Healing America Within: A Chronicle of Faith & Justice

Tracy Phernetton

Introduction

There is little dispute that inmate re-entry is a potentially serious social problem that can no longer escape attention. The sheer number of people involved is one factor precipitating a crisis in this area. At mid-year 2004, there were an estimated 2.1 million adults serving time in prison (Harrison & Beck). Arguably, inmates reentering society are an especially unstable group. In a 15-state study, two-thirds of prisoners released in 1994 were arrested during a three-year follow-up period (Hughes, Wilson, & Beck, 2001; Langan & Levin, 2002). The process of re-entry appears to have become more difficult for inmates, with just under half of parolees completing their parole supervision successfully, a 25 percent decrease from just 20 years ago (Glaze, 2002).

In the context of an era of "get tough" policies, the re-entry movement represents an important effort to provide social services to offenders as they reintegrate into the community. The question that remains is whether the re-entry programs being proposed and implemented are likely to be effective and with whom. The issue of effectiveness is complicated because the reentry process involves both the assumption of productive social roles and restraint from criminal behavior. The question we address is whether the re-entry programs being proposed are likely to be successful. Specifically, are these programs and services properly designed to address the issues of these high-risk and high-need offenders?

Background

It is widely unknown to many that the origins of the Faith-Based formats were first developed in Brazil. Carol Vance, a former Harris County District Attorney and former chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice took a trip to Brazil and visited a Faith-Based Prison Rehabilitation program in the region called, "InnerChange," and discovered that the program had achieved dramatic results. Carol then took her discovery back to Texas where she would be the first to inform then, Texas Governor, George W. Bush of Brazil's unique approach to the "repeat offender syndrome." Brazil called their specific Offender Reentry Program "InnerChange," which complimented their innovative Faith-Based umbrella program.

By the time the news of Brazil's revolutionary approach to social ills reached Texan territory, Governor Bush had already proposed and enacted two similar laws having to do with addressing social issues in a rather alternative way. The "Good Samaritan" Law and the "Charitable Choice" Act. They both were legislative agendas aimed at removing the roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape that prevented many community level organizations and groups from serving their community's greatest ills.

The Texas Chapter of Teen Challenge was almost shut down in 1996 when it was targeted by a government agency that attempted to discredit the program, citing in a forty-nine page manuscript that Teen Challenge did not meet the strict guidelines of a "Chemical Dependency" treatment center. This agency argued that Teen Challenge had no medical merit in its treatment of adolescents. However, Governor Bush took a stand against the agency's accusations because of the highly successful track record that the adolescent program produced. Governor Bush now had Brazils' successful Faith-Based program on his side. And it was soon after that that the first "Americanized" version of the Faith-Based Initiative was formed. In an interview Governor Bush explained his line of reasoning in defending Teen Challenge and after introducing the Faith-Based Initiative to Texas saying, "I'm results-oriented, and I worry about the state being so process-oriented that we stifle good programs. We need to judge programs on results, not on forms and process."

In 2004, the once Governor Bush, had now become America's 43rd President and was introducing the Faith-Based Initiative and the Offender Reentry program on a National level. It became the first ever United States, Federal version of the Faith-Based initiative. Immediately after his public proposal, President Bush was obviously questioned about the "separation of church and state" implications of such an initiative. One particular question presented to Bush by "The Beliefet", an online newsletter was, "Are you promoting religion by using peoples'/ taxpayers' money?" And Bush replied, "No, I'm promoting lower recidivism rates, and we will measure to make sure that that's the case." Oddly enough, his response seemed to mirror the response first given to Texas reporters after their introduction to the Faith-Based proposal.

The Faith-Based Imitative was controversial to an American society that has accustomed itself to believing that religion and government should not mix. America had two different types of responses to President Bush's 2004 Faith-Based proposal. It seemed like half of America heard the potential results of such a program and the other half heard only the process in which those potential results would sprout from. Ironically, the ones saw the process only, became the Initiatives' biggest enemy. The word "Faith" seemed to spark anger in the minds of many Americans. Faith, for some reason gave people the impression that the President may have been pushing his Christian belief system on the American people. In another question presented to the President in the Beliefet interview, they posed a question that contained the most fundamental concern regarding the Faith-Based Initiative. They asked President Bush, "How would you feel if government money instead was, say, subsidizing the Muslim group that taught prisoners the Qur'an?" His answer proved to be the most crucial amplification of what he intended for his Faith-Based Initiative to produce. The Presidents' reply was:

The question I'd be asking is what are the recidivism rates? Is it working? And secondly, is there a secular alternative available? So the answer to your question is I wouldn't object it at all if the program worked. A results-oriented world says "let's achieve some common objectives and some common goals," and if teaching Bible study or the Qur'an is a method that works, we should welcome it, so long as it's a voluntary program and people, of course, there is going to be a secular alternative that's called 'regular jail.' But so long as the prisoners can pick and choose.

Need I say more?

Second Chance Act of 2005

An important first step towards addressing the reentry crisis was taken when a bi-partisan group of members of Congress introduced the Second Chance Act in both the House and the Senate. The Second Chance Act will reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and help states and communities better address the large numbers of people returning to communities from prisons and jails. The bill focuses on four key areas: jobs, housing, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and strengthening families.

The 2005 Second Chance Act was and still is legislation that many believed would encourage and reinforce the mission to provide services for offenders preparing to re-enter society. In the State of the Union Address in 2004, President Bush reintroduced the Offender Re-entry program and asked Americans on both the State and local levels to recommit to the programs' mission. In a bi-partisan effort, he called out to members of the House and Senate to come together. During that 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush publicially spoke out in defense for the "repeat offender," when he announced,

"This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison.America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life." (State of the Union Address, 2004)

The five major issues that the Second Chance Act of 2005 addresses and seeks to find resolution to are:

1) Housing

2) Employment and Income

3) Substance/Alcohol Abuse

4) Health

5) Families/Children

These five problem areas seem to be the prisoners' weak area. Usually before they ever committed a crime, they had problems with one or more of these issues. However, in a sincere effort to lower repeat offender rates, by reforming the "criminal," addressing these key problem areas before they return into society, gives them a better chance at not only surviving societal reality, but thriving in it. If these faith-based reentry programs transform just one prisoner into a productive, member of society; it as succeeded.

In the spirit of putting an end to repeat offenders, a bill was created during the first session of the 109th Congress, a little over a year after President Bush's State of the Union speech. Statistical evidence that offenders who don't have access to opportunities Under Section three of the 2005 formal proposal, it was outlined for the State and local governments. "Re-entry Demonstration Projects," were the blueprints in the legislation that offered State and local officials realistic methods to ensure successful programs.

The Second Chance Applications

The foundational elements to the proposal were categorized into five major goals and measures:

1) Demonstration Grants. The Second Chance Act reauthorizes the Re-Entry Demonstration project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing, substance abuse treatment/mental health, and children and families. The bill increases the amount of money to fund demonstration programs and create performance outcomes standards and deliverables.

2) A National Offender Re-Entry Resource Center. This establishes a resource center for states, local government, service providers, faith-based organization, corrections and community organizations to collect and disseminate best practices and provide training and support around reentry.

3) Federal Taskforce. This is a team specifically designed to promote and support the national re-entry research agenda which identifies programs and resources on re-entry, identifies opportunities for collaboration, and develops interagency initiatives. This special taskforce would review and report to Congress on the federal barriers that exist to successful re-entry included with recommendations for overcoming those barriers.

4) Offender Re-Entry Research This would authorize the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct research around re-entry.

5) Mentoring Grants to Nonprofit Organizations. This would establish a grant program to fund nonprofit organizations that provide mentoring and transitional services to adult and juvenile offenders.

Reentry Unleashed: The State Efforts

The importance of understanding and addressing prisoner reentry at the community level cannot be overstated. With a large and growing number of prisoners released each year from state and federal correctional institutions, prisoner reentry poses numerous community challenges, including an increased risk to public safety and the limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services for returning prisoners.

Moreover, today's intense cycle of arrest, removal, incarceration, and reentryat levels four times higher than 20 years agohas had a disparate impact on a relatively small number of communities around the country where policies related to incarceration and reentry are experienced most acutely. Over the past decade, a rising number of released prisoners have returned disproportionately to major metropolitan areas.

An example of the State's efforts to jump on this initiative can be illustrated in a Massachusetts' offender program. Massachusetts decided to adopt and enact a replica program designed for offenders' reentry into society. One of their key pre-release programs was designed specifically for their women's facilities in Salisbury. This program is called Women in Transition (WIT). The facility in Salisbury, Massachusetts, houses twenty-four women in-house and electronically supervises another twenty women who are placed in a sober housing community. The facility serves the dual function of a minimum security and pre-release setting for female offenders. The program was originally designed specifically for women returning back into Essex County, but they are now accepting applications from women from other counties.

The WIT program in Massachusetts focuses on giving women offenders the tools to be self-sufficient, productive members of society. These women attend weekly group counseling sessions, many of which focus on enhancing women's self-esteem. There is additional programming such as yoga, creative writing, and parenting classes and employment opportunities. Data from the WIT Annual Report indicates that only 19.7% of the women recidivated and 80.3% of women achieved successful reintegration.

Law Enforcement Involvement

The primary mission of law enforcement is to maintain peace and order and provide for a safe environment. Thus, the most compelling argument for police involvement in the Offender Reentry program is the fact that a significant share of former prisoners presents a threat to that mission by committing new crimes in the community. As such, police have a natural role in reentry because making contact with former prisoners is part of their everyday business.

Moreover, reentry initiatives fit well within the community policing and problem-solving model, which typically focuses on solving the underlying cause of a crime problem through partnerships with local businesses, residents, government agencies, and other community stakeholders. During the last several years, police have begun to reach out to these entities to create partnerships to reduce crime, and police have realized important benefits to public safety.

The Partners in Ending Recidivism

The National Institute of Justice partners with the Urban Institute in an effort to identify and map the Reentry Program throughout the United States. They also offer resources that are available to the growing number of local and state officials, and independent volunteer and non-profit organizations who are seeking to add replica programs in their correctional facilities.

According to the book, Law and Society the way that the National Institute of Justice and the Urban Institute go about gathering information and data for the Reentry program would be considered a form of a "detached scholarly analysis." Many law schools around the Nation have published articles and scholarly analysis on this subject. It's important for research to be as objective as it can be. This can usually be accomplished by means of statistical findings. For instance, the Bureau of Justice published a report in 2000 that revealed that "at least 95% of all State prisoners will be released from prison at some point; nearly 80% will be released to parole supervision." Using popular sources like the Annual Parole Survey (APS) and the National Prison Statistics (NPS) give credibility to many scholarly analysis assessments.

The success of the bill's passing however brought about a wide range of reactions from Americans. There was a lot of bi-partisan support, but there were also a simultaneous handful of critics. The opponents of the Reentry programs do not usually oppose the Reentry program it self, rather their reason for opposing the agenda is directed at the way the programs operate and manifest. The opponents actually disagree with the founding base of the Second Chance Act, and that underlying foundation is the Faith-Based Initiative.

The Opposition

President Bush revealed his Faith-Based Initiative agenda at the State of the Union Address in 2004, it was immediately criticized on its' controversial philosophy. It was seen as a "too close for comfort" proposition. The "separation of church and state" derives from a political doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate from each other. Organizations like the Freedom From Religious Foundation (FFRF) and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State are the two major critics of the Faith-Based Initiative. They are adamantly against tax payer dollars being used on prison ministries and the like. The Reentry Program relies is the promotion and encouragement for non-profit organizations and other faith-based organizations to be empowered. The opponents criticize the use of religion to promote common welfare, and their argument concentrates on their interpretation of the First Amendment.

My Opinion

I first heard of the Faith-Based Initiative coincidentally on the same night that the rest of America heard about it; during the 2004 State of the Union Address. I was watching that Address only to prove to myself that it would be as stupid as I thought it was going to be. I, along with many other Americans at that time, was beginning to feel frustrated with the state of affairs that was beginning to consume our American reality.

Before watching that State of the Union Address, I, along with many other Americans, was falling prey to the sweeping media discredit crusade against America's 43rd President. The media representations and the rampant, negative assumption that was spewing from every left-wing orifice, honestly; tricked me. In fact, I believe, it tricked a lot of people. It is clear to me that it was only because of my vulnerability that I could have been tricked in the first place. The laziness of the accusatory travesty materializing from media types and crazy left-wing nuts, gave America an easy out, after one of the hardest hits our country has been faced with in a long time. The sad part of all is that that same laziness took over our country's consciousness and helped to mask and disguise some rather noteworthy details looming beneath the public spectacle of accusations and unfair assessments made of our President. That evening, during the Presidents' address to the Nation, I consciously forfeited my position in the lazy charade. I for the first time in over two years became active in making assessments of the President, and there fore, was able to truly evaluate his agendas, instead of blindly allowing others to evaluate his agendas for me.

The Faith-Based Initiative is one of the best conceptual, political proposals I have ever heard of. It's about time, that someone speaks up for the thousands of small organizations and community-based volunteer groups. President Bush made it very clear in that State of the Union address, in 2004; it didn't matter whether you were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Catholic, what mattered was what these "faith-based" groups were doing for the poor, the battered women, the prisoners, the addicts, and the oppressed. How could an Initiative, like this go wrong? As far as where the tax-payers' dollar goes? Well, it is my firm belief that an Initiative like this delivers the public dollars to the private, small community-minded organizations that deserve the most help. The help that these faith-based organizations get from this Faith-Based Imitative only better helps the addict, the hungry family, the low-income single mother and the prisoners looking for better ways to live.

The originators of this great Country's Constitution made it very clear that it was, "One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." How can that be misinterpreted? Just look at the paradox with the phrase of "one" and "all;" promoting the common welfare of all Americans is an individual right, but it is also our collective responsibility to "promote" it. Lifting another person up, by volunteering or mentoring is a personal responsibility to ensure the collective right to liberty and justice "for all". This initiative promotes the common welfare by ensuring the small private faith-based groups be adequately employed to help the less fortunate.

The implications of the Offender Reentry program being in place to serve offenders suggest that America not only forgives, it encourages every single person to achieve. There doesn't need to be lines drawn on the primitive basis of skin color, religion or sexual preference, there only needs to be equal opportunity and collective support to enhance our natural human right to help another in need. The church that hands out clothes, toys on Christmas and serves meals three times a day, should not be discriminated because of its religious affiliation, it should be judged on its service it provides for the less fortunate.

It's obvious that the "separation of church and state" phrase didn't mean keeping church or rather "God" out of government. This is clear when we see "in God We Trust," on all our coins and plastered all over our judiciary walls. The phrase was intended to keep government out of church. It was intended to prevent government from ever adopting one religious denomination. Faith-based covers a wide range of possibilities. Agnostics have faith that there is no God, "New-Age" communities have faith in their new age philosophies. Faith covers a lot of ground. The fact of the matter is that the government grants that we approve of to build that new loosing teams' multi-billion dollar stadium, requires all those fans and team members to have faith in their sport.

The principles behind this Faith-Based Initiative are clear. The government can be a medium in the enhancement of social programs, but it needs not be the sole provider. The providers are you and I, and the mosque down the street, the synagogue up the road, or the soup kitchen in the basement of the Methodist church down the hill. We are our best hope.

We all have different beliefs, faiths and preferences, but we also all have a natural right to the common good. It's in the best interest of all Americans that we all put our difference aside, and learn to serve one another because of the simple fact that we are each responsible for one another. The government can't be our caretaker; however it can be our resource. The grants that go to these faith-based programs grant the people authority over our own destinies. It gives us back the power and responsibility to change America from the inside out, without finding lazy ways out by just blaming one man for all our social ills.

Ironically, that one man we have been blaming this whole time is actually the one who has been our greatest advocate for healing our country within; too bad so many people are blinded by the illusion that one man could be responsible for all these social deficiencies that exist. I guess that's an easy way out and much easier on our egos when the person we need to blame can be found in our mirrors. We need to blame ourselves, not George Bush for our neighbors going hungry; look in the mirror every time you nonchalantly throw away that half-finished Latte form Starbucks, and say to the mirror, "You are the axis of evil."

2008 Tracy Phernetton