Neoliberalism is a foundational expression of 21st‐century capitalism. This article advances critiques of neoliberal influences on social welfare in the United States by detailing how core neoliberal principles such as individualism, freedom of choice, rationality, self‐interest, utilization of market mechanisms, and non‐intervention of the state have become institutionalized in contemporary social services as (i) welfare capitalism, (ii) privatization, (iii) contract service delivery, (iv) individual savings strategies, (v) voucher systems, (vi) consumer‐directed spending, and (vii) labor market activation. The authors provide an overview of capitalism and classic economic liberalism as incubators of neoliberalism and describe each mechanism and propose a framework to visualize their interrelated structure. As indicators of market sprawl, these mechanisms express and perpetuate deep market involvement in the health and human service sector. It is argued that the neoliberal institutionalization of social services is antithetical to the goals of a modern welfare system, and instead creates punitive and restrictive programs and policies. Recommended actions include critique and empirical examination of how market mechanisms influence the social services sector, specifically regarding the intermediary role of government‐funded private sector service provision.
Despite being the first state to abolish the capital punishment of defendants with intellectual disability (ID), Georgia is currently the only state to uphold what is considered to be the most stringent standard of proof of ID in the United States: beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states have implemented less stringent standards of proof (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the execution of persons with ID unconstitutional in the 2002 Atkins decision, states are at this juncture considered to have a great deal of discretion in defining what constitutes ID. In addition to raising concerns about the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, variation between state-determined definitions of ID raises important questions of equal protection of the law. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Warren Lee Hill was executed by method of lethal injection in the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Hill’s claim to have met the state’s legal definition of ID beyond a reasonable doubt. This article provides a historical and legislative background for the case of Warren Lee Hill, while examining the definitions of ID (including adaptive functioning) in the legal and clinical arenas. Last, this article will take a critical stance with regard to the current diagnostic criteria being used in the state of Georgia.
In 2019, the viral pandemic known as COVID-19 touched and indelibly impacted the global community, including the United States. The impact of COVID-19 was particularly onerous for the US’s incarcerated. Not only is the United States the leading incarcerator in the world, but the the carceral system represents the nation’s largest de facto mental health treatment setting. The carceral system is overrepresented by people of color, people with disabilities, and people of lower socioeconomic status—with great overlap between these populations. In combination with tough-on-crime policies, the US prison population also now finds itself aging, a process accelerated by confinement. The present systematic literature review describes the current state of peer-reviewed scholarship addressing the impact of COVID-19 on mental illness, incarceration, and their intersection in the United States. To be considered for inclusion, articles (1) were based in the United States or, if a global study, explicitly inclusive of the United States; (2) addressed COVID-19 and mental illness, COVID-19 and US incarceration, or COVID-19 and mental illness and US incarceration; and (3) were published or in-press between December 2019 and October 2021, as either a peer-reviewed commentary or research article in an academic journal. The final literature sample yielded 34 peer-reviewed articles. Ten themes and accompanying figures were developed within each of the three intersections: Intersection #1, COVID-19 and mental illness; Intersection #2, COVID-19 and US incarceration; and Intersection #3, COVID-19 and mental illness and US incarceration. Implications for respective US policies, programs, and systems are discussed.
Changes to U.S. immigration policy have implications for social work, owing to the ethics-based foundation of the profession. The twin purposes of this mixed-methods case study are to describe the detainment and deportation processes, and their implementation at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia (notorious for its disparately high rate of deportation); and, to discuss social work’s ethical role in relation to immigrant populations and immigration policy issues. To achieve analysis, we collected data at the Stewart Detention Center, directly observing a sample of 39 immigration court hearings across 4 separate time points between June and September of 2018. We use univariate statistics to describe the sample in terms of hearing duration, demographics of detained persons, characteristics of judge and attorney interactions, removability charges, and hearing outcomes. Our analysis includes mappings of 2 courtrooms and a thick and rich narrative description of our first trip to the Stewart Detention Center in June, 2018. Identified themes across court observations include: (a) lack of uniformity in process, (b) adoption of criminal justice norms and procedures without inclusion of protective factors, (c) layers and barriers to communication that present as isolating, and (d) a seeming emphasis placed on the voluntary departure option. We conclude with a discussion of implications for social work and respective recommendations for engagement.
Public attitudes, negative stereotypes, and stigma are essential to cultural narratives about the membership status of people with intellectual disability and people who have immigrated to the United States. With a concern for the exclusion of people from participation in democratic societies, this mixed methods study explores conceptual links between the criminalization of intellectual disability and immigration. The overlay of criminal justice norms and practices onto civil law without parallel adoption of safeguards results in the misallocation of risk to individuals with out-group membership status. This study offers conceptual analysis by applying to the policy issue, standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases, the framework of membership theory and related constructs present in the scholarly literature on immigration policy. Exact measures logistic regression is used to predictively link states’ standards of proof of intellectual disability with immigration status. It was found that the best model predicting the probability of a Higher than Preponderance standard of proof of intellectual disability in death penalty cases was a two-variable model consisting of Prior Ban and Unauthorized Immigration. This study presents recommendations for research and policy practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.