Policy Option Associated with the Emancipated Prison Rape Elimination Act - Research Paper Example

? Policy option associated with PREA Executive Summary Current policy associated with PREA primarily deals with maximizing training and participations among the correctional staffs in order to make sure they would be able to understand and appreciate the significance of prison rape and the need for its eradication in the prison system. However, there seems nothing new with policies relevant to maximum training enhancement. As a result, concerned individuals, especially the correctional staffs in PREA might be tempted to perform everything out of obligation. For this reason, training policies alone cannot be fully relied on especially if there is a need to implement dynamic change. This should require sufficient level and amount of control. This eventually paves the way for another substantial policy under the existing PREA. In this paper, the proponent considers two policy options: intense work knowledge with experts and enhancement policy; and standardization of operating procedure policy. Under the policy ensuring intense work knowledge enhancement with experts, the correctional staffs are expected to become more experts in doing their respective role in the custodial setting with LGBT youth. Instead of becoming a potential source of verbal and physical harassments, they would become primarily source of eventual change in the juvenile system primarily in dealing with LGBT youth, their safety and sexual orientations. However, this would basically incur remarkable amount of cost on the side of the government or state. This would also lessen maximum actual work activity at the custodial setting as the correctional staffs must undertake field exposure together with experts. Thus, additional manpower must be provided to compensate their absence in the actual custodial setting activity. On the other hand, the second alternative course of action is easy to monitor output and result, so deviations of performance for the sake of maximizing control could be widely observed. In addition, once this policy has ran all throughout the entire juvenile justice system, the measure of productivity and efficiency could also be standardized, with equivalent measures for all, making it less complex to monitor activities and performances. However, there is a need to consider the level of up to what extent some changes can be reasonably made, knowing the fact there are various circumstances and situations that need careful considerations from various states. Among these two policies, the best rationale used in order to choose which is appropriate is the consideration of less political domination upon its actual implementation. It seems policy next to the status quo seems to less complicate the future political associations within the juvenile justice system, for it primarily deals with actual performance and output. Ensuring actual performance and output may less complicate political control or domination within the justice system as the actual service involved could be directly be imposed to providing the best safety and equality LGBT youths deserve within the juvenile justice system. 1. Introduction According to the ‘The National Transgender Discrimination Survey’ around 15 percent of Trans people experienced sexual assaults while in prison.1 This is quite alarming because to be sexually assaulted is not supposed to be part of the sentence and according to the authority it should not be part of the sentence. The emancipated Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) has been viewed to help the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) especially those youth in custodial settings to be protected from sexual assaults while incarcenerated. After all, even though they might have different sexual orientation compared to normal heterosexual individuals, they are still humans who have the basic right generally covered by the state. Part of this is their right to protect themselves from being sexually exploited and to only deserve the sentence associated with whatever crimes they would be found guilty. The PREA seems to be at the right timing in order to create a positive impact on the safety, especially the LGBT youth under custodial settings. There are many important things that we have to know concerning the PREA Standards and general policies of juvenile agencies. These include terms and definitions that staffs need to understand; the risks for LGBT youth in custody; the National PREA Standards that could be applied to LGBT youth; elements of the law relating to safety, security and needs of LGBT youth; and the components of legally sound and effective policy and practice.2 1.1 Time to focus on LGBT youth In the US, the LGBT youth includes individuals that need to have significant attention primarily on sexual health care. Prior to access to state custody, these young people may have undergone substance abuse and sex in exchange for money or drugs.3 In other words, they have quite different perspectives when it comes to sex and other related acts. Worst, these individuals may have potentially acquired high risk for HIV/AIDS and other related sexual diseases. The US has long been implementing Youth in State Custody program, but violence and abuse continue to be experienced by LGBT youth. As experienced and observed by experts, the lack of support for LGBT youth may potentially result to significant emotional distress, risky sexual behavior, substance abuse, and high rate for attempted suicide.4 This only shows that in all aspects, the LGBT youth needs to have careful focus and attention as a large number of them comprise the entire population of the US. Study reveals that 5 to 10 percent of the population comprises LGBT, but it is hard to obtain data of LGBT youth as they have substantial issues associated with revealing their identity.5 This only implies that the government needs to create more meaningful campaign respecting the identity of LGBT youth in order to help them in various aspects in life including but not limited to psychological and emotional needs. As the LGBT youth may become susceptible to emotional distress and risky sexual behavior, it must be a great concern of the state to look at their maximum welfare since they must also come at a significant number of populations. For this reason, government programs concerning their welfare must be given considerable amount of time. One of this must include LGBT’s concern about sexual assaults most particularly when they are in prison. Prison rape concerning LGBT youth must be entirely eliminated, as it would only extend some remarkable problems LGBT young people encountered outside in prison while they are incarcenerated. Instead of a recovery and restoration, this might just worsen emotional distress and risky sexual behavior of the case of LGBT youth with criminal offense. So it is important to learn more about the emotional and psychological needs of LGBT youth. Concerning this, staffs or officers associated with this concern must be fully educated and with vital training experiences and programs in order to address this one of society’s concerns. In fact, based on the study conducted by the New York juvenile justice system reveals that adults lacking expert ideas and policies while working with LGBT youth only results in verbal and physical harassment usually initiated by peers and even among the staffs.6 Considering that these continue to happen in the US, in fact, as remarkably one of the bases of formulating PREA, LGBT youth are still in a higher risk of sexual assaults, knowing the fact that adults and staffs working with LGBT youth under custodial settings still require higher understanding and skills in working with individuals with a different sexual orientation in life. This is the very point why focusing on LGBT youth under custodial setting is necessary especially in formulating policies that could highly provide maximum consideration of youth with different sexual orientation. 1.2 Time for a strategic reassessment of policy The birth of PREA is just the beginning and it may not be therefore the ultimate solution so that LBGT youth could be given with their maximum right and privilege while under custodial setting. Under PREA and its implementation, adults and staffs working with LBGT youth requires learning many things and so the government including the executives assigned to emancipate this act must consider significant understanding of youth with different sexual orientation. For instance, various researches are conducted in order to understand the psychology of LGBT youth and their emotional needs. Knowing this information could determine the appropriate way how they could be handled by adults and staffs while they are in an ongoing custodial confinement and even rehabilitation program. Verbal and physical harassment towards the LGBT youth might be potentially alleviated or even hindered when adults and staffs who would attend to them have substantial knowledge and skills on their respective role towards the entire custodial setting activity. Foster care and juvenile justice facilities must be conducive for learning many things among the youth. However, in the first place, this could not be successfully considered if the involved staffs are not that competitive to perform their actual role. Now therefore is the time for strategic reassessment of policy under the emancipation of PREA. For this reason, it is not only good to promote the system itself, but the inclusion of quality and standard implementation or standard operating procedure is necessary. This would primarily include the actual responsibilities of front-line staffs and adults working to directly supervise LGBT youth. The need for policies associated with ensuring their maximum program is necessary. After all, PREA itself cannot be fully implemented well and be realized together with its maximum effectiveness without the required standard output of the actual performing staffs and adults who would constantly work with the LGBT youth. The strategic reassessment of policy would only ensure adults and staffs working directly with LGBT youth to gain their competitive edge in performing their actual functions and roles. Without the required guidelines and even their strategic evaluation, the juvenile justice system cannot eventually stand in its competitive edge. The actual management in this context must substantially require actual strategies in order to ensure something good must be obtained in the end. Part of this strategic assessment is therefore to ensure that adults and staffs must be exposed to actual activities where there is going to be some remarkable changes in their output for the benefits of LGBT youth. Trainings and other relevant exposures are necessary, but of course the government must also ensure specifying allocated budget. For this reason, effective planning system must also be required in order to effectively promote the actual strategic assessment program. 2. Status quo policy Currently PREA is requiring training of correctional staffs in order to make sure they would be able to understand and appreciate the significance of prison rape and the need for its eradication in the prison system.7 This considerably includes understanding of the LGBT youth and their sexual orientation in particular. 2.1 Status quo policy course of action The associated course of action associated with the status quo policy includes training of correctional staffs. Training of correctional staffs This is in fact the most logical approach to do in order to ensure PREA will be fully implemented especially within the juvenile justice system. Everything must start in here so that the actual output would be to produce results, created by the correctional staffs as the front-line actors or stakeholders towards the ultimate success of PREA. 2.2 Advantages of status quo policy This policy is easy to understand as most of the policies in the US should definitely start from training and knowledge enhancement. The goal of this policy is clear, making it easy for the correctional staffs to follow in great detail. The ultimate goal they must bear in mind is to learn more about their actual role in the implementation of PREA. For this reason, this policy is not that complicated to follow and as such, the government must expect high level of actual result of implementation. 2.3 Disadvantages of status quo policy There is nothing new with policies relevant to maximum training enhancement. As a result, concerned individuals, especially the correctional staffs in PREA might be tempted to perform everything out of obligation. For this reason, training policies alone cannot be fully relied on especially if there is a need to implement dynamic change. This should require sufficient level and amount of control. This eventually paves the way for another substantial policy under the existing PREA. 3. Intense work knowledge with experts and enhancement policy There is a need to revise the status quo policy as it seems only to emphasize training as the basic highlight of the program. However, there are many things to consider in PREA, and one of them should be a close hand on hand work encounters with experts. This does not only ensure maximum training enhancement among the correctional staffs, but the bottom line is making them experts as well. Technically, this is also a hybrid of a training and enhancement program, but what seems new in this policy is the relevant inclusion of forcefully making the correctional staffs to become more experts at what they do. 3.1 Policy course of action What is quite significant in this policy is the inclusion of constant control, increase of knowledge and expertise. Constant piggy-back session In this policy, there should be a remarkable constant-piggy back session. Correctional staffs should be given maximum exposure to the actual field of clinical psychology, counseling and actual field activities and programs. They must also constantly be exposed to the actual human psychology and behavior. In this policy, there is a great area of concern of developing the actual skills and know-how required to understand the behaviors of individuals belonging to those with different sexual orientations. 3.2 Advantages of intense work knowledge enhancement with experts policy The advantage of this policy is clear. The correctional staffs are expected to become more experts in doing their respective role in the custodial setting with LGBT youth. Instead of becoming a potential source of verbal and physical harassments, they would become primarily source of eventual change in the juvenile system primarily in dealing with LGBT youth, their safety and sexual orientations. 3.3 Disadvantages of intense work knowledge enhancement with experts This is basically would incur remarkable amount of cost on the side of the government or state. This would also lessen maximum actual work activity at the custodial setting as the correctional staffs must undertake field exposure together with experts. Thus, additional manpower must be provided to compensate their absence in the actual custodial setting activity. 4. Standardization of operating procedure policy This policy is based on the idea that when there is uniformity, the actual emancipation of change is straightforward. For this reason, all correctional staffs at the juvenile justice system must perform the same standard operating procedure in order to create remarkable and uniform output for the entire duration of PREA. 4.1 Course of action Quality and control must come into play when dealing with output and achievement of maximum performance. This is one of the basic considerations of employing standardization of operating procedure policy. Centralized and closely monitored activities at the federal level This policy requires both quality and control, outside from its being fully knowledge-based. It is assumed under this policy that correctional staffs must undergo significant training and enhancement activities, but this must be implemented under a standard operating procedure. The goal is to eventually create a uniform output for the benefit of the juvenile justice system, particularly the LBGT youth having different behaviors and sexual orientations. 4.2 Advantages of standard operating procedure It is easy to monitor output and result, so deviations of performance for the sake of maximizing control could be widely observed. In addition, once this policy has ran all throughout the entire juvenile justice system, the measure of productivity and efficiency could also be standardized, with equivalent measures for all, making it less complex to monitor activities and performances. 4.3 Disadvantages of standard operating procedure In this policy, there is a need to consider the level of up to what extent some changes can be reasonably made, knowing the fact there are various circumstances and situations that need careful considerations from various states. In fact, this is the very reason why there are varying systems of laws and even justice programs from various states because of taking into account some issues or circumstances. For this reason, the standardization of operating procedure may be a bit harder to implement at the national level as every state must create necessary adjustment. There is a need to consider tough changes that at some point may simply overlap other major considerations in the justice system. For instance, applying this policy may simply require some important amendments in other laws pertaining to the juvenile justice system. 5. Recommended policy In the US, the issue about equality is always a strong consideration in whatever government programs and justice system activities would be initiated, the root of various political argumentations. The issue about sexual harassments among LGBT youth under the custodial setting is another remarkable consideration in line with justice and equality. This issue always has political implications and law-makers and executive bodies are always looking forward to the best justifications in order to create performance approved by the people. This is therefore the best rationale that could be possibly created behind choosing the best policy for optimizing LGBT youth’s security against rape and violence inside the prison system in the US. Integrating the reality, there must always be political implication of whatever actions the policy makers will do. In line with this basic purpose, it seems policy next to the status quo seems to less complicate the future political associations within the juvenile justice system, for it primarily deals with actual performance and output. Ensuring actual performance and output may less complicate political control or domination within the justice system as the actual service involved could be directly be imposed to providing the best safety and equality LGBT youths deserve within the juvenile justice system. Endnotes Read More