Modified Dialectical Behavior Therapy Program Applied Within a Time-Limited Corrections Setting

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) is an empirically supported therapy developed to treat individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder that has sustained efficacy following completion of the treatment (Linehan, 1993; Van Den Bosch et al., 2005). The core concepts of DBT include mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, emotional regulation, and distress tolerance, which seek to foster more functional ways of interacting with others, coping with distress, and managing difficult emotions. Using a standard DBT format in a corrections setting can be difficult due to the population's multifaceted composition. The Denver County Jail is a unique corrections setting because it contains a unit specifically developed for male inmates with mental health issues. A corrections modified, time-limited DBT curriculum was developed to fit the needs of this unique population. During the course of the group, staff appeared to be accepting of the group material and initial feedback from inmates and officers was positive.

From The Holding Cell to the Holding Environment: Applying an Intersubjective Approach into Trauma Treatment with Women in the Correctional Setting

Abstract This paper investigates themes and parallels related to the traumatic experiences women face within the correctional setting and how these experiences influence women's behavior choices that increase their risk of recidivism. Intersubjective Systems Theory is used to conceptualize the distinct dynamics and impact of trauma with this particular population. Intersubjectivity also informs the changes needed to create an environment that would help women in correctional settings to heal, avoid recidivism, and foster successful community reintegration. Principles from Intersubjective Systems Theory are reviewed in this paper to demonstrate: (a) how developmental trauma impacts the lives of incarcerated women, (b) how these women's attempts at self-healing are often maladaptive and lead to arrests, (c) how the current climate in corrections leads to retraumatization and promotes later recidivism, and (d) what changes in the corrections system would promote optimal healing and better outcomes for incarcerated women. Improved outcomes are defined as healthy boundaries, empowerment in choice of relationships, improvement of social support and occupational skills, and reduction of relapse and recidivism.

Psychological Perspectives on the Civil Liberties of Transgendered Inmates in a Prison Setting

As society becomes increasingly less binary, and moves towards a more spectrum based approach to mental illness, medical illness, and personality, it becomes necessary to address this shift within formerly rigid institutions. This paper explores this shift as it is occurring within correctional settings around the United States concerning the medical care, housing, and safety of transgendered inmates. As there is no legal standard for the housing or access to gender-affirming medical care (i.e., hormone therapy, sexual reassignment surgery), these issues are addressed on an institutional level, with very little consistency throughout the country. Currently, most institutions follow a genitalia-based system of classification. Within the system, core beliefs are held, some adaptive and some no longer adaptive, that drive the system's behavior and outcomes. With regard to transgendered inmates, several underlying beliefs within the system serve to maintain the status quo; however, the most basic underpinning is the system's reliance on a binary gender system. As views of humane treatment of the incarcerated expand and modernize, the role of mental health within corrections has also expanded. Psychologists, social workers, counselors, and psychiatrists are found in almost all correctional facilities, and have become a voice of advocacy for an often underserved population.

Setting Congress Up to Fail

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on Congress’s failure to justify the formula used to determine which jurisdictions would be subject to the Act’s pre-clearance requirement of submitting all changes to voting procedures to the Justice Department for prior approval. This short essay explores one problematic feature of the Court’s analysis: its refusal to consider the legislative record as adequate because it was created to justify the coverage formula after the fact, rather than to facilitate deliberation on the coverage formula before a decision had been made. This reasoning essentially imports from administrative law a rule called the Chenery principle, and as this essay explains, it does so without justification. The differences between administrative and legislative decision making processes compel different treatment by the courts, and treating legislative records like administrative ones, in essence, asks of Congress something it is institutionally ill-equipped to perform. It sets Congress up to fail.