News FeedPrison Reform Should Include Incentives to Encourage Positive Growth
With a surge in violence in federal prisons across America, Bureau of Prison officials have responded by creating a Special Management Program inside the walls of the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg. The new program design makes living conditions at USP Lewisburg much more restrictive than other high-security penitentiaries, yet not quite as restrictive as the supermax penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, known as ADX. USP Lewisburg will confine prisoners who disrupt operations at other high-security penitentiaries.
The ADX at Florence had its origins with the murder of two BOP staff members. Similarly, the murder of another BOP staff member sparked the changes that will bring a new, higher security to the Lewisburg penitentiary. As I wrote in Inside: Life Behind Bars In America, Norm Carlson, a former Director of the BOP, made the decision to build a state-of-the-art supermax penitentiary after prison gang members who were locked inside the most secure section of what was then the most secure penitentiary in the federal system murdered two officers in a single day. With the newly designed ADX Florence penitentiary, prisoners would live in near total isolation. Yet the ADX supermax holds less than one percent of the federal prison population. The Special Management Program that is beginning in USP Lewisburg will augment the Bureau of Prisons’ need to contain disruptive prisoners.
In early 2008, a prisoner murdered Officer Jose Rivera at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. That murder has been part of a pattern. The media has been reporting much higher levels of stabbings, lethal violence, and corruption within the federal prison system. In the United States Penitentiary Coleman, for example, an inmate stabbed an officer 15 times. At USP Big Sandy, an inmate stabbed an officer twice near his head and three times near the officer’s back and lungs. Three prisoners were killed within a four-month period at the USP in Florence. In a series of assaults during a single week at USP Atwater, 12 inmates received knife wounds.
The Bureau of Prisons is responding to all the bloodshed by rounding up the most troublesome prisoners from penitentiaries across the United States. Guards are locking the prisoners in chains and transferring them to the new Special Management Program at USP Lewisburg.
Bureau of Prisons administrators ought to complete the transition at USP Lewisburg to the Special Management Program by mid-2009. By then, administrators will have new controls in place. Administrators believe that by making conditions more oppressive for prisoners locked inside the Special Management Program, they will simultaneously make working conditions safer for BOP staff.
Prisoners locked inside the new SMP at Lewisburg will have less access to privileges like visiting, telephone calls, commissary, and recreational activities available in other penitentiaries. The SMP will only confine prisoners who have been part of disruptive groups at other prisons, prisoners who have recorded histories of violence, and prisoners whom staff members have identified as posing threats to others. With the most volatile prisoners confined to a single institution, staff members can deploy the resources necessary to contain the rage. They may even institute behavioral programs that can lead to more positive adjustment patterns.
As a long-term prisoner, I applaud the use of “specialized” prisons. Though, just as administrators recognize the need to create more oppressive, control-oriented prisons, they ought to recognize the need to create more tolerant prisons to encourage inmates who are striving to reconcile with society.
In 1987, I began serving my sentence inside the walls of a high-security penitentiary. More than 21 years of confinement have passed since then. During that time I walked through the corridors of USP Lewisburg and the corridors of ADX Florence. I know the violence and hostility that seethes inside penitentiary walls. I also know the discipline and will power necessary to emerge from those types of environments with skills and resources that will translate into a productive, contributory life.
Prison administrators have a duty to operate these prisons safely. With the ADX, the SMP, and other secure prisons, administrators have the tools they need to separate prisoners who commit their lives to violence and crime that society cannot tolerate. Yet more than 200,000 people are locked inside federal prisons. Twenty percent of the federal prison population serves their time inside minimum-security camps. Many of those camp prisoners have worked hard to earn higher levels of freedom and community access. Just as some penitentiary prisoners behave in ways that suggest administrators need to keep a closer watch on them, some camp prisoners have built records that should convince administrators that they are worthy of gradual increases of freedom and community access.
Appropriate prison reforms would not only focus on creating more oppressive environments to punish those who persist in wrongdoing. Prison reforms should also include creating programs through which minimum-security inmates can earn greater access to privileges like visiting, telephone calls, commissary, educational opportunities, and community service.
If more prisoners understood that they could work toward better conditions, fewer prisoners would persist in the cycles of failure that lead to more violence and dangerous prisons. When administrators take away hope, they do not encourage growth. Incentives represent a tool that administrators should consider in managing the federal prison system.
February 10, 2009
Mr. Santos:
In your article entitled “Prison Reform Should Include Incentives to Encourage Positive Growth” you indicate appropriate prison reforms would not only focus on creating more oppressive environments to punish those who persist in wrongdoing, prison reforms should also include creating programs through which minimum-security inmates can earn greater access to privileges like visiting, telephone calls, commissary, educational opportunities, and community service, in which I totally agree. Prisoners who are well behaved should get positive incentives for their cooperation.
My question to you is ” With all the violence that goes on in the prison, how do you stay focused and not fall in to the trap of violence by influences of other prisoners with aggressive and violent behavior?” and when you do come across various prisoners with aggressive behavior, how would you approach them and encourage them to pursue their education while being incarcerated to help past time without wasting time?
By the way, I enjoy reading your articles and I just began reading your book. I appreciate the time you are taking to contribute to my understanding of corrections.
K. Hernandez
Hi Kyla,
Michael responded to your questions here:
http://prisonnewsblog.com/2009/02/my-strategy-for-staying-focused-through-prison/
Best wishes,
Carole Santos
Hello, Mr. Santos
I really enjoyed reading several of your articles that I had the privilege to read. The article that struck my attention the most was the one about incentives encouraging positive growth. In “Prison Reform Should Include Incentives to Encourage Positive Growth” you mention how the media has been reporting higher levels of stabbing, lethal violence and corruption within the federal prison system. Do you think the stats reported by the media have influenced current/future inmates to propagate the violence within prisons? I also agree with you when it comes to the need to create more tolerant prisons to encourage inmates who are striving to reconcile with society. Furthermore, do you believe that your time spent in prison has provided you with the ability to reenter and reconnect with your community/society prior to being released? And or how other inmates can benefit from such positive incentive programs. Thank you for your time.
-Wendy