The Illnesses of the Government Policy - Essay Example

 The Illnesses of the Government Policy Introduction Doctor and Medical Director of Southeast Mobile Van Michael Unger, M.D. said: “Psychiatric treatment for those that are coming out of incarceration is very poor” (O’Connor & Navasky, 2009). PBS’s Frontline, under the direction of O’Connor and Navasky (2009), produced the documentary The Released. The film exposes the weaknesses of the government policy regarding the release of mentally ill prisoners. Two journal articles from Amory, Amrhein, and Dery (2011) and Draine et al. (2005) explored the dilemmas of releasing mentally ill ex-convicts without sufficient support. This paper evaluates the government policy for releasing mentally ill offenders, which included providing them the following: a bus ticket, $75, and two weeks of medication. The policy on the treatment of released prisoners with mental illnesses does not adequately respond to the reality of the hardships in transitioning from prison to community life and the long-term treatment needs of the severely mentally ill. Social work has a significant role in helping these ex-convicts achieve greater self-efficacy outside the prison walls through enhancing their access to related basic social and health services and helping them build the relationships and resources they need for their welfare. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Policy Strengths At the least. The government understands that the mentally ill cannot possible care for their welfare immediately after imprisonment. As a result, it provides a free bus ticket, some pocket money, and two weeks of medication. At least, the government does not completely leave them empty handed. In “Research Protections for Diverted Mentally Ill Individuals: Should They Be Considered Prisoners?” Amory, Amrhein, and Dery (2011) studied the concept and practice of diversion for mentally ill offenders, and reviewed the literature on the concepts of “coercion,” “informed consent” and “decisional capacity” of imprisoned mentally ill individuals. They discussed the existing diversion programs for these kinds of prisoners. They explained that government policy provides pre-booking and post-booking programs that direct the mentally ill away from the traditional criminal justice system (Amory, Amrhein, & Dery, 2011, p.797). These programs help them access the medical attention they need, instead of being imprisoned only. Possibilities for improvements. The government policy on mentally ill offenders can be amended. It can be enhanced to boost the support for these offenders. The main emphases are on their preparation for freedom and the provision of mental health services, especially for the severely mentally ill. Weaknesses Unmet basic needs after imprisonment. The transition from prison life to freedom places significant risks on the mentally ill. Reggie Wilkinson, Former Director of the Ohio Dept. of Corrections stressed: “Any person who leaves prison without a pretty good support system will have a very difficult time at trying to stay out of prison. And if you're mentally ill, that compounds the possibilities of you being successful in the community” (O’Connor & Navasky, 2009). These people cannot find or hold jobs on their own, and the program does not help them attain even their most basic needs in the long-run. Poor healthcare support for severely mentally ill ex-convicts. Around 16 percent of those returning to community life have mental illnesses, according to Draine et al. (2005, p.691). The main problem is that continued and comprehensive psychiatric treatment for the released prisoners is nonexistent or poor. These people cannot even meet their basic needs for food and shelter, so the more that they cannot find a source of income to sustain their much-needed medication. Thus, the programs for these prisoners are poor in responding to their mental health needs. Intended and Unintended Consequences of the Policy Intended Consequences Successful re-entry programs. Federal and state policies on mentally ill offenders are increasingly funding and promoting re-entry programs. Draine et al. (2005) formulated a conceptual framework for community reintegration of ex-cons with mental problems in “Understanding Community Re-Entry of Former Prisoners with Mental Illness: A Conceptual Model to Guide New Research.” They reported that “$100 million has been targeted for re-entry programs in all 50 states under the Serious and Violent Offender Re-Entry Initiative” (p.691). They stressed state requirements under this program: “State and local governments are now compelled by consent decrees associated with class actions suits to provide re-entry planning for offenders with mental illness in New York City.” O’Connor and Navasky (2009) showed that some mentally ill ex-convicts are able to access healthcare, but only to a limited extent. Lower recidivism among mentally ill offenders. These re-entry programs should supposedly reduce recidivism among the mentally ill. By preparing offenders for a new life, they can be equipped with skills and resources that can help them become productive citizens. With productivity, they can sustain their basic needs and avoid conducting criminal activities. Unintended Consequences High recidivism among mentally ill offenders. Instead of reducing recidivism, the policy and related programs are increasing recidivism. Dr. Michael Unger said: “This isn't a population that's going to come with their planners and their organizers and keep track of their appointments…” (O’Connor & Navasky, 2009). He added that they cannot “seamlessly integrate their own physical health care issues with their mental health issues and be compliant with their medications … they live, you know, behind a dumpster somewhere” (O’Connor & Navasky, 2009). The gap between target and actual recidivism rate is large. Poor support for long-term health needs. Ex-convicts with mental problems are on their own in the outside world. Debbie Nixon-Hughes, former Chief of Mental Health of the Ohio Department of Corrections explained the predicaments of these mentally ill offenders that affect their ability for successful re-entry: “For inmates released on parole, at least there's somebody that's tracking that person, that's still working with the community to try to get them involved in services, whereas the person that maxes out, they're pretty much on their own” (O’Connor & Navasky, 2009). With proper and sufficient healthcare, these people cannot possibly hope to fund their healthcare needs. Role of Social Work and Ethical Dilemmas Social workers have the complex roles of balancing the response to the needs of the mentally ill offenders and the needs of the community. Draine et al. (2005) asserted that social work has to tackle various, sometimes conflicting roles: “The challenge for front line workers and the multiple systems that employ them is to integrate all these expectations effectively on behalf of the individual as well as the community” (p.705). On behalf of the mentally ill, social workers have to consider their varied individual health needs. These workers must be prepared to handle problematic behaviors from these mentally ill stakeholders. For the community, social workers should be able to interconnect existing health services and resources and the individual needs of the ex-prisoners. They can determine new resources or tap and intersect existing ones. Some of the ethical dilemmas are balancing priorities and respecting the integrity of the mentally ill and making their own decisions. Social workers cannot control or provide services that are not there, but they are still pressured to provide services to the mentally ill. Resolution for Ethical Issues in Social Work Social workers require legal knowledge and advice in handling mentally ill ex-prisoners. They should have sufficient knowledge that can provide legal pre or post-booking references to their mentally ill clients. When in doubt, they should have access to legal advisors who are experts in this field and who are dedicated to promoting the interests of the released mentally ill. In addition, legal advice is important when researching the needs and concerns of the mentally ill. Amory, Amrhein, and Dery (2011) emphasized that these stakeholders should be able to make independent decisions as much as they can, instead of social workers and public agency personnel forcing them to make decisions. Social work should strive to respect the free will of the mentally ill and inform them of their options, so that they can make proper decisions as autonomous individuals. Personal Opinions: The Illnesses of the Non-Ill The existence of inequitable treatment for the mentally ill ex-prisoners is appalling because it portrays the lack of regard of society and the government for the former’s welfare. In other words, those who are not ill in the mind are apparently ill in the spirit. This opinion refers to the overwhelming desire to protect the disadvantaged sectors of society who have no capacity to help themselves, not only because they lack access to the right resources and systems, but because of their chronic mental illness. Because of the poor empathy and consideration of the non-mentally ill who happen to have the power to make laws and programs or to implement them, those who have psychological problems cannot fruitfully live a decent life. They may not be able to live a “normal” life, but as human beings, they deserve to live a dignified existence. The policy of their release, however, does not treat them with dignity. Instead, this policy treats these people as dispensable to the social welfare role of the government. The government aims for immediate and short-term solutions, which are costly for the government and taxpayers. The relapse of these ex-prisoners to their mental illness and into prisons signifies relentless costs. The costs do not only point out to the financial costs, but the social and emotional toll on these prisoners and the people they interact with. Thus, the policy must be amended with greater responsiveness to the long-term needs and issues of the mentally ill, as a whole and as individuals. When possible, they should be prepared for the enhancement of their self-efficacy, while continuing treatment for the severely mentally ill. This policy calls for synchronized interaction between the public and private sectors that can directly and indirectly promote the welfare of the mentally ill ex-prisoners, so that the latter can have a fair chance of living a good life as citizens and as human beings. References Amory, C.W., Amrhein, C., & Dery, R. (2011). Research protections for diverted mentally ill individuals: Should they be considered prisoners? Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29 (6), 796-805. Draine, J., Wolff, N., Jacoby, J.E., Hartwell, S., & Duclos, C. (2005). Understanding community re-entry of former prisoners with mental illness: A conceptual model to guide new research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23 (5), 689-707. O’Connor, K., & Navasky, M. (Directors/Producers). (2009). The released. PBS: Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/released/etc/script.html Read More