Conflict, adaption, and strategic defiance: service providers’ roles in constructing prisoner reentry through role adaption

Targeted sympathy in “whore court”: Criminal justice actors' perceptions of prostitution diversion programs

“…A key takeaway from our study of problem‐solving justice in the setting of prostitution diversion is not whether structural or volitional approaches dominate, but that “ zones of agreements and points of commonality do exist ” (Feeley, 2010, p. 15, emphasis added). Our findings corroborate other studies suggesting that problem‐solving justice models unite interdisciplinary workgroups from the nonprofit sector, government agencies, and law enforcement (Whittle, 2018). Workgroup members, employed by agencies with varied and sometimes competing mandates (as is the case for public defenders and prosecutors), may have different professional sensibilities, obligations, and codes of ethics that inform their practices and value systems (Castellano, 2011; Wahab, 2006).…”

“…Our respondents are squarely situated within traditional justice systems 18 and seem to have accepted the dominance of an individualized, incentive-based approach that largely ignores poverty, stigma, and other structures of inequality that impact survival sex workers. Whittle's (2017Whittle's ( , 2018 re-entry professionals adapted their roles to address their justice dissonance, and some resolved ethical conflicts by becoming "underground advocates" or by leaving their jobs altogether to advocate from the outside. In contrast, our respondents describe prostitution diversion as consonant with their professional roles, reporting that they find satisfaction in their ability to make a difference for a small group.…”

“…3 Leon's institution required that confidentiality cover the program itself and not just participant identities; we therefore use the pseudonymous Peterson County to refer to this program, while the Baltimore and Philadelphia programs are referred to by their real names. 4 Although data collection ended approximately seven years before publication, more recent studies indicate that PDPs and their contradictory logics remain and have become more entrenched (Anasti, 2018;Blakey & Gunn, 2018;Musto, 2016;Whittle, 2018). From the other side of the historical continuum, these issues have arisen consistently over at least the past 100 years, and so are perennial, as indicated in Cohen (2017) and Lilley et al (2020).…”

“…As our own prior work (Shdaimah & Leon, 2015) and that of others (e.g., McCorkel, 2013) has shown, participants are savvy, moral decision-makers who weigh a number of factors in deciding to participate in various diversion programs, including perceived immediate and long-term benefits, the impact on others, and their own integrity and safety. 16 See Whittle (2018): "[Re-entry service professionals] who worked for non-CJ community-based programs also described wearing Social Work and Rule Enforcement hats, needing to practice empathy and tailor treatment services to individual clients while also needing to enforce rules and hold clients accountable for their actions. Both approaches were seen as useful or necessary in helping clients: Social work and rule enforcement approaches are competing and complementary" (p. 284).…”

“…4 4 Although data collection ended approximately seven years before publication, more recent studies indicate that PDPs and their contradictory logics remain and have become more entrenched (Anasti, 2018; Blakey & Gunn, 2018; Musto, 2016; Whittle, 2018). From the other side of the historical continuum, these issues have arisen consistently over at least the past 100 years, and so are perennial, as indicated in Cohen (2017) and Lilley et al (2020).…”