BECOMING POLICY ADVOCATES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTOR

Chapter 14 of your text book addresses policy maters related to incarceration and lists agencies and organizations dedicated to helping incarcerated individuals who may have been wrongly convicted. These agencies and organizations play a vital role in the pursuit of justice and the protection of human rights. These groups, often comprised of legal experts, activists, and volunteers, work tirelessly to identify cases of potential wrongful conviction and advocate for the exoneration of innocent individuals.

Jansson, B. S. (2019). Social welfare policy and advocacy: Advancing social justice through eight policy sectors. SAGE Publications.

With regards to this, chapter 14 lists the following organizations:

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Amnesty International

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

African Americans.National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

National Legal Aid and Defender Association

Pew Research Center

The Sentencing Project

The Vera Institute of Justice

Other than those listed above, please tell us about an organizations that helps those in-justly imprisoned.

For example:

Equal Justice Initiative is a non-profit organization in Montgomery, AL .

They provide legal representation to those thought to be wrongfully convicted or who have extensive sentences that are unreasonable for the crime. They also provide services to formally incarnated individuals. This organization focuses on changing how race influences incarceration.

Requirements: 1000+

14 BECOMING POLICY ADVOCATES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTOR

This chapter was coauthored by Gretchen Heidemann, Ph.D., and Elain Sanchez Wilson, MPP Note: Gretchen Heidemann, Ph.D., and Elain Sanchez Wilson, MPP, made invaluable contributions to this chapter in this book’s first edition. Bruce Jansson was the sole author of the second edition, editing and updating contributions from each original contributor. Learning Objectives In this chapter you will learn to: 1. Understand the evolution of the health care system in the United States 2. Understand how mass incarceration is powerfully linked to economic inequality in the United States 3. Describe the political economy of the corrections sector, including powerful players and interests as well as underrepresented ones 4. Identify seven problems encountered in the criminal justice sector as well as the policies, regulations, and organizational factors pertinent to them 5. Develop Red Flag Alerts for each of the seven problems at the micro advocacy level . Identify policy resources available to policy advocates with respect to each of the seven core problems 7. Identify strategies for moving from micro policy advocacy to mezzo and macro policy advocacy in the criminal justice sector . Engage the eight challenges in the multilevel policy empowerment framework in the criminal justice sector Many policy makers and advocates are reconsidering the harshness of the American penal system that places far more people in jails than any other industrialized nation. American prisons hold 22% of all incarcerated persons in the world even though Americans make up only 4.6% of the world’s population (Lussenhop, 2016). With many competing domestic and international priorities, many politicians on both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to cut the costs of running jails and other institutions that house roughly 2.3 million inmates in the United States. If a growing number of “prison abolitionists” want to terminate all prisons, other critics seek incremental reductions of inmates as well as prison reforms (Arrieta-Kenna, 2018). If the United States does reconfigure its penal system so that it focuses on rehabilitating its prisoners and downsizing prisons, social workers will likely become a larger part of its workforce. As Gumz (2004) noted, “The tenets of social work practice—the innate dignity of the individual, self-determination of the client, confidentiality, moral neutrality, and social justice— were, and are, challenged by a criminal justice system that values order, control, and punishment” (p. 451). As you read this chapter, reflect on ways that social workers can engage in addressing the seven core problems of the policy advocacy framework in the criminal justice sector. Developing an Empowering Perspective about Criminal Justice Many Americans subscribe to a punitive mission for their criminal justice system. This is understandable: No one likes to have property stolen, monies robbed, and lives ended through criminal action. Some people are violent. Some people do commit fraud. People and pharmaceutical companies do market illegal and addictive drugs. Bank officials caused the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 and the Great Recession in 2007 through rampant speculation and bank fraud. Some people commit crimes so heinous that many onlookers favor a death penalty. We all agree that the United States needs a network of laws, as well as police forces and courts, to detect criminal behavior. It needs courts to enforce these laws. It needs to incarcerate some criminals for varying lengths of time. Yet the United States can ill afford a criminal system that houses 2.3 million persons. Nor should the nation rely almost exclusively (US) © on a system that fails to rehabilitate hundreds of thousands of inmates who leave correctional institutions with almost no job preparation, housing, mental health services, and medical care or that houses hundreds of thousands of person awaiting court hearings simply because they cannot afford bail (Wagner, 2015). A good case can be made that the United States incarcerates many people who commit relatively minor property crimes, smoke marijuana, or have driving infractions. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many Americans have criminal records during their lifetimes as college diplomas, such as the 70 million persons arrested and fingerprinted by local, state, or federal agencies (Jansson, 2019a; Friedman, 2015). Most of the 70 million persons are not incarcerated, but many do end up in correctional institutions. This “arrest epidemic” morphed into mass incarceration from the mid-1970s to the present, increasing numbers of persons in jails and prisons from roughly 600,000 inmates in 1975 to roughly 2.3 million inmates in 2016. An excessively strict code of justice has other shortcomings on several counts. Take the decision decades ago to declare use and distribution of marijuana to be a criminal offense under federal law—a decision that led hundreds of thousands of persons to be incarcerated, often for many years in federal prisons. Or take the movement that enacted “three strikes and you are out” in many states, leading to incarceration of many persons who had committed three crimes even if all of them were nonviolent, like petty theft. Realize, too, that bias and prejudice often enter into the arresting process. Law enforcement arrested and incarcerated large numbers of African Americans for using or distributing crack over many decades while not arresting or incarcerating many white Americans for using cocaine powder. They incarcerated large numbers of Latinos as well. Corporations that financed for-profit prisons became a huge industry and hired many lobbyists to pressure local, state, and federal officials to fund more prisons. Unions of jail and prison workers pressured local, state, and federal officials to build jails and prisons. Wanting more jobs in their jurisdictions, many politicians from semi-rural and rural areas pressured public officials to build prisons to create jobs for their constituents. Americans have often resorted to incarceration rather than other forms of punishment even when data shows that incarceration is less effective than community-based penalties, such as specified hours of community service and keeping persons in their homes with electronic ankle bracelets. Data shows that persons who are incarcerated are more likely than other persons to re-commit crimes that bring them back to jails and prisons (Kann, 2018). Employees of prisons and jails often expect inmates to return. Other inmates socialize newcomers to crime. Incarceration often destroys family relationships. Inmates often find it impossible to find jobs when they exit prisons and jails because employers do not want to hire ex-prisoners or people who lack employment records. Jails and prisons, moreover, cost extraordinary amounts of money to build and maintain. It is difficult to decide what penalties to impose on people for specific criminal behavior. How many years, for example, should an alcoholic driver receive who causes severe injuries to a pedestrian versus a person who robs a bank versus someone who uses an illegal drug? When is leniency acceptable versus strict enforcement to the letter of the law? All too often, judges resort to excessive sentences for a variety of reasons. They are not versed in psychology or social work, so they often wrongly assume that persons cannot be rehabilitated. Courts often lack sufficient numbers of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists to determine if specific persons are good candidates for immediate release, community service, or speedy release. They are often harsher in their sentences for persons of color than for whites. Released inmates often cannot find health and mental health services, much less help in finding jobs and housing. A huge number of inmates are housed in local jails awaiting a court hearing but unable to afford bail. Considerable controversy has long existed about the most extreme sentence—the death penalty. Critics contend that many murders are crimes of passion rather than calculation—and many of them take place when the murderer is high on drugs or alcohol. Some murders are defensive in nature, such as when women murder spouses or partners who are physically abusing them or threatening to kill them. Some murders are unintentional such as when someone shoots a rifle into the air only to have the bullet kill someone when it descends. Some wardens of prisons trust some convicted murderers sufficiently that they have them babysit their children—a decision that suggests that some, even many, murderers on death row have been rehabilitated. Yet other murderers, such as Charles Manson, a cult figure who planned and executed the murders of movie actress Sharon Tate and others in the 1960s, appeared unrepentant even after spending 48 years in prison (Gilbert, 2017). Many critics of the death penalty contend that life imprisonment is preferable to killing human beings, no matter how “humane” the drugs or other means of killing may be. Pope Francis US) © came to this conclusion in late 2018 when he vowed to oppose death penalties around the world. Many Americans also came to this conclusion when they learned that many prisoners on death row and many executed prisoners were exonerated by DNA analysis or by belated confessions of other persons. A study estimated that DNA and belated confessions exonerated one in 25 persons who were sentenced to death, resulting in an untold number of innocent persons to be executed and many others to “languish in prison and never be freed” (Levy, 2014). Many nations and 18 American states have abandoned the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment—and Colorado, Oregon, and Washington have formed moratoriums on executions imposed by their governors. Yet others, such as Norway, do not favor life imprisonment except in extraordinary circumstances. Probation officers are charged with working with inmates after they have been released to the community as well as with persons who receive sentences that require them to work for a specific number of hours in community service. Probation departments often lack sufficient staff to monitor ex-inmates, much less to help them obtain job training, social services, and resources from the safety net sector. Many probation officers restrict their work to discovering whether released prisoners commit crimes rather than helping them find jobs and housing. Other factors skew the American criminal justice system toward punishment rather than (also) rehabilitation. Correctional personnel are often primarily charged with keeping law and order in correctional institutions rather than helping prisoners surmount mental health, economic, familial, and other problems that led them to commit a crime in the first instance. They often view themselves as law enforcement officers rather than persons who work with prisoners so that they thrive in society after their release. They have to deal with prisoners who live (in effect) in cages, have minimal exercise, receive little education and job training, and realize they will leave prison with almost no money and no imminent employment. Some end up on the streets. From Mass Incarceration to Lower Numbers of Inmates The momentum toward mass incarceration began in the United States in the mid-1970s when roughly 600,000 persons were incarcerated, but it grew markedly from 1980 to 2010 when it had roughly 2.4 million inmates. It was a mass incarceration because the United States came to have a far greater percentage of its population in jails and prisons than any other industrialized nation. If the United States has a prison population of 655 per 100,000 persons, other industrialized nations had far fewer. In descending order, they have these levels: New Zealand (219), Australia (167), Scotland (143), England and Wales (140), Portugal (127), Canada (114), France (104), Austria (98), Italy (96), Greece (94), Switzerland (81), Ireland (79), Germany (78), Norway (74), Denmark (59), the Netherlands (59), Sweden (57), Finland (52), and Japan (45) (Kann, 2018). The United States has 2.3 million prisoners or almost the size of Chicago’s population. It has more than three times the number of inmates as a percentage of its population than the next closest industrial nation—New Zealand. Many Americans contend that they cannot learn lessons from other industrialized nations because they are so different from the United States. They ascribe their low incarceration rates to their small populations and their socialist economies. None of these arguments are valid. France and Germany have substantial populations, respectively 67 million and 81 million persons. None of these nations are socialist: They all have capitalist economies and rely heavily on exports. Many nations had death penalties and large populations of inmates but chose to move in the direction of rehabilitation, such as Norway in the 1990s. Take the case of Norway, which has the official goal of getting inmates out of its penal system (Benko, 2015). It has none of the sights that are characteristic of American prisons, such as coils of razor wire and towers with snipers. Halden, a Norwegian prison, seeks to prepare inmates for life in the community. It has no death penalty and a maximum sentence of 21 years, even for Anders Breivik who killed 77 people and injured hundreds more in an attack in Oslo and a nearby summer camp—although Norway allows additional years of incarceration if an inmate is judged to be dangerous to others. Halden develops post-release plans for each inmate that include help in securing homes, jobs, and access to a supportive social network. It spends $93,000 per inmate as compared with $31,000 per inmate in the United States. Yet the United States could save roughly $45 billion per year if it incarcerated prisoners at the same rate as Norway. But it wasn’t always this way; the Norwegians had a criminal justice system akin to the American one as recently as 1998. It was then that they set the goal of using education, job training, and therapy to rehabilitate prisoners. They chose in 2007 to help inmates find housing and jobs with a steady income before they are released in a process they called “reintegration.” By contrast, American inmates are often placed on buses with petty cash, (US) © no jobs, and no housing when they are discharged, not to mention inadequate job and educational preparation in prison. Every feature of Halden is geared to reduce stress, mitigate conflict, and minimize interpersonal friction (Benko, 2015). It is placed in a park with trees and blueberry bushes. It seeks interpersonal relationships between staff and inmates to maintain safety within the prison. It has no surveillance cameras. Inmates move around unaccompanied by guards. Its isolation cell has not been used in five years. Of its 251 prisoners, half are imprisoned for violent crimes including murder, rape, and assault—and one-third for smuggling and selling drugs. Although two-thirds are Norwegian, many prisoners come from different nations such as from the Middle East; some prisoners are transferred to psychiatric facilities if they cannot live with the other prisoners. A special unit focuses on addiction recovery. Prisoners cook many of the meals. Each inmate’s cell has a small refrigerator to store food obtained from communal suppers and weekly visits to the prison grocery shop. Furniture is similar to that in college dorms in the United States rather than the lack of furniture found in cells of most American jails and prisons. If inmates violate rules, they experience swift, consistent, and evenly applied consequences such as cell confinement and loss of TV. A brief reform movement to make the American criminal justice system more humane was initiated by President Lyndon Johnson as part of his War on Crime when he established the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967. The commission’s members concluded that the American correctional institutions were “at best barren and futile … and are the poorest possible preparation for [inmates’] successful re-entry into society” (Benko, 2015). It advised the nation to develop model correctional institutions that would resemble “a normal residential setting [… with] doors rather than bars [where] inmates would eat at small tables in an informal atmosphere [with] classrooms, recreation facilities, day rooms, and perhaps a shop and library.” The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) constructed model correctional centers in the mid-1970s that placed groups of 44 prisoners in self-contained units with single-inmate cells, a day room, only a single, unarmed correctional officer, wooden and upholstered furniture, porcelain toilets, and other amenities (Benko, 2015). The tide soon shifted, however, in a coercive direction. Drawing on correctional data, a researcher simplistically concluded that rehabilitation did not work—a conclusion that was rapidly accepted by many public officials. By the time the researcher concluded that his first analysis was erroneous and that data confirmed that “some treatment programs” do rehabilitate inmates, the damage was done (Benko, 2015). The nation quickly moved toward mass incarceration. President Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs led to incarceration of many drug dealers and addicts, including for use of marijuana, which was classified as a Schedule 1 substance with high potential for abuse and with no accepted medical use even under the direction of a physician. It joined cocaine and heroin as drugs whose users and dealers were criminalized (Jansson, 2019b). A war-on-crime movement arose among public officials at all levels of government that imposed minimum sentences on persons as well as longer sentences, three-strikes laws, and prosecuting juveniles as adults. These coercive policies were disproportionately imposed on African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans who came to be a large majority of inmates. President Ronald Reagan’s antidrug abuse acts established mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession. President Bill Clinton enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that included a threestrikes mandatory life sentence for repeat offenders, hiring of 100,000 new police officers, providing $9.7 billion for funding of prisons, and expanding death penalty-eligible offenses. Whereas Clinton’s legislation also provided $6.1 billion for prevention programs designed by “experienced police officers,” it overwhelmingly reinforced mass incarceration by causing a large increase of prisoners in federal prisons. His legislation also stripped Pell Grant college scholarships from prisoners as well as required prisoners to be evicted from public housing if they were involved in any criminal activity (Lussenhop, 2016). It is not surprising that many leaders of African American, Latino, and Native American advocacy groups view the American correctional system negatively. The vast majority of inmates came from these three groups for decades to the present time. Many white persons who are convicted of crimes can pay their bail and hire attorneys that allow them to exit the correctional system pending a court hearing, whereas persons of color depended on public defenders who have huge caseloads. Judges’ and juries’ biases against persons of color often lead them to give them longer sentences than white people who committed the same crime. A swing toward a less coercive correctional system is currently under way in some states and at the national level. California sought to cut the number of inmates in its correctional institutions when it enacted “realignment legislation” in 2011 by enacting Assembly Bill 109. Large numbers of prisoners in state jails who had not committed acts of violence or serious crimes or sexual crimes were turned back to California’s 58 counties—or 30,000 inmates 2016 (California Radically Revamping, 2016). Researchers sought to determine whether placing more inmates on the streets increased or decreased crime—or had no effect on levels of crime. Researcher David Roodman, after he examined existing data, decided that “decarceration has zero net impact on crime.” But he acknowledged that this “estimate is uncertain, but at least as much evidence suggests that decarceration reduces crime as increases it.” He argued that “while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase criminality after release. As a result, ‘tough-on-crime’ initiatives can reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run” (Lopez, 2018b). Yet another factor has to be considered. Some states are cutting the number of inmates in state prisons but not in local jails. Or some states reduce prison and jail populations in their large cities, such as New York City and Rochester in New York State, but not in jails of relatively small towns and counties. Moreover, huge increases in incarceration are occurring in some states and some counties. Moreover, some states “simply reclassified felony crimes as misdemeanors, emptying prisons while filling up jails.” Or some states send more people to prison than jail because the state foots the bill for the former (Exstrum, 2018). It is premature in late 2018, then, to declare a significant erosion in mass incarceration in the United States. However, the U.S. prison population fell from a peak of 1.6 million in 2009 to 1.5 million people in 2016 (Lopez, 2018c). Bipartisan support for reduction in the federal prison system existed in 2018 after President Obama had initiated the release of some federal prisoners who had not committed violent offenses and only had minor drug offenses. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act by a 16–5 vote in early 2018. The bill would decrease mandatory minimum sentences so that judges could use their discretion in setting sentences below a certain threshold. It would make retroactive reductions in the disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine to reduce the harshness of sentences for some African Americans for use of drugs. It would increase educational and other preventive programs in federal prisons. But even this modest legislation ran into opposition from law-and-order persons and groups including Jeff Sessions, the U.S. attorney general, as well as law enforcement groups (Watkins, 2018). The House enacted legislation that allowed eligible inmates in federal prisons to earn time out of prison, expanding access of prisoners to educational and other programs and strengthening protections for female prisoners. Many Democrats found the Senate and House bills to be too cautious: They believed major reductions in sentences were needed to stop the flow of persons into prisons in the first place, including Senators Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, who are recently seated on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. President Donald Trump opposed sentencing reforms, not to mention Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Eric Young, president of the Council of Prison Locals, insisted that measures to rehabilitate prisoners are unsuccessful unless legislation includes sufficient new revenues to allow these measures to be successful (Lopez, 2018a). The First Step Act was finally signed into law in late 2018, relaxing “three strikes laws,” easing crack sentences, and allowing inmates in federal prisons with good behavior to leave prisons earlier. Major prison reforms are unlikely to be enacted unless the flow of inmates into prisons is decreased through major sentencing reforms, the prevention of future crimes is achieved by massive increases of education and counseling within prisons, and major supportive employment, housing, counseling, and medical services are provided to released prisoners. It is highly unlikely that major prison reforms will be enacted unless congressional elections of 2018 and 2020 and the presidential election of 2020 provide strong majorities of public officials who want to end mass incarceration. It would be helpful, too, to have some public officials who want to abolish prisons to put pressure on their moderate colleagues to enact reforms that are not just incremental adjustments. They include “young, mostly black lawyers, academics, artists, authors, and community organizers” that often have family members who were incarcerated or who themselves were incarcerated. Georgetown law professor Allegra McLeod views their work as a continuation of the earlier movement to abolish slavery. As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted, “There are more African-Americans under correctional control than were enslaved in 1850—that is, before the Civil War” (Arrieta-Kenna, 2018). Analyzing the Evolution of the American Criminal Justice Sector Figure 14.1 depicts the evolution of the correctional systems in America, beginning with antiquated notions of “an eye for an eye” as the appropriate punishment for crime up through the present era of mass incarceration in the United States. Description Figure 14.1 Evolution of the Criminal Justice Sector Of note in the history of corrections in America are prevailing notions of the reformability of those who violate the law; shifts in what behaviors constitute criminal behavior; and the appropriate amount of public spending on enforcement, punishment, and surveillance versus services to address social ills and public health problems that contribute to crime. Identifying Connections Between Mass Incarceration and Economic Inequality An understanding of the criminal justice sector would be incomplete absent a discussion of mass incarceration and its connection to two phenomena: the deindustrialization that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s and the so-called War on Drugs. Unemployment rates skyrocketed in the mid-1970s to early 1980s when many manufacturing facilities pulled out of urban centers and moved their operations overseas where labor was cheaper (Western & Wildeman, 2009). Unemployment benefits and the shrinking welfare state were insufficient to handle the social problems that arose from mass unemployment among men, who at that time were often the family breadwinner. The drug trade became a source of economic opportunity where a vacuum of legitimate employment existed. When President Richard Nixon characterized the abuse of illicit substances as “America’s public enemy number one” in 1971, a wave of anti-drug legislation ensued (Nixon, 1971). The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 reclassified drug users as “criminals” rather than persons in need of treatment, imposed tougher and longer mandatory sentences for drug-related crime (even for first-time offenders), provided the opportunity for higher-level traffickers and dealers to receive lesser sentences by turning in their accomplices, and targeted low-income communities through the crack and powder cocaine disparity (Sudbury, 2002). Individual states also enacted mandatory sentencing laws (i.e., mandatory minimums) that removed judicial discretion and required automatic prison terms for drug offenses. This tough-on-crime mentality thus criminalized certain segments of the U.S. population— namely poor persons and persons of color who used and sold illicit substances—and contributed to skyrocketing levels of incarceration. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 1980, U.S. prisons held roughly 330,000 inmates. By 1990 that number had doubled to 774,000, and by 2015 the number of people incarcerated in the United States topped 2.2 million (Beck & Gilliard, 1995; Carson & Golinelli, 2013). Today, the United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world, and its prison population makes up nearly one-quarter of the world’s 8.5 million total prisoners (Nation Master, n.d.). These dramatic statistics have led some to call this the “era of mass incarceration” (Alexander, 2010; Western & Wildeman, 2009; Wacquant, 2002). Racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately swept up in the broad net cast by the “war on drugs.” While white Americans represent about 73% of the total U.S. population, they represent only 32% of the prison population. African Americans, on the other hand, compose only about 13% of the total U.S. population but 38% of all prisoners, and while Latinos/Hispanics compose 16% of the total U.S. population, they make up 22% of the prison population (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011; Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Indeed, one in three African American males will go to prison at some point in his lifetime. Some have argued that the disproportional representation of racial and ethnic minorities in our nation’s criminal justice system is akin to, and even an outgrowth of, the slavery and Jim Crow eras (Alexander, 2010; Blackmon, 2009; Davis, 2003; Oshinsky, 1996). Many advocacy groups are working to reform the criminal justice system, advocate for more just correctional policies, and address the effects of mass incarceration on individuals, families, and communities. We provide just a snapshot below of them. Some Criminal Justice Advocacy Groups American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). The AFSC runs numerous projects that advocate for prisoners’ rights. Its STOPMAX program works to eliminate the use of isolation and segregation in U.S. prisons through grassroots organizing, public education, and policy advocacy. All of Us or None. This is a national organizing initiative of prisoners, former prisoners, and felons that combats many forms of discrimination that persons confront as the result of felony convictions. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU aims to ensure that American prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities comply with the Constitution, federal law, and international human rights principles. Amnesty International. This organization seeks to protect human rights, stop torture, defend women’s rights, and abolish the death penalty. NAACP Legal Defense Fund. This organization seeks to advance social justice and fairness in the criminal justice system with a focus upon African Americans. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. This organization serves as a clearinghouse for advocacy groups seeking to end the death penalty, including its network of 100 state and national affiliates. National Legal Aid and Defender Association. This organization provides resources for advocates seeking equity in the criminal justice system and as a resource to pers.

ons seeking more information about equal justice in the United States. Pew Research Center. This organization conducts research on the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Project. This project seeks a fair and effective criminal justice system by seeking alternatives to incarceration. The Vera Institute of Justice. This is a leading nonprofit research and advocacy organization. Analyzing the Political Economy of the Criminal Justice Sector Powerful political forces contributed to mass incarceration from the mid-1970s to the present that included numerous powerful actors that were far more powerful than groups that wanted to downsize and humanize correctional facilities. These groups supported the “prison-industrial complex” and included trade unions representing correctional staff who worked in jails and prisons, private corporations that built and maintained for-profit jails and prisons, corporations that provided clothes and meals to inmates, and lobbyists that obtained funding for new correctional facilities. Politicians also lobbied to have correctional facilities placed in the small towns and cities that they represented to provide jobs in these jurisdictions (Henderson, 2015). For example, GEO and Corrections Corporation of American had given more than $10 million to political candidates, spent nearly $25 million on lobbying, and secured $3.3 billion in annual revenue for their for-profit correctional institutions from 1989 to 2015. The prison population of for-profit correctional institutions doubled between 2000 and 2010 because of their lobbying (Cohen, 2018). The criminal justice system is made up of a complex web of entities, including law enforcement agencies, courts, attorneys, local jails, state and federal prisons, and probation and parole entities. We briefly describe here the main players and how an individual typically is processed through the criminal justice system. Law enforcement agencies include local police and sheriff, highway patrol, and federal agencies that are tasked with enforcing laws at local, state, and federal levels. Law enforcement is typically the first point of contact for individuals involved in the criminal justice system, and usually this contact comes in the form of an arrest. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010), law enforcement officials made an estimated 13,687,241 arrests nationwide (not including traffic violations) in 2009. The offense categories representing the largest proportion of cases were larceny theft at 10% (fewer than 1.3 million arrests), driving under the influence at 11% (fewer than 1.4 million arrests), drug abuse violations at 12% (fewethan 1.6 million arrests), and property crimes at 13% (fewer than 1.7 million arrests) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). Individuals are processed through the criminal justice system via courts. All persons suspected of committing a crime are officially charged with that crime (typically by a prosecutor) and offered an opportunity to either admit guilt, accept a plea deal, or take their case to trial to let a jury decide. Whereas the vast majority (94%) of persons charged with a felony plead guilty (Rosenmerkel, Durose, & Farole, 2009), those who deny guilt must retain either a defense attorney or a public defender to represent them. Many advocates argue that the quality of defense is greatly limited for individuals of limited means, thus increasing the likelihood that poor persons will be convicted compared with persons who can afford private representation. A felony or misdemeanor conviction is typically accompanied by a sentence, which is issued by a judge. Sentences typically match the severity of the crime, and can range from restitution and fines to community service or probation to serving time in a local jail or state or federal prison. Many advocates argue that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for drugrelated crime (discussed previously), “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” laws, and other similar sentences that remove judicial discretion are unfitting of the crime. Jails and prisons are major figures in the political economy of the criminal justice system. More than 2 million people are currently confined in U.S. jails and prisons combined. Future sections of this chapter will discuss a vast array of issues confronting these entities—which are designed to house and punish convicted persons—including overcrowding, lack of proper health and mental health care, sexual assault of inmates, and solitary confinement. Jails and prisons stand in stark contrast to the social welfare entities found in other sectors and discussed in Chapters 7 through 13 of this text that are designed to serve, treat, and assist individuals. Finally, the political economy of the criminal justice sector includes the entities of probation and parole. Probation offices (operated by counties) and parole offices (operated by states) supervise persons who are sentenced to serve a portion of time in the community, either instead of or in addition to jail or prison time. The BJS reports that nearly 5 million adults were under supervision of probation or parole at year-end 2010; the equivalent of about one out of every 48 adults in the United States (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). We cannot understand the political economy of the criminal justice system without describing its institutions at the local, state, and federal levels. The largest numbers are housed in local jails, the next largest numbers in state prisons, and the smallest number in federal prisons (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). Local Level Six hundred thousand prisoners are housed in 3,163 local jails. Fifty-three thousand youth reside in juvenile correctional facilities that include 18,079 in detention centers, 11,025 in residential treatment facilities, 12,013 in long-term facilities, and 4,656 in adult prisons and jails (Sawyer, 2018). Other local facilities include 76 Indian Country jails, immigration detention centers, and civil commitment centers and prisons in the U.S. territories. Local jails often hold people who haven’t yet been convicted of a crime as they await court hearings. Ninety-nine percent of the total jail growth in the United States was in pretrial detention—and only about half of these inmates were actually convicted of a crime (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). They reside in jail because they cannot afford to pay bail, a fee they must pay to be released until the court takes action. Critics contend this system is unfair: Affluent people pay the bail, but low-income persons disproportionately languish in jail, even for six months or longer until the court hearing, even though two-thirds of them will be declared innocent or guilty of a minor crime such as petty theft—so-called misdemeanors with sentences under one year. Most persons in jail are there for pretrial detention. This long absence from families and jobs exacts a horrible toll on those in jail and their families, who often become impoverished, which leads to some of them becoming incarcerated for theft or other crimes. The proprietors of the bail bond companies obtain profits of $2 billion each year (Kann, 2018). Jail populations can be reduced markedly in the following ways. Bail can be eliminated for many, even most, persons incarcerated in jails pending hearings. The amount of bail can be markedly reduced so that more prisoners can afford it. Sentences can be reduced markedly, not only with respect to the time of incarceration but replacing incarceration with community service. More judges can be hired to reduce the interlude between incarceration and court action. Data can be used to reduce or eliminate bail for persons highly unlikely to flee who also are charged with minor infractions. State Level About 1.330 million prisoners are housed in 1,719 state prisons (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). They are incarcerated for violent offenses (704,000), drug offenses (208,000), theft and other property offenses (253,000), and public order offenses (154,000) including driving while intoxicated and illegal use or possession of weapons. Federal Level About 197,000 inmates are housed in 102 federal prisons. Roughly one-half of them (97,000) are incarcerated for drug offenses (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). There are more than 1 million drug possession arrests each year, more for drug possession than for drug sales. So nonviolent drug offenses are a defining characteristic of federal prisons. About 57,000 persons are kept in prison due to immigration offenses, including 16,000 persons held by the Bureau of Prisons and 41,000 held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Some states have relatively few drug possession arrests, such as New York, but other states have not ended the War on Drugs, such as Oklahoma.) About 71,000 are incarcerated for public order, including illegal use or possession of weapons, immigration violations, and other public order cases. Few persons are in federal prisons for violent offenses (14,000 for homicides, robberies, and other violent crimes). Only 12,000 have committed property crimes such as burglaries and fraud (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017).

residential treatment facilities, 12,013 in long-term facilities, and 4,656 in adult prisons and jails (Sawyer, 2018). Other local facilities include 76 Indian Country jails, immigration detention centers, and civil commitment centers and prisons in the U.S. territories. Local jails often hold people who haven’t yet been convicted of a crime as they await court hearings. Ninety-nine percent of the total jail growth in the United States was in pretrial detention—and only about half of these inmates were actually convicted of a crime (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). They reside in jail because they cannot afford to pay bail, a fee they must pay to be released until the court takes action. Critics contend this system is unfair: Affluent people pay the bail, but low-income persons disproportionately languish in jail, even for six months or longer until the court hearing, even though two-thirds of them will be declared innocent or guilty of a minor crime such as petty theft—so-called misdemeanors with sentences under one year. Most persons in jail are there for pretrial detention. This long absence from families and jobs exacts a horrible toll on those in jail and their families, who often become impoverished, which leads to some of them becoming incarcerated for theft or other crimes. The proprietors of the bail bond companies obtain profits of $2 billion each year (Kann, 2018). Jail populations can be reduced markedly in the following ways. Bail can be eliminated for many, even most, persons incarcerated in jails pending hearings. The amount of bail can be markedly reduced so that more prisoners can afford it. Sentences can be reduced markedly, not only with respect to the time of incarceration but replacing incarceration with community service. More judges can be hired to reduce the interlude between incarceration and court action. Data can be used to reduce or eliminate bail for persons highly unlikely to flee who also are charged with minor infractions. State Level About 1.330 million prisoners are housed in 1,719 state prisons (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). They are incarcerated for violent offenses (704,000), drug offenses (208,000), theft and other property offenses (253,000), and public order offenses (154,000) including driving while intoxicated and illegal use or possession of weapons. Federal Level About 197,000 inmates are housed in 102 federal prisons. Roughly one-half of them (97,000) are incarcerated for drug offenses (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017). There are more than 1 million drug possession arrests each year, more for drug possession than for drug sales. So nonviolent drug offenses are a defining characteristic of federal prisons. About 57,000 persons are kept in prison due to immigration offenses, including 16,000 persons held by the Bureau of Prisons and 41,000 held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Some states have relatively few drug possession arrests, such as New York, but other states have not ended the War on Drugs, such as Oklahoma.) About 71,000 are incarcerated for public order, including illegal use or possession of weapons, immigration violations, and other public order cases. Few persons are in federal prisons for violent offenses (14,000 for homicides, robberies, and other violent crimes). Only 12,000 have committed property crimes such as burglaries and fraud (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017).

violated. One historical example is Dorothea Dix, who advocated for better conditions for indigent, mentally ill detainees in the mid-1800s (see Problem 6). This section will discuss current efforts to ensure the rights of those involved in the criminal justice system. Some advocates have developed strategies for enhancing human rights in prison management such as the third edition of a handbook for prison staff (Coyle & Fair, 2018). It draws upon the principle that all persons have basic rights. It draws upon principles enunciated by Nelson Mandela and numerous policy positions of the United Nations. It provides invaluable advice to social workers who work in prisons and who engage in micro and mezzo policy advocacy in them, not to mention macro policy advocacy to establish legislation that prohibits solitary confinement and other assaults on the dignity of prisoners. Red Flag Alert 14.1. A prisoner is labeled as a gang member and is threatened with solitary confinement unless they inform officials about gang leadership and planned activities. Red Flag Alert 14.2. A prisoner held in solitary confinement for five years becomes increasingly disoriented and lethargic, yet they have not been seen by a certified mental health professional. Red Flag Alert 14.3. An illiterate prisoner with limited English speaking ability is given a form that authorizes their inclusion in a pharmaceutical study. Red Flag Alert 14.4. Food is routinely withheld from a prisoner who refuses to work. Red Flag Alert 14.5. A female prisoner is groped by a male guard during a routine strip search. Red Flag Alert 14.6. Prison guards look the other way while a male inmate is sexually assaulted by other inmates. Background Like many of the populations discussed in this text, prisoners housed in this country’s correctional facilities are vulnerable to experiencing violations of their ethical rights. Yet, unlike students, seniors, and foster youth, prisoners carry with them a unique stigma; it is not politically incorrect for society to ignore or even discriminate against incarcerated individuals. There are numerous areas within the criminal justice sector—from the point of arrest through incarceration to reentry—in which ethical violations are rife. We touch on just a few of them here. One of those areas includes the use of controversial stop-and-frisk policies as a law enforcement mechanism for maintaining social order. At the present time in New York City, lawsuits have been filed against the New York Police Department for their use of the practice, which primarily targets young men of color. These tactics have been ruled by district courts to violate residents’ constitutional A second area of great concern to many advocates is the sexual assault that takes place within the walls of many prisons and is perpetrated by both guards and fellow inmates (often while guards look the other way). The advocacy group Just Detention reports that 200,000 adults and children are sexually abused behind bars every year (Just Detention, n.d.). Long-term segregation (i.e., solitary confinement) is another area that is considered a violation of prisoners’ rights by some. Depending on the institution, the experience of solitary confinement can range from limited contact with other persons, including the general population of prisoners and family visitors, to complete sensory deprivation for 23 hours each day. Prisoners can be held in solitary confinement for months and years. Although its devastating psychological impacts have been widely documented (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008), only recently have policies regulated this practice in some states. Human Rights Watch (2012) is currently working to end the practice of solitary confinement for incarcerated juveniles under the age of 18, whereas the ACLU seeks reforms to solitary confinement practices generally across the United States (ACLU, n.d.b). Other violations of ethical rights include (but are not limited to) the disproportionate imposition of capital punishment sentences on members of ethnic minority groups; prison overcrowding that leads to inadequate health and mental health services; the elimination of educational and vocational training programs for inmates; the denial of employment, housing, and educational opportunities to persons with drug convictions; and lifetime disenfranchisement of formerly incarcerated people in many states (i.e., eliminating their right to vote because of a prior conviction). Resources for Advocates Court Rulings Supreme Court decisions have played key roles in the formulation of correctional policies regarding prisoners’ ethical rights. In its 1964 Cooper v. Pate decision, the Court held that prisoners are persons whose rights are protected by the Constitution, and they can challenge the conditions of their confinement. In Hudson v. Palmer (1984), prison officials are permitted to search cells and confiscate items without violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures. Also, in the 1974 Wolff v. McDonnell case, the Court ruled that inmates have due process rights under the 14th Amendment when being disciplined. The constitutionality of the death penalty has also been discussed and debated in the courts. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court found that capital punishment was imposed unpredictably and infrequently. As such, the Court ruled that the death penalty amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and should be ceased. However, four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court allowed executions to continue after a few states revised their death penalty statutes. Specifically, the Court upheld death penalty laws that require the sentencing judge or jury to take into account specific aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding which convicted murderers should be sentenced to death. In recent cases, the Court has ruled that the execution of mentally disabled individuals was unconstitutional (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) asrights.

well as the execution of offenders for crimes committed under the age of 18 (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Legislation In 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act in an effort to curb the increase in prisoner litigation that was finding its way into the federal courts, including claims of physical and sexual abuse, mistreatment of confined individuals, and prison officials’ indifference to inmate-to-inmate assault. Under the law, prisoners must exhaust all available administrative avenues before challenging a condition of their confinement. Prisoners are required by the act to also pay court filing fees in full, either up front or through monthly installments, and this process requires the coordination and cooperation of the prison in handling the transaction (ACLU, n.d.a). Lawsuits or appeals that a judge rules are frivolous or without merit count as strikes; after three strikes, prisoners are unable to file additional lawsuits without up-front payment of filing fees. Also, prisoners seeking monetary damages for mental or emotional injury must provide proof of physical injury. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.1 Connecting Mirco, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Interventions To Honor Rights Of Prisoners And Ex-Offenders Many ex-prisoners discover on their release from prison that they are still punished by local officials, public programs, employers, and ordinary citizens. They are sometimes denied access to public housing, rejected by employers, denied housing by landlords, and allowed only to have general assistance with monthly allotments lower than other welfare programs such as SSI and TANF. Unlike Norwegian prisons that help them obtain housing and jobs before they are released, American prisons give them only a small stipend upon their release—almost guaranteeing they will become penniless and often homeless. Discuss some options that might be considered by American correctional facilities including those in the following exercise. Learning Exercise 1. Providing guaranteed jobs in public agencies on their release so that they can establish an employment record to enable a much higher likelihood of gaining employment in the private sector 2. Creating rent subsidies to allow them to fund monthly rents in the private sector for a year as they establish themselves in the community 3. Reform local probation services by adding social workers and nurses to their staff so that released prisoners have mentors rather than only probation officers who often focus only on law enforcement.

Core Problem 2: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Quality Programs for Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts Although certain rights are granted to citizens who come into contact with the criminal justice system via the U.S. Constitution, quality care is a notion largely foreign to corrections. A metaanalysis of the effects of custodial versus non-custodial sentences found that the rate of reoffending after a non-custodial sanction is actually lower than after a custodial sanction (Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). In other words, prison does not decrease future criminal activity. Rather, it may actually perpetuate it through the psychological damage it exacts and by denying former prisoners opportunities for legitimate employment and self-sufficiency. Researchers and advocates from a broad spectrum of ideologies have concluded that the system, as currently constituted, does not serve the best interests of the public but rather extracts from it valuable resources that could better be spent on social programs to address problems of drug abuse, social disorder, and poverty. This state of affairs—a criminal justice system that routinely violates civil and human rights, does not effectively respond to social problems but may actually exacerbate them, and costs taxpayers enormous valuable resources—has moved some advocates to want to fundamentally reform the criminal justice system. Red Flag Alert 14.7. A poor person suffering from drug addiction is sentenced to life in prison for petty theft—a nonviolent, non-serious third felony offense. Red Flag Alert 14.8. A crime victim wants to confront the perpetrator, and the offender wants to make amends, but avenues through which to do so are not available in their jurisdiction. Red Flag Alert 14.9. A city council member wishes to implement criminal justice reforms in his or her jurisdictions based on evidence and best practices but is lambasted by her opponents for being soft on crime. Red Flag Alert 14.10. Resources in one’s jurisdiction are spent on corrections at a rate many times the amount spent on social programs, such as housing, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and drug treatment. Background Those who seek to transform the basic structure of the criminal justice system are met with formidable foes. These include powerful special interests as well as conservative scare tactics and the previously mentioned law-and-order mentality that hinders elected officials from accomplishing significant reforms for fear of being labeled soft on crime. Special Interests

Prisons are expensive to operate, yet they are quite profitable to many parties. First, rising incarceration rates require greater numbers of correctional staff. According to the BJS, a total of 2.5 million persons were employed in the nation’s justice system in 2007, and nearly a half million of those jobs were in state corrections (Kyckelhahn, 2011). Additionally, vendors who supply food, uniforms, commissary items, and collect phone calls from inmates to their families benefit from lucrative contracts with prison authorities (Dannenberg, 2011). Moreover, major manufacturers and retailers benefit from the free or cheap labor of the nation’s 1.6 million inmates (Winter, 2008). Examination of lobbying efforts on behalf of these special interests suggests that their level of investment is high. The California Correctional and Peace Officer’s Association (CCPOA), a 31,000-member strong prison guards union, spends approximately $8 million of the annual $23 million it raises through membership dues on lobbying (Kowal, 2011). In a December 2009 report, the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association touted the union’s efforts to support a $500 million Pennsylvania prison expansion effort that built five new prisons with 12,000 total beds (The Winter Group, 2009). Advocates seeking to reform the criminal justice system in their jurisdictions can expect to be met by these and other powerful special interests. Tough-on-Crime Ideologies At the time of the initiation of the War on Drugs and the massive prison buildup, considerable media attention was focused on the so-called dangerous class (Golden, 2005). Nightly news programs portrayed images of inner-city residents, usually black men, as violent outlaws, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. Black women, on the other hand, were portrayed as “welfare queens” and crack addicts who exposed their fetuses (so-called crack babies) to drugs. These spectacles of the gangster and the unfit mother were given tremendous national media attention while similar attention was not given to white-collar crime (Golden, 2005). This prompted a dramatic rise in the fear of crime, and more and more politicians sought to align their platforms with popular views. Tough-on-crime rhetoric was subsequently translated into policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related crime, and “three strikes, you’re out” legislation, which mandated a life sentence for any person convicted of a third felony (Sudbury, 2002). Resources for Advocates There has been a shift in recent years away from the tough-on-crime stance, and toward a smart-on-crime approach. In a 2009 address, Attorney General Eric Holder argued, Getting smart on crime requires talking honestly about which policies have worked and which have not, without fear of being labeled as too hard or, more likely, as too soft on crime. Getting smart on crime means moving beyond useless labels and instead embracing science and data, and relying on them to shape policy. And it means thinking about crime in context—not just reacting to the criminal act, but developing the government’s ability to enhance public safety before the crime is committed and after the former offender is returned to society. (Vera Institute, 2009) Efforts have been initiated at local, state, and federal levels to reverse some of the trends of the harsh sentencing era and to challenge prevailing systems of punishment. Restorative Justice A growing movement favors the restorative justice approach as an alternative to incarceration. Restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused by crime. Howard Zehr, a pioneer of the American restorative justice movement, defines restorative justice as processes “to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (Zehr, 2002). In the United States, numerous restorative justice programs exist (see, e.g., Bishop, 2012, and Mills, Maley, & Shy, 2009). Advocates tout the benefits of the approach as humanizing in comparison with the harsh and stifling conditions of prison. A meta-analysis of restorative justice programs found that they were more effective than traditional sanctions in reducing recidivism and ensuring restitution compliance (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005). Prison Abolition Some advocates argue that prisons should be done away with entirely. The preeminent organization working to abolish the prison system and replace it with a system of community accountability is Critical Resistance (n.d.). Formed in 1997 by activists challenging the idea that imprisonment and policing are the best solutions for social, political, and economic problems, Critical Resistance seeks to build a movement to abolish the prison industrial complex. Critical Resistance defines the prison industrial complex as “the system of surveillance, policing, and imprisonment that government, industry and their interests use as solutions to economic, social, and political problems” (http://www.criticalresistance.org). Through local chapters, Critical advocates for systems of harm prevention that build community and provide for basic needs and systems of accountability that address the root causes of harm. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.2 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Interventions Discussing The Ethics Of Three Strikes Visit the website of Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes at http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/13/1323.html. Select the rationale for amending three strikes and well as the opposition. Select three of the arguments in favor of amending three strikes and three of the arguments opposing amending of three strikes. In small groups, complete the following exercise.

Core Problem 3: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Culturally Competent Services and Policies for Prisioners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts The U.S. criminal justice system is not set up to “serve” those who come into contact with it but rather to punish them. However, there is growing recognition that certain vulnerable groups, such as women, the elderly, the indigent, and mentally ill persons, have unique needs and circumstances and require specialized attention at stages of the criminal justice process. This section will address advocates’ attempts to reform the criminal justice system by changing specific laws and policies pertaining to marginalized or vulnerable groups. Specific focus will be paid to women, the elderly, and the ill as issues concerning mentally ill prisoners will be discussed later. Red Flag Alert 14.11. A woman is given a mandatory minimum sentence for her role as an accomplice to her abusive boyfriend who sells drugs out of the couple’s home. She was aware of the drug activity but not directly involved. He was given a reduced sentence of probation for turning in his accomplices (including her). Red Flag Alert 14.12. A woman inmate is handcuffed and shackled to her bed while giving birth, and the child is immediately removed and placed in foster care. Red Flag Alert 14.13. A woman inmate serving a two-year sentence for a first-time drug offense is not informed that the state has moved to permanently terminate her parental rights. Red Flag Alert 14.14. An elderly man serving a life sentence for murder is diagnosed with brain cancer and will probably die within six months. His in-prison medical care costs $100,000 per year.

Red Flag Alert 14.15. Persons of color comprise the vast bulk of prison populations in the United States including African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. They receive disproportionate convictions and sentences as compared with the white population. Background Three kinds of prisoners and ex-prisoners have drawn considerable attention in policy debates about the criminal justice sector: women, the elderly and persons with medical problems, and persons of color. Women Women are the fastest-growing prisoner population in the United States, and their rate of incarceration has increased by 840% since 1980 (Gilliard & Beck, 1994; West & Sabol, 2010). Women are more likely to be sentenced for drug-related crime and less likely to be sentenced for violent crime than men (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). Women prisoners report significantly higher rates of prior physical and sexual abuse as well as higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse compared with their male counterparts (Harlow, 1999; James & Glaze, 2006; Mumola & Karberg, 2006). In addition, women prisoners are more likely than their male counterparts to have lived at or below the poverty level, less likely to have been employed prior to their incarceration, more likely to have been receiving welfare assistance prior to incarceration, and more likely than men to engage in criminal behavior for economic reasons (Lewis, 2006; O’Brien & Harm, 2002; Covington & Bloom, 2006). Yet current sentencing laws and standard management strategies, which include surveillance, searches, restraints, infractions, and isolation, are based on male characteristics and crime and fail to take into account women’s characteristics, responsibilities, and roles in crimes (Covington & Bloom, 2003). Female prisoners are also more likely to be parents of dependent children than are male prisoners (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Correctional practices and policies governing contact between prisoners and their children often impede, rather than support, the maintenance of family ties (Hairston, 2004). Most children are unable to visit their mothers due to the remote locations of prisons. Those who are able to visit often experience long waits, rude treatment by staff, and physical environments that restrain mother-child interaction (Arditti & Few, 2006). Phone calls placed to correctional facilities or received as collect calls from prisons are up to six times more expensive than the typical long-distance call, making this form of communication difficult for poor families (Dannenberg, 2011). Moreover, pregnant inmates in many states face the dehumanizing prospect of being shackled to their beds during childbirth and of having their infant taken from them within hours of delivery (Women’s Prison Association, n.d.). The Elderly and the Ill Prisoners sentenced to death, to life without the possibility of parole, or to consecutive or lengthy sentences (such as those mandated by three strikes laws) often grow old and/or ill in prison. In recent years, the number and proportion of older inmates has grown. There were more than 25,000 inmates age 65 and older in state and federal prisons at year-end 2010 (Guerino et al., 2011), and 89% of all inmate deaths are attributable to medical conditions (Mumola, 2007). For inmates who serve at least 10 years in state prison, the mortality rate due to illness is triple that of inmates who serve less than five years (Mumola, 2007). The ever-expanding prison population places a strain on prison health care systems to provide basic medical services as well as specialty services for these populations. This strain is not only felt by prison physicians and nurses; elected officials struggle to justify rising correctional budgets to weary taxpayers. The ultimate impact, however, is experienced by a population that is too often invisible to society—the inmates themselves. Among them, terminally ill prisoners are perhaps the most vulnerable of all. Typically, terminally ill prisoners are isolated, without access to visitors, and often fear dying alone (Snyder, van Wormer, Chadha, & Jaggers, 2009). Social workers who are able to visit terminally ill patients report that these prisoners are subjected to body cavity searches after visits (Snyder et al., 2009). Many terminally ill prisoners report feeling shame that they will die as a prisoner (Wahidin, 2004). The National Institute of Justice in 2004 reported that only half of the 50 U.S. states operate hospice programs in their prisons (Anno, Graham, Lawrence, & Shansky, 2004). Persons of Color We have discussed how male persons of color constitute the overwhelming majority of inmates in the United States at greatly disproportionate levels as compared with the white population. Considerable evidence suggests that they are subject to the death penalty, as well as long sentences, far more than whites who commit similar crimes. Resources for Advocates Policy Reforms Targeting Females In 1997 the U.S. BOP issued a formal policy on the management of female offenders that mandated all BOP programs and services to “consider and address” the unique treatment needs of female offenders (General Accounting Office, 1999). It also requires each applicable BOP facility to develop and document programs and services that meet women’s needs, prepare them to function in an institutional environment, and return them to the community. The BOP’s gender-responsive mandate, although difficult to enforce, nonetheless recognizes that a onesize-fits-all correctional system is insensitive to the differential needs and characteristics of women who often leave behind children for whom they were the primary caregiver and who often become involved in crime for reasons related to economic marginality and drug addiction. The gender-responsive philosophy promotes “creating an environment through site selection, staff selection, program development, content, and material that reflects an understanding of the realities of the lives of women in criminal justice settings and addresses their specific challenges and strengths” (Covington & Bloom, 2006, p. 19). Unfortunately, this ideal model is far from the norm. In 2010, of the 93,000 total women incarcerated in state prisons, nearly one in 12 was confined in California’s super-max women’s prisons. The largest women’s prison in the world—Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF)— had a design capacity of 2,004 and a population of 3,736 on September 30, 2011. Its neighbor across the street—Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW)—is the second-largest women’s prison in the world. It had a design capacity of 1,980 and a population of 3,496 on September 30, 2011 (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2011). Far from being nurturing environments designed to address women’s trauma and promote healthy relationships, these facilities have instead been described as “suicide cities” (Olson, 2007). In writing about her experience as an inmate at CCWF, Olson recounts how the overcrowded conditions inside the facility led to frequent lockdowns and inadequate mental health care, all of which precipitated a number of attempted and successful suicides (Olson, 2007). Clearly, there is much work to be done to properly address women prisoners’ unique needs. Advocates including the Women’s Prison Association and others are working to ensure that the needs of women prisoners and their families are addressed (see Table 14.1). Table 14.1 Advocacy Groups Focusing on Women and Children Women’s Prison Association: http://www.wpaonline.org/ The Family and Corrections Network: http://fcnetwork.org/ Legal Services for Prisoners with Children: http://www.prisonerswithchildren.org/ The Center for Community Alternatives: http://www.communityalternatives.org/ The Justice Policy Institute: http://www.justicepolicy.org/index.html The Sentencing Project: http://www.sentencingproject.org The Vera Institute of Justice: http://www.vera.org/ Policy Reforms Targeting the Elderly and Ill Advocates concerned.

with issues confronting elderly and terminally ill prisoners often argue for compassionate release of these vulnerable populations. Compassionate release—a program that allows some eligible, seriously ill prisoners to die outside of prison before sentence completion—is permitted under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Williams, Sudore, Greifinger, & Morrison, 2011), and all but five states have some mechanism through which dying prisoners can seek release (Anno et al., 2004). Advocates of compassionate release argue both that releasing prisoners with life-limiting illnesses who no longer pose a threat to society is the ethical and moral thing to do and that the financial costs to society of continuing to incarcerate such persons outweigh the benefits. Medical eligibility guidelines vary by jurisdiction, but most states require that the prisoner have a diagnosed terminal or severely debilitating medical condition that cannot be appropriately cared for within the prison and that the prisoner pose no further threat to society (Williams et al., 2011). However, a recent study of compassionate release in practice found that only 36 requests for compassionate release in the federal BOP in 2008 made it to the final review stage, and 27 were approved. The Vera Institute of Justice cites narrow eligibility criteria, complicated and lengthy referral and review processes, political considerations, and public opinion as barriers to compassionate release (Chiu, 2010). Those in the medical field concur that eligibility guidelines are too stringent, requiring a short prognosis (e.g., six months) that excludes prisoners with severe dementia, those in a persistent vegetative state, or those with end-stage organ disease who may actually live longer, although they pose no threat to society (Williams et al., 2011). However, the power of the court of public opinion and political motivations for the denial of compassionate releases should not be discounted. Advocates, including family members of dying prisoners, as well as those in the medical profession, continue to fight for the rights of terminally ill and severely incapacitated prisoners by challenging the necessary qualifications for compassionate release. Prison Reforms Targeting Persons of Color Considerable attention has been given to greatly decreasing incarceration rates of African American, Latino, and Native American males by decreasing them for nonviolent crimes—and by greatly shortening sentences for nonviolent offenders. Some states have abolished the death penalty in the wake of evidence that many innocent males of color receive this sentence. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.3 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Interventions—Should They Be Released? Picture 92-year-old Nick leaning on his cane, out of breath, in the quad at the largest men’s prison in Massachusetts. Nick is making one of his three trips a day across the prison complex to get his life-sustaining medications and is forced to ask another prisoner to dig nitroglycerin out of his pocket so he can address the heart episode he is experiencing. Nick was sentenced to life in prison more than 40 years ago for murdering his wife when he caught her with another man. He was drunk at the time. He had no prior criminal history, and has expressed remorse for his crime. Also picture Frank, a 70-year-old diabetic and Vietnam War veteran, in his wheelchair. Frank has had both legs amputated and is unable to see well enough to write his son to tell him about a guard in the assisted care facility at the prison who would not allow him to be wheeled over to a church service. Frank was sentenced to life in prison 27 years ago on a third strike for armed robbery. His previous convictions include unarmed robbery and petty theft. As a young father, Frank had been laid off and resorted to stealing to support his wife and three kids. His wife is now deceased. Like Nick, Frank has also expressed remorse for his crimes. Both men are model prisoners with no infractions in the past 25 years. The family members of both men are fighting for their release, but Massachusetts is one of only a few states that does not have some type of compassionate or medical release law that allows seriously ill prisoners to be released to more appropriate care. The cost to care for aging Massachusetts prisoners ranges from $75,000 to $115,000 per prisoner per year as opposed to about $44,000 for a healthy man or woman. The managed care these men would receive outside of prison walls is a fraction of the cost of in-prison care.

Learning Exercise Consider the following questions from the points of view of (1) a terminally ill prisoner’s doctor, (2) a terminally ill prisoner’s son or daughter, (3) a member of the victim’s family, and (4) a concerned taxpayer: Should prisoners like Frank and Nick be granted compassionate release? What guidelines do you think should be used to determine the release of elderly or severely or terminally ill prisoners? Who should ultimately get to decide the fate of terminally ill prisoners? Do the risks of releasing prisoners like Nick and Frank outweigh the benefits in terms of the health care savings? How might you engage in micro, mezzo, and/or macro level policy advocacy to improve the situation of terminally ill prisoners? Core Problem 4: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Prevention for Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts Prison not only affects an individual during the time he or she spends there; it also carries lasting financial, emotional, and social effects. For example, black men without high school diplomas have a 60% chance of being sent to jail, which is associated with a reduction in their annual employment by nine weeks and a 40% drop in their yearly income (Romano, 2011). The stigma of a criminal record can haunt an individual for life, even despite his or her best efforts to change. Therefore, it is crucial that efforts be made to strengthen preventive services targeted at those at risk of entering the system. Additionally, preventive services can do much to reduce recidivism and promote successful reentry into society. Red Flag Alert 14.16. A prisoner who has been in jail for years is up for parole and will return to his or her impoverished neighborhood with few skills or resources. Red Flag Alert 14.17. A soon-to-be-released prisoner has never had any visits from family or made calls to home. His or her only known support system was the gang of which he or she was previously a member. Red Flag Alert 14.18. A prisoner is unable to attain his or her certification while incarcerated because the vocational training program was cut due to budgetary constraints. Background The implementation of evidence-based practices has been shown to reduce recidivism rates by 50% (Andrews et al., 1990). Early intervention programs have also kept vulnerable youth from entering into gangs and their spiraling life of crime. Replacing a once-size-fits-all approach with a flexible model for responding to ex-offenders’ individual situations can yield more positive outcomes. For example, the National Institute of Corrections and Crime and Justice Institute presented eight evidence-based practices that aim to improve reentry outcomes (Bogue et al., 2004), including assessing risks and needs, enhancing intrinsic motivation, targeting interventions, using cognitive behavioral treatment methods for skill-building purposes, increasing positive reinforcement, engaging with natural communities, measuring practices, and providing feedback. Gang Involvement According to figures from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there were 800,000 gang members active in more than 3,000 gangs in the year 2000. A number of risk factors are correlated with gang involvement, including but not limited to low household incomes, single-parent households, low academic achievement, identification as learning disabled, and accessibility to marijuana (Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999). Early childhood, school-based, and after-school programs have been used to prevent adolescents from entering into gangs as well as to disrupt and dismantle existing gangs. However, the most effective programs involve the community at large and require multiagency coordination and integration among a variety of stakeholders, such as youth services, police, parole, and grassroots organizations (Howell, 2006). Listen to a Ted talk by Father Gregory Boyle, who pioneered creative programs to help members of gangs obtain jobs and reduce violence. Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGYKu70qi48. Recidivism Upon their release from prison, ex-offenders face the challenge of figuring out where to live, where to work, and where to seek or continue their medical care. The lack of resources and employment opportunities, limited supervision, and inadequate collaboration between parole agencies and community partners lead many to commit crimes and find themselves back in jail. The Bureau of Justice Statistics published a 2002 report on recidivism rates of prisoners who had been released in 1994. The study showed that in the first six months, 30% had been rearrested; within the first year, 44%; and within three years, 67.5% (Langan & Levin, 2002). Resources for Advocates The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act has been used against youth and adult gang members by 17% of local prosecutors in large counties and less than 10% of prosecutors in small counties (Howell, 2006). A number of states, including California, Florida, and Illinois, have enacted policies that impose stiffer penalties for crimes affiliated with identified gangs. For example, under California’s Street Terrorism, Enforcement, and Prevention (STEP) Act of 1988, gang members receive written documentation that they have been identified as part of a particular gang and can face harsher penalties for any crimes committed. In Hawaii’s Youth Gang Response System, prosecutors focus on high-level gang leadership, while youth members have access to prevention and education services. Furthermore, many cities have turned to curfew laws to curb gang activity. Yet, this policy does little to address the fundamental problem of gang recruitment and membership. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.4 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Marcro Policy Interventions—Creating Jobs For Gang Members Father Gregory Boyle in East Los Angeles has pioneered the creation of jobs for former gang members and prisoners, called “Homeboys,” in scores of restaurants in communities as well as airplane terminals. Not content with helping released males with restaurants, he created jobs for released women called “Homegirls,” including at Los Angeles International Airport, where they make sandwiches for outgoing passengers. Discuss other employment options that the United States might develop, such as developing jobs in community agencies in after-school programs, creating projects that beautify low-income neighborhoods, creating pocket parks in inner cities, creating community gardens, and installing solar panels. These projects have to be supervised and funded by foundations and local governments, so social workers would need to engage in mezzo and macro policy advocacy to establish them. A number of states have passed measures seeking to reduce ineffective and inappropriate policies that favor incarceration rather than treatment in the case of those convicted of simple drug possession. For example, Arizona passed the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act in 1996, allowing nonviolent drug offenders to undergo drug treatment and education services rather than incarceration. In November 2000, California passed the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, also known as Proposition 36. Citing that substance abuse treatment “is a proven public safety and health measure,” the act enabled first- and second-time nonviolent drug possession offenders to undergo a treatment program instead of jail time. It continued to state that “non-violent, drug dependent criminal offenders who receive drug treatment are much less likely to abuse drugs and commit future crimes, and are likelier to live healthier, more stable and more productive lives” (National Families in Action, 2000). Furthermore, the act pointed out that replacing incarceration with appropriate communitybased treatment not only improves community safety and health but also saves taxpayer dollars.

Core Problem 5: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Reductions in Resources Spent on Prisons and Increases in Spending on Affordable and Accessible Services for Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts As we have seen, the seven problems identified in other social welfare sectors are difficult to apply to corrections because its purpose—punishment of offenders—is antithetical to service provision. This section will instead discuss the exorbitant cost of the U.S. correctional system to taxpayers and what advocacy groups are doing to shift resources away from corrections and into prevention and community-based services that address the root causes of crime. Red Flag Alert 14.19. A 14-year-old male from the inner city is exposed daily to violence and gangs. The city in which he lives has done little to invest in gang prevention or reduction programs, parks, recreational facilities, or other opportunities for youth. Instead, the city has invested in maintaining a strong police presence in inner-city neighborhoods. Red Flag Alert 14.20. A formerly incarcerated woman who was recently released from state prison returns to the community to find there are no services to assist her with housing, job training, or child reunification. Her parole officer seems to be more interested in the results of her mandatory drug test than in assisting her to get back on her feet. This dearth of programs to help prisoners and ex-prisoners extends as well to males, persons of color, youthful persons, and other kinds of prisoners and ex-prisoners.

Figure 14.2 Spending on Prisons in the United States From 1992 to 2012 Source: usgovernmentspending.com Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.5 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Interventions Impact of Prisons on Communities That Surround Them View the four-minute trailer for the film Prison Town, USA (http://www.pbs.org/pov/prisontown/). Download the discussion guide to learn more about the town portrayed in the film and the impacts of the Susanville prison on residents of the town. Pay particular attention to the economic impact that building the prison had on the community (p. 9 of the Discussion Guide). Think about the possible micro, mezzo, and macro implications of building a prison in your town. Resources for Advocates

Local, state, and federal budgets are considered by many to be social contracts. Influencing how governments invest public dollars is no simple task. Yet many advocates and groups are attempting to do just that in hopes that resources will be channeled away from prisons and into social programs and education. One of the most active of such spending reform advocacy groups is Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB). CURB is a coalition of more than 40 organizations that work to reduce spending on prisons. The organization seeks a “budget for humanity” that stops all prison and jail construction, reduces prison overcrowding through sentencing reform and reentry support, and instead invests in education, affordable housing, jobs, and mental and medical health care. According to its website, CURB has helped defeat more than 140,000 new prison and jail beds proposed since 2004 (Californians United for a Responsible Budget, n.d.). Core Problem 6: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Care for Mental Distress of Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts Dorothea Dix was a famous advocate for mentally ill persons in the United States in the middle portion of the 19th century. She launched a legendary battle to rescue them from poorhouses, where they were often shackled to their beds and forced to deal with vermin and feces (Jansson, 2019b). Fast-forward 150 years from the mid-1800s to the early 21st century when contemporary prisons have become “the new poorhouses.” What would Dix find if she were to reappear and visit the jails of today? According to the Department of Justice, the number of U.S. residents being held in federal and state correctional facilities and municipal jails soared to 2.2 million by the end of 2005 even if they have declined in succeeding years, as we have discussed earlier in this chapter (Lopez, 2018c). Although this statistic in itself is alarming, of greater concern is the issue highlighted by Human Rights Watch, the largest human rights organization in the United States, that of those incarcerated in prisons today, about half the jail and prison population in the United States, roughly 1,254,800 men and women, have mental health problems in local, state, and federal jails—and many of them are subjected to physical abuse by correctional staff and fellow prisoners (Fellner, 2007; Human Rights Watch, 2015). Red Flag Alert 14.21. A new inmate with a history of substance abuse and depression was not told about the institution’s mental health services. Red Flag Alert 14.22. A prisoner is shown to be developmentally disabled. Red Flag Alert 14.23. An inmate has been experiencing panic attacks for the past week. She or he requested an evaluation by a qualified mental health professional four days ago. Red Flag Alert 14.24. A mental health professional asks a prisoner about his or her past suicide attempts in front of other prisoners. Red Flag Alert 14.25. A prison guard routinely places inmates in solitary confinement as a means of punishment. Red Flag Alert 14.26. A prisoner receives no continuing or follow-up treatment services upon parole. Background As a result of inadequate and inaccessible mental health treatment in the community, people with mental illness often engage in behavior deemed illegal, thus thrusting them into the criminal justice system—a system not designed to deal with mental health issues. Availability of adequate mental health services in the community prior to the criminal offense could have acted as a deterrent to behavior that resulted in incarceration. Further, even though prisons are housing men and women suffering from serious mental health disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, Bureau of Justice records indicate that the federal prisons have provided treatment to only about 24% of the inmates identified with mental health problems (Fellner, 2007). Prisons have become the last stop for many Americans with severe mental illness (Gilligan, 2001). In fact, the country’s largest psychiatric inpatient facility is the Los Angeles County Jail, which has 3,400 inmates with mental illness (Torrey, 1999). It comes as no surprise that the correctional system is not conducive to treating persons with psychiatric symptoms. Not only are correctional employees oftentimes ill equipped to recognize or help prisoners with mental

illness, but the prison environment itself can intensify emotional and physical distress. For example, the American Correctional Association has recognized that holding mentally challenged individuals in isolation can exacerbate their problems and bring about additional mental problems. Within the population of incarcerated persons with mental illness, a vast majority also battle substance use disorders; one study found that 90% of mentally ill inmates struggled with substance abuse at some point in their lifetimes. Only 11% of inmates with substance use disorders receive any type of treatment during incarceration; few of those receive evidencebased care (The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2010). Not to be forgotten is the increased number of offenders in community settings, such as those in parole, probation, or other forms of supervised release. Moreover, other major players in the criminal justice system—such as police officers who are dispatched to respond to mentally ill persons as well as judges and attorneys who prosecute and sentence mentally ill defendants—are oftentimes not sufficiently trained to deal with those with psychiatric issues. The recent beating of mentally ill homeless person Kelly Thomas by two Fullerton, California, law enforcement officers is an egregious example of these inadequacies in training. Persons who exhibit signs of a mental disorder are associated with a 67% increased likelihood of being arrested compared with persons without an apparent disorder (Teplin, 2000). Explicitly stated guidelines, outlining protocols for situation assessment and safety management, should be developed to educate law enforcement on how to respond appropriately. Last, another important issue involves releasing mentally ill individuals back into society without a mandate to participate in continuing treatment. Although some persons are offered discharge planning services, many reenter communities without having their post-release mental health needs addressed. Resources for Advocates In taking inmates into custody, the United States government has a special legal obligation to protect them from harm (Cohen & Gerbasi, 2005). According to the American Psychiatric Association (2000), The fundamental policy goal for correctional mental health is to provide the same level of mental health services to each patient in the criminal justice process that should be available in the community. This policy goal is deliberately higher than the “community standard” that is called for in various contexts. In other words, incarcerated persons should experience no discrimination in their mental health services. No court-mandated guidelines exist in terms of a single mental health service delivery model. Instead, national organizations have created their own sets of policy recommendations. The American Psychiatric Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, for example, published a comprehensive set of guidelines to expand and improve mental health services for prisoners (Hills, Siegfried, & Ickowitz, 2004). Court Rulings Although numerous court rulings have held that inmates should receive equal mental health care to that available in the community, the vast majority of prisons are unable to offer a comprehensive array of services. Because of constrained resources and time, corrections personnel must prioritize individuals with the most serious, dangerous, or disruptive conditions. Persons with milder problems or adjustment disorders are likely to receive delayed treatment or no treatment at all. After the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871, inmates were able to sue correctional officials for neglecting to provide constitutionally adequate care. In particular, the federal statute enabled incarcerated persons to sue providers for violating their Eighth Amendment rights if their care or lack of care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Under the 1976 Estelle v. Gamble case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corrections personnel must exhibit “deliberate indifference” to an incarcerated person’s “serious illness or injury.” Deliberate indifference can be shown by prison doctors’ responses to individuals’ needs, correctional personnel who intentionally deny or delay access to care, or corrections officers who intentionally interfere with a prisoner’s treatment

Mental health needs fall under medical needs, according to lower courts. Incarcerated persons are entitled to psychological or psychiatric treatment if a physician observes that the prisoner’s symptoms are indicative of a serious disease or injury that could be significantly remedied and the denial of care could substantially cause harm to the individual. Federal Bureau of Prisons The BOP (n.d.) has noted that the suicide rate at its facilities is lower than that of the United States as a whole. In a 2010 national study commissioned by the Justice Department’s National Institute of Corrections, research showed that the suicide rate in county jails has had a dramatic decrease during the past 20 years. According to the BOP, its staff members receive annual training—and some semi-annual training—on suicide prevention. Inmates are provided with information on mental health services upon admission. Since 1982, the bureau has used the following five-step suicide prevention program (Hills et al., 2004): 1. The initial screening of all inmates for suicidal potential 2. Criteria for the treatment and housing of suicidal inmates 3. Standardized record keeping, follow-up procedures, and collection of data relevant to suicides 4. Staff training 5. Periodic reviews and audits In the first decade after the five-step program’s launch, inmate suicides within the BOP decreased by 43% (White & Schimmel, 1995). Still, suicide remains as the third-leading cause of death for prison inmates. No mandated standards exist for suicide prevention policies, but organizations like the American Correctional Association and National Commission on Correctional Health Care have issued their own suicide prevention plans. Included in these plans are more frequent observation and monitoring of inmates with violent tendencies or mental illness, intake screening assessments for at-risk inmates to ensure that suicidal inmates are not placed in isolation, staff training, and procedures for notifying family, prison administrators, and other authorities. Core Problem 7: Engaging in Advocacy to Promote Linkages With Communities of Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners—With Some Red Flag Alerts All prisoners except those sentenced to death or life without the possibility of parole are eventually released (Hughes & Wilson, 2002). Only in the past two to three decades has attention been focused on the topic of prisoner reentry. Few formalized interventions or evidence-based practices exist to address the needs of this growing population. Instead, formerly incarcerated people return to their communities to face a host of barriers to successful reentry (discussed as follows). These barriers wreak devastating consequences for individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole and contribute to soaring rates of recidivism. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.6 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Advocacy Interventions To Address Mental Illness Among Prisoners Go to PBS archives of Frontline and access its documentary “The New Asylums” (2006) at https://www.thirteen.org/programs/frontline/frontline-new-asylums/. After watching the one-hour documentary, discuss these questions: 1. Why do such a large proportion of inmates suffer from substance abuse and mental health problems? 2. Why is it difficult to engage many inmates in mental health interventions in prison settings? 3. Why don’t prisons provide better mental health and substance abuse services? 4. Do you think released prisoners receive follow-up mental health and substance abuse treatment in the community? 5. Does evidence exist regarding whether mental health and substance abuse services decrease the likelihood that prisoners will be repeat offenders? . What micro-, mezzo-, and/or macro-level advocacy interventions might help reduce the number of people suffering from substance abuse and mental health issues from becoming involved in the criminal justice system Red Flag Alert 14.27. A formerly incarcerated woman wishes to begin the process of reunification with her children and files papers with the court to obtain visitation rights. Red Flag Alert 14.28. A formerly incarcerated person is frustrated because he or she is unable to find work and believes he or she is being discriminated against by potential employers. Red Flag Alert 14.29. A formerly incarcerated person is homeless on the streets and does not qualify for public housing because of a drug conviction. Red Flag Alert 14.30. A formerly incarcerated woman is unable to obtain food stamps or welfare to support herself and her two children because of a drug conviction. Red Flag Alert 14.31. A formerly incarcerated person is unsure about his or her right to vote in his or her state. Background No federal guidelines exist with regard to the release of prisoners. Many released inmates are sent back to their communities without any form of identification, which would have been confiscated by authorities upon arrest. Without ID, former prisoners must first locate a birth certificate and social security card, which can take weeks if they do not have copies stored in safe locations. Those with diagnosed mental health conditions are typically released with only two weeks’ worth of medication (O’Shea, 2012), and obtaining an appointment to see a psychiatrist or mental health professional can take a month or more. The majority of released prisoners are released on parole and are typically required to report to a parole officer within 24 hours. Requirements of parole vary from state to state, but in virtually all cases, persons on parole do not enjoy the rights of free citizens. Parolees are entitled to only limited Fifth Amendment due process rights before having their parole revoked; and in most jurisdictions, parolees are subject to search and seizure at any time without a warrant and without cause. Such searches, however, must be made on “reasonable” suspicion of criminal activity (Koshy, 1987). In addition, parolees typically cannot leave their county of residence or go beyond a proscribed area (such as a 50-mile radius) without the prior approval of a parole officer. They must inform the parole officer of any change of address or of new employment, and they are restricted from owning or carrying weapons. They must also comply with individualized requirements, such as to complete substance abuse treatment programs. Parole can be revoked for any violation of parole conditions, and parole officers enjoy wide discretion in determining parole revocations (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2012). Nationwide, approximately 23% of all adults on parole return to incarceration due to parole revocation (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Social workers are likely to encounter formerly incarcerated people in various settings, including in child welfare, health care settings, WIC programs, public assistance offices, drug rehabilitation and treatment programs, homeless shelters, and mental health facilities. Social workers should be aware of the formidable reentry barriers that formerly incarcerated people face. Supplemental material for this chapter documents that many policy barriers exist to successful reunification, including barriers to housing, public assistance, employment, education, civic participation, and reunification. Resources for Advocates In recognition of the reentry crisis posed by half a million inmates returning to communities unprepared and without support every year, Congress enacted The Second Chance Act in April 2008. It authorized $25 million in grants to state, local, and tribal agencies and community organizations in 2009 to provide vital services for recently released prisoners and an average of $82 million in each subsequent year (Reentry Policy Council, 2012). Since 2009, more than 300 government agencies and nonprofit organizations from 48 states have received grant awards for reentry programs serving adults and juveniles. Formerly incarcerated people and their allies feel, however, that these efforts do not go far enough. Instead, they are working to change policies that hinder successful reentry, as well as public perceptions of formerly incarcerated people, in hopes of diminishing barriers and reclaiming their civil rights. One of those groups is All of Us or None (AOUON), a national organizing initiative of former prisoners that works “to combat the many forms of discrimination that we face as the result of felony convictions” (All of Us or None, n.d.). Through local chapters, AOUON is working to implement strategies that ensure former prisoners are able to participate in the democratic process through public education and voter registration drives. They are also working to eliminate barriers to employment through their Ban the Box campaign, which seeks to remove the question about prior conviction from applications for employment. Moreover, AOUON’s clean slate work provides training on the legal remedies available to people with convictions, such as expungements and certificates of rehabilitation. Policy Advocacy Learning Challenge 14.7 Connecting Micro, Mezzo, And Macro Policy Interventions View the video Enough Is Enough about formerly incarcerated people (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1371013354970). In small groups, discuss the following: 1. At what point do you think a person has paid his or her debt to society? 2. Should restrictions be placed on convicted felons, even after they have completed their sentences (including parole/probation)? If so, what types, and why? 3. Should people with previous convictions be allowed to reacquire rights they possessed prior to their conviction? 4. What types of micro-, mezzo-, and/or macro-level advocacy might you engage in to assist formerly incarcerated people in becoming successful after release? Thinking Big As Policy Advocates in the Criminal Justice Sector Comprehensive reforms in the criminal justice system are finally “in the air.” A discussion finally began during the last year of the Obama presidency and the first two years of the Trump presidency. Conservatives, such as representatives of the Koch brothers, and liberals, such as Democrats who favored drastic cuts in rates of imprisonment, began talking about ways to cut the level of incarceration. Develop a broad program to end mass incarceration. It can only happen through (1) placing fewer persons in correctional facilities through changes in sentencing, ending the prison pipeline in schools, and helping more youth complete high school and enter higher education; (2) making reforms in the jail and prison system, such as reforming bail so that low-income people are not incarcerated for months before their cases are heard by courts and reforming prisons so they move in the direction of Norway’s jails, making jails and prisons instruments of rehabilitation; and (3) reforming services that ex-prisoners encounter to help them find work, find and afford housing, and return to high school or higher education. Ascertain whether your jurisdiction has “banned the box” as discussed at the National Employment Law Project website: https://nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bantheboxcurrent.pdf?nocdn=1. Take any one of these three options, and develop strategies for accomplishing real reform. Learning Outcomes You are now equipped to: Describe how members of specific populations receive harsh and often inequitable treatment from the criminal justice sector Identify key eras in the evolution of the criminal justice sector Identify and analyze the seven problems in the criminal justice sector Apply the eight challenges of the multilevel policy empowerment framework to the criminal justice sector with respect to the thinking big exercise

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.