Study Hints at Efficacy of Florida's Faith-Based Prisons

[Ethos]

Findings and Recommendations

Staff, inmates, and volunteers overwhelmingly believe the FCBI model is improving inmate behavior, preparing inmates for successful reentry, and reducing recidivism. Also, they feel the FCBI experience promotes family reunification and employment prospects upon release while improving the prison environment for inmates, volunteers, and staff.

The FCBIs are carefully administered to avoid church-state conflicts.
Inmates predisposed to successful outcomes are no more or less likely to be housed in FCBIs than other Florida prisons, indicating that the FCBI model could be applied successfully to a broad population of inmates.

Volunteers are well briefed on how to safeguard themselves, but the FDOC should examine whether FCBIs' relaxed environments pose unique security vulnerabilities.

Correctional staff typically do not receive training specific to an FCBI, and some security-focused employees are neither well prepared nor well suited to work in an FCBI.

The core faith- and character-based programs might benefit from the addition of more classes on pre-release planning, vocational and employment skills, and educational assets.

Many respondents think that volunteers save the state money and provide more effective, dynamic services than the state can offer.

http://www.urban.org/publications/901122.html

Despite what is apparently a perceived overall negative tone toward religion on my part, I find the proper utilization of faith in public and private life to be a positive aspect of our culture. This is but one example of that model.

Ethos

[eugene40]

Well as opposed to religions as I am. If I have to pretend to be so, in order to avoid being assaulted in a prison or live in the standards of current prisons. I would gladly pretend to be religious. However whether or not this style would effect recidivism rates, remains to be seen.

[serenity]

I just don't see why "faith-based" is necessary, one whit, to the implementation of what appears (at least at first blush) to be a really good idea for our prisons.

[Ethos]

I just don't see why "faith-based" is necessary, one whit, to the implementation of what appears (at least at first blush) to be a really good idea for our prisons.

Curious - how would you go about implementing the system without the focus point of faith?

[Atticus]

As generally sanguine as I am about the role of faith in public life, I have to say that the article is pretty unconvincing. The actual recidivism rate is no lower in the faith/character programs--the only "hint" of their success is in the beliefs of various personnel.

I'm also concerned about the fact that while studies like this suggest the positive aspects of faith-based prisons, there are now many objections to particular faiths in prisons, particularly Islam. I see a conflict here that may not be easy to resolve.

[serenity]

Curious - how would you go about implementing the system without the focus point of faith?


I'm not sure I understand, especially given the assertion of no church-state conflicts.

You'd implement the system by assuming heretical ideas such as: reducing recidivism is a good idea; community involvement by way of volunteerism can be helpful; inmates are not animals who deserve no betterment....etc.

I don't see why faith IS a necessary component.

I quickly add that I"m not condemning the faithful on this. Quite the opposite. I don't see why we need to rely on faith-based organizations to do good works. It's arguably a bit of an indictment against us secularist do-gooders, if anything.

[lord tammerlain]

This is one of the good aspects of religion

Religion can provide a external support structure, and a psychological one for people. Which can help people make decisions that are more ethically based. With the " supernatural" aspect of religions in general, breaking a religous code of ethics, will be harder for a truely religous person, then a societal code of ethics. God is all knowing, while what society doesnt see, society doesnt know about. With "god" being able to know when you have wronged him at all times, a person has a stronger motivator not to commit "wrongs".

This of course matters in those that have truely become religous, and not just going through the motions.

[Atticus]

You'd implement the system by assuming heretical ideas such as: reducing recidivism is a good idea; community involvement by way of volunteerism can be helpful; inmates are not animals who deserve no betterment....etc.

I don't see why faith IS a necessary component.I hope that all prisons operate on the idea that reducing recidivism is a good idea. The American penal system was founded on the idea that inmates are not animals who deserve no better (see de Tocqueville, whose project was to describe the American prison system).

The need for faith may come from the idea that people need some motivation to involve themselves in volunteerism and/or avoiding crime. It would be interesting to hear how a person already disposed to crime could be changed in a "secularist do-gooder" way. I'm sure it's possible, but an audience of felons seems less disposed to good works for their own sake than the general populace. Am I missing something?

[serenity]

I hope that all prisons operate on the idea that reducing recidivism is a good idea.

That's not so clear.

The American penal system was founded on the idea that inmates are not animals who deserve no better (see de Tocqueville, whose project was to describe the American prison system).

True, but it's rather relative, of course. Parts of Europoe have (arguably, at least) surpassed us now in this regard. And Swarzeneggar recently visited Canada, in order to learn some of the appreciable differences in our respective cultures of detention.

(Mind you, the elephant in the room, in my view, is not recidivism per se--it's that we too eagerly incarcerate people. It's quite out of control in some places (California for an obviosu example). Our high murder rate aside (not to diminish it, mind you!) we don't actually have a radically bigger crime problem than the industrialized world generally. It's at the high end of the spectrum, but not off the charts as seems to be the impression.

We lock too many people up. Way to many people. That this method is a failure goes almost without saying, I personally believe. To bring up our northern neighbors again, I think they incarcerate approximately one tenth of the poeple we do (adjusted for population). That is a profound difference. And i know for a fact that Canadians do not feel more frightened or victimized than we do. Less so, actually. (One of the few really good points Michael Moore has made.)

The need for faith may come from the idea that people need some motivation to involve themselves in volunteerism and/or avoiding crime.


Maybe so. If anything, this speaks to the paucity of our moral sense: a benefit of religion only from a sort of default point of view. Still, better that than nothing!

It would be interesting to hear how a person already disposed to crime could be changed in a "secularist do-gooder" way. I'm sure it's possible, but an audience of felons seems less disposed to good works for their own sake than the general populace. Am I missing something?

For obvious reasons, I have a very personal difference of opinion with this assertion. That is, I happen to know--know, mind you--that this is demonstrably untrue. :)

[Atticus]

It's interesting to me that this is a place where we so often disagree. It must be a difference either of values or experience.That's not so clear.Are you suggesting that getting people to reoffend is a goal of our system? Or that our system doesn't care if people reoffend?

True, but it's rather relative, of course. Parts of Europoe have (arguably, at least) surpassed us now in this regard. And Swarzeneggar recently visited Canada, in order to learn some of the appreciable differences in our respective cultures of detention. I'd be interested in hearing what you think are the differences. I know little about European or Canadian penal systems. I know something about the legal system in Britain and a tiny bit in about France's but how criminal and those accused of crimes are treated in Germany or Italy is a mystery to me.

(Mind you, the elephant in the room, in my view, is not recidivism per se--it's that we too eagerly incarcerate people. It's quite out of control in some places (California for an obviosu example). Here's another place that begs a question on my part. I'd agree that we lock people up for the WRONG things (non-violent drug crimes, for example), but beyond that I don't know what you mean. Incarceration is the most expensive option; it would make sense to limit it to those persons who do not respond to other kinds of consequence. Where, in your view, are we going wrong? Our high murder rate aside (not to diminish it, mind you!) we don't actually have a radically bigger crime problem than the industrialized world generally. It's at the high end of the spectrum, but not off the charts as seems to be the impression.And it has been going down, relative to the health of the economy and that high incarceration right. Am I wrong about this? (Please, be gentle ;) .)
We lock too many people up. Way to many people. That this method is a failure goes almost without saying, I personally believe. To bring up our northern neighbors again, I think they incarcerate approximately one tenth of the poeple we do (adjusted for population). That is a profound difference. And i know for a fact that Canadians do not feel more frightened or victimized than we do. Less so, actually. (One of the few really good points Michael Moore has made.)Again, how do they manage that--in your view?
Maybe so. If anything, this speaks to the paucity of our moral sense: a benefit of religion only from a sort of default point of view. Still, better that than nothing!I'm afraid this is quite opaque to me.
For obvious reasons, I have a very personal difference of opinion with this assertion. That is, I happen to know--know, mind you--that this is demonstrably untrue. :)Again, I'd be interested in hearing how, since it seems counterintuitive to me. After all, I take "secular" to mean all those practical, physical elements of life that are already apparent to a person who commits crimes. If we don't add in some other element to the mix, I don't see how a person's attitude changes. Perhaps there is some secular element of life or thought that one can use to change a felon's perspective?

[lord tammerlain]

Regarding the number of people in prison as a percentage of population

The US leads by a far margin for Western nations, but I would hazard an educated guess that a large number of US prisoners are locked up on drug related charges. Remove the illegal nature of drugs and I would be that far fewer Americans would be in prison.

As a collary, the number of Canadians who would be in jail if the illegality of pot was heavily enforced, would jump drastically

[serenity]

It's interesting to me that this is a place where we so often disagree. It must be a difference either of values or experience.


Yeah, I don't know. At first blush, I wouldn't consider our values radically different. We seem to share some sort of fundamental common ground, ultimately. But I imagine experience has shaped us a bit differently.




Are you suggesting that getting people to reoffend is a goal of our system? Or that our system doesn't care if people reoffend?

No, and no. I believe it is a mixture of politicization of crime--notably drug offenses--and a quite astounding incompetence, an inability to make fundamental changes...which I think are long past due. Also, a misunderstanding of what a criminal actually is: a human being, in most cases EXACTLY like non-criminals in every important way, who broke a law. (An, let's face it, what is the percentage of Americans, never caught, who haven't broken at least minor laws, countless times over? a minority.

That is to say, crime is not crime is not crime. And neither are criminals. Even some very serious criminals are in reality no different from anyone else.

We tend to draw such demarcations much too sharply, in my opinion. Aside from a few psychopaths, it's not generally accurate.


I'd be interested in hearing what you think are the differences. I know little about European or Canadian penal systems. I know something about the legal system in Britain and a tiny bit in about France's but how criminal and those accused of crimes are treated in Germany or Italy is a mystery to me.

I'm clueless about Germany and Italy. But in Northern Europe, the length of incarceration is low (compared to ours) but with less recidivism. I'm not claiming that the one leads naturally to the other (I don't quite see how it would): but I don't believe there's something germane to human beings of Northern European descent which makes them less likely to re-offend. It's a matter of concentrating on rehabilitation, rather than making it a slight afterthought to punishment.


Canada too. They have wavered somewhat back and forth, between American-style "tough on crime" ideas and those of rehabilitation, re-integration with society. Less time spent on incarceration (life sentences--I mean literal life sentences--are extremely rare), but more time, and more intensity, on probationary measures are enforced.

What amazes me is that this is sometimes decried as "big government": locking someone up forever is not "big government," but insisting upon intense probationary measures is!

I'm not agreeing with the distinction on that one. There is a definite Big Government principle to one that locks up 2 million citizens, and that in some regions has draconian and unfair "three strikes" laws.



Here's another place that begs a question on my part. I'd agree that we lock people up for the WRONG things (non-violent drug crimes, for example), but beyond that I don't know what you mean. Incarceration is the most expensive option; it would make sense to limit it to those persons who do not respond to other kinds of consequence. Where, in your view, are we going wrong?

First of all, I dispute your implied distinction. Non -violent drug crimes is one of THE major reasons FOR our massive incarceration rate.

Second, it's the length of sentencing that is in question. While virtually everyone seems to agree that the legal system is only beginning to catch up to the seriousness of sexual offenses against children--that is, that they've been treated TOO leniently, at least arguably--we sentence people for too long a time generally. Again, the fact that other societies, of relatively similar make-up to our own, have changed FROM a harsh system to ones with less time served, and with a concurrent decrease in recidivism, is something worth looking at. (And some states, California for example, actually are looking at it).

I'm not claiming to have strong, precise answers, as is probably clear: but that a quarter of the WORLD's prison population is ours just seems astounding, and counter-intuitive.

And we can't say it's working at all, except by the ENTIRELY speculative idea that "crime would be higher if we weren't doing it this way."



And it has been going down, relative to the health of the economy and that high incarceration right. Am I wrong about this? (Please, be gentle .)

Okay. :) First, as you point out, there are TWO obvious concurrents here. The latter could be irrelevant. And at any rate, we're left again with brute speculation, a cause-and-effect that is not inarguably so.

Second, the crime rate, which reached quite a terrible high between forty and thirty years ago, began dropping BEFORE the more draconian incarceration policies were sold to us, and embraced in a rather reactionary manner. (Interestingly, a little known fact is that New York's famously dramatic drop in crime began before Giuliani, a factoid of which I assume the man knows but isn't sharing; similarly, the crime rate was dropping in many places, not just in New York. But I slightly digress.)

So, while I've little-to-no hard evidence, I certainly have as much as the "lock 'em up" adherents...and it seems clear that the onus should be on them, not on the more libertarian view.


I'd add one more thing: let's say you're right. This implies something strange: one, that Americans are more criminally-minded than people in similar industrial, walthy democracies. Not an impossibility, but exceeding strange, isn't it? And two, that while other countries benefit, crime-wise, from less severity and more rehabilitative methods, something uniquely American makes that unrealistic here.

I can't imagine why, frankly.


cont'd

[serenity]

:
We lock too many people up. Way to many people. That this method is a failure goes almost without saying, I personally believe. To bring up our northern neighbors again, I think they incarcerate approximately one tenth of the poeple we do (adjusted for population). That is a profound difference. And i know for a fact that Canadians do not feel more frightened or victimized than we do. Less so, actually. (One of the few really good points Michael Moore has made.)





posted by Atticus
Again, how do they manage that--in your view?

I'm glad you ask this, because it reminds me that I"m monumentally a know-nothing. Seriously, it's a good question. There might be a whole host of reasons...maybe some that really ARE a bit separate from the specific mechanics of law and order.

My impression of Canada--and it is only an impression, though based on a couple of years (almost) of living and working there--is that the citizenry has more solidarity than we do (with apologies for a cringe-worthy word). They differ and disagree as we do, sometimes violently, but there is a community spirit and a public concern for an abstract "commons" which, in my opinion, is lacking here. For better or worse--these are hugely complicated issues, I know. Some of our very problems as Americans could well be strongly related to our strengths, and so on. But anyway, that's one, maybe unsatisfying, diference that I've perceived.


posted by serenity
Maybe so. If anything, this speaks to the paucity of our moral sense: a benefit of religion only from a sort of default point of view. Still, better that than nothing!



posted by Atticus
I'm afraid this is quite opaque to me.

sorry. What i meant was that I don't consider faith necessary to good works and felt morality; but I do think that the explicitly faithful have been better at this in many ways than have the explicitly secular. It's by "default" because I don't see it as inherent, as must-be-this-way.


posted by serenity
For obvious reasons, I have a very personal difference of opinion with this assertion. That is, I happen to know--know, mind you--that this is demonstrably untrue.



posted by Atticus
Again, I'd be interested in hearing how, since it seems counterintuitive to me.



Because I'm an ex-felon and ex-repeat offender who changed his ways, consciously and for moral reasons (primarily a two-year old daughter living with my sister while I was incarcerated), and it had absolutely nothing to do with a religious faith which I didn't posses.


After all, I take "secular" to mean all those practical, physical elements of life that are already apparent to a person who commits crimes. If we don't add in some other element to the mix, I don't see how a person's attitude changes. Perhaps there is some secular element of life or thought that one can use to change a felon's perspective?

Well, I'll defer to your education here, for obvious reasons; but all I meant by "secular" was "not religious." That's it. Perhaps I could have used a better term?


But given my self-designation (accurate or not) I don't get the confusion. I doubt you're arguing that a non-religious person can only be materialistic and devoid of a clear moral sense. So I confess I don't know what you mean.

[AgentM]

My impression of Canada--and it is only an impression, though based on a couple of years (almost) of living and working there--is that the citizenry has more solidarity than we do (with apologies for a cringe-worthy word). They differ and disagree as we do, sometimes violently, but there is a community spirit and a public concern for an abstract "commons" which, in my opinion, is lacking here.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but one thing to keep in mind are the subcultures of Canada. As I'm sure you know the different regions in Canada tend to have their own minor (and major when you include French-Canadians, Quebecois, Acadians etc) cultural differences, as you do in the US. I have heard that the Maritimes (I believe you were in New Brunswick if I remember correctly) tend to be a lot more community oriented. Whereas say us in the West are supposed to be a lot more individualistic. Just something to keep in mind. I'm not entirely sure that there is a greater Canadian identity, we're still developing ideas of who we are as a nation. I'd be wary of catch-all statements about Canadians. We're less of a unified nation and more of a bunch of differing communities grouped together for the common good.

Just something to keep in mind, I'm not disagreeing with your statement.

[serenity]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but one thing to keep in mind are the subcultures of Canada. As I'm sure you know the different regions in Canada tend to have their own minor (and major when you include French-Canadians, Quebecois, Acadians etc) cultural differences, as you do in the US. I have heard that the Maritimes (I believe you were in New Brunswick if I remember correctly) tend to be a lot more community oriented. Whereas say us in the West are supposed to be a lot more individualistic. Just something to keep in mind. I'm not entirely sure that there is a greater Canadian identity, we're still developing ideas of who we are as a nation. I'd be wary of catch-all statements about Canadians. We're less of a unified nation and more of a bunch of differing communities grouped together for the common good.

Just something to keep in mind, I'm not disagreeing with your statement.



Not at all, I agree with your assessments here. Like i said, there are massive differences, some of them profound. I've heard it said, for example, that New Brunswickers and Nova Scotians have more in common with New Englanders than with Canadian Westerners, for regional/cultural reasons. (I'm not stating that as truth, just thta I've heard it said.)

And yes, these are all extremely complex matters.

But I maintain there is a greater sense of Canadian solidarity than there is American. I have no evidence, just a feeling, but it comes from actually living and working in both countries.

And Quebec's separatist elements are obviously an exception to this; and, at least as far as my Maritime friends believe, Albertans too, who seem in some ways more aligned with the conservative aspects of the U.S. than with their own country. (Again, I'm not personally making any claims about this.)

As for Western "individualism"...I'm a little suspicious. It sounds like a bit of self-mythologizing to me. after all, there are no people in Canada who are more adoring of the U.S. than Albertans; they're practically American patriots, or rather some of them. That's not individualistic. that's the opposite of individualistic.

I mean, juts read the National Post (I know, not an Albertan paper exactly...but it might as well be; it's got that agenda seeping from its pores.) I can't really think of an American newspaper, at least not a major one, that is more shamelessly "America-always-right" than that paper. It's astonishing, really. Any American paper with that approach towards Canada could only be some small, leftist rag on the margins.

So I"m not too sure about the whole "individualism" thing. But probably you'd know better than me! :)

[Atticus]

Well, I'll defer to your education here, for obvious reasons; but all I meant by "secular" was "not religious." That's it. Perhaps I could have used a better term?


But given my self-designation (accurate or not) I don't get the confusion. I doubt you're arguing that a non-religious person can only be materialistic and devoid of a clear moral sense. So I confess I don't know what you mean.Of course I don't mean that last part. But I'm wondering what a system can add to a person's life that isn't already there unless they draw on some untapped spiritual element. In your own case, there was such an element (your daughter), and I can see how an effective, secular social service model could tap that element. But what about the person without either the impetus of a child or the support system of family?

I make the assumption that most people turn to crime not because they are fundamentally different inside but because they haven't had the many benefits I've enjoyed (stable, loving family; adequate wealth; education) but instead have had one or more pathologies to endure. They have to get beyond pathology in order to become <productive blah blah insert appropriate language here> citizens. It seems to me that they need something added to their lives to make that happen. Believing in a God who loves you and see value in you even if others don't, and who wants good things for you can be that extra something. I'm sure there are other external things (like a daughter) who can bring one past those pathologies, but surely that isn't true for everyone--it might not even be true for most.

That's what I mean.

[serenity]

Of course I don't mean that last part. But I'm wondering what a system can add to a person's life that isn't already there unless they draw on some untapped spiritual element. In your own case, there was such an element (your daughter), and I can see how an effective, secular social service model could tap that element. But what about the person without either the impetus of a child or the support system of family?

I make the assumption that most people turn to crime not because they are fundamentally different inside but because they haven't had the many benefits I've enjoyed (stable, loving family; adequate wealth; education) but instead have had one or more pathologies to endure. They have to get beyond pathology in order to become <productive blah blah insert appropriate language here> citizens. It seems to me that they need something added to their lives to make that happen. Believing in a God who loves you and see value in you even if others don't, and who wants good things for you can be that extra something. I'm sure there are other external things (like a daughter) who can bring one past those pathologies, but surely that isn't true for everyone--it might not even be true for most.

That's what I mean.



I agree with every word you've said here.

See? We do share a lot. :)