Facility_Rehabilitation

This paper will examine the programs and services utilized within correctional facilities in the context of rehabilitation. While prisons were not intended to serve as mental health institutions, psychologists within the criminal justice system have acquired a great deal of information about the foundations of crime and criminal behavior. According to Craig Haney, a psychologist from the University of California, it is imperative that psychologists bring information into the debate on the types of crime control policies that our society should follow (as cited in Benson, 2003). It is from a psychological treatment orientation that these programs will be examined. It is important to note that research into public opinion on this matter has been mixed. Currently there are no specific surveys of public opinion regarding the specifics of confinement and treatment (Groscup, 2005). Today, what some may view as excessive privileges are in fact rights that are afforded to inmates according to the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the 1960s inmates gave up all rights that were not explicitly given by the policy of the correctional facility of which they were incarcerated. This was known as the hands-off doctrine (Siegel & Senna, 2004). By the early 1970s, social activist groups paved the way for legal arguments that addressed the civil rights of inmates. Over the past twenty years, inmates have been given a handful of rights that are protected under the constitution. The term ‘right’ refers to something that is legally given as a basic standard. In opposition to this is a ‘privilege’, which is usually something that is granted or given above and beyond a basic standard or status. The two terms cannot be used interchangeably. Inmates in the United States retain few constitutional rights while incarcerated and are granted few privileges. Programs and services are often a combination of rights and privileges. Many of these programs have been incorporated with the notion of improving an 1 inmate’s chances for a crime free life upon reentry into society as well as to allow the community to benefit from a productive citizen. Prison programs must stay within the constitutional rights of the incarcerated individuals. There are four areas of the U.S. Constitution that are considered when one studies the rights of inmates. The First Amendment addresses the issues of inmates’ rights to free speech within prison, religious practices, and communications with outsiders. The Fourth Amendment is used to determine what searches are reasonable and what types of privacy are permitted while in prison. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to inmate decisions and issues that may require due process. This amendment is also used to determine if there are legitimate reasons for the different treatment of inmate groups within the prison. Finally, the Eighth Amendment provides freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. An example of a violation of the Eight Amendment is the deliberate indifference to an individual’s safety, well being, or infliction of or discount of unnecessary pain and suffering (Siegel & Senna, 2004). Because the denial of medical care violates the Eight Amendment rights of inmates, correctional facilities must provide medical services. Mental healthcare is provided in compliance with this amendment. A major component of mental healthcare involves psychological functioning. According to research conducted in 1999 by Ditton, approximately 16 percent of jail and prison inmates have either a history of mental illness or currently suffer from mental illness (as cited in Siegel & Senna, 2004). Another key component to consider in the mental health of inmates is substance abuse and addiction. In research carried out by Peters et al. in 1998 among inmates in Texas, it was found that about 75 percent of those studied had a lifetime history of substance abuse or a dependency disorder (as cited in Siegel & Senna, 2004). 2 Although providing mental healthcare ensures that the correctional facilities are in compliance with the Eights Amendment rights of inmates, substance abuse programs within prison have been found to help keep prisoners off of drugs once released. These programs have also assisted released inmates to stay employed and out of prison (American Psychological Association [APA], 2006). Wexler, Melnick, Lowes, and Peters (1999) conducted a study of 478 inmates at a state correctional facility in California and found that only 27 percent of prisoners, who participated in a drug treatment program for three years, returned to prison. This is in comparison to a 75 percent recidivism rate for those who did not participate (APA, 2006). In concurrence with this research was a 1999 study of Delaware Correctional System inmates conducted by Martin, Butzin, Saum, and Inciardi, which demonstrated the value of prison substance abuse treatment programs. In this research, there was a continuum of care provided that included a work-release program, a drug free residential setting, group therapy, and family therapy. After one year, there was a significantly higher percentage of inmates who had taken part in any portion of the treatment program who were drug free and not incarcerated as opposed to inmates who were assigned to the basic work release program. At a three-year follow up, those who continued with the therapeutic portions of the program had significantly less drug use and less incidences of arrest than those who did not continue with the therapy provided (APA, 2006). Taking this study further, Dwayne Simpson, Ph D., an experimental psychologist from the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University, analyzed the research of Wexler et al. and found significant effects of the treatment programs. Simpson found that out of a combined sample of 1,461 inmates from Delaware, Texas, and California, approximately 365 of those who participated in the intensive drug therapy and aftercare were rearrested; however, 3 approximately 1010 inmates who did not participate in drug treatment while in prison, or did not receive treatment after release, were incarcerated again (APA, 2006). This research is in direct opposition of Robert Martinson’s research from 1975, which concluded that the majority of treatment programs were not successful (as cited in Siegel & Senna, 2004). Many have surrendered to Martinson’s perspective and continue to use his findings to support the incapacitation and punishment view. While incarceration is not intended as a holiday, a punitive approach to corrections has rendered today’s prisons much less likely to attempt rehabilitation (Benson, 2003). Psychological services within prison walls typically focus on cognitive therapies, which provide a pragmatic approach to the various emotional and mental deficits suffered by many inmates (Siegel & Senna, 2004). The cognitive approach provides a way for inmates to control their emotions by examining their maladaptive thoughts and replacing those thoughts with adaptive thoughts that are based on reality. This is in accord to Wexler (1999), who asserts that therapeutic approaches which encourage inmates to analyze the experiences, situational events, and behaviors which led to their incarceration and allow them to devise a plan to avoid such high-risk situations in the future, and to successfully handle such situations should they arise again, offer the best chance for released inmates to avoid future incarceration. According to cognitive theory, it is dysfunctional cognitions, which lead to dysfunctional and inappropriate behaviors (Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 2000). This approach also teaches an individual how to communicate positively and clearly. Cognitive therapy can provide a person the tools necessary to make positive changes in their interactions with others. Research has shown that various cognitive therapies have been successfully applied to individuals suffering from substance abuse (Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 2000). Correctional facilities use individual therapeutic sessions, 4 group therapy, or a combination of both in order to achieve the goal of change within the inmate (Siegel & Senna, 2004). The increased incarceration rate of the past twenty years has resulted in the release of many individuals back into society after having served time in a federal or state prison. In 2002, over 600,000 individuals were released back into their communities (Visher & Travis, 2003). According to Haney, when suitably applied, psychotherapy, drug treatment, education, and work programs can facilitate inmates’ transition back into free society (as cited in Benson, 2003). Researchers Cullen, in 2002, and Wilson & Gallagher in 2000, evaluated the effects of prison programs on release outcomes and concluded that programs focused on education, job skills, and substance abuse reduce recidivism (as cited in Visher & Travis, 2003). Haney also asserts that punitive social controls are a very short-term solution to problems that are long term in nature and of which punitive mechanisms may have damaging effects to the individuals as well as to society. The Bureau of Prisons necessitates that prison facilities provide educational opportunities to all inmates (Federal Bureau of Prisons [FBOP], 2006). Correctional institutions require that all individuals complete their GED as one of the conditions for their release (Siegel & Senna, 2004). For an inmate to obtain the most basic certificate of education seems to be a necessity rather than a privilege. This level of education serves to help the inmate once released, as many employers will not hire an individual who has not completed a high school level education. A released inmate may face discrimination when seeking employment; thus a situation that can be exacerbated by not meeting a minimum educational requirement. An example of the types of basic education provided is that of Leavenworth prison in Kansas. Leavenworth provides a basic literacy program, GED certification, parenting courses, and English as a second language 5 (Leavenworth Prison, 2006). The Roanoke City Jail, in Virginia, provides educational programs that are supported by community agencies, volunteers from local churches, and volunteers from Hollins University and Roanoke College (Roanoke City Jail, 2006). Research has shown that an ex-convict’s successful reintegration into society may be hindered by a lack of education, work skills, the impact of prison experiences, as well as the public stigma attached to ex prisoners (Visher & Travis, 2003). In agreement with this research the Bureau of Prisons has stated that, “research has conclusively demonstrated that participation in a variety of programs that teach marketable skills helps to reduce recidivism” (FBOP, 2006). Along with education, most correctional facilities provide vocational training. Although these programs have been shown to lack necessary funding, some prisons have recruited volunteers within the community to improve such programs (Siegel & Senna, 2004). Programs such as barbering, computer repair, television repair, auto mechanics, and auto bodywork, may be included among a prison’s vocational program. Leavenworth prison currently has barbering and graphic arts programs and is currently trying to establish a culinary arts program. Along with custodial duties and maintenance, such as painting, Leavenworth officials believe that these skills will transfer into viable employment for released inmates. Even though educational and vocational programs are provided by prisons to assist with reentry into society, one study has shown that a poor work history and low job skills prior to incarceration does correlate to reduced stable employment and steady income upon release; however, this same study also found that inmates who maintain contact with family and friends, during their incarceration, are more likely to successfully reenter the job market (Visher & Travis, 2003). While the programs discussed in this paper provide an ideal and sanguine picture of inmate rehabilitation, it must be stated that there are several major issues that hinder correctional 6 treatment programs. The first is a lack of financial resources to provide the materials and professionals necessary to facilitate such programs (Siegel & Senna, 2004). According to Robert Morgan, Ph. D., there are not enough mental health professionals in prisons and those who are in such facilities are overwhelmed by a large caseloads (Benson, 2003). The second barrier to successful treatment programs is the philosophical difference between the psychological, rehabilitative approach to corrections and the punitive approach. Within the current, punitive criminal justice system, it is difficult to gain the support needed to implement effectual programs. The third obstacle to inmate rehabilitation lies within the inmates themselves. According to research conducted in 2001 by Maruna (as cited in Visher & Travis, 2003), which was comprised of interviews with former inmates, at the core of a successful outcome was an inmate’s personal decision to change. It was stated that this decision set into motion an identity transformation for the inmate; the decision to change enabled him to differentiate between his past identity and his past behaviors. The notion of inmate internal change is one of great importance. Government cannot legislate a change in the heart of a man, nor can a prison system force a change in the maladaptive attitudes that produce maladaptive and illegal behaviors. Future research in the area of pre-prison life, in-prison experiences, and post-prison life should improve the understanding of the factors that determine which individuals are most at risk for incarceration as well as which are least likely to benefit, or not benefit, from the current rehabilitative programs that are in place. Incorporated into such an analysis should be the life experiences of the inmates, their needs, skills, and personal relationships. All of these factors should produce a clearer picture for where the future of prison programs must proceed. Early social intervention may be the best that can be offered until such research is conducted. Federal and state funding, alone, will not make 7 up for the insufficiencies of rehabilitative programs, nor will it reduce incarceration and recidivism. Professionals in the mental health field are needed to implement programs that offer promise. The programs that Wexler (1999) researched appear to be of this nature. A suggestion in a positive direction would be for a broader implementation of the Wexler design. It is also important to gain a better understanding of those who are incarcerated, and those at the highest risk for incarceration, from a holistic perspective. Approaching the concept of rehabilitation as a whole provides a more comprehensive picture to mental health and criminal justice professionals. A holistic approach may be the most advantageous, as it can facilitate effective solutions to this growing and volatile crisis within our society. 8 References American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Prison Substance Abuse Treatment With Aftercare Reduces Recidivism. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.psychologymatters.org/prison_drugabuse.html Benson, E., (2003, August). Rehabilitate or Punish' Monitor on Psychology, 34, 46. Carson, R. C., Butcher, J. N., & Mineka, S., (2000). Cognitive and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. In R. Pascal (Ed.), Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (pp. 662-668). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Inmate Matters. Retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://bop.gov/inmate_programs/index.jsp Groscup, J. (2005, April). Court Considers Prisoner’s Rights. Monitor on Psychology, 36, 78. Leavenworth Penitentiary. (n.d.) Programs. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://www.lvarea.com/data/usp_info.htm#Programs Roanoke City Jail. (n.d.). Inmate Programs. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://www.roanokeva.gov/85256A8D0062AF37/vwContentByKey/ N253SKSD775WBRSEN Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (2004). Prison Life. In J. Whitney, & S. Murphy (Eds.), Essentials of Criminal Justice (pp. 414-451). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (2004). Corrections: History, Institutions, and Populations. In J. Whitney, & S. Murphy (Eds.), Essentials of Criminal Justice (pp.384-411). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 9 Visher, C. A., & Travis., J. (2003). Transitions From Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from the PsycARTICLES database. Wexler, D. B. (1999). Relapse Prevention Planning Principles For Criminal Law Practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, (4), 1028-1033. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from the EBSCOhost database. 10