Language in the French reintegration programme

As part of my training in Product Design, I was interested in studying one of two public facilities, a hospital or a prison. Out of curiosity, I decided to focus my attention on the prison system. I had no experience in this sector, and I wanted to understand the challenges associated with it. I quickly got in touch with professionals in the prison sector, mostly thanks to my professors. A teacher at the remand centre in Hauts-de-France helped me enter the facility, which gave me the chance to interview the incarcerated people. I was also admitted to La Santé prison to visit production workshops. Following these visits, I decided to volunteer for Rebond, an association set up by former Genepi members, which provides in-prison classes for those interested. I then came into contact with several associations like WakeUp Café and learned about their work. After establishing these initial contacts, I started my research. I was determined to be right at the centre of the facility’s operations. Conducting my research without entering a prison, without being in touch with incarcerated people and professionals in this area, would have never worked. Not all my attempts to contact professionals were successful. However, a lot of them opened doors for me and I do appreciate it greatly.

It was extremely important for me to speak only to willing volunteers. I did not want my interviewees to feel forced. The interviews began at the remand centre in Hauts-de-Seine.

I was introduced to the incarcerated individuals as a student working on a thesis about reintegration. The first interview aimed to understand their life path, find out about their daily life in prison and their plans for the future. I always started by asking the person’s name, age and their occupation before detention. Without mentioning their sentence, I asked them about their life before and since it began. Their conditions of incarceration, the type and length of their sentences, came naturally into further discussion. I also asked when, from their point of view, they would feel successfully reintegrated into society. They talked about travelling, finding a job and reuniting with their families. Family and professional life were at the forefront. I chose to base my design project on these elements.

For me, design is a creative activity able to address a need or resolve a problem by means of narrative. What’s missing in rehabilitation is the opportunity to build a path forward, a life plan, a narrative together with the prisoner. That is the direction I wanted to go in as a designer. When discussing the subject with several reintegration agents, especially with the Penitentiary Integration and Probation Department, it became clear that not speaking French is the first obstacle on the way to reintegration. Once a person is released, low language proficiency can vastly complicate daily life, when looking for housing or employment, amongst many other challenges. According to statistics, 11% of people in prison reportedly struggle with illiteracy. However, the real number climbs far higher. Administrative procedures in prison are carried out in writing only. Encouraging an illiterate person in prison to follow a reintegration programme that does not take this circumstance into account is completely illogical. All the materials would need to be adapted, which would take a great deal of time and effort and is not necessarily possible within the existing system.

I opted to tackle this reintegration issue through the approach of French as a Foreign Language tutoring. Tutoring can be offered as a complement to lessons with a teacher, to work on a particular point, such as vocabulary or the use of the future tense. This programme from Rebond was launched in La Santé and is now expanding to other French establishments. A variety of classes are offered, such as English, Chinese, French, Civics and Art.

I was not satisfied with the tools that people were offered to combat illiteracy in prison, which often seemed infantilising and inadequate in the face of diverse personality profiles. I wanted to come up with an exercise that took their individuality into account. Understanding a person’s nature, who they want to be and what they want to do, is key in reintegration programmes. My challenge was to devise new learning tools that take into account the diversity of levels, personalities and individuality of the participants.

Together with my interviewees, we thought about what objects could assist them in their communication in French as well as facilitate their life after prison. The aim was to create a plan implementing simple learning methods, like picture cards and a sketching board, to work on vocabulary. We went through every detail together. Initially, I suggested picture cards in portrait format, which was then switched to landscape format at their suggestion. They asked me for certain images, such as one representing space. We also needed to equip the person who would be performing the exercise with instructions and a teaching method. As the instructor has to adapt and adjust the study material to each learner, the system must be applicable to different situations and personalities.

One of the incarcerated persons, Arthur¹*, only spoke English. I started by showing him picture cards and asked him to choose two of them. He chose a card with a mechanic and one with a fisherman. When I asked the reason behind his choice, he immediately said, “That’s my past; this is my future”. The past was the mechanic and the fisherman was the future. He explained that he used to be a mechanic in a car manufacturing plant. He chose the fisherman because he wanted to open a fish farm in the Philippines. It was important for me to understand that about this person. The second time around, I came with a sketching board: a really simple object, consisting of a solid plate and a frame inside which you can draw. Arthur drew a fish farm, framed it and put it up on the board. Without a second thought, he proceeded to describe the drawing to the other participants in French. The exercise worked very well in his case. He managed to speak in French about the project he intends to accomplish without me even asking. Other participants asked questions, establishing a dialogue with Arthur. It was a victory for both of us. These drawings were useful not only for him, but also for the reintegration department, since he had managed, on his own, to put on paper and speak in French about his plans for the future.

Even though my research bore fruit, the methods were tricky to set up. It is very complicated to obtain the prison administration’s permission to enter a detention facility. I had hardly any room for decision-making. I could not really control my schedule.

Once my application had been approved, I had to be available at short notice to go and do the interviews. Some situations were difficult to accept, not in my professional capacity, but personally. Facing someone who had set fire to his cell in order to finally have his mattress changed was hard enough, let alone addressing the topic of suicide.

During the first set of interviews, I was intimidated, and probably a little awkward. The situation was unusual. I was locked in a room, could not necessarily stand up, and had to maintain distance between myself and my interviewee, in particular through the use of formal language. I was not sure how to behave, nor how to conduct an interview. Over time, I detached myself from this setting and fine-tuned my interview strategies.

The training courses I took to become a volunteer with Rebond improved my adaptability. I worked every Tuesday over the course of nine months in the same facility with the same incarcerated persons. After a while, the distance naturally disappears. They neither learnt any information about my personal life, nor knew my surname or address, but in those moments, we were just two human beings, and a level of closeness was established. The relationships thus created were profoundly touching.

The implementation of teaching activities had to be adapted to several constraints, starting with the presence of incarcerated people. I was working in a special unit, the “QB1”, the unit of the “Respecto” programme in Paris at La Santé. Those serving their sentences there are not confined to a cell and are free to move around the unit. I did not have to ask the guards to bring the class participants from their cells. However, absences were frequent due to legal extractions or transfers. Attendance sometimes dropped from 12 to 4 participants from one session to another. Relations between association members and the prison administration were more or less peaceful, depending on the facility and department concerned. Some guards did not seem to appreciate the work we were doing. I also had to deal with budget restrictions, by suggesting objects made of cheap cardboard. Prisons do not have the resources needed to provide personalised support. There is a substantial number of case files that the Penitentiary Integration and Probation Department lacks the time to handle. The approach I offer is carried out over a month in two-hour, one-on-one sessions. Some cases require more time than the reintegration department currently has.

I’m sorry to see the lack of policy efforts targeted at developing other paths within the reintegration programme. We need to open the door to new tools and alternative methods.