Routledge Handbook on Offenders with Special Needs

Kimberly D. Dodson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781317235439
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Current estimates indicate that approximately 2.2 million people are incarcerated in federal, state, and local correctional facilities across the United States. There are another 5 million under community correctional supervision. Many of these individuals fall into the classification of special needs or special populations (e.g., women, juveniles, substance abusers, mentally ill, aging, chronically or terminally ill offenders). Medical care and treatment costs represent the largest portion of correctional budgets, and estimates suggest that these costs will continue to rise. In the community, probation and parole officers are responsible for helping special needs offenders find appropriate treatment resources. Therefore, it is important to understand the needs of these special populations and how to effectively care for and address their individual concerns.

The Routledge Handbook of Offenders with Special Needs is an in-depth examination of offenders with special needs, such as those who are learning-challenged, developmentally disabled, and mentally ill, as well as substance abusers, sex offenders, women, juveniles, and chronically and terminally ill offenders. Areas that previously have been unexamined (or examined in a limited way) are explored. For example, this text carefully examines the treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender offenders, and racial and gender disparities in health care delivery, as well as pregnancy and parenthood behind bars, homelessness, and the incarceration of veterans and immigrants. In addition, the book presents legal and management issues related to the treatment and rehabilitation of special populations in prisons/jails and the community, including police-citizen interactions, diversion through specialty courts, obstacles and challenges related to reentry and reintegration, and the need for the development and implementation of evidence-based criminal justice policies and practices.

This is a key collection for students taking courses in prisons, penology, criminal justice, criminology, and related areas of study, and an essential resource for academics and practitioners working with offenders with special needs.

1
Challenges Criminal Justice Practitioners and Treatment Professionals Encounter with Special Needs Offenders

Kimberly D. Dodson

Mercy benefits the giver of mercy as well as the recipient. It is the act of a reduced punishment that distinguishes mercy from forgiveness. Mercy must also be distinguished from excuse or justification. Mercy assumes that the offender is in a position of powerlessness and need.

—(Misner, 2000, p. 1324)

Introduction

Offenders with special needs are individuals who require special care, treatment, or management within the criminal justice system. Special needs offenders may have a variety of physical or mental disabilities or limitations that include psychological and psychiatric needs, developmental disabilities, social or educational deficiencies, language barriers, deafness or blindness, physical and mental handicaps related to aging, neurological impairments, and chronic and terminal illnesses. Certain physical or medical conditions that require prisoners to receive specialized care or treatment can also result in them being classified as special needs. Pregnant inmates, for instance, require regular gynecological and obstetrical care to monitor the health of both the mother and fetus. Pregnant inmates are more likely to have high-risk pregnancy than nonincarcerated pregnant women because of a lack of prenatal care prior to incarceration, poor nutritional histories, mental illness, substance abuse, and medical conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes (Fogel, 1993; National Commission of Correctional Health Care, 2014).

Medical conditions associated with aging, such as arthritis, osteoporosis, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, also require specialized treatment and care. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) applies to inmates in jails and prisons (see Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 1998). The ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled persons, including those who use walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility devices. Jails and prisons are required to construct or retrofit their facilities to be ADA complaint and handicap accessible (Whitehead, Dodson, & Edwards, 2013). For example, wheelchair-bound inmates must have cell doors wide enough for their wheelchairs to fit through and ample room in the cell to maneuver their wheelchairs. Inmates in wheelchairs also need elevated desks, toilets, beds, and handicap ramps to accommodate their physical limitations. Like correctional facilities, police and probation agencies are required to have buildings that are handicap accessible and ADA compliant.

Offenders with mental health diagnoses also have special treatment and management needs. Mentally ill offenders regularly report anxiety disorders (panic disorder and phobias), mood disorders (depression and bipolar disorder), psychotic disorders (schizophrenia), impulse control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania), personality disorders (antisocial personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Daniel, 2007; Torrey et al., 2014; Underwood & Washington, 2016). In jails and prisons, mentally ill offenders are typically confined in segregated housing units (SHUs) or solitary confinement cells because they may exhibit bizarre, irritating, or dangerous behavior (Metzner & Fellner, 2010). Additionally, mentally ill inmates are easily manipulated and therefore are more prone to being financially exploited or physically or sexually victimized in the general population (Abramsky & Fellner, 2015; Pittaro, 2015).

Many law enforcement agencies have implemented the use of crisis intervention teams that are trained to respond and assist individuals experiencing a mental health crisis (see Chapter 27 for more about crisis intervention teams). Much of training focuses on increasing disability awareness and reducing officer prejudice or bias. Many police agencies endorse the use of crisis intervention teams as an essential component of improving police response to mentally ill individuals. Likewise, mental health courts have been developed to address the special treatment and care needs of those diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses and disorders. Mental health courts combine court supervision, community mental health treatment, and other support services to reduce the likelihood of criminal offending and improving mental health outcomes for offenders. The use of specialty courts (teen courts, veterans’ courts, and drug courts) is designed to divert offenders with special needs out of the criminal justice system.

Offenders may be classified as special needs because they are vulnerable populations. For example, some inmates may be vulnerable because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and research shows that homosexual and gender nonconforming offenders are more likely than heterosexual and gender conforming offenders to be physically and sexually victimized in jails and prisons (Beck, Berzofsky, & Krebs, 2013). Juveniles are another vulnerable class of offender because their age makes them targets for physical and sexual abuse and exploitation in detention facilities by other offenders (Beck, Cantor, Hartge, & Smith, 2013; Saar, Epstein, Rosenthal, & Vafa, 2015). As a result, these vulnerable inmates may request placement in protective custody or prison staff may place them in administrative segregation¹ for protection. Thirty-five states require that juveniles housed in adult correctional facilities to be sight and sound segregated, while six states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming) strictly prohibit this practice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015).

Inmates may be special needs because they have distinct security or supervision concerns. For example, the nature of some crimes requires special safety and security measures in jails and prisons. Individuals charged with the physical or sexual abuse of a child typically do not fare well in general population because once the word gets out about the nature of the charges, these offenders become targets for verbal abuse and physical violence. Sex offenders and those accused of child abuse often present correctional staff with special safety and security concerns. Like other vulnerable populations, these inmates can request protective custody or correctional officers can administratively segregate them.

As indicated in this introduction, special needs offenders present criminal justice practitioners and health care specialists with a variety of management and treatment needs. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the challenges criminal justice and treatment professionals encounter in treating and managing offenders with special needs. The chapter presents a discussion about the training needs of criminal justice practitioners, including law enforcement officers, court personnel, and correctional officers. The chapter also discusses the inadequacy of training in recognizing and effectively interacting with offenders with special needs. The chapter offers some suggestions for refining training to improve outcomes for criminal justice practitioners and criminal justice-involved special needs offenders. The chapter includes a brief overview of the American Correctional Association Accreditation Standards for jail and prisons and how accreditation improves the operation of correctional facilities and quality of services for inmates. Criminal justice agencies often have limited financial resources that hamper their ability to provide appropriate training for correctional personnel and services to offenders. Therefore, the chapter concludes with a discussion of how limited resources affect the ability to train correctional officers adequately and hinder the delivery of services to offenders with special needs.

Police Response to Special Needs Offenders

Police do not always receive adequate training in recognizing offenders with special needs or how to interact effectively with these individuals. Studies and media accounts document the fact that police have failed to recognize individuals with autism (Bolton & Bolton, 2008), schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Hause & Melber, 2016; International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2014), posttraumatic stress disorder (Perry & Carter-Long, 2014), developmental and intellectual disabilities, (High, 2016), Down syndrome (Heideman, 2014), cerebral palsy (Perry & Carter-Long, 2014), hypoglycemia (Cizio, 2009), and deafness (Lohr, 2014; Sommerfeldt, 2016). In all of these encounters, police mistook a disability for noncompliance. This is important because one-third to half of all individuals killed by the police have some type of mental or physical disability (Perry & Carter-Long, 2016). These incidents are most likely the result of the police culture that emphasizes compliance and use of force rather than conflict resolution and de-escalation.

Basic Police Recruit School and In-Service Training

Police academy training teaches officers to take control of situations by demanding submission through various compliance techniques. Police officers try to gain compliance with the use of verbal commands. If the person fails to comply with officers’ verbal commands, officers will attempt to gain compliance through various physical control techniques. Someone with a mental illness or intellectual disability, because of their impairment or condition, may be unable to comprehend the verbal commands of officers. When officers attempt to restrain people with mental health issues or intellectual disabilities, they may not understand why police are trying to restrict their movements or what they have done wrong. This is the point when offenders with special needs may resist officers’ attempts to subdue them, and the situation escalates. Again, officers are trained to gain compliance and they will do so even if it means using deadly force. Loved ones or family members frequently call the police to handle situations involving special needs individuals, particularly when things turn disruptive or violent. It is unlikely that those who call the police for assistance expect their loved one to be killed by police, and these incidents often turn into a public relations nightmare for police agencies (see, e.g., cases reviewed by Heideman, 2014; Lohr, 2014; Perry & Carter-Long, 2016; Sommerfeldt, 2016). Since police are the first point of contact in the criminal justice system, it is imperative that they receive appropriate de-escalation training, especially concerning offenders with mental illness or intellectual disabilities.

Law enforcement officers across the United States must complete annual in-service training to continue their law enforcement certification. Police in-service courses consist of 40 hours of specialized training on law enforcement issues that officers may encounter in the field. Agencies typically allow their officers to choose among a variety of in-service course options, including defense tactics, tactical firearm training, active shooter scenarios, drug interdiction, child abuse investigations, crime scene photography, domestic violence response, human trafficking, racial profiling, and stress management. However, 34 states do not require de-escalation training for law enforcement officers (Gil-bert, 2017), and those that do often provide insufficient training. For example, one study of Georgia law enforcement agencies found that in 385 departments out of 582, law enforcement officers had less than one hour of de-escalation training in the previous five years (Gilbert, 2017). These findings led Georgia to mandate one hour of annual de-escalation training for every certified law enforcement officer, which still seems woefully insufficient.

The good news is police chiefs and sheriffs are beginning to recognize that officers under their command need training to respond appropriately to crises, especially those involving individuals with special needs. As a result, many law enforcement agencies are providing crisis intervention and de-escalation training for their officers. For example, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) developed and implemented de-escalation training for all of its officers that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) endorsed (U.S. DOJ, 2015). Likewise, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) formally adopted a de-escalation policy that states, in part, officers “will not resort to force unless all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted” (CPD, 2016, p. 2)

De-escalation is a response that allows police officers time to reflect on a situation and to consider options that will increase the chances of resolving a conflict or crisis without the use of force or with minimal force. Utilizing de-escalation techniques at the scene of a crisis reduces the likelihood of injury to the public and police officers. Less use of force by police translates into fewer lawsuits for law enforcement agencies. In the next section, use of force cases involving individuals with special needs are discussed.

Use of Force Involving Special Needs Offenders

Use of force cases tend to garner a significant amount of media attention in the United States. The public is often critical of the conduct of police officers involved in use of force cases, and there are frequently accusations of police using excessive force. The public may be even less tolerant of police use of force against individuals with special needs because acting out may be symptomatic of the condition or diagnosis of the offender rather than deliberate defiance of the police. This is why instituting de-escalation training is so important when dealing with offenders with special needs.

The courts have reviewed numerous cases involving police use of force, including cases concerning offenders with special needs. For examp...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• List of Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Challenges Criminal Justice Practitioners and Treatment Professionals Encounter with Special Needs Offenders
• PART I Administration and Management Issues
• PART II Special Populations
• PART III Medical and Mental Health Issues
• PART IV Treatment in the Community
• Index