Special Needs Offenders in Correctional Institutions

Lior Gideon

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781412998130
• eBook ISBN: 9781483307121
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Effective treatment and preparation for successful reintegration can be better achieved if the needs and risks of incarcerated offenders are taken into consideration by correctional practitioners and scholars. Special Needs Offenders in Correctional Institutions offers a unique opportunity to examine the different populations behind bars (e.g. chronically and mentally ill, homosexual, illegal immigrants, veterans, radicalized inmates, etc.), as well as their needs and the corresponding impediments for rehabilitation and reintegration. Author Lior Gideon takes a rehabilitative and reiterative approach to discuss and differentiate between the needs of these various categories of inmates, and provides in depth discussions-not available in other correctional texts-about the specific needs, risks and policy recommendations when working with present-day special needs offenders. Each chapter is followed by suggested readings and relevant websites that will enable readers to further enhance understanding of the issues and potential solutions discussed in the chapter. Further, each chapter has discussion questions specifically designed to promote class discussions. The text concludes with a theoretical framework for future policy implications and practices.

CHAPTER 1

---

Introduction: Special Needs Offenders

Lior Gideon

In the past two decades, the human landscape in correctional institutions has shifted significantly from its known historical image of young offenders in their prime years, in good mental and physical health. In fact, due to mandatory sentences, “three strikes” laws, truth in sentencing, states abolishing parole, and a general get-tough-on-crime approach, correctional institutions are facing new challenges that stem from the fact that increasing segments of the prison population do not comply with the traditional image, and so incarceration cannot be an equal punishment or treatment to all. It is within this context that the current text discusses the issues and challenges surrounding incarcerated offenders with special needs, and the ways in which such challenges may be addressed by policy makers in the corrections field. Specifically, the aim of this book is to examine the different populations under correctional supervision, and in particular those incarcerated. Such an examination is relevant and important because these populations pose a variety of challenges to the system and require special attention. Consequently, they place different demands on correctional facilities, requiring institutions to address different risk challenges and meet diverse rehabilitative needs.

BACKGROUND

---

There are more than 9 million people imprisoned worldwide (Dammer & Fairchild, 2006), with the United States being the leading nation in incarceration (Gideon & Sung, 2011; Jacobson, 2005; Petersilia, 2003; Tonry, 2006; Travis, 2005). In fact, according to the 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics, at year-end 2010, state and federal prison authorities had jurisdiction over 1,605,127 prisoners, with local jails holding 748,728 (at midyear 2010) persons. Such high numbers are a direct product of a “getting tough on crime” attitude, which increased dramatically in recent decades. This attitude inspired such sentencing trends as mandatory sentencing, truth in sentencing, “three strikes” laws, and mandatory minimum sentences, and as a direct consequence, new populations were introduced to the prison and jail environments, creating new challenges for prison administrators and the correctional system as a whole, and in particular, resulted in the impediment of rehabilitation programs and preparation of these offenders for release.

Considering the fact that more than two-thirds of offenders sentenced to jails and prisons have histories of substance abuse (Chaiken, 1989; Chavarria, 1992; Gideon, 2010; Inciardi, 1995; Inciardi, Martin, Butzin, Hooper, & Harrison, 1996; Welsh, 2011), reentry, and reintegration practices become even more of a challenge. Nevertheless, this is not the sole problem that current correctional institutions and practitioners face. A worrisome increase is observed in convicted inmates under the age of 18 (Seiter, 2008; Sickmund, 2003; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Many scholars have noted with alarm that the juvenile offender population is growing in correctional facilities, especially in adult correctional facilities (Bilchik, 1998; Griffin, Torbet, & Szymanski, 1998; Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008). Another noticeable growing population in correctional facilities is convicted female offenders (Morash & Schram, 2002; Pollock, 1998, 2001, 2004). In fact, Stohr, Walsh, and Hemmens (2009) argue that “the number of incarcerated and supervised women under the correctional umbrella has never been larger” (p. 570). Female offenders pose new challenges to current classification practices (see Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001). For example, Baunach (1992), Henriques (1996), and Rocheleau (1987) addressed the challenges presented by incarcerated mothers and the social consequences of their incarceration for broader social issues (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; Pollock, 2004).

An equally important growing challenge in recent years is that of senior inmates (Aday, 1994, 2003; Aday & Webster, 1979; Kerbs & Jolley, 2009; Moritsugu, 1990). Scmalleger and Ortiz-Smykla (2009) have observed an increase of 85% in elderly inmates in the nation’s correctional facilities since 1995. Many of these inmates require expensive medical treatment. Drummond (1999) questions whether it is necessary for such offenders to remain in custody after they become old and frail, and indeed according to Clear, Cole, and Reisig (2009), newly released inmates are now not only older and have served longer periods of imprisonment, but they also have higher levels of substance abuse and other medical issues that require community monitoring.

Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001) examined the health-related issues in prisoner reentry and demonstrated the need for adequate health care for those inmates with infectious diseases that can threaten the community. Specifically, Hammett, Kennedy, and Kuck (2007) discuss the potential harms of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS: more than 23,000 infected inmates were documented at year-end 2004, with an estimated 10% more that are not confirmed. Other diseases the researchers identified as significant were tuberculosis as well as sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital herpes, and hepatitis. A study conducted on Rikers Island in New York found that the rates of the above diseases increased during 2000, and in particular, among females and juveniles detention centers (Brown, 2003). Corzine-McMullan (2011) argues that such health challenges need to be addressed as do mental health issues of incarcerated inmates, as these inmates pose new challenges for correctional officials as well as for those interested in reintegration.

In addition to inmates with health issues, there are other significant segments of the prison population that are being overlooked by current research and available textbooks. For example, Knickerbocker (2006) estimates that based on the last national census of 2000, more than 8.7 illegal immigrants entered the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol union reports a much higher number of between 12 million and 15 million. Such numbers are sure to be reflected in our prison system, resulting in a new breed of inmates that require special attention. For example, Seiter (2011) notes that 9,720 people were held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities at year-end 2007. Recent estimates from the state of California indicate that the number of illegal immigrants currently incapacitated by the prison system is about 19,000 (Aviram, 2010). This is a unique population in any country’s prison system; they are not documented and often do not speak the local language.

Although small in numbers, those convicted under the U.K. Terrorism Act and its equivalents around the world are an incarcerated population that poses many challenges. For example, Israeli prisons hold more than 10,000 inmates on charges related to national security and terrorism (Israeli Prison System, 2009). This category of inmates has received little attention, but it is becoming more visible in correctional settings. In the United Kingdom, recent data provided by the British Ministry of Justice (personal correspondence April 15, 2009) indicate that there are currently 132 incarcerated offenders convicted under the Terrorism Act, with the majority convicted under recent terrorism legislation. The American Federal Bureau of Prisons is also holding an increasing number of inmates convicted under similar legislation. Actual numbers for this population are constantly changing and increasing, and thus it becomes essential to examine the extent to which such offenders are represented in the correctional system. Several different congressional committees have focused on the issue of radicalization in prisons, thus reflecting the fear of what may emerge from this growing population.

Distinct from the previous groups are those inmates who have served in the military. Mumola (2000) states that with more than 25,062,400 veterans in the U.S. population, a staggering number of 225,700 veterans were held in the nation’s prisons and jails as of 1999. That is an increase of more than 50% in incarcerated veterans since 1985, with majority of them doing time for violent offenses. More recent data by Mumola and Noonan (2008) estimates that the number of veterans incarcerated in local jails, state, and federal facilities had increased to 228,700 at year-end 2007. This population poses many social challenges that are external to our correctional system. With the return of all American soldiers from Afghanistan and more recently from Iraq at the end of 2011, this population will likely increase, as thousands of soldiers have come home to a tough economic climate, social upheaval, and a difficult job market.

Based on the above examples, we can understand that special-needs offenders are those offenders, both men and women, with unique requirements within the corrections system. Anderson (2008) describes these populations as “those incarcerated … with unusual or unique requirements stemming from their physical or mental age or other disabilities” (p. 361).

Other prison populations that demonstrate special needs include sex offenders, homosexual inmates, and inmates under protective custody. It is in this context that the current book aims to expand and supplement existing knowledge.

EFFECTS ON CORRECTIONAL MANAGEMENT

---

The mosaic of incarcerated offenders poses new challenges to jail and prison staff. Different offenders with diverse needs, along with a rising incarcerated population, make it difficult for correctional administration not only to address offender’s needs but also to achieve their own mandate of administering and implementing court-prescribed sentences while maintaining safety and well-being of the staff, inmates, and the general public. Such variation in the prison population also impedes corrections from achieving its other goals of treatment, rehabilitation, surveillance, and control of its many inmates.

In order to address this, more emphasis should be given to the intake process, during which a prisoner’s specific needs and risks can be more accurately identified. This will enable correctional managers to better allocate resources while addressing pressing issues that may threaten the security of the facility and its mode of operation.

It is important to keep in mind that any institution is the sum of all of the people who operate within its walls. That is, jails and prisons are not a reflection just of the staff, but even more so of the inmates who reside within their walls. Different populations thus require different attention and resources. For example, elderly and chronically ill inmates pose less of a risk for violent behavior compared with mentally ill and active, non-treated substance abusers. As such, they require more medical attention and treatment but less control. On the other hand, mentally ill offenders pose a greater challenge and risk to other inmates, staff, and themselves, and thus require more attention and a different organizational strategy. Inmates of different religions, gay and lesbian inmates, and chronically ill incarcerated offenders all add another dimension to the multifaceted prison environment. Each group is a test of the system’s tolerance and the boundaries of safety versus security of the facility, as well as court-protected constitutional rights. Their unique needs also challenge institutions’ surveillance and control abilities, which can be an impediment that may provide a fertile ground to the development of hazardous behaviors that may affect public safety, while at the same time prevent those who need treatment from receiving it. Each of the following chapters focuses on a specific segment of these special needs offenders, while emphasizing each group’s distinctive characteristics and the challenges they present to correctional administration and staff. At the end of each chapter, a policy section is presented to enable readers to contemplate specific policies that may assist in managing such populations. It is through those sections that readers can turn their attention to prospects of rehabilitation and future reintegration of such offenders.

REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS OFFENDERS

---

One of the many goals of correction is to rehabilitate offenders and prepare them for reentry. This goal has been contested in recent decades, as research on the effectiveness of correctional treatment became available. While studies in the 1950s and 1960s provided evidence that correctional treatment is effective in reducing recidivism rates (Bailey, 1966; Logan, 1972), later studies suggested that with very few and isolated evidence some correctional interventions work to some extent, while others simply do not work (Martinson, 1974). Politicians translated Martinson’s study to simply “nothing works,” and this doctrine paved the way for decades of change in correctional policies, which became more punitive and focused more on the goal of public safety through incapacitation. At the same time, competing criminological theories, as well as various attempts to explain social deviance, governed the discussion over the causes of crime and criminal behavior for several decades. Such cacophony led in turn to the development of different punitive approaches, some of which assume the criminal’s rationality and others assume the offender to have a personality defect.

But the correctional pendulum, swinging between punishment and rehabilitation, did not stop, and unsurprisingly, the controversy led further to direct attention to matching treatment with distinct typologies of offenders (Ashford, Sales, & Reid, 2001). In fact, criminal justice and correctional scholars began to focus on developing methods for identifying the needs of offenders in specific categories, and for assessing their reaction to institutional treatment. Andrews, Bonta and Hoge (1990) developed the risk-needs assessment tool, which identifies static and dynamic factors that help classify offenders and thus determine the level of service they should be exposed to. As Jeglic, Malie, and Calkins-Mercado (2011) point out, “this resulted in the development of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model for evaluating program effectiveness” (p. 37).

The development of the RNR model should not have come as a surprise to those researchers dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders. About five decades earlier, Sutherland (1939) observed that the key to effective delivery of correctional intervention is individualization of treatment, as no two men are alike. Such an observation remains highly important and especially relevant when dealing with special needs offenders.

According to Sung and Gideon (2011), it appears that case management programs specifically designed for offenders with targeted special needs “produce much better outcomes than generic programs serving a wide variety of offenders” (p. 91). In fact, studies have shown that case management in which the specific offender’s needs are addressed leads to a better rehabilitation process and as a result to reduction in recidivism (Longshore, Turner, & Fain, 2005; Loveland & Boyle, 2007). A case management approach that takes into consideration the offender’s criminogenic traits as well as other personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, mental well-being, sexual and religious orientation, and past history) has a better chance of modifying the factors contributing to the development of delinquent behavior and of reducing repeated incarcerations (Ashford et al., 2001).

Despite all this, there is still a dire shortage of adequate research that focuses directly on special needs offenders...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1. Introduction: Special Needs Offenders
• Chapter 2. Juveniles Behind Bars
• Chapter 3. Incarcerated Female: A Growing Population
• Chapter 4: Pregnancy and Motherhood Behind Bars
• Chapter 5. Chronically Ill Inmates
• Chapter 6. Mentally Ill Inmates: Jails and Prisons as the New Asylum
• Chapter 7. Older and Geriatric Offenders: Critical Issues for the 21st Century
• Chapter 8. Gay and Lesbian Inmates: Sexuality and Sexual Correction Behind Bars
• Chapter 9. Special Needs Offenders in Correctional Institutions: Inmates Under Protective Custody
• Chapter 10. Sex Offenders Behind Bars: Considerations for Assessment and Treatment
• Chapter 11. Redemption From the Inside-Out: The Power of Faith-Based Programming
• Chapter 12. Incarcerated Veterans
• Chapter 13. Special Needs Offenders in Correctional Institutions: Death-Sentenced Inmates
• Chapter 14. Immigrants Under Correctional Supervision: Examining the Needs of Immigrant Populations in a Criminal Justice Setting
• Chapter 15. Homeland Security and the Inmate Population: The Risk and Reality of Islamic Radicalization in Prison
• Chapter 16. Substance Use and Addiction and American Prison and Jail Inmates
• Chapter 17. Conclusion: Assess, Progress, Success
• Name Index
• Subject Index
• About the Editor
• About the Contributors