Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Description
Chapter 3 – Evaluation
Chapter 4 – Summary, Conclustions, Recommendations
The problem was the
development and implementation of an empathic helping skills program for
selected inmates at the Gib Lewis State Prison, Woodville, Texas.
The first subproblem
was the development of the helping skills program with a focus on love and
empathy. The second subproblem was the
enlistment of a selected group of inmates.
The third subproblem was the implementation of the program.
The first hypothesis
was that a suitable program would be developed within the program time
frames. The second hypothesis was that
the selected group of inmates would remain with the helping skills
program. The third hypothesis was that
the program would increase the selected inmates' ability to use several helping
skills.
The first delimitation
was that the program would not train the inmates to be advanced counselors or
competent in crisis intervention. The
second delimitation was that the program would be limited to those groups of
helping skills generally categorized as attending and empathy skills. The third delimitation was that no inmate
with a recent and severe disciplinary record would be allowed in the
program. The fourth delimitation was
that the participants would be selected by the chaplain with the help of
nominations from the inmate Christian congregation of the Gib Lewis
Prison. The fifth delimitation was that
the program would be biblically based, therefore, all of those selected would
have professed Christ and made a commitment to the integrity and authority of
the Bible.
"Helping
skills," a broad term generally referring to the many techniques used by
counselors, was limited to two categories of skills that help build
relationships. The two categories of
skills were attending and empathy.
"Attending
skills" applied to that group of skills and communications that send to
the hurting person a clear message, "I am interested in what you are
saying." Such skills included body
language, open invitation, minimal encouraging, reflection of content,
summarizing, and reflection of feeling.
"Empathy
skills" applied to that group of skills and communications that send to
the hurting person a clear message, "I understand what you say and feel
deeply about your situation." Such
skills included reflection of content and feeling, personalizing, interpreting,
self-disclosure, and a reflection with a new statement of meaning.
"Freeworld"
applied to persons and life outside of the prison environment.
"Prisonization"
applied to the process whereby a prisoner adapts to prison life by surrendering
his self-esteem and initiative to a dependency upon the system.
The first assumption
was that the Bible is the most significant source of truth regarding the nature
of healthy relationships. The second
assumption was that the God of the Bible is the invisible third party capable
of helping persons regardless of the environment or the skills of the
person. The third assumption was that
love is the principal Christian virtue and the primary source for the highest
and most productive level of relating between persons in general. The fourth assumption was that the church as
a local body of believers is a reality and alive within the Christian
congregation of a prison. The fifth assumption
was that every person desires and needs a healthy relationship. The sixth assumption was that every person
is capable of change and of developing healthier relationships. The seventh assumption was that the
psychological sciences contain and develop much truth about healthy
relationships when consistent with sound biblical theology.
The staff of Gib Lewis
State Prison in Woodville, Texas, has maintained the custody of approximately
1,300 minimum to medium custody prisoners for almost six years. The twenty-six acre compound is surrounded
by about three hundred acres of state prison property. In December 1995, the department board of
directors informed the executive staff of the Lewis Prison that in September 1996,
construction would begin for another 669 maximum security beds with the
capacity to double bunk. This would
double both the inmate population and the staffing requirements. Since that time, the construction date has
been delayed to July 1997.
The Lewis Prison had
experienced three small riots in the three years prior to project
implementation, and nearly every other prison similarly configured had
experienced riots. As a result, the
formerly open recreation yards were fenced, and regimentation of the inmate
population was increased. A new
building schedule was issued tightening all time frames for all activities.
The director was the
only full-time chaplain. He has been
supervising a host of dedicated volunteers that provide a full complement of inter-religious
ministries and programming. Supervision
for the programming of several religions included representatives of Protestant
Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witness, Buddhism, and Wicca.
The general Christian
programs have had the following attendance.
Christian inmates attended three Sunday Protestant services (two
English, one Spanish) for an average Sunday attendance between 225 and
275. Volunteers led two mid-week Bible
studies with an average weekly attendance of eighty. A host of other primarily Christian volunteers came periodically
to hold special services either in the chapel or in the gym. A Roman Catholic priest led Mass on Friday
evenings with an average attendance of seventy-five. Every week the unit chaplain and volunteer chaplains processed
from five to ten death or critical illness messages and handled from twenty to
thirty or more general counseling sessions.
Three programs have
provided for a few specialized needs.
About twenty-five freeworld men volunteered to visit one-on-one with
inmates twice a month in the Lewis Mentor Program. On Saturdays and Sundays, in shifts of two or three persons each,
about twenty ladies volunteered to minister to the families of inmates who came
for visitation in the Lewis Hospitality Program. Three men went through extra training and served as volunteer
chaplains helping with crisis ministry throughout the unit.
The director of the
program earned a B.A. Degree in 1985 with a double major in Bible and
counseling from the Criswell Bible College in Dallas, Texas. In 1990 the director earned a M.Div. Degree
with languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth,
Texas. During the school years he
volunteered for many ministry posts including preaching, teaching, visiting,
coordinating trips, and counseling.
During the last three years of seminary, he was a minister to the
elderly homebound members of Travis Avenue Baptist Church in Fort Worth until
1990 and occasionally taught singles at Travis. During his last year at seminary he helped start and was the
charter president of a singles group at the seminary.
He completed four
units of Clinical Pastoral Education in 1991 at the Shannon Medical Center in
San Angelo, Texas. Also in San Angelo,
he served as associate pastor at Harris Avenue Baptist Church and as a
suicide/crisis counselor for the Mental Health Mental Retardation Services of
the Concho Valley. Since 1993, he has
served as the staff chaplain of the Gib Lewis State Prison in Woodville, Texas.
Other training has
included the following:
Child Protective Services Academy Certificate, Texas Department of Human
Services Training Academy, Dallas, Texas, 1990;
Competent Toastmasters Certificate (1990) and Able Toastmasters
Certificate (1992), Toastmasters International, Santa Ana, California;
Suicide/Crisis Intervention Certificate, Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Services of the Concho Valley, San Angelo, Texas, 1991;
Organ Donor Counseling, South Texas Organ Bank, San Angelo, Texas, 1992;
Correctional Officer Certificate, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division Training Academy, Gatesville, Texas, 1993;
Ethics Training for Counselors (1993) and Learning Styles (1993), Texas
Education Agency, Huntsville, Texas, 1993;
Racial Sensitivity and Cultural Diversity (1994), Satanism and
Ritualistic Crimes (1995), and Prison Gangs (1995), Cultural Diversity and
Civil Rights (1996), Angelina Criminal Justice Center and Academy, Woodville,
Texas;
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Certificate, Covey Leadership
Center, Beaumont, Texas, 1995;
Post Traumatic Stress Intervention, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Huntsville, Texas, 1996.
Impending Death: Developing a
Plan of Care (1996) and Good Grief (1996), Hospice Care Program, Board of
Social Workers Examiner, Beeville, Texas.
The director is a
member in good standing of the following organizations and associations: the Lions Club International, the
Association of Clinical Pastoral Education, the American Correctional
Association, the American Correctional Chaplain's Association, the American
Protestant Correctional Chaplain's Association, the Association of Chaplains of
Texas, and the South East Texas Writers' League.
Three theological
topics were considered to justify a helping skills program. Those three topics were: (1) the nature of Christian love, (2) the
responsibilities of the church, and (3) prison ministry in the New Testament.
Love was assumed to be
an essential part of the nature of the Christian life and the primary source
for the highest level of relating between persons. With love being essential to the Christian life, this became the
essential theological element for justification, for the program was intended
to increase the selected prisoners' ability and skill at loving. Therefore, four theological areas relating
to the expression of love were put forward to justify how that love was and
should be expressed in the Christian life:
(1) the Christian's inherent love for others, (2) love as the example of
Jesus Christ, (3) specific examples of love's expression, and (4) the high
aspirations of the church.
In the commands to
love and assuming God knows best, the healthiest relationship existed in love
between God and the human individual, and the next or second healthiest
relationship existed in love between individuals in general.[1] Upon
conversion, the Christian began to love others with a love given from God; love for others was an evidence of salvation
and in part the manifestation of God himself in and through the Christian's
life empowering and becoming the most significant factor behind all healthy
relationships.[2]
Therefore, the nature of Christian love itself became a substantial
justification for a program that intended to increase a prisoner's ability to
love.
The life of Jesus
Christ expressed the greatest form of love, and his life became the model for
Christians in how they ought to express love.[3]
Christians have been encouraged to strive for growth into the likeness
of Christ.[4]
The writers of the
Bible have given many examples of love that Christians ought to emulate. Some specific actions were to "look
after orphans and widows" and to avoid actions such as murder and
adultery.[5] Others
were "go and make disciples" and "devote yourselves to
prayer."[6] In chapter
13 of 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote about many actions of love as well as many
actions that work against love.[7]
Throughout the New Testament most of the work of the disciples and
apostles of Christ implied love. All of
the biblical examples and actions of love were interpersonal and meant to
foster positive relationships between persons.
Therefore, any program that would contribute to helping a person love in
a biblical manner would be justified.
From the above, the
living of the Christian life was essentially the expression of love for God and
others. As Christians live on the
earth, they are encouraged to develop several habits that strive towards high
aspirations in character and in conduct toward God and their fellow humankind. Those high aspirations and the struggle to
ascend to those aspirations have been divided into various kinds of Christian
struggles: namely, the struggle with
sin,[8] the efforts and struggles in peacemaking,[9] the developing of discipline in discipleship,[10] the development of a fervency in prayer,[11] and loving God and each other.[12]
Connected with the
high aspirations of the church, the writers of the Bible maintained many high
and ideal character traits and principles that should guide the Christian in
social interactions. Some of the
virtuous character traits were explained in the Sermon on the Mount in chapters
5-7 of Matthew: meekness,
righteousness, mercy, purity, peacemaking, tolerance, and generosity. Other high principles were: be an example (2 Cor. 4:20); do to others as you would have them do to
you (Lk. 6:31); and respect the weaker
brother's conscience (1 Cor. 8:9‑13).
All of these have been classic examples and expressions of how a
Christian ought to express love.
Therefore, a helping skills program designed to enhance the quality and
virtuous character of a prisoner's love would be justified.
Within the prison,
many interpersonal relationships are maintained among several distinct groups
of people: each other, their families,
staff, and volunteers. With regard to
prisoners helping others, five areas were considered that indicated some of the
responsibilities of the church within prison:
(1) the body of Christ, (2) the ministry of reconciliation, (3) the
charge to remember the imprisoned and mistreated, (4) visiting and caring for
Christ in prison, and (5) the fellowship in suffering. Those five areas indicated that prisoners
who are members of the church in prison have an obligation to help their fellow
prisoners and others. A helping skills
program became justified in that the program was designed to help prisoners do
better what they were biblically obligated to do.
In 1 Cor.
12:12-31, Paul used an analogy to show how Christians make up the body of
Christ and need each other. Christians
needed each other so much, said Paul, that "if one part suffers, every
part suffers with it" (12:26).
Therefore, just as the freeworld Christian suffered with those
Christians in prison, likewise a Christian prisoner suffered with his fellow
prisoners as well as suffered with freeworld Christians in their
struggles. The Christian prisoner's own
love fostered within him or herself a desire to help others.
In 2 Cor.
5:11-21, Paul wrote that all Christians should participate in the ministry of
reconciliation. Any person could become
a "new creation" in Christ (v. 17).
Once reconciled to God and a new creation, that person became Christ's
ambassador "as though God were making his appeal through us" (v.
20). Likewise, once reconciled, the
prisoner became God's emissary to other persons.
In Heb. 13:3, the
writer of Hebrews said, "Remember those in prison as if you were their
fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were
suffering." The level of
obligation was stated in an empathic framework: Christians ought to minister to those in prison and to those who
are mistreated in a manner equal to the ministry those Christians would want
for themselves in similar circumstances.[13] The
obligation of Heb. 13:3 applied to all Christians, whether prisoners or
freeworld persons, for the object of ministry was the suffering person. The empathic framework of that passage
included Christian prisoners who may find themselves in a position to minister
or to help a needy person. The needy
person could be found in any of several categories of persons including fellow
prisoners, prison staff persons, prison volunteers or visitors, family
visitors, and even a similar variety of persons in the freeworld.
In Mt. 25:31-46, Jesus
explained the coming of the Son of Man and the subsequent separation of the
sheep from the goats. In the passage,
Jesus stated several criteria for inclusion among the sheep, one of which was,
"I was in prison and you came to visit me" (v. 36). The context of this passage included the
hungry, the needy, and the stranger.
Since Christian prisoners frequently encountered many needy people, the
application of Mt. 25:31-46 included an obligation for the church in prison to
help the hungry, the needy, and the stranger.
From a prisoner's perspective, the needy person could be a fellow
prisoner, a family visitor, or a staff person.
The stranger could be a new prisoner on the wing or a pen-pal. By extending the prisoner's ministerial
reach through literature, the needy or stranger could be the beneficiary of a
prisoner's ministry through publication.
In 2 Cor. 1:3-7, Paul
claimed at least three connections between his sufferings and the availability
of comfort. First, Paul said that God
comforted him and his companions so that they could comfort others in trouble
(v. 4). Second, Paul said that his
suffering and his comfort were for the readers' comfort (vv. 5-6). Third, Paul made the connection that
"as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort"
(v. 7). The suffering of the Christian
and God's comfort of the suffering Christian were both resources to the helper
in the helper's ability to comfort others.
Therefore, in the Christian prisoner's unique fellowship of suffering
with other prisoners and as a prionser adopted the attitude of Christ, a
Christian prisoner's suffering would make him more empathic to any suffering
person‑‑incarcerated or free.
With regard to love,
empathy, and the general ability to help others who were suffering, all of the
five areas of the responsibilities of the church explained above applied to all
Christians. Because of the prisoner's
suffering and God's comfort, the Christian prisoner has been enabled beyond his
or her normal abilities to help other suffering people, free or incarcerated. Tying all of the areas together, only a prisoner
with similar feelings and sufferings could fully understand the suffering of a
fellow prisoner; therefore, a Christian
prisoner has been given an unique injunction to minister to a fellow prisoner.
The writers of the New
Testament recorded the imprisonment of many Christians. If "ministry" can be defined as
basically the communication of spiritual things to God and among mankind,
prison ministry in the New Testament may be seen in three forms: (1) prisoner to prisoner, (2) prisoner to
the freeworld, and (3) freeworld to the prisoner.[14] Because
the project goals focused on prisoners, only the first two were explained. The examples of prison ministry set a
precedent for Christian prisoners to follow;
therefore, the precedent became a justification for a program designed
to help prisoners relate better to each other.
Paul gave several
indications of a fellowship among his fellow prisoners. In Acts 16:25, Paul and Silas prayed and sang; others listened. In Phil. 4:22, Paul offered greetings from himself and from those
"who belong to Caesar's household."
In Col. 4:7-15, Paul mentioned several fellow prisoners.
Jesus ministered to
his fellow prisoner from the cross. In
Lk. 23:42-43, one thief asked to be remembered in the kingdom of God. Jesus turned to him and said, "Today
you will be with me in paradise" (v. 43).
The writers of the New
Testament recorded several different kinds of ministry by a prisoner to the
freeworld. In Mt. 11:1-20 and Lk.
7:18-35, the communications between the imprisoned John the Baptist and his
disciples implied John's continued ministry to his freeworld disciples.
Paul and others did
much ministry from prison to freeworld persons. In Acts 16:16-40, Paul and Silas ministered to the jailer and his
household. In Phil. 1:12-30, Paul
ministered to the Philippian church with specific concern for their pain over
his imprisonment. In Acts 28:16-31,
while Paul was a prisoner he held meetings and ministered to many for two
years.
Not only did Paul
minister from prison, but he extended his ministry through others. If Tychicus was the bearer of the letters to
both the Ephesians and Colossians,[15] then he helped extend Paul's ministry from
prison. Furthermore, Paul said that
Tychicus was sent with news of Paul's welfare (Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21) and that Onesimus would be
accompanying Tychicus (Col. 4:9).
Several New Testament
books were written from prison or prison-like circumstances. The Apostle John received the vision of the
book of Revelation while exiled on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:1-11). Though imprisoned many times,[16] from prison in Rome Paul wrote the books of
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy.[17]
"Programming"
has been a broad term that has been used in reference to the efforts to
educate, inspire, provide skills, and foster personal growth in the lives of
prisoners. Secular efforts included
many programs: reading, writing, math,
and vocational skills; drug abuse,
sexual disorders, and other addictive disorders treatment; classes in esteem, anger management, and
psychotherapy; and drawing, music
therapy, and even basket weaving.
Religious programming efforts included some of those mentioned above as
well as spiritually-based educational programs such as literacy training and
substance abuse treatment. Many other
religious programs have focused on other areas of life such as marriage and
family communication, anger management, parenting, grief, addictions, and other
interpersonal and intrapersonal growth issues.
But the majority of religious programming has been focused on religious
worship services, discipleship training, and the multitude of spiritual growth
issues.
A survey of three
areas of prison programming indicated support for a historical rationale for an
empathic helping skills program. Those
areas were: (1) origin of programming
in American prison reform, (2) the recent secular reforms and programming in
Texas, and (3) the struggle and the future of prison chaplaincy.
Between the early
1800s and the 1970s, a gradual shift in American penal philosophy took
place. The idea of reforming a prisoner
through harsh and brutal confinement began to be subordinated to a more humane
understanding of the basic needs of persons.
This reform resulted in a great increase in prison programming in the
1950s and 1960s. Though the debate over
program effectiveness continued through the 1970s and 1980s, the general
consensus in the 1990s was that programs were needed. These developments were explained in two subsections: (1) the development of American prison
reform and programming, and (2) how general programming fared.
In the United States,
the "penitentiary" began with an intention to reform criminal
behavior. Reforming the criminal came
to entail control, isolation, and brutality with the purpose of changing
behavior. A convicted felon was sent to
prison to be "punished" but also to be "corrected." This idea was so novel that early nineteenth
century prison reformers came to the United States from around the world "to
study that American invention, the penitentiary."[18]
Brutality came to be
seen as unduly cruel in the twentieth century, and serious efforts to remove
the brutality of prison life began in the 1920s and 1930s. When the National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement met in 1930, it reported that administrators needed
to discover "ways and means sharply to modify" correctional
institutions.[19]
Along with these
reform efforts, many were attempting to understand prison life itself and the
effects of prison life on prisoners.
Writing in 1940, Donald Clemmer was one of the first to describe the
psychological effects of prison life.
When prisoners adapted to prison life they began surrendering their
self-esteem and initiative to a dependency upon the system. Clemmer originated the term
"prisonization" to describe this effect.[20]
To make matters worse,
the prison system itself seemed to foster prisonization. Such prisoners became models in the eyes of
prison managers, which made it all the more difficult for the prisoner to
resist prisonization.[21]
Subsequently, when prisonization took place, the prisonized had greater
difficulties upon release.
Regarding the
brutality of prison and prisonization in general, only a few concerns were made
public before 1950.[22] Most
concerns went unheard. Actual reform
did not begin until after World War II.
Karl Menninger
investigated and chronicled his findings about prisoners in the 1960s. Well beyond Clemmer, Menninger's efforts
helped clarify the basic needs of the human being in prison. He became influential in addressing the need
for reform.[23]
In the early 1970s,
Hans Toch began an intensive study of prisoners. Because he had interviewed over 600 prisoners representing a
sampling of 94% to 97% of the national prison population, Toch was able to give
several credible generalizations about the specific problems and needs of
prisoners. The result was the first
detailed classification of several kinds of prisoner's personal
difficulties. Toch identified several
themes of negative or dysfunctional thought processes. Under a theme of a negative self-assessment,
Toch described characteristics such as self-deactivation, self-sentencing,
self-retaliation, fate avoidance, self-linking, and self-certification.[24] Under a
theme of impulse control, Toch described characteristics of self-alienation,
self-release, self-escape, self-preservation, and self-intervention.[25]
These and other
investigations resulted in more official attention. Prisoners were beginning to be seen as human beings with
problems, and programming increased to address these problems. As one example, the percentage of American
correctional institutions using group therapy rose from 35% in 1950 to 79% in
1966.[26]
The 1960s became a
decade of change. A trend toward
de-institutionalization gathered momentum, and top administrators became more
concerned for how the institutions affected a prisoner's post-release
adjustment. In 1967, the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement reported,
For a great many offenders corrections do not correct. Indeed, experts are increasingly coming to
feel that the conditions under which many offenders are handled, particularly
in institutions, are often a positive detriment to rehabilitation.[27]
One response was more programming for prisoners and for
those released. In 1973 the National
Advisory Commission proposed a moratorium on prison construction and a
continuation of the trend away from "confining people in
institutions" and a move "toward supervising them in the
community."[28]
Many investigators
began questioning the effectiveness of programming. In a 1974, Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks evaluated 231 studies of
inmate treatment programs. They found
that nothing worked. Their conclusion
was that one in three returned to crime no matter whether the convicted were
incarcerated or on probation, whether given psychotherapy, group counseling,
job training, or no assistance at all.[29] Based
upon this report some programs were curtailed, and both positive and negative
evaluations of the report ensued.[30]
A steady yet slow
reform in penal philosophy was taking place.
Programming became more important than brutality as a force to change
criminal behavior. At the same time,
more problems began to complicate and thus impede reform efforts. A few of these problems were overcrowding,
increasing rates of recidivism, and longer sentences; the problems made "already intolerable living conditions
even worse."[31] One
indication on how fast the complication was ensuing was the spiraling national
prison population which rose from 100,000 in 1969 to over 600,000 in 1987.[32]
In the 1980s,
researchers continued to debate the effectiveness of programs, and several
researchers found that most programming was ineffective. In 1986 Genevie, Margolies, and Muhlin
echoed Lipton and colleagues in saying that nothing worked.[33] Also in
1986, Robert Homant completed a follow-up of his 1976 study. Contrary to his expectations, Homant found
no evidence that group therapy contributed to post-release adjustment. Furthermore, Homant found a "slight
trend for good institutional adjustment to be associated with poor
post-release adjustment [emphases his]."[34]
On the contrary, many
researchers reported that much programming was effective.[35] Many
theorized that successful programming must address the prisoners' self-concepts
and behavioral skills. In 1981 at least
two separate but related theories were offered regarding the effects of prison
life in relation to post-release adjustment.
Thomas and Peterson suggested that prisonization resulted from in
identity or self-concept that would necessarily need to be addressed.[36]
Similarly, Homer identified what he called a "self-mortifying"
process where rather predictable changes occur in the direction of either
prisonization or a criminal self-image.
He concluded that reversing both of these influences would be necessary
to reduce recidivism.[37]
Others supported the
need to address social skills.
Wiederlanders attempted to dispel some myths about the employment
problems of young offenders. The
problem was not simply finding jobs.
Their greatest need was learning social skills such as how to tolerate
co-workers and endure mundane and unexciting jobs.[38] Marshall,
Turner, and Barbaree found that training prisoners in life skills raised
self-esteem, improved attitudes towards education, increased empathy, and
decreased psychopathy.[39]
In 1984 Robert Homant
presented the results of a survey of employment programs. The results indicated two common
denominators of effectiveness that could bring about successful post-release
adjustment: reversing prisonization and
changing self-esteem. Looking ahead
Homant suggested what the contents of an ideal program might seek to
accomplish:
1. Enhance a skill connected to social
adjustment, such as assertiveness,
anger control, or vocational-educational training;
2. Minimize or reverse prisonization; and
3. Be
sensitive to the offender's self-esteem, not necessarily aiming to raise it, at
least until prisonization has been addressed.[40]
Similar to Homant, several theorists have continued to
emphasize the need for developing the social skills of prisoners related to
post-release adjustment.[41]
Others have focused on
decreasing prison violence, underscoring the above and emphasizing the need for
programs that help prisoners get along in prison. For example, in 1993 Kevin Wright presented the results of a
study on disruptive behavior in ten prisons.
The most significant variable for in-prison adaptation and the reduction
of disruptive behavior was institutional support for self-advancement and
self-improvement.[42]
In the 1990s, a
consensus emerged indicating a broad support for programming. In 1996, Russ Immarigeon presented several
theorists that supported the need for programming that would address a broad
spectrum of prisoner needs with an emphasis on social skills.[43] For a
perspective from prison wardens, Tim Flanagan and colleagues sent
questionnaires to 823 wardens across the nation. With 78% reporting, 641 prison wardens and superintendents
indicated that educational and recreational programs "soak up idle
time," "provide constructive activities," and "control
misbehavior."[44] The
wardens also said they had doubts about get-tough policies that take away some
programs and services.[45]
Therefore, a rationale
for the implementation of a helping skills program existed based upon American
prison reform. First, such a program
fell within the continuity of the reform in programming itself. Second, such a program was consistent with
what has been documented as needful kinds of programming for prisoners.
Texas followed the
national trend towards a more humane intention regarding incarceration, but the
theory did not transform into practice quickly. The overall goal has been to safely confine and reform a prisoner
in order that Texas citizens would remain safe and that the offender would
become a productive citizen and not return to prison. One major contributing force to changing criminal behavior has
been and continues to be programming.
The above developments were broken down into two subsections: (1) the recent secular reforms in Texas and
(2) the recent programming development in Texas.
The philosophy and the
intent of incarceration began to change throughout the 1970s and 1980s in Texas
as in the rest of the nation. However,
the actual implementation of that change was slow and reluctant. Even as late as 1980 predatory inmates were
still free to do as they pleased in the living areas. The victims of predators could "be threatened, extorted,
beaten, or raped," and officer brutality persisted with many credible
records of "inmates being unreasonably . . . beaten with fists
and clubs."[46]
The landmark court
ruling in Ruiz v. Estelle forced Texas prison administrators to initiate
reforms in 1980.[47] This
placed the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC, as it was then known) under
federal scrutiny, and sanctions were imposed that were not lifted until 1994.
The sanctions of Ruiz
v. Estelle standardized the TDC.
Prisoners received more rights, including a grievance process and
unambiguous rules. Correctional
managers were prevented from using inmates known as "building tenders"
to control and punish other inmates.[48]
Overcrowding and
increasing recidivism affected Texas like the rest of the nation. In the past three years the Texas inmate
population more than doubled to a current size of about 140,000 inmates, with
the highest incarceration rate of all states, 809 per 100,000.[49] Tony
Fabelo extrapolated that if current projections remain the Texas prison system
will complete the construction of 151,814 prison beds by the end of August
1998.[50] That
would make the Texas prison system the largest among "all Western
countries."[51]
Despite the changes
and challenges, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ, as it is now
known) has maintained a philosophy consistent with the national emphasis to
change criminal behavior through programming.
The need to socialize prisoners was reflected in the mission statement
of the department: "to provide
public safety, promote positive change in behavior, and reintegrate offenders
into society."[52] Both
former chairman and current member of the TDCJ board Carol Vance and former
executive director Andy Collins have affirmed the dedication of the staff to
the department's mission.[53] Even
though Carol Vance moved from chairman to board member and a new director has
assumed leadership, the mission statement has remained the same. Wayne Scott, the new executive director,
affirmed the mission and direction of the agency saying,
Education is important, but it's more than that. People's faith, training and vocational
skills, education, anger management, stress management, interpersonal
skills. All of those things go into
making someone successful. We have
plans on
the drawing board . . . to put programs in place . . .
tailored to individual need.[54]
TDCJ has maintained a
steady focus of support for programming.
The most recent and significant development in Texas correctional
programs was the establishment of the office of volunteer coordination in
1994. That brought volunteer
programming into the mainstream of department planning, and that continued the
emphasis on increasing programming. The
office of volunteer coordination was tasked with ensuring that volunteer
activities such as recruitment, training, and the establishment of new services
were consistent from division to division.
Though the great preponderance of volunteers were supervised in
chaplaincy programs, the office was designed to help coordinate volunteer
activities among the several divisions including pardons and paroles, the
Windham School District, and the substance abuse treatment programs.[55]
Under Governor Ann
Richards, substance abuse treatment programs increased dramatically only to be
curtailed in 1995 by Governor George Bush.
Operation Kick-It was one example of a successful substance abuse
program. Since 1970, a panel of
volunteer prisoners traveled the state and described former drug-related
activities in an effort to deter young people from drug abuse. In 1994, Scott, Hawkins, and Farnsworth
reported on the recidivism rate of 179 prisoners who had participated in the
program. Only 20% of the prisoners
involved in the program returned to prison, but 66% of the matched control
group returned. They attributed the
program's success to how participation raised the inmate's self-esteem and
helped sensitize the inmate to confront and judge his own behavior.[56]
The Windham School
District has been charged with supplying education to Texas prisoners, and the
great preponderance of Texas' secular prison programming was supplied under the
auspices of that school district. The
programming included educational, vocational, and socialization programs. In reflecting on the challenges facing
Windham, the new institutional division director Gary Johnson said Windham's
charge was "to make a difference in the lives of others by enriching them
and attempting to help them discover their potential. . . . One
person can make a difference to one person."[57]
Therefore, a rationale
for the implementation of a helping skills program existed based upon prison
reform in Texas. Both the recent reform
in Texas as well as the recent development of programming in Texas indicated
that a Christian helping skills program would be compatible not only with
Texas' secular efforts but also with the mission of the agency as a whole.
Chaplaincy efforts
have been viewed differently over the years.
At first all issues of prisoner well-being were the purview of the
chaplain. Then reformers began to
subordinate chaplaincy programs to secular educational and psychotherapeutic
efforts. Over the last decade, a more
holistic understanding about care giving came into being, and increasingly
chaplaincy efforts were being seen as important contributions to prisoner
reform. The above developments were
broken down into three subsections: (1)
the struggle of American prison chaplaincy, (2) validating chaplaincy efforts,
and (3) the future of Texas prison chaplaincy.
Through the nineteenth
century, almost all programming came from prison chaplaincy ministries. The libraries were sponsored by chaplains,
and most of the library books were religious.[58] Until the
middle of the twentieth century, chaplains had the potential to be involved
with most aspects of a prisoner's life including education, moral reform, and
family liaison.
Chaplaincy efforts
came into conflict with social scientists shortly before World War II. Secular reformers began to focus on prison
rehabilitation outside of a theological framework. Sanford Bates said,
The prison school had been taken over by trained educationalists. Family contacts were handled by the social
workers and the libraries staffed by trained librarians. Apparently there was nothing else but
religion for the chaplain to busy himself about, and that could be done on
Sunday in an hour or two.[59]
After World War II,
Michael Wolff observed that the developing welfare state diminished some of the
church's opportunity to provide for the needs of people including
prisoners. Reflecting on those
developments, Wolff said that the chaplain's task came to be "limited to
providing for the spiritual welfare of those in his charge; and even here the line between the
medico-psychiatric treatment and religious or spiritual healing is often
difficult to detect."[60]
The most significant
development affecting American prison chaplaincy to date came when congress
passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).[61] During
the discussions over the scope of RFRA, many persons debated just how much
religious freedom and programming should be allowed to prisoners. Numerous attorneys general from around the
country argued for and against the exclusion of prisoners from the requirements
of RFRA.[62]
Regardless, the passage of RFRA did not exclude prisoners. Religion in prison became as protected as
freeworld religion with respect to government intervention, the only exceptions
being when a governing authority had justifiable and compelling reasons. And if such compelling reasons surfaced,
only the least restrictive method of limitation was sanctioned.[63]
Despite an officially
diminished role in some prisons or organizational ambiguity regarding the role
of prison chaplains, chaplains remained influential. For example, in 1964 the criminologist Daniel Glaser found that
among those inmates in his study who were successful upon release, about
one-sixth credited the chaplain with being the major influence in their
reformation. Glaser said inmates were
frequently "in a mood which makes them amenable to conversion to a new
conception of spiritual meaning in their lives."[64]
Furthermore, Glaser observed that chaplains positively impacted the
inmates and the total facility in a far greater proportion than did other
staff, even though chaplains were a tiny fraction of the total prison staff.
No scientific studies
were found in a bibliographic search for studies of chaplaincy efforts during
the 1970s and 1980s. A few scholarly
works on correctional practice and theory mentioned religious efforts: some were favorable and others were
unfavorable.[65]
In an intensive
search, only one program was found that was considered able to equip prisoners
to become better helpers. Vance Drum
directed a D.Min. program for training prisoners as peer counselors in the
maximum security Eastham State Prison in Lovelady, Texas. Drum reported that the program made a
statistically significant effect on the group trained, increasing their
understanding and skills.[66]
Despite a dearth of
studies, David Duncombe offered a clinical observation in which he suggested
eight key areas that an effective prison chaplaincy programming would need to
address.
1. The problem of shame
2. The problem of self-deception
3. Lack of vision
4. Lack of realistic life plans
5. Shaky religious foundations
6. Scarcity of a pastoral presence
7. Lack of prophetic voice
8. Few opportunities for meaningful
human service[67]
Duncombe related his experiences and observations as a
prisoner in a county detention center.
His suggestions were based upon his extensive experience as an
institutional chaplain for thirty-five years and upon his experience as a
clinical pastoral education supervisor.
Looking toward the
future of prison chaplaincy in general, one work by a prison chaplain could
have an impact on how correctional management perceives the effectiveness of
prison chaplaincy. Richard Shaw
reported a landmark study on prison chaplains, the chaplain's environment, and
the stresses upon chaplains. His work
could provide a increased understanding of the complex relationships involved
in effective chaplaincy service, especially with regard to staff relationships
and staffing requirements.[68]
For the fiscal year of 1995, the Texas state prison chaplaincy office
reported its cumulative efforts in an executive summary. The state chaplaincy department held 70,000
services with a total attendance for the year of 3,000,000. There were 4,687 approved volunteers and
3,616 special volunteers, and both of those together made 58,331 visits to
prison. There were 20,000 mentor or
one-on-one visits between a freeworld volunteer and a prisoner. From the state level, the administrator's
office encourages growth in both the quality and number of chaplaincy programs.[69]
The Voyager Program was most the recent statewide chaplaincy effort and
was a team effort with the Windham School District. Half of the program curriculum used by the chaplaincy department
was a duplication of Windham's total Changes Program. The latter half of the Voyager Program was additional material
that was spiritually based and flexible enough to accommodate different
religions. The Voyager Program was
designed to help prisoners explore personal, spiritual, and interpersonal
growth issues utilizing a workbook and group dynamics under the guidance of a
facilitator.[70]
Throughout the Texas system, chaplains have been providing religious
programming and have been training volunteers to provide programming on the
unit level. The list of Texas
ministries offering help to prisons has been increasing monthly. The project director kept an ongoing file of
ministries that have solicited his office in the past three years, currently
listing upwards of fifty different ministries.
To help increase
chaplaincy programming throughout Texas, several organizations have started to
help build chapels in prisons without chapels.
Chapel Life Ministries (CLM) in Woodville, Texas, has completed
architectural plans, and CLM has been submitting these plans to TDCJ engineers
for evaluation of a chapel at the Gib Lewis Prison. Another organization, Chapels of Hope, has been attempting to
raise over 25 million dollars in an effort to help build chapels in all of the
state prisons that do not already have a chapel or their own chapel building
project. All of the projects have been
supported by the current TDCJ executive director, Wayne Scott, who said,
"I give my full support and the support of TDCJ to those noble efforts to
construct chapels throughout Texas."[71]
Even though budgeting cuts have decreased some services to inmates as mentioned below in the practical rationale, the efforts to draw upon the volunteer community have increased. Governor George Bush recently iss