Exploring the perspectives of young offenders and correctional officers on rehabilitation programmes in Malawi: A mixed methods study

Abstract

The young people on the wrong side of the law are incarcerated at specific penitentiaries known as Young Offenders' Rehabilitation Centres (YORCs) in Malawi. Using the good lives model and risk needs responsivity principles, this study sought to explore the perspectives of young offenders and correctional officers on the nature and meaningfulness of the offenders’ rehabilitation at the five YORCs in Malawi. The study involved 340 participants in mixed-methods research utilising a convergent design. Specifically, the study involved randomly selected 290 young offenders (mean age = 19.8) in a descriptive survey, 25 ex-offenders and 25 correctional officers in semi-structured interviews. The key findings were that although most inmates were socio-economically disadvantaged, signalling the need for comprehensive rehabilitation, the study found that both inmates and correctional offenders viewed correctional activities in the YORCs as not inadequate. Thus, a few rehabilitative activities, such as education, farming and skills training, were haphazardly accessible at various YORCs. Many young offenders were forced to work in prison farms at three facilities disregarding their educational statuses. It was concluded that offender rehabilitation was not handled as a constitutionally mandated obligation in Malawi since the rehabilitation centres focused on security and agricultural productivity.

Full text

SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Exploring the perspectives of young offenders
and correctional officers on rehabilitation
programmes in Malawi: A mixed methods study
Samson Chaima Robin Kajawo
1
* and Lineo Rose Johnson
1
Abstract: The young people on the wrong side of the law are incarcerated at
specific penitentiaries known as Young Offenders' Rehabilitation Centres (YORCs) in
Malawi. Using the good lives model and risk needs responsivity principles, this study
sought to explore the perspectives of young offenders and correctional officers on
the nature and meaningfulness of the offenders’ rehabilitation at the five YORCs in
Malawi. The study involved 340 participants in mixed-methods research utilising
a convergent design. Specifically, the study involved randomly selected 290 young
offenders (mean age = 19.8) in a descriptive survey, 25 ex-offenders and 25 correc-
tional officers in semi-structured interviews. The key findings were that although
most inmates were socio-economically disadvantaged, signalling the need for com-
prehensive rehabilitation, the study found that both inmates and correctional
offenders viewed correctional activities in the YORCs as not inadequate. Thus,
a few rehabilitative activities, such as education, farming and skills training, were
haphazardly accessible at various YORCs. Many young offenders were forced to
work in prison farms at three facilities disregarding their educational statuses. It
was concluded that offender rehabilitation was not handled as a constitutionally
mandated obligation in Malawi since the rehabilitation centres focused on security
and agricultural productivity.
Subjects: Adult Education and Lifelong Learning; Sociology of Education; Human Rights
Law & Civil Liberties; Education; Sociology
Keywords: ex-offenders; Malawi prisons; prison farms; rehabilitation; young offenders
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Samson Chaima Robin Kajawo holds a PhD in Education from the University of South Africa. His
research background is in the incarcerated people’s rights and access to education in correctional
facilities. His research interests also include education quality, prisoners’ rehabilitation, as well as
prisoners’ conjugal rights and visits in Africa. He has worked in Malawi Prisons Service for 23 years in
posts related to staff training and prisoners’ education. He also teaches part-time at various univer-
sities in Malawi.
Lineo R. Johnson is an Associate Professor at the University of South Africa, School of Educational
Studies. Her academic background is in adult education specializing in correctional (adult) education in
the Department of Adult, Community and Continuing Education. She has researched and published
widely in correctional education, adult literacy, community development and indigenous knowledge
systems.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu-
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Received: 19 July 2023
Accepted: 24 October 2023
*Corresponding author: Samson
Chaima Robin Kajawo, Department of
Adult, Community & Continuing
Education, University of South Africa,
Pretoria, South Africa
E-mail: samsonkajawo@gmail.com
Reviewing editor:
Komalsingh Rambaree, Social Work
and Criminology, University of Gävle,
Sweden
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Page 1 of 17

1. Introduction
Rehabilitation of offenders has emerged as a critical function of correctional systems worldwide.
Before the rehabilitation regime, imprisonment was aimed at incapacitating and extracting retri-
bution from the offenders and deterring the would-be ones, thus, preventing crime in society
(Cullen & Gilbert, 2013; Durrant, 2018). In Malawi, Burton et al. (2005) observe that prison life was
dehumanising in the late 1990s with little consideration of offenders’ well-being and health.
Offenders’ rehabilitation was not a priority. Thus, offenders were involved in punitive labour or
let to stay idle in prisons for the rest of their sentences (Kajawo & Johnson, 2023). Prisons’ priority
was ensuring that prisoners did not escape. Incarceration did not regard the well-being of
offenders as citizens who would need to continue living after their release. There were no planned
rehabilitation programmes even for young prisoners apart from skills training which were intended
to enable them to provide forced labour within the prisons (Mwakilama, 2010). The understanding
was that severe punishment would deter re-offending. Rehabilitation would accidentally happen
as a result of individuals’ personal decision to change due to the pains of imprisonment. However,
in modern times, rehabilitation is now given priority, especially to incarcerated young people. It is
after realising that incapacitation and deterrence were ineffective (e.g. Brym & Lie, 2018; Cullen &
Gilbert, 2013; Durrant, 2018). The emphasis is put on young offenders because they are considered
as one of the special vulnerable groups (Fambasayi & Moyo, 2020; Nowak, 2019; United Nations,
1989). Thus, they need comprehensive rehabilitation programmes.
For this reason, young offenders are lodged in five special facilities known as “Young
Offenders” Rehabilitation Centres’ (YORCs) in Malawi to access comprehensive rehabilitation
activities suitable for their ages (Kajawo, 2019; Kajawo & Johnson, 2023, 2023; Kajawo &
Nyirongo, 2022). Young offenders are inmates which the UN Economic Commission for Africa
(2017) prescribes as young people between the ages of 15 and 24. These are the juvenile
offenders whom Section 2 of the Malawi Prisons Act described as “young prisoner[s] . . . under
the apparent age of 19 years and may, at the discretion of an officer in charge, include a prisoner
whose apparent age does not exceed 20 years” who are incarcerated at YORCs (Government of
Malawi, 2018b, p. 1896). In 2022, there were five YORCs out of 30 correctional facilities in Malawi
(Kajawo & Johnson, 2023; Kajawo & Nyirongo, 2022). YORCs are obliged to provide comprehen-
sive rehabilitation programmes that include formal education to the school-aged young offen-
ders in their custody (Kajawo & Johnson, 2023; United Nations, 2015). Are these YORCs being, in
reality, used as rehabilitation centres? This study examines the perspectives of young offenders
and correctional officers on the nature of rehabilitation programmes accessible to teenagers and
other young people in the YORCs in Malawi.
1.1. Offenders’ rehabilitation concept in penitentiary facilities
Rehabilitation is vague and poorly defined between and within the legal, criminological and
sociological disciplines (Forsberg & Douglas, 2022; Meijer, 2017). Referring to the same rehabilita-
tion processes, some scholars use the term “reform” as actions aiming at altering offenders’
personalities, while “rehabilitation” as aiming at improving offenders’ skills, capacities, and oppor-
tunities (Forsberg & Douglas, 2022; McNeill, 2014; Meijer, 2017). In other literature, the terms
“treatment”, “desistance” and “integration” are also employed (Durrant, 2018, p. 384). Forsberg
and Douglas (2022) also observe that some scholars perceive “reform” as an old practice of
providing opportunities to offenders while “rehabilitation” as a more recent practice in which
psychological interventions are applied to correct offenders’ character traits, motivations, beha-
viours and attitudes. It is aimed at building human and social capital in incarcerated individuals to
reduce their chances of reoffending after release (Piquero et al., 2010). This article is guided by
Durrant’s (2018) definition of offender rehabilitation as a collection of psychosocial programmes
and services that assist offenders in addressing a range of needs related to their offending
behaviour to lead to productive and satisfying lives. The services should range from educational,
works-based, offender personality treatments to cognitive behavioural programmes (Blinkhorn
et al., 2020; Durrant, 2018; McNeill, 2014; Wilson, 2016).
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 2 of 17

1.2. Evolution of the offender rehabilitation concept
Rehabilitation has evolved in practice and methods through the years. In the early period, the
penitentiary was “where the sinner is allowed to reflect soberly on their behaviour, and on how to
reform themselves” (McNeill, 2014, p. 4198). During those days, isolation, forced obedience and
labour were the main principles guiding the management of prisons (Pollock, 2014). Offenders
were thought to be “men of idle habits, vicious propensities, and depraved passions . . . ” who
needed to be isolated to have the time for reflection as part of their rehabilitation (Rothman, 1971,
p. 579). The understanding was that offenders needed to be taught virtues of obedience which
would eventually enhance public respect for order and authority (Pollock, 2014; Rothman, 1971).
Imprisonment was perceived as rehabilitative, enabling individuals to self-retrospect and settle
their debts created through crime (McNeill, 2014). However, these methods did not divert much
from the old retributive methods of banishment since they still assumed an offender as evil or
weak and needed to be isolated from society to be taught societal values (Pollock, 2014).
More progressive medically-based interventions (medical model) later superseded these classi-
cal methods. Professionals were involved in correcting and solving individual offenders’ physical
and psychological problems through individualised treatments (Campbell, 2005; Cullen & Gilbert,
2013; McNeill, 2014). However, medically-based interventions were strongly criticised due to their
coercive nature and emphasis on control and discipline rather than the offender’s welfare (Durrant,
2018; Forsberg & Douglas, 2022). Practitioners depended on science to solve individual offenders’
problems. Penitentiaries began to be considered state-controlled laboratories where the poor and
criminals needed to be coercively “fixed” or “changed” by social workers and psychiatrists (Pollock,
2014, p. 11). However, rehabilitative efforts should not aim at “fixing” or “altering” offenders
implying “that something is wrong with them and they need to be ‘fixed’” (Forsberg & Douglas,
2022, p. 108). Instead, rehabilitation should be both a social and personal endeavour that con-
siders the social, cultural, and moral context of offenders’ lives to assist them in deciding to turn
away from anti-social to pro-social lives (Durrant, 2018; Forsberg & Douglas, 2022). The varying
offenders’ needs should guide in determining the rehabilitative activities provided (Meijer, 2017).
As a result, modern evidence-based approaches were conceptualised and practised as improve-
ments to the offender rehabilitation theory. Among many approaches, the risk needs responsivity
(RNR) and good lives model (GLM) have been globally acknowledged as the best theoretical models
for guiding offender rehabilitation (Andrews et al., 2011; Durrant, 2018; Forsberg & Douglas, 2022;
Mallion & Wood, 2020). The emphasis in these modern approaches is that offender rehabilitation
programming ought to be guided by a comprehensive plan that considers the offender’s crimino-
genic risk factors, incorporating the offender’s strengths and relevant environmental factors to
provide the right competencies and resources necessary to help individuals realise their pro-social
goals (Durrant, 2018; Ward & Brown, 2004). Firstly, the RNR model targets offenders’ criminogenic
needs and matches the intervention to the offenders’ strengths and abilities (Durrant, 2018). It
guides through their three key concerns in rehabilitation programming, which are; (1) who should
be targeted for intervention (the risk principle); (2) what should be treated (the need principle); (3)
how do practitioners rehabilitate the individual (Andrews et al., 2011; Durrant, 2018).
GLM is considered an expansion and “ . . . a complementary theory to RNR” (Mallion & Wood,
2020; Ward & Maruna, 2007, p. 142). It is a “strength-based” and restorative offender rehabilita-
tion approach that focuses on enriching positive factors to help individuals desist from offending
(Durrant, 2018, p. 397; Mallion & Wood, 2020). GLM aims to improve offenders’ internal and
external resources to enable them to live meaningful lives at both personal and social levels.
The typical personalised GLM programming has five phases. The first phase involves evaluating the
criminogenic needs of each offender, similar to the RNR model’s risk and need principle. This phase
is followed by clinical psychologists isolating the previous offender’s anti-social primary good(s).
The third phase involves the selection of secondary goods, and evaluating the offender’s environ-
ment related to the potential schooling or employment options, leisure events, community
aspects, and the available support to be included in the new Good Lives Plan (Ward & Gannon,
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 3 of 17

2006). The fourth phase involves evaluating the offender’s environment such as their living
arrangements after release and their schooling or employment options to come up with a new
Good Lives Plan (Ward & Gannon, 2006). In the final phase, the offender is assisted in ascertaining
a new meaningful lifestyle by identifying their areas of competence that need improvement for the
successful fulfilment of their plans, such as re-education, re-socialisation and the reinstatement of
full citizenship (McNeill, 2012; Ward & Gannon, 2006). Therefore, a typical good life plan for
a juvenile offender of school age needs to integrate education with other activities in response
to his or her criminogenic needs.
GLM has been commended for offering a personalised approach to treatment as compared to
RNR’s structured treatment, which is guided by a static curriculum (Ward & Gannon, 2006). GLM’s
strength-based approach guided by positive psychology is also commended as compared to RNR’s
focus on offenders’ risks of recidivism (Ward et al., 2012). Moreover, GLM’s focus on both low and
high-risk offenders is also commended as compared to RNR’s only focus on high-risk offenders in
the rehabilitation programming (Hannah-Moffat, 2005).
Nonetheless, both RNR and GLM provide detailed guidelines for rehabilitation programming. They
both advocate for the involvement of individual offenders in developing their individualised reha-
bilitation plans, in contrast to the medical model’s coercive rehabilitation (Ward & Gannon, 2006).
Studies have proven that effective rehabilitation programming for young offenders needs to
incorporate education programmes with activities that would assist in addressing the underlying
psychological offending factors crucial in young offenders’ correctional intervention (Wilson, 2016).
Many incarcerated young offenders usually have experienced multiple social disadvantages even
before their imprisonment (Johnson & Quan-Baffou, 2022). Most are often illiterate, school drop-
outs, substance abusers or addicts; some have mental-related illnesses and lack vocational skills
(Hunt & Nichol, 2021; Nowak, 2019). Therefore, all criminogenic needs or risk factors, especially
those specific to the individuals, must be addressed to ensure the programme’s effectiveness.
Thus, GLM and RNR models’ comprehensive focus on addressing the criminogenic needs of
offenders, in this case, school-aged young offenders, using psychosocial, educational and other
vocational programmes provided an ideal guide for this study.
Studies show that Malawi has rehabilitation centres for young offenders (Kajawo, 2019; Kajawo
& Johnson, 2023, 2023). However, there are gaps in the literature regarding the nature of
rehabilitation programmes that incarcerated young people access in those facilities apart from
formal education and vocational skills training programmes that studies have revealed (Kajawo &
Nyirongo, 2022). Yet, studies conducted in some African countries indicate a scarcity of compre-
hensive rehabilitation programmes in facilities incarcerating young offenders (e.g. Ajah &
Ugwuoke, 2018; Bella et al., 2010; Samanyanga, 2016). Cognisance of the reality that little is
known if young people incarcerated in YORCs in Malawi are engaged in comprehensive rehabilita-
tion programmes as advocated by GLM and RNR models of rehabilitation, this study sought to
analyse the perceptions of current and former inmates as well as correctional officers on the
nature and meaningfulness of the offenders’ rehabilitation programming at the five YORCs in
Malawi.
2. Methodology
This study adopted a mixed-methods research approach, utilising the convergent design to gen-
erate and analyse qualitative and quantitative data concurrently (Creamer, 2018). The study
separately generated and analysed descriptive quantitative data from the incarcerated young
offenders and qualitative data from their released counterparts. Correctional officers were also
involved as participants to enhance the verification of data from offenders and ex-offenders. The
two data sets were later “compared or aggregated as part of the interpretation of findings, using
the convergent design” (Roni et al., 2020, p. 21). In this way, the descriptive quantitative data from
young offenders regarding the nature of rehabilitation activities in YORCs was complemented,
triangulated and validated with qualitative data from the ex-offenders and correctional officers.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 4 of 17

The choice of mixed-methods design was influenced by the purpose of this study. The study
intended to collect quantitative data from the generalisable sample of young offenders in
Malawi to analyse the young offenders’ perceptions regarding their rehabilitation programming.
However, this data did not provide reasons and justifications for their quantitative responses from
their lived experiences. The participants’ experiences are human-constructed realities that cannot
be easily captured in purely quantitative approaches (Creamer, 2018). Therefore, the exploration of
their lived experiences was better approached using qualitative procedures.
2.1. Participants
This study involved a total of 340 participants. The study selected 290 young offenders at the five
YORCs (38.5%, N = 748); 98% were male, while the remaining 2% were female. Simple random
sampling technique was used to select the incarcerated young offenders at each facility thereby
providing every member of the population “an equal chance of being selected” (Cohen et al., 2018,
p. 215). The sampling frame was established from the inmates’ admission or register books at
every facility. The young offenders’ ages were relatively distributed, as confirmed by a Shapiro-
Wilk’s test (p < .05) with a mean age of 19.8 years (mode = 18, sd = 1.86). The 38.5% sample of the
incarcerated young offenders population in Malawi enhanced the internal generalizability of the
findings (Cohen et al., 2018; Verma & Verma, 2020). Additionally, the study involved 25 ex-young
offenders (five previously incarcerated at each facility within three years). Ex-offenders released
from the targeted facilities within three years were identified and selected using quota and
snowball sampling techniques (Bachman & Schutt, 2018). The techniques were combined to
reach ex-young offenders with required predetermined characteristics who were identified and
contacted using the facility records’ information (Tracy, 2020). Finally, the study also involved 25
correctional officers to validate the findings collected from incarcerated and released young
offenders. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were their current involvement in rehabilitation-related
activities and the variation in work experience. The purposive sampling allowed the inclusion of
officers with variations in age and experience in correctional education.
2.2. Data generation procedures
The study had two phases of data collection. In the first qualitative phase, an inquiry was made on
the 25 correctional officers regarding their knowledge of the rehabilitation models, theories or
principles that the Malawi Prisons Service (MPS) was using. Their responses enabled the researcher
to proceed to the next phase, where the convergent design was fully utilised. A semi-structured
survey questionnaire was then used to generate data from the 290 young offenders, which
contained closed and open-ended question items. The questionnaire included demographic
items for background data such as age, gender and offences committed. This was followed by
other items covering the current research scope with a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended
response spaces to allow them to explain or justify their close-ended items’ options. The ques-
tionnaire items covered; (a) elements needed in evaluating offenders’ criminogenic needs, such as
the crime/offence they committed and their academic backgrounds, and (b) indicators of the
availability and use of individualised rehabilitation plans, such as their involvement in various
rehabilitation activities such as psychosocial interventions, education, vocational skills training
and farming. Additionally, the study used semi-structured interview guides to generate data
from ex-offenders and correctional officers. The qualitative data generated from ex-offenders
and correctional officers helped “to cast further explanatory insight into survey data” and to
explore rehabilitation issues in depth (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 506).
2.3. Data analysis
Data from this study’s quantitative and qualitative components were separately analysed and
integrated to expose areas of convergence and discrepancy in the findings. Quantitative data were
coded, classified, and summarised descriptively with the help of SPSS version 22.0. Descriptive
analysis included frequency distribution, means, percentages and cross-tabulations, which
assisted in summarising, comparing and exploring the data (George & Mallery, 2020). Some open-
ended response data were converted using content analysis (quasi-statistics) into descriptive
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 5 of 17

statistics to enhance the testing of the qualitative claims (Maxwell, 2012). The qualitative data
from ex-young offenders and correctional officials were analysed using a narrative approach
(Cohen et al., 2018). Data were transcribed and read several times to gain an overall sense of
the meaning. The researchers combined a holistic approach with functional coding and categor-
isation advocated by Mishler (1986) to create a rich picture from the stories of released young
people regarding their incarceration and rehabilitation experiences.
In this mixed-methods study, the reliability and validity of data were enhanced mainly through
the triangulation of multiple sources (Maxwell, 2012; McMillan & Schumacher, 2014). Open-ended
explanations in the questionnaires helped in providing clarifications and justifications for the
Likert-type scale responses. Data from incarcerated young offenders was compared with data
from correctional officers and ex-inmates which enabled the study to gain quantitative criterion-
related validity called “evidence of concurrent validity” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p. 152). The
comparison and verification of data also enhanced the strength of qualitative data. Moreover,
a pilot study was conducted at one of the prisons not included in this study on similar groups of
participants to test the data collection instruments (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). The reliability test
for the young offenders’ questionnaire constructs found that all constructs were within the
acceptable and good reliability range [0.62 ≤ α < 0.94] (Emerson, 2019).
2.4. Ethical considerations
Before data collection, ethical clearance was sought from the UNISA and MPS authorities. In all the
interviews, the researcher took notes and audio-recorded the narratives and stories. The participants
were identified using codes “YO” (young offender), “Ex-YO” (ex-young offender) and “CO” (correc-
tional officer) combined with their respective facility codes and their given unique numbers. The
coding was meant to enhance their anonymity. The facilities involved in this study are identified in
this article using the researcher’s allocated names reflecting the unique characteristics of individual
facilities to ease the readers’ identification of the issues with particular facilities. The names are NGO-
supported (F1), gender-mixed (F2), modern-built (F3), city-situated (F4) and pure-farming facilities
(F5). Before every interview or administration of questionnaires, all study respondents were informed
regarding the study’s purpose, procedure and ethical issues and that they had the right to participate
or not or stop participating at any time. Every participant who voluntarily accepted to be involved in
this study was requested to sign or fingerprint on the consent forms. Moreover, permission was
specifically requested for the use of audio recorders in interview schedules. The safety of participants
was ensured in this study by not including participants’ names on any data collection instrument or
dissemination platforms to ensure their anonymity and confidentiality.
3. Findings
To successfully address the offenders’ rehabilitation needs, the correctional service’s rehabilitation
efforts are strongly advised to be grounded on particular rehabilitation models, theories or prin-
ciples (Durrant, 2018; Forsberg & Douglas, 2022; Lugo et al., 2019). To enhance their utilisation, the
employees should know and understand those models and their implementation strategies
(Alfayez, 2020; Salum et al., 2017). Therefore, the study initially inquired from the correctional
officers at the five YORCs on their knowledge regarding the service’s rehabilitation models, theories
or principles. The results were that all 25 correctional officers were unaware of any rehabilitation
models, theories, principles, or strategies. These findings compelled the researchers to move to the
next phase of this study: to analyse the correctional practices in the five YORCs using the
rehabilitation principles inscribed in the modern theories (GLM and RNR) to determine the nature
and meaningfulness of the offenders’ rehabilitation practices. The study, therefore, analysed the
level of the offenders’ criminogenic needs’ intervention and the involvement of young offenders as
clients in their individualised rehabilitation plans.
3.1. The level of the offenders’ criminogenic needs’ intervention at YORCs
Offender rehabilitation programming needs initial activities identifying the individual offenders’
criminogenic needs to ascertain the right interventions (Mallion & Wood, 2020; Ward & Gannon,
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 6 of 17

2006). It would be relevant in the Malawian context in which this study’s demographic data
showed that many young offenders (56%) were incarcerated for economic-related offences such
as theft, robbery, fraud and wildlife poaching. The remaining 44% (n = 290) were incarcerated for
violence-related offences, namely; rape, defilement, murder, manslaughter, abortion, physical
injuries, child abuse, narcotics dealings and household delinquency. Specifically, 27% (n = 290)
were incarcerated for sex offences (rape and defilement). These statistics denote the emotional
and economic vulnerability of many incarcerated young people that makes them socially disad-
vantaged, signalling the need for comprehensive rehabilitation programming to target identifying
and addressing the offenders’ underlying psychosocial needs (Andrews et al., 2011; Blinkhorn
et al., 2020; Durrant, 2018; Forsberg & Douglas, 2022). However, the study found that young
offenders, including sex offenders, were not involved in any activities to evaluate their crimino-
genic needs. Table 1 depicts the young offenders’ responses to the Likert Scale question items
from “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5) regarding their perceptions of their involvement
in each item stated.
Table 1 shows that 88% of young offenders (m = 4.35, sd = 1.15) indicated “disagree” and
“strongly disagree” with the claim that they had sessions with psychologists or any social worker
regarding their offences and their pre-incarceration relationship with others in their communities.
It ought to be a crucial aspect of case management service. Identifying criminogenic needs
determines the choices of activities in the individualised rehabilitation plans of offenders (Ward
& Gannon, 2006). Generally, the admission process and practice at the five facilities comprised
a compilation of offenders’ profiles for record purposes. It was noted that this procedure typically
followed a brief induction to the facilities’ rules and regulations, as the following young offender
described:
When I arrived here, I was taken to the reception by the gatekeepers, who welcomed me
and asked if I was convicted. They informed me that instead of the five years of my
sentence, I would only serve two-thirds, which is three years and four months. Then they
made me sign the records. I was then given the prison uniform, and they confiscated my
clothes to be taken to the stores. They then oriented me on life in prison and how I can
relate to others. (F2/YO/06)
On my first day here, I was asked about my properties to be recorded. I was then inter-
viewed on my health history, and the chronic illnesses I have if I have them. . . After being
released from quarantine, we were given prison uniforms and we were let to mix with other
inmates. (F3/YO/11)
When the admission was taking place at a farming prison, the next activity was usually farming for
the new inmate, as indicated by one young offender at the gender-mixed facility.
When I arrived here, I went to that office [pointing at one of the offices] where I was asked
to stamp on the records. After that, they gave me a prison uniform and informed me about
the date I was expected to be released. I was asked to put on the uniform. I was later told
that I would work on the farm. (F2/YO/09)
This admission procedure was confirmed by the correctional officers and the ex-offenders involved
in this study. Correctional officers also added that the admission process also involved health
screening. In some cases, young offenders were further oriented by the nyapalas. These inmates
were made to be in charge of other inmates by the correctional authorities. The nyapalas would
further orient them on rules and regulations. However, the nyapalas would sometimes bully and
torture the newly admitted inmates who showed some attitudes, as explained by a 19-year-old
admitted when he was 18.
When the prison officers admitted and welcomed me, I was handed over to an in-charge
called nyapala. He took me behind there [pointing at behind one of the cells] called
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 7 of 17

Table 1. Young offenders’ perceptions on their involvement in the rehabilitation planning process
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Dev Std.
Error
Lower bound Upper bound Min Max
I had sessions with a psychologist or social worker regarding my offence, and how I related with my community, family, friends and teachers at school
NGO-supported 60 4.00 1.302 .168 3.66 4.34 1 5
Gender-mixed 65 4.45 1.132 .140 4.17 4.73 1 5
Modern-built 60 3.82 1.308 .169 3.48 4.15 1 5
City-situated 60 4.72 .865 .112 4.49 4.94 1 5
Pure farming 45 4.91 .358 .053 4.80 5.02 3 5
Total 290 4.35 1.147 .067 4.22 4.48 1 5
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 8 of 17

‘butchery’. . . It is where you are beaten and whipped by the nyapalas as if they are killing an
animal. They beat you to remove the negative tendencies you came with outside before
orienting you on basic prison regulations . . ..
Many inmates and ex-inmates reported these ill-treatments and physical abuses by fellow inmates
at all five facilities. From the inmates’ narratives, it was reported that some correctional officials
were aware and encouraged the nyapalas to bully and ill-treat the newly admitted teenagers who
showed traits of rudeness, defiance and bad conduct which were considered another way of
disciplining and shaping their behaviours. Generally, these findings show that young offenders in
the five YORCs were not involved in the initial activities aimed at identifying the individual
offenders’ criminogenic needs to ascertain the right rehabilitation interventions in the correctional
facilities.
3.2. Young offenders’ individualised rehabilitation plans
The GLM theory advocates for practitioners to work with offenders to develop an individualised
rehabilitation plan during their stay in the facilities (Ward & Gannon, 2006). This study’s survey
asked the young offenders if they had an individualised rehabilitation plan. Table 2 shows their
responses to the Likert Scale question items from “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5).
Table 2 shows that 94% of young offenders indicated “strongly disagree” and “disagree” with
the statement that they had individual rehabilitation plans (m = 4.68, sd = 0.65) and the assertion
that their incarceration activities were within their individualised rehabilitation plan (m = 4.63, sd =
0.71). Correctional officers and ex-offenders confirmed the absence of individualised rehabilitation
plans. It was confirmed that inmates were haphazardly involved in the available activities. Inmates
were never involved in their rehabilitation planning. Thus, they were only involved in the conve-
niently available activities. From the survey’s inquiry, the activities accessible to male offenders
were education, farming, vocational and technical skills (e.g. carpentry, motor vehicle mechanics
and tailoring), sports, drama and religious activities. All these responses were coded for descriptive
presentation, as illustrated in Table 3.
From Table 3, many young offenders reported being engaged in farming at four facilities
excluding at city-situated facility. Farming was followed by education. Of 425 counts representing
100% of the young offenders’ sample, 42% indicated farming, while 32% indicated education.
However, there were no rehabilitation activities in the female section of the gender-mixed facility
(the only facility with female inmates). It meant that all female inmates at this facility were
staying idle from the day of admission to their release without any involvement in any rehabilita-
tive efforts.
Furthermore, education programmes were not available at one facility (pure-farming facility)
where all inmates (male) indicated to have been only involved in farming despite the majority
indicating to need education. Furthermore, more than 90% of young offenders in this study
reported that they were never involved in any counselling and guidance sessions or any other
psychosocial activities as part of their rehabilitation programming during their whole incarceration
periods. There were no psychosocial services at all five YORCs for the young offenders’ access,
apart from religious counselling programmes such as Prisoners’ Journey, and informal peer HIV
and AIDs counselling activities reported by a few individuals. Correctional officers explained that
Prisoners’ Journey was a religious programme aimed at guiding and initiating reformation in the
newly admitted inmates based on Christian values.
It was noted that these available activities in the male sections were conveniently allocated to
the participants without any planned assessment of the individual rehabilitation needs of parti-
cular offenders. For education, it could take the intrinsic motivation of a particular young offender
to register and attend classes since they were offered voluntarily at the four facilities. In contrast,
the study found that involvement in farming was compulsory and coercive at the three farming
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 9 of 17

Table 2. Young offenders’ perceptions on their involvement in the rehabilitation planning process
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Dev Std.
Error
Lower bound Upper bound Min Max
I have a correctional rehabilitation or intervention plan
NGO-supported 60 4.37 .991 .128 4.11 4.62 1 5
Gender-mixed 65 4.91 .341 .042 4.82 4.99 3 5
Modern-built 60 4.25 .600 .077 4.09 4.41 2 5
City-situated 60 4.98 .129 .017 4.95 5.02 4 5
Pure farming 45 4.93 .330 .049 4.83 5.03 3 5
Total 290 4.68 .648 .038 4.60 4.75 1 5
All activities and programmes I have been involved in and within my correctional rehabilitation or intervention plan
NGO-supported 60 4.28 .993 .128 4.03 4.54 1 5
Gender-mixed 65 4.92 .322 .040 4.84 5.00 3 5
Modern-built 60 4.23 .621 .080 4.07 4.39 2 5
City-situated 60 4.98 .129 .017 4.95 5.02 4 5
Pure farming 45 4.76 .773 .115 4.52 4.99 1 5
Total 290 4.63 .709 .042 4.55 4.72 1 5
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 10 of 17

Table 3. Cross tabulations: activities involving young offenders
Facility None Education Farming Vocat/Tech Religious
activities
Others Total
NGO-supported: Count 2 36 47 12 5 6 108
% within the
facility
1.9% 33.3% 43.5% 11.1% 4.6% 5.6% 100.0%
Gender-mixed: Count 1 37 49 9 27 5 128
% within the
facility
0.8% 28.9% 38.3% 7.0% 21.1% 3.9% 100.0%
Modern-built: Count 15 16 39 6 - 1 77
% within the
facility
19.5% 20.8% 50.6% 7.8% -1.3% 100.0%
City-situated: Count 12 48 - - 1 3 64
% within the
facility
18.8% 75.0% - - 1.6% 4.7% 100.0%
Pure farming: Count - - 45 1 1 1 48
% within the
facility
- - 93.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 100.0%
Total Count 30 137 180 28 34 16 425
% of total 7.1% 32.2% 42.4% 6.6% 8.0% 3.8% 100.0%
Notes: *Others include sports, Prisoners’ Journey, cleaning and drama.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 11 of 17

facilities (NGO-supported, gender-mixed and pure-farming facilities) as compared to the remaining
two facilities (modern-built and city-situated) which did not have farms. Almost all young offen-
ders incarcerated at the three facilities were coercively involved in farming, including the school-
attending teenagers.
We usually work on the farm in the morning. We then attend classes from 1 pm to 2 pm, for
an hour and sometimes two hours. Hence we only learn a single subject or two per day. So,
some inmates feel tired of attending classes after working on farms in the morning. (F2/YO/08)
I don’t like working on the farm. Farming is disrupting my education chances. Instead of
focusing on education to attend classes, we are often forced to go to the maize field to work. We
waste most of our time with farming, the time we would have used for our education. (F1/YO/01)
I wanted to continue with my education. But there is no school here [at pure farming
facility]. We are whipped when we are working on the farm. And we are forced to work
beyond our capacity. We do here the real “ntchito yakalavula gaga” (imprisonment with hard
labour). We don’t even have time to rest. (F5/YO/22)
The participants reported that the young offenders’ education was seriously affected during the
farming seasons since sometimes classes were suspended for weeks for the particular facilities to
concentrate on farming. The released young people and the correctional officers confirmed this.
The school in the prison is tricky because of our work on the farm. I had to drop out of school
and concentrate on the work we were forced to do. Whenever we went to the farm, we were
coming there while tired. So to go and attend classes took much work. Their focus is on
farming. You can easily miss classes, but you can only be allowed to excuse yourself from
farming if you are inviting trouble. (F1/EX-YO/02)
One educator faulted the MPS agriculture policy as a vice to young offenders’ rehabilitation.
The problem is the MPS agriculture policy. This facility is expected to produce food for other
adult prisons. Thus, the main activity is farming. Learners in all grades are engaged in
farming. So they work on the farm in the morning and attend their classes in the afternoon.
We would have always loved to teach them from the morning to afternoon, but due to this
policy that every facility should have a farm, we failed to do that because many learners
must be engaged in farming activities. This makes some inmates less interested in educa-
tion. (F1/CO/03)
According to this officer, correctional schools were only used as decorative banners for the
rehabilitation function of the MPS when in reality their priorities were on farming. In this study,
98% of young offenders at the three facilities where farming was compulsory reported that they
would not have chosen farming if they were allowed to choose because of its punitive aspect.
I don’t like working in the farm at all. Farming is disrupting my education chances. Instead of
focusing on education, we are often forced to go to the maize field to work. We waste most
of our time with farming, the time we would have used for our education. So if I had
a chance to choose, I would not accept being involved in farming (F1/YO/01)
Farming here is not attractive because it is like punishment. Before I came here, I used to
work in the maize field, and it was okay. But farming here is like bullying or teasing. The only
thing I do here is work at the farm. (F5/YO/25)
These narratives represented the norm in the perceptions and feelings of most respondents in this
study. These results just show that young offenders did not have individualised rehabilitation
plans. Thus, inmates were involved in activities conveniently available without ascertaining their
usefulness and effectiveness to their rehabilitation and reintegration needs.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 12 of 17

4. Discussion
This study concurred with the findings of many studies that many incarcerated young offenders
experience multiple social disadvantages mainly due to their personal and household back-
grounds of poverty and lack of education, signalling the need for comprehensive rehabilitation
programming (Blinkhorn et al., 2020; Byrd & McCloud, 2021; Durrant, 2018; Farley & Pike, 2018;
Forsberg & Douglas, 2022; Hunt & Nichol, 2021). However, the study found no programmes in
Malawi YORCs involving young offenders to evaluate their individual criminogenic needs to help
develop their individualised rehabilitation plans as advocated by the GLM. The study found that,
despite the availability of the legal framework and policies, the management of incarcerated
young people in the YORCs was not grounded on any rehabilitation theory or model and did not
follow the general principles advocated by modern offenders’ rehabilitation approaches (Durrant,
2018; Mallion & Wood, 2020; Ward & Gannon, 2006). Lugo et al. (2019) argue that grounding
offenders’ rehabilitation programmes on a particular correctional theory is essential for their
effectiveness. That is because rehabilitation theories or models act as conceptual maps guiding
the rehabilitation process (Durrant, 2018; Ward & Brown, 2004). As a result, young offenders
were haphazardly, conveniently and sometimes coercively involved in various activities, such as
education, farming, and religious and skills training, without any psychosocial programmes. Thus,
there were no individualised rehabilitation plans, and some programmes such as education and
skills training were accessible to young people only because they were conveniently available not
because they essentially needed to be included in their individualised rehabilitation plan. For
example, school-aged young offenders at the pure farming facility, who indicated that they
wanted to continue with their education, could not be enrolled because education was not
being offered at their facility. From their self-reporting in the survey, most young offenders
indicated to have been coercively involved in farming compared to voluntary programmes such
as education.
Studies have shown that comprehensive rehabilitation programmes that included psychosocial
interventions were accessible to young offenders in some correctional facilities in South Africa and
Zimbabwe in addition to standard programmes such as education and skills training (Fambasayi &
Moyo, 2020; Jules-Macquet, 2014; Samanyanga, 2016). However, many studies still report their
scarcity in many facilities, including those incarcerating young people in Nigeria, Zimbabwe,
Lesotho and Zambia (Ajah & Ugwuoke, 2018; Ngozwana, 2017; Samanyanga, 2016).
Samanyanga (2016) showed scepticism about the effectiveness of the purported rehabilitation
activities in Zimbabwean penitentiaries in addressing the needs of the offenders. The offenders
were haphazardly handpicked and allocated to the conveniently available rehabilitation pro-
grammes irrespective of their suitability and personal preference, concurring with what was
found in this study. Moreover, psychosocial interventions were accessible to very few inmates,
thus limiting their impact (Samanyanga, 2016). Like in Malawi, most offenders in Zimbabwe were
forced to work on farms, an activity perceived by the majority as punitive hard labour
(Samanyanga, 2016). Ngozwana (2017) also observed the lack of proper rehabilitation planning
for individual offenders in Lesotho since many offenders considered many skills programmes, such
as farming, punitive due to their coercive nature and absence of educational components.
The MPS was yet to hire or recruit professionals to assist in identifying and addressing incarcer-
ated offenders’ psychosocial and criminogenic needs. These professionals interact with young
offenders through diagnostic therapy, counselling and guidance sessions, especially those with
serious offences, to identify their rehabilitation needs and develop their individualised rehabilita-
tion plans (Durrant, 2018; Mallion & Wood, 2020). These professionals also engage with the
offenders in other programmes such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), chemical dependency
treatment (CDT), sex prisoner’s treatment, and substance abuse treatment in the form of therapy
or counselling before even starting other rehabilitation programmes offered in prisons (Duwe,
2017). Participants in this study indicated religious programmes such as “The Prisoners” Journey
(TPJ)“as assisting in guiding and initiating offenders” rehabilitations. However, as much as religious
counselling sessions can help, they cannot replace professional psychosocial interventions trained
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 13 of 17

personnel provide (Andrews et al., 1990; Duwe, 2017). Their absence and eventual absence of their
potential psychosocial and case management services indicated that young offenders were not
comprehensively involved in rehabilitation programming.
5. Conclusion
This study has revealed that rehabilitation was not yet being handled as an obligation of the YORCs
in Malawi as inscribed in the international and local laws. This study concurred with the findings of
many African studies that most incarcerated young offenders experience multiple pre-
incarceration social disadvantages signalling the need for comprehensive rehabilitation program-
ming (Fambasayi & Moyo, 2020; Jules-Macquet, 2014). This is usually not accessible in many
African correctional facilities (e.g. Ajah & Ugwuoke, 2018; Ngozwana, 2017; Samanyanga, 2016).
However, the study found that YORCs in Malawi lacked well-planned programmes to evaluate
offenders’ individual criminogenic needs to help develop their individualised rehabilitation plans.
Despite the availability of the legal framework and their claim to be a rehabilitation-oriented
organisation (Government of Malawi, 20182018b, 2018; Malawi Prisons Service, 2023b), the man-
agement of incarcerated young people in the YORCs was not grounded on any rehabilitation theory
or model. It did not follow the general principles advocated by modern offenders’ rehabilitation
approaches (Mallion & Wood, 2020; Ward & Maruna, 2007; Ward et al., 2012). Young offenders
were haphazardly, conveniently and sometimes coercively involved in various activities, such as
education, farming and skills training, without any psychosocial programmes. Moreover, many
offenders considered their incarceration punitive due to their coercive nature and absence of
psychosocial and other educational components. As it was, this study concluded that YORCs in
Malawi focused on offenders’ safe custody and agricultural productivity rather than rehabilitation.
6. Implications for policy and practice
This study has important implications for corrections policy and practice in African countries.
Firstly, correctional services needed to reconsider how they use farming as a rehabilitation tool
as indicated in their strategic statements (e.g. MPS, 2023a). From this study, it is evident that
offenders viewed farming as a punitive activity. Offenders have always been engaged in farming
from time immemorial in Malawi prisons (Kajawo, 2019). During the one-party regime, Malawi had
prison farms locally known for their brutalities, such as Matchaya (the whip) and Mzaleka (where
you stop criminal life due to severe pains), where prisoners were not well-treated. Unfortunately,
some inhumane traits still existed in the 2020s in the facilities called “Young Offenders”
Rehabilitation Centres’. It is common knowledge that farming is essential in Malawi since the
economy is driven predominantly by the agricultural sector, which accounts for nearly 80% of
employment (FAO, 2015); thus, farming can be a skills training tool for many offenders. However,
the modalities of its implementation needed to be reviewed to remove all coercion, inhumane and
degrading characteristics from the activity.
Secondly, there is a need for the correctional services to start putting into priority their constitu-
tional obligation of offering offenders various rehabilitation opportunities through proper sentence
planning to enable them to spend their time in correctional facilities constructively. Effective
rehabilitation programming has many benefits, such as reducing misconduct, lowering reoffend-
ing, and improving reintegration (Cullen & Gilbert, 2013; Durrant, 2018; Duwe, 2017; Murhula &
Singh, 2019). Rehabilitation efforts needed not to be haphazard and activities of convenience, as
was revealed in this study. They must be well-planned programmes administered by qualified
personnel (Murhula & Singh, 2019). In South Africa, some correctional facilities have case manage-
ment officers and psychologists who diagnose offenders and guide them after their admissions to
ensure they are provided with proper rehabilitation programmes and treatments (Murhula & Singh,
2019; Ngozwana, 2017). Likewise, MPS has already shown considerable effort in setting the
rehabilitation tone through its strategic plan and the 2020 organisation's functional review,
which have both included the much-needed psychosocial and case management services
(Kajawo & Johnson, 2023; MPS, 2023b). It would require authorities’ discipline and willpower to
recruit the right people to fill those vacancies rather than the traditional promotion of the existing
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 14 of 17

officers without those required skills. The MPS also need to invest in staff development in offenders’
rehabilitation to improve their knowledge of rehabilitation theories and their significance in the
correctional regime.
Even though the current findings have important implications for policy and practice on young
offenders’ rehabilitation in developing countries including Malawi, the findings need to be inter-
preted in the context that the study involved only young offenders’ centres. Thus, despite involving
an adequate sample of 38.5% of the young offenders’ population (N = 753) at the five YORCs for
the findings’ internal generalisability, triangulated by qualitative lived experiences of ex-inmates
and correctional officers, the findings cannot be generalised to all correctional facilities in Malawi
and other countries incarcerating adult offenders. This is because the management and the level
of rehabilitation and other activities or programmes in adult facilities are usually different from
those in young offenders’ correctional facilities. Nonetheless, the results serve as an essential
indicator of rehabilitation issues and challenges of people incarcerated in a typical developing
country’s penitentiaries.
Funding
This article is a product of a PhD study conducted by the
first author and supervised by the second author with
financial support from the Canon Collins Educational and
Legal Assistance Trust and the University of South Africa
Research Bursary Fund.
Author details
Samson Chaima Robin Kajawo
1
E-mail: samsonkajawo@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5029-9555
Lineo Rose Johnson
1
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3129-2088
1
Department of Adult, Community & Continuing
Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Ethical statement
This paper is based on qualitative research data from
a study ethically approved by the Malawi Prisons Service
authorities and the University of South Africa (UNISA)
College of Education Ethics Review Committee (Ref: 2021/
07/07/13450549/05/AM). The authors followed all ethical
requirements established by UNISA and the participants
were informed of their right to participate or not or stop
participating at any time, and that they were requested to
give their consent before they took part in the research.
Therefore, the material used in this article is the authors’
original work. This paper has not been previously pub-
lished elsewhere.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Exploring the perspectives of young
offenders and correctional officers on rehabilitation pro-
grammes in Malawi: A mixed methods study, Samson
Chaima Robin Kajawo & Lineo Rose Johnson, Cogent Social
Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123.
References
Ajah, B. O., & Ugwuoke, C. O. (2018). Juvenile justice
administration and child prisoners in Nigeria.
International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 13
(2), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
2658065
Alfayez, B. E. (2020). The relationship between cognitive
style and commitment to strategic planning in public
organisations. Management Science Letters, 10,
2655–2664. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.3.027
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2011). The
risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the
good lives model contribute to effective crime
prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7),
735–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093854811406356
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J.,
Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional
treatment work? A clinically relevant and psycholo-
gically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3),
369–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.
tb01330.x
Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. (2018). Fundamentals of
research in criminology and criminal justice (4th ed.).
SAGE Publications.
Bella, T. T., Atilola, O., & Omigbodun, O. (2010). Children
within the juvenile justice system in Nigeria:
Psychopathology and psychosocial needs. Annals of
Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 8(1), 34–39. https://
doi.org/10.4314/aipm.v8i1.80344
Blinkhorn, V., Petalas, M., Walton, M., Carlisle, J.,
McGuire, F., Kane, S., & Moore, J. (2020).
Understanding offender managers’ views and
experiences of psychological consultations. European
Journal of Probation, 13(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2066220320976112
Brym, R. J., & Lie, J. (2018). SOC+: Introduction to sociology
(3rd Canadian ed.). Nelson Thomson Learning.
Burton, P., Pelser, E., & Gondwe, L. (2005). Understanding
offending. Prisoners and rehabilitation in Malawi.
https://issafrica.org/research/books/understanding-
offending-prisoners-and-rehabilitation-in-malawi
Byrd, R. C., & McCloud, H. (2021). Sisyphus no more. The
case for prison education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Campbell, K. M. (2005). Rehabilitation theory. In
M. Bosworth (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of prisons and cor-
rectional facilities (pp. 831–834). SAGE Publications.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Marrison, K. (2018). Research
methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge Press.
Creamer, E. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated
mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (2013). Reaffirming rehabilita-
tion (30th ed.). Anderson Publishing.
Durrant, R. (2018). An introduction to criminal psychology
(2nd ed.). Routledge.
Duwe, G. (2017). The use and impact of correctional pro-
gramming for inmates on pre- and post-release out-
comes. National Institute of Justice.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 15 of 17

Emerson, R. W. (2019). Cronbach’s alpha explained.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(3),
327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19858866
Fambasayi, R., & Moyo, A. (2020). The best interests of the
child offender in the context of detention as a measure
of last resort: A comparative analysis of legal develop-
ments in South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe. South
African Journal on Human Rights, 36(1), 25–48. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1775495
Farley, H., & Pike, A. (2018). Research on the inside:
Overcoming obstacles to completing a postgraduate
degree in prison. In F. Padró, R. Erwee, M. Harmes, &
P. Danaher (Eds.), Postgraduate education in higher
education (pp. 211–234). Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-981-10-5249-1_39Faruqee2016
Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2015). FAPDA country
fact sheet on food and agriculture policy trends |
Malawi. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4491e.pdf
Forsberg, L., & Douglas, T. (2022). What is criminal
rehabilitation? Criminal Law, Philosophy, 16(1), 103–126.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09547-4
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, M. E. (2009). How to design and
evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step
by step. A simple guide and reference (16th ed.).
Routledge.
Government of Malawi. (2018). Constitution. In The laws
of Malawi (5th ed., pp. 17–118). Blackhall Publishing.
Government of Malaŵi. (2018). Prisons act. In The laws of
Malawi (5th ed., pp. 1887–1991). Blackhall Publishing.
Hannah-Moffat, K. (2005). Criminogenic needs and the
transformative risk subject: Hybridizations of the risk/
need in penalty. Punishment & Society, 7(1), 29–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474505048132
Hunt, H., & Nichol, G. (2021). The price of poverty in North
Carolina’s juvenile justice system. https://law.unc.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2021/04/juvenilejustice-
povertyreport2021.pdf
Johnson, L. R., & Quan-Baffou, K. P. (Eds.). (2022).
Correctional (prison) education: An African panopti-
con. UNISA Press.
Jules-Macquet, R. (2014). The state of South African pris-
ons (2nd ed.). National Institute for Crime Prevention
and the Reintegration of Offenders.
Kajawo, S. C. R. (2019). Examining the effectiveness of the
management of education programme in Malawi
prisons. Mediterranean Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 3(2), 203–213. http://mjbas.com/data/
uploads/66218.pdf
Kajawo, S. C., & Johnson, L. R. (2023). The right to edu-
cation: Is it a reality or a pipe dream for incarcerated
young prisoners in Malawi? Journal of Prison
Education and Reentry, 7(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/
10.29329/epasr.2023.548.1
Kajawo, S. C. R., & Johnson, L. R. (2023). Education of
incarcerated young people in Malawi: Strategic plan
versus reality. Educational Policy Analysis and
Strategic Research, 18(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.
29329/epasr.2023.548.1
Kajawo, S. C. R., & Nyirongo, R. (2022). Education of people
behind bars in Malawi. In L. R. Johnson & K. P. Quan-
Baffour (Eds.), Correctional (prison) education: An
African panopticon (pp. 36–55). UNISA Press.
Lugo, M., Wooldredge, J., Pompoco, A., Sullivan, C., &
Latessa, E. J. (2019). Assessing the impact of unit
management programs on institutional misconduct
and prison “returns”. Justice Quarterly, 36(1),
59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.
1357741
Malawi Prisons Service. (2023a). Farms & Prison
Industries. https://www.mps.gov.mw/index.php/
about-us/divisions/rehabilitation-reformation-and-
prison-industry/farms-and-prison-industries
Malawi Prisons Service. (2023b). Rehabilitation. https://
www.mps.gov.mw/core-functions/rehabilitation
Mallion, J. S., & Wood, J. L. (2020). Good lives model and
street gang membership: A review and application.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 52, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101393
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in edu-
cation. Evidence-based inquiry (2nd ed.). Pearson
Education.
McNeill, F. (2012). Four forms of ‘offender’ rehabilitation:
Towards and interdisciplinary perspective. Legal and
Criminal Psychology, 17(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02039.x
McNeill, F. (2014). Punishment as rehabilitation. In
G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of crim-
inology and criminal justice (pp. 4195–4206). Springer.
Meijer, S. (2017). Rehabilitation as a positive obligation.
European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal
Justice, 25(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1163/
15718174-25022110
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and
narrative. Harvard University Press.
Murhula, P. B. B., & Singh, S. B. (2019). A critical analysis
on offenders rehabilitation approach in South Africa:
A review of the literature. African Journal of
Criminology & Justice Studies, 12(1), 21–43. https://
wwwcp.umes.edu/ajcjs/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/
2023/06/VOL12.1.-MURHULA-FINAL.pdf
Mwakilama, S. G. (2010). Prisoners' rights in Malawi since
independence 1964 to 2005. In A history of Malawi
Prison Service and rights of prisoners. Academic
Publishing
Ngozwana, N. (2017). Adult offenders’ perceptions of
rehabilitation programs in Africa. Australian Journal
of Adult Learning, 57(2), 217–241.
Nowak, M. (2019). Global study on children deprived of liberty.
Report to the UN General Assembly, A/74/136. United
Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3813850
Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., &
Gordon, J. A. (2010). Never too late: Public optimism
about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12
(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1462474509357379
Pollock, J. M. (2014). The rationale for imprisonment. In
A. G. Blackburn, S. K. Fowler, & J. M. Pollock (Eds.),
Prisons: Today and tomorrow (pp. 3–20). Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Roni, S. M., Merga, M. K., & Morris, J. E. (2020). Conducting
quantitative research in education. Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
Rothman, D. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social
order and disorder in the new republic. Little, Brown.
Salum, V. S., Gakure, R. W., & Othiambo, R. (2017). Impact
of stakeholders on implementation of strategic plans
in Tanzania’s public sector. Journal of Public
Administration and Governance, 7(4), 294–311.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v7i4.12255
Samanyanga, I. (2016). The role of rehabilitation pro-
grammes in curbing recidivism in Zimbabwe prisons:
A cognitive behaviour therapy perspective. Global
Journal of Advanced Research, 3(9), 818–825.
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods.
Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating
impact (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
UN Economic Commission for Africa. (2017). Africa’s
youth and prospects for inclusive development.
Regional situation analysis report. OHCHR https://
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 16 of 17

www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Youth/
UNEconomicCommissionAfrica.pdf
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the
child. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professiona
linterest/pages/crc.aspx
United Nations. (2015). United Nations standard mini-
mum rules for the treatment of prisoners. The
Nelson Mandela Rules. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/
70/175
Verma, J. P., & Verma, P. (2020). Determining sample size
and power in research studies. A manual for
researchers. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-15-5204-5
Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and
conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 243–257. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10683160410001662744
Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology,
and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives
model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.avb.2005.06.001
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the
risk paradigm. Routledge.
Ward, T., Yates, P. M., & Willis, G. M. (2012). The good lives
model and the risk need responsivity model. A critical
response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith (2011).
Criminal Justice & Behavior, 39(1), 94–110. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093854811426085
Wilson, D. B. (2016). Correctional programs. In
D. Weisburd, D. P. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), What
works in crime prevention and rehabilitation:
Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 193–217).
Springer.
Kajawo & Johnson, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2276123
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2276123
Page 17 of 17