A Matter of Choice

Sometime in the 1980s I learned the term “positive addictions,” and while my life was not transformed by that revelation, spending more than $100 on a pair of running shoes was somehow justified. That particular positive addiction-daily pavement pounding-has remained with me now for more than 25 years, even though knee surgery has now caused a substitution of rubberized moving belts for reinforced concrete. At my local fitness center I can sweat in air-conditioned comfort while chatting breathlessly with friends. A few weeks ago, I perspired with Dr. Joann Morton, recently retired from the University of South Carolina College of Criminal Justice, and a former American Correctional Association Cass Award recipient.

Having returned the day before from a week in Ecuador, I was anxious to share with her my unexpected encounter with a dozen Harvard students at the Ministry of Government in Quito. These graduate students in law, government, public policy, and religion were in Ecuador to continue an evaluation of the APAC (Asociacion para la Asistencia de los Condenados) Program that in 1993 was initiated by Dr. Jorge Crespo in the Ecuadorian prison system.

Similar to a number of therapeutic programs based upon choice and change, APAC challenges the prisoner to accept responsibility for past, present, and future actions, and modify errant behavior through confession, discipline, and correction. The most obvious difference in the APAC approach is the faith-based nature. In Ecuador (as with Brazil, from which the Ecuadorian program derived), the majority of those prisoners professing a religion are Catholic, and the line separating church and state is far less distinct than in the USA. Therefore, the government can endorse (and support, although APAC is volunteer-funded) such a program with impunity.

Although the Harvard evaluation of the APAC program in Ecuador is a lengthy document with many practical recommendations for improvement, the single most striking result noted in the study is a less than five percent recidivism rate for APAC participants in a system that exceeds 70 percent. With more than 9,000 prisoners, the average cost per prisoner day in Ecuador is $6.56 (the USA equivalent is approximately $65 per day). This USA cost is for “standard” care. If reducing recidivism matters, then the cost typically increases. The opposite occurs in the APAC program as volunteers’ fund the program that includes approximately 1,000 prisoners.

Eager for another academician’s perspective, I shared my observations with Joann at the gym, and was surprised to learn that my own state, South Carolina, was considering replacing most formal education programs with a similar faith-based initiative as one means of reducing the State’s deficit. In a June 7 New York Times piece, Fox Butterfield highlighted the looming crisis of funding the justice system in view of growing deficits. He posited that just as encouraging results were apparent through many crime prevention and treatment initiatives, the economic deficits in local, state, and the federal government were forcing abandonment of street and institutional programs that were yielding measurable benefits.

The fact that the West Wing is encouraging faith-based initiatives as a method of deficit reduction is common knowledge. The former head of The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, John DiIulio, Jr., has long contributed to the dialogue regarding the role of faith-based initiatives in the delivery of human services, including corrections. So, I should not have been surprised to learn that the South Carolina Department of Correction was evaluating a possible substitution of government-provided education programs with a faith-based service as a means of reducing costs. But, I was!

The fastest growing religion among prisoners is Islam-and has been for more than a decade. The Prison Fellowship Program (sponsor of the APAC initiative in Ecuador and other countries, including similar programs in the USA) is Christian-based. Nationally, our “super-sized” prison system is large enough to accommodate countless rehabilitation initiatives of all faiths, or those completely secular. The problem is not a “market,” but whether government can and should abdicate a fundamental responsibility to an organization that promotes change through adherence to a particular religious perspective.

If the substitution of faith-based initiatives for foundational programs in prisons, such as education, is an emerging trend, then in our country, we must ask a few basic questions:

Is the program voluntary?

Does participation impact access to perquisites (commissary, telephone, visits) or influence the release date?

Will a particular religious doctrine be espoused?

Are outcomes dependant upon acceptance of a faith-based point of view?

What is the funding source?

Many legal scholars are posing more important Constitutional questions regarding the separation of state and religion. I have no argument with voluntary faith-based programs in prisons or free society. But I have grave concerns, even when outcomes are as good as those reported by the Ecuadorian prison system, if the cost is loss of choice. Prisoners rightfully forfeit many choices at the front gate, but if rehabilitation is a goal, then most practitioners agree that for changes in behavior to occur, prisoners must choose to make the changes.

Hardly anyone who has passed through the corridors of a prison has any debate about the need for more “positive addictions” within the prison population. With increasing financial deficits (caused in part by not so positive addictions), most programs and services in prisons will come under microscopic scrutiny. The inclination to substitute faith-based alternatives for secular programs may be intense, and worthy, as long as choice remains the catalyst for change.

After careful consideration, the South Carolina Department chose not to substitute the volunteer Prison Fellowship program for the state-run education program. No criticism of the faith-based program-simply a matter of choice.

Stephen A. Carter, AICP, is principal of Carter Goble Lee LLC. in Columbia, S.C. He can be contacted by e-mail, scarter@cartergoblelee.com. Additional information may be available on the company’s Web site, www.cartergoblelee.com