Search results

The nonprofit sector has come to deliver the majority of state-funded social services in the United States. Citizens depend on nonprofit organizations for these services, and nonprofits depend on government for financial support. Scholars have begun to ask important questions about the political and civic implications of this new organizational configuration. These questions have direct ramifications for the anti-prison movement given the explosive growth of nonprofit prison reentry organizations in recent years. To see how such organizations may impact political engagement and social movements, this chapter turns its focus on the intricate dynamics of client-staff interactions. Leveraging a yearlong ethnography of a government-funded prison reentry organization, I describe how such organizations can be politically active and at the same time contribute to their clients' political pacification. Staff members engaged in political activities in surrogate representation of their clients. While staffers advocated on their behalf, clients learned to avoid politics and community life, accept injustices for what they are, and focus instead on individual rehabilitation. By closely studying what goes on within a nonprofit service provider, I illustrate the nonprofit organization's dual political role and its implications for social movements and political change.

While the steep increases in rates of incarceration seen in the United States in the late twentieth century have begun to level out, one form of incarceration has seen more drastic reductions in rates of use in the 2010s: long-term solitary confinement. Across the United States, prisons that once isolated prisoners for decades at a time stand hauntingly empty. The solitary confinement reform movement provides an important lens for examining what happens when an entrenched punitive practice faces widespread and sustained criticism and reveals the multiple paradigms through which reform operates – through politics, litigation, or charismatic leadership.

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.

Over the past decade, criminology in Australia, Canada and other settler colonies has increasingly engaged with activist challenges to the penal system. These anti-carceral engagements have been levelled at its laws, institutions and agents. Following a long history of criminology explicating and buttressing penal institutions, the criminological gaze slowly transitioned in the 1970s to a more critical lens, shifting focus from the people who are criminalised to the harms of the apparatus that criminalises. However, the focus remained steadfastly on institutions and dominant players – until much more recently. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the strength of activist organisations and grassroots movements in affecting change and shaping debates in relation to the penal system. This chapter will explore the role of activism in informing criminological scholarship during the pandemic period and how criminologists, in turn, have increasingly recognised the need to build alliances and collaborations with grassroots activists and engage in their own activism. The chapter focuses primarily on Australian and Canadian criminology and its growing imbrication with the prison abolition movement, especially in the shadow of ongoing colonial violence. It considers how activist scholars, including ourselves, attempt to build movements for structural change in the criminal system and beyond.