WELL-BEING IN PRISON: The Case of Serbia
Authors: Ilijić Ljeposava , Pavićević Olivera , Milićević Milena 
Published: October 2024

The book “Well-Being in Prison: The Case of Serbia” by Ljeposava Ilijić, Olivera Pavićević, and Milena Milićević investigates how well-being is perceived in Serbian prisons, using the Measuring Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) survey. The book explores the concept of well-being in prison, from historical and philosophical ideas to contemporary measures of quality of prison life and subjective well-being in the prison environment. In addition, the book offers an overview of Serbia’s prison system, including its legal framework, types of institutions, the rights of convicted persons and statistical data on the prison population. The central focus of the book is the research aimed to examine how individual characteristics, the prison environment, institutional practices, and life experiences affect the subjective well-being and personal development of prisoners. The main research question asked is: How do the levels of well-being and development of convicted persons differ depending on different factors? This research is part of a three-year national project called PrisonLIFE, whose goal is to understand and improve the quality of prison life of convicted persons in Serbia. The data was collected in the period from May 2022 to January 2023 from 611 convicted persons in five prisons in Serbia. The convenience sample included 525 men and 86 women legally sentenced to imprisonment. The main instrument for collecting data on the quality of prison life was the Serbian version of the MQPL survey, originally created by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology Prisons Research Centre. The MQPL questionnaire covers a wide range of topics relevant to the prison experience of convicted persons, including respect, relationships with prison professionals, safety, personal development, and well-being. Overall, prisoners rated the living conditions and the opportunity to maintain contact with their families the most positively, but they were more critical of the professionalism of the prison staff. This perception was similar for men and women. Male prisoners rated well-being and development lower than conditions and opportunities for maintaining contact with close persons but higher than the overall functioning of the prison and the professional behaviour of prison staff. Female prisoners rated well-being and development lower than other categories but comparable to the rating of the professional behaviour of prison staff. The survey further showed that all respondents were dissatisfied with their general well-being in prison. Prisoners felt most positive about opportunities for personal development and feeling in control of their actions. They, on the other hand, expressed an optimistic attitude regarding the possibility of personal change and improvement but were unsure of the prison system’s contribution to this and less confident that prison would help them after release. They felt they could preserve their identity but had limited autonomy in their daily lives. The feeling of confinement prevailed. Although they recognised problems in the prison environment and negative aspects of prison life, they reported lower levels of distress, except for the problems with emotion management and night-time sleep. Male prisoners who were older, without a history of drug abuse or mental health problems and who had a work engagement in prison, felt the most positive about their experience of well-being in prison. Female prisoners who were older, had no history of drug use, no mental health problems, no history of violent behaviour and self-harm and who received visits in prison reported more positively about some aspects of prison life related to well-being. Prisoners in semi-open wards have a higher level of well-being as an aspect of the quality of prison life than those in closed wards. The longer periods of incarceration were generally associated with less favourable prison experiences for women. First-time offenders scored higher than those who had been in prison before. Prisoners who used incentives and privileges felt more positive than those who did not. Prisoners who were subject to disciplinary measures rated their well-being in prison more negatively than those without a history of disciplinary measures. For men in particular, receiving visits was associated with more positive ratings of personal development, general well-being, stress management, and overall prison experience. Prisons closer to home benefited men, who scored higher in various aspects of well-being. However, this association was less pronounced in women, possibly because there is only one prison for women in the country. The most important factor affecting the well-being of prisoners was the quality of their relationship with prison staff. In the final chapter, the book addresses the implications of the research and offers recommendations. The authors make several proposals for improving the well-being of convicts in prison, which could lead to a reduction in recidivism. Research by other authors indicates an association between higher levels of inmate well-being and positive perceptions of prison morale and social climate, with a trend of reduced recidivism rates. First, there is a need to improve the professionalism of prison staff. In addition, improvements are necessary in the areas of funding and resources, physical security, health care and living conditions, as well as in certain segments of treatment (especially in terms of sports and leisure activities). Secondly, the study highlights the need for gender-specific approaches in the treatment of convicted persons. For female prisoners, part of the focus should be on fostering social connections, while for men, priority should be given to psychological and physical well-being. In addition, programs should be more sensitive to individual differences between prisoners, especially in terms of their age and previous education in order to achieve positive effects on the level of well-being and personal development and improve the quality of prison life. Thirdly, it is suggested to focus rehabilitation strategies on recidivist prisoners who usually experience a lower level of well-being. In addition, the findings indicate the necessity of regular (re)classifications and promotion in treatment programs (advancement to more favourable treatment groups, i.e. wards), given that prisoners in semi-open wards reported significantly higher well-being than those in closed ones. Finally, the findings support the importance of targeted interventions for high-risk prisoners. In addition, risk assessment can help identify prisoners who need additional support, such as those with a history of self-harm, suicide attempts, drug abuse or mental health problems. The rehabilitation of convicted persons and their successful social reintegration after release could be contributed by employment or work engagement, as well as the granting of extended rights and benefits. The study also identified a specific group of high-risk female prisoners that need extra attention. These include women under 30, those with long time served, those with a history of self-harm, suicide attempts, drug abuse, or mental health problems, and those with no visits or without the support of family or friends. These groups of female prisoners had a lower level of well-being and a higher level of stress and distress. Overall, this book offers a comprehensive analysis of well-being in Serbian prisons from the perspective of the prisoners themselves. The analysis of specific factors provides valuable information about the well-being of the prison population, which could be relevant to policymakers and prison administrators in making informed decisions about improving the quality of prison life. Keywords: Quality of Prison Life, MQPL, Prisoner Well-being, Social Rehabilitation, Prison Environment, Social Dynamics in Prison, Serbia Prison System, Imprisonment, Personal Development, Prison Treatment, Pains of Imprisonment