“That’s Not Rehabilitation, That’s Enabling”: Correctional Officer Perspectives on the Prison Needle Exchange Program

• Published date: 01 January 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231207065
• Author: Matthew S. Johnston,Rosemary Ricciardelli,Cindy Whitten
• Date: 01 January 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 2024, 66 –85.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231207065

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

66

“THAT’S NOT REHABILITATION, THAT’S

ENABLING”

Correctional Officer Perspectives on the Prison Needle

Exchange Program

MATTHEW S. JOHNSTON

ROSEMARY RICCIARDELLI

Memorial University of Newfoundland

CINDY WHITTEN

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Eastern Health

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 inter-

view 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.

Keywords: prison needle exchange; correctional officers; recovery; harm reduction; rehabilitation

PRISON NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

Every year, at least 30 million men and women spend time in prisons or custodial set-

tings, with 10 million incarcerated people at any given point in time (United Nations Office

on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2017). Without access to sterile injecting equipment in

prisons, HIV, Hepatitis B and C, and other infectious diseases can be transmitted between

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/

or publication of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rosemary

Ricciardelli, Professor, Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, W3023, 155

Ridge Road, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1C 5R3; e-mail: rricciardell@mun.ca; rose.ricciardelli@

mi.mun.ca.

1207065CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231207065Criminal Justice and BehaviorJohnston et al. / Prison Needle Exchange Programs in Canada

research-article2023

Johnston et al. / PRISON NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS IN CANADA 67

incarcerated people who share contaminated needles and syringes. Together with unpro-

tected sexual contact, sharing injection equipment represents the highest risk of transmis-

sion of HIV and hepatitis in prisons (UNODC, 2017).

The Prison Needle Exchange Program (PNEP) is a harm reduction measure that aims to

prevent needle sharing, fatal and nonfatal overdoses, and the spread of infectious diseases

among incarcerated people (Government of Canada, 2019). PNEP provides incarcerated

people with sterile injection equipment to avoid harms associated with using unsterilized

needles. Beginning in 2018, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) implemented several

PNEPs into federal penitentiaries where federally sentenced individuals serve a custodial

sentence of 2 years or more, as imposed by the courts (Government of Canada, 2015). To

access PNEPs in a federal prison in Canada, incarcerated people must meet with a correc-

tional health nurse at CSC to receive education on substance use, safe consumption, coun-

seling services, and references to other health care providers. Incarcerated people must also

receive threat risk assessments and gain approval from an institutional head or Deputy

Warden (Government of Canada, 2019).

Prior to implementing PNEP, CSC engaged with the Union of Safety and Justice

Employees (USJE), the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and the

Union of Canadian Correctional Officers/Syndicat des Agents Correctionnels du

Canada/Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (UCCO-SACC-CSN), and other part-

ners (Dietz, 2020). Despite these engagement strategies (Dietz, 2020), controversy

remains over how effectively PNEP meets its intended public health, safety, and harm

reduction objectives. For example, the UCCO-SACC-CSN stated they do not favor the

program over Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS), as the circulation of needles in prisons

threatens officers’ health and safety (Union of Canadian Correctional Officers/Syndicat

des Agents Correctionnels du Canada/Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux [UCCO-

SACC-CSN], 2020).

Preliminary research on the introduction of PNEPs in Europe have found most correc-

tional staff are hesitant to support the program because of (1) concerns about their and

incarcerated people’s safety, including how needles may be used as weapons; (2) how pro-

viding needles may increase the number of incarcerated people who inject substances; and

(3) the very presence of PNEP contradicts the correctional institution’s mandate to decrease

the presence (or quantity) of substances in prisons (Moazen et al., 2019, 2020; Rosalim,

2020). Moreover, responding to critical incidents involving violence, overdose, or the risk

of contracting virus is an occupational stress for officers, where infection can constitute a

potentially psychologically traumatic event (Cassiano et al., 2022; Ricciardelli et al.,

2022)—a precursor to compromised mental wellness.

Staff resistance is cited as the main reason harm reduction programs, like PNEP, are not

widely adopted across international carceral systems (Stöver & Hariga, 2016), since their

efficacy relies on cooperation and support across all levels of participation, including politi-

cians, administrators, managers, front-line staff, and service users (Armstrong-Mensah et

al., 2021; Michels & Stöver, 2012). In the current study, we seek to analyze Canadian fed-

eral correctional officers’ (COs) levels of support and (more often) opposition to PNEP and

unpack why many COs are hesitant to endorse the program. Our aim is to inform policy

discussions around harm reduction measures in prisons to help better promote institutional

safety, public health, and nonstigmatized approaches to substance (mis) use in carceral

spaces.