Western Mass RLC | Healing and Recovery Through Peer Support

Hearing Voices in Boca Raton

Monday, February 24—Wednesday, February 26, 2020

@ Boca Raton Community Center, Boca Raton, Florida

Hearing Voices Groups originated in Europe and now there are over 160 chartered groups in   England alone.  Hearing Voices Groups do not pathologize hearing voices, seeing visions or other unusual experiences.  Instead, group members explore these phenomena in an environment of mutual support and curiosity.  They offer people who hear voices, see visions or have other unusual experiences the opportunity to share their experience and explore new ways of coping, understanding their experiences and getting support.

This training is intended to familiarize participants with the Hearing Voices Movement and provide them with the tools and understanding that they need to facilitate groups. These trainings are open to individuals with first-hand experience hearing voices, seeing visions, and/or other unusual experiences, and allies!

Applications due by Friday, January 3, 2020. Apply by clicking here!

A shareable flier is available HERE!

A BIG THANK YOU TO SIGNAL20 FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN MAKING THIS TRAINING HAPPEN!

DMH & The Drug Sniffing Dogs

On Thursday, September 12, the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health held a public hearing on changes in regulations that would allow them to make use of drug sniffing dogs in state psychiatric facilities. Over two dozen people made their way to Staniford Street in Boston, some driving in all the way from Western Massachusetts for the opportunity to be heard.

According to Andy Beresky, Director of Recovery Supports at the Center for Human Development, “The hearing opened with testimony from some of the employees at Worcester State Hospital, and painted a dismal and fearful portrait of an unsafe, prison-like environment where the introduction of more and more people who are held there for criminal involvement were bringing in weapons, substances, and all sorts of contraband, and that other people staying in the hospital were afraid to come out of their rooms.  It all seemed very heavy handed and fear-based, like something out of a dystopian novel.”

Perhaps most interesting in Beresky’s report back was the fact that people were simultaneously arguing in favor of bringing in the dogs while also recognizing they likely won’t work.  In his own words: “There was also a near consensus that this policy change to allow drug sniffing dogs was largely symbolic, no matter if people were for or against the measure, which begs the question of why the Department Of Mental Health is going through with it in the first place.”

Zoe Savage, Coordinator of the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community’s peer supports at Vibra Hospital in Springfield was also present. She reported that she and others spoke to the potential trauma that the presence of drug dogs could add to, but she didn’t just offer critique. She also offered an alternative focus. What must  actually be emphasized, she said, is “looking at factors occurring at the hospital which contribute to feelings of despair and wanting to use, such as constant sleep disruption, enforced medication, disconnection from friends and family, as well as understaffing and insufficiently trained staff.”  

Yet another voice standing in opposition of drug sniffing dogs was that of Ruthie Poole, a member of M-POWER. She spoke from a personal perspective: “The proposal to bring drug sniffing dogs into any psychiatric hospital is a bad idea. For me, being locked in a psychiatric hospital was one of the most traumatic experiences I have ever had. Like many people, I have had some bad interactions that have left me fearful of the police. I cannot imagine the terror I would experience if police officers came in with dogs while I was locked on a psychiatric unit. Instead, DMH should increase the number of peer specialists and recovery coaches available to patients as well as increasing harm reduction efforts such as making sure Narcan is readily available for all patients and staff.”

Points were also shared directly from the Western Mass RLC’s ‘Talking Points’ sheet which emphasized the lack of reliability of drug sniffing dogs, and how dog handlers consistently pass along their own biases to the dogs. The talking points can be viewed here: tiny.cc/DrugDogs

Not all testimony was voiced in person. Some was also submitted directly to DMH in writing. Western Mass RLC Director, Sera Davidow, was among those who were out of state at the time of the hearing. Not known for brevity, Davidow re-capped several points from the aforementioned ‘Talking Points’ sheet, and concluded her statement with the following:

“I would also like to point out that there has been a serious breach of trust with the peer support community, and all those of us who've been hospitalized on a psychiatric unit at any point in our lives. DMH was not transparent about what was happening at Worcester State Hospital at any point, even at in-person meetings where we were told that restrictions were being lifted when that was not fully accurate. I have understood from at least some officials at DMH that there is some hope and intent to rebuild that trust. But I want to be really clear about this:

If you allow drug sniffing dogs to enter these facilities and turn them into even more prison-like, hostile, adversarial environments than they already sometimes can be, there may be no coming back from that decision. And so, the question I wish to leave you with is: Would it be worth it to breach trust knowing that:

• • The dogs are highly ineffective
  • They've been demonstrated to increase hostile and adversarial energies in environments
  • They've been demonstrated to decrease potential for therapeutic impact

The facts are clear, so if your answer to this question is 'yes,' I hope you will also be able to state why you care more about images and illusions than you do about the voice, choice, experience, and wisdom of the community of people it is your mission to support.”

And now begins the waiting game. What will DMH decide?

Talking Points Against Drug Sniffing Dogs

The Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH) will hold a public hearing for people to offer their opinions on whether or not it is acceptable for them to use drug sniffing dogs in their efforts to keep Worcester State Hospital (and possibly other hospitals) free of drugs. Laws have already been amended to allow for the use of drug sniffing dogs in these facilities (see section in red HERE). In September, DMH will also be holding a public hearing to help them decide whether or not they will actually take advantage of these new changes. The hearing will take place on September 12 from 2pm to 4pm in Boston. You can learn more on the details of the hearing HERE. Comments can be offered there verbally or in writing (or both) or by e-mail (no later than September 12) This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

We offer the following talking points for your consideration below:

* Drug sniffing dogs are wrong a majority of the time. According to research, false positives (a dog alerting to the presence of drugs when drugs are not ultimately found) ranges from about 63 to 82% of the time. (RMIT ABC Fact Check)

* Drug sniffing dogs are heavily influenced by the bias of their handlers. For example, one study found that drug sniffing dogs had an accuracy rate of 44% during stopped vehicle checks, but that that accuracy rate dropped to 27% when the driver was latinx. (Chicago Tribune)

Read more: Talking Points Against Drug Sniffing Dogs

Strength in Together

A Statement from Western Mass RLC Director, Sera Davidow

I write this on behalf of the Western Mass Recovery Learning Community (RLC). I also write it as someone who was quite directly impacted by a school shooting that took place back in 1992 at Simon’s Rock College in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. That shooting happened 20 years to the day before Newtown. I knew both the person who perpetrated the violence, and one of the people he murdered, Galen Gibson, who was in my entering class of 27 kids in the winter of ‘91.

My message is simple: This violence cannot be blamed on what society calls “mental illness.”

On August 5^th, CBS News published an article detailing the number of mass shootings to date in 2019: 255 shootings in 217 days. (At least) three of them took place in just the last week, resulting in a total of 34 fatalities and another 66 injured. Investigations into each incident are underway, but we’ve already learned that the young man in California had a target list that included various religious institutions, the young man in Ohio had a "rape" list that included women who’d turned him down for dates, and the young man in Texas cited the “Hispanic invasion” as part of his motivation (while also praising the young man in New Zealand who intentionally targeted Muslims). Technically, only two of the three met the threshold of “mass shooting,” because the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has declared there must be four fatalities in a single incident in order to qualify. Meanwhile, Donald Trump gave a nod to racism and white supremacy (without acknowledging his own contributions to the same), then moving on to suggest that people with psychiatric diagnoses should be “involuntarily confined” to “prevent mass shootings." His remarks cited the “mentally ill monsters” that must be stopped.

But, this violence cannot be blamed on what society calls “mental illness.”

Read more: Strength in Together