthird parties outside the institution.
In general, we can mention the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Absence of rules, regulations, policies and laws.
Weak enforcement systems.
Weak control and supervision systems.
Lack of accountability to the public.
No transparency.
Lack of mechanisms of balance between the powers of the State.
Lack of integrity.
Monopoly of power.
High sense of discretion.
Low salaries.
High profits compared to risks.
Low detection and sanction rate.
Favourable context for corruption.
Problematic and cumbersome regulatory systems.

- 63 - 63 -

Ultimately, it is the official who chooses to act in a corrupt way or to abide by the law.
All these factors that favour corruption have a particular expression in relation to the prison
setting. When taking into account the particular forms of relationship created in thesesettings, there are certain risks – situations that favour or make prison staff be corrupt or
corrupted – that, in addition to the causes described above, are typical of this environment.
According to international experience and John Podmore’s Handbook on AntiCorruption Measures in Prisons, such risks are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Financial problems and family pressures.
Envy and resentment about the conditions of inmates or other staff, especiallysenior staff.
Greed or desire for personal enrichment.
Doing an “altruistic” or good action by means of a corrupt action
Pressure from the close group or from the “culture” in which they are immersed.
The need to commit an act of corruption for survival, whether in terms of psychophysical integrity or career.
Ideological issues.
Lack of clear rules or non-compliance. This is especially true in systems where there
are no written protocols or objective rules, leaving it all to the discretion of officials
Poor training.
No leading by example by senior staff.
Lack of commitment to the strategic direction set by the authorities of prison
administrations.

The factors that are most influential and difficult to address due to their complexity arethose related to the culture that takes place in the prison world and the way of interaction
between the actors in that environment. In fact, the cultural pressure of the environment
can cause large-scale bureaucratic institutions – of any nature – to be at risk of high levelsof corruption caused by the very dynamics of the system. The factor that has the mostinfluence on this point would be the pressure of the environment on staff and inmates toundertake these practices and not report them. This situation creates ideal conditions forthe reproduction and expansion of corruption within the system. Within this framework,
the situation can only be tackled through a progressive cultural change, based on thedevelopment of a new conscience and ethical work culture of the staff, with special
attention to future public officials.
VI. CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION IN PRISONS
The harm generated by corruption is not always detected immediately, which reinforces
the need to act before it occurs, i.e. at the time of prevention. In order to account for themagnitude of the damage, a relationship with the degree of corruption can be established.
As regards specifically the public service that must be provided by prison
administrations, the damages directly caused by corruption are the following:•

Impact on Human Rights: for example, if money intended for the construction or
maintenance of new accommodation spaces is diverted to the benefit of a public
official, as unfair conditions of detention occur for persons deprived of liberty.
- 64 - 64 -•Impact on the public security function of the penitentiary administration: incontexts with a high index of corruption, persons deprived of their liberty could
obtain, in exchange for money, places of accommodation with less security thanthat required because of the risks they pose, which would allow their escape or evencontinue to handle illicit activity from prison.

•

Increased levels of violence: the extension of corruption – accommodation, sale ofaccommodation, gifts, sale of narcotics, etc. – can create a loss of control by theprison administration of the spaces where people deprived of their freedom lie. This
loss of control will almost certainly result in arbitrariness and unequal treatment,
which in turn will encourage conflict and high levels of violence. An institution thatworks on the basis of arbitrariness, bribes or gifts, cannot provide security about the
future of the people who are part of it, which results in increased anxiety and tension
in the environment.

•

Impact on public trust in the correctional institution: people who engage in actsof corruption hide their actions. When the activity is generalized, the affectedorganization becomes isolated and becomes less and less transparent. The lack oftransparency results in the loss of public trust in their actions.

•

Damage to the rehabilitative purpose of the penitentiary administration: theimpact on this function occurs in various ways: on the one hand, because of anundue allocation of resources, which will no longer be used to address criminogenic
needs; on the other hand, because the central axis of the rehabilitation function is
the intervention in the conduct of the persons deprived of their freedom, and amorally unhealthy institution will not have that capacity due to the propagation ofcorrupt acts, or crime replicating practices.

•

Impairment of staff attachment to conduct based on professional standards: if
the principle on which rewards – promotions, salary increases, etc., sanctions,transfers, dismissals – are assigned focuses on corruption, staff will not feel inclined
to develop their careers, but to meet the demands of the system.

•

Creating conditions for increased corruption: the existence of high levels ofcorruption is the breeding ground that increases it, due to the naturalization of thesepractices and, in the absence of legitimate objective parameters, actors are temptedor forced to meet their needs or desires through acts of corruption to survive in thesystem. In this sense, the very dynamics of corruption tend to increase both
qualitatively and quantitatively and end up affecting the entire functioning oforganizations if not properly managed.

•

Loss of legitimacy of the prison system: if prison organization is corrupt, it loses
the trust of users and operators in the public authority and, consequently, its moral
authority to demand changes in behaviour.

•

Generation of individual criminal, administrative and civil responsibility ofstaff and the institution, both nationally and internationally: acts of corruption
are prohibited by law and, those who commit such acts, are subject to a sanction,
including a conviction. In addition to criminal liability, acts of corruption may resultin the civil liability of officials – with an obligation to compensate victims for- 65 - 65 -

money – and also administrative responsibility, which may result in the dismissal
or exoneration of the person responsible, as well as loss of retirement benefits. It
may also affect the State’s responsibility before the international community for
violations of conventions and as civil liability.
•

Damage to staff: high levels of corruption change the rules of the game, affecting
the welfare and the rights of the personnel. In addition, the incidence of corruption
in the levels of conflict creates stressful working conditions that also affect the wellbeing of the staff.

•

Alteration of legitimate rules established by applicable regulations: high levelsof corruption make the benefits, sanctions or rules set by applicable regulation notproperly enforced. For example, if a person deprived of his or her liberty does notmeet the legal requirements for access to a benefit such as house arrest, he/she may
do so by paying a sum of money.

•

Risk of facilitating organized crime and self-government in prisons: highprevalence of corruption in prison creates a risk of self-government. It occurs as aconsequence of the existence of an informal system created by the generalizationof corrupt actions regulating life in prison contrary to what the rules establish. This
creates a number of imbalances in the dynamics of prisons. The risk grows in thecase of organized crime. The following is an example of this: through informal rules,
penitentiary staff, in exchange for money, allow a group of inmates to freely
manage the spaces, and even grant them protection. This could create a situation of
constant abuse and the setting of new rules of coexistence contrary to legal norms;
for example, if the rest of the people deprived of their freedom had to pay thedominant group a certain amount of money in exchange for this group not attacking
or killing them.
VII. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES WITHIN SPF

Corruption has been perceived as a critical issue by most countries, and as such it has
become an important part of the international agenda. In this sense, a universal instrument
against corruption, that is the UN Convention against Corruption, has been subscribed byseveral countries.
The UN Convention against Corruption encourages the adoption of certain measuresagainst corruption, such as international cooperation, asset recovery and the engagement of
the private sector in the prevention of corruption.
In line with this instrument and others that Argentina has subscribed, the anti-corruption
policy within SPF started in 2014 with a comprehensive diagnosis of the situation of theinstitution in terms of corruption, and it turned out that the main problem was that
corruption had always been present but it had been systematically denied, the risks ofcorruption were higher in some areas than in others, corrupt practices in general wereperceived as natural and there was no specific training on this topic for staff.

- 66 - 66 -The following are concrete policies that were adopted between 2014–2019 to reduce
corruption risks, promoting a culture based on values and principles of law enforcement,
proper management of public affairs and goods, integrity, transparency and accountability:•

Creation of the Corruption Prevention Service: with the objective of designing,
formulating and implementing policies, plans, programmes and actions to prevent
corruption. The main axes of action are: the analysis and measurement of risks andvulnerabilities, the definition of appropriate strategies to address those risks, and thecoordination of activities that everyone involved in the system must carry out to prevent
corruption. Within SPF there are other organisms related to the fight against corruption
besides the Corruption Prevention Service, they are:o The Department of Internal Affairs.
o The Directorate of Information Analysis.
o The Service of Monitoring and Inspection of Prison Establishments and Compliance.

•

Action Plan of the Corruption Prevention Service: The Action Plan is based on five
strategic axes: “Declaration of Institutional Ethical Principles”, “Institutional
Assessment”, “Staff Training and Awareness in Ethics, Transparency and Preventionof Corruption”, “Regulatory Changes and Improvements in Procedures” and “Joint
Detection, Monitoring and Evaluation Actions”.

•

Code of Ethics for the staff of the Federal Prison Service: It embodies the values,
principles and duties of the personnel, taking into account the specificity ofconfinement settings, with the aim of fostering an institutional culture in which theprinciples of integrity, legality, honesty, efficiency and transparency are strengthened.
The Code guides prison staff in the performance of their duties in the face of specificsituations that may arise.

•

Creation of a hotline for complaints: to detect and report irregularities or cases ofcorruption by officers in the institution. The hotline is staffed by Internal Affairs, being
the punitive approach divided from the preventive approach. Anonymous complaints
may be received.

•

Protocol for processing complaints: This instrument establishes, in an exhaustive way,
the procedure to be followed once a complaint is filed. One of its main purposes is toensure at all times the confidentiality of complaints. On the other hand, the protocol
sets categories for the classification of complaints, which ensures objectivity andtransparency. These categories are: 1. Highly probable 2. Probable: 3. Inadmissible.

•

Rules for the protection of whistle-blowers: this resolution provides protection of thejob of officials who, in good faith and with well-founded reasons, report irregularities
or crimes by other prison officials.

•

Map of corruption risks: implemented as a pilot programme at the Judicial Detention
Centre (Unit 28), in order to identify sectors that are risky or vulnerable to abuse or
corruption. Another objective was to foster the participation of staff who provide
services in Unit 28 on a daily basis, trying to break the taboo around the issue of
corruption, and to create a consensual document that integrates the staff of theinstitution in the process of change.

- 67 - 67 -

•Working together with other organizations: for instance, with the Anti-Corruption
Office, the Judiciary, and other security forces and corruption experts.
VIII. STAFF TRAINING

Ethical prison environments cannot exist without an extensive training of staff. Throughthe implementation of a public ethics course, awareness of the importance of the preventionof corruption and the insidious consequences of corruption can be raised. The
organizational culture as a whole can be modified and a culture of integrity achieved. Staff
have to be provided with sufficient resources to generate and maintain positive appropriate
relations with inmates, independently of peer pressure and the transactional nature of staff–
prisoner relations.
It was noted that there was no specific bibliography on the topic of corruption in prison
environments in Spanish and accessible for our staff, other than some publications of theUnited Nations for the reform process of Panama, and therefore the Corruption Prevention
Service published SPF’s Anti-corruption Handbook. This handbook has become the basic
bibliography for the mandatory courses of ascension, and it addresses topics such as theissue of corruption in prison contexts and measures to prevent it. Previously, our policies
were based on John Podmore’s Handbook on Anti-Corruption Measures in Prisons, whichat the time was a preliminary draft that would then be published by UNODC.
SPF’s handbook is the result of academic and applied research and was adapted to theLatin American reality and particularly that of Argentina, and to be accessible to our staff.
IX. IRICOne of the most important preventive measures was the creation of the System ofIntervention for the Reduction of the Corruptibility Index (IRIC) in 2016. The main reason
behind the creation of this system was a shift in the prison population composition. Throughthe course of the last years, our prison system has received inmates with certain
characteristics, risks and needs that differ greatly from the usual profile. This new profile
comprises inmates that committed offences linked to the action of criminal organizations,such as drug trafficking, and those who committed offences linked to corruption or
economic crimes.
Before this trend, the prison administration was used to working with low socioeconomic status inmates, who came from dysfunctional families, with impulse control
disorders, involved in substance and alcohol abuse, with poor symbolic resources and no
external support. Their associated risks in prisons were mostly related to risks of conflictand violence.
On the contrary, the new profile of inmates has a low risk of conflict but has a high riskof escape and of continuing their criminal activity from prison and high risk ofmanipulation, due to their military power, their economic capacity and their links to power,with the objective of obtaining undue benefits and gaining power over the rest of theinmates and, ultimately, the prison as a whole. Further, their deficits and needs arecompletely different.
- 68 - 68 -For that purpose, the concept of corruptibility was created. The concept of corruptibility
indicates, on the one hand, the ability of some people deprived of their liberty to violate,
through acts of corruption, the proper functioning of the prison system and, on the other
hand, the risks of these prisoners to be the victims of acts of corruption during their prison
term. This risk can materialize itself through acts of violence, manipulation or infiltration.
Thus, the ultimate goal of the IRIC system is to detect and manage the corruptibility risks,
to achieve a transparent management of inmates, prevent them from using their resources
to obtain dysfunctional decisions from the administration and guarantee the satisfaction of
their specific needs, under the logic of the principle of normality. From this perspective,
actions are being developed to allow greater closeness and interaction between the staff andprisoners, and information management. In this way, it is possible to prevent any kind ofact that contravenes the normal operation of the system, among them, acts of corruption.
X. MEASURING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
The concept of moral performance has been developed by Professor Alison Liebling asa result of a set of research studies carried out at the Prisons Research Centre at the
University of Cambridge (United Kingdom). Her work on this area was meant tounderstand the complexities of the prison world by analysing the role of values and thequality of life in the prison environment. The study consists in administering a structured
questionnaire to each prisons’ inmates in order to gain knowledge and compare how certain
values of prison life are experienced. Among these values, we may mention “respect”,“trust”, “safety” and “well-being” in prisons. The study is based on the following guiding
principle: what defines the quality of prison life does not only include the material/objective
conditions and access to rights, but also and particularly the way in which those rights aredelivered by the institution; that is to say, the way in which staff–prisoner relationships arebuilt and developed. Another aspect that may be analysed within the scope of this study is
how prisons are operated, by exploring the role of values, emotions and staff–prisoner
relationships inside prisons.
The data obtained from this empirical study is chiefly important as it could be used toformulate policies to promote desistance and to reduce recidivism. In addition, the results
are similar to those obtained from research studies conducted in other countries. This workon moral performance also proves interesting and useful to obtain more information on
violence and conflict issues, humanity and relational dimensions in our prisons, compliancewith management goals and, ultimately, the formulation of public policies that work
effectively in prison, as well as the implementation of reforms that can correct the moral
standard at our prisons and promote any positive aspects detected.
The above-mentioned study on moral performance was also carried out in Module VIof the Federal Prison Complex, where the Intervention Program to Reduce the Degrees ofCorruptibility (IRIC Program) is run, in order to identify the levels of quality of life insideeach prison. Inmates’ perceptions were taken into account to get to know their strengths
and weaknesses. Surveys were conducted between July and October 2018. Taking thisfinding into account, specific actions were taken in order to address this issue and provide
a greater amount of activities.
As a result of this study, we can conclude that:- 69 - 69 -

•
•
•
•
•

85.7 per cent of inmates have claimed that they are treated with respect.
75.7 per cent of inmates stated that staff–prisoner relationships are good.
91.2 per cent of inmates assert that they are not bothered or threatened by the restof the inmates at the facility.
57 per cent of inmates rated the quality of life inside Module VI positively (between
7 and 10 points).
Negative aspects should be considered and improved in Module VI.

These values are considerably different from the other settings we measured, so we cansuggest that in a place where risk of corruption is controlled, there are better perceptions ofother dimensions in daily life.
XI. MEASURING CORRUPTIONAs I said before, corruption is a risk from which no organization seems to escape. In
order to be prevented and punished wherever it occurs, the phenomenon must be
understood in its own manifestations within the specific organization in order to provide
an adequate response.
Consequently, since 2014 an action plan has been implemented to promote public
integrity, to prevent and to fight corruption. Measures such as the creation of its own codeof ethics, the implementation of a system for reporting corruption cases, and thecorresponding protection for the agents who report it have been developed. In addition,
there has been constant training of personnel in matters associated with ethics, transparency
and the prevention of corruption, among others. The truth is that the taboo that always
existed in relation to the issue of corruption has been broken.
Anti-corruption policies must be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and allow
their correction and expansion where necessary; it is a constant and cyclical work. Bearing
this in mind, it was decided to carry out a study on the perception of the staff about it within
the Institution. We need to highlight that we had run some surveys before (Public opinion
in 2014, Models of Management and Working Environment in 2015), where when we
asked about corruption it appeared as a serious issue, but at the same time nothing was saidor done.
So, through this study, it was sought to know the perceptions, expectations andrepresentations about corruption in general and within the Federal Penitentiary Service. In
addition, an attempt was made to gain knowledge about the public policies developed
within the institution to prevent it and the appreciation that prison staff have on the causes
and damages that it generates. The results contribute to detecting the real perception of thepersonnel related to this topic, as well as the knowledge of the actions carried out and thereporting channels. At the same time, it warns about the level of awareness present among
prison agents on issues of public ethics and transparency, allowing a more adequate
understanding of the problems that exist with respect to the design of institutional policies
aimed at addressing this conflict.
Having this in mind, and noting that the reality of Latin American countries is mostly
described by systemic corruption scenarios, it was decided that corruption within SPF
should be measured by the use of some reliable method. To that end, we turned to the- 70 - 70 -

methodologies that some of the most important international organizations that work withthe prevention of corruption have used, Transparency International being the mostrenowned. Their method relies on the perceptions of corruption rather than on reports andlegal cases.
On the Corruption Perceptions Index developed by Transparency International, in 2018
Argentina ranked in the 85th position on a list of 180 countries, with a total score of 40
over 100 (being 100 very clean and 0 highly corrupt). In short, there is a clear perceptionof high levels of corruption in our country, which means that the policies implemented haveto consider that their starting point will be that of a systemic corruption scenario, which
probably does not reflect the reality of Europe or Japan.
In order to measure the perceptions of our staff on the levels of corruption of Argentina
in general and our institution in particular, we developed our Corruption Perceptions
Survey, and some of its key findings were:
•
•
•
•
•

22 per cent of our staff said that SPF is affected by high levels of corruption.
51 per cent of our staff believes that the anti-corruption policy is being effective.
32 per cent of our staff thinks that there is less corruption in our institution today
than 3 years ago.
The most vulnerable areas to corruption, according to our staff, are: cell phonesmuggling, drug smuggling and the management of public funds.
62 per cent of our staff said that corrupt practices are not reported, and that thereason behind that number is the fear of reprisals.

After analysing the results, we have made some necessary adjustments, such as
disseminating the reporting channels and implementing a whistle-blower protection
programme. The survey also proved that corrupt practices are no longer perceived as
natural, which reflects the importance of staff training on ethics and corruption prevention
topics.
The agents were also asked if they knew to whom this type of incident should bereported, and it turned out that:••

40 per cent indicated they knew to whom to report acts of corruption.
The complaint channels best known by agents are: the anti-corruption office,internal affairs, the hotline for complaints of acts of corruption (0800-222-7738),
courts and prosecutors.

Likewise, 46 per cent believe that complaints made for acts of corruption end with the
sanctioning of those responsible.
To find out the level of dissemination that the policies carried out by the Federal
Penitentiary Service to combat corruption have had, the agents were asked to indicate what
actions they were aware of. From this it emerged that the five best known measures tocombat corruption, implemented in the Federal Penitentiary Service are:
1. Code of Ethics for SPF Personnel.
2. Staff wellness programmes.
3. Training on ethics, transparency and prevention of corruption.
- 71 - 71 -

4. Creation of the Corruption Prevention Service.
5. Monitoring and inspection of procedures in penitentiary establishments.
However, much remains to be done regarding dissemination. Although notoriously 60
per cent reported having received one or more trainings on ethics and corruption prevention
issues; and just over 73 per cent knowledge of the Code of Ethics for Prison Service
Personnel.
Furthermore, 54 per cent of the agents indicated that the implemented measures havebeen efficient in their objectives. 32 per cent stated that the level of corruption in the SPF,
at that time, was lower than in the previous 3 years, and 46.3 per cent said the same withrespect to the last 5 years.
On the other hand, the agents were asked to select three questions that they consider
should be resolved within the institution as a priority. As a result, it was obtained:
1. Carry out an efficient selection of personnel entering the SPF.
2. Foster an ethical culture to combat corruption.
3. Provide more material resources to the units.
64 per cent of the agents consider that corrupt personnel should be separated from theinstitution.
With regard to the consequences of corruption, they were offered a list of possible
consequences for the institution so that they could indicate which ones they believe havematerialized. The agents considered that corruption has hindered the proper functioning of
the institution, the security of the prisons, the quality of the work environment, and, to alesser extent, the reintegration of the inmates.
Within the specific risk factors of the prison environment, it was observed that inmateswith high purchasing power can influence decisions that directly affect them, being highly
disruptive for the system and that there are extortionary practices among inmates that allow
the creation of areas of violence.
Finally, a large number of the agents surveyed affirm that the greatest acts of corruption
have to do with purchases and contracting by the State and the entry of drugs and cell
phones into prisons.
XII.

CONCLUSIONS

We can finally suggest, that:
1) There is a direct link between anti-corruption and rehabilitation efforts: a corrupt
prison cannot perform its rehabilitation function correctly.
2) Prisons should promote a “culture of integrity”.
3) All staff should receive training on anti-corruption.

- 72 - 72 -4) There is a case for housing high-risk-of-corruption prisoners in a separate unit withspecially trained staff (Case Study: IRIC Programme).
5) Surveys and specific studies must be carried inside prison services, measuring theimpact of policies and measures.
6) When there is a serious effort to fight corruption in an institution, society cares more
about what the service is really doing for public protection and reducing reoffending,
and we believe that this can affect reintegration in a good way.

- 73 - 73 -