Trauma Treatment in Forensic Settings: Clinicians' Perspectives, Barriers to Effective Treatment, and Suggestions for Clinical Practice

Between 30% and 90% of the prison population is estimated to have survived traumatic experiences such as sexual, emotional, and physical abuse prior to incarceration (Anonymous, 1999; Fondacaro, Holt, & Powell, 1999; Messina & Grella, 2006; Pollard & Baker, 2000; Veysey, De Cou, & Prescott, 1998). Similarly, information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (as reported in Warren, 2001) estimated that more than half of the women in state prisons have experienced past physical and sexual abuse. Thus, given the astonishing number of inmates who appear to be victims of some kind of trauma, it seems likely that those who work with these inmates (e.g., prison staff, guards, and treatment providers) will in some way encounter challenges related to the inmates' trauma history. These difficulties may appear in any number of forms including inmates' behavioral outbursts, increased emotionality, sensitivity to triggering situations, and chronic physical or mental health needs (Veysey, et al., 1998). It is also likely that these individuals with trauma histories would benefit greatly from treatment while incarcerated. This treatment could be utilized to minimize symptoms of posttraumatic stress, decrease behavioral problems, and help the inmate function more effectively in society when released from incarceration (Kokorowski & Freng, 2001; Tucker, Cosio, Meshreki, 2003). Few studies have explored the types of trauma treatment that are effective with inmate populations or made specific suggestions for clinicians working in forensic settings (Kokorowski & Freng, 2001). Essentially, there appears to be a large gap in terms of the need for trauma treatment for inmates and the lack of literature addressing what to do about it. However, clinicians across the country seem to be quietly attempting to fulfill this need for trauma treatment with incarcerated populations. They are providing this greatly needed treatment every day. in the face of enormous challenges and often without recognition or the opportunity to share their valuable work with the larger community.

Enhancing Conservation Options: An Argument for Statutory Recognition of Options to Purchase Conservation Easements (OPCEs)

The most dynamic component of the conservation movement in the United States for the past three decades has been land conservation transactions. In the United States, land conservation organizations have protected roughly 40 million acres of land through transactions. Most of these acres have been protected using conservation easements. Climate change threatens the vast conservation edifice created by land conservation transactions. The tools of land conservation transactions are, traditionally, stationary. Climate change means that the resources that land conservation transactions were intended to protect may no longer remain on the land protected. Options to purchase conservation easements (OPCEs) have long played a modest but important role in conservation law practice. In the world climate change is creating, with its substantial uncertainties and shifting windows of opportunity, OPCEs can serve more complicated and strategic purposes. The ability of OPCEs to serve important roles in protecting land in the context of uncertainty would be significantly increased if state legislatures amend current conservation easement statutes to (1) specifically recognize OPCEs, (2) immunize OPCEs from a range of potential common law challenges, (3) guarantee the durability and transferability of OPCEs, and (4) integrate OPCEs into the burgeoning body of conservation easement law. These statutory amendments would do for OPCEs what conservation easement statutes have done for conservation easements: transform them into an essential multi-purpose tool for conservation in a changing world.