Called to Freedom
Prepared by Chaplain Farris Robertson of
Recovery Chapel™
Prisons throughout the United States have tolerated or promoted faith-based programs consistently since colonial times. There seems to be no evidence that a constitutional issue arises from voluntary participation in prison based programs that might be implemented so long as no public monies are used that will aid a religious sect or give preference to a creed.
As to the effectiveness of such programs, there are examples of success in South America and the United States both, and no evidence was found that contradicted their anecdotal and statistical triumphs. Even detractors of faith-based initiatives are unable to show that such programs work against the interest of the public, cost the state additional money, or create a rise in recidivism. Criticisms of such initiatives usually presume the state is mandating religion or coercing participation in such programs, and both pitfalls should be carefully avoided when constructing initiatives.
Community participation and volunteerism is what makes such programming possible with little use of public monies, and the State can legitimately create and announce such opportunities for community involvement without showing any favoritism. Programs now exist in Texas, Florida, Kansas, Iowa and Minnesota, with the best recidivism data coming out of Texas.
A 2003 study showed that Texas inmates who completed a Christian program
were significantly
less likely than the comparison group to be arrested (17 percent vs. 35 percent)
or incarcerated (8 percent vs. 20 percent) during the two-year post-release
tracking period.
The key to success for a program is comprehensiveness. A notably successful program will allow inmates access to transformational religious programming, therapeutic programs, and community support for reentry. Models that leave out any of the above are still likely to show success in reducing recidivism, but comprehensive programs will create the kind of results that will entice still greater participation from the community while justifying funding, both key factors in any program’s success.
While institutional treatment and programming often reduces recidivism, release into a therapeutic community (aftercare) is most beneficial:
•
An evaluation of a drug treatment program for 200 inmates at a California state
prison in San Diego found that participants who received treatment in prison,
but not after, had a one‑year recidivism rate of 35%, whereas inmates who
took part in prison‑based treatment with an aftercare program had a
substantially lower recidivism rate: only 17% were back in prison after one
year.
• A study conducted at an in-prison therapeutic community (TC) in
Kyle, Texas found that those who completed the TC and aftercare program were
less likely to be reincarcerated (25%), compared to 64% of aftercare dropouts.
• Delaware's Key‑Crest is an intensive 12 month
prison‑based therapeutic community with an aftercare program.
Evaluations of the Key‑Crest program's first two stages indicate that
after 18 months, 75% of program participants remained drug‑free and 72%
were arrest-free.
Proven
Methods
While the establishment of aftercare communities is not a precise science as of yet, an examination of one of the oldest and most successful programs is worthwhile. The Humaita Prison in Brazil was established in 1972 and in 1988 became a Chartered Member of Prison Fellowship International. While nationally, the Brazilian re-offending rate is 86%, with 65% of the crimes committed being drugs related, the recidivism rate of graduates of Humaita Prison is reported by the courts and police to be under 5%.
The Humaita Prison format, which is partially followed by Prison Fellowship International here in the United States, consists of:
1. Health. Physical, mental, psychological and also physical education.
2. Social Reeducation. dealing with social behaviors
3. Instruction. There is a 70% illiteracy level in Brazilian prisons
4. Occupational Preparation. The provision of opportunities and the means for each person at APAC to obtain a trade or professional qualification.
5. Religion. There is strong emphasis in APAC on the Christian faith and there are regular opportunities for worship, for confession, and for the Sacraments. For the Protestants there is access to their Pastors, and for meeting together for Bible study and worship
6. Community Reentry Strategies. The prisoner’s family must be willing to become involved in the prisoner’s recuperation process and so must live within reasonable traveling distance
Most of the successful Humaita format is in place in the United States in some fashion, but nowhere has there been a holistic program that encompasses all of these factors.
Correctional programming is not sufficiently focused on the delivery of transitional therapeutic community, and the development of reentry therapeutic community support systems is an emerging paradigm for which government agencies seem strapped to include as part of a comprehensive treatment methodology.
The reasons that community support systems are generally difficult to develop are simple. Such initiatives are expensive and represent a new budgetary line-item for most agencies without the benefit of an existing cost-justification. Also, the cost-efficient utilization of community volunteers to provide therapeutic community is an option that is not easily explored nor managed by corrections officials.
If we have effective treatment programs that are utilized in a consistent, faith-based corrections environment, accompanied by a reentry plan that includes a comprehensive transition to a faith-compatible therapeutic community, resounding success is inevitable. Few would argue the benefit of such an effort, but the methodology of establishing faith-compatible therapeutic communities has been elusive.
There is ample evidence that an inmate’s optimistic feelings about reentry are largely tied to early successes after release, and there is also ample evidence to indicate that successful reentry is based upon the ability of the program participant to find work and maintain emotional sobriety in a stressful, sometimes hostile, environment. Halfway houses are a partial solution, but are not a therapeutic community on a standalone basis. The need for transitional release into a compatible and healthy therapeutic community is a more complete solution.
An inmate can find their transition to stressful situations easier to handle when they have the support of a compatible therapeutic community. Rather than being freed into a familiar environment that has been full of pitfalls in the past, and rather than be released conditionally to a halfway house where there is no compatibility as it may have existed within a healthy corrections environment, it would be most helpful for each inmate to have an established transitional environment consistent with their prerelease programming.
Release to a compatible therapeutic community within the offenders reentry community could provide the buffering and support to prevent relapse, find employment, learn new behaviors to old stimuli, develop new community, and eventually assume their familial roles with a new healthy attitude and accompanying support system.
Creating such support systems is not a function easily performed by the State even though it serves the State’s interest. Rather, the State should work to encourage, train, and cooperate with budding faith-based therapeutic communities in the delivery of resources that will benefit the ex-offender and his/her family while also serving the interests of the community.
There are several excellent faith-based models currently operating in prisons. Prison Fellowship and Celebrate Recovery offer opportunities for prisoners to find a new life and a new way to live. Also, both programs stress the necessity for a successful transition to the community, with Celebrate Recovery offering thousands of meetings that can help in transition. Still, the obvious challenge in the nation today is to create comprehensive therapeutic communities that will reinforce the faith-based message that has been adopted by the ex-offender and integrate the ex-offender and their immediate family in an ongoing work that will provide them a purposeful and lawful existence.
A model for a national program has been created in Springfield, Missouri
that seeks to:
1.
Recruit churches and communities with an interest in reducing recidivism.
2.
Help each faith-based volunteer find their comfort level in providing
services or opportunities. Some may
provide job opportunities, some teach classes, etc.
3.
Train faith-based volunteers in working with ex-offenders and their
families so as to create a compassionate environment with accountability and
purpose.
4.
Provide faith-based community-wide classes that address the many possible
different needs of their community. (See
the Called to Freedom model for details).
5.
Customize each ex-offender’s and family’s needs based upon
pre-release assessments.
6.
Identify or provide services that will promote the health and welfare of
ex-offenders and their families. (Some
services may be secular or provided by other organizations).
7.
Identify mentors and mentor families that will begin to engage
ex-offenders and their family six months to one year prior to each offender’s
release.
8.
Train the ex-offender and family to become a mentor/mentor family in the
future.
While much of this
volunteer work can be provided by faith-compatible members of the community who
will teach a class, provide a job, offer housing or supply other services, the
more intense work of the faith community will rest in those unique individuals
and families that will engage in the one-on-one spiritual mentoring of the
ex-offender and family.
This is a critical
component of emotional and spiritual support.
Initially these positions can be filled by those rare individuals and
families that have great compassion, wisdom, experience and training.
Later, the successful ex-offenders and their families will be the people
that can best fill that role and provide a faith-compatible and
experience-compatible mentoring system.
Those ex-offenders
and families that are called to this purpose will be the groundswell of success
that makes this model functional and expansive.