Search results

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal) people are overrepresented in Australian prisons, where they experience complex health needs. A model of care was designed to respond to the broad needs of the Aboriginal prisoner population within the nine adult prisons across South Australia. The purpose of this paper is to describe the methods and findings of the Model of Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Prisoner Health and Wellbeing for South Australia.

The project used a qualitative mixed-method approach, including a rapid review of relevant literature, stakeholder consultations and key stakeholder workshop. The project was overseen by a Stakeholder Reference Group, which met monthly to ensure that the specific needs of project partners, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities were appropriately incorporated into the planning and management of the project and to facilitate access to relevant information and key informants.

The model of care for Aboriginal prisoner health and wellbeing is designed to be holistic, person-centred and underpinned by the provision of culturally appropriate care. It recognises that Aboriginal prisoners are members of communities both inside and outside of prison. It notes the unique needs of remanded and sentenced prisoners and differing needs by gender.

Supporting the health and wellbeing of Indigenous prison populations can improve health outcomes, community health and reduce recidivism.

Only one other model of care for Aboriginal prisoner health exists in Australia, an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation-initiated in-reach model of care in one prison in one jurisdiction. The South Australian model of care presents principles that are applicable across all jurisdictions and provides a framework that could be adapted to support Indigenous peoples in diverse prison settings.

Most prisoners are eventually returned to their communities, making their transition into the community and aftercare a fundamental aspect of successful re-entry. This paper aims to explore the stages of someone’s reintegration from pre-release, through to reintegration and desistance and consider the factors relevant to the re-entry process for those who have offended and how to enhance this process. The aim of this paper was twofold; first to highlight the various factors and issues involved in the re-entry and reintegration process, particularly for those who are released after imprisonment and, second, to consider the significance of aftercare services in facilitating this process.

This paper opted for a brief review of the literature regarding incarceration and reintegration and some of the gaps in the literature. This paper will commence with a discussion of the effects of imprisonment on those who are incarcerated, then a consideration of the re-entry process, followed by a discussion of the reintegration process and desistance. Following will be reflections regarding the implications for practice. A case study is used to illustrate these points.

The current paper proposes a framework by which organisations and service providers working with those who are released from prison can use or incorporate into their practice to enhance aftercare support. The case study is used as an example to further illustrate this.

Implications for practice are also considered as well as recommendations to aid the re-entry and aftercare process. Suggestions are also offered to those agencies that are responsible for the provision of aftercare services for those released from prison.

This paper offers some considerations regarding the importance of the preparing and planning for release with a specific focus on aftercare services and their role in the re-entry and reintegration process.

Prisons can be epicentres of infectious diseases. However, empirical evidence on the impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in prison is still scarce. This study aims to estimate the seroprevalence rates of anti-SARS-CoV-2 in the largest and most crowded Swiss prison and compare them with the seroprevalence rate in the general population.

A cross-sectional study was conducted in June 2020, one month after the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Switzerland. Groups included: people living in detention (PLDs) detained before the beginning of the pandemic (n = 116), PLDs incarcerated after the beginning of the pandemic (n = 61), prison staff and prison healthcare workers (n = 227) and a sample from the general population in the same time period (n = 3,404). The authors assessed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

PLDs who were incarcerated before the beginning of the pandemic had a significantly lower seroprevalence rate [0.9%, confidence interval (CI)95%: 0.1%–5.9%] compared to the general population (6.3%, CI 95%: 5.6–7.3%) (p = 0.041). The differences between PLDs who were incarcerated before and other groups were marginally significant (PLDs incarcerated after the beginning of the pandemic: 6.6%, CI 95%: 2.5%–16.6%, p = 0.063; prison staff CI 95%: 4.8%, 2.7%–8.6%, p = 0.093). The seroprevalence of prison staff was only slightly and non-significantly lower than that of the general population.

During the first wave, despite overcrowding and interaction with the community, the prison was not a hotspot of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preventive measures probably helped avoiding clusters of infection. The authors suggest that preventive measures that impact social welfare could be relaxed when overall circulation in the community is low to prevent the negative impact of isolation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine lived experiences of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) during and immediately following release from detention in prisons in England and Scotland.

Surveys were completed by serving prisoners in both countries and by those recently released from prison (England only). The survey findings were discussed in focus groups of people with lived experience. The combined findings from the surveys and focus groups were shared with an expert group of prison OAT providers and people with lived experience with the purpose of making recommendations for more accessible and effective OAT in custodial environments and continuity of OAT on release

The quality and accessibility of OAT varied considerably between establishments. It was reported to be harder to access OAT in Scottish prisons. It was often hard for people in prison to get the dosage of OAT they felt they needed and it was generally harder to access buprenorphine than methadone in English prisons. Only Scottish people in prison were aware of long-lasting forms of buprenorphine. People in English prisons had mixed experiences of the help available in prison, with no improvement recorded since a 2016 study. People in Scottish prisons were more likely to rate the help available as poor.

The number of people accessed while actually in prison (73) was reduced by the impact of the pandemic, making it more difficult to access people in prison and because some were resistant to participating on the basis that they had already been consulted for a wide variety of research projects focused on the impact of COVID. The Scottish cohort (a total of 19 individuals comprising 14 survey respondents and five focus group members) is clearly too small a number on which to base robust claims about differences in OAT provision between the English and Scottish prison systems..

The study identifies key barriers to accessing OAT in prisons and suggests key components of more user-friendly approaches.

This study provides an overview of the recent lived experiences of people accessing OAT in prison and on release and offers valuable recommendations on how to make service provision more effective and consistent.

This study provides an overview of the recent lived experiences of people accessing OAT in prison and on release in England and Scotland and offers valuable recommendations on how to make service provision more effective and consistent.

Prisons in the sub-Saharan African region face unprecedented challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Malawi, the first prison system case of COVID-19 was notified in July 2020. While prison settings were included in the second domestic COVID-19 response plan within the Law Enforcement cluster (National COVID-19 preparedness and response plan, July–December 2020), they were initially not included in the K157bn (US$210m) COVID-19 fund. The purpose of the study was to assess prison preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in Malawi..

A multi-method situation assessment of the COVID-19 response and human rights assurance of prisoners and staff was conducted in a large prison complex in Malawi. Qualitative research underpinned by the Empirical Phenomenological Psychological (EPP) framework consisted of interviews with key informants such as prison health personnel, senior prison staff, penal and judicial policymakers, government and civil society organisations (n = 14) and focus group discussions with consenting male (n = 48) and female prisoners (n = 48) and prison wardens (n = 24). Prison site visits were supported by detailed observations based on the World Health Organisation Checklist for COVID-19 in prisons (n = 9). Data were collected and analysed thematically using the EPP stepwise approach and triangulated based on Bronfenbrenner’s model conceptualising COVID-19 as a multi-level event disrupting the prison eco-system.

The results are presented as MICRO-MESO level individual and community experiences of incarceration during COVID-19 spanning several themes: awareness raising and knowledge of COVID-19 in prisons; prison congestion and the impossibility of social distancing; lack of adequate ventilation, hygiene and sanitation and provisions and correct use of personal protective equipment; MESO-MACRO level interplay between the prison community of prisoners and staff and judicial policy impacts; medical system COVID-19 response, infrastructure and access to health care; COVID-19 detection and quarantine measures and prisoner access to the outside world.

This unique situation assessment of the Malawian prison system response to mitigate COVID-19 illustrates the dynamics at the micro-level whereby prisoners rely on the state and have restricted agency in protecting themselves from disease. This is due to severe structural inadequacies based on low resource allocation to prisons leading to a compromised ability to prevent and treat disease; an infirm and congested infrastructure and bottlenecks in the judicial system fuelling a continued influx of remand detainees leading to high overcapacity. Multi-pronged interventions involving key stakeholders, with prison management and line Ministry as coordinators are warranted to optimise COVID-19 interventions and future disease outbreaks in the Malawian prison system.

Research shows that the physical locations of correctional facilities often contribute to environmental hazards. Research also shows that correctional facilities are often sited near hazardous or undesirable land(s). In combination, incarcerated individuals may be at increased risk of experiencing negative health consequences because of exposure to various environmental harms. This is especially alarming as incarcerated individuals lack the capacity to decide where they are detained. In these cases, health issues that may have developed while detained may extend beyond incarceration. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals are not protected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice policies.

Using a case study approach, the authors examine two specific correctional facilities in the USA to not only demonstrate the various environmental harms that incarcerated individuals encounter but also highlight carceral spaces as sites of environmental violations.

Additionally, the authors address the negative health consequences incarcerated individuals report because of exposure to these harms. They also argue that creating safer communities requires more than reducing crime and preventing criminal victimization. Creating safer communities also includes promoting environmental safety and protection from hazards that cause sickness and disease.

This work contributes to an emerging and growing body of literature that examines the intersection of carceral studies and environmental justice.

The study aimed to identify and define core components of Throughcare. The global prison population has reached its highest level to date (11.5 million), with comparative data on recidivism unavailable. Despite the global shift away from punitive and towards rehabilitative approaches, reintegration programming (Throughcare) is limited, ill-resourced or non-existent in many countries.

This study conducted a global e-Delphi consensus study of professionals working in prison and correctional services to define critical components of effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming. Consensus was defined a priori as 70% or more participants scoring an outcome from 7 to 9 and fewer than 15% scoring it 1 to 3.

Following a call for expression of interest circulated to the International Corrections and Prisons Association member list (n = 7282), 175 members agreed to partake in the e-Delphi rounds. In Round One, 130 individuals completed an online survey where 35 statements were scored by importance, each with opportunity to provide written feedback. A total of 33 statements exceeded the set threshold of consensus. Written feedback supported refinement and further development of statements in Round Two. A total of 108 individuals completed Round Two. A total of 39 out of the 40 statements exceeded the set threshold of consensus.

Consensus statements are useful to provide a shared understanding for inter-agency Throughcare partnerships, to inform national prison policies and to expand prison and support staff capacity building and programmes all over the world.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, to date, this is the first known attempt to elicit consensus from a broad range of professionals working in the field of prison and correctional services on core components of effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming.

Correctional facilities often constitute locally unwanted land use (LULUs), with local residents strongly demanding their relocation. Accordingly, the construction of correctional facilities is currently being promoted in regions that are far from city centres. Some local government officials consider relocating correctional facilities to rural areas as a golden opportunity to revitalise the economies of these areas. This paper focuses on the possibilities of local community participation in the sustainable development of prison siting in rural areas.

The methods and procedure of this study are as follows: (1) to review the relevant literature about regulations or cohesion policies when correctional facilities are constructed, (2) to examine the current issues relating to the conflict between correctional facilities and the local community from the perspective of LULUs and (3) to compare the construction processes of correctional facilities and public buildings in South Korea. The latter focuses on Daegu Correctional Facility as a site study through which to investigate how the facility interacted with the local community when the government decided to locate the correctional facility in a rural area.

The case study confirmed that communication methods between correctional facilities and stakeholders at each stage affected the occurrence and resolution of conflicts between them. In particular, it was found that correctional facilities in rural areas can transform the characteristics of the community by providing an open facility that serves community needs and boosts the local economy.

This study contributes to a new vision for locating correctional facilities, wherein conflicts are resolved through communication with local communities in rural regions. In addition, the study argues that community participation could allow correctional facilities to function as living hubs in the community and so benefit the residents of rural areas.

There is evidence that music programmes can have a positive impact on people in contact with the criminal justice system. However, little attention has been paid to the potential role of music programmes as people leave prison and re-enter the community. Providing support for former prisoners “through-the-gate” is important to aid resettlement and reduce the risk of reoffending. This paper aims to present research on a programme called Sounding Out: a two-year, London-based programme providing ex-prisoners with longer-term rehabilitative opportunities upon their release to bridge the gap between life inside and outside of prison.

The study aimed to understand the impact of the Sounding Out programme on ex-prisoners from the perspective of participants, staff and family members. Semi-structured interviews took place with 17 people: ten participants across two Sounding Out projects; six members of staff – three from the Irene Taylor Trust, two musicians and one former prison worker; and one family member of a participant.

The research provides an understanding of the impact of involvement in a carefully designed programme of music creation, skills development and work placements. Thematic analysis of the data resulted in three key themes: personal impact, focus and direction and interpersonal relationships. The findings are consistent with the body of research that demonstrates the impact of music programmes on prisoners.

The current study adds to the relatively limited body of evidence on the role of music programmes in the reintegration of former prisoners into the community.