Stop sending men to prison for addiction treatment, group recommends

Stop sending men to prison for addiction treatment, group recommends

boston globe

A state advisory commission has recommended that the Legislature put an end to the practice of incarcerating men who are civilly committed for addiction treatment.

The nonbinding recommendation by the Section 35 Commission, released this week, may bolster proposed legislation requiring that those ordered into treatment receive care at a licensed facility. Meanwhile, the state is facing a lawsuit with the same goal.

The moves reflect the trend toward regarding addiction as a health problem rather than criminal or immoral behavior. Commission members heard from former patients who described the trauma of being locked up even though they had committed no crime.

“I want anyone with addiction to be treated in a health care facility, not a criminal justice facility,” said state Representative Ruth B. Balser, a Newton Democrat who served on the commission and also sponsored one of two bills that would carry out the recommendation.

If the Legislature takes the recommended action, it would effectively close down a decades-old and much-maligned program run by the Massachusetts Department of Correction, now located at a Plymouth prison.

It could also shutter a year-old program run by Hampden County Sheriff Nicholas Cocchi, which takes a different approach and has been widely praised. That prompted the lone negative vote, from state Representative Michael J. Finn, a West Springfield Democrat.

Finn said he didn’t object to closing the Plymouth prison facility, but considered it a wasteful mistake to shut down Cocchi’s well regarded program, which the state has already invested in building. “Correctional settings can be a part of the solution,” he said.

The 29-member commission, which included state officials, legislators, advocates, and addiction specialists, specified that if these prison-based programs are closed, an equal number of beds should be opened in other programs. It also called for expansion of “low-threshold, treatment-on-demand models” in which patients are provided immediate access to care, including medications.

The commission’s recommendations don’t seek to end the civil commitment process, but do call for limiting its use and studying its effectiveness.

“The thrust of this, and some of the other recommendations, is to be building a more robust system of care, to make it more accessible, so we don’t have to be sending people involuntarily,” Balser said.

Under Section 35 of Massachusetts law, a family member, police officer, physician, or court official may petition a judge to force a person addicted to drugs or alcohol to go to treatment if the person is likely to harm themselves or someone else. Some 6,000 people a year are ordered into treatment through this process and can be held against their will for as long as 90 days.

The Legislature voted to end the practice of incarcerating women under Section 35 in 2016 but has continued to allow it for men. All women and some men who are civilly committed get sent to treatment facilities; but the majority of men end up in a program run by correctional officials.

Many states have laws allowing forced addiction treatment, but Massachusetts courts resort to it much more frequently than most other states. And Massachusetts is the only state that sends men so committed into correctional settings.

Section 35 has long been seen as a last resort for people who couldn’t get help elsewhere. When a proposal to shut down the prison-based program was floated in 2009, parents streamed to the State House in protest, saying it was needed to prevent young people impaired by addiction from dying in the streets.

But in recent years, the state has vastly expanded treatment programs and supported efforts to make it easier for patients to connect with care.

And there is very little data on the effectiveness of involuntary treatment.

Mark Larsen, director of mental health litigation for the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which provides lawyers for those needing legal representation, said that a significant portion of people committed to treatment don’t object to the proceeding. Some have even asked a relative to have them committed. Yet even these people are often treated as criminals, he said.

The commission favored narrowing the Section 35 law so it can’t be used in cases where people are willing to go to treatment and would apply only when the person is in danger of harms “above and beyond the harms that are routinely attendant upon the abuse of substances, such as death by overdose.”

Cocchi, the Hampden County sheriff, said the commission is taking a hard-line position against all jail-based programs without considering quality or regional needs. Before he opened his program, there were no Section 35 beds in Western Massachusetts, forcing patients from the region to travel hours in a police van to facilities in the eastern part of the state.

For a little over a year, Cocchi has run two Section 35 facilities: an 85-bed detox in Ludlow, which is locked, and an unlocked 32-bed unit in Springfield that offers longer-term therapy after detox.

“We don’t treat any clients like inmates,” Cocchi said. “They are not cuffed. They are not shackled. They’re not strip searched.”

The program employs addiction professionals who are in recovery themselves, includes a mental health unit, connects patients to services upon discharge, and even offers visits by a therapy dog.

Of the 770 people admitted to Cocchi’s program, only 21 left without completing treatment and only 39 were committed a second time — a record Cocchi called dramatically better than the Section 35 facilities overseen by the Department of Public Health.

“The guys in Hampden, they’re doing a very good job, they’ve got a very good program,” said state Senator Cindy F. Friedman, a Democrat from the Fourth Middlesex District and commission member. But, she said, “It’s still in a jail. It just doesn’t compute.”

Balser, the Newton legislator, said she regrets that one voice remained unheard in the discussions: that of the Baker administration. Because of the lawsuit, the four members of the executive branch who served on the commission were required to abstain from opining or voting.

Originally posted in the Boston Globe by Felice J. Freyer.

‘I Kind of Redeemed Myself’—College Programs Aim to Shift the Odds for Prison Inmates

‘I Kind of Redeemed Myself’—College Programs Aim to Shift the Odds for Prison Inmates

wc article 2

The scene inside this sweaty gymnasium would be familiar to most Americans: new graduates queuing nervously down the aisle as their names were called one by one.

But this was no ordinary graduation, and these were no ordinary students. The gym is one of the few recreational areas of the sprawling prison complex at Parnall Correctional Facility in south central Michigan, and underneath their purple robes, the students—all in their 30s, 40s and 50s—wore dark-blue prison jumpsuits with an orange stripe down the sides of their pants.

Over the past 30 years, as tough-on-crime laws led to a boom in Americans being locked up, the country has faced a vexing question: how to handle people once they are released. Last year, about 630,000 people were released from federal and state prisons, according to federal figures, compared with about 160,000 in 1980.

People who have served prison time face notoriously difficult odds readjusting to society. They frequently deal with discrimination from employers and landlords. Most return to the communities where they are once more surrounded by the people and social circumstances that initially led them astray. Many return to prison within a few years.

The graduation ceremony, which took place here one late June morning, was an attempt—by the prison and the local community college—to alter the inmates’ trajectory via a college education.

That was the case for Michael Ellis, a 37-year-old student who never received much of a conventional education. He dropped out of high school in ninth grade, in part because he was teased for his ratty clothes, and began selling drugs. A few years later, he was sentenced to 20 years in state prison for shooting and killing an abusive brother-in-law who had repeatedly broken a restraining order.

Once behind bars, though, Mr. Ellis wanted to change. He began reading whatever he could find: philosophy books, old textbooks, the dictionary. When college became an option, he enrolled and earned two degrees.

“It’s stereotypical that men come to prison, then they come out of prison and their bodies are different but their minds are locked in the same place. I didn’t want to be that,” he said.

The partnership between Jackson College and area prisons arose under a larger experiment, launched in 2015 by the U.S. Department of Education, to see what might happen if the federal government gave inmates enough financial aid in the form of Pell Grants to cover the cost of a community-college degree. Under the program, known as Second Chance Pell, 64 such community-college partnerships have sprung up at prisons across 27 states.

It is too early to say definitively whether the program has made a difference—the first possible students graduated just last year, and many haven’t yet been paroled. More broadly, though, research suggests education behind bars carries benefits, both in inmates’ employment prospects after prison as well as their critical thinking.

“Any amount of college has a positive impact,” said Ann Jacobs, executive director of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College. “It improves people’s health, it improves their family functioning, it improves their employment prospects.”

One analysis of available research conducted by the Rand Corp. in 2013 suggests that inmates who enroll in college education are 43% less likely to return to prison.

The Trump administration, which has backed other criminal-justice reform efforts, has already announced it intends to expand the experiment, and both Democrats and Republicans in Congress support making Pell Grants universally available to prisoners.

 

But the idea of offering government funds to educate incarcerated students hasn’t always been so popular. The 1994 crime bill, authored by current Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden, banned federal financial aid from flowing to people behind bars, reflecting a belief that people sent to prison forfeited their right to public benefits, including higher education.

 

Before then, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Jackson College operated a version of its prison education program. It was shut down in the wake of the 1994 crime bill.

“We stopped teaching because of the climate,” said Lee Hampton, Jackson College’s chief diversity officer. Mr. Hampton recalled community leaders in Jackson approaching him to ask: “Why are you focused on prisoners when there are people outside who still need help?”

In 2010, the school’s top officers held a meeting to puzzle out why so few of their black male students were making it to graduation. A significant proportion, they realized, were either going to prison or had served time before they enrolled in school. Soon after, they resumed offering some classes.

Then, in 2015, the Obama administration picked Jackson College as its single largest experiment site, allotting it more than a thousand Pell Grant slots. The federal assistance has allowed the school to expand its offerings—it now offers two associate degree programs, in general studies and business administration—and the extra 700 students who have enrolled so far have helped the school reach its own enrollment targets.

There are obvious logistical challenges to teaching inside a prison. Schools must have buy-in from the warden—not always an easy task—and faculty must be able to reliably get inside, which can be unpredictable if a prison goes under lockdown. There is no internet. Students don’t have their own laptops, and they can’t buy their own textbooks.

 

At Jackson, an art history professor was thrown for a loop when her chosen textbook was rejected for containing too many images of nude statues. After teaching his standard course one semester, a sociology professor said he opted to water down a lecture on sexual abuse for fear it could serve as an unwitting how-to guide.

Once inside, though, Jackson faculty say the inmates are model students—often outperforming their students on the main community-college campus.

Most of the students who enrolled in prison education and have since been released have gone on to study toward their bachelor’s degree, program leaders say. But students aren’t always as successful on the outside. The factors that allowed them to succeed inside prison—books and other course materials handed to them, embedded tutors, few other demands on their time—melt away once they leave.

Kristi Fraga, 43 years old, completed most of an associate’s program before she was released from prison two years ago, and finished her degree when she got out. But the transition has been rocky. She wasn’t sure how to find an apartment or how to make rent payments once she secured one. It took her several months and nearly 40 applications to land a part-time job as a waitress.

Just this spring, she enrolled at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, to work toward a bachelor’s in economics and women’s studies. But, she said, she is taking it slow.

“When I first left prison, I was a cannonball shot in the air,” she said. “I’ve learned some hard lessons that I am not superhuman anymore.”

Still, the men who graduated last month say their education has had at least one lasting effect. Randy Rogers, a 43-year-old who has served 18 years of a 20-year sentence for multiple armed robberies, said his studies had transformed his self-image.

“Coming to prison, I felt like I let a lot of people down, including my mother and my family and even myself,” he said. “And now it’s the feeling of, I kind of redeemed myself.”

Originally Published in The Wall Street Journal by Michelle Hackman.

New York City Jail Plan Is Dividing Communities

New York City Jail Plan Is Dividing Communities

rikers