Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens

Abstract

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) reforms correctional institutions via administrative mechanisms and represents a major shift in both correctional policy and workplace practice. Using qualitative data within six prisons in one U.S. state, finding suggest that staff view PREA as an administrative, safety, and cultural burden, which creates a misalignment of institutional logics. Rather than seeing themselves as central to eliminating prison sexual misconduct/violence, staff see PREA as interfering with their “real” custody/control work. This misalignment has major implications for the productive implementation and use of PREA and the broader shift to administrative rather than legal processes for institutional reform.

Triaged Out of Care: How Carceral Logics Complicate a ‘Course of Care’ in Solitary Confinement

“…While the problems with providing healthcare in prison are well-documented [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 33 ], as are the negative consequences of solitary confinement on health and well-being [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 19 , 22 ], less attention has been paid to the specific barriers to providing care in this setting. The intensely controlled nature of solitary confinement units, where people leave their cells only in hand and leg cuffs and are escorted by two or more officers at a time, renders access to care entirely dependent on informal screening by staff.…”

“…Institutional logics reflect the frames of reference that shape rules in an organizational setting as well as the values, beliefs, and practices of organizational actors [ 26 ]. Within criminal justice research, institutional logics have been used as a framework to examine: drug court perceptions and operations [ 27 ]; how organizational actors make sense of and respond to litigation and federal reform efforts concerning consensual sex and sexual assault in prison (e.g., PREA) [ 28 , 29 ]; and the limits of solitary confinement reform—and penal reform more generally [ 30 ]. The specific logics identified vary by study—ranging from organizational priorities such as custody, control, care, rehabilitation, and efficiency, on the one hand, and cultural beliefs such as prisoner-staff mistrust and prisoner degradation on the other.…”

“…Healthcare reform within correctional settings has been an ongoing battle for the past two decades [ 31 , 32 ], and access to healthcare is one of the most distinct constitutional rights that incarcerated people are granted under the law. Yet, as Rudes et al have documented [ 28 ], carceral logics can prove dismissive of and even hostile to the provision of care in prisons in ways that violate prisoners’ civil rights—whether a right to recourse for sexual violence or a right to care. Legal mandates that prisons provide adequate healthcare are therefore at risk of being subsumed by institutional logics that prioritize the securitization and dehumanization of prison life over the health and well-being of incarcerated persons [ 21 , 28 ].…”

“…Yet, as Rudes et al have documented [ 28 ], carceral logics can prove dismissive of and even hostile to the provision of care in prisons in ways that violate prisoners’ civil rights—whether a right to recourse for sexual violence or a right to care. Legal mandates that prisons provide adequate healthcare are therefore at risk of being subsumed by institutional logics that prioritize the securitization and dehumanization of prison life over the health and well-being of incarcerated persons [ 21 , 28 ]. By leveraging an institutional logics framework, scholars and practitioners can more readily identify the boundaries of prisoners’ rights, as well as the organizational mechanisms (modes of thought, interpretation, and interaction) that drive the adverse health outcomes of incarceration.…”

Redefining Disciplinary Segregation: Perceptions of Effective Programming Among Program Participants and Staff

“…It could be expected, then, that there could be both intentional and unintentional resistance on the part of correctional staff toward reforming business as usual when it comes to DS. Well-intended reforms can be subverted when supervision and control predominate in the culture of an institution or department of corrections (Rudes et al, 2021; Viglione et al, 2015). At the same time, if it were only staff perspectives that were included in determining the efficacy of an alternative DS, it could be that staff are motivated to document success or merely parroting back institutional policy rather than presenting reality.…”