Data Collection

It is important to first state some of the limitations to my goal of seeking representative perspectives as close to the ‘source’ as possible. One of the most important limitations was language. All participants in the organization and in Pollsmoor spoke English competently but not as a first language, while in the social dialogue event most discussion was done in Xhosa. I triangulated methods with NGO policy-analysis, participant observation (in two different sites) and interviews. I gathered data from three sites: Pollsmoor Prison in Retreat, a Southern suburb of Cape Town; the Young in Prison office, located in a labor-union community building in a peripheral urban district called Salt River; and in Philipi Township, an informal settlement located approximately twenty minute’s drive from central Cape Town.

In total, this data draws from communications by formerly incarcerated youth, currently incarcerated youth, non-profit staff, community members, and prison staff. These sources of data provide varying weights of insight, each eliciting a limited but crucial perspective into subjects with a wide range of potential perspectives. The interviews were a one-time interaction but provided in-depth responses to specific questions. Participant observation in Pollsmoor prison yielded sustained but indirect information about the unique issues experienced by youth

themselves; non-verbal interactions, drawings and writing exercises also contributed to this data set. The social dialogue event was an isolated incident but provided broader, more inclusive and varied views, albeit interpreted largely through group dynamics, individual affect and second- hand explanations from YiP staff or Post-release members. My personal involvement was most concentrated in the interviews; less so in Pollsmoor as I was co-facilitating quasi-structured activities; and least in the social dialogue event as I only observed and assisted in writing translations of participants’ discussion.

My method for data collection was derived from ethnographic notes of daily interactions, discussions and activities. I generally wrote notes after leaving the prison, during the ninety- minute ride back to Cape Town. Occasionally I wrote brief notes during our activities; they often asked me what I was writing and I showed them both the writings (with my indecipherable handwriting) and explained that I wrote down words to help me remember what we had done each day. When organizing the findings into units of analysis I looked through my notes for indications of issues that they struggled with or associated with their trajectory of crime and incarceration. In the same way I looked for expressions of hope, goals, statements of self-

motivation or acknowledged support factors from external sources. In short, I coded for risk and protective factors as described in their own language, interactions, drawings and nonverbal behavior.

For the interviews I asked the same approximate questions, in different sequences and with varying lines of inquiry, allowing the interviewee’s specific responses and proclivity for disclosure to guide the format of the interview. I asked open-ended questions pertaining to causes of high crime and youth incarceration, views on rehabilitation methods, processes of experiencing or facilitating positive change, personal goals, descriptions of how supportive relationships are formed, stages and methods of intervention, vulnerability in the continuum of rehabilitative services and needs for further development or alteration of strategies.171 In many cases, I found that the less I tried to direct the interview or ‘keep it on track’, the more the interviewee offered voluntary disclosure of a broad spectrum of thoughts on topics which I would not have known to ask about directly. In all cases I interjected minimally, with nonverbal cues to encourage them to speak. I nodded my head, made affirmative sounds and tried to maintain a natural attentiveness with eye contact and acknowledgement, while hand-writing notes. Initially I had a digital voice recorder, however it broke during the first interview and I decided that the casual, informal arrangement was more beneficial to self-disclosure than the dynamic of being recorded (most participants have little or no exposure to electronics).172

In total, I conducted twelve interviews; three with staff members from Young in Prison; five with former inmates, ages 19-25, all of whom are participants in Young in Prison’s Post- Release Program; two individual members of township communities that are independently

171 _{See Appendix for full interviews.} 172 _{See Appendix for interview release forms}

doing advocacy work; and two members of Pollsmoor’s Youth Rehabilitation Services Department. Additionally, I observed an Appreciative Inquiry (AI)173 interview between YiP facilitator and two Pollsmoor inmates, both aged nineteen, and also received the transcripts to another YiP-staff AI-interview with a Post-Release participant. Due to IRB restrictions I was not permitted to interview current inmates, but was granted permission to use the data from the AI discussions, a valuable asset to understanding youth views by eliciting feedback and suggestions from the participants of a program. That section is clearly indicated as being Young in Prison’s research and not my own.

Data Analysis

The system of analysis I used is derived from grounded theory, seeking to develop an analytical theory informed by concepts produced in participant narratives and activities. I organize the data into three units of analysis; Individual, Community and Government (from ‘levels of focus’ identified by YiP),under which I categorized the direct responses of

participants as they relate to those areas. I present the findings for each of the four sources of data to make clear the focus of each group, in order to see where there may be overlap or

discrepancy between other groups. At the end of this chapter I summarize the complete findings and examine the overall concerns of the groups involved, assessing the challenges, obstacles and advancements to the expressed remedies.

In Chapter Five I present secondary data for analysis. I utilize the same methods of data collection as in Cape Town, with the exemption of participant observation, by drawing on internal documents, secondary interviews and ‘gray-literature’ publications. For this chapter I maintain the format used to present the Cape Town findings, and in the same way I apply the three categories of analysis to local expressions of both the ‘problems’ and the ‘remedies’, separately, before undertaking a general summary of all findings. In analyzing the data from New Orleans, I followed a similar word-coding process as I applied to the Cape Town

findings.174 I highlighted and copied all descriptions of ‘problems’ and ‘remedies’, then compiled them into the three previously-established areas of focus; Individual/Youth Development,

173 _{“Appreciative Inquiry is a collaborative, strength-based approach to both personal and organizational}

development that is proving to be highly effective in thousands of organizations and communities in hundreds of countries around the world. It is a way of bringing about change that shares leadership and learning - fully engaging everyone in the organization.” Center for Appreciative Inquiry. Web. http://centerforappreciativeinquiry.net/

Community/Organizing and Government/Policy.175 From the initial coding of words throughout the entire data set, I created groupings of related terms to form a conceptual amalgamation of core themes. I then organized these conceptual categories under the three main units/levels of analysis.

Drawing from grounded theory methods, I undertook an ‘initial coding’ to determine what the data suggested, by looking for terms that emerged in high frequency throughout the interviews.176 Following this coded process I grouped related terms to identify in vivo codes; “codes that suggest meanings consist of widely used terms that participants assume everyone shares.”177 Then I took excerpts from the interviews to describe the context of the terms, expanding the analysis to conceptual meanings. I grouped these conceptual meanings, with attendant examples, into the three units of analysis, relating to Individual, Community and Government concerns. This format provides responses to both aspects of my thesis questions;

how are local organizers and actors defining the problems that affect them in relation to youth incarceration and recidivism? And, how are local groups and individuals proposing or

practicing remedies to these issues?

175 _{See Apendix for complete list of coded words} 176 _{See Appendix for initial coding chart}

177 _{Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London,}

CHAPTER FOUR