Search results

This paper aims to present the results of a three‐year comprehensive workplace initiative which provided an unprecedented opportunity to explore the potential relationship between organisational health, stress, and health outcomes.

Data were collected from 325 employees participating in a comprehensive workplace wellness intervention taking place in a large governmental organisation. Organisational health was measured using a 16‐item measure of organisational health indicators and a four‐item measure of health culture. Personal health outcomes were assessed using 12 indicators: personal wellness profile, health age, blood pressure, nutrition, fat intake, fibre intake, alcohol use, fitness, smoking status, cancer risk, stress, and good health practices.

Analyses indicated that after controlling for gender and age, organisational health was associated with increased personal wellness, lower health age, better overall nutrition, reduced fat intake, increased fibre intake, reduced alcohol consumption, increased fitness, reduced cancer risk, lower stress, and more positive health practices. For several outcome measures, organisational health had a stronger impact on personal health for men. Personal health of correctional workers and youth workers was most influenced by organisational health. Finally, stress mediated the relationship between organisational health and health outcomes for all measures of wellness except for alcohol consumption.

Organisational health is often overlooked by employers when considering the personal health of employees. Interventions aimed at influencing organisational health (generally considered a low cost intervention) can have beneficial influences on personal health.

Purpose – This chapter explores claims of social problem workers in criminal justice and mental health with regard to how to manage males who are identified as or self-identify as both victims and perpetrators (V/Ps) of sexual abuse. We also examine the claims of V/Ps with regard to how they manage their dual status.

Methodology – This chapter is based on an action research project on intervention services for V/Ps in Ontario, Canada. Our data include literature reviews, interviews with intervention professionals, V/P narratives, and a transcription of a stake-holder's workshop.

Findings – Intervention workers whose mandate is offender risk management state they give little attention to victimization-related issues of V/Ps, whereas workers in victims’ services often state that adult V/Ps are not covered under their mandate. This suggests that the status of offender is the master status for adult V/Ps. Our V/P narratives recount efforts at self-management and some V/Ps and intervention professionals have expressed interest in the possibility of developing programs specially designed for V/Ps.

Practical Implications – An examination of issues related to the dual status of sexual abuse V/Ps suggests that V/Ps may require special services that cannot be provided by existing programs for perpetrators and victims.

Originality/Value of Paper – Studies of social problem work might benefit from considering not only professionals’ viewpoints but also those of their clients. This chapter explores new intervention models (GLM and RJ) that incorporate ethical concerns based on a rights perspective (“moral repair”) and the experiential concerns of V/Ps.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the social stigmatization of the formerly incarcerated identity and how this affects employment post-release. The authors consider the characteristics of this identity and the identity management strategies that individuals draw from as they navigate employment.

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 men at various stages of release from federal institutions in Canada. Participants were actively searching for employment, intending to or would consider searching for employment, or had searched for employment in the past post-incarceration. Participant data were simultaneously collected, coded and analyzed using an inductive approach (Gioia et al., 2012).

Formerly incarcerated individuals have a unique awareness of the social stigmatization associated with their criminal record and incarceration history. They are tasked with an intentional choice to disclose or conceal that identity throughout the employment process. Six identity management strategies emerged from their accounts: conditional disclosure, deflection, identity substitution, defying expectations, withdrawal and avoidance strategies. More specifically, distinct implications of criminal record and incarceration history on disclosure decisions were evident. Based on participants’ accounts of their reintegration experiences, four aspects that may inform disclosure decisions include: opportune timing, interpersonal dynamics, criminal history and work ethic.

The authors explore the formerly incarcerated identity as a socially stigmatized identity and consider how individuals manage this identity within the employment context. The authors identify incarceration history and criminal record as having distinct impacts on experiences of stigma and identity management strategic choice, thus representing the experience of a “double stigma”.

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.

The purpose of this study was to systematically review literature to investigate trends in compassionate release policies, facility implementation, barriers at both the incarcerated individual and institutional levels, as well as gaps in the literature. The absence of uniform and appropriate policies to address suitable interventions at the end-of-life has aggravated the challenges and issues facing health-care systems within a correctional facility. A response to address and alleviate these barriers is policies related to compassionate release, a complex route that grants eligible inmates the opportunity to die in their community. Despite the existence of compassionate release policies, only 4% of requests to the Federal Bureau of Prisons are granted, with evidence demonstrating similarly low rates among numerous state prison systems, signifying the underuse of these procedures as a vital approach to decarceration.

A systematic review was completed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Education Resources Information Center, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts and Social Work Abstracts were searched from inception to March 2021. Inclusion criteria included: the compassionate release policy (or related policy) is implemented in the USA; reported qualitative and/or quantitative outcomes; and reported original data.

Twenty studies formed the final data set. Data analysis revealed four main themes: language barriers, complexities of eligibility criteria, over-reliance on prognostication and social stigma. Barriers to inmates’ access to compassionate release policies include unclear or technical language used in policy documents. Eligibility criteria appear to vary across the country, including disease prognoses and the ability to predict terminal declines in health, creating confusion amongst inmates, lawyers and review boards. Stigmas surrounding the rights of incarcerated individuals frequently influence policymakers who experience pressure to maintain a punitive stance to appease constituents, thus discouraging policies and interventions that promote the release of incarcerated individuals.

Further research is vital to strengthen the understanding of compassionate release policies and related barriers associated with accessing various types of early parole. To promote social justice for this marginalized population, end-of-life interventions in corrections need to be consistently evaluated with outcomes that improve care for dying inmates.

Within correctional facilities, correctional health-care workers should play an integral role in influencing prison and medical staff attitudes toward dying inmates by providing an understanding of how to effectively support this vulnerable population. Social workers should participate in research that focuses on effective guidelines for correctional facilities to provide compassionate end-of-life care for inmates.

Racial disparities in the US criminal justice system are prevalent and well documented, as individuals of color are arrested far out of proportion to their share of all individuals in the USA. This particular population is thus challenged with poor access to and quality of health care in corrections. Correctional health-care workers can play an integral role in influencing policymakers, as well as prison and medical staff attitudes toward dying inmates by providing an understanding of how to effectively support this vulnerable population.

Currently, there are no published research articles that provide a systematic review of compassionate release policies in the USA.

In this chapter, the authors adopt a macrofoundations perspective to explore punishment within institutional theory. Institutional theorists have long focused on a single type of punishment – retribution – including the use of sanctions, fines, and incarceration to maintain conformity. The authors expand the types of punishment that work to uphold institutions, organized by visible and hidden, and formal and informal characteristics. The four types of punishment include (1) punishment-as-retribution; (2) punishment-as-charivari; (3) punishment-as-rehabilitation; and (4) punishment-as-vigilantism. The authors develop important connections between punishment-as-charivari, which relies on shaming efforts, and burgeoning interest in organizational stigma and social evaluations. The authors also point to informal types of punishment, including punishment-as-vigilantism, to expand the variety of actors that punish wrongdoing, including actors without the legal authority to do so. Finally, the authors detail a number of questions for each type of punishment as a means to generate a future research agenda.

The chapter “Books Open Worlds for People Behind Bars” by Gerhard Peschers gives an insight into library services in correctional facilities in Germany on different levels, ranging from local best practice examples (e.g., Berlin, Bremen, Dortmund, and Würzburg) via regional experiences – focusing on longstanding experiences in North Rhine-Westphalia, in particular the outstanding former Münster prison library which was awarded the German national Library Prize “Library of the Year 2007” – and nationwide subjects to grown internationality based on long-term integration into the library community. Fundamental issues include history and the legal basis of prison libraries as well as practical experiences on various levels of responsibility and its diverse scope of tasks, such as collection development, data processing, interior design, events, and cooperation with city libraries.

The outlook provides the state of play and the challenges regarding digitalization for the development of prison libraries.

Finally, the author’s dream of the book tree on the prison wall, which found international resonance, invites you to share the vision of dialog and tolerance across dividing walls.

Community policing has been around for at least two decades now and it is safe to say that it has become, in large part, more about managing disruptive subjects and virtuous citizens than preventing crime or disorder (Crank, 1994; DeLeon-Granados, 1999; Yngvesson, 1993). While the rhetoric of community may be succeeding where the policing policy is failing, the experience has certainly contributed to the growth of homologous efforts that include community prosecution and community correction. We see a criminal justice system pro-actively seeking to blur the boundaries between its institutions and the communities they work within and, all too often, without. In recent years, there has been a rapid growth in justice approaches that turn their attention toward the community. There are literally hundreds of examples of this trend, from offender-victim reconciliation projects in Vermont and Minneapolis to ‘beat probation’ in Madison, Wisconsin; from neighborhood-based prosecution centers in Portland, Oregon, and New York City, to community probation in Massachusetts. Of course, the most well-known version of community justice is community policing, but localized projects involving all components of the justice system have been widely promoted (Clear & Karp, 1998, p. 3).Like community policing and community prosecution, community correction programs generally focus on partnering with service providers and community groups in order to more finely calibrate their service delivery. For community corrections the recent focus has been on delivering re-entry programs and expanding the availability of intermediate sanctioning options. The sheriff (above) focuses on re-entry, to link jails and communities in two ways: extending the correctional continuum into power-poor communities and increasing political support for expanding the criminal justice system in more affluent communities. Even as fiscal stress translates into budget cuts in education, housing, drug treatment, and other services, the reach of the criminal justice system expands outside the fences as new community-based partnerships and inside the fences as an increasingly program-rich environment. These partnerships are, not surprisingly as we shall see, dominated by criminal justice professionals and dependent on coercive control techniques. Further, their budgets are growing with funds in previous eras earmarked for providing many of the same services in a social welfare, rather, than social control, service delivery context. While these budgetary trends map a macro political trend from an old democratic New Deal toward a new republican new deal network of patronage relationships (see Lyons, forthcoming 2004), this paper examines the micro politics of community corrections developing within an increasingly punitive American political-culture.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the contribution of modern correctional service in health promotion exemplified by the case study of Norwegian health promotion policies in prison settings.

This paper applies a two-fold methodology. First a narrative systematic literature review based on the Norwegian policy documents relevant for correctional settings is conducted. This is followed by a general review of the literature on the principles of humane service delivery in offender rehabilitation.

Alongside the contribution of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model in corrections and prevention of reoffending, the findings demonstrate an evident involvement of Norway in health promotion through authentic health promoting actions applied in prison settings. The actions are anchored in health policy's overarching goals of equity and “health in all public policy” aiming to reduce social inequalities in population health.

In order to achieve a potential success of promoting health in correctional settings, policy makers have much to gain from endorsing a dialogue that respects the unique contributions of correctional research and health promotion. Focussing on inter-agency partnership and interdisciplinary collaboration between humane services may result in promising outcomes for individual, community and public health gain. The organizational factors and community involvement may be a significant aspect in prisoner rehabilitation, reentry and reintegration.

Prisons in Africa face unprecedented challenges during Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In July 2020, the first prison system case of COVID-19 was notified in Zimbabwe. Subsequently, the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services released their COVID-19 operational plan. The purpose of the study was to assess preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in selected prisons in Zimbabwe.

A multi-method situation assessment of COVID-19 preparedness was conducted across three Zimbabwean prisons. The World Health Organization checklist to evaluate preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons was administered to frontline health managers. Information garnered was further explored during site observation and in multi-stakeholder key informant interviews with policymakers, prison health directorate, frontline health-care professionals, officers in charge and non-governmental organizations (n = 26); focus group discussions with correctional officers (n = 18); and male/female prisoners (n = 36). Data was triangulated and analyzed using content thematic analysis.

Outdated infrastructure, severe congestion, interrupted water supply and inadequate hygiene and sanitation were conducive to ill-health and spread of disease. Health professionals had been well-trained regarding COVID-19 disease control measures. COVID-19 awareness among prisoners was generally adequate. There was no routine COVID-19 testing in place, beyond thermo scanning. Access to health care was good, but standards were hindered by inadequate medicines and personnel protective equipment supply. Isolation measures were compromised by accommodation capacity issues. Flow of prison entries constituted a transmission risk. Social distancing was impossible during meals and at night.

This unique situation assessment of Zimbabwean prisons’ preparedness and approach to tackling COVID-19 acknowledges state and prison efforts to protect prisoners and staff, despite infrastructural constraints and inadequate resourcing from government.