{"title":"“I feel like I'm always on edge”: Perceptions of parole supervision by parolees with substance use disorders","authors":"Maeve E. Donnelly, Kimberly M. Davidson","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>While extant research has looked at parole and its various actors as an institution, few studies recount the parole experience from the perspective of parolees. Additionally, despite the prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) within the criminal justice system, research that assesses the additional challenges this population faces throughout parole supervision is even scarcer.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>To address this gap, we analyze in-depth qualitative interviews (<em>n</em> = 51) conducted with reentering men with SUDs as they navigate parole in Pennsylvania. Three independent coders identified all narratives relating to a broad theme of “parole and probation experiences.” The authors then completed iterative rounds of more fine-grained independent coding within that theme.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our results emphasize that SUDs present a significant barrier to reentry success, and the tension of surveillance and revocation is amplified for those enduring simultaneous reentry and recovery. Importantly, our respondents regard parole officers more positively than they view parole as an institution, yet this perception of officers does not equate to provision of reintegration and recovery support. Respondents perceive that parole presents unnecessary additional hurdles to their reentry success, and their perceived risk level impacts their surveillance intensity.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The information gleaned through inclusion of perspectives from those enduring parole supervision calls for a critical assessment of current parole practices. Further, the current approach to SUDs within community supervision criminalizes relapse without provision of treatment resources or support.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":"168 ","pages":"Article 209529"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949875924002418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
While extant research has looked at parole and its various actors as an institution, few studies recount the parole experience from the perspective of parolees. Additionally, despite the prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) within the criminal justice system, research that assesses the additional challenges this population faces throughout parole supervision is even scarcer.
Methods
To address this gap, we analyze in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 51) conducted with reentering men with SUDs as they navigate parole in Pennsylvania. Three independent coders identified all narratives relating to a broad theme of “parole and probation experiences.” The authors then completed iterative rounds of more fine-grained independent coding within that theme.
Results
Our results emphasize that SUDs present a significant barrier to reentry success, and the tension of surveillance and revocation is amplified for those enduring simultaneous reentry and recovery. Importantly, our respondents regard parole officers more positively than they view parole as an institution, yet this perception of officers does not equate to provision of reintegration and recovery support. Respondents perceive that parole presents unnecessary additional hurdles to their reentry success, and their perceived risk level impacts their surveillance intensity.
Conclusions
The information gleaned through inclusion of perspectives from those enduring parole supervision calls for a critical assessment of current parole practices. Further, the current approach to SUDs within community supervision criminalizes relapse without provision of treatment resources or support.