Search results

The correctional system continues to face challenges with responding to and managing methamphetamine use among incarcerated individuals. This study aims to uncover what resources and policies could better help correctional workers deal with these challenges. The authors also examined methamphetamine’s impact on correctional work and staff well-being.

An online survey was distributed to correctional workers (n = 269) in Manitoba, Canada, featuring questions about their experiences related to methamphetamine use in populations under their care, what supports are needed to adequately address the concern, and the potential effects on self and their occupational responsibilities. Using NVivo software, survey responses were analysed using an emergent theme approach.

Correctional workers believed policies and protocols for managing methamphetamine use and withdrawal are currently inadequate. Correctional workers reported having monthly contact with incarcerated individuals experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal, posing safety concerns to them and other incarcerated individuals. Respondents proposed more education and training on managing incarcerated people withdrawing from methamphetamines, related to the symptoms of use and withdrawal and how to support persons detoxing. Increased human and material resources were reported as being needed (e.g. more nurses onsite and better screening devices). Respondents also desired more medical intervention, safe living spaces for methamphetamine users and programming to support addiction.

The current study unpacks correctional workers’ perspectives, support desires and their experiences managing methamphetamine use amongst incarcerated people. The authors discuss the required knowledge to respond to gaps in prison living, re-entry and related policy needs.

Prisonersare at disproportionate risk of suffering substance-related harms. The administration of naloxone is essential to reversing opioid overdose and minimizing substance-related harms in prison and the community. The purpose of this study is to examine how naloxone administration is practiced and perceived in prison settings.

The authors conducted surveys with correctional workers in Manitoba, Canada (n = 257) to examine how they understand and feel about the need for and practice of administering naloxone in their everyday work with criminalized populations.

Respondents reported feeling a great need to administer naloxone, but most did not feel adequately trained to administer naloxone, creating the perception that criminalized populations remain at enhanced risk.

Findings provide emerging evidence of the need for training and accompanying policies and procedures for correctional workers on how to access and administer naloxone.

This book brings together an international group of scholars whose chapters, analytically and/or empirically, engage with, challenge, and further advance our understanding of ‘mass supervision’ across jurisdictions. In this introductory chapter, we describe the impetus for and purpose of this book and briefly outline each chapter’s contribution. Together, contributors to this book provide contextualised insight into what ‘mass supervision’ is, how it works, and what effects it has on individuals and communities. The chapters span macro-examinations of the socio-political origins and developments of probation and community-based supervision across jurisdictions and micro-examinations of how people perceive and experience punishment in the community both as its practitioners and as its subjects.

In this closing chapter, we review the contributions of this collection, reflecting on how each advances our understanding of ‘mass supervision’. We return to McNeill’s conceptualisation of ‘mass supervision’ as a starting point to showing how contributors illuminate ‘mass supervision’ as a contextually and locally specific phenomenon with implications for families, communities and the larger penal system. Contributors critically examine the legal and policy developments and implications of ‘mass supervision’.

In the current chapter, we examine the nature, distribution and experiences of probation in Canada. More specifically, drawing upon in-depth interviews with probationer loved ones, we examine the experiences of what we refer to as secondary supervision. The concept captures how individuals with a loved one (i.e. family member or partner) on probation understand, make sense of and feel affected by their loved one’s probation order. Complementing existing literature on the collateral consequences of incarceration or ‘secondary prisonization’, we show how secondary supervision burdens probationer loved ones mentally and emotionally as they must navigate the uncertainties of their loved one’s legally precarious status. We highlight the necessity of expanding probation research and of our thinking about ‘mass supervision’ to consider the collateral and unintended consequences of community-based supervision.

Drawing from interviews with individuals on parole, this chapter explores experiences of and responses to penal misrecognition. It documents that participants feel fundamentally misrecognised by the parole agency and penal state. They believe that the penal state views them as dangerous, defective and incapable of virtuous self-governance. Yet this is not how they perceive themselves. This leads to a delicate balancing act where participants refuse certain aspects of the penal state while accommodating others. On the one hand, individuals refuse parole’s misrecognition of them and reject the state’s authority to define who they are. On the other hand, they largely acquiesce to parole’s authority to supervise and regulate conduct. Turning to the concept of refusal highlights that individuals do not just attempt to resist penal power; rather, they flatly reject the state’s epistemic constructions. They do this by turning away from parole and by turning towards other forms of sociality beyond the penal state. This creates material and affective distance from parole and opens up space for self-recognition and for receiving positive recognition from others. In this way, individuals seek to minimise, move away from and/or bypass a penal intervention that is ostensibly designed to assist and support them.

In the current chapter, we discuss the shape and contours of the field of probation in Romania as they appear in scientific literature and mass media, focusing on the concerns academics and professionals have voiced about Romanian probation. We analyse the timeframe from 2014 to 2021, after the introduction of the country’s New Penal Code (NPC). We structure our argument as follows. The chapter begins with a short incursion into the historiography of probation as a field in Romania. The focus, however, is on the adoption of a NPC in 2014, as this was a significant moment that led to changes for both probation workers and probationers. While we present the first 25 years since probation was instituted in Romania in 1997 as a period of experiments, trials and errors, we aim to highlight the development and consolidation that occurred in the period after 2014 (see Durnescu 2008, 2015; Preda, 2015a, 2017; Sandu, 2016). The NPC was intended to bring forward a reconfiguration of the probation system in Romania (Preda, 2015b). Beyond the promise of the NPC, the 2014–2021 period is one where probation edges into the public sphere via extensive media coverage, including the considerable number of probationers or a string of protests by probation counsellors who felt overworked and overwhelmed. We continue the chapter by analysing the composition and the dynamics of the probation population, always looking beyond the mere numbers to other analytic markers (i.e. numbers of obligations and lengths of the probation period). We conclude the chapter by arguing that our discussion of the ‘weight’ of supervision adds to the current understanding of mass supervision by looking at the aggregated impact that different social, political, penal and cultural factors have on probation practice. In other words, large caseloads, limited human resources, precarious material conditions and negative organisational cultures are likely to generate supervision experiences that can be better interpreted by looking and thinking beyond numbers.

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.