Search results

This “viewpoint” paper aims to explore the root causes of probation fear, including worries about job security, performance expectations, cultural fit and feedback. It seeks to examine the impact of these fears on employees’ mental health, job performance, work relationships and career progression, as well as the broader implications for employers, such as increased turnover and training costs. Leadership’s role in creating a supportive environment and encouraging feedback is emphasised.

This paper uses a combination of author observations and literature to explore the intricacies of probation fears faced by employees during the probation process.

Author observations and literature show that the impact of probation fear is not strictly limited to the employee who is going through the probation process. It is suggested that by addressing probation fear, a more inclusive, supportive and productive workplace can be created. In a collective effort, Employers can implement transparent communication, structured onboarding, supportive feedback, mentorship programs and foster psychological safety and employees can seek clarity, build relationships, prioritise self-care, focus on learning and engage in professional development.

As this paper includes observations from the author the paper could suffer from the writer’s biases even though this is unintended.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, as this paper includes observations by the author, this study is original. This paper also provides value to both HR and front-line managers involved in the employee probation journey where the exploration of probation fear is under-researched.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to find out what role intermediaries have in facilitating communication with victims and prisoners at Parole Board (PB) oral hearings.

A survey was designed and administered to 39 PB members to find out their perceptions of, and experiences with, the use of intermediaries. Frequency tables and verbatim quotations are used to report the results.

Overall, participants had not experienced any use of intermediaries with victims or family members presenting victim personal statements at an oral hearing. Further, there had been limited use of intermediaries for prisoners attending oral hearings. Nevertheless, there was a good recognition of a range of communication needs that a prisoner might present with at a hearing. There was also general support for the use of intermediaries with some caution about possible delays to procedural fairness.

The early identification of communication support needs for prisoners and victims attending an oral hearing is essential. The PB should raise awareness with the PB Membership about the role of intermediaries. The PB should continue to develop guidance and policy surrounding intermediaries. Prison lawyers and HM Prison and Probation Service may require specialist training in identifying communication needs in vulnerable prisoners and identifying when a communication specialist might be required for an oral hearing.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first published paper examining the role of intermediaries at PB oral hearings. It builds on the evidence base of the use of intermediaries in other criminal justice contexts.