Just Sentences: Human rights to enable participation and equity for prisoners and all

Abstract

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds up the right to opinion and expression for all. Just Sentences was a prison-based language-literacy pilot project for men, delivered by a speech-language pathologist in Tasmania, Australia. The pilot provided input into the various interpretative permutations of “just sentences”. It enabled skills of opinion and expression. This commentary takes language and social reciprocity to be privileged drivers of personal agency and pro-social personal freedom. It notes the role of hope as an agent of positive change, including in desistance from crime. It describes the project and shares the reflections of the speech-language pathologist who delivered it.

Keywords:

• Article 19
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• United Nations
• criminology
• prison
• crime
• reciprocity
• agency
• speech-language pathology
• healing

Introduction

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) declares that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. To exercise this right an individual must first have the means by which to express opinion. The assurance of the right must begin therefore with provision of the means. This provision commences in earliest life via access to the processes which permit human communication to develop – positive reciprocity and language. It is argued in this paper that diminished access to these processes creates a breach of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at its roots. Examples of diminishment of these processes include trauma, neglect and violence in childhood. These impoverishments have been linked with reduced health and language competence with lifelong implications (Anda et al., 2006; Hart & Risley, 1995; Locke, Ginsborg, & Peers, 2002; Perry, in press). Moreover, evidence is emerging of links between reduced language competence and crime (Snow & Powell, 2011). Provision of the means to express opinion through the enablement of communication skill is thus also linked to community safety and flourishing.

This commentary places its gaze on a subset of the “everyone” in Article 19. It is a subset comprised of those with lived experience of early communication challenges, crime and reduced means to express opinion – namely, functionally illiterate incarcerated men. The paper discusses the utility arising from positive reciprocity and language – with specific emphasis on literacy. It shows the empowerment of hope (Farrall & Calverley, 2006), the transformation of self-image (McNeill, 2012), and the freedom of opinion and expression that arises in the form of the men’s voices. These voices are important at the macro level of society and the micro level of the individual. The lived experience of reduced communication and of crime makes the men’s opinions and expressions important for increasing community safety and social equity. Moreover, respecting and listening to prisoners supports their personal capacity to change, that is, to develop and alter their life trajectories (Graham & White, 2015; McNeill, 2012).

Ward and Maruna (2007) stated that “Criminal actions… arise when individuals lack the internal and external resources to attain their goals in pro-social ways” (p. 111). They continued that “no assumption [is necessary] that… individuals are inherently or naturally good in an ethical sense. Rather because of their nature, human beings are more likely to function well if they have access to the various types of [primary human] good” (p. 115). They listed “life, knowledge, excellence in play and work, agency, inner peace, friendship, community, spirituality, happiness, creativity” (p. 113) as types of human good. Skills in positive reciprocity and language support the attainment of these primary human goods. Moreover, language underpins reflective dialogue; which supports growth of positive self-identity (Powell, Cooper, Hoffman, & Marvin, 2014). Both contribute to the change processes which lead to desistance from crime (McNeill, 2012). Supporting robust communication skills then, has implications for increased pro-social engagement of offenders, decreased victimisation of the community, and expanded social freedoms to be enjoyed by all.

Just Sentences

Just Sentences was a pro bono pilot project which used the skills of a speech-language pathologist to bring language and literacy instruction to four prison inmates (Martin, 2015). The project’s name reflects sympathy with the high intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where “just sentences” means “mere language”, it speaks of ready accessibility of language, and of hope for increasing skills in reading, writing and spoken interaction. Where it means “mere time”, it suggests acceptance; of using liberty-deprived time for the nourishment and growth which can come from reflection. Where “just sentences” means “rightful language”, it highlights words of honour; the right to communicate, to be educated, to grow language itself – a foundation of knowledge and personal agency. And in its final permutation, where “just sentences” means “rightful time”, it illuminates using time effectively and economically to build skills, redress past disadvantage, and as much as possible, make reparation for harm done (Martin, 2017).

Implementation of the project enfolded these notions. It showed that it is never too late to support dignity in the communicatively disadvantaged by expanding their communication skills. Two elements were key: (1) the manner of engagement: kind, non-judgmental, non-punitive; and (2) professionally delivered language and literacy intervention: quality assessment, individually nuanced, and evidence-based. With this combination, significant progress was effected, even within the rigidity and trauma of prison.

Just Sentences began with Participant 1 (P1) a non-reader in his fifties. P1 had participated in a regular prison-based literacy program for more than 12 months without progress. He could recognise a small repertoire of words by sight, but could not decode unfamiliar words. He reported that he had never read a book. Receptive vocabulary was in the low normal range; phonological awareness was very low (Table I). Intervention began with explanation of assessment results and a pathway plan; followed by drills to build phoneme manipulation and segmentation. As P1 developed discrimination and mental manipulation of phonemes, these were linked to graphemes. With this essential link revealed, P1 gained an understanding about the processes of reading. Within three months he could read texts of grade 3–5 level, and write many pages in a reflective journal each week (Martin, 2015).

Table I. Profile of prisoner participants in the Just Sentences project.

Previous programs	Skills at start	Program	Skills at end
Participant 1: 53 years
•Prior 12 months in prison-based program without progress•Intermittent participation in other intervention programs across adult life – without change	•Receptive vocabulary: standard score (SS): 87*•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 6;1 years**•Unable to perform phoneme deletions•Some sight words•Unable to decode unfamiliar words•No phonemically-based word attack•Asks for help to complete forms without first attempting	•Weekly sessions for 16 months•Extra SLP-prescribed practice with prison-based literacy teacher in first three months•Program continuing beyond release	•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 7:3 years**•Segmenting and deleting phonemes in consonant clusters•Using phonemic word attack consistently•Reading texts of grade 3–5 code complexity. Reading newspaper•Prolific daily reflective writing•Independently attempting completion of forms
Participant 2: 21 years
•Learned to write surname in prior month	•Receptive vocabulary: SS: 73*•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 5:3 years**•Able to segment syllables; unable to segment phonemes•Recognise own name in print•Write name•Knowledge of 5 letters of alphabet•No other reading or writing skills	•Weekly sessions for four months•Three sessions per week in final month	•Segmenting phonemes in CVCs•Deleting single consonants•Knowledge of 17 letters of alphabet•Decoding written CVCs•Writing CVCs in drill tasks
Participant 3: 26 years
•No intervention since school	•Receptive vocabulary: SS: 76*•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 5 years**•Able to segment syllables; unable to segment phonemes•Word attack: SS: 55***•Word identification: SS: 55***•Passage comprehension: SS: 66***	•Weekly sessions for three months•Weekly SLP-prescribed practice with prison-based literacy teacher	•Segmenting and deleting phonemes in consonant clusters•Enjoyment of repeated reading drills
Participant 4: 31 years
•Short engagement with prison-based literacy program years earlier•Previously labelled “immature”, “unmotivated” and “avoiding”	•Receptive vocabulary: SS: 83*•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 7;1 years**•Word attack: SS: 55***•Word identification: SS: 55***•Passage comprehension: SS: 56***•No voluntary reading•Infrequent independent letter writing	•Weekly sessions offered for 10 months before remeasuring skills (1/3 of offered sessions were declined) •Program continuing	Skills at 10 months:•Phonological segmentation: equivalent: 10;6 years**•Word attack: SS: 58***•Word identification: SS: 59***•Passage comprehension: SS: 79***•Voluntary reading of decodable classics•Daily reflective writing•Independent use of dictionary

Note. CVC, consonant vowel consonant, SS, Standard score, SLP, speech-language pathologist, *Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition (Dunn & Dunn, 2007), **Test of Auditory Processing Skills-Third Edition, (Martin & Brownell, 2005) ***Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Third Edition (Woodcock, 2011).

P1’s success arose through implementation of direct-instruction strategies well-known to speech-language pathologists, together with the enabling effects of a warmly connected relationship. It highlights the potential for transformation if such instruction and non-judgment were widespread. P1 wrote: “Thank you for finding time to come in to help me out. I still finding (sic) it hard but I am sticking with it. It’s new to me. I didn’t think I would able (sic) to do it”, “I seem to be happier and not as confused – bloody hell, I am using words I would never say!”, “I am doing this to make me better and I am happy that somebody has worked out how to”. Being ‘better’ and ‘happier’ are “viewed as two of the most common emotions associated with desisting [from crime]” (Farrall & Calverley, 2006, p. 111). P1’s success led to referral of three more men (Table I).

The men experienced dignity in the initial assessment. P3: “It kinda cleared my head. I had all these thoughts in my head, I felt like shit, but now I’m feeling good again”. Explanation of assessment results referenced the neurological bases of language and phonemic processing. Blame-free explanatory links were made to the men’s personal histories. Non-judgment and honour of personhood were central. Care was taken not to interact punitively or trigger shame. Each man reported having felt shame. P1: “They made ya feel bloody stupid”. All men responded with hope, statements of motivation and eagerness to engage with intervention. P2: “Yep, I wanna do it”, “Wouldn’t mind learning the rules of the road, coz I wanna get me licence”. Intervention was designed in response to each man’s individual differences – his processing and cognitive abilities, emotional triggers, history, social communication skills, personality and interests. The starting point for each was phonemic awareness. Results appear in Table I.

Literacy and more

Much more than growth in literacy emerged for the men. They all experienced hope that they could progress in language and master the written word. Their early success provided intrinsic enjoyment of literacy learning – a new experience for them. Comments included: “This is real different to any other education I’ve had – I get it”, “I never thought I’d read a book”, “How come no one’s done this way before?”, “The learning is fun once I get a roll-on with it”, “Thank you for working me out”.

Eluding them all their lives, and likely having contributed to the cascade of events which brought imprisonment, they saw that “mere language” was within their grasp. Time in positive, purposeful, individually sensitive, reflective relationship revealed and enabled it. P2: “I always knew I could learn to read, I just needed someone to show me”. Their enjoyment and progress highlighted the travesty of their past learning experiences.

Many in prison reported that they become categorically labelled “unable to progress”, “unmotivated” and “immature”. In fact, they may be confused and made too vulnerable through use of unscientific, unskilled and/or judgmental pedagogy (Martin & Barns, 2015). P1: “I just gave up. [Previous tutors] always put me down”. In the shame of not being able to read, an overwhelming vulnerability about entering learning programs is commonly reported for prisoners. Just Sentences suggested that motivation and hope can be sensitively uncovered from within this vulnerability; eliciting engagement and hope-filled expectations. Manner of engagement was key: consistently kind and respectful interaction; combined with professionally delivered intervention: explanation of clear learning pathways and instruction structured to provide consistent authentic success and enjoyable repetition. Systems are needed to consistently enable this redemptive combination within prison programs.

Reflection and connection

Once the Just Sentences men were writing (P1 and P4 achieved this in the available time) they were encouraged to write reflectively about their lives (Martin, 2017). These transformational writings were voluntarily shared. This deepened the trustful connection with the speech-language pathologist. The ensuing conversation supported further reflection. Indeed, reflective dialogue was part of every session for all participants. The men all expressed gratitude and spoke of a desire to help others. Other comments on reflection and personal transformation included: “I will never forget that saying ‘the pen is more mightier than the sword’, that saying really hit me”, “I don’t even see myself as a crim anymore”, “New life when I get out: new start, new life”, “That guy Nelson Mandela – has anyone written any books about him… like, that I could read?”

The language-literacy program provided the reason for the participant and speech-language pathologist to work together and the men’s early success helped establish relational trust. However, it was the sharing of the status of “fellow human beings” – accepting, non-judgmental – supporting the psychosocial security that empowered the helping relationship. Within these conditions the processes of positive change are supported to activate (McNeill, 2012; Powell et al., 2014): “We do not learn to greet our feelings, especially the difficult ones, alone. We learn to greet them in relationship” (Cooper, 2013). Of connection, comments included “I can tell you don’t hold a grudge”, “You really want to help”, “You are always kind… I wish there was a 50-letter word in the dictionary to describe people like you”.

Contributing to desistance

The literacy success and reflection allowed the men to know themselves better, process personal challenges, and gain clarity and hope about their futures. Hope “would appear to be the most noteworthy emotion in the [early] phase” of desistance from crime (Farrall & Calverley, 2006, p. 111). Desistance perspectives argue that it is essential to give power to the individual as the agent and mediator of their own change. McNeill (2012) honours this holism, pointing out that “the process of change exists before, behind and beyond the intervention” (p. 31). The personal insights arising from reflection and shared respect are vital helps to these change processes.

Conclusions

Four incarcerated men were drawn into a learning opportunity, years after their schooling. They readily made gains in connection and literacy. They were failed in their childhoods by the institutions responsible for transmitting these skills. The resulting shame and accrued disadvantage of this failure made victims of them. The seriousness of this state failure is multiplied however when their offending spreads victimisation to other innocents.

The roots of community safety and harmony are fostered by positive connection and respect. Connection and respect are created via warm reciprocity in communication. They are nourished by time in shared positive affect at any age. Where time in environments of shared positive affect has been denied to an individual, that time must later be found if safe, dignified amelioration of the personal diminishment arising from its lack is to be achieved. A paradigm shift is therefore needed: use of liberty-deprived time for restoration, healing and equipping of skills for a better life. It has been argued that society will be morally enlarged, and made safer and more harmonious through such freedom-expanding narratives of healing and restoration (Ward & Maruna, 2007).

Increasing equal access of opportunity to education and employment fosters healthy family and peer relationships and social integration, and creates leisure diversions which are positive and enriching (Agnew, 2006; Wozniak, 2008). These are all underpinned by reciprocity and language that expands freedom for opinion and expression by all citizens (the “everyone” of Article 19) – including those temporarily separated from their communities.

For speech-language pathologists and all others building skills and pro-social learning in prison settings, kind interaction and warm reciprocity are not trimmings. They are the essential enablers. Just as they enable communication at the beginning of life, so, too, they continue this work through all forms of learning, no matter when, no matter where.

Declaration of interest

There are no real or potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript.