Exploring the Care-Control Nexus Through Police Monitoring of Vulnerable Groups: A Case Study of Project Lifesaver
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Contemporary surveillance practices increasingly pursue the dual objectives of ‘care’ and ‘control.’ For instance, governments increasingly deploy surveillance to protect the health and welfare of those being monitored, though such practices tend to be coercive and prioritize implicit agendas. Thus, it is important to scrutinize emerging forms of ‘protective’ surveillance. This dissertation conducts a qualitative case study of ‘Project Lifesaver,’ a police surveillance program that involves equipping people with cognitive differences who wander (e.g., people who have dementia) with electronic monitoring bracelets so that first responders can track them if they become lost. This work explores how Project Lifesaver is designed, rationalized, and used, and the implications of this surveillance for individuals and society. Using an abductive approach, this study mobilizes Foucauldian theory to illustrate how surveillance logics are (re)shaping social practices. To achieve these aims, this study encompasses content and thematic analyses of a variety of data sources including Project Lifesaver marketing material, observations from international Project Lifesaver events, interviews with caregivers and first responders, and police documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Project Lifesaver is rationalized through constructions of ‘risk’ as a necessary protective measure for people who wander and, even more so, as a source of ‘peace of mind’ for their caregivers. Yet, in practice, the program operates primarily as a form of social control, undermining the autonomy and personhood of people with cognitive differences and placing the responsibility of managing their behaviour squarely on their caregivers. Notably, the program seems inherently aligned with police perspectives, treating both wandering behaviour and caregiver program compliance as matters of public security. Moreover, Project Lifesaver appears tailored to suit a distinct policing agenda that is largely unrelated to the protection of vulnerable populations, serving instead as a tool for reducing police operational costs and improving their public legitimacy. These findings prompt reflection on the tensions inherent to how protective state surveillance is framed and how it operates, and the interests prioritized when support for vulnerable groups is entrusted to the police. The state’s expanded use of electronic monitoring, from a punitive security mechanism to a form of population protection, transcends mere repurposing of carceral technology; it signifies the infiltration of carceral logic into the state’s provision of support for those in need. In the context of Project Lifesaver, this manifests in a coercive care practice that objectifies people with cognitive differences and deputizes their caregivers as agents of social control. Simultaneously, it extends the reach of an increasingly militarized and self-serving police apparatus into public health and welfare domains. These outcomes, however, are obscured by the ‘caring’ elements of the surveillance, which position it as in the best interests of all who engage with it. Thus, this study provides an empirical example of how, through protective police surveillance, population care and control not only coexist but collapse into one another.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».