“That’s Not Rehabilitation, That’s Enabling”: Correctional Officer Perspectives on the Prison Needle Exchange Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correctional Service Canada implemented Prison Needle Exchange Programs (PNEPs) into federal penitentiaries in 2018 as a harm reduction measure to prevent needle sharing, drug overdose, and limit the spread of infectious disease. However, studies demonstrate how staff resistance hinders the growth of these programs within Canadian prisons. Drawing on interview data produced by 134 federally employed and relatively new correctional officers in Canada, the current study analyzes officers’ levels of support and (more often) opposition to PNEP. Results indicate that, predominantly, staff opposition to PNEP is rooted in safety concerns, a perceived lack of evidence of PNEP’s benefits, and fears the program is not promoting recovery and rehabilitation. By increasing the prevalence of needles in cells, officers report concern of overdose or potential weaponization of needles. Our study informs policy discussions around harm reduction measures in prisons to better promote institutional safety, public health, and nonstigmatized approaches to substance use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".