Reducing Prison Violence - Mental Health Association in New York

Dan Pacholke,
Pacholke,
Deputy Secretary
The Secretary of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is a cabinet-level position appointed by the
Governor
The Secretary is responsible to administer state adult correctional facilities, community supervision
activities, and Correctional Industries
Deputy Secretary oversees operating divisions, including recently established Reentry Services
Core processes designed to assess, plan, and deliver
cost-effective programs and services to increase safety
and reduce re-offense behavior.
Eight major prisons - maximum, close, medium, and minimum custody
Four minimum facilities - offenders releasing to community within 48 months
Washington ranks 41st in the nation in rate of incarceration
Implementation of a Determinate sentencing scheme in 1984
Creation of a separate drug sentencing grid in 2003
Growth of Sentencing Alternatives
Washington State Institute for Public Policy helps center legislation around data-driven
decision making and evidence-based practice
JUSTICE REINVESTMENT INITIATIVE is currently underway with the Council of State
Governments
o
Analyzing criminal justice data for options to reduce spending & reinvest in evidence-based strategies
o
Emerging potential incarceration alternatives for property offenders
Gender
16,669 offenders in prison
Male
92.5
Female
7.5
Race
Mostly white, male, and mid- to
late-thirties
Average length of stay about two
years
White
72.0%
Black
18.1%
American Indian
4.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander
3.6%
Unknown/Other
0.8%
Hispanic Origin
12.4%
Average Age of Population
Average Length of Stay
38.0
23.1 MO
Source: DOC Quarterly Fact Card, September 30, 2014
Less than one-quarter are
affiliated with a Security Threat
Group (STG)
Nearly seventy-percent of
offenders in prison are serving
time for crimes against a
person
Seventy-percent of offenders
on community supervision are
high risk to re-offend
Type of Offenses
Murder 1 and 2
12.1%
Manslaughter
1.8%
Sex Crimes
20.1%
Robbery
9.9%
Assault
23.9%
Property Crimes
18.9%
Drug Crimes
7.6%
Other
5.7%
Risk to ReRe-offend
High Violent
42.7%
High Non-Violent
26.9%
Moderate
14.6%
Low
14.7%
Not Yet Classified
1.14%
Source: DOC Quarterly Fact Card, September 30, 2014
Correctional services and interventions can be effective at
reducing recidivism if they…
◦ Target criminogenic thinking
◦ Include cognitive BEHAVIORAL therapy
◦ Consider responsivity factors such as mental health and
cognitive impairment
◦ Change how staff engage with offenders
◦ Include quality assurance and evaluation
Risk - of reoffending, not seriousness of offense
◦ Who is put in a program
Needs
◦ Focus on criminogenic needs
Responsivity
◦ Use behavioral approaches and match interventions to the offender
ONEONE-SIZESIZE-FITSFITS-ALL DOES NOT WORK
Prison safety and staff support – corrections fatigue and PTSD
Capacity – projected 1100 bed shortfall by 2024
Responding to INDIVIDUAL risk and need at the AGGREGATE
TRANSTRANS-INSTITUTIONALIZATION - Managing prisons as the largest mental health
provider in the country
◦ 3 TO 1:
1 for every one person in a public or private psychiatric bed in Washington, there
are about 3 people with serious mental illness in the state’s jails and prisons (Treatment
Advocacy Center)
◦ DOC’s prison population: 36% have a mental illness (includes traumatic brain injury)
Provide THERAPEUTIC ENVIRONMENTS that are balanced with security
needs
Manage behavior through PROGRAMMING and INCENTIVES rather than
relying only on sanctions
DIVERT offenders with mental health issues from the most restrictive
custody settings
TRANSITION those who do end up in high custody settings into the least
restrictive environment that can support their needs
Provide a safe and humane environment for ALL staff, offenders, and the
public in ALL parts of the prison system
Restrictive housing, e.g., the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) was
created for those who couldn’t be safely managed in general population
Ended up housing the “behaviorally disturbed” and those at risk of harm
from others
IMU houses a disproportionate amount of mentally ill offenders
Violence went in the short term but, isolation led to decompensation and
institutionalization within an institution-once in, hard to get out
As identification and awareness increased, still left with the quandary of
where to house and how to treat
Successful transitioning requires skills-building, resocialization
and supportive aftercare
Physical design and resource limitations
Lack of curriculum and tools—there is no model
System had adapted as had the offenders—many don’t want
to leave
Still need space for those who cannot be safely housed in the
general population
Invited VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (VERA) to assess IMU practices who
found:
◦ IMU became an extended hold for offenders on administrative segregation
(Ad-Seg)
◦ Time-driven system
◦ Different types of offenders managed the same
◦ Over-reliance as disciplinary mechanism
◦ High level of restriction, low level of programming
◦ Lack of face-to-face interaction and no opportunity for congregate activity
Shortened amount of time offender may be held on Ad-Seg
IMS assignment as a multidisciplinary approach with oversight by
centralized headquarters committee, including mental health
MISSIONED HOUSING allows for targeted procedures and
programming towards specific offender populations
More COGNITIVECOGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL PROGRAMS and added
CONGREGATE ACTIVITY
Re-conceptualized IMU placement, retention, release, as based on
compliance and graduated behavior change
DIVERT the most severely mentally ill from IMU through well-established INTENSIVE
TREATMENT UNIT at Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC)
Made IMU’s more like a classroom for offenders to support congregate cognitivebehavioral programming and aid a safe TRANSITION out
◦ MOTIVATING OFFENDER CHANGE AT WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY (WSP)
(WSP): took a
storage closet and a new type of chair and created curriculum, learning plans, and
reinforcers
◦ INTENSIVE TRANSITION PROGRAM AT CLALLAM BAY CORRECTIONS CENTER (CBCC)
(CBCC):
CBCC)
incorporated congregate activity to develop pro-social skills and repurposed the youthful
offender building as a step-down to reduce return to IMU
◦ REINTEGRATION AND PROGRESSION PROGRAM AT MCC:
MCC boosted clinical staff and behavior
plans targeting offenders with mental health issues
Targets chronic IMU recidivists; poor coping skills cause trouble adapting
to general population and perpetuate cycle in-and-out of IMU
Provides offenders pro-social skills to successfully live in general
population
Includes mixed cognitive-behavioral therapy curriculum with phases and
congregate activity
Cages built into physical structure help foster interactive programming
80% SUCCESS RATE – of the 131 program graduates ITP; 107 have not
returned
Targets mentally ill offenders
(often struggle with chronic
self-harm)
◦ Co-location of Intensive
Treatment Unit, mental health
facility at MCC
◦ 1 mental health professional per
50 offenders
Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Individual Treatment/Behavior
Management Plan
Prison violence concentrated among STG’s
o
Safe INTEGRATION of rival groups at most general population facilities
o
SEPARATE rival groups at the WSP’s West Complex
Violence went down in long-run but, WSP experienced more serious
violent acts
o
Not all violent acts are created equal
o
INDIVIDUAL accountability holds limited impact on GROUP behavior
Lockdowns at WSP happened often, offender influxes into IMU
Wanted to be PROACTIVE – reduce harm to staff, offenders, and keep offenders out of
IMU
Few evidence-based strategies to address group violence
Found Ceasefire which originated in Boston in 1996 and targeted youth homicide
o
Centers on swift and certain consequences
o
Focuses on violence committed by groups
o
Resulted in 66% reduction in youth homicide
Began working with Ceasefire architect David Kennedy on ‘Prison Ceasefire’, known as
OPERATION PLACE SAFETY
Operation Place Safety is a DETERRENCE strategy
◦ Focus on the violent acts posing the greatest risk to staff and offender safety
◦ Use nontraditional tools as swift, certain, and meaningful consequences
◦ Hold groups accountable for the actions of individual offenders
◦ Enhance opportunities for offenders to reduce their idleness
◦ Partner with communities to explain to offenders the pro-social standards needed for
safe, productive facilities
Pilot at WSP West Complex since December 2012 and recently expanded to CBCC
(other high custody general population facility) in October 2014
Focus enforcement resources on PROHIBITED VIOLENT ACTS
◦
Staff assault (causing or attempting to cause bodily injury)
◦
Fights/assaults with a weapon (weapon used or visibly present)
◦
Multi-offender fights/assaults (involving 3 or more offenders)
PRIVILEGE RESTRICTIONS are used as collateral and applied as an ENHANCED
RESPONSE
◦
Revocation of phone use
◦
Revocation of visits
◦
Confiscation of personal shoes, etc.
GROUP DYNAMICS are behind prohibited violent acts
Hold groups accountable including:
◦ PERPETRATOR:
PERPETRATOR the offender who commits the prohibited violent act
◦ CLOSE ASSOCIATES:
ASSOCIATES offenders known to interact with a perpetrator on a regular
basis, who have the potential to influence their behavior
About 7-9 close associates are identified via a multidisciplinary process
◦ Real-time information is provided by a team of FRONTLINE STAFF
◦ Local oversight committee sustains a system of checks and balances
Frontline staff are the experts in
real-time group dynamics
Prohibited violent act prompts
enhanced response:
◦ Multiple shifts come together
◦ Identify close associates based on
real-time observations
◦ Who eats together? Who works
out together?
Staff monitor offender compliance
with group restrictions
Step 1: Establish rules and consequences
Step 2: Explain to offenders in advance
Step 3: Follow through with ENHANCED RESPONSE
Operation Place Safety begins
2011
2012
2013
2014
(first half)
Aggravated Staff Assault
2
6
1
2
Fight/Assault with a Weapon
8
5
1
2
Multi-Offender Fight/Assault
15
13
11
6
Total Prohibited Violent Acts
25
22
13
10
50%
POST
50% REDUCTION
REDUCTION IN
IN POSTPOSTPOST-IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION YEAR
YEAR
Thinking for a Change (T4C) is a cognitive behavioral program designed to
help offenders understand how thoughts drive their feelings & behaviors
◦ Targeting high risk offenders at medium (AHCC and CRCC) & minimum (CRCC –
Min, and LCC)
◦ Focus programming at key points of offenders’ incarceration to reduce
violence and other misconduct, and reduce risk of re-offense for when they
release
Offenders participate in classes with INCENTIVES for practicing skills
INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES COCO-EXIST - RISK AND NEEDS drive
program placement and retention rather than misconduct
General population options for special populations provide DIVERSION and AFTERCARE from
high custodies:
◦
Residential Mental Health Units at MCC & WSP
◦
Skill Building Unit at WCC - Cedar Hall
◦
Residential Parenting Program at WCCW
◦
Senior Living Unit at AHCC
◦
Veterans Living Units at SCCC & CRCC
◦
Sex Offender Treatment at TRU & AHCC
Sustainability gives opportunities to contribute and supports behavior change
Give staff professional development tools
◦
Core Correctional Practices
◦
Motivational Interviewing
Engage staff in the change process
◦
Staff trained as program facilitators deliver curriculum to support fidelity
◦
Encouraging interaction between offenders and staff through physical setting
and interactive tools
◦
Having staff build programs, set up classrooms, etc.
There is no silver bullet but rather a menu of tools that contribute to violence
reduction: programs, therapies, discipline, security, incentives, disincentives
Realize – violence will not be eliminated but it can be REDUCED by targeting the
right offender at the right time with the right intervention
Be curious and ‘pull at the population’
Collaborate with advocacy groups and researchers
Maintain a transparent system and make sure the public sees the benefits
System change happens at the edges: maintaining a continuum of care is possible
in prison, the community, and where they INTERSECT