Sports coaches can facilitate or hinder athletes' progress (1), both in athletic performance (2) and personal development (3). Personal development is particularly desirable when coaches deal with socially disadvantaged population groups (4). Due to social isolation and the manifold negative consequences associated with incarceration (5), inmates can be described as such a population group.

Sports have been found to play a significant role in the development and daily life of inmates. Participating in sports activities can lead to improvements in both physical health, such as increased fitness and reduced health risks (6), and mental health, including reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety (7). Sports also provide a constructive outlet for managing aggression and anger, allowing inmates to positively channel these emotions (8). Engaging in sports helps inmates to build self-confidence by achieving personal goals and overcoming challenges (9). Additionally, involvement in sports promotes the acceptance of societal values and adherence to rules, fostering a sense of discipline and respect (10)—aspects that are especially important as part of inmates' rehabilitation process. Furthermore, sports activities facilitate the formation of social relationships, offering inmates opportunities to interact and collaborate with others, what is crucial for their social development (11). In summary, sports in prison provide to a wide range of health and social benefits and support inmates in their rehabilitation process.

Sporting activities require qualified and effective coaches (12). It is unclear whether inmates are able to assess the effectiveness of coaches in the same way as athletes outside of the prison, and whether they perceive the same aspects as relevant. Joint exercises with other inmates are considered more promising for inmates' rehabilitation than individual practice (13). Additionally, guided sports programs by coaches are characterized by higher regularity and higher effectiveness (14).

Besides two studies from Spain and Germany, there is no further research on coaches in prisons (and their effectiveness). In the Spanish study (15), social education students who provided sports programs in a prison shared their experiences in a diary. However, the study focuses on student learning rather than coaching. The German study (16) examined the coaches' experiences in providing sports programs in prison, suggesting that specific education is necessary to adequately prepare coaches for the prison context. Problematically, the study suggests that previous coaching experiences in other contexts offer limited preparation for the distinct obstacles encountered within prisons. In the prison context, coaches face challenges such as the inmates' tendency to reject weaknesses, poor self-assessment, and over-confidence. Social factors (e.g., disputes, theft of equipment) but also external factors (e.g., other inmates observing the sporting session) further complicate the coaching process (16).

While these studies were focused on the providers' perspective (e.g., coaches), this study investigates inmates' perspective on sport coaches. In line with previous research in sport coaching, the study is based on Côté and Gilbert's (17) model of effective coaching. Effective coaches need knowledge (i.e., professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) and should help athletes achieve outcomes (i.e., sport-specific competence, confidence, and connection to others). Furthermore, effective coaches need to consider the specific coaching context (17). Examining inmates' perspectives on sports coaches is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. Inmates face unique challenges such as social isolation and an increased risk of mental health issues. Targeted sports programs can address these challenges, underscoring the importance of focused research in this area (18). Conditions for the success of such sports programs reflect, for example, adequate didactic preparation and the implementation of reflection discussions (19).

According to Côté and Gilbert's (17) integrative definition, effective coaching involves “the consistent application of integrated professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge to improve athletes' competence, confidence, connection, and character in specific coaching contexts” [(17), p. 316]. While this framework provides a comprehensive overview of coaching effectiveness, its applicability in special contexts such as prisons warrants further scrutiny. The framework refers to three central factors of coaching effectiveness: Coaches' knowledge, athletes’ outcomes, and the coaching context (17). The framework has already been used in previous studies, for example in soccer (20) and youth development through sport (21). However, the distinct challenges in the prison setting, such as security concerns and rehabilitative goals, necessitate a critical evaluation of how this framework can be applied. Figure 1 displays all factors of the framework, and they are explained in more detail in the following sections.

To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the research process, it is important to address epistemology, positionality, and reflexivity. The epistemological stance of this study aligns with a constructivist approach, recognizing that knowledge is co-constructed by researchers and participants (44). This approach is particularly relevant in the prison setting because it acknowledges the complex and subjective realities of inmates' experiences. By adopting a constructivist approach, the study aimed to value the inmates' voices and perspectives, recognizing that their insights on sports coaching are shaped by the social and institutional context. The researchers encouraged open dialogue during the interviews, which allowed inmates to share their experiences and insights without being judged. This approach was chosen because it facilitates a deeper understanding of the nuanced and personal experiences within the complex prison system, thereby enriching the study's findings with authentic, co-created knowledge.

Positionality was acknowledged by the researchers, who actively considered how their own backgrounds (e.g., education, socio-cultural contexts) might influence data interpretation (45). The research team comprised individuals with backgrounds in pedagogy, exercise physiology, sports science, and sociology, each bringing unique perspectives to the study. For instance, those with a background in exercise physiology reflected on their understanding of structured training environments, while those with a sports science and sociology background considered broader social dynamics within the prison setting. Researchers also reflected on how their own (external) perceptions of authority and rehabilitation might differ from those of the inmates, which helped in maintaining an open approach during the data analysis procedure. By recognizing these diverse backgrounds, the team was able to reflect potential biases in interpretations.

Reflexivity was actively ensured throughout the study, with researchers continuously reflecting on their interactions with the participants and the data. This approach included that the interviewers took notes after each interview to capture initial impressions and emotional responses. Based on these notes but also during the data analysis process, researchers engaged in regular team discussions to critically evaluate their assumptions and interpretations. By remaining aware of their influence through these practices, researchers ensured that interpretations remained grounded in the inmates' perspectives and experiences. This reflective approach has not only minimized bias but also enhanced the credibility and authenticity of the findings (46).

Figure 2 shows the final category system for the analysis. The results are presented by categories and subcategories.

The study aimed to investigate inmates’ perception of effective coaches in prisons, drawing on the framework of coaching effectiveness by Côté and Gilbert (17). While this framework provides a robust foundation for understanding coaching effectiveness, its application in the unique context of prisons may contribute to the identification of specific challenges and dynamics inherent in working with incarcerated populations. The results are discussed in the order of the three research questions.

The inmates perceived the coaches obtained all three types of knowledge by identifying specific characteristics in the coaches' behavior. The inmates recognized professional knowledge in coaches who demonstrated clear training structures and communication of transparency and understanding. This finding is in line with Shute (59), who reported that clear structures and communicated expectations have a positive impact on the learning success of students. Accordingly, learners benefit when they understand the course of the lesson and know which goals must be achieved. The importance of transparent communication is undisputed, both in educational science (60) and in coach research (61). Deci et al. (60) emphasized that transparent communication regarding goals and purposes promotes the intrinsic motivation of learners. According to Szedlak et al. (61), coaches can influence athletes' development through effective instructions and communication. Interestingly, inmates primarily mentioned communication as an indicator of professional knowledge, although it is rather part of the interpersonal knowledge in the framework of Côté and Gilbert (17). This overlap may suggest that inmates equate clear and effective communication with expertise, potentially due to the unique power dynamics and trust issues present in a prison setting. Further research could explore how these perceptions influence the overall effectiveness of coaching. Furthermore, the overlap can be explained by the fact that, in addition to the content of the communication, the language style, i.e., the manner of expression, was the main criterion assessed. The language register is described—also by the inmates—as educational or academic. According to Quasthoff (62), academic language is linked to the knowledge and competence of the speaker.

Interpersonal knowledge was valued, with inmates expressing a preference for coaches who allowed emotional closeness, communicated honestly and calmly, and fostered a comfortable and supportive interpersonal climate. In line with the coaches' assessments investigated by Wicker et al. (16), the development of interpersonal relationships in prisons is characterized by a balance between closeness and distance. The delicate balance between closeness and distance poses both opportunities and risks. While fostering trust and openness can enhance learning, it may also blur boundaries that are critical in a correctional environment. This balance warrants careful navigation to avoid dependency or boundary issues. Otherwise, the social qualities for the coaches correspond to those in other coaching contexts outside of the prison. For example, these results are in line with Carson et al. (63), who highlighted that strength and conditioning coaches should generally create a supportive environment.

Intrapersonal knowledge was recognized since coaches demonstrated adaptability by making real-time adjustments to training sessions. That is in line with Collins and Collins (64), who found that the requirements of being adaptive and flexible can be met through a careful process of professional judgement and decision-making based on context-appropriate knowledge (64). Although adaptability is a valued trait, the prison environment presents unique challenges that may limit a coach's ability to implement changes effectively. Factors such as institutional policies and the unpredictable nature of inmate behavior must be considered.

The predominantly positive perception of the coaches' knowledge by the inmates might be explained by the coaches' external status and their (predominantly) high level of qualification and experience. Inmates may perceive and evaluate coaches employed as sports officers in the prison differently than external coaches.

Turning to the outcomes stimulated by the coaches, inmates perceived effects related to all four dimensions (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, and character). Inmates reported improved competence, including enhanced physical condition and reduced body weight, supporting the effectiveness of sport programs in prison in quantitative terms [e.g., (6)].

Confidence was also improved since inmates perceived that they were able to overcome physical challenges. Furthermore, increased levels of motivation derived from the implementation of performance tests and opportunities for competition. Once again, this study indicates that sports offer inmates the opportunity to perceive themselves as capable of achieving specific outcomes, which, in turn, can contribute to forming the inmates' identity (65). In line with Lleixà and Ríos (15) and Dransmann et al. (37), coaches play a fundamental role in fostering connections both between coaches and inmates and within the inmates’ group. However, coaches should primarily focus on the coach-athlete relationship rather than on improving connections between inmates, since a prison was not considered the right place for real friendships. Moreover, positive changes in character were perceived by the inmates, for example through rediscovery of values (e.g., respect, integrity). Feelings of responsibility and empathy for fellow inmates were developed, and inmates emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and perseverance as key lessons. Individual development regarding perseverance, respect, and teamwork cannot only be achieved in competitive youth sport (66) but also in a prison context. While positive outcomes were reported, their long-term sustainability post-program remains uncertain. Factors such as continued support, follow-up interventions, and the broader prison environment play crucial roles in maintaining these benefits (67).

Within the prison context, inmates perceived specific qualities as significant for coaches. Inmates stressed the importance of coaches possessing sensitivity in their interactions and carefully choosing words to navigate diverse reactions. Szedlak et al. (61) also highlighted that a coach should be sensitive, but more in the sense of being concerned and mostly focused on the personal needs of their athletes. Accordingly, sensitivity and a careful approach are a particular challenge within the prison setting. Inmates come from different backgrounds and may have experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and violence (68). Therefore, sensitivity is especially important for coaches in prisons. This finding underlines the importance of effective coaches who are competent, empathetic, and aware of the diverse backgrounds and experiences of inmates.

An authentic and energetic demeanor, including being strict, when necessary, was deemed crucial for an effective coach in prison. There is evidence that the authenticity of a coach and the congruence in the coach-athlete relationship influence rates of burnout in collegiate athletes (69). At the same time, the inmates consider a certain degree of strictness and authority as necessary for sports coaches in prison. Such values are related to a paternalistic and autocratic leadership style of coaches (70). According to Jin et al. (71), democratic leadership behaviors had a more positive influence on coach-athlete relationships, and athletes’ motivation and satisfaction in Chinese collegiate athletics than autocratic leadership behaviors. Therefore, a (difficult) balance of energy and strictness can promote effective coaching in prison by combining positive motivation with clear expectations.

Inmates primarily based their respect on coaches' physical appearance and the demonstrated sporting abilities, highlighting the importance of demonstrating the physical skills needed for a sport. The reliance on physical appearance as a marker of respect raises questions about the depth of inmates' understanding of competence. This perception may perpetuate superficial evaluations of ability and detract from recognizing other critical competencies. On the other hand, this finding is in line with a study from the fitness sector, suggesting that customers perceive more muscular personal fitness coaches as more knowledgeable and competent than their nonmuscular peers (72). In addition, elite-level athletes reported that they appreciate coaches who were former athletes (73).

In summary, the findings of this study have both theoretical and practical implications for sports programs in prison. Comparative analyses with other educational or rehabilitative environments (such as closed prisons or female inmates) would provide valuable insights into the transferability of perceived coaching effectiveness. Additionally, longitudinal studies would help to explore specific coach characteristics, particularly leadership styles.

In conducting interviews with inmates, we encountered several communication complexities due to diverse cultural backgrounds and varying levels of education. To address these challenges, we simplified language to ensure clarity, maintained confidentiality to build trust, and clearly communicated the study's purpose. Active listening techniques were employed, and participants were encouraged to ask questions or seek clarification, fostering an environment of engagement and understanding. These strategies were essential for capturing authentic inmate perspectives and ensuring the reliability of our findings.

For prison managers, the practical implications include considerations for the coach selection and training process. The emphasis should be focused on clear communication, adaptability, and the cultivation of balanced interpersonal relationships. Creating a supportive environment is crucial and requires resources for coaches to develop the necessary interpersonal skills and foster a climate of trust and respect. Sensitivity to inmate backgrounds is essential, given the diverse experiences and potential trauma they may have faced. Coaches should be trained to interact with care while avoiding potentially triggering topics.

The balance between an authentic and energetic demeanor, including a certain degree of strictness, emerges as a key factor in effective coaching within the prison context. Prison management should encourage a leadership style that combines passion and inspiration with the authority required for the setting. Acknowledging the significance of coaches' physical appearance in earning respect from inmates suggests a consideration of fitness and sporting abilities in the selection process. In conclusion, the implementation of these practical implications can contribute to the refinement of coaching programs in prisons, fostering positive development and growth of inmates. Furthermore, these insights can guide future research endeavors aimed at continually improving coaching effectiveness within the unique context of prisons.

The study's limitations point to promising directions for future research. First, the exclusive focus on younger men inmates in open prisons might not fully capture the experiences of older prisoners or women, suggesting the need to explore other prison environments for distinct insights. For example, a more restrictive or closed prison where inmates are not allowed to leave for school or work might offer some very different perspectives. Second, the participation of numerous coaches may have introduced variability in the coaching experience, potentially affecting the consistency of the outcomes. Inmates might have responded differently to various coaching styles, which could lead to varied perceptions of effectiveness and impact on their development. This diversity in coaching could be both a strength, in terms of providing comprehensive exposure, and a challenge, in terms of achieving uniformity in results. For further research, it would be useful to investigate the question of whether the effectiveness of the coaching program can be better increased by a uniform approach with a few coaches or by a variety of coaching styles with several coaches. Third, future studies should also consider interviews with coaches, especially with coaches working full-time in the prison context. Given that the coach-athlete relationship develops over time by sharing moments outside of the coaching situations (74), this approach would provide valuable insights into coaching dynamics directly from those persons immersed in the work with inmates over an extended period. The question, how coaches can effectively balance confidence with reflective practice, could also be addressed in this study.