I was interested in hearing my participants’ experiences of the criminal justice system—specifically contact with the police and courts—before entering the YTC. And what advice, if any, would they give to those in power to assist similarly-circumstanced young men.
I reiterate that one of the main aims of this thesis was to give a voice to young male offenders in Trinidad and Tobago. This thesis aims to detail the life experiences of my participants in their own words. Through the use of mostly unstructured life history interviews, I elicit the explanations, justifications and excuses provided by my young participants for their pathways into criminality.
This thesis analyses the perceptions held by my participants about themselves, their families and communities, their criminal activity, and society as a whole.
This thesis is a presentation, exploration and crucially, sociological-criminological analysis of the subjective lived experiences of incarcerated juveniles in Trinidad and Tobago; how they feel, think, act and make sense of the world.
Thus, in large part, this thesis is written from the perspective of the young offender. Becker (1967) cautions researchers to make it clear when they have taken sides so that the reader understands that the researcher’s findings can
52
only tell us how things look from one vantage point. Where relevant, I have acknowledged any personal and/or political ‘baggage’ or preconceived notions which may have affected my research and I have endeavoured to, in those instances, ever more rigorously and objectively apply relevant theory and methods in order to ensure credible work. In this vein, I hope that I have avoided being a “zookeeper of deviance” (Gouldner, 1968: 34).
In presenting the narratives of my participants, I have undertaken to set out their stories as objectively as possible and to rigorously analyse these narratives as well. Admittedly, I do sometimes express sentiments which condemn “those respectable citizens who, we think, have made the deviant what he is” (Becker, 1967: 240). Indeed, it would have been difficult not to do so given the material circumstances of my participants and the socio-economic climate of Trinidad and Tobago at this time. Nevertheless, I do hope that what is presented herein is not seen as a “whitewash of the deviant” (Becker, 1967: 240), as I present my participants’ narratives, some painful and others incensing, as honestly and openly as they were narrated to me. I also analyse these narratives with a sociological-criminological lens. What this means is that although I do not quiet the voices of my participants, I also add my own voice, sometimes challenging the narratives presented, but more often, exploring, explaining and critically analysing these narratives with the use of relevant theory and in chapter nine, offering some middle-range theory of my own.
What follows in this chapter is a discussion of how I accessed the YTC and the way that I collected and analysed my data. I begin with a description of the YTC, its facilities and the programmes available for the young men housed therein. I then discuss the way that I secured access to the institution and the precautions that I took to ensure that everyone who took part in my research did so voluntarily. I then discuss the interview process, my observations within the YTC and the process of data analysis. This chapter concludes with a brief reflection on the way that my positionality and past experiences affected the research process.
53
The institution
The YTC is the country’s only institution for the detention of convicted and remanded boys aged 16 years and over. It is situated in the city of Arouca, along the east-west corridor on the island of Trinidad10. It sits on approximately 14 hectares of land and consists of 31 buildings which include the administration building (Admin), school, computer laboratory, visitation building, gymnasium, eight dormitories for convicted boys, 4 dormitories for remanded boys and a dissociation building.
The institution is fashioned on the old English borstal system—intended to reform delinquent young people—and is militaristic in nature. As Table 2 illustrates, the convicted boys at the YTC have a very full day; they are roused at 5:00 am and, other than time spent having meals, are engaged in some type of educational, physical or rehabilitative activity until 6:00 pm.
Boys on remand have very different schedules. Those who request to continue their schooling while they await trial are usually facilitated at the school and if there are free spots on other programmes they are allowed to join these as well.
They are not, however mandated to participate in any activity, although many choose to do so (as magistrates and judges look more favourably upon those boys who are working on bettering themselves).
For the convicted boys, there is very little choice in their lives. Upon entering the institution, convicted boys begin a six-month orientation programme.
During this time, boys are evaluated and assessed as to their level of schooling and vocational abilities and are placed in programmes best-suited to their needs and interests. Additionally, all new residents are required to attend and
10 Further along the same road you will find the Golden Grove Prison and the Maximum Security Prison which both house adult male offenders. This proximity is important as during my interviews boys often referenced not wanting to go ‘next door’ and this was a reference to ending up at the adult prisons.
54
complete the institution’s Adolescent and Development Programme (ADP) which seeks to address issues related to anger management and socialisation, among others. Failure to complete the ADP results in a delay in starting school and any other activity; only boys who have successfully completed the programme are allowed to engage in academic and vocational activities.
Table 2. A day at the YTC
5:00 am Boys are awoken 5:20 am Morning devotion 5:30 am Physical training
6:30 am Return to dormitory in preparation for breakfast 7:00 am National anthem, pledge, prayer and breakfast
7:40 am Return to dormitory. Preparation for daily activities/programmes
8:00–11:30 am Activities/Programmes (academic and/or vocational) 11:30–12:30 pm Lunch
12:30–3:30 pm Activities/Programmes (academic and/or vocational) 3:30–4:00 pm Dinner
4:00–6:00 Sporting activities and psychosocial activities 6:00–9:00 pm Dormitory socialising, news broadcasting 9:00 pm Lights out
Source: Siew (2010)
When a young man is first committed to the YTC, he is housed in the dissociation unit (referred to as ‘the cellblocks’). This is to ensure that new residents are monitored through any stages of depression and/or anger that they might feel about their conviction. Boys are then allocated to and placed in dormitories. The dormitories are large and usually contain 8–10 beds. Each boy is required to keep his bed space clean and tidy. Each dormitory also contains a bathroom with multiple showers and toilets. The young men are required to clean these areas themselves.
55
Once the newcomers have successfully completed the ADP programme, they are placed into the Youth Training Centre Government School. The school contains 5 classrooms (all of which are air-conditioned), the Principal’s office, staff and student toilets, staff kitchen, and a library. Based on the academic assessments made during orientation, boys are placed into appropriate classes. Classes range from remedial primary-level education for which the young men may receive a school leaving certificate, up to secondary level examinations—The Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations (the equivalent of GCSE exams). There are also facilities for the completion of other academic qualifications through the YTC’s relationships with the School of Continuing Studies at the University of the West Indies and other tertiary-level educational facilities.
Convicted boys are usually also engaged in some form of vocational education.
Available trades include welding, woodworking, mechanics, carpentry, plumbing, food preparation, masonry, and agriculture. There is also an abundance of sporting activities available to the boys including athletics, cricket, basketball, wrestling, football and rugby. In fact, during my time at the YTC I discovered that one of my participants was on the national under-19 rugby team. There is also a variety of cultural activities that take place at the institution for cultural and religious festivals (like Eid-al-fitr, Divali, Carnival and Christmas) and there is a team of officers devoted to teaching interested boys drumming, playing steelpan and writing songs for performances at these functions.
The final phase of training at the YTC occurs during the six-month period prior to an offender’s release. During this period, the boys are prepared for their release and reintegration and are usually moved to the pre-release dormitory which is more comfortable (and contains a radio, microwave and sofas). During this time, boys who do not have disciplinary infractions are allowed to work outside the institution (on the job training). They are driven to work every morning and collected at the workplace in the afternoon. Boys on pre-release
56
must also complete the Adult Development Programme, an advanced level of the ADP they do during orientation. The pre-release period is also filled with other reintegration activities and programmes, employability sessions, anger and stress management programmes, leadership skills, and discussions about making responsible choices.
All boys are entitled to have regular visits from family and friends (which usually last 15-20 minutes) unless they have committed a disciplinary offence within the institution, then their visitation may be revoked for a period of time determined by the Superintendent. Boys who have achieved the necessary grade level, due to good behaviour and participation in programmes, are allowed to go on weekend leave to visit their families. Weekend leave is designed to maintain family relations but also to encourage and foster good behaviour and discipline.
Access
The YTC often facilitates visits to the prison by youth groups and other public bodies and it also facilitates researchers, usually from the University of the West Indies and the Caribbean Nazarene College. I was determined to gain access to the YTC through the conventional channels utilised by other researchers. I could have attempted to (and was advised by my former colleagues to attempt to) access the YTC via connections that I had made when I practiced law. In fact, I knew the Inspector of Prisons quite well—for over 13 years—as he had been my classmate during my undergraduate degree and through law school and we had remained in touch while in practice. I was concerned though that accessing the prison through such a channel might unnecessarily and perhaps unfortunately link me to the prisons administration (at least in the eyes of my participants). I was determined both to be and be seen to be an independent researcher by both staff and inmates. For this reason I chose to email the Commissioner of Prisons to request access.
57
I started the process a good eight months before I hoped to enter the field as I anticipated some bumps along the way. The process took about six months of repeated emails (the first set of emails I sent apparently went to a defunct email address that is still on the Government’s website) and telephone calls but was nevertheless less painful than I had anticipated. Official documentation allowed me access to the facility between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on weekdays to conduct interviews with the boys housed at the institution. I knew that I would want to be able to access the prison on some evenings and weekends (when cultural presentations were scheduled to take place). I wanted to observe and interact with my participants outside of the interview room and perhaps interact with any family members who attended these functions. I also knew that I would have to negotiate bringing in a digital recorder to record the interviews.
Negotiating access is an ongoing process; I was fairly confident that once I had my foot in the door I could indeed widen the scope of my access. Although the Commissioner of Prisons is responsible for the overall management of the prisons, the day to day management and decisions are routinely left up to the Superintendents (SP) and Assistant Superintendents (ASP) of each prison. I was fully prepared to be the most engaging, interested and friendly researcher so that the SP and ASP would be happy to renegotiate my access. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007: 70) note that the value of sociability as a means of building trust should not be underestimated:
Indeed, the researcher must often try to find ways in which ‘normal’
social intercourse can be established. This requires finding some neutral ground with participants where mundane small talk can take place. It may be very threatening to hosts if one pumps them constantly about matters relating directly to research interests.
Especially in the early days of field negotiations it may be advantageous to find more ‘ordinary’ topics of conversation, with a view to establishing one’s identity as a ‘normal’, ‘regular’, ‘decent’
person.
58
This tactic proved extremely successful. Within a few weeks of being at the institution the ASP, whom I saw every morning, commented that I always seemed positive and happy and that I brightened the office in the morning. I interacted with any of the prison officers who were free and willing to chat with me and told anyone who would listen that I was interested, not just in interviewing the boys, but also in experiencing the YTC and all it had to offer. In very short order the ASP started inviting me to the YTC’s cultural and other functions. I attended a graduation ceremony for the boys who had completed the ADP, the annual Christmas concert and the Carnival celebrations. Family members were invited to all these events and so I was able to interact with my participants’ parents and also observe their family interaction.
Negotiating the use of the digital recorder was not quite as straightforward; a bubbly personality and ready smile certainly were not enough. I conducted my first two interviews without the use of my recorder and took handwritten notes.
It was painful. I also felt unable to truly engage with my participants conversationally as I had my head in my notebook, furiously writing notes. At the end of that first day of interviews I went to the SP and explained my dilemma; I was not completing surveys, nor did I have short qualitative questions. I was trying to have rich conversations with the inmates about their lives, hopes and dreams and I felt extremely hamstrung by having to take notes.
I was advised to draft a letter to the Commissioner of Prisons explaining my difficulty and was assured, that although he could not promise anything, the SP would favourably present my case. Two days later I was informed that the Commissioner had granted me permission to record my interviews. This was beneficial to me most obviously because it facilitated me getting rich, verbatim data. But it also proved beneficial in an unanticipated way; once word got around the institution that I had been allowed to bring in a recorder, there was more talk about my research among the officers and potential participants and it increased my status in the estimation of some of the prison officers. In conversation with two officers one day, after they asked me about what I was
59
doing, they responded that once they had heard that I was allowed to bring in a recorder they knew that I was conducting ‘serious research’.
My potential interview participants were less impressed by me; I fear that I did not make a very good first impression. I was conscious that I would have to negotiate access, not only with the prison authorities, but also with the convicted boys themselves. Copes and Hochstetler (2010) explain that in order to successfully acquire data, researchers in the prison setting must establish rapport, not just with prison officials, administrators and staff, but also with the offenders. In the early days of my fieldwork, I found it much easier to establish this rapport with the administration and staff than with my potential participants. I had requested of the ASP that I be allowed to address all my potential participants, that is, all of the convicted boys at the YTC, so that I could introduce myself to them, tell them about my study and give them some time to think about whether they wanted to participate. Brookman (2010: 87) explains that,
The benefits of meeting potential interviewees beforehand is that the researcher can take the time to carefully explain the aims of the research, to emphasise that information will be treated confidentially and more generally to demonstrate that the research is ethical.
So I was well-prepared with my consent forms, smart suit, and bubbly personality, ready to convince the boys that they wanted to participate in my study. However on that first day, most of them were not interested. I addressed the majority of boys, in three separate groups, telling them a little bit about myself and about my study. Many of the young men looked completely uninterested and some said straight away that they would not take part. One young man, in the second group that I addressed, interrupted me before I had spoken two sentences and we had the following exchange,
Him: Miss, how long this goin’ and take?
60
Me: Do you mean my research? I think that I will probably be here for the next six months but—
Him: Nah nah, I mean this lil talk. How long this goin’ and take?
Me: Oh…maybe 10 or 15 minutes?
Him: Alright then, you could go ahead.
Then he promptly put his head on the desk and ignored my presence for the rest of the time; he did not even look at me as he left the room. That day I was very dejected. I was convinced that only the three people who spoke to me after my introduction would consent to be interviewed and that I would have to completely rethink and restructure my PhD. The prison officers were not hopeful that I would get large numbers either; they reminded me that the reason that the boys had been sent to the YTC was because of their unwillingness to participate and engage in positive activities and the officers assured me that the boys were unlikely to change for my research. Yet, some of the boys who told me that they were not interested in participating had a valid and understandable reason for refusing—a few of them explained that they were fed up of researchers and students coming into the institution and asking them questions and they thought that all the talking failed to change anything.
At the end of my first day, I popped into the ASP’s office and told him that I was concerned about a lack of interest in my work. He advised me to give the boys some time to think it over, to get used to seeing me around the institution, and to bring in some biscuits or chocolates to share. In essence, I needed to negotiate access with the boys themselves. I tried to do this by engaging with the boys outside of the interview room, at institution functions and on the corridors. I spoke to them openly about myself, my research and my time in Cardiff. Rowe (2007: 38) explains that “access is not just established at the outset but, rather, a process of continuing negotiation and explanation.” This is
At the end of my first day, I popped into the ASP’s office and told him that I was concerned about a lack of interest in my work. He advised me to give the boys some time to think it over, to get used to seeing me around the institution, and to bring in some biscuits or chocolates to share. In essence, I needed to negotiate access with the boys themselves. I tried to do this by engaging with the boys outside of the interview room, at institution functions and on the corridors. I spoke to them openly about myself, my research and my time in Cardiff. Rowe (2007: 38) explains that “access is not just established at the outset but, rather, a process of continuing negotiation and explanation.” This is