The Prison Life Index evaluates 61 indicators, each representing a specific right identified by international standards. The focus is on the living conditions of people in prisons, not the operation of prison systems. The indicators are grouped into five non-hierarchical dimensions:
Eating, sleeping and showering : decent living conditions, sufficient living space, infrastructures to ensure personal hygiene.
Medical care: access to general and specialised health care, including prevention and necessary care for people with specific needs.
Being protected: legal safeguards , physical and psychological integrity, absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, proportionate application of discipline, effective inspection and complaints mechanisms.
Being active: access to education and training, access to work under fair and decent conditions, cultural, sporting and spiritual activities.
Being connected: to loved ones, via correspondence, telephone, visits, etc., and to society by access to the media, and voting rights.
Each dimension is based on thematic sub-dimensions made up of several indicators. Discover the structure of the Prison Life Index in detail.
The Prison Life Index evaluations are based on documentary research and qualitative data collected from experts with in-depth knowledge of prison conditions in their country. The results are produced following a five-step process:
- Desk research
- Identifying people with recognised expertise
- Conducting interviews
- Calculating final evaluations for each of the 61 indicators
- Calculating results for the five dimensions of the structure and drafting the commentary
1. Desk research¶
Desk research is used to compile existing information from all available reports, laws and internal regulations, articles, media productions and testimonies. This information is then organised according to the dimensions of the Prison Life Index. It is used to prepare the interviews, cross-reference the information and write the comments accompanying the findings. Where a country profile is already available on the Prison Insider website, it is used as the basis of the desk research.
2. Identification of experts¶
People with recognised expertise are selected according to the following three principles:
The people who participate in the evaluation of the Prison Life Index are recognised in their field. They have first-hand knowledge of prisons and a representative view of the prison system at national level. They are identified through in-depth desk research and peer recommendations.
Wherever possible, an initial short interview is held to introduce each person to the project and to obtain their agreement to the methodology.
The anonymity of the experts is rigorously guaranteed so that they can express themselves freely and in complete independence.
It was decided not to collect evaluations from staff working directly within the prison administration. However, people who work in prisons but are legally independent, such as medical or teaching staff, can take part in the evaluations. If necessary, the Prison Insider team may contact the prison administration to complete the documentary research.
National torture prevention mechanisms and other independent monitoring bodies are invited to participate in the evaluation but are not asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the inspection mechanisms.
Experts come from a variety of backgrounds to ensure a wide range of viewpoints: universities, civil society organisations, the legal, medical and educational sectors. The Prison Life Index is therefore a synthesis of the knowledge and experience of these different people.
3. Interviews¶
The evaluations are collected during individual interviews lasting one to two hours per dimension. They are based on a detailed interview and data collection protocol. This protocol ensures the comparability of the evaluations. These were gathered for the first version of the Prison Life Index from over a hundred people with recognised expertise in 12 countries.
If the Prison Insider team identifies shortcomings or inconsistencies between different interviews, they can carry out additional evaluations or reserve the right to delete an evaluation based on manifest factual errors.
Experts are first asked about the general situation in the country in relation to the dimension being evaluated. They then rate each indicator using guides based on international standards. Each indicator has its own evaluation guide. read the evaluation guide for the indicator “People in prison can receive visits”
Once all the points have been covered, the experts give the indicator an evaluation on a scale.The evaluation scale is a qualitative measure with eight levels. It allows for the objective assessment of the observed violations, considering both their frequency and severity.
The evaluations are based on the experience of people familiar with local realities and rooted in the context of the countries evaluated. Their direct knowledge of the conditions of detention makes it possible to produce intrinsic evaluations, while at the same time being rooted in the common language of the Nelson Mandela Rules.
4. Calculation of the final evaluations for each of the 61 indicators¶
For each of the five dimensions and of the 61 indicators, evaluations from three experts are recorded . The final score for each indicator is the median score of the three available scores.
It may happen that there are not three evaluations available for all indicators. This may be due to difficulties in organising interviews or in identifying experts. In this case, the following protocol can be used to determine if and how a final evaluation can be assigned.
Scenario 1 - two expert evaluations are available and the difference between the two evaluations is three levels or less: the minimum evaluation is selected as the final evaluation. The mention “Alternative evaluation methodology due to data access challenges” is indicated.
Scenario 2 - two expert evaluations are available and the difference between the two evaluations is more than three levels: it is not possible to determine a final score for this indicator. “Incomplete data” is indicated.
Scenario 3 - Only one evaluation available: It is not possible to give a definitive evaluation for this indicator. “Incomplete data” is indicated..
5. Calculating the results for each dimension¶
The index does not rank countries in order to avoid unwarranted comparisons. An overall evaluation is given for each of the five dimensions, rather than a single score for each country.
To ensure that the results are easy to read, the evaluations for the indicators and dimensions are expressed on the same scale.
The results for each dimension are calculated using the ELECTRE TRI method, a multi-criteria decision-aiding approach that is close to a median and allows for the introduction of vetoes.
The vetoes in the ELECTRE TRI method are thresholds set to ensure that if a country scores very low on one indicator, the final score for that dimension is limited, regardless of the score on the other indicators. In the case of the Prison Life Index, the veto threshold is set at 3 for all indicators. This means that the final result of the aggregation can never be more than three scale levels higher than the lowest score obtained.
Let’s take the concrete example of the “Medical care” dimension, which is the aggregation of five sub-dimensions: Preventive framework, General health care, Mental health and dental care, Care for people with specific needs and Continuity of care. If a country receives the evaluation ‘E’ (the lowest one) for the prevention framework, the veto means that the final evaluation for the “Medical care” dimension cannot be higher than ‘C-’, regardless of the evaluations for the other sub-dimensions.
In some cases, not all the evaluations for all the indicators needed to calculate the final evaluation for a dimension are available. If half or more of the indicator scores are missing, it is impossible to calculate the final score for that dimension. However, in order to ensure transparency and provide useful information, it has been decided to present the results at sub-dimension level, where such data are available. This makes it possible to provide accurate information on specific aspects, even if the overall calculation cannot be made.
The results for each country are accompanied by a commentary designed to make the evaluations more concrete and to share as much information as possible from people with recognised expertise. They are deliberately succinct and complement other Prison Insider productions, such as the country profiles and testimonials. For reasons of confidentiality, written sources are preferred to interview transcripts. However, when information has been confirmed by several interviewees, it may be mentioned in the commentary.
