The educational dimension in Prison, which can be linked to the theories of Prison Education (EPEA, 2015; Prisoner Learning Alliance, 2016; Costello & Warner, 2014) and Adult Learning, has been recognised and supported internationally (Council of the European Union, 2009, 2011; UNESCO, 2000, 2015; UNODC, 2015; Council of Europe, 1990, 2004) through normative acts and policy texts. The educational perspective aims to support normalisation processes in which inmates are encouraged and accompanied to become aware of new possibilities, new patterns of behaviour and develop the necessary skills to exercise and realise their rights and manage their personal growth processes (Prisoner Learning Alliance, 2016). In this sense, each prison must provide different learning opportunities combining formal, non-formal and informal education dimension. Within the learning provision made available, the prison library service is recognised as a fundamental educational, cultural and informative tool within the prison context. From the review of the international literature (Singer, 2000; Ljødal & Ra, 2011; Hussain et al, 2018; Lehmann, 2000, 2011; Garner, 2017; Rosen, 2020) it emerges that this service has not receive particular attention, with a few exceptions, and that the prison library model that is currently established provides for the overcoming of the exclusive function of book lending in favour of a broader recognition of the service. The library should be structured as a service which supports the principle of normality, a place where "individuals are free to make their own choices and engage in self-directed activities" (Lehmann & Locke, 2005: 4) and within which useful materials and tools are provided to meet the different needs of the subjects, to stimulate confrontation between subjects with different interests and values, to support the growth and change of prisoners in cognitive and behavioural terms (Council of Europe, 2004; Harris & Dudley, 2005).

The current research intends to promote, within three detention wards of two penitentiary institutes in Florence (Italy), the creation and sustainability of social libraries capable of generating personal and organisational development actions, enhancing the resources already present and taking into account the educational needs and interests of both the inmate population and the prison administration staff.

Goal 16.7 of the Agenda 2030, "to ensure responsible decision-making, open to all, participatory and representative at all levels" is combined with the hypothesis guiding the entire research: in order to respond to the needs emerging from the prison context, sustainable interventions capable of transforming internal processes and operational methods (e.g. access modes, routines, rules, organisational and management methods, etc), must be designed with the involvement on several levels of all internal organisational actors (decision-making and operational) and with the users of the service themselves, already at a stage of recognition of the problems and definition of the actions and expected results.

The long-term impact, once the research is concluded, should be the autonomous and shared management of an educational service such as the prison library, able to provide a set of resources and tools to facilitate dialogue, learning and the identification of problems and needs at all levels of the prison context. The prison is therefore reinterpreted as an organisation capable of modifying internal procedures and services thanks to new learning generated by the internal resources involved in the process of rethinking and redefining the library.

The research questions were formulated as follows: What are the necessary conditions for the social library in a prison to become a training device? What factors (internal/external to the prison context, facilitating/obstructing) enable it to function?

The research design adopted was inspired by the Multi-mixed Methods Research paradigm (Creswell, 2012; Trinchero & Robasto, 2019) and mainly involved the application of qualitative methods and approaches. The structure of the research design is characterised by two sequential macro-phases with parallel sub-phases: 1) exploratory phase, 2) intervention research phase; the negotiation, monitoring and evaluation phases were transversal. The exploratory phase, thanks to a triangulation of different methods of investigation and data collection techniques (focus groups, semi-structured interviews, participant observation) with different intra and extra-penitentiary stakeholders, made it possible to identify, on the one hand, the aspects that do not allow the current libraries to perform an educational function in line with the intrinsic potential they could have and, on the other hand, to deepen the contextual factors on which to leverage in order to favour their transformation into a social library. The exploratory phase ended with the content analysis of the empirical material (interviews, focus groups, logbook) to natural units of meaning, subsequently placed in a system of categories. The results that emerged were functional to the second macro phase "intervention research" for the definition of categories on which to structure and plan improvement actions. The first action of intervention research phase was the creation of working groups (inmates, educators and prison officers) through a bottom-up process, using different methods, and the structuring of the calendar of meetings. In the light of the Agenda 2030 objective mentioned above, the activation of the inmates and prison staff had a twofold objective: 1) to design and offer a service which responds to real internal demand, 2) to experiment within the prison, procedures of co-responsibility and parameterization of a certain organisational autonomy in compliance with regulatory and security constraints. Following the methodology of Goal Oriented Project Planning (European Commission, 2004), in a first phase, the problems related to the library were identified and defined systematically, clustering them into thematic areas; then, general and specific objectives to be pursued were formulated and possible actions to be implemented to achieve them were structured, defining the modalities and timing of intervention. Finally, the third phase was dedicated to the negotiation of the outputs produced with internal and external organisational actors who did not participate in the working groups (e.g. Directors and Inspectors).

Since the beginning of the research, emerged the difficulty of involving prison officers in the processes because they did not recognise the importance of library as an educational tool. The first result of change was the weakening of this resistance through the involvement of key roles of security staff in some decision-making processes concerning the library service. The working groups, acting as a collective subject, in defining functions and activities of the new library, took into account facilitating and hindering factors within the prison for the effective implementation of the social library and they read the contextual constraints as opportunities. They recognise the significance of an action of negotiation of what was produced with the decision-making levels, consequently tacit knowledge was made explicit and the change in mindset of key individuals in the context cascaded to a change in organisational mindset generating ameliorative actions within prisons (Watkins & Kim, 2017). Below some results. Have been designed: - self-directed orientation services; - differentiated training courses for prison staff and inmates to develop skills to structure, manage and organise the library service; - questionnaire of literary interests with the aim of activating and sensitising the inmate population by enhancing the potential of individuals and, at the same time, making the library collection responsive to real internal demand. Acknowledging the functions of a social library, the physical space was restructured according to the principles of inclusiveness, accessibility and participation; new socio-educational activities were carried out and shared changes to regulations and internal procedures in terms of access to the service and operating methods were implemented. The research is not only about the prisoner but rather about the whole prison system: how can its educational function be redefined? how can internal resources be valued? how can organisational change in the prison context be supported?

Council of Europe (1990). Education in prison. Strasbourg -(2004). A new strategy for social cohesion. European Commitee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) Council of the European Union (2009). European policy Cooperation. ET 2020 framework. Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea C119/2 - (2011). Risoluzione del Consiglio su un’agenda europea rinnovata per l’apprendimento degli adulti. Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea C372/1 Costelloe, A & Warnern, K. (2014). Prison education across Europe: policy, practice, politics. London Review of Education, 12 (2). Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson, 4th edition. European Commission (2004). Project cycle management guidelines, Brussels European Prison Education Association (2015). Vision 2025. A 10-years strategic vision. Garner, J. (2017). Experiencing the use of Australian prison libraries: a phenomenological study. Journal of the Australian library and information association, 66(2):170-171 Harris K., & Dudley M. (2005). Public libraries and Community cohesion. Developing Indicators. Museum, libraries and archivies Council, London Hussain T., Batool S.H., Hanif Soroya S & Warraich N.S. (2018). Pakistani prison libraries: an assessment of services and challenge. Global knowledge, memory and communication Lehmann, V. & Locke, J. (a cura di) (2005). Guidelins for library services to prisoners. International federation of library associations and institutions. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Lehmann, V. (2000). The prison library: a vital link to education, rehabilitation, and recreation. Education libraries, 24(1): 5-10. -(2011). Challenges and accomplishment in U.S. Prison Libraries. Library Trends, 59(3):490-508 Ljødal, H.K. & Ra E. (2011). Prison libraries the Scandinavian way: an overview of the development and operation of prison libraries services. Library Trends, 59(3): 473-489 Prison Learning Alliance (2016). What is prison education for? A theory of change exploring the value of learning in prison. Rosen, J. (2020). Evaluating impact in the forgotten field of Prison librarianship. The serials librarian, 79(1-2):38-48 Singer, G. (2000). Prison libraries inside out, Education libraries, 24(1) Trinchero, R. & Robasto, D. (2019). I mixed methods nella ricerca educativa. Mondadori università, Milano. UNESCO (2000). European Communities: A memorandum on lifelong learning UNESCO (2015). Recommendation on Adult Learning and Education. United National, Scientific and Cultural Organization and UIL United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2015), The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Watkins K. & Kim K., (2017). Current status and promising directions for research on the learning organization. Human resource development quarterly, Wiley periodicals inc.