Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Description
Chapter 3 Evaluation
Chapter 4 Summary, Conclustions, Recommendations






The Problem and Its Setting

Statement of the Problem

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.


Definitions of Terms

"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.


Description of the Gib Lewis Prison

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.


Qualifications of the Project Director

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.



The Importance of the Project

Theological Rationale

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.


Nature of Christian Love


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.

Christian's Inherent Love for Others

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.


Love as the Example of Jesus Christ

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]


Specific Examples of Love's Expression

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.


High Aspirations of the Church

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.


Responsibilities of the Church


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.

Body of Christ

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.


Ministry of Reconciliation

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.


Charge to Remember the Imprisoned and Mistreated

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.


Visiting and Caring for Christ in Prison

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.


Fellowship in Suffering

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.


Prison Ministry in the New Testament


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.

Prisoner to Prisoner

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).


Prisoner to the Freeworld

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]


Historical Rationale

"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.


Origin of Programming in American Prison Reform


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.


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."[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]


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.[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.


Recent Secular Reforms and Programming in Texas


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.


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."[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.


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.[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.


Struggle and 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.[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]


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."[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

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]

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.[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 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.

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

Practical Rationale

Three practical considerations were found to support a rationale for a helping skills program. Those considerations were: (1) the inhibitions within a hostile environment, (2) the institutional environment, and (3) the unique qualifications of the chaplaincy department.


Inhibitions within a Hostile Environment


At least three inhibitions have impeded a prisoner's ability to relate healthily and express love. Those inhibitions were: (1) a normal person's inhibitions, (2) the additional inhibitions within a prison, and (3) the prisoner's own background and social grooming.


Normal Person's Inhibitions

Many attitudes have inhibited a normal person's ability to relate and express love: fear of self-disclosure, fear of the recipient's rejection, a lack of skills, and others.[73] Most normal people have experienced many kinds of inhibitions to their ability to relate, and one common key to growth in the ability to relate has been training in the skills of relating.[74]

Additional Inhibitions within a Prison

In addition to the normal fears, other inhibitions have existed in prison: distrust, social hostility, and sexual aberrations.[75] In a male prison any behavior construed as weak or effeminate could invite abuse, cursing, manipulation, or exploitation.[76]

As seen in the theological rationale, a Christian prisoner has been given an inherent love for others, but any expression of love is inhibited by a prisoner's natural fear and even further by the interpersonally hostile environment of prison. Such a prisoner is forced to make important decisions about how his love will be expressed in such an environment.


Prisoner's Own Background and Social Grooming

The prisoner's background itself usually inhibited love's expression. A large number of prisoners came from a hostile or otherwise dysfunctional background. A Christian prisoner's own background then became a challenge to overcome. In addition to normal fears and environmental inhibitions, many prisoners have arrived in prison with prior dysfunctions or cultivated hostilities arising from their background which further mitigates against growth and the development of interpersonal skills.[77]

The three inhibitions mentioned above indicated some of the severe needs and challenges facing almost any prisoner's development of social skills. In the light of those inhibitions and needs, a practical rationale was seen for a helping skills program, especially a program that would help prisoners be patient, learn how to listen, and learn how to attend to the needs of others. If a prisoner improved his relationship skills and ability to express love, those skills could carry over to other places in the institution as well as to the prisoner's own family life. Those skills could become a significant factor in helping adjustment after release, extending the benefits of positive relations well beyond the confines of the prison.


Social Concerns of the Institutional Environment


Three social concerns of the institutional environment were identified that support the need for a helping skills program. Those concerns were: (1) the reduction in non-security staff, (2) the highly structured nature of unit operations, and (3) the readiness of a group of Christian inmates to participate in a helping skills program.


Reduction in Non-Security Staff

Recent budget cuts have forced major restructuring at the Gib Lewis Prison. Prison classification managers and substance abuse counselors have been reduced. As a result, the non-security persons to whom inmates could go to about their confinement, release, and family struggles were reduced. More so now than in the past, inmates have been forced to look to each other for emotional support, which accents further the need for a helping skills program.

Highly Structured Nature of Unit Operations

The highly structured environment of the prison was maintained through routine and restricted activity. Inmates lived and worked within the space of a few acres for many years. Every inmate had continual interaction with the same people day after day, and many inmates had continual interaction all of their waking hours with a small number of people, over an extended period of time and often in an interpersonally intense atmosphere. In addition to those intensities, the paramilitary structure of the restricted environment limited further outlets for emotional release. In such an environment, any kind of improvement in social skills and helping skills would be profitable to those willing to learn such skills.


Readiness of a Group of Christian Inmates

A core group of enthusiastic Christian inmates has supported almost every Christian activity. A number of those men would participate in a Christian helping skills program, for many of them have been helping and providing ministry in their own way. At the Gib Lewis Prison many Christian prisoners were ready to help and ready to learn how to become better helpers.


Unique Role of the Prison Chaplaincy Department


Four aspects of the unique role of the prison chaplaincy department were identified that support the need for a chaplaincy department helping skills program. Those aspects were (1) the inherently helping role of the chaplaincy department, (2) the ability to access the best of both the religious and secular worlds, (3) the multiplying benefits of a prisoner helping skills program, and (4) the fact that little has been done.

Inherently Helping Role of the Chaplaincy Department

Chaplains have provided a kind of programming that is expected and valued without necessarily being quantifiable. The reason that few studies on chaplaincy efforts have been done may have been because of a widespread belief in the inherent value of religion by the adherents of religion and the similar widespread disbelief by those in the scientific community who do not value religion. Nevertheless, the need to work on inmate self-esteem, social skills, and similar personal development needs have been validated repeatedly. Historically, the chaplaincy department has been a helping department, making it specially suited to provide a helping skills training program.


Ability to Access the Best of Religious and Secular

The chaplaincy department has the ability to access the special knowledge and professional skills of both the religious and secular worlds. All secular efforts to rehabilitate have focused on changing the life of the offender. The chaplaincy department has sought not only to change and enrich the life of the offender, but also has sought to provide guidance in spiritual issues and in ultimate values. Therefore, enriching religious values and fostering Christian principles with biblically sound secular helping skills would not only complement the chaplaincy agenda but would access and even forward the best of both worlds, religious and secular.


Multiplying Benefits of the Program

Given the environment, a lot of imprisoned men have concluded that they want to improve, find worth, help themselves, or otherwise gain self-esteem. Given the desire for self-improvement, Christian prisoners have been given the ability to love and have been impelled by their compassion to help other prisoners. Therefore, within the chaplaincy department's programs, prisoners have indicated their motivation to help and to learn how to help others.

If a few Christian men improve their ability to relate healthily, the interpersonal benefits would flow to everyone with whom those prisoners associated. Therefore, given the environment and the nature of some of the Christian men in that environment, multiplying benefits seemed to be built into such a chaplaincy program designed to help prisoners improve the helping skills they were already motivated and struggling to use.


Fact that Little Has Been Done on Program Problems

From the historical data supplied above in the historical rationale, little has been done to help prisoners become more proficient helpers. Only one reference combining Christian and secular principles was found.[78] The fact alone that little has been done in the area of the proposed chaplaincy program indicated a need to proceed further in the exploration of the effectiveness of programs designed to help prisoners become helpers.

In all of the many criminal justice efforts, the unique role of the chaplaincy department has just begun to be seen, asserted, and validated in the overall efforts to deter crime, to reduce recidivism, and to rehabilitate offenders. Therefore, because of the near absence of efforts and validation, a practical rationale for the implementation of a helping skills program was indicated for a program utilizing both religious and secular disciplines to help prisoners become better helpers.

Conclusions on the Three Rationales

Conclusions on the Theological Rationale

Assuming the inherent value of love and the possibility and need of growth, the theological rationale for a helping skills program was justified upon three theological foundations. Those three foundations were (1) nature of Christian love, (2) the responsibilities of the church in prison, and (3) the examples of prison ministry in the New Testament.

If the helping skills program could help prisoners love more effectively and could help them acquire or more fully exhibit other Christian virtues, then the first rationale could be seen in the four areas listed under the nature of Christian love. Those areas were (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.

A second rationale could be seen in the five listed responsibilities of the church, for those areas provided a general charge for all Christians to help others whether free or incarcerated. Those five responsibilities were (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) fellowship in suffering.

A third rationale could be seen from the two examples of New Testament prison ministry, since they provided precedents for contemporary prisoners to do the same. Those two examples were (1) prisoner to prisoner and (2) prisoner to the freeworld.


Conclusions on the Historical Rationale

A historical rationale for the helping skills program was seen in the developments of three historical themes. Those themes were (1) the origin of programming in American prison reform, (2) the recent secular reform and programming in Texas, and (3) the struggle and the future of prison chaplaincy.

Within the theme of the origin of programming in American prison reform, two characteristics of that reform were examined and found relevant in the support of a helping skills program. One, the general development of American prison reform and programming increasingly came to focus on the personal and social development of the prisoner. Two, though programming has been subject to much conflict throughout the decades, a consensus developed that favors programming which aids the personal and social growth of prisoners. Therefore, the history of program development and the positive support of most programming around the country supported a rationale for a helping skills program.

Within the theme of recent secular reform and programming in Texas, two characteristics of that reform were examined and found relevant in the support of a helping skills program. One, although the recent secular reform in Texas was slow and forced, in increasing measure TDCJ has focused upon reforming criminal behavior and reducing recidivism. Two, TDCJ has increased its focus upon improving educational and other programming through the use of volunteer help, and most of the programming emphasis has been directed toward changing prisoners before they were returned to society. Therefore, the increasingly positive emphasis upon reform and programming in Texas as well as the prison agency's own mission statement supported a rationale for a helping skills program.

Within the theme of the struggle and the future of prison chaplaincy, three characteristics of that struggle were examined and found relevant in the support of a helping skills program. One, American prison chaplaincy efforts have struggled for credibility in a secular environment. However, despite occasional ambiguity in the chaplain's role, the inherent value of chaplaincy and therefore religious efforts in general have helped to further religiously based activities, especially as seen in the passage of RFRA's establishment of the prisoner's religious freedom. Two, though only a few studies existed on the effectiveness of chaplaincy efforts upon prisoner rehabilitation, those studies indicated that chaplains were influential and that chaplaincy departments have the potential and the challenge to do more. Three, the future of prison chaplaincy in Texas has been focused upon increasing both the quality and the number of all kinds of chaplaincy programs. Therefore, the recent trends in prison chaplaincy efforts in Texas supported a rationale for a helping skills program.


Conclusions on the Practical Rationale

A practical rationale was seen in three considerations. One consideration was the three forms of inhibition within a hostile environment. Those inhibitions were (1) a normal person's inhibitions, (2) the additional inhibitions within a prison, and (3) the prisoner's own background and social grooming. Those inhibitions reflected great personal and interpersonal needs. Together, the inhibitions and resulting needs indicated a practical rationale for a helping skills program designed to overcome those inhibitions and meet some of those needs.

The second consideration was the nature of the Gib Lewis institutional environment which involved three social concerns. Those concerns were (1) the reduction in non-security staff, (2) the highly structured nature of unit operations, and (3) the readiness of a group of Christian inmates to participate in a helping skills program. Those together indicated not only the need but also the positive influence of a helping skills program upon the prisoner's ability to cope interpersonally or grow into a more healthy person.

The third consideration was the four aspects of the unique role of the chaplaincy department. Those four aspects were (1) the inherently helping role of the chaplaincy department, (2) the ability to access the best of both the religious and secular worlds, (3) the multiplying benefits of a prisoner helping skills program, and (4) the fact that little has been done. Those together substantiated the need for a helping skills program as well as the need for the chaplaincy department to be the facilitator for the program.



Review of the Related Literature

The literature contained only one reference that reported the results of a Christian-based helping skills program designed to help prisoners to be of help to other prisoners. In "Training Inmates to Help as Peer Counselors," Vance Drum reported on a D.Min. project that he had implemented at the Eastham State Prison in Lovelady, Texas.[79] Drum integrated some secular helping skills into a program based upon biblical principles of concern. As a resource to the development of the proposed program, Drum presented several lesson plans that contained aids in the use of expressing and reflecting feelings. Each lesson contained a variety of methods including role plays and lectures.

The following review was divided into two areas: Christian helping skills and secular helping skills. The resources under those two areas were the primary sources used in the development and implementation of the helping skills program.


On Christian Helping Skills

The Bible was the primary source of authority used in the program. The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible provided the sources for the biblical quotes. A biblical foundation was not only assumed in the actual implementation but also was maintained through the use of devotions at the beginning of each of the program sessions. Furthermore, throughout the program biblical citings and principles were used to undergird and explicate the foundations of several secular principles. Throughout the program, all of the secular principles that were used were explained as biblically validated or presented as though the principles were expositions of a biblical truth. In other words, every helping principle and every exercise were seen as stemming from either an explicit or implicit biblical source: the process of teaching was from the biblical to the secular, not vice versa.

The principal feature of the entire program, emphasized throughout, was that biblical love provided the foundation for all of the helping skills. All of the listening and empathy skills were a significant part of love, and therefore the skills originated in and proceeded from love.

In Pastoral Counseling: How Every Pastor Can Help People to Help Themselves, Seward Hiltner outlined some general principles in a Christian framework and in a clearly empathic manner. For example, Hiltner stated clear principles for different aspects of the counseling session: assumptions about pastoral counseling in general, principles for clarifying the beginning of any session, principles for interacting in an empathic manner, and ways to affirm normality. Most of his principles were too abstract to be directly applicable to the participants of this program, but his theories provided the director with a theoretical understanding that aided in constructing and explaining the biblical foundation of the program.

In Pastoral Care in the Church, C. W. Brister explained many principles that should undergird the encounters of the pastor of a freeworld church. Several sections provided insight and illustrations on theological perspectives, the pastoral understanding of persons, and counseling as a relationship and a process. The significant contribution to the development of the program was the biblical foundation Brister laid out and the essential thesis that helping was not a matter of providing answers so much as helping was a solid and caring relationship.

In Biblical Themes for Pastoral Care, William Oglesby, Jr., argued for the superiority of a generally empathic way of "being" over the unempathic method of "doing": namely, the manner of one's caring over the raw techniques of caring. He illustrated his concepts with several case scenarios. He showed how biblical themes like conformity and rebellion could and should come out of a relationship rather than be imposed upon it. The significant contribution to the program was how his perceptions of "being" over "doing" were an important and even essential ingredient to the helping process. That understanding became decisive to the director when attempting to explain the case scenarios of the program and when attempting to distinguish the various kinds of alternative "doing" and "being" responses.

In Counseling for Spiritually Empowered Wholeness: A Hope-Centered Approach, Howard Clinebell presented wholeness as a continual and personal process in seven areas of living: mind, body, relationships, biosphere, work/play, organizations/institutions, and spiritual life. While not as empathic as the others, he emphasized his agenda which was to help others reach out for experiences in all of the seven areas of life within a biblical context. His seven areas provided a holistic context in which to view and integrate the best of the secular and sacred in a psychology of human nature. His seven areas were adapted and used in one segment of the program to help define the complexity of growth and therefore the necessity to listen well.

In "Counseling Ministry Training Program: Counseling Skills," Philip A. Coyle presented a helping skills program for the church members of the Manley Baptist Church in Morristown, Tennessee. Coyle listed and categorized fifty helping behaviors, and he contrasted some of these with what a counselor should not do. In presenting several of the helping behaviors, he gave many examples that exemplified proper and improper empathy. Coyle's list and some of his examples were used in the program.


On Secular Helping Skills

Three predominant teachers of secular helping skills were used in the construction of the program: Robert Carkhuff, Gerard Egan, and Allen Ivey. In Trainer's Guide for The Art of Helping VII, Carkhuff and Benoit presented a thorough program, from setting up chairs to guided discussions and assessments. His model included grouping the helping skills into four progressive levels: attending, responding, personalizing, and initiating. All of these were illustrated, and instructions were given for each lesson plan. Carkhuff's first two levels and several of his assessment devices were used in the program portion of the project.

In Student Workbook for The Art of Helping VII, Carkhuff gave many exercises for each of the four skill levels. Though the memorization of his paradigm seemed a little daunting and the paradigm itself not quite consolidated, the many examples of basic listening provided clear guidance toward listening with empathy. Several of the helping scenarios and their alternative responses were utilized in the program portion of the project.

Egan developed his Interpersonal Living: A Skills/Contract Approach to Human-Relations Training in Groups in 1976. Shortly after this work, Egan began to put together the beginnings of The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management Approach to Helping, 5th edition, and the accompanying manual, Exercises in Helping Skills, 3rd edition. All of those focused on the development of a contract between the counselor and the client through a three stage model of counseling (with three phases to each stage): 1st stage, identifying and clarifying the problem situation; 2nd stage, developing new scenarios and setting goals; and 3rd stage, action or turning preferred scenarios into reality. All three works provided many exercises for the development of skills in each of the three stages.

In Interpersonal Living, Egan gave many principles and outlines of the basic dynamics of healthy and unhealthy relationships: for example, elements of interpersonal style, resistances to self-disclosure, modes of self-disclosure, feelings difficult to face, and elements of respect. In this work, Egan clarified what he called accurate empathy and advanced accurate empathy: the former being the ability to reflect feeling and content, the latter being the ability to reflect feeling and content with a new interpretation of meaning for the client. Several portions were adapted to the program portion of the project.

In Exercises in Helping Skills, 3rd edition, Egan provided exercises for each stage and phase of his The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management Approach to Helping. A few of the exercises were utilized and adapted to the program portion of the project.

In Microcounseling, Ivey emphasized several specific skills in attending and empathy, though a majority of the book focused upon validation, contrasting theories, and instructional methodology. Regarding the "microcounseling" approach itself, Ivey emphasized a specific method to train new and student counselors. Ivey focused his training on the development of one specific counseling skill at a time in the trainee‑‑hence, "micro" counseling.

Two other works by Ivey focused specifically on teaching the two levels of helping skills presented in Microcounseling: the first level was presented in Basic Attending Skills, and the second level was presented in Basic Influencing Skills. Basic attending skills included open invitations to talk, clarifying, responding, and summarizing. Basic influencing skills included the ability to direct conversations, confront, issue directives, find logical consequences, and reframe. Those two works contained an easy to follow format with exercises. Several principles from Basic Attending Skills were condensed and adapted for the program portion of the project.

In The Lost Art of Listening, Michael Nichols focused primarily on the relationships between family members, yet he identified many principles that were applicable to all encounters where listening was important. He detailed why listening was important, how it connected people to each other, how it broke down barriers, and how the heart of listening was the struggle to suspend one's own needs. The focus of the book revolved around the simple thesis that everyone longs to be understood, and the director used that thesis throughout the program. In the explanations of empathy, the director inculcated the thesis that empathy was "communicating an understanding" to the hurting person.

In Listening Instruction, Andrew Wolvin and Carolyn Coakley explained thirty-three specific and simple exercises for improving listening skills. These exercises included an objective, a description of the exercise, and a small paragraph of instruction. A few of the exercises provided the essential format for the construction of the exercises and role plays in the program portion of the project.

In Listening By Doing: Developing Effective Listening Skills, Kathleen Galvin detailed the listening process for several specific types of situations. One section of that work provided an analysis of persuasion, and another section provided instructions on listening to feelings. The analysis was condensed and the instructions were adapted for use in the program portion of the project.

In Perceptive Listening, Florence Wolff and colleagues provided a description of the kinds of listening people do. Different kinds of situations required different kinds of listening, and strategies were provided for guidance in doing the required listening. Of special relevance, they explained their method on how to improve empathic listening, and a few of their explanations were adapted and presented in the program portion of the project.

In "Empathic: An Unappreciated Way of Being," Carl Rogers wrote a detailed treatise of empathy. Rogers defended his construct, defined empathy, summed up the need, and outlined significant researchers of empathy. Most relevant to the helping skills was his short but vivid definition of empathy: it was more like the description of a journey than a concise explication of a term. Reflecting the view of many, Lauren Wispe said that Rogers' definition was perhaps the most complete and insightful description of empathy to date.[80] Rogers' definition as well as the definitions of others were placed side-by-side in one segment of the program.

In Empathy: Its Nature and Uses, Robert Katz provided a description of the four levels of empathy based upon the developments of Theodor Reik: identification, incorporation, reverberation, and detachment. Though a bit philosophical and vague at points, his model presented the need of an oscillation between the levels of identification and detachment. In a section of special relevance, he described several ways in which persons could miss the mark or otherwise use empathy in unhealthy and destructive ways, and a few of those distortions of empathy were adapted and used for clarification in the program.

In Empathy: Development, Training, and Consequences, Arnold Goldstein and Gerald Michaels discussed the developments and methods of training in empathy, including Carkhuff and Egan. In the beginning, they gave the definitions of empathy by ten theorists. All of their discussions led to the formation of a proposed six-stage model for optimal training in empathy. These stages involved training in (1) readiness, (2) perceptual accuracy, (3) affective reverberation, (4) cognitive analysis, (5) empathic communication, and (6) transfer and maintenance. Several of the definitions for empathy were used, and the director gained a conceptual understanding of the progressive nature of empathy training.

In Empathy and Its Development, Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer brought many collaborators together. The first article by Eisenberg and Strayer provided some distinctions among the similar and basic concepts of empathy, sympathy, distress, and projection. Another article by Lauren Wispe provided a short history of the concept of empathy. Those two articles were cogent and provided concise details that‑‑with Rogers‑‑helped to distinguish and define the word "empathy" itself and aided in the director's overall understanding of the concept and practice of empathy.







The description of the project was broken down into three stages according to the three subproblems. The three stages were: (1) the development of the program, (2) the enlistment of inmates, and (3) the implementation of the program.



Development of the Program


The development of the program included three phases up to the time of enlistment. The three phases were: (1) the formation of the project focus, (2) the development of the lessons, and (3) the development of the instructional aids.


Formation of the Project Focus

The development of the program began with the search for a need. The greatest need in the Lewis Prison at the time seemed to be the need for a resource that would enable the prisoners in our Christian congregation to become better helpers. Opportunities for empathy abounded, but few understood, much less valued it. Much of the time, listening and empathy skills were viewed as weakness.

A broad review of the literature indicated that the scope of the project would have to be limited to a small segment of the available helping skills. A few concepts were jettisoned at the beginning. The unit warden rejected any kind of empowerment that would give inmates a reason to think they would be able to carry the label of counselors, therefore, "counselor" training and "crisis intervention" training were rejected. Actual psychotherapy and group therapy did not seem very appropriate because of the time limits imposed upon the program.

As the review of related literature in chapter 1 indicated, Egan, Carkhuff, and Ivey became the significant resources in the development of the helping skills program. They pioneered much of the helping skills training. However, even their programs were deemed too daunting for the prisoners, for most of the prisoners that signed up for the program only claimed some high school education.

The review of the literature and an understanding of the prisoners led the director to focus solely upon basic listening skills, avoiding training in modern psychology. As the director began to focus upon basic skills, he began to listen and intentionally pay attention to the kinds of listening that the Christian prisoners used. While most of the them were very caring and made every effort to show concern, most prisoners seemed to equate "helping" with advice giving or scripture quoting: they listened to advise and judge first, failing to express much empathy or to reflect understanding.

During the prospectus phase of the doctoral program, the focus settled upon basic helping and listening skills in the winter of 1995 during the director's taking of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary's course, Research and Writing Techniques. The basic helping skills were divided into four categories: body language, attending, self-disclosure, and empathy.


Development of the Lessons

The director proceeded to develop a method of presentation that would keep the participants motivated and provide them with skill instruction and training. The best training in helping and listening skills came from secular writers, so the director chose skills that were justifyiable in a Christian context.

Side-by-side with the developing of lesson plans dealing with basic helping skills, the director formulated biblical devotions for every session and found biblical concepts to undergird the program. The secular techniques were presented in a manner that followed the biblical foundation. The underlying thesis for the whole program was that all of the helping skills, when properly used, had their origin in the biblical love that was outlined in the theological rationale in chapter 1.

The theory for instruction was threefold for each session as reflected in the lesson plans: (1) give a spiritual foundation, (2) discuss the skill, and (3) provide practice in the skill. Each day's lesson included at least a devotional, a lecture, some open discussions, some written exercises, and some role play. During the first six sessions, homework was given that was expected to be completed and discussed during the following session in class.

The daily lesson plans were organized around three broad sets of skills: (1) attending skills on three days, (2) self-disclosure on one day, and (3) empathy skills on the three final days. The lesson plans contained the devotional for the day and introductory remarks for each of the overheads and handouts presented to the experimental group. The program director relied on the lesson plans to help guide the daily sessions, sometimes reading verbatim. The lesson plans were organized and placed in a notebook for use in class. A copy of the lesson plans was placed in appendix 2 of this report.


Development of the Instructional Aids

The director decided to use overheads and handouts as the primary method of guiding the sessions. The director concluded from his understanding of the men that most were visual and interactive learners. The director developed the overheads and handouts so the participants could write, role play, and reflect with each other about the concepts under consideration. Vance Drum in his evaluation of the program lesson plans affirmed that the lesson plans focused on interactive learning.

The overheads and handouts were constructed to be identical to each other. As an overhead was shown on the screen, the participant had a copy of the overhead in the form of a handout for his own use.

The overheads were numbered so as to distinguish the various days of the program. For instance, #1.2 referred to the first day and the second overhead. At the beginning of each session day, the handouts for that day were given to the men. At the end of the program, the accumulated handouts were stapled so that the men would have a ready workbook of the work they had done as well as a resource for the years ahead.

A few exceptions were made in the overheads presented in the report, and those exceptions were noted in the introductory remarks at the beginning of appendix 3. The most significant change made to the overheads that had been presented in class was that the expert responses (that were blank on the overheads and handouts) to each of the discrimination exercises were included in parentheses on the copies of the overheads presented in the project report. Copies of the overheads were placed in appendix 3 of this report.



Enlistment of Inmates


The enlistment included four phases. (1) advertisement, (2) enrollment, (3) pretesting, and (4) matching the experimental and control groups. The four phases were accomplished by 10 August 1996, the date of the first session of the program.


To make the program attractive, the program part of the project was called: "Love, Listening, Liberating: the Art of Christian Caring." A flyer was posted in the chapel bearing the title of the program. That flyer was also the first overhead and handout in the program, numbered in appendix 3 as #1.1: Title.

For two consecutive Sundays the program was announced to both of the Christian inmate congregations on the mornings of 7 and 14 July 1996. During those announcements, the men were told that on 21 July 1996 they would be given the opportunity to nominate men from the congregation for the helping skills program.



A simple criteria for nominations was created, and the men were encouraged to nominate anyone that they believed was already a helper. They were told that the nominees needed to have been in the prison system for at least three months and have at least six months to go before parole or release. The nominees needed to be clear of any severe disciplinary actions for the past six months and not have any pending. The men were told that they could nominate themselves if they desired and that the chaplain would be screening the nominees.

On 21 and 28 July 1996, further announcements were made, and nominations were taken from the two Sunday morning inmate congregations. The nominations were screened for disciplinary violations and approved by the chaplain. All sixty-seven nominees were found suitable.

A roll sheet was constructed from the list of nominees. The nominees were invited to the chapel on 3 August 1996 for an overview and some pretesting. This was done through the unit mail on an inter-office communication form similar to the one in appendix 12, item #1.


On 3 August 1996 sixty-seven men arrived. A great concern at the time was to motivate the men to stay in the program and not be discouraged or intimidated by the testing, so the director gave appropriate encouragement as to the value of the program and how much each participant might gain from the program. All the men were given an overview of what the program was going to be about based upon the outline that the experimental group would receive on the first day of program.[81]

Everyone was told that if he was chosen to be a part of the second group that he was assured a place in the second presentation of the program. They were also told that they were an important part of the program and that the second presentation would not immediately follow the end of the first presentation.

The men were told that the questionnaires were just basic assessments to help the chaplain construct the two groups.[82] They were also told that the two groups would be as evenly divided as the director could divide them. At the least, the division would be based upon race and with regard to the prison time they were assigned to serve: whether aggravated or non-aggravated. They were told that only one group would be able to attend the first presentation of the program and that both groups would take two of the three assessment tests twice.

During this first testing, the men appeared to have some misgivings about taking a test over material they had not studied. To allay some of the misgivings, the men were told that they were not expected to know a lot of what the questionnaires were asking. They were given instructions like, "just do your best and leave blank anything you do not understand" and "do not worry." They were told that the questionnaire part of the program was part of the chaplain's school project and that those participating were helping the chaplain in his school project. Those statements seemed to allay some of the misgivings that the participants had indicated.

The men were asked to be honest about their intentions. The director asked if there were any men who felt they needed to be in the first group for fear of being transferred or other reasons. The director asked the men if any of them simply felt like they needed to be in the first group for various reasons like the possibility of transfer. Also the director felt like a few of the men would severely dislike or even resent taking the test a second time if they had not gone through the program first, and the director told the men that such a reason would also be considered in the dividing of the two groups. There were five men who felt a special need to be a part of the first program irrespective of the criteria for the experimental and control groups.

At approximately 12:45 P.M., the men were given the three preprogram instruments: the Preprogram Background Questionnaire (PBQ),[83] the Counselor Response Questionnaire (CRQ),[84] and the Responding Questionnaire (RQ).[85] The data from the first two questionnaires (PBQ and CRQ) were used in the construction of the experimental and control groups. Later in the project evaluation, the data from the second two questionnaires (CRQ and RQ) were correlated with the posttest scores of the men in both groups, composing part of the formal evaluation.


Matching the Experimental and Control Groups

From the Preprogram Background Questionnaire, the sixty-seven participants were divided according to a few preselected sociological designations. Those designations were: race, whether the men were serving aggravated or non-aggravated time, and whether or not the men received any regular monthly visitors.

The questionnaires yielded four racial groups: black, white, Hispanic, and Vietnamese. For the purposes of the program, the men were divided accordingly: 30 black, 24 white, and 13 Hispanic (the one Vietnamese was included in the Hispanic group).

To obtain a balance between the types of offenses committed, the men in their racial group were sub-divided into those serving non-aggravated ("na") and aggravated ("a") time. Additionally, multiple offenders who had been sentenced three or more times were also placed in the aggravated group. The reason was that multiple offenders seemed to be sociologically more similar to aggravated offenders than to non-aggravated offenders.[86] The men were grouped as follows: 7 black "na," 23 black "a"; 10 white "na," 14 white "a"; 6 Hispanic "na" and 7 Hispanic "a."

To distinguish between men with varying levels of freeworld communications, those receiving at least one visit a month ("yes") were separated from those who had not ("no"). The last sociological division of the men yielded the following in table 1:



Table 1.--Sociological Breakdown of Participants


"Yes" "No"

3 black "na" 4 black "na"

7 black "a" 16 black "a"

3 white "na" 7 white "na"

7 white "a" 7 white "a"

2 Hispanic "na" 4 Hispanic "na"

3 Hispanic "a" 4 Hispanic "a"




To divide the men into two matched groups, the participants' scores on the Counselor Response Questionnaire (CRQ) were used. The scores indicated varying levels of counselor skills, and those scores were used to make the final division between the control and experimental groups.

In deciding between two scores within a particular sociological category, preference was given to the five men who had expressed a deep need for being in the first presentation. When several scores were close to each other within each category, a preference was given to the lower score for inclusion in the experimental group based on a pastoral decision to include those with the greatest need over those with the lesser need. In dividing the sixty-seven men, the experimental group was given thirty-three. The control group was given thirty-four. The division of the CRQ scores within the men's sociological categories yielded the following categorizations in table 2.



Table 2.--Preprogram CRQ Scores Categorized


Preprogram Experimental Group CRQ Scores Categorized


"Yes" "No"

black "na" 32, 23 black "na" 24, 14

black "a" 37, 30, 25, 17 black "a" 41, 31, 27, 25, 21, 20, 9

white "na" 34 white "na" 41, 28, 25, 21

white "a" 38, 35, 21 white "a" 38, 32, 29, 24

Hispanic "na" 25 Hispanic "na" 30, 23

Hispanic "a" 21 Hispanic "a" 26, 14


Preprogram Control Group CRQ Scores Categorized


"Yes" "No"

black "na" 32 black "na" 24, 24

black "a" 37, 32, 29 black "a" 40, 33, 28, 28, 24, 24,

21, 20, 16

white "na" 34, 29 white "na" 28, 27, 26

white "a" 42, 38, 35, 24 white "a" 40, 28, 24

Hispanic "na" 23 Hispanic "na" 30, 24

Hispanic "a" 29, 11 Hispanic "a" 44, 27




Statistics from the scores of the experimental group and the control group were calculated. Some of the statistics were calculated with the help of the StataQuest 4 statistical program by Stata Corporation.[87] Even though the control group contained one more score and even though preference was given to the control group for the higher of two scores in the division, the statistics indicated a close distribution of scores between the two groups. The statistics were reported below in table 3.



Table 3.--Preprogram Experimental/Control Group CRQ Statistics


Experimental Group Control Group

Observations 33.0 34.0[88]

Range = 9.0 - 41.0 11.0 - 44.0

Mode = 21.0, 25.0 (bi-modal) 24.0

Median = 25.0 28.0

= 26.69697 28.676471


X = 881.0 975.0

X2 = 25,475.0 29,703.0


= 7.696850 7.160843

2 = 59.241506 51.277682

g1 = -0.032420 0.097746

g2 = 2.616659 3.041746




The medians, modes, and means indicated a similarity between the two groups with respect to measures of central tendency. Though the sums of the scores and the sums of the squares of the scores indicated a slight difference, the difference was considered negligible compared to the other similarities. The variances and standard deviations indicated a similarity between the two groups with respect to variability within each group of scores. Despite the negative skewness of the experimental group's curve and the positive skewness of the other's curve, the two curves were skewed only a little from a normal distribution, and therefore were similar. The kurtosis of each group indicated similarities between the two groups with respect to how both group's distributional curves deviated from a normal distribution with leptokurtic distributions. Given the divisions according to sociological variables and the above distribution of the CRQ scores, the two groups were considered to be matched evenly enough for purposes of program evaluation of the control and experimental groups' posttest scores on the RQ and CRQ.



Implementation of the Program


The program was implemented on seven consecutive Saturdays. The meetings were scheduled from 12:00 to 3:00 P.M. and were held in the chapel. The director gave instruction and facilitated prout certificates of completion actice in the use of attending skills on the first three days. On the fourth day, the director gave instruction and facilitated practice in self-disclosure. On the last three days, the director gave instruction and facilitated practice in the use of empathy skills.


Summarization of Daily Lessons

Day 1: Part 1: The Foundation--Overview and Attending Skills

The objective of the first session was to help the students understand the entire program and to develop their ability to use attending skills set #1 of body language. The development was facilitated through instruction, observation, and use in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed.[89] During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1 through #1.11.[90]

At the end of the first session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.[91]


Day 2: Part 1: The Foundation--Attending Skills Set 2

The objective of the second session was to help the students develop their ability to use attending skills sets #1 and #2 through instruction, observation, and use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #1.10a-1.11, and #2.1-#2.7b.

At the end of the second session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.

Day 3: Part 1: The Foundation--Attending Skills Set 3

The objective of the third session was to help students develop their ability to use attending skills sets #2 and #3 through instruction, observation, and use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #2.7a-b, and #3.1-#3.10b.

At the end of the third session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.


Day 4: Part 2: The Interpersonal Bridge of Self-Disclosure

The objective of the fourth session was to help the students understand their interpersonal style and develop their ability to use appropriate self-disclosure with the attending skills through instruction, observation, and use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through use of the Interpersonal Check List (ICL),[92] open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #3.10a-b, and #4.1-#4.5b.

At the end of the fourth session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.


Day 5: Part 3: The Connection--Empathic Skills Level 1

The objective of the fifth session was to help the students understand the basic concept of empathy and develop their ability to use accurate empathic skills through instruction, observation, and use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #4.5a-b, and #5.1-#5.6b.

At the end of the fifth session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.


Day 6: Part 3: The Connection--Empathic Skills Level 2

The objective of the sixth session was to help the students develop their ability to use advanced accurate empathic skills through instruction, observation, and use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #5.6a-b, and #6.1-#6.7b.

At the end of the sixth session, the director gave instructions for the homework exercise. Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.


Day 7: Part 3: The Connection--Empathic Skills Level 2

The objective of the seventh session was to help the students to further develop their ability to use advanced accurate empathic skills through instruction and observation and by use of case study scenarios in class. The objective was accomplished through an overview, instruction, role play, open discussion, and written assignments.

Chaplain Alex Taylor arrived. The director gave Chaplain Taylor a copy of the day's lesson plans, a copy of the handouts, and some verbal instructions to evaluate the program in the light of his knowledge and in the light of the lesson plan objectives.[93]

From the beginning of the session, the director followed the lesson plans he had constructed. During the session, overheads and handouts were used: numbered #1.1, #6.7a-b, and #7.1-#7.8.

On 16 September 1996, the director sent to all of the men a final notice about the last session of the program and encouraged them to be present.[94] On 21 September 1996, the seventh and last day of the program, the experimental group was given the posttests (CRQ and RQ). Afterwards, the director recorded his pastoral observations and reflections.



On 22 September 1996 during the two Sunday morning services, the director gave to the experimental group participants certificates of recognition like the one seen in appendix 12, item #3. During the two Sunday morning services, the men were encouraged to fill out the Postprogram Helpee Follow-up Questionnaire.[95] During the week after 22 September 1996, the men in the experimental group were given the Postprogram Interview Questionnaire.[96]

On 28 September 1996, the director gave the posttests (CRQ and RQ) to the control group in the chapel. The men in the control group were encouraged again to keep their spirits high. A date for a second presentation of the program still had not been set.

[1]Mt. 22:37-40, Jn. 13:34-35, Rom. 13:8-10, Gal. 5:14, and Col. 3:14.

[2]Jn. 15:9-17, Phil. 1:9-11, Gal. 5:22, Col. 1:3-6, 1 Thes. 4:9-10, and 2 Tim. 1:7.

[3]Jn. 3:10-21; Eph. 1:4-14; Phil. 2:1-11; 1 Pet. 1:1-8; and 1 Jn. 2:5-6, 4:9-12.

[4]Jn. 15:9-17; Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 2:1-11, 3:10-17; Col. 3:1-17; and 1 Pet. 1:3-13.

[5]Respectively, Jas. 1:27 and Mt. 5:21-30. NIV will be used for all biblical quotations.

[6]Respectively, Mt. 28:19-20 and Col. 4:2.

[7]Cf., Rom. 12:9-21, 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13-25; and 1 Jn. 3:10-24, 4:7-21.

[8]Rom. 6:15-23, 8:1-39, 12:1-21; and Heb. 12:4-6.

[9]Mt. 5:3-10, 5:43-48, 18:2-4; and Lk. 6:27-36.

[10]Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:7-8; 1 Cor. 10:23-33, 12:12-13:13; and 2 Pet. 1:3-11.

[11]Mt. 6:5-15; Rm. 8:26-27; and 1 Thes. 5:17-18.

[12]Mt. 22:37-40; Rm. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:13-6:10; and 1 Jn. 3:11-24.

[13]Cf., Mt. 7:12, Lk. 6:31, Rom. 13:9, and Gal. 5:14.

[14]For instances of freeworld-to-prisoner ministry see: Mt. 11:1-20 and Lk. 7:18-35, Jesus ministered to John the Baptist; Acts 12:1-19, the church prayed for Peter; 2 Tim. 1:16-17 and 4:9-18, Paul received substantial assistance; and Acts 28:16-31, Paul received many persons for two years.

[15]Everett Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971), 314.

[16]Acts 14:8-9; 16:16-40; 21:27-33; in the rest of the book of Acts, Luke detailed the trials of Paul before the Sanhedrin, to Caesarea, and then to Rome.

[17]Harrison, 314-21, 349; and Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 302, 324-25.

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

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

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

[21]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.

[22]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).

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

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

[25]Ibid., 117-56.

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

[27]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.

[28]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).

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

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

[31]Silberman, 375.

[32]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.

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

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

[35]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).

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

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

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

[39]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.

[40]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).

[41]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.

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

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

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


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

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


[49]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).

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

[51]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.

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

[53]Ibid., 5-6.

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

[55]Ibid., 13.

[56]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.

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

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

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

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

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

[62]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.


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

[65] 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.

[66]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.

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

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

[69]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).


[71]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.

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

[73]Hans Toch, Mosaic of Despair: Human Breakdowns in Prison (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association): 41-62; and David Viscott, Risking (New York: Pocket Books, 1977).

[74]P.C. Cozby, "Self-Disclosure: A Literature Review," Psychological Bulletin 79 (1973): 73-91; and J.F.T. Bugental and E.K. Bugental, "A Fate Worse than Death: The Fear of Changing," Psychotherapy 21 (1986): 543-49.

[75]Richard C. McCorkle, "Fear of Victimization and Symptoms of Psychopathology among Prison Inmates," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 19 (1993): 27-41; and "Living on the Edge: Fear in the Maximum-Security Prison," Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 20 (1993): 73-91.

[76]Ruthand Rushton and Linda Blud, "A Survey of Vulnerable Prisoners," Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology 20 (1993): 85-93.

[77]Forty-two of the sixty-seven men in the program indicated that they did not have a freeworld visitor at least once a month: q.v., chapter 2. See also, Hans Toch, Mosaic of Despair: Human Breakdowns in Prison (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1992): esp., chapter 7, 203-25, "Another's Man's Poison."

[78]Drum, "Pastoral Care at Eastham Prison."

[79]Unless otherwise noted, see the bibliography for complete bibliographic information on all of the sources cited in the review of literature.

[80]Lauren Wispe, "History of the Concept of Empathy," in Empathy and Its Development, eds. Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 28.

[81]Q.v., appendix 3, overhead #1.5.

[82]The terms "experimental group" and "control group" were not used. The prison was already a restrictive setting, and the director deemed the terms unnecessarily derogatory in the presentation of the program to prisoners.

[83]Q.v., appendix 4.

[84]Joseph Stokes and Gary Lautenschlager Counselor Response Questionnaire (Sam Houston State University Library, Huntsville: Sam Houston State University, 1977): ETS Test Collection #010195, microfiche. See appendix 5.

[85]Robert Carkhuff and Don Benoit, "Responding: Knowledge and Skills Assessments," in Art of Helping VI: Trainer's Guide (Amherst, MA: Human Resources Development Press, 1987: 65-67. The title was changed to Responding Questionnaire to facilitate the presentation of the project as explained in appendix 6.

[86]Had the program contained a larger number of participants, then further sub-grouping may have been feasible.

[87]J. Theodore Anagnoson and Richard E. Deloen, StataQuest 4: Statistics, Graphics, Data Management (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1996).

[88]In all figures with ".0" accuracy, assume the figure a whole number.

[89]Q.v., appendix 2 for the text of all of the lesson plans mentioned in the summarization of the daily lessons.

[90]Q.v., appendix 3 for examples of all handouts given.

[91]Q.v., appendix 8 for the text of all of the pastoral observations mentioned in the summarization of the daily lessons.

[92]Q.v., appendix 7.

[93]Q.v., appendix 1, item #2.

[94]Q.v., appendix 12, item #1.

[95]Q.v., appendix 10.

[96]Q.v., appendix 9.