The Second Chance Act of 2007 provided federal prison administrators with the authority to release prisoners to halfway houses one year before their sentences expired. That Act also urged administrators to expand programs that would help prisoners build stronger family and community ties while the prisoners served their sentences. For whatever reason, the current BOP Director Harley G. Lappin chooses not to abide by the letter or the spirit of this Congressional legislation.

Director Lappin has led this agency since the Bush years. I am hoping that President Obama will soon appoint a new Director to lead the Bureau of Prisons. That new Director ought to embrace the Obama vision of enlightenment. Certainly, I understand that our country struggles through tough economic times. The BOP would not require additional funding, however, to implement the changes authorized by the Second Chance Act. It simply needs leadership that would advance prison policy from the dark ages.

President Bush signed the Second Chance Act longer than one year ago. It is inconceivable that during the past 12 months the Director could not have made changes within the BOP budget to provide more resources for community confinement centers. In the prison where I am held, where we have had a steady population in excess of 500 prisoners, only one many has been authorized for 12 months of halfway house placement during the past year.

Besides the BOP restrictions on halfway house placement, Director Lappin has kept policies in place that render it more difficult for prisoners to nurture family and community ties. The most blatant example of abusive policies that separate prisoners from family members is the 300-minute limitation on monthly telephone access for federal prisoners.

Prior to the George W. Bush presidency, federal prisoners could use the telephone to communicate with family much more freely. Monthly telephone limitations did not exist. The limitations began in 2001, and Director Lappin has kept them in place. That telephone restriction ought to be rescinded at once.

Congress did not pass the Second Chance Act haphazardly. The law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because Congressional leaders recognized that prisoner recidivism rates were abhorrent. Those prisoners who built strong networks of support, who succeeded in finding employment, and who had time to decompress through halfway house placement stood the best chance for successful reentry.

America needs new leadership within the Bureau of Prisons. At the very least, it needs a Director who will embrace the enlightened prison reforms authorized by the Second Chance Act.

The post Bad Leadership in the Bureau of Prisons appeared first on Prison News Blog.

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.

As the Pew Report shows, 1 in 31 Americans serve under the authority of the criminal justice system. Prisons are not changing these people for the better. Congress has reported on the high recidivism rates that make this clear. We need prison reform to change these dismal results.

By blocking prisoners from nurturing strong family ties, policies in the prison condition the perpetuating cycles of failure. Rather than restricting access to telephone, visiting, and e-mail, administrators ought to encourage prisoners to nurture family ties. Society pays the price with high recidivism rates when administrators hinder prisoners from connecting with family and positive role models.

Prison administrators could encourage more offenders to reform and work toward law-abiding lives if they offered mechanisms through which prisoners could earn gradual increases in freedom. Such mechanisms have not existed in prisons where I have been held. All that has mattered has been the number of calendar pages that turned and the avoidance of disciplinary infractions. Such policies do not encourage money. This is the fundamental flaw that keeps both recidivism rates and prison operating costs high. Prison reforms that offer incentives can persuade more prisoners to adjust in positive ways.

The post Prisons Do Not Inspire Growth appeared first on Prison News Blog.

The U.S. Congress made specific findings in The Second Chance Act. One of those findings was that prison administrators fail to make effective use of the family structure to prepare offenders for re-entry. The obstacles that prison culture erects to block family and community ties play a significant role in influencing high recidivism rates.

Jon-Daniel, a bright criminal justice student, asked how society could implement reforms that would strengthen family ties. It would be simple. Administrators could simply provide prisoners with more access to speak with family members over the telephone. The 300-minutes per month BOP phone policy limits prisoners to speaking on the phone for an average of less than 10 minutes per day.

As Jon-Daniel observed in his comment, prison makes it difficult to nurture marital bonds. I am a long-term prisoner, and as such I must invest myself totally in my relationship with Carole. She serves this prison term along with me, and struggles every day as a consequence of the oppressive prison rules that block family ties.

To overcome the challenges of confinement, I must make every effort possible to nurture and sustain my marriage to Carole. That means I must reserve all of my telephone and visiting privileges for her. As a consequence of forcing me to prioritize how I will use my minimal access to family ties, prison policies cause me to sacrifice my relationships with extended family members. This absurdity contributes to high recidivism rates and higher prison operating costs. Prisoners who have strong family ties are more likely to adjust in positive ways. Those who lack strong family ties are more susceptible to the negative influences of the prison. They join gangs and engage in disruption.

 Administrators could implement prison reforms that would offer prisoners access to more privileges and mechanisms that would help them strengthen family ties. They could offer privileges as incentives, making the privileges conditional upon positive adjustment patterns. For example, by educating himself, working, and avoiding disciplinary infractions, a prisoner ought to earn more access to family. Administrators could dispense telephone access, visiting privileges, even e-mail to prisoners who demonstrate a commitment to redemption. Those changes would bring many advantages, including:

*lower recidivism rates

*lower incidences of gang corruption

*lower prison operating costs

*safer communities

*stronger family ties

Incentives would improve America’s prison system.

The post Utilize the Family Structure to Prepare Offenders for Re-entry 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.

To reduce violence in prisons, administrators ought to consider modifying the infrastructure – the rules by which they are governed. Instead of simply threatening prisoners with additional sanctions and punishments, they ought to rely on incentives that motivate those in prison to embrace the principles of good citizenship, even in the community of the confined.

When I was confined in a medium-security prison known as FCI McKean, in Pennsylvania, the warden implemented progressive leadership techniques. Although prisoners were serving lengthy sentences, some without release dates, the warden was a firm believer in the use of incentives. Wardens do not have the authority to change release dates, yet they do set the policies by which prisoners live. At FCI McKean, Warden Dennis Luther offered numerous incentives that prisoners could work toward earning. For example, he allowed those prisoners who kept their disciplinary records clean to choose their housing unit so they could live with like-minded individuals. Those who preferred a quiet atmosphere could share the same space while those who passed time playing table games could live together. That was a big deal, enabling prisoners to have some control over their lives.

There were many other incentives Warden Luther used to inspire good behavior. Those incentives did not come at taxpayer expense. For example, he allowed prisoners to earn the right to purchase food from local restaurants on occasion; he allowed prisoners to earn the right to purchase athletic apparel from local stores rather than from the limited selection of prison commissaries; he allowed prisoners to earn the right to watch videos or listen to cassette recordings of music; he allowed prisoners to earn the right to additional visiting and telephone privileges.

As a consequence of Warden Luther’s progressive policies, prisoners with long histories of violence got along. Instead of challenging the system or causing disturbances, they worked to earn the additional freedoms and privileges that were available. His leadership led to success as measured by the prison system’s own metrics: lower incidents of violence, no suicides, no escape attempts.

Warden Luther retired in 1995. The new warden eliminated Warden Luther’s progressive management techniques and reverted to oppressive practices. Within six months of the administrative changes, a riot broke out that caused more than a million dollars in damages. I wrote about my experiences of confinement under Luther in articles available at www.criminal-indictment.com. They convince me that incentives are effective.

The post How To Reduce Violence in Prison 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.

I write from the perspective of a long-term prisoner. My time as a prisoner began in 1987, when I was initially confined inside the high walls of a United States Penitentiary. I was 23-years-old then, and Norm Carlson was the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Since then, the BOP has expanded its population by a factor of five. With its shift toward more punitive policies, the system has become more violent and less likely to prepare offenders for law-abiding lives upon release.

A new Director who espouses President Obama’s vision would rely on more than threats of punishment to shape human behavior. Rather than extinguishing hope, as has been the policy of the current and past BOP Directors, a new Director of the BOP would implement policies that would encourage offenders to redeem their actions through merit and contributions to society.

As members of Congress stated in the Second Chance Act of 2007, the BOP’s own metrics show that strong family and community ties represent the most effective means to support successful re-entry for prisoners about to return to society. Yet Harley Lapin, the current BOP Director, supports policies that hinder those in prison from nurturing family support. One blatant example of BOP policy that deteriorates family and community relationships is the ridiculous limitations on telephone access. Federal prisoners cannot access the telephone for more than an average of ten minutes per day. Such limitations weaken family relationships. Marriages fall apart. Children lose contact with their incarcerated parents. Prisoners cannot use their precious phone minutes to build community ties without sacrificing family communications.

Visiting restrictions represent another flawed BOP approach to corrections. Rather than encouraging family members and supportive mentors to play an active role in the prisoner’s efforts to prepare for release, the current Director supports policies that frustrate and impede citizens from visiting with those in prison. Where I am incarcerated, for example, administrators implemented a strict points system that severely limits visiting opportunities. Each prisoner here is allocated only 20 visiting points per month. Prison administrators penalize prisoners and their families by “charging” 8 points for a Saturday visit and 6 points for a Sunday visit, and visiting on federal holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas “costs” 8 points per holiday. Such limitations make it impossible for me to build the network of support that I will need to overcome the challenges that will follow my release after more than 25 years of continuous imprisonment.

The current Director of the BOP sets policies that are designed to preserve the security of the institution. Rather than implementing creative, incentive-based programs that encourage offenders to work towards emerging as successful, law-abiding citizens, the current BOP Director embraces the failed policies of divisiveness. Those policies that strive to isolate prisoners from the values of America are diametrically opposed to the policies that President Obama supports.

To reverse the costly and destructive trends of high recidivism rates, President Obama should appoint a BOP Director who will abandon this flawed, architecture of human failure. Rather than presiding over an institution that warehouses humans and obliterates hope, a BOP Director under President Obama should set policies that motivate offenders to educate themselves. As former Chief Justice Warren Berger suggested, prison administrators should implement programs through which offenders can “earn and learn their way to freedom.”

Policies come from the top down. To realize the promise that President Obama so eloquently describes for America, we need a new Director for the Bureau of Prisons. We need a Director who will help, rather than block, prisoners striving to reconcile with society.

The post We need President Obama to appoint a new Director in the Bureau of Prisons 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.