Post by Plus Plus on Jul 13, 2009 15:35:33 GMT -5
A big PLUS for IDOC
By RICHARD JOHNSON
Local Columnist
One item of interest that came up at a recent prison advisory board meeting was the revelation that Indiana’s prison system is now basically full. With twice as many new offenders coming in as leave the system, reaching critical mass was inevitable. Many of those returning are repeat customers.
With 65 percent of inmates returning to prison within three years of their release, recidivism is clearly a big part — possibly the biggest part — of our overcrowding problem. The state is taking steps to reduce recidivism, but under the weight of an 8 percent to 10 percent annual increase in the size of Indiana’s prison population, it is going to take an all-out effort to get ahead of the curve.
Over the past decade or so, correctional systems around the country began to allow Christian organizations like Prison Fellowship, the largest prison ministry in the world, to offer faith-based re-entry programs inside their prisons. Prison Fellowship’s Christ-centered program is very successful; it reduces recidivism by facilitating permanent inner change in individual program participants.
Prison Fellowship’s program at the Jester II Unit in Sugarland, Texas, one of the first of its kind in the country, has achieved a 4 percent recidivism rate. That’s right: Only 4 percent of the inmates who completed the program have reoffended.
Stack that up against the 65 percent normal recidivism rate, factor in the cost of locking someone up over and over again, and — well, you do the math.
When correctional system professionals took a look at the low recidivism rates achieved by faith-based re-entry programs, many concluded that it was worth starting similar programs in their own facilities. Operated for the most part by Christian churches and ministries, faith-based re-entry programs began to spring up in prisons and jails throughout the country.
Eventually, the lawyers who get nervous whenever God’s name is mentioned in public got involved — people like Americans for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Forget that the programs worked and had the potential to change thousands of lives and save the taxpayers millions of dollars. Forget that these were entirely voluntary programs, and that inmates were not forced to participate. Forget that any faith group — be they Moslem, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Tree Worshippers — was free to develop programs of their own and offer them for the benefit of inmates who subscribed to their religions.
God was involved, and that was bad, bad, bad.
Americans for the Separation of Common from Sense and similar groups started suing to put an end to these highly effective programs, tying up public resources that could have been put to better use and throwing a wet blanket over one of the few recidivism-reducing efforts that actually worked. They didn’t seem to care about helping to make good public policy; they seemed more interested in imposing their beliefs on others.
Indiana Department of Corrections, or IDOC, took a look at the reasons other jurisdictions were being sued, and developed a program which, if it is designed and implemented for maximum results, should be bulletproof.
IDOC’s stated goal is to begin the re-entry process for “fresh fish” on the first day they enter prison, rather than wait until shortly before their release to ask whether they have a plan for life after prison. This is an excellent idea.
IDOC’s Purposeful Living Units Serve, or PLUS, program has potential. Inmates have a choice of two tracks: They can opt for a faith-based track, which includes instruction in their chosen faith, or they can choose a character-building track, with its strictly secular curriculum.
Whichever track they choose, the PLUS program helps inmates redeem the time they serve by using it to prepare themselves to succeed in the free world after their release. This is much better than having them sit around doing nothing.
The PLUS program is an admirable idea, and well worth pursuing, but IDOC is going to need help — lots of help — in order to pull it off.
It takes time and resources to develop an effective program. In this era of belt-tightening, it is unclear whether the PLUS program will receive adequate funding. PLUS must compete with other priorities within IDOC, such as the ongoing need to recruit and train new officers. As a relatively new program, PLUS may suffer in the competition for dollars.
Another challenge for the PLUS program is its heavy reliance on volunteers to teach the classes and handle other aspects of the program. People willing to endure the background checks and training required to volunteer in a prison facility are not easy to recruit, and just as hard to retain.
IDOC is going to need strong leadership, not just in Indianapolis, but in every prison where the PLUS program is offered in order to develop and maintain a dedicated and motivated corps of volunteers. These will probably have to be paid staff positions.
If IDOC is serious about making the PLUS program work, then it cannot dump the responsibility for each prison’s program on a chaplain, administrator or social worker. These folks have plenty to do already.
It is also going to have to do a great job of selling the program to the staff, including the officers whose responsibilities are to make sure that no one leaves the prison before they have completed their sentences. Thankfully, most prison officers are courteous and cooperative professionals who support the efforts of volunteers to facilitate positive change.
PLUS will help reduce Indiana’s prison population if it is truly a high priority for IDOC and not just part of a public relations campaign. It’s a good program that is bound to improve with the right kind of care and feeding; it deserves a chance to develop and succeed.
Hopefully, there is a leader somewhere within IDOC with the vision, leadership and clout to get the job done.
By RICHARD JOHNSON
Local Columnist
One item of interest that came up at a recent prison advisory board meeting was the revelation that Indiana’s prison system is now basically full. With twice as many new offenders coming in as leave the system, reaching critical mass was inevitable. Many of those returning are repeat customers.
With 65 percent of inmates returning to prison within three years of their release, recidivism is clearly a big part — possibly the biggest part — of our overcrowding problem. The state is taking steps to reduce recidivism, but under the weight of an 8 percent to 10 percent annual increase in the size of Indiana’s prison population, it is going to take an all-out effort to get ahead of the curve.
Over the past decade or so, correctional systems around the country began to allow Christian organizations like Prison Fellowship, the largest prison ministry in the world, to offer faith-based re-entry programs inside their prisons. Prison Fellowship’s Christ-centered program is very successful; it reduces recidivism by facilitating permanent inner change in individual program participants.
Prison Fellowship’s program at the Jester II Unit in Sugarland, Texas, one of the first of its kind in the country, has achieved a 4 percent recidivism rate. That’s right: Only 4 percent of the inmates who completed the program have reoffended.
Stack that up against the 65 percent normal recidivism rate, factor in the cost of locking someone up over and over again, and — well, you do the math.
When correctional system professionals took a look at the low recidivism rates achieved by faith-based re-entry programs, many concluded that it was worth starting similar programs in their own facilities. Operated for the most part by Christian churches and ministries, faith-based re-entry programs began to spring up in prisons and jails throughout the country.
Eventually, the lawyers who get nervous whenever God’s name is mentioned in public got involved — people like Americans for the Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Forget that the programs worked and had the potential to change thousands of lives and save the taxpayers millions of dollars. Forget that these were entirely voluntary programs, and that inmates were not forced to participate. Forget that any faith group — be they Moslem, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Tree Worshippers — was free to develop programs of their own and offer them for the benefit of inmates who subscribed to their religions.
God was involved, and that was bad, bad, bad.
Americans for the Separation of Common from Sense and similar groups started suing to put an end to these highly effective programs, tying up public resources that could have been put to better use and throwing a wet blanket over one of the few recidivism-reducing efforts that actually worked. They didn’t seem to care about helping to make good public policy; they seemed more interested in imposing their beliefs on others.
Indiana Department of Corrections, or IDOC, took a look at the reasons other jurisdictions were being sued, and developed a program which, if it is designed and implemented for maximum results, should be bulletproof.
IDOC’s stated goal is to begin the re-entry process for “fresh fish” on the first day they enter prison, rather than wait until shortly before their release to ask whether they have a plan for life after prison. This is an excellent idea.
IDOC’s Purposeful Living Units Serve, or PLUS, program has potential. Inmates have a choice of two tracks: They can opt for a faith-based track, which includes instruction in their chosen faith, or they can choose a character-building track, with its strictly secular curriculum.
Whichever track they choose, the PLUS program helps inmates redeem the time they serve by using it to prepare themselves to succeed in the free world after their release. This is much better than having them sit around doing nothing.
The PLUS program is an admirable idea, and well worth pursuing, but IDOC is going to need help — lots of help — in order to pull it off.
It takes time and resources to develop an effective program. In this era of belt-tightening, it is unclear whether the PLUS program will receive adequate funding. PLUS must compete with other priorities within IDOC, such as the ongoing need to recruit and train new officers. As a relatively new program, PLUS may suffer in the competition for dollars.
Another challenge for the PLUS program is its heavy reliance on volunteers to teach the classes and handle other aspects of the program. People willing to endure the background checks and training required to volunteer in a prison facility are not easy to recruit, and just as hard to retain.
IDOC is going to need strong leadership, not just in Indianapolis, but in every prison where the PLUS program is offered in order to develop and maintain a dedicated and motivated corps of volunteers. These will probably have to be paid staff positions.
If IDOC is serious about making the PLUS program work, then it cannot dump the responsibility for each prison’s program on a chaplain, administrator or social worker. These folks have plenty to do already.
It is also going to have to do a great job of selling the program to the staff, including the officers whose responsibilities are to make sure that no one leaves the prison before they have completed their sentences. Thankfully, most prison officers are courteous and cooperative professionals who support the efforts of volunteers to facilitate positive change.
PLUS will help reduce Indiana’s prison population if it is truly a high priority for IDOC and not just part of a public relations campaign. It’s a good program that is bound to improve with the right kind of care and feeding; it deserves a chance to develop and succeed.
Hopefully, there is a leader somewhere within IDOC with the vision, leadership and clout to get the job done.