USA Prison Programming

This research outlines some of the history and concerns of in-prison programming in America. "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 intra-personal growth issues. But the majority of religious programming has been focused on religious worship services, discipleship training, and the multitude of spiritual growth issues.

Origin of Programming in American Prison Reform

Overview of American Prison Programming

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 have been explained in two following subsections: (1) the development of American prison reform and programming, and (2) how general programming fared.

American Prison Reform and Programming

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."[1]

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.[2]

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.[3]

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.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] Under a theme of impulse control, Toch described characteristics of self-alienation, self-release, self-escape, self-preservation, and self-intervention.[8]

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.[9]

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.[10]

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 toward supervising them in the community."[11]

How General Programming Fared

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.[12] Based upon this report some programs were curtailed, and both positive and negative evaluations of the report ensued.[13]

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."[14] 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.[15]

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.[16] 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]."[17]

On the contrary, many researchers reported that much programming was effective.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]

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.[21] Marshall, Turner, and Barbaree found that training prisoners in life skills raised self-esteem, improved attitudes towards education, increased empathy, and decreased psychopathy.[22]

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;

3. Be sensitive to the offender's self-esteem, not necessarily aiming to raise it, at least until prisonization has been addressed.[23]

Similar to Homant, several theorists have continued to emphasize the need for developing the social skills of prisoners related to post-release adjustment.[24]

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.[25]

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.[26] 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."[27] The wardens also said they had doubts about get-tough policies that take away some programs and services.[28]

Based upon programming research alone, there is huge support for religious programming, for there is not an area touched by secular programming that is not addressed at some length and in great depth by every major religion.

Recent Secular Reforms and Programming in Texas

Overview of Texas Programming

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:

Recent Secular Reforms 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."[29]

The landmark court ruling in Ruiz v. Estelle forced Texas prison administrators to initiate reforms in 1980.[30] 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.[31]

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.[32] 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.[33] That would make the Texas prison system the largest among "all Western countries."[34]

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."[35] 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.[36] Even though Carol Vance moved from chairman to board member and a new director has assumed leadership, the mission statement has remained the same. 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.[37]

Recent Programming Development in Texas

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.[38]

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.[39]

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."[40]

The development of programming in Texas and general prison reform in Texas, both of these substantiate the need and value of religious programming.

Struggle and Future of Prison Chaplaincy

Overview of Future of Prison Chaplaincy

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.

Struggle of American 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.[41] 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.[42]

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."[43]

The most significant development affecting American prison chaplaincy to date came when congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).[44] 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.[45] Regardless, the passage of the 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.[46]

Validating Chaplaincy Efforts

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."[47] 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.[48]

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.[49]

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[50]

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.[51]

Future of Texas Chaplaincy

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.[52]

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.[53]

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."[54]

Even though budgeting cuts have decreased some services to inmates as mentioned above in the practical rationale, the efforts to draw upon the volunteer community have increased. Governor George Bush recently issued a memorandum that in part said:

Thankfully, there is a grassroots effort in Texas to minister to those who are incarcerated and their families. The goal is to reduce the recidivism rate. There needs to be an environment in Texas that fosters efforts by faith-based and other service organizations to meet the needs of Texans in crisis. Government . . . cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives. . . . Only
faith can do that.[55]

Within that memorandum, Governor Bush proclaimed October 1996 as Criminal Justice Ministry Awareness Month and urged appropriate recognition.

Who does not value Religion or Immediately and Intuitively know the contribution that Religion itself has been for the Good of Humanity since the Beginning of the recorded History of Humanity? Why should the one department charged with accessing humanity's greatest resource be funded less than any other profession? Who would not want trained clergy to be fully equipped to foster religious expression and meet religious needs?

Who believes that the Chaplaincy Profession is of less value than any other profession to the mission and goals of TDCJ? Who does not value their faith and value faith itself?

Parity for Chaplains is about the Value of a Profession and about the Value of Religion itself.

[1]Charles E. Silberman, Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice (New York: Random House, 1978), 372.

[2]National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report on Penal Institutions, Probation and Parole (Montclair, NJ: U.S. GPO, 1931), 6.

[3]Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958), 59.

[4]Cf., M.J. Lillyquist, Understanding and Changing Criminal Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980); and C. W. Thomas and D. M. Peterson, "A Comparative Organizational Analysis of Prisonization," Criminal Justice Review 6 (1981): 36-43.

[5]Cf., Robert Moton, What the Negro Thinks (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1929); Victor Nelson, Prison Days and Nights (Boston: Little and Brown, 1933); and John Godwin, Alcatraz: 1868-1963 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1963).

[6]Karl Menninger, The Crime of Punishment (New York: Viking Press, 1968).

[7]Hans Toch, Mosaic of Despair: Human Breakdowns in Prison, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1992), 63-116.

[9]Robert Homant, "Therapy Effectiveness in a Correctional Institution," Offender Rehabilitation 1 (Fall 1976): 101-113.

[10]President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1967), 159.

[11]National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, A National Strategy to Reduce Crime (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1973), 121; cf., Prisoners in America (Harriman, N.Y.: Report of the 42nd American Assembly, 1972).

[12]D. Lipton, R. Martinson, and J. Wilks, The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies (New York: Praeger, 1975), 256.

[13]Robert J. Homant, "Ten Years After: A Follow-up of Therapy Effectiveness," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 10 (Spring 1986): 51-57.

[15]Alfred Blumstein, "American Prisons in a Time of Crisis," in The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy: Law, Society, and Policy, eds. Lynne Goodstein and Doris Layton MacKenzie (New York: Plenum Press, 1989), 13-22.

[16]L. Genevie, E. Margolies, and G. L. Muhlin, "How Effective is Correctional Intervention," Social Policy 16:3 (1986): 52-57.

[17]Homant, "Ten Years After"; cf., M. J. Lillyquist, Understanding and Changing Criminal Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980).

[18]R. R. Ross and P. Gendreau, Effective Correctional Treatment (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980); M. J. Lillyquist, Understanding and Changing Criminal Behavior (Englewhood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980); and Clemens Bartollas, Correctional Treatment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985).

[19]C. W. Thomas and D. M. Petersen, "A Comparative Organizational Analysis of Prisonization," Criminal Justice Review 6 (1981): 36-43.

[20]J. Homer, "Total Institutions and the Self-Mortifying Process," Canadian Journal of Criminology 23 (1981): 331-342.

[21]M. R. Wiederlanders, "Some Myths about Employment Problems of Young Offenders," Federal Probation 45 (1981): 9-12.

[22]W. L. Marshall, B. A. Turner, and H. E. Barbaree, "An Evaluation of Life Skills Training for Penitentiary Inmates," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation 14 (1989): 41-59.

[23]Robert J. Homant, "Employment of Ex-Offenders: The Role of Prisonization and Self-Esteem," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 8 (Spring 1984): 5-23; cf. Homant, "Ten Years After," (1986).

[24]Cf., Eric Cullen, "The Grendon Reconviction Study," Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology 21 (1994): 103-105; Edward M. Scott, "History and Treatment Efforts for a Prison Special Management Unit: Prison Group Therapy with Mentally and Emotionally Disturbed Offenders," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 37 (Summer 1993): 131-145; Harry K. Wexler, Gregory P. Falkin, and Douglas S. Lipton, "Outcome Evaluation of a Prison Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse Treatment," Criminal Justice and Behavior 17 (March 1990): 71-92; and Joan V. Martin, "Optimal Timing for Group Therapy in the Criminal Justice System," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 14 (May 1989): 149-158.

[25]Kevin N. Wright, "Prison Environment and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 20 (1993): 93-113.

[26]Russ Immarigeon, "Correctional Options: What Works?" Corrections Today (December 1995): unpaginated pullout, sixth in series of seven articles.

[27]Tim Flanagan, Wes Johnson, and Katherine Bennett, "Sam Houston State University Survey of Wardens Indicates Support of Education," 2 Windham (March-April 1996): 2.

[29]S. J. Martin and S. Ekland-Olson, Texas Prisons: The Walls Came Tumbling Down (Austin: Texas Monthly Press, 1987), 170-171.

[30]Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Texas 1980).

[32]Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Council, More Incarceration as the Newest Entitlement Program in Texas (October 1995), by Tony Fabelo, Bulletin from the Executive Director, 1-4 (Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council, 1995).

[33]Ibid.; cf., Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1994 Annual Report, (Huntsville, TX: Windham School System Media Center, 1994), 64.

[34]Carol S. Vance, chairman of the board, to the governor of the state of Texas and members of the Texas legislature, in Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1994 Annual Report, (Huntsville, TX: Windham School System Media Center, 1994), 5.

[35]Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1994 Annual Report, (Huntsville, TX: Windham School System Media Center, 1994), 1.

[37]Ray Hill, "Executive Director Discusses Prison Issues," The Echo 68 (October 1996): 1.

[39]R. Scott, R. Hawkins, Jr., and M. Farnsworth, "Operation Kick-It: Texas Prisoners Rehabilitate Themselves by Dissuading Others," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 20 (1994): 207-215.

[40]Bambi Kaiser, ed., "New Institutional Division Director Johnson Supports WSD Classes, Programs," Windham 2 (March-April 1996): 1.

[41]Albert Roberts, Sourcebook on Prison Education (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1971), 162.

[42]Sanford Bates, Prisons and Beyond (New York: MacMillan, 1936), 163.

[43] Michael Wolf, Prison (London: Eyre and Spottiswoods, 1967), 254.

[44]Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Statutes at Large, 107, sec. 2000, 1488 (1993).

[45]Cynthia N. Milne, General Counsel of Texas Department of Criminal Justice, to chairman of the board James Riley, executive director James Collins, and others, 16 December 1993, Transcript in the hand of Michael G. Maness, attached to copy of RFRA, Chaplaincy Department, Gib Lewis State Prison, Woodville, TX.

[47]Daniel Glaser, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964): 145.

[48] For favorable reports see: Norman Fenton, Human Relations in Adult Corrections (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1973), 83-85; J. E. Hull Williams, Changing Prisons (London: Peter Owen, 1975), 131. For unfavorable reports see: Octavio Ballestero, Behind Jail Bars (New York: Philosophical Library, 1979), 113.

[49]Vance Drum, "Pastoral Care at Eastham Prison: A Program for Training Inmates to Help as Peer Counselors," (D.Min., Abilene Christian University, 1991), 90-92.

[50]David D. Duncombe, "The Task of Prison Chaplaincy: An Inmate's View," Journal of Pastoral Care 46 (Summer 1992): 193-209.

[51]Richard Shaw, Chaplains to the Imprisoned: Sharing Life with the Incarcerated (Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 1995).

[52]Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Chaplaincy Department, Executive Summary (Fiscal Year 1995), by Jerry Groom, Inter-office Communication from the Administrator of Chaplains (Huntsville, TX: Chaplaincy Department, 11 January 1995).

[54]Wayne Scott, Executive Director, to Chairman Carol Vance, all directors, all wardens, and others, 23 February 1996, Transcript in the hand of Michael G. Maness, Chaplaincy Department, Gib Lewis State Prison, Woodville, TX.

[55]George Bush, "Official Memorandum: State of Texas Office of the Governor," Informs 3:3 (October-December 1996): 1.

Technical Treatise: The research presented here was originally part of and adapted from the author’s doctoral dissertation at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary: M.G. Maness An Empathic Helping Skills Program at the Gib Lewis State Prison, Woodville, Texas, New Orleans, LA. Through historical justification and experimental analysis, the program was supported and then proved that prisoners could be trained in empathic skills. Several instruments were used, including the directional, non-directional and independent groups t-tests on a control and an experimental group. All the measures indicated a high level of improvement in the experimental group over the control group.

Soon-- we'll show you how to join our concerted effort to make a difference. For now, support Parity by supporting Divisional Status for the TDCJ Chaplaincy Department with your legislature.