A History of Forensic Social Work in the US (2009) PDF

A History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 2 Mary Lou Killian Tina...

A History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 2 Mary Lou Killian Tina Maschi Social workers respond to individuals in the criminal justice system, and work to change the system in which such individuals find themselves. Moreover, social workers not only respond to individuals affected by state and federal laws, but also work to change those laws. Forensic social work is as old as social work itself, and it represents the full diversity of our profession, which includes advocating for those accused or convicted of a crime; standing up for victims; responding to youth in juvenile justice systems; testifying in court on behalf of both litigants and defendants; supporting and working alongside law enforcement professionals; and working to improve or change the processes and policies of the U.S. justice system. How could social work not be present in all these arenas? Our profession revolves around social justice and human rights. Throughout U.S. history, social justice (and in later years, global and universal human rights) has been the core of the theory and practice of social work. Social workers stand for those who cannot; speak for those who have been silenced; and seek to create conditions of empowerment for individuals, families, and communities. In this light, the history of forensic social work is hard to separate from the history of social work. In fact, one of social work’s first professional societies was the National 11 12 Part I Overview of Collaborative Forensic Practice Conference of Charities and Corrections, formed in 1879—pioneer social worker Jane Addams became the leader of the organization in 1909. This suggests the importance given to corrections, both in early conceptualizations of social services formed over a century ago and in today’s understanding of the proper venues for social workers as actors and advocates. To trace the history of forensic social work, we first need to look at the history of forensic policy in the North American colonies and then at the creation of social work and the introduction of social workers to carry out or change those policies. Exhibit 2.1 lists major historical events in the history of forensic social work in the United States. The History of Forensic Policy The Colonial Era No history of social work can be written without reference to the English Poor Laws of 1601. One reason they are significant is that they represent a merging of law and social policy, a codification of society’s responses to individuals in distress with an emphasis on government as the entity in charge of those responses. The laws responded to people in poverty, dividing them into three categories: deserving, undeserving, and children (Day, 2006). The Poor Laws are also significant because they represent the first opportunity for intervention by individuals who would later create the field of social work: advocates for those on the receiving end of the law. Later, early English colonists were influenced by the laws and systems of England. Legally, this meant they also codified responses to the impoverished members of their settlements: individuals were divided up and then either shuffled to almshouses (for those who could not work) or workhouses (for the able-bodied). They were reluctant, however, to turn to government as the appropriate and responsible institution for maintaining law and order (perhaps exhibiting what might now be understood as communal posttraumatic stress disorder from their experiences living under a monarch perceived to be overly rigid and tyrannical). As a result, early police forces were made up of men patrolling neighborhood streets, first at night, later during the day as well (Blakely & Bumphus, 1999). If a “criminal” were caught, the colonists sought swift punishment, usually of a corporal nature (Popple & Leighninger, 2002). Concepts of right and wrong—and views of human nature at the time—did not suggest that criminals would benefit from rehabilitation or that their victims needed support and advocacy. The first institutions associated with crime and punishment were jails, which were simple holding cells for individuals, both children and adults, awaiting trial or punishment.1 The ensuing political break from England and concomitant development of Enlightenment philosophies, however, popularized a valuing of rationality that in many ways survives today. “Rational man” was thought to be changeable if shown the error of his ways; extrapolated to corrections, this gave rise to “proportional” punishments rather than “punitive” ones and engendered early concepts of rehabilita- tion. After the Revolutionary War, the first prison in the United States—“Walnut Street Jail”—was constructed in Philadelphia in 1790 (Popple & Leighninger, 2002). Because at that time crime was seen as arising from disorder, prison staff imposed strict discipline, schedules, and order on incarcerated individuals. This philosophy often Chapter 2 History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 13 Exhibit 2⋅1 Major Events in the History of Forensic Social Work in the United States General U. S. History Social Work History Europeans leave European continent, settle in North 1700s—Men on patrol looked for “criminals”; punishment was America. Enslavement of Africans, Native Ameri- usually corporal. cans, and later the Irish, begins. 1790—Concepts of prisons as rehabilitative grow; the first prison in the U.S. opens in Philadelphia: the “Walnut Street 1766—North American colonies become indepen- Jail.” dent from England, create the United States Conceptualizations of corrections develop to include propor- 1787—An Age of Rationality spreads through tionate sentencing and programs encouraging reform. Europe and influences the writers of the U.S. 1800s—Theorists note that determinate sentences undermine Constitution efforts at individual reformation. 1875—The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children is 1812–1814—U.S. and Great Britain at war created 1845—Portions of Mexico are annexed as Texas, 1876—The concept of parole is born; the first parolee is setting off the Mexican–American war from released from the Elmira Reformatory in New York. 1846–1848 1879—National Conference of Charities and Corrections is formed 1861–1865—U.S. Civil War 1898—The first social work training school opens Late 1800s—Varieties of internal combustion 1899—Illinois opens the first juvenile court engines are perfected, setting the stage in the U.S. 1900s for the Industrial Revolution 1907—The National Council on Crime and Delinquency 1920—U.S. women gain the right to vote was formed 1929—U.S. stock market crash sets off the Great 1920—Two thirds of U.S. states institute procedures for proba- tion, a concept originated in Massachusetts. Depression 1921—The American Association of Social Workers is formed 1939–1945—Portions of the world fight in World 1925—Forty-six states now have juvenile courts War II Forensic social workers advocate for social, political, and eco- 1950s—U.S. policy encourages White women to nomic reforms leave work and return home for the sake of their 1940s—Police social workers return to prominence in womanhood and their families forensics 1961—Eleanor Roosevelt is appointed chair of 1960s—Federal social policies begin to emphasize social responsibility and deinstitutionalization of prisoners and the President Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of mentally ill Women; its 1963 report documents discrimination in the workplace 1973—First shelter for female victims of battering opens in Arizona 1960s/1970s—Social movements in the U.S. bring 1974—The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act focus on women’s rights, civil rights for African passes; The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Americans, and gay and lesbian rights passes 2001—On Sept. 11 the U.S. is hit by three simulta- U.S. society sours on rehabilitation and begins to “get tough on crime” neous crimes of terrorism 1984—Victims of Crime Act passes 2001—On Oct. 26 the U.S. Congress passes the Patriot Act, establishing new executive branch powers for certain crimes 14 Part I Overview of Collaborative Forensic Practice carried over to almshouses and workhouses, which by definition were not correctional institutions, but whose operation was often indistinguishable from prisons. More opportunities for social work collaborative intervention were thus being created. The 1800s The 19th century saw a vigorous application of new legal and correctional policies. By midcentury, however, many were questioning if the philosophy was effective. If prisoners were sentenced to a fixed length of time, and if they were going to be incarcerated until their sentence was completed, regardless of their behavior, what incentive did they have to participate in the rigors of rehabilitative programs? Thus, the concept of early release as a reward for “good behavior” was created: Persons under incarceration began to be released early through parole. The first such individual was set free from the Elmira Reformatory in New York in 1876. John Augustus, a wealthy shoe manufacturer in Boston, began social reform in the early 1840s when he started the practice of interviewing adults awaiting incarceration, personally posting their bail, and taking responsibility for their reformation, a pattern that was later instituted by Massachusetts as the process of probation. The practice spread to two thirds of the states by 1920 (Popple & Leighninger, 2002). Probation extended the concept of rehabilitation: those committing crimes could change their ways, either through discipline and programs in prison that could lead to early release, or through strict supervision and reform that could prevent incarceration completely. Though we cannot claim Augustus was a social worker, his actions foreshadowed those of the pioneers in forensic social work and helped solidify approaches to human nature that emphasized a person’s ability to change and grow. Such views would soon extend to those in other “legal” institutions, such as almshouses and workhouses. The 20th Century and the Birth of Social Work National Conference of Charities and Corrections Having declared independence, fought two wars with Britain, another between its own citizens, and experienced many social upheavals, the United States was grappling with a myriad of social issues. It was in this climate that social work as a profession began to develop. The first social work training school opened in 1898. Earlier, in 1879, the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (formerly the Conference of Boards of Public Charities) was created, becoming the National Conference of Social Work in 1917, and joining a collaborative to become the National Association of Social Workers in 1955 (Zenderland, 1998). Trailblazing social workers were concerned with social reform, and law and justice issues were a primary focus (Barker & Branson, 2000; Roberts & Brownell, 1999). The plight of the poor was a major concern of Mary Richmond, a pioneer in social work and the founding mother of casework (Colcard & Mann, 1930). Jane Addams, a Nobel Prize-winning social work pioneer, targeted the systems and policies that affected the poor of her day. Addams was also the founder of settlement houses (Day, 2006). The Creation of Juvenile Courts A key accomplishment of early social workers was to change the policy regarding young persons charged with criminal offenses (Platt, 1969, 1977). Julia Lathrop, Jane Chapter 2 History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 15 Addams, and Lucy Flower pushed to get children out of penal institutions, where individuals as young as 5 were incarcerated with adults. Their efforts led to the birth of the juvenile justice system in 1899 (Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, 1999). The new system saw several innovations. The Juvenile Psychopathic Institute, founded as a result of advocacy by several residents of Hull House, including Florence Kelley, Alice Hamilton, Julia Lathrop, Ellen Gates Starr, Sophonisba Breckinridge, and Grace and Edith Abbott, began to conduct psychosocial assessments of children in the justice system (Open Collections Program, Harvard University Library, n.d.). Again, many collaborators came together—this time to create separate juvenile courts, the first seated in Illinois in 1899. By 1925, 46 states and the District of Columbia had created juvenile courts, where hearings considered delinquency as well as the needs of abused and neglected children. The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC), founded in New York in 1875 and modeled after the early Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, presaged these later juvenile justice reforms (NYSPCC, n.d.). These institutional changes were both fueled by and gave birth to new theories of human nature and childhood. Mary Richmond’s efforts, first in Baltimore’s Charity Organization Society and later as the director of the Russell Sage Foundation, argued for private social work practice, and for creating a system of social work education for “recognizing human differences and adjusting our systems of…law, of reformation and of industry to those differences” (quoted in Colcard & Mann, 1930, p, 5). Jane Addams’s efforts called for structuring policies that saw children not as “mini-adults” but as developmentally different, young individuals needing guidance and care who could not be expected to see the world or make decisions as adults do. Children were thus afforded closed hearings and, eventually, confidentiality of their court records and limitations of the records’ availability once the children attained adulthood (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 1999).2 Collaborative Reforms in Adult Courts At the same time that juvenile courts were being created, U.S. policies regarding the larger criminal justice system were also in flux. With the advent of parole in the mid- to late 1800s and the creation of juvenile courts at the end of the century, reformers gained a renewed commitment to rehabilitation, a concept that had found itself on shaky ground prior to these changes. Prisons were renamed “penitentiaries,” and their goals included repentance (hence the name) and reform of the individual (Blakely & Bumphus, 1999). These goals fit well with the dual aims of social work: changing social systems and changing the individuals who have strayed from those systems. For the latter, social casework was the proper response and individuals in penitentiaries were appropriate recipients. With the creation of the American Association of Social Workers in 1921 (forerunner to the National Association of Social Workers) casework became the central focus, and services focused on offenders made “correctional treat- ment specialists” of social workers (Roberts & Brownell, 1999). Social Workers Call for Social Change Social work swung back to an emphasis on social change, however, when the Great Depression began in 1929. Providing services for the “new poor” (i.e., individuals in poverty who were formerly working class or middle class) helped social workers 16 Part I Overview of Collaborative Forensic Practice realize that policy change was often the proper arena for their profession. Social workers testified before Congressional committees calling for policy revisions, and many New Deal programs were influenced by their expertise. As Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, who had been trained by Mary Richmond, was instrumental in creating reforms, including regulations ensuring safe conditions for American workers and the design and establishment of Social Security (Day, 2002; Frances Perkins Center, 2008). Social worker Harry Hopkins, appointed by President Hoover and again by President Franklin Roosevelt, oversaw new initiatives in the Works Projects Adminis- tration, which focused on youth; these were the forerunners of today’s delinquency- prevention programs (Roberts & Brownell, 1999). In the early 1920s, police social workers were common: they were women who provided social work advocacy as members of groups called Women’s Bureaus, which functioned as divisions within local police departments. These positions were cut following the Great Depression, but returned to prominence in the 1940s. At that time, youth gangs were growing in number, and hundreds of child guidance clinics opened that employed social workers as court liaisons. Community-based councils and delinquency-prevention programs were created; these focused on supporting and intervening with individuals, including children who had dropped out of school, and members of what the courts labeled “problem families” (Roberts & Brownell, 1999). Government Policy Includes Forensic Social Work As great social change unfolded in the United States over the coming decades, changes in policies and approaches to criminal justice also evolved. Within the context of a new emphasis on reform and social responsibility (Sullivan, 2007), Presidents Kennedy and Johnson expanded federal policy and funding aimed at preventing or addressing juvenile delinquency. The prototype initiative was the New York City Mobilization for Youth. Created by a federal grant to the Columbia University School of Social Work, it laid the groundwork for a multitude of similar programs to follow (Sullivan, 2007). Forensic social workers also increased their role in juvenile and adult probation services. The executive director of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency was social worker Milton Rector, who felt that probation officers should hold master of social work degrees. At the same time, federal dollars were allocated for correctional treatment programs for adults, pretrial diversion programs, and 262 youth service bureaus. During this decade, social workers worked in police departments, psychiatric settings, juvenile justice programs, and at probation offices (Haynes, 1998; Roberts & Brownell, 1999). In the early 1970s, Massachusetts social worker Jerome Miller created the soon- copied policy of moving youth in juvenile justice systems from institutions to smaller, community-based group homes. In 1974, the passage of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act intensified the focus on deinstitutionalization (Nel- son, 1984). At the same time, forensic social workers and child welfare reformers collaborated to highlight the incidence of child maltreatment and to create program- matic responses, first at the state and later at the federal level. This led to the passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974), which appropriated funds for child abuse assessment and treatment teams, which were usually led by medical social workers (Day, 2006). In 1973, the first shelter for women battered by their husbands opened in Arizona; later in the decade, shelters for female victims and services for male perpetrators of Chapter 2 History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 17 family violence begin to proliferate. Thus the focus on social responsibility that grew in the 1960s in the United States led to the institutionalization of certain initial reforms in the rights of women and children at the federal level. These initiatives brought a renewed focus on victims’ needs and rights to the forensic social work arena. A Shift From Social Reform to Individual Responsibility Corrections policies began to focus on “get tough on crime” initiatives in the 1980s. Prison populations grew rapidly, and program dollars were stretched thin. Many correctional administrators spent the majority of their budgets on maintaining order and security in their institutions, leaving little funding for services. Feminists brought the impact of crime on survivors of domestic violence and rape to the national spotlight, highlighted by the landmark Victims of Crime Act (1984). The American public was not convinced that prisons were meeting the goal of reforming individuals and debated what to do in response to violent crime. Some have called what followed a “rage to punish,” as harsher sentences and mandatory sentencing laws proliferated (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998). Though treatment services for perpetrators of domestic violence continued to be available, they were in outpatient settings, and the correctional goal of rehabilitation for incarcerated persons began to wane (Haney & Zimbardo, 1998). The United States was struggling to determine a philosophy for correctional work (Gebelein, 2000). Was it truly “correctional”? Or was the point of prison systems to protect the public from the violent offenders locked inside? Was it to deter those who might otherwise commit violent crime? Was the point of prison simply for members of society to feel better because the “bad guys” were punished? Faith in the possibility of rehabilitation was dealt a severe blow with the publica- tion—and some would say the misinterpretation—of Robert Martinson’s evaluation of reform programs, “What Works?” Martinson was one of three researchers, the last to join the project; he published the results early and without his colleagues, stating that little proof exists to suggest that rehabilitative programs are successful (Martinson, 1974; Wilks, 2004). When the full article was published, the conclusions were not as dramatic, suggesting that some efforts were effective under some conditions with some subsets of incarcerated persons (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975). However, it was the first article to make such a claim and its strong questioning of the efficacy of rehabilitation had an impact. In this climate, collaborative forensic social work opportunities shifted from prison-based rehabilitation to community-based victim/witness assistance programs, where it is estimated that approximately one third of the staff are social workers (Barker & Branson, 2000; Roberts & Brownell, 1999). Community-based corrections initiatives, such as halfway programs and community courts, also turned to social workers for expertise. In the mid-1980s, federal monies were appropriated for the RESTTA initiative: Restitution Education, Specialized Training, and Technical Assis- tance. This program of the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion (OJJDP) offered local probation departments and courts the resources to hold juvenile offenders accountable, either through monetary compensation, community service, or direct victim services (Roberts & Brownell, 1999). Currently such programs can be found in OJJDP Juvenile Accountability Block Grants. Related to these approaches are the youth-focused “boot camp” or “tough love” projects that seek 18 Part I Overview of Collaborative Forensic Practice accountability by mandating early intervention for high-risk young offenders. The success of these programs is unclear, and some high-profile failures have affected their support.3 Social Work Post 9-11 The horrific crimes that occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001, and the myriad of local, state, and federal law and justice policies that have followed are creating a new chapter in forensic policy and changing social workers’ roles. President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” led to many new laws, perhaps most significant of which was the Patriot Act: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appro- priate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, passed on October 26, 2001, and revised and reauthorized in March 2006. The Act heightened the role of governmental intervention to anticipate and prevent specific crimes and alters the protections provided for those accused. Although much of the Act focuses on interna- tional security concerns, domestic polices have shifted in its wake, affecting immigrants and those seeking refuge or asylum. In this unfolding arena, collaborative forensic social workers again face a continuum of tasks and challenges, from individual case- work and intervention to policy advocacy and social change. Summary and Conclusions Over 100 years ago, social workers understood that government, as author and institu- tor of policy, can and should be an arena for reform. Their efforts in the justice system set a high standard for forensic social workers of today. Our foremothers saw that advocating for their “clients” meant advocating for systemic reform, as they collabo- rated to apply a two-pronged approach to social welfare: individual and social change. This bifurcation of social action weaves throughout the history of forensic social work. In today’s sociolegal environment, the duality becomes a continuum of options for intervention, as social workers offer an integrated approach for clients across diverse settings. Chapter 3 assists social workers with conceptualizing their practice within and across multiple service systems. Notes 1. This is well before several professions, such as psychology, helped to develop conceptions of childhood and children as developmentally different from adults. 2. Though see Platt’s (1977) seminal work critiquing these reforms as ultimately hurt- ing youth, pathologizing them, and institutionalizing their subservient social position. 3. For a famous example, consider the case of 14-year-old Martin Anderson, who died in custody in a “boot camp” in Florida in 2006. See www.MartinLeeAnderson.com Accessed September 2, 2008. References Barker, R. L., & Branson, D. M. (2000). Forensic social work: Legal aspects of professional practice (2nd ed.). New York: Haworth Press. Chapter 2 History of Forensic Social Work in the United States 19 Blakely, C. R., & Bumphus, V. W. (1999). American criminal justice philosophy: What’s old—What’s new? Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, 63(1), 62–66. Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice. (1999). Second chances: Giving kids a chance to make a better choice. Retrieved on July 27, 2007, from http://www.cjcj. org/pubs/archive.php Colcard, J. C., & Mann, R. Z. S. (Eds.). (1930). The long view: Papers and addresses of Mary E. Richmond. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Day, P. J. (2006). A new history of social welfare (5th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Frances Perkins Center. (2008). Homepage. Retrieved September 2, 2008, at http://www.frances perkins- center.org/history.html Gebelein, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of rehabilitation: Promise and perils of drug courts. In Sentencing and corrections: Issues for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709–727. Harvard University Library. (n.d.). Open Collections Program: Working women: Jane Addams. Retrieved September 2, 2008, at http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/people_addams.html Haynes, K. S. (1998). The one hundred-year debate: Social reform versus individual treatment. Social Work, 43, 501–509. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22–54. New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (n.d.). Our 129 year commitment to the safety and well being of children. Retrieved on July 27, 2007, from http://www.nyspcc.org/ beta_history/index_history.htm Nelson, B. J. (1984). Making an issue of child abuse: Political agenda setting for social problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Platt, A. M. (1969). The rise of the child-saving movement: A study in social policy and correctional reform. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 381, 21–38. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2002). Social work, social welfare, and American society (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Roberts, A. R., & Brownell, P. (1999). A century of forensic social work: Bridging the past to the present. Social Work, 44, 359–369. Sullivan, P. (2007). A selected history of juvenile justice facilities. Retrieved on September 2, 2007, from http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/ caj_a_20070323_juvenile_history.pdf Wilks, J. (2004). Revisiting Martinson: Has corrections made progress in the past 30 years? Corrections Today, 66, 108–111. Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds. New York: Cambridge University Press.