Table 3 Analysis of Costs and Benefits of NSPs to Stakeholders
From: Moving beyond non-engagement on regulated needle-syringe exchange programs in Australian prisons
STAKEHOLDER | NEEDS | BENEFITS FROM NSPs | COSTS FROM NSPs | POTENTIAL ROLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Prisoners | ▪Access to clean syringes to prevent transmission of BBV ▪Confidentiality to reduce stigma/discrimination based on NSP usage | ▪Clean syringes to reduce needle-sharing ▪Reduced risk of contracting BBV | ▪Possible stigma/discrimination from correctional staff if program not correctly implemented. | ▪Participate in NSPs by using clean needles |
Correctional Officers | ▪Feel safe ▪Feel in control of the prison ▪Maintain their role of being "tough on drugs" | ▪Able to regulate an unregulated item | ▪Feeling more at risk of needle injury including attack ▪Feeling soft on drugs | ▪Help ACT Health develop NSP to accommodate their concerns |
Politicians | ▪Appear tough on drugs ▪Deliver on promise of prison based on human rights framework ▪Public confidence in new prison ▪Appear to maintain public health | ▪Improve human rights "credibility" of prison ▪Reduce costs associated with treating/managing BBVs ▪Appear strong on public health and infection control | ▪Appearing soft on drugs or even condoning their use ▪Appearing to be soft with prisoners ▪Backlash from correctional officers/union | ▪Allow NSP to proceed ▪Provide resources for proper trial and evaluation |
Community | ▪Feel prisoners are suitably punished for crimes ▪Feel safe from threats to public health | ▪Reduce risk of infection for family/friends of prisoners ▪Feeling there is strong public health intervention | ▪Feeling prisoners are being indulged ▪Feeling tax-payers money is being wasted | ▪Influence politicians and the media ▪Strengthen concerns for public health |
Media | ▪Commercial success ▪Good stories | ▪Compelling stories (both political and human stories) | ▪Set agenda ▪Inform public ▪Influence politicians |