Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
Achieving Policy Reform workshop
Achieving Policy Reform was moderated by Dorothy Weitzman of the Boston College Graduate School of Social Work. Her panelists were Michael Cutler, criminal defense attorney; Sidney Gelb, Public Policy Chair for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill; Kevin Norton of CAB Health and Recovery Systems; and Harold Naughton, a Massachusetts legislator (D., Twelfth Worcester).
The moderator set the stage by pointing out that proposed legislation is to be filed in December of this year, and that the Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform urged a comprehensive review of DOC medical services and women’s issues. Ms. Weitzman also called attention to the role that the budget plays in shaping policy for Massachusetts.
Michael Cutler suggested that to legislate change in the treatment of prisoners, taxpayer expense caused by inaction and/or maltreatment within the DOC must be the focus rather than the moral ethics of ignoring the needs of the underserved. Un-rehabilitated offenders are significantly more at risk for recidivating; recidivism raises the tax burden on all citizens. 40% of the prison population is incarcerated in maximum security facilities and many of those prisoners are released into the community straight from maximum lockup. These men often have the (untreated) symptoms of trauma survivors. This doesn’t auger well for lowering recidivism.
Sid Gelb pointed out that the percentage of prisoners in need of mental health services (22%) approximates the percentage of Americans as a whole with this need (20%). Yet the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), the state agency responsible for mental health services in state prisons, has been under-funded for more than 12 years. There are 20,000 MA residents waiting for mental health services; many of the three to four thousand people in shelters are in need of those services. The question left unanswered is whether the DMH is able to provide services to those in prison. (See the comments of Mr. Benedict from the DMH in the Current Realities and Costs panel.)
Kevin Norton suggested that we need to find ways to involve the people served by mental health clinicians in advocating for increased state funding for services, despite the sometimes hostile attitude of legislators. The clients served must be added to the mix of service providers and trade associations that lobby for policy change. It is not sufficient to show government that research demonstrates the efficacy of certain techniques. Methadone treatment is a case in point: despite reliable research demonstrating this treatment to be highly successful in combating addiction, state funding for methadone clinics has been cut. One response to this decision would be to move away from specific organizational state budget line items. (“Line items” in the state budget are well-defined expenses or programs rather than general maintenance funding for an agency.) So rather than a state clinic line iteming methadone treatment, which can then be easily targeted for a veto, the treatment should be rolled into some larger aggregate of services provided.
Rep. Naughton referenced the inability of the legislature to move reforms in the criminal justice system forward, as exampled by the stalemate around Sentencing reform. He spoke of the amount of leverage that the District Attorneys lobby enjoys and their ability to control the flow of legislation in this area. When asked by a session member why the initiative to allow parole eligibility to prisoners who had served two thirds of a mandatory minimum sentence failed, when in over six hours of testimony the proposal was supported by all who testified except for two district attorneys, he responded that those in favor of reform needed to work harder at lobbying. Rep. Naughton indicated his readiness to continue his efforts regarding sentencing reform in the coming year.