When prison is “easier”: probationers’ perceptions of health and wellbeing

Plugge, Emma; Pari, Anees Ahmed Abdul; Maxwell, Janet; Holland, Sarah

doi:10.1108/ijph-01-2013-0001

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others were far less convinced and argued that the situation post-release for many prisoners may be complex and difficult with any positive effects generated quickly dispersing in the community. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that offenders in the community do have unique health needs, including the impact of housing and accommodations problems; finances; the 'easy' availability of accessing drugs and alcohol; lack of access to health services; and stress and mental health issues associated with 'being on probation' (Plugge et al, 2014). Overall, experts were more able to comment on the benefits for peer deliverers and surprisingly were less likely to discuss the impact on peer recipients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health

Woodall

South

Dixey

et al. 2015

International Journal of Prisoner Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health AbstractPurpose: Formalised support services for prisoners that rely on peer methods of delivery show promising health and social outcomes but there is also conjecture that negative effects, both at an individual and organisational level, can occur.Design/methodology/approach: Individuals with recognised professional expertise from various sectors (including ex-prisoners) were invited to contribute to an expert symposium to share their perceptions of the positive and negative effects of peer interventions in prison.Discussions and debate were audio recorded with the consent of all delegates and verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis.Findings: According to the participants, peer interventions in the prison setting created both positive and negative impacts. It was clear from the evidence gathered that peer interventions in prisons can impact positively on health outcomes, but these effects were perceived to be more well-defined for peer deliverers. The notion that peer deliverers can be subjected to 'burnout' suggests that supervisory processes for peer workers need to be considered carefully in order to avoid the intervention from being counter-productive.Organizationally, one of the salient issues was the adverse effects that peer interventions cause to the security of the prison. Originality/value: To our knowledge, this is the first time an expert symposium has been conducted to specifically examine peer interventions in prison and to consider the effects, both positive and negative, of such schemes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health

Woodall

South

Dixey

et al. 2015

International Journal of Prisoner Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The higher prevalence of many health problems among probation clients is rarely considered when services are commissioned (Brooker & Ramsbotham, ; Brooker et al, ). Moreover people on probation face many barriers to accessing care and often do not engage with healthcare services until they reach crisis point due to numerous personal, societal and service‐level barriers (Brooker et al, ; Cumming, Troeung, Young, Kelty, & Preen, ; Donnelle & Hall, ; Flanagan, ; Howerton et al, ; Marlow et al, ; Plugge et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, they have disproportionately low access to healthcare and often only access healthcare at crisis point because of numerous personal, societal and service‐level barriers. These include falling through gaps between services due to the complexity of health issues, lack of GP registration, low levels of literacy and health literacy, transient lifestyles, poor past experiences of accessing care, uncaring professional demeanours, gaps in service provision, inaccessible services, poorly designed services and stigma (Donnelle & Hall, ; Flanagan, ; Lang, Hillas, Mensah, Ryan, & Glass, ; Marlow, White, & Chesla, ; Melnick, Coen, Taxman, Sacks, & Zinsser, ; Plugge, Pari, Maxwell, & Holland, ; Revolving Doors Agency, ; Rodriguez, Keene, & Li, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NHS commissioning in probation in England - Still on a wing and a prayer

Sirdifield

Marples

Brooker

et al. 2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy reforms in England and Wales mean that all individuals released from prison will have some contact with probation services, either serving a community sentence, or being on licence post‐release. Despite often having complex health needs, including a higher prevalence of mental health problems, substance misuse problems and physical health problems than the general population, this socially excluded group of people often do not access healthcare until crisis point. This is partly due to service‐level barriers such as a lack of appropriate and accessible healthcare provision. We conducted a national survey of all Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs, n = 210) and Mental Health Trusts (MHTs, n = 56) in England to systematically map healthcare provision for this group. We compared findings with similar surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014. We had excellent response rates, with the data analysed here representing responses from 75% of CCGs and 52% of MHTs in England. We found that just 4.5% (n = 7) of CCG responses described commissioning a service specifically for probation service clients, and 7.6% (n = 12) described probation‐specific elements within their mainstream service provision. Responses from 19.7% of CCGs providing data (n = 31) incorrectly suggested that NHS England are responsible for commissioning healthcare for probation clients rather than CCGs. Responses from 69% (n = 20) of MHTs described providing services specifically for probation service clients, and 17.2% (n = 5) described probation‐specific elements within their mainstream service provision. This points to a need for an overarching health and justice strategy that emphasises organisational responsibilities in relation to commissioning healthcare for people in contact with probation services to ensure that there is appropriate healthcare provision for this group.

show abstract

“…Adults in prisons and jails have higher rates of chronic disease compared to the general population [ 3 – 7 ] however, little is known about the health of individuals under community supervision, which includes probation and parole. The limited literature on probationers shows that they experience poor health outcomes, such as mental health issues [ 8 ], and many engage in HIV-risk behaviors [ 9 – 12 ] and substance use [ 11 , 13 – 15 ]. Additionally, in a pilot study of recently released prisoners, Wang et al found 91% to be food insecure, with 37% reporting not having eaten for an entire day due to lack of money [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing priorities that rival health in adults on probation in Rhode Island: substance use recovery, employment, housing, and food intake

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndividuals on probation experience economic disadvantage because their criminal records often prohibit gainful employment, which compromises their ability to access the basic components of wellbeing. Unemployment and underemployment have been studied as distinct phenomenon but no research has examined multiple determinants of health in aggregate or explored how these individuals prioritize each of these factors. This study identified and ranked competing priorities in adults on probation and qualitatively explored how these priorities impact health.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews in 2016 with 22 adults on probation in Rhode Island to determine priority rankings of basic needs. We used Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and the literature to guide the priorities we pre-selected for probationers to rank. Within a thematic analysis framework, we used a modified ranking approach to identify the priorities chosen by participants and explored themes related to the top four ranked priorities.ResultsWe found that probationers ranked substance use recovery, employment, housing, and food intake as the top four priorities. Probationers in recovery reported sobriety as the most important issue, a necessary basis to be able to address other aspects of life. Participants also articulated the interrelatedness of difficulties in securing employment, food, and housing; these represent stressors for themselves and their families, which negatively impact health. Participants ranked healthcare last and many reported underinsurance as an issue to accessing care.ConclusionsAdults on probation are often faced with limited economic potential and support systems that consistently place them in high-risk environments with increased risk for recidivism. These findings emphasize the need for policies that address the barriers to securing gainful employment and safe housing. Interventions that reflect probationer priorities are necessary to begin to mitigate the health disparities in this population.

show abstract

When prison is “easier”: probationers’ perceptions of health and wellbeing

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health

Expert views of peer-based interventions for prisoner health

NHS commissioning in probation in England - Still on a wing and a prayer

Competing priorities that rival health in adults on probation in Rhode Island: substance use recovery, employment, housing, and food intake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About