Suchergebnisse

AbstractCoerced work on parole occurs when people are required to work under the threat of criminal legal repercussions. In the face of barriers to "good" work for people after prison, coercion helps to funnel parolees into positions at the bottom of the labor market. Parolee workers in these positions experience issues common to precarious, low‐wage work (low pay, hazardous working conditions, and labor law violations), as well as heightened vulnerability to predatory employers and exposure to parole‐prohibited activities. Because of the threat‐backed requirements to work, however, parolees must choose to either accept this "bad" work or face potential sanctions. Using mixed‐methods, including a novel form of respondent‐driven sampling I call "Hybrid‐RDS," this article documents the prevalence of coerced work for people on parole in Los Angeles County, identifies the mechanisms through which coercive work operates, and illustrates the problematic employment conditions of coerced work after prison.

In recent decades, the United States has seen the simultaneous rise of mass incarceration and homelessness. The two crises are driven by the same structural factors and interact with one another, exacerbating their detrimental effects in a feedback loop. People under community supervision face many barriers to housing, putting them at high risk of experiencing homelessness in the months following release. People who experience homelessness are at heightened risk of criminal justice involvement for offenses like violating the terms of their community supervision as they engage in survival behaviors in public spaces. This article presents evidence-based approaches to improving housing strategies for reentry populations, preventing homelessness among those in community supervision, and rehousing members of the reentry community experiencing homelessness. It concludes with recommendations for policymakers interested in improving housing outcomes and overall reentry success for people on community supervision.

The continued use of solitary confinement has sparked international public health and human rights criticisms and concerns. This carceral practice has been linked repeatedly to a range of serious psychological harms among incarcerated persons. Vulnerabilities to harm are especially dire for persons with preexisting serious mental illness ("SMI"), a group that is overrepresented in solitary confinement units. Although there have been numerous calls for the practice to be significantly reformed, curtailed, and ended altogether, few strategies exist to minimize its use for people with SMI and histories of violence against themselves or others. This case study describes the "Oregon Resource Team" (ORT), a pilot project adapted from a Norwegian officer-led, interdisciplinary team-based approach to reduce isolation and improve outcomes for incarcerated persons with SMI and histories of trauma, self-injury, and violence against others. We describe the ORT's innovative approach, the characteristics and experiences of incarcerated people who participated in it, its reported impact on the behavior, health, and well-being of incarcerated persons and correctional staff, and ways to optimize its effectiveness and expand its use.

This article examines methodological dilemmas surrounding entrée, emotion, and epistemology that can arise when conducting qualitative research in carceral settings. We address how our research team navigated consent and presentations of self for maintaining access; how they managed empathy and the emotional toll of conducting research in adversarial settings; and how conflicting narratives raised questions about data validity and knowledge construction. Analysis reveals how institutional power dynamics shape behind-the-scenes methodological decisions we make during fieldwork. Without open discussion, researchers risk perpetuating the opacity we seek to diffuse and replicating the power dynamics we aim to objectively document within total institutions.

AbstractThe mark of a criminal record is clearly harmful for employment. The reasons for employer aversion, however, are not well established even though legal, policy, and scholarly responses rely on particular explanations. We propose that explanations for aversion often fit under a repetition risk framework in which employers use records as neutral sources of information about prior illegal activity and make decisions to minimize risk of similar future conduct. A second explanation is stigma, in which the records themselves, independent of conduct, trigger stereotypes, status loss, and discrimination. Using an experimental employer survey, we find that employers evaluate applicants with records more negatively than they do applicants with similar behavior signaled through non‐criminal‐justice sources (e.g., social media); this effect remains after accounting for predictions about future conduct. It is also most apparent among higher status jobs rather than among manual labor jobs, and it persists after adjusting for firm‐level and legal constraints. We conclude that aversion reflects not only repetition risk but also the stigma of criminal justice contact. Insofar as criminal record screening is not exclusively a form of rational risk management, this finding may lead to altered assessments of the benefits of screening relative to the costs of perpetuating inequality produced by the criminal justice system.

BACKGROUND: In light of mounting evidence of the physical and psychological harms associated with solitary confinement, many correctional systems, state legislators, courts, and even international human rights bodies are increasingly recommending and implementing reforms to mitigate the harms of solitary confinement, if not abolish the practice entirely. In this piece, we examine three specific infrastructural changes to solitary confinement conditions and practices implemented in Washington state prisons with such harm minimization goals in mind: (1) building so-called "nature imagery rooms" to play videos of outdoor spaces, (2) eliminating punishments for self-harm, and (3) conducting daily cell-front wellness checks. RESULTS: Drawing on 183 in-depth qualitative interviews with both staff working in and people imprisoned in solitary confinement units conducted in Washington state restrictive housing units in 2017, we find that these three reforms not only resulted in limited successes but also generated new conflicts. Institutional logics such as deprivation, risk-management, and responsibilization ultimately impeded even the most modest attempts to mitigate the inherently harsh practice of solitary confinement. The limits of these reforms are due in part to individual choices made by people imprisoned in solitary confinement and staff working in these units, as well as the larger cultural norms that shape life in restrictive housing units. CONCLUSIONS: Incrementalist reforms aimed at softening the environment of solitary confinement may actually serve to increase the strain and stress experienced by people confined to and working within them. Even the most well-intentioned reforms, like those attempted by the Washington DOC, should be scrutinized in order to determine if they are producing the desired outcomes, or instead, reproducing a different, but nonetheless damaging set of harms to people imprisoned in solitary confinement. Further, even well-intentioned reforms are often stymied by the underlying ...

ABSTRACT: Solitary confinement is a widespread practice in US correctional facilities. Long-standing concerns about the physical and mental health effects of solitary confinement have led to litigation, legislation, and community activism resulting in many prison systems introducing policies or implementing legal mandates to reduce or eliminate its use. Yet little is known about the nature and effectiveness of policies that states have adopted to reduce their use of solitary confinement and exactly how various reforms have actually impacted the lives of people living and working in the prisons where these reforms have taken place. METHODS: We conducted an embedded case study, analyzing changes in policies and procedures, administrative data, and focus groups and interviews with incarcerated persons and staff, to describe the circumstances that led to changes in solitary confinement policies and practices in the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (ND DOCR) and the perceived impact of these changes on incarcerated persons and prison staff. . RESULTS: North Dakota's correctional officials and staff members attributed the impetus to change their solitary confinement policies to their participation in a program that directly exposed them to the Norwegian Correctional Service's philosophy, policies, and practices in 2015. The ensuing policy changes made by North Dakota officials were swift and resulted in a 74.28% reduction in the use of solitary confinement between 2016 and 2020. Additionally, placements in any form of restrictive housing decreased markedly for incarcerated persons with serious mental illness. In the two prisons that had solitary confinement units, rule infractions involving violence decreased at one prison overall and it decreased within the units at both prisons that were previously used for solitary confinement. Although fights and assaults between incarcerated people increased in one of the prison's general population units, during the initial months of reforms, these ...

Solitary confinement is a widespread practice in US correctional facilities. Long-standing concerns about the physical and mental health effects of solitary confinement have led to litigation, legislation, and community activism resulting in many prison systems introducing policies or implementing legal mandates to reduce or eliminate its use. Yet little is known about the nature and effectiveness of policies that states have adopted to reduce their use of solitary confinement and exactly how various reforms have actually impacted the lives of people living and working in the prisons where these reforms have taken place.MethodsWe conducted an embedded case study, analyzing changes in policies and procedures, administrative data, and focus groups and interviews with incarcerated persons and staff, to describe the circumstances that led to changes in solitary confinement policies and practices in the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (ND DOCR) and the perceived impact of these changes on incarcerated persons and prison staff. .ResultsNorth Dakota's correctional officials and staff members attributed the impetus to change their solitary confinement policies to their participation in a program that directly exposed them to the Norwegian Correctional Service's philosophy, policies, and practices in 2015. The ensuing policy changes made by North Dakota officials were swift and resulted in a 74.28% reduction in the use of solitary confinement between 2016 and 2020. Additionally, placements in any form of restrictive housing decreased markedly for incarcerated persons with serious mental illness. In the two prisons that had solitary confinement units, rule infractions involving violence decreased at one prison overall and it decreased within the units at both prisons that were previously used for solitary confinement. Although fights and assaults between incarcerated people increased in one of the prison's general population units, during the initial months of reforms, these events continued to ...

The chapters in this anthology contain the experiences of a group of influential women academics who have dedicated their lives to prison research. Their stories detail the methodological challenges they experienced and the novel strategies they used while doing research in prison.