The Leading Edge of Corrections

 

Times... They Are A'Changin'

by Scott Hayes, LCSW, Addicted Offender Accountability Act Program Manager

One of several $64,000 questions that the criminal justice system has struggled with over time, as has the professional substance abuse and mental health treatment systems, is how treatment, education and work programs fit with safety and supervision programs. Indeed, each system has its own unique evolution of primary features and philosophical bases that has contributed both to muddying the waters between (and within) systems at times as well as contributing positive and realistic approaches to what works with and for offenders.

Regarding the corrections perspective, one text ("American Corrections," 8th edition by Clear, Cole and Reisign, 2009) outlines seven distinct correctional pradigms in U.S. history. These include such models called Colonial, Penitentiary, Reformatory, Progressive, Medical, Community, and most lately the model called Crime Control. Such models tend to emphasize features that reflected the prevailing day’s view of why crime happens and how to respond to it. For example, in the Colonial period’s model, the philosophical view of misconduct was based in religious law. Jails were used to hold people waiting for court action, not as punishments. Punishments, then, were often corporal and were often done in public because “rubbing the noses of offenders in the community context was an essential part of the process....” Reforming offenders was not part of the process because criminals were considered “naturally depraved."

In later periods, emphasis was placed on practices like reform and rehabilitation of the offender and less on the criminal act, or more on community corrections and less on large institutions. Most recently we have seen a period focused on “get tough” policies, risk management and mandatory sentences in response to rising crime rates, a political shift to the right and a renewed emphasis on punishment. 

At the same time, we see various progressions of thought in the mental health and substance abuse fields. For example, early modern psychology featured schools of thought exemplified by thinkers, researchers and practitioners like William James, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud and B.F. Skinner. We’ve also seen more modern approaches incorporating an advanced understanding of the brain, the mind-body connection and the role of medicines as well as an emphasis on the role of cognitions affecting behavior. Substance abuse theories have run the gamut from “moral weakness” and “sin” to “biological predisposition” and implications from genetic research. Various treatment approaches have ranged from moral improvement to prohibition to “confrontation and breaking through the denial,” “just say no,” cognitive therapy and eclectic approaches combining various aspects of all of the above.

Presently, it seems that we in corrections are experiencing a change once again, moving beyond the “Crime Control” model, but towards what? I don’t believe that the pendulum swings back to the same exact place it was before. But, perhaps, it instead swings towards a blend of prior models plus a new or different world view. 

Based on what we in corrections here in Wyoming and across the nation are experiencing in regards to treatment and criminal justice, I would venture the following observations about the current direction. 

1. We value sound reasoning and proof for what works, so we insist on “evidence based” practices – and not only for the “hard sciences” but also now for the “soft” or people-oriented practices. This approach has us taking fresh looks at sentencing guidelines and the effects of incarceration and community supervision, including politically sensitive issues like supervision of sex offenders. This approach also has us taking hard looks at mental health and substance abuse treatment approaches, insisting upon outcomes research not just theories. The current economy has placed an even greater emphasis on the need for cost-effectiveness and outcomes research, perhaps shifting part of the paradigm from “get tough at all costs” to “get tough when it really works.” 

2. We value the concept of offender change so provide programs designed to meet criminogenic needs of offenders; but we strive also to blend a realistic understanding of entrenched and long-held criminal behaviors with person-centered views of interacting with offenders. We understand that the offender isn’t simply a widget in a cog in a machine, but we also recognize that the individual offender’s characteristics should help determine what approach and program may work the best. We understand that the correctional agent plays in extremely important role in promoting change and so we have Motivational Interviewing approaches which strive to address how correctional agents may influence positive change. Thus we have novel approaches to interacting with offenders (like Motivational Interviewing) being implemented right alongside Defense Tactics, Verbal Judo and tough, no-nonsense Therapeutic Communities that address substance abuse and mental illness as well as criminal lifestyles. 

3. We value therapy, but we need therapists who understand criminal behavior and lifestyle. We value public safety and supervision, but we need agents who understand treatment and education and who can teach “Thinking for a Change” classes.  We value objective and tough-minded judges, but we want drug courts that use their position to do more than determine innocence or guilt but also to influence offenders dealing with difficult life problems. We value sanctions but know that positive reinforcement needs to occur as well in order to encourage long-term changes.

Our director at the Wyoming Department of Corrections, Robert O. Lampert, likes to say that we do the right thing at the right time for the right reason. We know that we are striving to use best practices for the individual offender because that’s what is needed to become a contributing citizen upon release. We just haven’t yet determined a good name for the model that we’re creating.