A therapist from the MHD had cell house staff call out all inmates in this category, the therapist then took the first 14 inmates who arrived - the therapist allowed inmates with scheduling conflicts to trade with inmates who had the afternoon open.
There was no attempt by the therapist to manipulate the pool of inmate group participants.
The inmates were told they were going to participate in a group session for a member of the legislative budget office. Once in the group therapy room, the therapist told group members to answer any questions the visitor may have openly and honestly.
The visitors included a member of the state legislative budget office (LBO) a representative from the DOC budget office (DOC-B) a member of the DOC prison operations office, and a representative of the Warden's office.
After the visitors introduced themselves the member from the LBO stated that he asked for the meeting because he was responsible for reviewing the DOC Mental Health budget and making recommendations on whether to raise, lower, or keep the budget the same. He said he wanted to observe a group so he could better understand the program and its budget requirements, later in the meeting he said they were looking into expanding the sex offender program here.
The first question the LBO asked was, by a show of hands, how many group members had seen the parole board; all hands went up. Then, again by a show of hands, how many people had been paroled; all hands went down but one.
The percentage of group members denied by the parole board seemed to surprise the LBO. He asked what reason was given by the board for denying parole. The group unanimously said the board always gave the same reason; insufficient time served and needs more facility treatment. Group members expressed frustration with the board because they had already served their required prison sentence and completed all the treatment required/offered in the facility.
The LBO expressed surprise and disbelief with this finding, but the therapist assured him it was true and very frustrating for everyone - inmate and staff. The LBO followed up by asking if anyone had hope that they could actually get paroled out of this system. There were anxious uneasy looks shared by the inmates, but the question was never answered directly.
Next the discussion moved to why the one person who had been paroled returned to prison. The inmate and therapist explained the return was due to a technical violation and not the commission of a new crime. The LBO again expressed surprise that a technical violation could return a parolee back to prison. He was also surprised to learn that once paroled, the parolee had to start treatment all over again from square one. The therapist also voice frustration with the fact saying each treatment provider had its own set of rules on where they started a parolee in treatment, but they often required them to start from the beginning, as if they had no treatment at all. She commented that this redundant treatment placed undue cost on the parolee at a time when they are struggling to find a job, pay for UAs and possibly electronic monitoring amount other costs.
The LBO then asked if it was possible to see how an actual group functioned. The inmates and therapist explained the difference between Phase I, II, and after-care. It was agreed that the group would do check-ins to show the LBO what a typical group in Phase II does day-to-day.
After several check-ins and feedback, the LBO and DOC-B interrupted and pointed out that the group was supposed to be a sex offender treatment group, yet no discussion of actual sex offending behavior had been discussed.
Several inmates tried to explain the therapeutic model used at Fremont and DOC; that the sex offending behavior was a result of the inmate's inability to appropriately deal with stressors in his life. Some inmates compacted it to acting out with drugs or alcohol.
The DOC-B seeming a little frustrated, asked how is the community safer after sex offenders complete this treatment and why should they be considered for parole? Several inmates explained the cycle of abuse taught by MHD (pretend normal, build- up, acting out, justification) and how they had learned tools to safely intervene in the cycle before they reached the acting out phase that could pose a threat to the public. The DOC-B did not seem completely satisfied with the explanation given by the inmates. No direct answer was offered for the question about why a sex offender should be paroled after completing treatment.
As time ran out and the LBO had to leave, questions were asked about sex offender safety in prison and gang affiliation.
Inmates responded that on several occasions they experienced violence from other inmates because they were sex offenders, and other inmates said they joined a prison gang to help protect themselves from violence associated with being a sex offender.
Inmates said the violence and threats were not as bad in Fremont as they were in other state prisons in Colorado.
Before leaving, the visitors thanked the inmates for their time and willingness to discuss their issues and for their efforts in treatment.
(Names were omitted for privacy concerns)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
As a public policy and political journalist with experience in conducting government program reviews and budget cost/benefit analysis, I give the following opinion of the meeting between inmates at the Fremont Correctional Facility and members of the legislative and DOC budget offices. This is only my opinion based on my observations and government budget experience.
I would assert that given the recent media attention in the Denver Post and public lobbying by groups like AFC and the ACLU about the plight and backlog of the state's incarcerated sex offender populations that state leadership is starting to look seriously at this multifaceted problem.
Before going any further, it is important to acknowledge that the budget, state fiscal expenditure on public programs, is the ultimate expression of public policy priority. In other words - government spends money on what government thinks is important. (The word ''important'' here is relative - it could mean important for reelection, important for public safety, important for the local economy - why something is important is politics and speculation, that it is important is budgeting) I believer in conjunction with pressure applied by the media and special interest groups, the state is also feeling the pressure from the pending, and expensive, DOCCA lawsuit. This combined pressure, along with diminishing state resources, is causing the state to proactively look at solutions to decrease the treatment backlog of sex offenders in DOC.
However, the LBO representative learned Thursday that successful completion of treatment does not necessarily equal a smaller sex offender population in prison since the parole board has only averaged a 5 percent parole rate of eligible sex offenders for each of the last two years, while the sex offender population is growing by a rate of about 200 inmates annually. The 5 percent recent parole rate only comes to approximately 35 inmates paroled a year. Prior to 2008, the parole rate was a dismal 0.8 percent over 10 years.
I believe the LBO is researching a plan to increase the MHD in the short run to push more inmates through treatment before the lawsuit is litigated. I felt a skepticism from the DOC-B that the program's results produced a safer society and sex offender, thus not worth the expenditure of limited resources, particularly on an incarcerated population polls show are hated by society as much as terrorists and drug cartels.
It appears that the LBO was looking to expand the two phases treatment model advocated by the SOMB. I do not believe that an assumption can be made that any part of the treatment model (Phase I, II, polygraphs) will be reduced or eliminated. Any speculation in this area, I believe, is pure wishful thinking and rumor.
I do believe that the LBO will take back to the legislature that increasing expenditures on sex offender treatment will not, by itself, reduce the sex offender prison population. It is impossible to know what effect this news will have on state leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment