This transcript was automatically generated and might contain errors.

[0:00] Ruthie Fierberg: I'm Ruthie Fierberg, and this is Why We Theater.

[0:05] Ruthie Fierberg: The podcast that digs into the onstage works we love to make the offstage change we need.

[0:12] Ruthie Fierberg: After all, that is why we theater.

[0:16] Ruthie Fierberg: Season two has been all about trying new things.

[0:20] Ruthie Fierberg: While editing last week's main episode on the killing of kings, I realized there were certain reforms our experts Anthony and Esther introduced into the conversation, but we weren't as clear as we could have been about how to achieve those reforms.

[0:34] Ruthie Fierberg: My priority every week is to equip you with actionable steps to take to create change.

[0:42] Ruthie Fierberg: I don't want to talk around it.

[0:44] Ruthie Fierberg: I want to make it happen.

[0:46] Ruthie Fierberg: Of course, there is always more to learn, and no episode of Why We Theater is the full conversation or provides every step to progress.

[0:55] Ruthie Fierberg: But this one was nagging at me.

[0:57] Ruthie Fierberg: So I decided that before we get to our mini-episode recommendation tied to the killing of kings, I would release this bonus episode with follow-up questions on more specific ways to act to improve the lives of incarcerated people in prisons and formally incarcerated people as they transition.

[1:17] Ruthie Fierberg: Esther Matthews comes from an academic and policy perspective.

[1:21] Ruthie Fierberg: And while Anthony Dixon last week was phenomenal, and you must listen to his work experiences and his personal story about how he became a victim of the system at the age of seven and never spent another young birthday at home.

[1:42] Ruthie Fierberg: So Esther specifically researched outcomes of ban the box policies, detection of implicit bias against justice-involved individuals, the demographics of restricted housing units and Rianchi programs, and she's examined employment programs for returning citizens.

[1:59] Ruthie Fierberg: So with that in mind, I asked Esther to answer just a few more questions.

[2:14] Ruthie Fierberg: Esther, last week you mentioned the physical conditions and practices in prisons of strip searches, cavity searches, et cetera. And this stood out to me. So are these searches truly necessary every time they take place? If they are, what can we do to minimize trauma? If they're not, who do we write to to demand change? How can the general public advocate for more humane physical treatment inside prisons?

[2:45] Esther Matthews: So most people would argue that strip searches are necessary at certain points in time. I would argue that they're overused, especially in terms of solitary confinement. Anytime an individual leaves their cell, they're typically strip searched if they're in solitary confinement or a restricted housing unit. And that tends to be excessive. If they were strip searched the last time they went in, it's highly unlikely they'll have something. Prison staff would probably disagree with me. But I think we can make these types of searches much more humane if the person doing the strip search is trying to make it more humane. There have been times when I've been strip searched and felt completely dehumanized.

And there are times when I've been strip searched, and although it's an unpleasant experience, I don't necessarily feel like I'm not a human being or the level of shame and embarrassment that sometimes you do, especially if somebody of the opposite sex is doing the strip search. Typically they try not to do a strip search with somebody of the opposite sex, but in most facilities it is still allowed. So there are definitely ways to make it more humane by making it more private and providing extra training for officers.

[4:09] Esther Matthews: On the mental and emotional side, we talked about making prisons cognitive treatment facilities or places where education was offered. And this would be a big change. You know, this would be focusing on the transformation of people inside prisons. But I believe we can make big change if we only start. So what's the first step to making this change? And again, who do we write to, who do we call, who do we tweet?

[4:38] Esther Matthews: It is definitely a big ideological shift to try to make prisons more about transformation and less about punishment or what we think about as retribution. But I think the first step is to start seeing people who are inside these prisons as people and not just as inmates or property of the state, which is how they're viewed now. This type of change would have to begin really with the way that correctional staff are trained because that severely impacts how the correctional staff view and treat people who are in their custody, the type of training that they receive and the length of training. So typically the majority of training for correctional officers involves how they can protect the safety and maintain the security of the institution.

Instead, the majority or the focus of this type of training should be to teach staff how to engage with people who are typically dealing with mental health issues and a decent amount of trauma. So teaching them people skills rather than how they can use force to gain control over somebody.

[5:46] Esther Matthews: So an example of this is over in Norway, correctional staff are really trained for a significant amount of time, much longer than correctional staff in the United States, which can vary by state. But correctional staff in Norway are trained to be mentors instead of law enforcers or just custodians. And they're also taught that they should view people who are in their custody as their future neighbors. And so you can imagine if you're thinking about the way that you treat the individual who's in front of you is going to have a direct impact on how that individual would behave as your neighbor when they're released in a few years. And so it changes the way that the staff treat people by having that ideological shift.

For instance, North Dakota, Maine, Alaska are just a few states that are trying to implement a much more humane system that is modeled off of the Scandinavian model. And if people want to see changes like this inside their prisons, they can reach out to the individual who's in charge of the Department of Corrections. Often this is called a secretary of the Department of Corrections, or the individual in charge of appointing that person, which is usually the governor of that state. But people can also demand change from their state legislatures, which is who makes probation and parole policy, reaching out to all of those people can really impact that.

[7:11] Ruthie Fierberg: My last question for you about the inside of prisons is how do we hold the Department of Corrections, aka the DOC accountable? Who supervises the DOC? Is that through mayoral offices, gubernatorial offices? Who is in charge?

[7:31] Esther Matthews: It's definitely hard to hold the DOC for states and the BOP accountable just because there are so many bureaucratic levels of red tape and there are so many supervisory agencies. So people can really hold them accountable in various ways, right? They can do it through the secretary of the Department of Corrections, the person who actually oversees DOC policy. They can try and do it at their local prisons, which would be a superintendent or a warden of the prison, although they are obligated to upholding DOC policy, although they do have some say in how they implement those policies. And of course, the governor of the state is the person who appoints the secretary of the Department of Corrections or the person who oversees that.

If it's the federal system, the Department of Justice is the person or is the entity that appoints the person to oversee BOP policy. So there are various ways that you can access or advocate for change. And again, you can always talk to your state representative or your senators, depending on which type of policy you're trying to affect, but legislators also have an enormous amount of power.

[8:48] Esther Matthews: When it comes to transitioning out of prison, there are a lot of obstacles to integrating into society for a formerly incarcerated person. And this was actually the inspiration for talking about the killing of kings in the first place. And we absolutely spoke to some of this last week, but I wanted to go a little bit deeper because you mentioned that we could tighten policies around discrimination for formally incarcerated people when it comes to getting housing and getting jobs. So, how do we get those policies to change? Again, who are we writing to and what are we asking them to do? And are there any current policies or proposals that are out there that need support and signatures?

[9:36] Esther Matthews: When we're talking about tightening policies around housing and employment discrimination, the people that we need to be reaching out to would be our state and local legislators, as they're usually responsible for implementing laws like ban the box, and then also state and federal agencies who are responsible for enforcing those laws. So not only do we need to get very specific laws on the books that ban discrimination, especially after a certain amount of time has passed, but we also need to start enforcing laws that are actually on the books. So it's not uncommon for both employers and landlords to try and get around the spirit of ban the box laws or even really to flagrantly violate them because they know enforcement of these laws is horrible and there's really going to be no penalty.

So for instance, I applied for a job recently as an assistant professor. And as soon as I hit the submit button, I was immediately told I didn't qualify for the job. There's nothing different about this position than the other 30 positions I applied to. And I immediately knew I'd been denied that opportunity because of my answer on the criminal history question. But I reached out to HR to make sure. And even though it's still against the law to do that, human resources had no problem telling me that my answer to the criminal history conviction question disqualified me from that position. No explanation. They didn't ask me to talk about the crime, nothing like that, which is what law requires them to do.

They have to prove that my past criminal conviction would make me ineligible for that position. And so this is an example that happens quite frequently because it's next to impossible to get the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws to advocate for people with records. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency that I would file a complaint with. And I looked into that and I was told that the next available appointment would not be, I think, for another 90 days, which you can imagine wouldn't help me get a job. And so you can also imagine that if somebody with a PhD gets automatically rejected because of a very old criminal record and no subsequent criminal contact, how many people without that credential are getting discriminated against, especially if their criminal conviction is much more recent.

So we definitely need more specific laws and much better enforcement. And really, the burden of proof should be on the landlord or employer for them to show why they need access to someone's criminal record and to provide specific charges that would make somebody unsuitable along with the rationale as to why that would be the case. So instead of putting the burden on people with that record who have no resources, the burden of proof should be on the employers and landlords. So the best thing to do is to reach out to your local representatives and state legislators and demand that they introduce better legislation and that they put pressure on the state and local or the state and federal agencies who are tasked with enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

[12:38] Ruthie Fierberg: Fantastic. Esther, thank you so much for spending extra time with us to give us these practical resources.

[12:47] Ruthie Fierberg: All of these will be in the show notes, and I will include links to how you can find who your local representative is, who your state representative is, etc. We want to make this as easy as possible for you.

[13:01] Ruthie Fierberg: So thank you so much for listening to this bonus episode. Next week, a mini episode tied to the killing of kings, and then a brand new episode on another show to teach us why we theater.fm slash W W T or Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[13:33] Ruthie Fierberg: And don't forget to leave a review and tell your friends.

[13:39] Ruthie Fierberg: Why We Theater is recorded in part on the traditional lands of the Wapinger and Lenape peoples.

[13:45] Ruthie Fierberg: I acknowledge this land was unjustly taken from them and pay my respect to elders both past and present.

[13:52] Ruthie Fierberg: Special thanks to Dory Berenstein, Alan Seales, Lee Silverman, Patrick Taylor, Tony Montaneri, Wesley Birdsall, Elena Mayer, and Suzanne Chipkin.

[14:03] Ruthie Fierberg: For more resources for change, info about our guests, and more, visit us at whyweetheater.com.