DIMITRIOS SANNAS Greek Re-entry: Myth or reality An evaluation of the Greek rehabilitation and re-entry system: The Case of EPANODOS School of Social Sciences and Humanities Department of Social Policy UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE i Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 II. THEORETICAL APPROACH ..................................................................................................................... 6 1. Overview of Rehabilitation and Re-entry theories .................................................................................... 6 2. Greek Justice System ............................................................................................................................... 12 3. Greek Penal Institutions .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Penal Institution‟s Conditions .......................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Penal Institution‟s Population .......................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Behavioral Profile of Prisoners ........................................................................................................ 32 4. Prisoners‟ Social Rehabilitation-Re-entry ............................................................................................... 34 4.1 Before Release.................................................................................................................................. 38 4.1.1 Social Relations .......................................................................................................................... 38 4.1.2 Education .................................................................................................................................... 41 4.1.3 Employment................................................................................................................................ 44 4.1.4 Drug Abuse ................................................................................................................................. 46 4.1.5 Leisure Activities ........................................................................................................................ 49 4.2 After Release .................................................................................................................................... 50 4.3 EPANODOS ..................................................................................................................................... 55 III. EMPIRICAL PART .................................................................................................................................. 67 1. Methodological approach ........................................................................................................................ 67 2. Data collection and data analysis ........................................................................................................... 69 IV. EMPIRICAL RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 71 1. Management ................................................................................................................................. 72 2. Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 75 3. Immigrants .................................................................................................................................... 78 4. Stigma ........................................................................................................................................... 79 5. Good practices .............................................................................................................................. 80 6. Suggestions ................................................................................................................................... 81 6.1 CRIS – Tampere ........................................................................................................................... 83 6.2 Convict Criminology ..................................................................................................................... 85 V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 86 Main findings................................................................................................................................................... 86 Dissemination of results ................................................................................................................................. 88 Ethical Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 89 VI. References ................................................................................................................................................. 90 ii Appendix I ....................................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix II ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix III .................................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix IV .................................................................................................................................................... 99 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Now that the process of writing this essay is complete, I would like to thank the people who played an important role throughout this process. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Pertti Koistinen. His support, guidance and patience throughout the writing of this essay have been truly invaluable. Another person I would like to thank is Dr. Ikponwosa Ekunwe, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the „Global Perspectives on Re-Entry‟ conference and introducing me to KRIS- Tampere where I did my practice placement. Both were valuable experiences and added tremendously to my academic experience in the field of re-entry. I am truly grateful to the workers of EPANODOS who supported my endeavour of studying their organisation and participated in the interviews which were the basis of the case study and subsequent research. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Hollingsworth for his valuable advice on composing my thesis; the workers of KRIS-Tampere -especially my supervisor, Sami Nieminen- for their help and guidance; Rosi Enroos, Petra Kristiina and Elli Vale, for their input on my work. Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends Kostas Pathiakis and Mariangela Psyrraki, for their help and support, and my family, for their endless love and unconditional support throughout the years. iv ABSTRACT This study was conducted per the requirements of a thesis in the masters program of Comparative Social Policy and Welfare of the department of Social Sciences of the University of Tampere, Finland. The paper deals with the evaluation of rehabilitation and re-entry programs as perceived by the professionals of social sciences in the only official organization on rehabilitation and re-entry in Greece, EPANODOS. Specifically, it analyses the penal system of Greece and the legislative framework which governs it. The study also examines Greece‟s penal institutions and the detention conditions inside them. Other topics examined are the communication possibilities of the prisoner with their family and social environment, the opportunities for employment and work inside and outside the institution, along with the educational and vocational programs provided by social services. Most studies investigating imprisonment and re-entry in Greece are focused on imprisoned people and any examination of re-entry is based on prisoners‟ and former prisoners‟ perspective, rather than that of the professionals who are offering those programs. That is why I decided to conduct a qualitative research and interview five professionals (n=5) from EPANODOS. My data were categorized and analyzed using thematic analysis. The evaluation of the re-entry programs from the experiences and the critical point of view of those professionals answered my research question, which is: How feasible is rehabilitation and re-entry in Greece? From their answers I investigated how this newly formed organization functions, what it offers and how many people work there, what are the difficulties it faces in providing the services to former prisoners, if they are getting any help from the state and what kind of help and if any results from previous studies were taken into consideration; also the state