Criminal Justice Policy Coalition

Progressive Criminal Justice with Sensible Public Safety

Sheriff Michael J. Ashe, Jr.

highlights of the keynote address given September 20, 2004

Sheriff Michael J. Ashe, of Hampden County, began his keynote address "Progressive Criminal Justice with Sensible Public Safety" by stating "I have come to believe that just as criminal justice theory without practice can become esoteric, criminal justice practice without theory can become wanting in perspective and vision," and concluded by saying that regarding "... progressive criminal justice and sensible public safety, I have come to truly believe that you can’t have one without the other."

The sheriff’s talk emphasized programs developed and offered to inmates in his department. These programs have set Hampden County apart from other sheriffs’ departments in the state, receiving national attention and being recently singled-out as a model for correctional facilities throughout the state according to the final report of the Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform. Ashe then described the profile of a typical inmate in his custody: "Our typical inmate has a substance abuse problem; dropped out of school before completing the 10th grade; has a fifth grade reading level; and has no marketable skills, or continuous job record." He pointed out that whatever the reason for incarceration, as sheriff he has an average of a 235 day - less than eight months - to work with a given inmate.

Ashe described the philosophy behind his programming: "offenders would be challenged with the tools and directions to build a law-abiding life. ,... [W]e also put in place a philosophy of respect for the full humanity of everyone in our custody." For his part, the Sheriff has worked to diversify his workforce ethnically and to increase the percentage of women on staff. He personally interviews every potential employee.

On the subject of treatment for addiction, the sheriff stated "clearly and emphatically" that he supports treatment in the criminal justice system, "including as a diversion from that system," and believes that treatment should "take place at the least level of security that is consistent with public safety." He stressed that where "at all sensible," treatment should take place in the community, "not behind fences." He also said that, "where incarceration is necessary, treatment should be a primary and pervasive element of that incarceration."

However, the sheriff cautioned that he is "wary of any theory of criminal justice that resembles a simple panacea," and questioned the idea "that offering treatment will end the need for all but the most violent offenders to be incarcerated."

Explaining his caveat about diversion to treatment, he cited California’s Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act of 2002, and the findings of a U.C.L.A. study prepared for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs of the impact of that Act. The study demonstrate\d that of the 53,697 offenders determined eligible for treatment rather than incarceration, 31% chose either drug or criminal court over treatment in the community; only 69% actually began treatment, let alone sustained an involvement with treatment or completed it.

More locally, the sheriff stated that "less than 40 percent of offenders who were sentenced to probation last year in Hampden County with a mandated participation in the Massachusetts Office of Community Corrections drug treatment program completed that program."

Reiterating his belief that diversion to treatment will not result in the incarceration of only the most violent offenders, he has found that "There are individuals - many of them addicted - who do not exert any internal controls as regards theft."

The sheriff stated his belief that "substance abuse is the ‘determinate deficit’: when treatment works, everything works," but also stated that he believes that sound public policy must consider two factors: first, "that a significant number of those offered treatment rather than the more traditional criminal justice route will not involve themselves in treatment or complete it;" and "[s]econd, that we cannot abandon incarceration as a deterrent to property crimes."

He then described his own department’s treatment programs, which make use of both with intensive community supervision and in a minimum security setting. He underscored that Hampden County utilizes options between 24 hour incarceration and treatment with no community correctional supervision. His department also maintains a regional correctional alcohol center, initially founded for driving under the influence offenders, but now serves others with substance abuse problems.

On the subject of treatment for mental illness, the sheriff cited his own programming, which serves a population of 9-10 percent with severe mental health issues, and called for "appropriate funding for mental health services, such as specialized mental health units." Hampden County, according to Ashe, had such a highly successful specialized unit, but it was closed in 2001 when the Department of Mental Health withdrew funding from the program.

Funding for the unit was restored in the fiscal 2005 budget, and Hampden County will administer a Regional County Correctional Emergency Stabilization Unit for the Western half of the state, and Middlesex County will administer a unit for the Eastern half of the state. He explained that the local stabilization units will function to allow "the serious illnesses of inmates to be treated and evaluated in a safe and structured environment until their mental illness can be stabilized." This, the sheriff said, "is not only good for the patient and for the county correctional facility, but it also results in significant savings to the state because it reduces the numbers of transfers to Bridgewater State Hospital."

The need for these units, the sheriff said, is seen when "every day across this state, without these emergency mental health stabilization units," sheriffs must house inmates with psychological problems in special segregation units alongside inmates that are separated for disciplinary and security reasons. "[T]he stark, harsh, isolated conditions of these segregation units can cause the decomposition of mental health inmates. This is punishing rather than treating them, and we have a moral obligation to do otherwise."

He also called for means to "divert low level non-violent mentally ill offenders through mental health courts, much like drug courts." He explained that "[w]ithout mental health courts, the judicial branch has few choices for the mentally ill other than jail. Misdemeanants who are mentally ill belong in treatment programs and not in jails," noting that some "mentally ill offenders commit relatively minor or victimless offenses such as survivor behavior, vagrancy, loitering, creating a scene, failure to pay for meals, disorderly conduct or trespassing. Inmates who are arrested for these minor offenses are usually jailed, but never treated for their mental diseases."

The sheriff cited a third area of improvement: assurance of continuity of care. He pointed out that "[m]ost mentally ill inmates lack a discharge plan, even a simple appointment slip, and called for a "comprehensive program of release planning," to be required by law. He urged that "[e]very correctional setting should have case managers on their medical staff who provide a vital link and liaison between the community and correctional health care." He sees case management as a tool to protect the investment in treatment, particularly for the mentally ill, whose recidivism rates are much higher than for those without mental illness.

Ashe talked in detail about the medical department developed at Hampden County, which is based on a "public health model," and his establishment of the nation's first after-incarceration program. This program is designed to "assist inmates during the critical time of community re-entry, even though we are no longer under statutory obligation to these people as they are no longer in our custody."

In conclusion, Sheriff Ashe stated his belief that "every human being matters, every human being deserves our active care and concern, and in a time where it is "fashionable to deny the social contract, I believe in the core interrelatedness of all of us and the responsibility of each to all and all to each; I believe more than ever in the social contract, in social justice, and in our responsibility as social workers, human service workers, and workers in our justice and legal systems to embrace and uplift the least among us."