In the Second Chance Act, Congress made specific findings about appalling recidivism rates that cost taxpayers billions each year and threaten public safety. The Act cited the prison system’s own metrics suggesting that prisoners who maintained strong family and community ties were the most likely to succeed upon release. Congress charged the Director of the BOP to create programs that would help prisoners nurture family and community ties during the course of imprisonment. Despite the passing of a full year since Congress overwhelmingly passed the legislation, neither prisoners nor their family members have observed changes that would help them nurture family and community ties.

One terrible disruption to the possible nurturing of family and community ties began during the era of former Attorney General John Ashcroft. It concerned changes to the inmate telephone system. The telephone represents one of the essential links prisoners have to society. Prior to John Ashcroft’s leadership over the Department of Justice, inmates could use telephones freely to communicate with family members and friends. Since 2001, however, telephone policies have limited prisoners to 300 minutes of telephone access per month.

Besides restrictive telephone limitations, under Director Lappin’s leadership, the Bureau of Prisons places severe limitations on each federal prisoner’s ability to nurture family and community ties through visits. In the prison where I am held, for example, a rigid point system prohibits prisoners from receiving more than one visit per week. Prisoners who cannot visit during Friday work hours face even more restrictive time limitations; they may visit only two Saturdays per month. Such restrictive policies hinder rather than encourage the nurturing of close family and community ties.

The Director even authorizes policies that restrict federal prisoners from nurturing strong family and community ties through correspondence. In the prison where I am held, for example, policies prohibit inmates from using e-mail, or even typewriters for social correspondence. Those policies threaten disciplinary action against prisoners who use typewriters to nurture family ties; they may not even type letters to open relationships with prospective employers.

I may have only been in prison for 21-plus years, but as far as I know, prisoners have no more than three mechanisms through which they can nurture family and community ties. Those mechanisms include the telephone, visits, and correspondence. Congress published findings indicating that close family and community ties were the most important links that can lead prisoners to post-release success. Under Director Harley Lappin’s leadership of the federal Bureau of Prisons, however, restrictions exist to block rather than nurture those ties.

In this era of government transparency, the incongruity between Director Lappin’s statement to a Congressional committee and the policies he enforces should not go without notice. Telephone, visiting, and correspondence restrictions represent but three of the troubling policies that afflict all federal prisoners. Those policies belie any ostensible mission to assist prisoners with post-release success.

As a prisoner who struggles daily to hold his family together in spite of the Bureau of Prisons stifling restrictions, I found Director Lappin’s misrepresentation to Congress patently offensive. I would have preferred the direct honesty of my former unit manager, Ms. Ortega, who told me point blank: “We don’t care anything about what you’re doing to prepare for release. All we care about is the security of the institution.”

The post BOP Director’s Misrepresentation to Congress appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Federal law provides wardens with the discretion to grant brief furloughs to prisoners once they have advanced to within two years of their scheduled release dates. Wardens who have presided over the prisons where I have been confined, however, were reluctant to exercise their discretion in granting furloughs to prisoners. Some refused to grant furloughs at all, while other were parsimonious in their willingness to provide prisoners with passes to reestablish community ties. Prison reforms should provide prisoners with objective paths they can pursue to earn their furlough privileges.

Not all people in prison are appropriate for furlough consideration. Obviously, society must isolate those who show patterns of preying upon victims. Yet administrators ought to encourage those offenders who demonstrate a commitment to reconcile with society and whose behavior shows that aspire to live as law-abiding citizens. Wardens should use the furlough program as a tool to shape such adjustments.

Rather than dispensing furlough passes in a miserly fashion, or refusing to grant furloughs at all, wardens ought to encourage qualifying prisoners to apply for furlough use so they can prepare to emerge from confinement successfully. Prisoners who want to enroll in local community colleges or vocational schools ought to have the privilege of daily furloughs so they can earn certifications or credentials that will help them find employment upon release. Those who can receive employment or who can provide services to local communities ought to have access to regular furloughs. Those who have family support ought to earn furloughs regularly so they can play a more active role in keeping their families together.

Prison administrators abuse their discretion by discouraging and minimizing use of the furlough program. Prisoners who advance to within two years of their release dates, and who have behaved in ways to warrant minimum-security classifications, ought to have access to strengthen community ties through access to regular furloughs. Those prisoners are confined in open prison camps and administrators have classified them as being nonthreatening to society. Since they will live in American communities, taxpayers have an interest in ensuring that they are well prepared to function as law-abiding citizens. As such, prison reforms ought to mandate expansion of the furlough program to offer qualified inmates opportunities to earn credentials, certifications, employment, and to strengthen community ties. These are the types of prison reforms necessary to lower recidivism rates.

The post Prison Furloughs Can Lower Recidivism appeared first on Prison News Blog.

After ten years of such an adjustment, Blinky was well acclimated to the penitentiary. He didn’t have any contacts outside, though he was well liked by both guards and prisoners inside. When we met, Blinky had heard that I was serving a sentence that would keep me in prison for longer than a quarter century. He advised that the best way to serve time was to forget about the outside world. “Settle into the joint and just become one with the walls,” he suggested. “The time will pass quickly enough.”

Blinky concluded his term and was released to a halfway house. Fewer than 12 months later, he returned to the penitentiary. As an explanation, he told me that the struggle was too much. His probation officer was hassling him to find a job, though Blinky said that he met only frustration from prospective employers. Fed up, Blinky reverted to criminal behavior. He robbed a bank at gunpoint. FBI agents apprehended him at the scene of the crime. In a plea deal, Blinky’s judge handed him a fresh 20-year sentence to serve.

Although I was new to prison life when Blinky and I met back in the 1980s, now I have more than 21 consecutive years in confinement. Experiences have taught me a lot. As high recidivism rates suggest, I’ve met, interacted with, and learned from hundreds of prisoners like Blinky. Listening to their stories convinced me that I had to reject the questionable guidance of becoming one with the penitentiary. Instead, I kept my focus on preparing for the obstacles I expected to encounter upon release.

The irony is that, whereas prison guards ignored Blinky and his drinking buddies as they inebriated themselves in the cell, the system of corrections has blocked and frustrated my efforts to reconcile with society every step of the way. Instead of encouraging prisoners who strive to build ties with community leaders and mentors, administrators issue admonitions and block prisoner efforts to connect with society. It is as if the prison system, too, wants those inside to follow Blinky’s advice of becoming “one with the walls.”

We need prison reforms that encourage prisoners to partner with community leaders and mentors. As a long-term prisoner, I refuse to leave confinement without a strong network of support who will assist my transition upon release. I am reaching out constantly with hopes of building ties with journalists, academics, professionals, and other community leaders. Yet administrators discourage my efforts. They warn me that I am not allowed “to promote my books.” I have been transferred from prisons in three separate states as a consequence of my writing for publication. As rules stand, administrators are encouraging more adjustments in the style of Blinky. They do not support those who strive to build ties with community leaders and mentors.

These are the reasons we need prison reforms. By encouraging prisoners to build partnerships with community leaders and mentors, prison reforms would lower recidivism rates and thereby make society safer.

The post Top Ten Prison Reform Goals, Article 4: Prison Reforms Should Include Partnering Prisoners with Community Leaders and Mentors appeared first on Prison News Blog.

The motivational signs might fool those in groups that tour institutions into believing that administrators make authentic efforts to prepare offenders for successful re-entry into society. Those locked in prisons, on the other hand, recognize the huge disconnect between the smiley face slogans and the realities of prison life.

As a long-term prisoner, one reform that I know would work wonders in lowering recidivism rates would be to replace the cliches and trite expressions with policy changes. Among others, I’d welcome reforms that encourage rather than discourage prisoner efforts to build supportive success networks. Such fundamental changes would make society safer by lowering the number of prisoners who fail upon release; they also would reduce the financial costs associated with operating a prison system that churns out so much failure.

Taxpayers who fund these failure factories might be surprised to know that prison administrators support policies that effectively penalize prisoners who maintain strong family and community ties. We see such an example in the allocation of halfway house eligibility times.

In the recently signed legislation known as The Second Chance Act of 2007, Congress authorized prison administrators to grant inmates the privilege of serving up to the final 12 months of their sentences in a halfway house. While serving time in the halfway house, the prisoner is supposed to re-acclimate himself to society. He must find suitable employment and pay the costs of his confinement by surrendering 25 percent of his gross pay to the halfway house administrator.

The time in the halfway house would provide the federal prisoner with a head start at living a law-abiding life. While serving the final months of his confinement, he would have an opportunity to build a modest savings account and purchase the staples he will need to adjust as an independent citizen.

Despite the 12 months of halfway house time Congress authorized, administrative policies under the current Bureau of Prisons Director place a practical limit of six months halfway house eligibility. The real irony is that the harder an inmate has worked to maintain strong family and community ties, the less halfway house time administrators will grant him. Such policies thwart Congressional intent of helping inmates transition into law-abiding lives and discourage inmates from working to build supportive success networks.

The ridiculous halfway house eligibility policy represents just one example of the way prison administrators discourage inmates from building networks that can help them succeed upon release. We see the same patterns in visiting and telephone policies. Current visitation policies prohibit inmates from visiting with people they did not know prior to their current term of confinement. Only the warden has the authority to override such policies, but as a matter of practice, wardens refuse to grant exceptions to the policy.

I have been incarcerated for longer than 21 years. I was in my early 20s when my period of incarceration began, and during those troubling years of my life, I was trafficking in cocaine. I no longer have relationships with the people I knew then. Yet during the many years of my imprisonment, I have worked hard to educate myself and reconcile with society. Those efforts have brought many mentors into my life whom I did not know prior to my imprisonment. Those mentors are community leaders with impeccable, unassailable records of achievement. They correspond with me and guide my preparations to overcome the obstacles I will confront after a quarter century in prison. Yet because of my not having had a relationship with them that preceded my confinement, wardens in two institutions have denied them access to visit me. We need prison reforms that will encourage prisoners to build supportive success networks.

Telephone policies, too, thwart inmate efforts to build and nurture strong community ties. Prior to the election of President George W. Bush, and his appointment of John Ashcroft as the Attorney General, inmates were not limited to the number of minutes they could talk on the telephone. Officers monitored all prisoner telephone calls, of course, but inmates could keep ties with family and friends by talking on the phone without limit. Yet under the more punitive policies that followed Mr. Ashcroft’s appointment, inmates faced limits that restricted them to an average of fewer than 10 minutes of daily telephone access. We need prison reforms that will reverse such policies that block prisoners from nurturing family and community ties.

The post Top Ten Prison Reform Goals, Article 3: Prison Reforms Should Encourage Prisoners to Build Supportive Success Networks appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Reforms must include both legislative and administrative changes. Members of Congress have passed laws that rely upon long-term imprisonment to punish offenders. That approach may satisfy a collective thirst for vengeance, yet high recidivism rates suggest the ancillary effects of prolonged incarceration fail to make society safer. The longer a person serves in the corrections system, the less likely that person will emerge as a contributing, law-abiding citizen. Besides passing laws that punish criminal behavior, Congress ought to pass legislation that would encourage offenders to reconcile with society. Too many prisoners serve lengthy sentences’ without hope.

Individuals who hail from disadvantaged backgrounds fill our nation’s prison system. Most are people who have felt motivated by the pursuit of immediate gratification for their entire lives. When confronting terms of years or decades, many prisoners lack the sustained will power necessary to consider, much less preparing for the challenges that will await release. As Congress passes stimulus packages designed to jump start the American economy, Congress could pass new laws that would motivate prisoners to work toward redemption.

The way laws now stand, prisoners feel as if they have no control over their futures. Only the turning of calendar pages matter in computing release dates. With those policies in place, many prisoners adjust poorly. Instead of investing the energy to educate themselves in ways that will help them find employment upon release, prisoners numb themselves to the pains of confinement. They waste hours each day with television, table games, and obsessive devotion to recreational activities. Rather than building resources that will help them emerge successfully, prisoners distance their thoughts from the outer society. Without hope of having any influence over release dates, many prisoners adjust to confinement in ways to help them forget their predicament.

Legislative changes could reverse the troubles that accompany prisoner apathy. Punishment should not be the only factor in the equation. Congress should implement new laws that provide offenders with mechanisms to earn their freedom through merit. Such legislation could come through the reinstatement of a parole board. Congress could create laws that would encourage prisoners to work toward advancing their release dates with measurable accomplishment. Achievement of educational credentials, job skills, or community contributions, for example, could gradually increase levels of freedom.

Nordic countries make use of ombudsman panels in their criminal justice systems. As I understand that system, a panel of citizens from the prisoner’s community evaluates the offender’s history. Together, the offender and the ombudsman panel establish a schedule the offender could follow through his imprisonment. They would design that schedule in a way that enabled the offender to make amends to society and to work toward re-entry. Through the more enlightened ombudsman system, the Nordic countries punished illegal behavior while simultaneously encouraging offenders to work toward becoming contributing citizens.

Besides legislative changes, real prison reforms would require administrative changes a well. We need policies that allow and encourage inmates to prepare for successful re-entry. Administrators place too much emphasis on preserving the sanctity of the prison system. Such policies come at the expense of programs through which prisoners could build stronger resources. Rather than creating obstacles that restrict inmate communication with society, effective prison reforms would encourage inmates to build and nurture ties with legitimate society.

Effective prison reform would eliminate restrictions on telephone and visiting access. They would implement e-mail systems that would allow prisoners to join the 21st century and interact with society. Administrators would encourage inmates to participate in work-release and community study programs while they served their sentences. Those prisoners whom administrators classified as minimum-security should serve their sentences in environments that would allow them to earn a living; they could pay for the costs of their confinement while simultaneously contributing to the support of their families or to accounts that would assist them upon release.

American taxpayers fund these human warehouses with $60 billion per year. Strong unions that represent correctional officers and lobbyists that represent businesses supplying goods or services to prisons urge the perpetuation of these failure factories. Yet with President Obama’s election, and a more liberal Congress, possibilities for meaningful prison reform are more likely than ever. Strategies to govern from the bottom up should not leave out America’s 2.4 million prisoners. We crave reforms that would allow us to work toward redemption and toward becoming a part of the mosaic that makes America truly a great and enlightened society.

The post Prison Reforms We Can Believe In appeared first on Prison News Blog.

My status in prison did not play such a role in the decisions I made. Indeed, prisoners do not truly embrace the man who strives to reconcile with society. The infrastructure of prison is one that perversely encourages negativity, violence, and antisocial values. The key that enabled me to grow through my confinement was a sincere desire to emerge successfully, and a will to carry my plans through. More than 20 years ago I committed to an educational program. That educational program led me to open new opportunities that would not have been possible if I would have adjusted in the ways that most prisoners choose. The choices I made, with God’s guidance, mean that I am well prepared to emerge from prison as a contributing citizen. Rather than fears, I feel inspired to work hard so that I can prove myself worthy of the love I’ve received from my wife Carole, and the support I’ve received from so many.

The growing network of support that I nurture enables me to interact with society in ways that few other long-term prisoners enjoy. During my imprisonment I have been blessed with opportunities that brought meaning to my life. The adjustment pattern I pursued has made all the difference, though it has not been an accident.

Because of my total focus on emerging successfully from prison, I have felt as if I was in prison but that I never became a part of the prison. Through my work I feel as if I am contributing to the broader society. The work has enabled me to accumulate resources that will assist my transition into society. Most importantly, my work has brought me into contact with a beautiful woman who has become my partner by marrying me in a prison visiting room. Together we are able to make plans and work toward goals. With her support, and the network I have built, I do not have the fears that paralyze so many others who have served lengthy sentences.

The post Does Prolonged Prison Exposure Leave a Negative Influence? appeared first on Prison News Blog.

I do not think staff members as individuals relate to prisoners as sharing a common humanity. Staff policies discourage them from interacting with prisoners on a personal level. The ostensible reason for this separation is that close interactions between inmates and staff can threaten the security of a prison environment. Security and preservation of the institution trumps the system’s concern for the inmate’s development. If the system had concerns about preparing inmates for law-abiding, contributory lives upon release, they would offer opportunities for inmates to earn freedom through merit. Instead, all that matters is the turning of calendar pages. The infrastructure inside generates a lot of friction and callousness and cynicism. I would not go so far as to write that staff members want to see inmate failure, though the policies of the system seem to discourage staff members from focusing on anything that would have to do with correcting behavior.

Certainly, I can relate to feelings among taxpayers who want vengeance from those who have broken society’s laws. Prisoners have been convicted of crimes, and many want them to pay. Yet prisoners eventually return to society. Although punishment should represent one component of society’s response to crime, an enlightened approach might also include programs through which inmates can reconcile with society and earn their freedom through merit. I do not believe society benefits by funding these human warehouses that breed failure and high recidivism rates. That is why I write, as I hope to help others understand more about America’s prison system and urge reform.

The post Does the Corrections System Care About Inmates? appeared first on Prison News Blog.

In April of 2008, President Bush signed the Second Chance Act of 2007. According to an overwhelming majority from both houses of Congress, the legislation had several purposes. Primarily, the law exists to break the cycle of recidivism. One of the changes Congress enacted was to extend possibilities for access to halfway house placement. Unfortunately, administrators in the institution where I’m being held have thus far refused to recommend inmates for maximum halfway house placement.

With the Second Chance Act, Congress stated that federal inmates were now eligible to serve the final 12 months of their sentences in a community corrections center. Inmates could serve up to the final six-months of that 12-month window on home confinement. By providing that opportunity for inmates to serve the final portion of their sentences in a community corrections center, Congress hoped to help offenders rebuild ties to the community. Such change would enhance their ability to transition from prison into law-abiding citizens.

Although I expect administrators will modify their rigid stance and implement the policies to fulfill the intentions of Congress by 2010, it may take litigation to push them along. As of this writing, administrators in this facility resist this need for change from the you’ve-got-nothing-coming mentality. Instead of providing inmates with a clear path to maximum halfway house placement, policies here are to award minimal halfway house placement. Clearly, those who preside over such policies ignore the struggles inmates will face upon release from confinement.

No inmate leaves prison with intentions of failing to make a successful transition. Yet as Congress pointed out through the historic Second Chance Act, nearly seven of every ten people who leave prison return to confinement. The flawed policies of the past are at least partly to blame. With time restrictions on access to visiting and telephone, inmates lose their support systems as they spend time inside federal prisons. Congress authorized the extended halfway house provisions as a good-faith effort to help inmates strengthen their community ties. Prison administrators, however, ignore or diminish this need. Despite specific language in the legislation citing that “families are an often underutilized resource in the reentry process,” administrators at this prison are using evidence of such support as a reason to prolong an inmate’s stay in prison and minimize his access to halfway house placement.

Danny’s case presents a twisted example. He has been incarcerated for longer than 11 years. Despite repeated requests for transfer to a prison closer to home, for the past four years administrators have kept Danny out of state. He has not had a single visit in longer than five years. He is 38-years-old now and within one year of his scheduled release date. During Danny’s imprisonment, he has maintained a record that is free of any disciplinary conduct; he has earned two college degrees; he has participated in volunteer community projects that allow him to travel into society without escort or restraints. Clearly, Danny does not represent a threat.

Danny requested 12-months of halfway house placement. To bolster his argument for consideration, he explained to his case manager that he had never held a job in his life, yet he wanted desperately to succeed upon release. While living in the halfway house, Danny pointed out that he would have to

1. secure employment
2. save money necessary to rent an apartment, including a deposit, first, and last month payment
3. save money to purchase transportation
4. save money to purchase clothing
5. pay for his living expenses while he served time in the halfway house
6. re-acclimate himself to society after longer than a decade in prison.

He must also agree to forfeit 25 percent of his gross pay as a condition of living in the halfway house. Danny seemed a perfect candidate for the full 12-months of halfway house placement that Congress authorized with the Second Chance Act.

Danny’s case manager, however, told him that she would submit him for only between five and six months of halfway house placement.

“Five or six months,” Danny protested, “that won’t be enough time. I’m a felon without any work history. I expect to struggle in finding employment and may not earn more than $10 per hour. To fund my transition into society I’ll need to save a minimum of $4,000. How can you expect me to do that in only five to six months?”

“Records show that your family has been sending you an average of $100 per month,” his case manager responded. “They should help you.”

“They’ve been sending me that money to pay for my phone calls because I’ve been locked up out of state. That’s the only way we’ve been able to stay connected, but my mother lives in a trailer and she’s in her 60s. She can’t afford to help me. I’m 38 and need to take care of myself. Are you telling me that the responsible approach for me to take upon release is to leech off my family?”

“Our policy says you’re only entitled to between five and six months,” his case manager said. “That’s all I’m submitting you for. The rest is up to you.”

Danny’s prison record showed that he had acted responsibly, as was evidenced by his minimum-security rating. He was also realistic about the high hurdles that awaited him upon release. Congress was moving in the right direction to fight recidivism when it authorized administrators to provide inmates like Danny with up to 12 months of halfway house placement. Prison case managers at this institution, however, refused to budge. Rather than providing a path for Danny’s successful re-entry, they were setting Danny up for failure upon release. Ironically, the efforts he made to maintain family ties during his eleven years of confinement have disqualified him from maximum halfway house placement.

Inmates need time to make the transition from prison to society. Until administrators begin encouraging all inmates to earn maximum halfway house placement, however, they continue the status quo and facilitate the high recidivism rates Congress is trying to avoid.

The post What Second Chance? appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Over the past 20 years, I have served time in more than 19 separate institutions, with long stretches in USP Atlanta, FCI McKean, FCI Fairton, FCI Fort Dix, FPC Florence, FPC Lompoc, and the prison camp at Taft, where I am currently confined. Tens of thousands of men with whom I’ve served time have no ties to society. Such alienation from strong support networks, I am sure, contributes to the high recidivism rates.

Since more than 95 percent of all prisoners eventually return to their communities, it would seem that taxpayers would support programs that encourage inmates to keep close ties with law-abiding citizens. Yet for some esoteric reason, prison administrators erect barriers that block those in prison from connecting with society.

Prisoners have three potential methods of keeping ties or building ties with those outside of prison. Those include the telephone, visits, and written correspondence. Yet prison administrators limit inmate access to all three.

Telephone calls for prisoners are not only much more costly than in society, in federal prison we are blocked from using the telephone for more than an average of 10 minutes per day. Because of that limitation, I need to reserve all of my 300 monthly phone minutes to speak with my wife, who is my primary source of support. Yet the 300-minute restriction means that I cannot use the telephone to call my mother, my sisters, or any friends with whom I would like to talk. Prison administrators make no distinction with regard to security level; they prohibit all federal prisoners from using the telephone for more than an average of 10 minutes per day.
Visits are another possibility to maintain ties to society. Yet prison administrators restrict those as well. Here, at the minimum-security camp in Taft, we are allotted 20 potential visiting points each month. Yet visits are only available on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal Holidays. If we visit on a Friday, we are charged 4 points; if we visit on a Saturday or a federal holiday, we are charged 8 points; if we visit on a Sunday, we are charged 6 points. This means that unless visitors can visit on Fridays, we are limited to three visits per month. It is a struggle to keep close family ties with such limitations.

Keeping ties through correspondence is another option, yet even that is difficult. I write every day, and I strive to keep those in my network of support current through regular postings I make to MichaelSantos.net and this blog. The world, however, has changed. Snail mail isn’t nearly as popular or convenient as e-mail. Although some federal prisons like FCI Terminal Island, FPC Victorville, and FCI Coleman offer e-mail services, none of the prisons where I have been confined has made e-mail accessible to federal prisoners.

The irony is that prison administrators pay lip service to the importance of maintaining close family ties. The Management Training Corporation is the private management company that currently presides over operations at Taft Camp, and this group has a reputation for preparing offenders for reentry. Since this management group took over operations at Taft, several slogans have appeared announcing MTC’s commitment to preparing offenders for law-abiding lives upon release.
I am hopeful that those who make decisions at MTC will recognize the link between strong support groups and preparations for success. If they do, perhaps we will see more opportunities to cultivate ties to society.

The post Hoping for More Access to Telephones and Visiting Time appeared first on Prison News Blog.