William J. Duclos, MCI-Norfolk
The Norfolk Inmate Council (NIC) has made several appeals to the Department of Correction (DOC) and its administrators without success for a treatment model within the DOC for Substance Use Disorders in relation to K-2 addiction. However, this falls on deaf ears.
When a prisoner self admits their Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and seeks treatment and care multiple times, their requests are denied in several forms: no targeted programming, no targeted services, refusal to grant American with Disability Act (ADA) requests. When an individual has a medical emergency due to this condition and lack of care, the DOC’s deliberate indifference is building the hopelessness, trauma, and despair. Loss of job and consequently loss of housing further destabilizes a person. This is a result of the DOC’s “Culture of Punishment” (COP) method of corrections.
The NIC’s disappointment with the practice of throwing people with SUD away and using their addiction to punish those with ADA conditions is frustrating at best. Administrators have made the choice to hold prisoners to a higher standard than uniform staff.
The NIC believes that when a prisoner suffering with an SUD (such as K2) makes every attempt to set a path with mental health and other substance based programs for treatment, DOC should do everything to help them. The NIC believes a 90-day probation period should be applied to help the person regain their footing and get on a positive trajectory while providing sufficient and proper structure for recovery. Such as Treatment Over Punishment (TOP), suggested by the NIC over a decade ago. The DOC’s actions punish people for their disease, which the NIC as a whole rejects. Since as far back as 2011, MCI-Norfolk can document the DOC’s actions coupled with how COVID 19 accelerated the substance disease and created an epidemic with a COP culture. This punishment culture inflames feelings of hopelessness and despair, exasperating past and current traumas.
By way of example, when a DOC employee has an SUD issue, the process exists when the staff member (from the NIC’s understanding) is provided with an addiction program in Florida, and all expenses are paid. Never losing their job or position and coming back to work after a short period of 30 days or so. This is no more clear than with a Deputy Superintendent at MCI-Norfolk who was engaged with law enforcement for an alcohol-related incident some years ago. However, this person never lost their job. Several uniform staff with addiction problems also received treatment and care while maintaining their position in the DOC.
The NIC has sought public records from DOC Clinical Services and DOC Program Services for K-2 Treatment plans in the DOC. Neither division had any responsive records, indicating no treatment plan for prisoners. The only responsive records from the DOC and K-2 addiction have been that of security and punishment, and nothing to treat the SUD. The CRA itself admits to only addressing SUDs in the re-entry continuum and relapse prevention when out, not while incarcerated.
Therefore, the NIC suggests a higher standard not be place upon a prisoner’s conduct than uniform staff in regard to substances. This is construed as the DOC not having any meaningful plan of action for treatment with K-2, excluding prisoners from a similar path of meaningful care that treatment in their struggle with SUDs as staff.
The DOC enjoys emphasizing the Restorative Justice (RJ) programs in the DOC; however, there is no daily application of such principles in operations of the DOC. Applying a similar RJ treatment method of the three pillars as uniformed staff enjoy will also work in addressing the K-2 epidemic with the DOC. Creating a safer work environment provides a positive trajectory for re-entry and safer communities.
