Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:37 am
Time: 11:37 am
Results for prisoners (u.s.)
9 results foundAuthor: Hafemeister, Thomas L. Title: The Ninth Circle of Hell: An Eighth Amendment Analysis of Imposing Prolonged Supermax Solitary Confinement on Inmates with a Mental Illness Summary: The increasing number of inmates with a mental disorder in America’s prison population and the inadequacy of their treatment and housing conditions have been issues of growing significance in recent years. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that “over one and a quarter million people suffering from mental health problems are in prisons or jails, a figure that constitutes nearly sixty percent of the total incarcerated population in the United States.” Furthermore, a person suffering from a mental illness in the United States is three times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized, with as many as forty percent of those who suffer from a mental illness coming into contact with the criminal justice system every year and police officers almost twice as likely to arrest someone who appears to have a mental illness. As a result, the United States penal system has become the nation’s largest provider of mental health services, a “tragic consequence of inadequate community mental health services combined with punitive criminal justice policies.” This growth in the number of inmates with a mental disorder, combined with the recent rise of prolonged supermax solitary confinement and the increasingly punitive nature of the American penological system, has resulted in a disproportionately large number of inmates with a mental disorder being housed in supermax confinement. The harsh restrictions of this confinement often significantly exacerbate these inmates’ mental disorders or otherwise cause significant additional harm to their mental health, and preclude proper mental health treatment. Given the exacerbating conditions associated with supermax settings, this setting is not only ill-suited to the penological problems posed by the growing number of these inmates, but intensifies these problems by creating a revolving door to supermax confinement for many such inmates who may be unable to conform their behavior within the prison environment. Housing inmates with a mental disorder in prolonged supermax solitary confinement deprives them of a minimal life necessity as this setting poses a significant risk to their basic level of mental health, a need “as essential to human existence as other basic physical demands . . . .”, and thereby meets the objective element required for an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim. In addition, placing such inmates in supermax confinement constitutes deliberate indifference to their needs as this setting subjects this class of readily identifiable and vulnerable inmates to a present and known risk by knowingly placing them in an environment that is uniquely toxic to their condition, thereby satisfying the subjective element needed for an Eighth Amendment claim. Whether it is called torture, a violation of evolving standards of human decency, or cruel and unusual punishment, truly “a risk this grave — this shocking and indecent — simply has no place in civilized society.” Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia School of Law; University of Virginia School of Medicine, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 18, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032139 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032139 Shelf Number: 125245 Keywords: Conditions of ConfinementInmatesMental HealthPrisoners (U.S.)PunishmentSolitary ConfinementSupermax Prisons |
Author: Osher, Fred Title: Adults with Behavioral Health Needs under Correctional Supervision: A Shared Framework for Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Recovery Summary: The large numbers of adults with behavioral health disorders (mental illnesses, substance use disorders, or both) who are arrested and convicted of criminal offenses pose a special challenge for correctional and health administrators responsible for their confinement, rehabilitation, treatment, and supervision. As corrections populations have grown, the requirements for correctional facilities to provide health care to these inmates has stretched the limits of their budgets and available program personnel. They often lack the resources to provide the kinds of services many of these individuals need for recovery and to avoid reincarceration. Addressing the needs of individuals on probation or returning from prisons and jails to the community also raises difficult issues for the behavioral health administrators and service providers who have come to be relied on for treatment. Individuals with behavioral health issues who have criminal histories often have complex problems, some of which are difficult to address in traditional treatment settings. The reality is, however, that public healthcare professionals are already struggling to serve them. A significant number of individuals who receive services through the publicly funded mental health and substance abuse systems are involved in the criminal justice system. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the criminal justice system is the single largest source of referral to the public substance abuse treatment system, with probation and parole treatment admissions representing the highest proportion of these referrals.1 Overlapping populations similarly exist for corrections administrators and mental healthcare providers.2 With state and local agencies enduring dramatic budget cuts, resources are already scarce for serving and supervising individuals with substance abuse and mental health needs who are, or have been, involved in the criminal justice system. The question that many policymakers and practitioners are asking is whether those resources are being put to the best use in advancing public safety and health, as well as personal recovery. They are examining whether allocations of behavioral health resources are increasing diversion from the criminal justice system when appropriate and reducing ongoing criminal justice involvement for individuals under correctional control and supervision.3 The answer, frankly, is we do not think that the scale of the investments in these efforts has come close to addressing the extent of the problem or that resources are always properly focused. The dedication of resources made behind the bars and in the community does not appear to stop the individuals with substance abuse and mental health disorders from cycling through the criminal justice system—in many cases, they are simply insufficient to effect a systemwide change or do not focus narrowly enough on the people who would most benefit from the interventions. These investments in treatment and supervision have traditionally not been coordinated and sometimes even work at cross-purposes. Just as the substance abuse and mental health systems used to operate in silos—but now frequently come together to provide integrated co-occurring treatment options—a similar challenge is now before the corrections and behavioral health systems. The vast majority of inmates eventually return to their home communities from prisons and jails (650,000 or more individuals each year from state prisons alone,4 and more than 9 million individuals from jail).5 This influx of returning inmates has sparked an urgent need for corrections and behavioral healthcare administrators to reconsider the best means to facilitate reentry and service delivery to the many individuals with substance abuse and mental health problems. Despite the overlap in the populations they serve, little consensus exists among behavioral healthcare and community corrections administrators and providers on who should be prioritized for treatment, what services they should receive, and how those interventions should be coordinated with supervision. Too often, corrections administrators hear that “those aren’t my people” from behavioral healthcare administrators and providers. And just as often, the behavioral health community feels they are asked to assume a public safety role that is not in synch with their primary mission. Misunderstandings about each system’s capacity, abilities, and roles, as well as what types of referrals are appropriate, have contributed to the problem. This white paper presents a shared framework for reducing recidivism and behavioral health problems among individuals under correctional control or supervision—that is, for individuals in correctional facilities or who are on probation or parole. The paper is written for policymakers, administrators, and practitioners committed to making the most effective use of scarce resources to improve outcomes for individuals with behavioral health problems who are involved in the corrections system. It is meant to provide a common structure for corrections and treatment system professionals to begin building truly collaborative responses to their overlapping service population. These responses include both behind-the-bars and community-based interventions. This framework is designed to achieve each system’s goals and ultimately to help millions of individuals rebuild their lives while on probation or after leaving prison or jail. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2012. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/adults-with-behavioral-health-needs Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/adults-with-behavioral-health-needs Shelf Number: 126500 Keywords: Health CareMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesPrisoners (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitationTreatment Programs |
Author: Kukorowski, Drew Title: Please Deposit All of Your Money: Kickbacks, Rates, and Hidden Fees in the Jail Phone Industry Summary: At a time when the cost of a phone call is approaching zero, one population is forced to pay astronomical sums to stay in touch: the families of incarcerated people. For a child to speak with her incarcerated parent, a family member or friend is forced to pay almost $1 per minute, plus a long list of other fees that easily double the total cost of the call. Faced with phone bills that can total hundreds of dollars, many families have to choose between paying for calls and paying for basic living expenses. Social science research shows that strong community ties are one of the best predictors of success after release from prison or jail, but the prison telephone market threatens those ties because it is uniquely structured to create a counter-productive cycle of exploitation: prison systems and local jails award the monopoly contracts to the phone company that will charge the highest rates and share the largest portion of the profits. The prisons and jails get their commissions, the phone industry gets the fees, and the families get the hefty bills. While previous research has documented the unjustifiably high calling rates in the prison phone industry, this report is the first to address in depth the many fees prison phone customers must pay. We find that meaningful regulation of the prison phone industry must stem from a comprehensive analysis of the customers' whole bills, rather than limiting the discussion to addressing the high per-minute calling rates alone. This report finds that fees have an enormous impact on prison phone bills, making up 38% of the $1 billion annual price of calling home. This report details the fees that prison phone companies charge for "services" such as: •accepting customers' money (deposit fees of up to $10/deposit) •holding on to customers' money (monthly account fees as high as $12) •closing customers' accounts (refund fees of up to $10) This report reveals that these fees are but the tip of the iceberg, though, as many other charges are far less transparent. For example, some companies operate "single call programs" that charge customers who do not have preexisting accounts up to $14.99 to receive a single call from a prison or jail. Some companies have hidden profit-sharing agreements with payment processors such as Western Union, which are not disclosed to the correctional systems that award contracts. Other companies give their fees government-sounding names, even though the fees are not required by the government and may not even be paid to the government. Unlike in most industries, bad customer service is a key source of revenue for prison phone companies. For example, most of the industry finds it economically advantageous to use poorly calibrated security systems to drop phone calls and trigger additional connection charges. Other companies show no hesitation to triple the cost of a call made to a local cellphone by charging consumers the more expensive long distance rate. Previous research has generally focused on the price to call home from state and federal prisons, but we find that limiting the scope to prisons only significantly understates the sheer number of families that must bear the burden of exorbitant phone bills. This report expands the discussion to also include the families and friends of the more than 12 million people who cycle through 3,000 local jails across the country every year. To our knowledge, almost no local jails refuse commission payments in order to make calling home more feasible. Because the opportunities for consumer exploitation in this broken marketplace are almost endless, regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the only permanent, nationwide solution that would remove the inherent conflicts of interest between the facilities that award monopoly contracts, the companies that execute them, and the families that pay the price. The FCC should craft a regulatory solution that is based on a comprehensive view of the prison phone industry, taking into account each of the components that contribute to customers' high bills, including fees. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2013: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/pleasedeposit.html Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/pleasedeposit.html Shelf Number: 128874 Keywords: Consumer FraudFamilies of InmatesJailsPrisoners (U.S.)Telephones |
Author: Kukoroski, Drew Title: The Price To Call Home: State-Sanctioned Monopolization In The Prison Phone Industry Summary: Exorbitant calling rates make the prison telephone industry one of the most lucrative businesses in the United States today. This industry is so profitable because prison phone companies have state-sanctioned monopolistic control over the state prison markets, and the government agency with authority to rein in these rates across the nation has been reluctant to offer meaningful relief. Prison phone companies are awarded these monopolies through bidding processes in which they submit contract proposals to the state prison systems; in all but eight states, these contracts include promises to pay “commissions” — in effect, kickbacks — to states, in either the form of a percentage of revenue, a fixed up-front payment, or a combination of the two. Thus, state prison systems have no incentive to select the telephone company that offers the lowest rates; rather, correctional departments have an incentive to reap the most profit by selecting the telephone company that provides the highest commission. This market oddity — that the government entity has an incentive to select the highest bidder and that the actual consumers have no input in the bidding process — makes the prison telephone market susceptible to prices that are well-above ordinary rates for non-incarcerated persons. This fact, coupled with what economists would label as the “relative inelastic demand” that incarcerated persons and their families have to speak with one another, leads to exorbitant prices. The prison telephone market is structured to be exploitative because it grants monopolies to producers, and because the consumers — the incarcerated persons and their families who are actually footing the bills — have no comparable alternative ways of communicating. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/price_to_call_home.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/price_to_call_home.pdf Shelf Number: 128915 Keywords: Families of InmatesInmatesPrison Telephone IndustryPrisoners (U.S.) |
Author: Piehl, Anne Morrison Title: Immigrant Assimilation into U.S. Prisons, 1900-1930 Summary: The analysis of a new dataset on state prisoners in the 1900 to 1930 censuses reveals that immigrants rapidly assimilated to native incarceration patterns. One feature of these data is that the second generation can be identified, allowing direct analysis of this group and allowing their exclusion from calculations of comparison rates for the “native” population. Although adult new arrivals were less likely than natives to be incarcerated, this likelihood was increasing with their years in the U.S. The foreign born who arrived as children and second generation immigrants had slightly higher rates of incarceration than natives of native parentage, but these differences disappear after controlling for nativity differences in urbanicity and occupational status. Finally, while the incarceration rates of new arrivals differ significantly by source country, patterns of assimilation are very similar. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. w19083 : Accessed June 3, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272519 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2272519 Shelf Number: 128922 Keywords: Immigrants and CrimeIncarceration RatesInmatesPrisoners (U.S.) |
Author: Abramsky, Sasha Title: A Second Chance: Charting a New Course for Re-Entry and Criminal Justice Reform Summary: "A Second Chance" examines the impact of four barriers that make re-entry more difficult and recidivism more likely - predatory prison phone rates; inadequate access to education; restrictions on employment; and restrictions on voting. The report discusses the consequences of these practices and makes a series of policy recommendations regarding their reform. Details: Washington, DC: Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/A_Second_Chance_Re-Entry_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/A_Second_Chance_Re-Entry_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131680 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformEx-Offender EmploymentFelony DisenfranchisementPrisoner ReentryPrisoners (U.S.)Vocational Education and Training |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: State Prison Health Care Spending: An examination Summary: Health care and corrections have emerged as fiscal pressure points for states in recent years as rapid spending growth in each area has competed for scarce revenue. Not surprisingly, the intersection of these two spheres - health care for prison inmates - also has experienced a ramp-up, reaching nearly $8 billion in 2011. Under the landmark 1976 Estelle v. Gamble decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate medical attention and concluded that the Eighth Amendment is violated when corrections officials display "deliberate indifference" to an inmate's medical needs. The manner in which states manage prison health care services that meet these legal requirements affects not only inmates' health, but also the public's health and safety and taxpayers' total corrections bill. Effectively treating inmates' physical and mental illnesses, including substance use disorders, improves their well-being and can reduce the likelihood that they will commit new crimes or violate probation once released. The State Health Care Spending Project previously examined cost data from 44 states and found that prison health care spending increased dramatically from fiscal year 2001 to 2008. However, new data from a survey of budget and finance staff officials in each state's department of corrections, administered by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Vera Institute of Justice, show that some states may be reversing this trend. This report examines the factors driving costs by analyzing new data on all 50 states' prison health care spending from fiscal 2007 to 2011. It also describes a variety of promising strategies that states are using to manage spending, including the use of tele-health technology, improved management of health services contractors, Medicaid financing, and medical or geriatric parole. The project's analysis of the survey data yielded the following findings: - Correctional health care spending rose in 41 states from fiscal 2007 to 2011, with median growth of 13 percent, after adjusting for inflation. - Per-inmate health care spending also rose in 39 states over the period, with a median growth of 10 percent. - In a majority of states, however, total spending and per-inmate spending peaked before fiscal 2011. Nationwide, prison health care spending totaled $7.7 billion in fiscal 2011, down from a peak of $8.2 billion in fiscal 2009. The downturn in spending was due, in part, to a reduction in state prison populations. - From fiscal 2007 to 2011, the share of older inmates - who typically require more expensive care - rose in all but two of the 42 states that submitted prisoner age data. Not surprisingly, states where older inmates represented a relatively large share of the total prisoner population tended to incur higher per-inmate health care spending. As states work to manage prison health care expenditures, a downturn in spending was a positive development as long as it did not come at the expense of access to quality care. But states continue to face a variety of challenges that threaten to drive costs back up. Chief among these is a steadily aging prison population. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/StatePrisonHealthCareSpendingReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/07/StatePrisonHealthCareSpendingReport.pdf Shelf Number: 133833 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsElderly InmatesHealth CareMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners (U.S.) |
Author: Maruschak, Laura M. Title: Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-2012 Summary: The report presents the prevalence of medical problems among state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, highlighting differences in rates of chronic conditions and infectious diseases by demographic characteristic. The report describes health care services and treatment received by prisoners and jail inmates with health problems, including doctor's visits, use of prescription medication, and other types of treatment. It also explains reasons why inmates with health problems were not receiving care and describes inmate satisfaction with health services received while incarcerated. Data were from the 2011-12 National Inmate Survey. Highlights: In 2011-12, an estimated 40% of state and federal prisoners and jail inmates reported having a current chronic medical condition while about half reported ever having a chronic medical condition. Twenty-one percent of prisoners and 14% of jail inmates reported ever having tuberculosis, hepatitis B or C, or other STDs (excluding HIV or AIDS). Both prisoners and jail inmates were more likely than the general population to report ever having a chronic condition or infectious disease. The same finding held true for each specific condition or infectious disease. Among prisoners and jail inmates, females were more likely than males to report ever having a chronic condition. High blood pressure was the most common chronic condition reported by prisoners (30%) and jail inmates (26%). About 66% of prisoners and 40% of jail inmates with a chronic condition at the time of interview reported taking prescription medication. More than half of prisoners (56%) and jail inmates (51%) said that they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the health care services received since admission. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 9, 2015 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpsfpji1112.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpsfpji1112.pdf Shelf Number: 134585 Keywords: Health CareHealth ServicesMedical CareMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners (U.S.) |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: Keeping Vulnerable Populations Safe Under PREA: Alternative Strategies to the Use of Segregation in Prisons and Jails Summary: Incarcerated people at risk for sexual victimization need to be housed safely without losing access to programming, mental and medical health services, and group activities. The National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape emphasize that isolation be used to protect at-risk populations only when no other alternatives are available and all other options have been explored. To help agencies achieve compliance with these standards, Vera's Center on Sentencing and Corrections, in conjunction with the National PREA Resource Center, has developed guidelines to provide prison and jail administrators and staff with promising strategies for safely housing inmates at risk of sexual abuse without isolating them. This guide includes approaches for managing the housing of populations at particularly high risk for sexual abuse in confinement: women; youthful inmates in adult facilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) individuals; and people who are gender nonconforming. Details: New York: National PREA Resource Center, Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Shelf Number: 135217 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationPrison RapePrisoners (U.S.)Sexual Victimization |