Offender and/or client? Fuzzy institutional identities in prison-based drug treatment in Denmark

Abstract

The last 20 years has witnessed a rise in prison-based drug treatment in Nordic countries. This increase has challenged the prominence of the punitive prison, and created changes in the roles of both clients and staff. This article explores the development of two institutional inmate identities: the offender and the client, which have occurred as a consequence of this shift in prison policy. However, in their institutional narratives and daily practice both prison officers and counsellors often fluctuate when addressing inmates as offenders and/or clients. This fluctuation creates a “fuzzy” dynamic. These institutional identities are characterized, on the one hand, by inmates being dealt with by counsellors as ‘real people' and ‘equals’, but simultaneously counsellors are resorting to the control opportunities allowed by the prison authorities such as urine tests and the use of isolation cells. On the other hand, prison officers handle inmates within a disciplinary logic, while concurrently dealing with them as inmates deserving a fair chance – a view resonant with the drug treatment ideology applied in prisons.

Citizen‐agency versus state‐agency at the frontline in prisons and probation services: A systematic literature review

“…To steer probationers away from day‐to‐day crime opportunities, some probation officers spontaneously develop informal and indirect forms of control, such as promoting organized and constructive activities (Miller et al, 2015). These examples are consistent with other, similar depictions of control strategies in the literature (Ahlin, Hagen, Harmon, & Crosse, 2016; Kerbs, Jones, & Jolley, 2009; Lazzaretto‐Green et al, 2011; Nielsen & Kolind, 2016; Steiner, Hester, Makarios, & Travis, 2012).…”

“…Similarly, in community supervision of sex offenders in England and Wales, officers give priority to their rehabilitative ideals and practices via motivational and transformational interventions, in contrast with the current institutional focus on risk management, and public protection (Digard, 2014). Similar patterns are observed in prisons: Nielsen and Kolind (2016) report that the fuzzy identity of drug‐dependent inmates – halfway between client and offender – seems to alter the perceptions and practices of Danish prison officers: rather than maintaining a strict adherence to rules and non‐fraternization, they soften their views on punishment and promote a therapeutic, relaxed and respectful approach during interactions in cells (see also Baglivio et al, 2015; Ballucci, 2012; Clear, Harris, & Baird, 1992; Flory, May, Minor, & Wood, 2006; Fulton, Stichman, Travis, & Latessa, 1997; Healy, 2012; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986a, 1986b; Morash, Kashy, Smith, & Cobbina, 2016; Persson & Svensson, 2012; Waters, 1988). These studies suggest that prison and probation officers often act as citizen‐agents, privileging their own approaches to frontline work over established procedures and bureaucratic rules.…”

“…In addition, SLB research is not central in the analytical framework of these studies. Rather, their findings are related with SLB considerations at a general level, with respect to discretionary practices (Nielsen & Kolind, 2016; Persson & Svensson, 2012), to the normative implications and effects on policy implementation (Schneider, Ervin, & Snyder‐Joy, 1996; Viglione, Rudes, & Taxman, 2015; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1992), as well as to coping mechanisms (Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986a, 1986b; Persson & Svensson, 2012).…”

“I Lost Me Visits”

“…For example, in many jails in the United States (U.S.), noncontact visits are common practice for all prisoners to prevent contraband entering the correctional system (NBC News, 2015). While such punitive responses are unusual in Australia, the removal of contact visitation rights for drug-related behavior in prison is common practice in Victoria. Although many authors have analyzed prison drug policy and treatment issues from a poststructuralist perspective, including examining subjectification effects on prisoners and corrections staff (Donohue & Moore, 2009;Duke 2003;Kolind, Frank, & Dahl, 2010;Nielson & Kolind, 2016;Seddon, Williams, & Ralphs, 2012), we are unaware of studies of this kind that have focused on young adults in particular or those with histories of injecting drug use. Furthermore, excluding a U.K. study (Cope, 2003) of young people (including juveniles) and their drug use in prison, which briefly examines the specific disciplinary measure of prohibiting contact visits for drug-related behavior, little is known about the lived effects of this practice.…”

Addiction, Drugs, and Experimentation

“…Nevertheless, social workers and drug users alike have often shared stories in which part of the plot is that prison “saved” the lives of users or made them “look much better.” Such stories are not about glorifying imprisonment but often concern very concrete matters: users get a bed to sleep in; they eat three meals a day; and methadone tablets are crushed and mixed with water and drunk in front of prison personnel every morning. In this sense, life inside prison can be quite structured compared to certain periods of freedom (on treatment in prison, see Nielsen & Kolind, in press; Kolind, 2015).…”