This environment is particularly well suited for social workers; on any given day I am challenged to intervene on a micro, mezzo and/or macro level and to be mindful of person-in-environment and contextual behavioral factors while working to support incarcerated people. Whether it is providing trauma responsive treatment with an incarcerated person; designing, implementing and evaluating treatment interventions or leading an integrated treatment team, or engaging in legislative advocacy and presentations at the community, state and/or national level, this work is well suited for a social worker.
Contextually, our politically elected leadership sets the paradigm, tone and context for how people are treated in the environment. Sheriff Christopher Donelan (initially elected in 2011) is the reason why we were able to develop a locked treatment facility. He wanted to move away from a paradigm of punishment, or even containment, and toward an environment that could achieve public safety through treatment.
Unfortunately we are all too familiar with the revolving door of incarceration. In 2015, the Council for State Governments conducted a justice reinvestment analysis in MA and discovered that 60% of clients in county correctional systems have been incarcerated 5 to 11 or more times.
It is a positive feedback loop; according to actuarial assessments that measure a person’s likelihood to recidivate, the more often a person has been incarcerated, the more likely they are to recidivate. The carceral system has compounded the problem by inadvertently reinforcing institutionalized narratives and fusion with a ‘criminal’ self-identity in clients. There are few people more fused with their self story than folks who are incarcerated, their story has been so rehearsed due to the institutionalized nature of their lives.
Punishment and adverse control strategies became the society’s primary method of behavioral change (think school to prison pipeline) – it has been a tragic failure. Correctional systems were historically built from a ‘security’ lens rather than a ‘treatment’ lens; operating from a hierarchical, top down model, which created artificial ‘silos’ – dividing people…department vs department…staff vs. inmate … community from facility. Security staff had little to nothing to do with behavioral staff and vise versa. The community had little to do with the facility and vise versa. This system lacked collaboration… it blunted communication between the different departments.
Once one understands the set and setting of the problem, it allows for opportunities to transform the environment: What time lights go out so people got enough sleep; providing a better nutritional diet; more opportunities to mind one’s health; modern evidence based clinical programming, treatment of trauma and addiction, creation of a therapeutic step down community; developing opportunities for clients to connect with appetitive behaviors (guitar lessons, yoga, acting, art, gardening, exercise). Transforming the context of incarceration from a top down approach to a hub and spoke model – with the client at the center – allows for person centered treatment. Move away from terms like ‘inmate’ and replaced it with ‘client.’ This approach allows for an integrated behavioral health model, which allows all departments to work together as one
A lot of positive change has happened during the Donelan administration.
