Penetanguishene (Canada) Program-A Personal Review (From Therapeutic Communities in Corrections, P 73-81, 1980, Hans Toch, ed. - See NCJ-72429)

• NCJ Number: 72436
• Author(s): E T Barker
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 9 pages
• Sale Source: Praeger Publishers
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Presented in November 1978 as a Clarence M. Hincks Memorial Lecture at the University of Western Ontario. Reproduced in a slightly modified version under the original title.

Annotation

The nature of coercive milieu therapy as practiced in the Social Therapy Unit at Penetang, Canada, and its application within a prison setting, are described with emphasis on 10 basic principles for program success.

Abstract

Through entrance into the social therapy unit, the total milieu of the inmate is altered, leaving nothing in his prison life that is counterproductive to his reeducation. Central to the reeducation process is the fostering of a social system that embodies specific inmate relationships with focus upon certain values and behavior. Inmates are the principal agents of reeducation, because they are in a better position than professionals for direct encounters with other inmates. Determined and open coercion keeps the therapy available to the weakest inmates in the belief that this form of force is far less dangerous than the covert coercive practices of more powerful prison inmates and guards that would otherwise prevail. Some program features include a training unit lasting 4 to 8 weeks in which inmate teachers initiate the reeducation process with all new participants, a membership in one of several inmate committees that run the coercive milieu therapy program, community meetings twice a day, 7 days a week for purposes of committee feedback and for focusing upon individual problems, and inmate dyads and triads meeting one hour each day for discussion. Among the guiding principles of the program is the genuine cooperation between the therapy program director and the successive levels of prison authorities. To receive support from the guards, security is slightly strengthened before introduction of new programs. Emphasis is on what is best for the group, with conflict mediation between individual guards and inmates and limited program participation by the guards. No changes are introduced without consensus of key guards and key inmates. A balance of power is maintained between introverted and extroverted inmates and a modest number of professional staff is retained to operate the program. Nine references are provided.