Presented by Hastings Moloko Presented at 2015 ECAMA Research Symposium Malawi Institute of Management, 4-5 June

1. PERCEPTIONS OF PRISONERS ON
FOOD SECURITY IN MALAWI
PRISONS
By
Hastings B. Moloko [Dip. Eng., BSc (Tech. Ed.), MSc. (FIT), MBA,
AIWSc.]

2. Introduction
• The objective of this study was to find out the
perception of prisoners in Malawi on the food
security situation in Malawi Prisons.
• In order to address this objective, 1000
prisoners were randomly selected from all
prisons in Malawi and interviewed using a
structured questionnaire.

3. Introduction cont.
• The sample size was determined using Kothari,
2004 as:
• 𝑛 =
𝑧2
𝑒2
𝑝.𝑞.𝑁
𝑁−1 + 𝑧2.𝑝.𝑞
• where n = sample size, z = 1.96 = z-value
yielding 95% confidence level, p = proportion of
the population of interest, q = 1 – p, N = 12,598
= the population of interest, e = 5% = absolute
error in estimating p.

4. Methodology
• The Prisoner Food Insecurity Access Scale
(PFIAS) questionnaire was used as a tool for
collecting information from prisoners.
• The PFIAS was a modification of the US
Household Food Security Survey Module (US
HFSSM).
• Following (Kaizer & Melgar-Quinonez, 2003)
the questions in the PFIAS were reviewed using
a group of key informants from Lilongwe
prisons.

5. Methodology cont.
• The questionnaire was then refined using a
smaller group of respondents from Zomba-
Central prison.
• The refined questionnaire was then pre-tested
at Zomba-Central prison.
• The PFIAS was then used to collect data from
1000 inmates from across all prisons in the
country.

6. Methodology cont.
• The PFIAS consisted of two types of related
questions.
• The first question type was an occurrence
question.
• The occurrence questions asked whether a specific
condition associated with the experience of food
insecurity ever occurred during the previous four
weeks (Kaiser et al.., 2002).
• Each occurrence question was followed by a
frequency-of-occurrence question, which asked
how often a reported condition occurred during
the previous four weeks.

7. Methodology cont.
• Each occurrence question consisted of the stem
(time frame for recall), the body of the question
which referred to a specific perception or
experience, and two response options (0 = no, 1=
yes) (Perez-Escamilla et al.., 2004).
• There was also a “skip code” next to each “no”
response option.
• This code was meant to instruct the enumerator to
skip the related frequency-of-occurrence follow-up
question whenever the respondent answered “no”
to an occurrence question.

8. Methodology cont.
• To each frequency-of-occurrence question,
there were three response options
representing a range of frequencies, namely, 1
= rarely, 2 = sometimes, and 3 = often (Melgar-
Quinonez et al.., 2006).
• The PFIAS asked for prisoners’ perceptions/
experiences in the following food security
conditions:

9. Methodology cont.
• Anxiety and worry over food
• Not being able to eat one’s preferred food
• Eating a limited variety of foods
• Eating food that one did not want
• Eating a smaller meal than one needed
• Eating fewer meals in a day
• Not eating any food at all
• Going to sleep at night hungry

10. Methodology cont.
• Going a whole day and night without eating
• Augmenting food intake through food from
home/relatives
• Acquiring food through shameful means, eg,
borrowing, begging or stealing

11. Results and Discussion:
Demographics and Education
• All respondents were male as no female prisoners were
allowed out of confinement.
• The mean prisoner age was 27 years, the youngest and
oldest being 14 and 84 years old respectively.
• 3.8% of the prisoners had no education at all while
67.2% had various levels of primary school education.
• 16.2% had gone up to junior secondary school classes
while 12.1% had attempted senior secondary school
classes.
• 0.5% had college certificate level education while 0.2%
had college diploma level education.

12. Results and Discussion:
Distance to Home
• 74% of the prisoners came from far-away
places and did not have any relatives near the
prison.
• 81% of prisoners did not receive any meals
from outside prison.
• This seems to suggest that receiving outside
meals was dependant on how far away the
prisoner’s home or relatives were from the
prison.

13. Results and Discussion:
Social Status
• 69.5% of the prisoners considered themselves
poor.
• It is striking that this percentage closely
resembled that in prisoner educational levels
where it was seen that 71% of prisoners had
only up to primary level education.

14. Results and Discussion:
Food Sufficiency
• Asked whether they perceived themselves to
be food sufficient after combining food
received from prison with that received from
relatives, 69% of the prisoners said that they
did not perceive themselves to be food
sufficient.

15. Results and Discussion:
Anxiety Over Food
• 61.3% of the prisoners in the country were
anxious and worried that they would not have
enough food to eat.
• 24.0% of these were rarely anxious, 10.45%
were sometimes anxious, while 26.9% were
often anxious.
• All prisoners (100.0%) in the country indicated
that the institutional food that they received
was of insufficient quality.

16. Results and Discussion:
Eating Un-preferred Food
• 82.2% of the prisoners reported not being able
to eat the kinds of foods that they preferred.
• 12.8% ate un-preferred food rarely, 15.1% ate it
sometimes, while 54.2% ate un-preferred food
often.

17. Results and Discussion:
Eating a Limited Variety of Foods
• Nationally, 80.9% of the prisoners ate a limited
variety of foods because there was nothing else
to eat.
• 9.3% ate a limited variety rarely, 12.0% ate it
sometimes, and 59.6% ate it often.

18. Results and Discussion:
Eating Un-wanted Food
• 53.8% of the prisoners in the country ate some
foods that they did not really want to eat.
• 12.0% of these ate the un-wanted food rarely,
9.9% sometimes, while 31.9% ate it often.

19. Results and Discussion:
Eating a Smaller Meal
• Nationally, 76.1% of the prisoners ate a smaller
meal than they felt they needed.
• 12.8% of these ate a smaller meal rarely, 8.9%
ate it sometimes, while 54.4% ate it often.

20. Results and Discussion:
Eating Fewer Meals/Day
• 77.8% of prisoners in the country ate fewer
meals in a day.
• In many cases prisoners reported eating one
meal per day.
• 9.6% of these ate fewer meals rarely, 10.4%
sometimes and 57.8% often.

21. Results and Discussion:
No Food at All
• Nationally, 9.7% of the prisoners said that there
were times when there was no food of any kind
to eat at their prison.
• 6.9% of these had no food at all rarely, 1.8%
sometimes, and 1.0% often.

22. Results and Discussion:
Sleeping at Night Hungry
• 21.0% of the prisoners in the country had gone
to sleep at night hungry, at times.
• 12.5% of these had had this experience rarely,
6.0% had it sometimes and 2.5% had it often.

23. Results and Discussion:
Whole Day and Night Without Eating
• 11.7% of the prisoners in the country had, at
some point, gone a whole day and night
without eating.
• 8.2% of these had had this experience rarely,
2.8 % had had it sometimes, while 0.7% had
had it often.

24. Results and Discussion:
Augmenting Food Intake
• 42.4% of the prisoners in the country had
augmented food intake through outside supply.
• 23.5% had done so rarely, 11.6 % sometimes,
and 7.3% often.

25. Results and Discussion:
Resorting to Shameful Means
• 61.8% of the prisoners in the country had
resorted to shameful means of acquiring food,
eg, borrowing, begging or stealing from other
inmates or people.
• Of these, 25.9% had done this rarely, 11.9% had
done it sometimes, while 24.1% had done it
often.

26. Results and Discussion:
Food Security Prevalence
• 89.1% of the prisoners in the country perceive
themselves to be severely food insecure.
• 4.9% moderately food insecure.
• 1.1% mildly food insecure, and
• 5.0% food secure.

27. Conclusion and Recommendations
• 99.3% of the prisoners have up to Form 4 level
of education.
• This suggests that in Malawi, criminality is
concentrated among the youth and it reduces
as education levels increase.
• It is, therefore, recommended that education
should be made compulsory for the youth, at
least for the first twelve years of the education
system.

28. Conclusion and Recommendations
• Most prisoners came from places far-away from
their prison, did not have any relatives near the
prison and did not receive any meals from outside
prison.
• This suggests that the long distances between
prison and home discourage family members from
visiting and providing meals to prisoners.
• It is recommended that many more prisons should
be built so that prisoners, especially those that
commit minor offences, should be incarcerated
closer home.

29. VOTE OF THANKS
• Thank you all for listening.
• God bless you.