…a post during finals…..

It’s time for finals around here which means, for me at least, A LOT of paper writing and A LOT of chocolate eating (I’m not entirely sure why the two are linked but they most certainly are).

Finals time also means that I didn’t find myself with a lot of or, really, any time  to come up with this week’s blog posting. So I thought it kismet when in the course of suffering through  the ebbs and flows of my sugar highs, I came across CNN’s  new documentary: An Unreal Dream: The Michael Morton Story.   As you may have read in my introductory post, or noticed in the several other posts on related topics,  I have a pretty serious fascination with The Innocence Project and the work it does. Its a fascination that in its own round-about way led me to enroll at  Silver School and, ultimately, dedicate my time here to exploring the social injustices that lead to individuals being wrongfully convicted in the first place.   311 individuals have been exonerated through DNA testing in the United States. 18 of them were proclaiming their innocence from death row. The rest of them served on average 13.6 years before being set free. Michael Morton is part of these statistics. So are the Central Park Five and the West Memphis Three. Who isn’t counted though? Who served three years in prison and  became a registered sex offender on the account of  an extremely flawed criminal justice system and never said anything? Which wrongfully accused immigrant  unknowingly signed a plea deal hoping to be released from prison only to find themselves deported back to their  country of origin? Life sentences for the wrongfully convicted are appalling but what about the small sentences that add up to a life of poverty and unjust treatment? How can we proactively prevent this from happening instead of just reacting once its already been done?

While I take a break from thinking about these questions to complete my final papers,  I encourage you to pick up where I left off.  Check out Michael Morton’s story. And maybe these articles too….

How to Fight ‘Bad Apple’ Prosecutors who Abuse the Criminal Justice System

Released but Never Exonerated, a Man Fights for Freedom

An Arrest in the News, an Exoneration in Silence

We can talk about it if I make it through the semester….

A Portrait of What Exactly?

Last week, the Connecticut State Attorney’s office released a 44 page summary of their investigation into the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the wake of this report, many articles were published like this one on CNN’s website — “Portrait of Adam Lanza.” Essentially all the articles did was attempt to pick apart investigative details in  search for the answers as to why this had happened, why Mr. Lanza did what he did. The answers aren’t there.  Journalists pulled at details about Adam’s life that may or may not have had anything to do with his egregious actions and touted them as if they were a blueprint to murder. Adam was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Adam pulled his sleeves over his hands to touch things. Adam preferred to communicate with his family members via email. Adam could play Dance Dance Revolution for 10 hour stretches. 10 years ago, Adam drew a cartoon in which an old woman shot people with a cane. After reading several of these articles, I had a picture of a boy and his family who both seemed very much in need of mental health services, not necessarily one of a boy who would end up killing 26 people including his mother. My picture though was painted  with the influence of years spent in undergraduate psychology courses and masters level clinical practice classes. My picture wasn’t necessarily the one that was conjured in the mind of most people reading the article and why would it be?  That’s not what the articles are aiming for, that’s not what the journalists intended. What they intended was to report the facts, the who, the what, and the why. In the course of that though, they seem to be perpetuating the stigma of mental illness and leading the public to believe that the majority of mentally ill persons are violent and dangerous. As social workers and mental health professionals, we know different.

We know that where the mentally ill are most likely to reach our country’s court system is through non-violent misdemeanors and felonies. The prison population in the United States is estimated to be around 2 million inmates. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill estimates that about 16% of these inmates are seriously mentally ill. The effects of incarceration on the severely mentally ill are demonstrated rather poignantly in the Frontline documentary, “The New Asylums”. Take Mr. Robert Bankston for example. During one interview in the film, Mr. Bankston says “In 1989, I snatched a purse. If I had known I was going to have to go through all this, I would have never snatched no purse.” On account of Mr Bankston’s mental illness, he frequently suffers delusions. When he is delusional, he tends to act aggressively with the guards. This has led to Mr. Bankston spending over ten years in prison (much longer than his original sentence), most of which was spent in maximum security facilities. Later in the documentary, Mr. Bankston is released on parole. This is not the first time, he had been released. Mr. Bankston, on several occasions, has violated his parole and been sent back to prison. His parole violations are largely on account of him failing to take his medicine and control his mental illness. The documentary makes the point that there aren’t many options available to Mr. Bankston to seek treatment for his illness once he is released from prison, making his return seem rather inevitable. In a state with the “three strike rule,” Mr. Bankston’s recidivism, entirely on account of his mental illness, could have lead to a life sentence.

This is where I need to climb up on my soapbox because this is where I believe social workers should be called to action.  These are our clients entering the criminal justice system largely based on their diagnosis with mental illness and an inability to access resources in order to control it. Its the veteran with PTSD. Its the substance abuser and the schizophrenic, the homeless youth and the manic mother. Its our clients receiving non-violent felony convictions that bar them vital community resources,from public housing or possibly financial aid to attend college, that could have turned out to be their saving grace. Its OUR clients and OUR potential clients fighting this stigma in their daily lives and so I firmly believe WE who should be fighting there with them. For every 100 articles championing gun control as the answer, it seems like there is just one that suggests an increase in funding to community mental health services. We talk for years about the handful of mentally ill persons who commit violent offenses, yet we rarely discuss the hundreds of thousands sitting in jail currently for non-violent convictions. I see the NRA lobbying all over the place, where is the NASW? Here you see my contribution, where can I see yours?

PS…. Check out this article written last year by one of our Silver School Professors in the Huffington Post.

Housing Relief for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals?!?!

Last Tuesday, in the New York Times, I read about an 85 year old medically ailing inmate named Mr. Koti who was recently denied parole. ( NOTE: Mr Koti has an exemplary prison record and prisoners over 60 have a 1% recidivism rate, btw… real threat but thats a whole ‘nother issue, I digress.) In the article, the author recounts Mr. Koti’s parole hearing.  Mr Koti, in advance of his parole hearing, had accepted an offer from his sister to live with her. “Where does your sister live?” asked the parole commissioner. If Mr. Koti’s answer had been any of the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) 334 developments (known to the rest of us, outside of the NYCHA office, as “projects”) then Mr. Koti would have had a problem (well if the parole had been granted.) Up until this month many with felony and certain kinds of misdemeanor convictions would be excluded from living on NYCHA property. As social workers working with the prison population surely know, this can be a giant problem. What’s changed this month you ask?

Well, nothing but maybe something. I’ll explain.

This week, through my job, I was invited to a seminar hosted by Safe Horizon where NYCHA officials were asked to speak on the topic of Domestic Violence priority status for NYCHA housing applications. We got a little off topic and one NYCHA employee took a moment (that turned into an hour) to inform us about NYCHA’s new pilot program aptly called “Family Re-entry Pilot Program.”  Through this program, 150 families will be reunited over the next two years in NYCHA housing; families who previously would have been prohibited from doing so on account of one member of their family having a felony conviction.  Former inmates will be referred to this program from NYCHA’s partner agencies like The Fortune Society and Osborne Association. Its my understanding, that the individuals referred to the program must be 18 months post-release and their convictions cannot break the federal guidelines set by HUD.This means they cannot be sex offenders or have been convicted of producing meth in public housing. They cannot be an active substance abuser (an addict who is not participating in a registered treatment program). They cannot have been evicted from public housing on account of drug trafficking  nor can they have received a lifelong ban from residing in public housing. Upon receiving the referral, NYCHA will hold their own screening process that includes a check of the tenancy records of the family that the former prisoner wishes to reunite with and a home visit to make sure the family is on board with the reunification.

Once individuals have been admitted to the program they are granted temporary permission to living in public housing for the next two years. They must agree to be subjected to “intensive case management” for a period of at least 6 months and then “less frequent contact” for a period of up to 18 months.  The family members, other than the formerly incarcerated individual, are not subjected to the same case management standard though they can opt to have a caseworker of their own if they wish. At the end of two years, upon successful completion of the program,  the former inmates can relinquish their temporary permission and become a permanent member of the family composition in the eyes of NYCHA.

NYCHA had its first referral earlier this month.

It’s a very small step, I know, but I, personally, find this program pretty encouraging. It won’t be an easy go, that’s for sure, but I have high hopes that the 150 individuals admitted into the pilot program over the next two years can pave the way for many more family reunifications and brighter futures, without homelessness or recidivism, for former prisoners upon release.

What do you think?