New direction: Director of Arizona Corrections, Dora Schriro addresses a group of inmates participating in the “Get Ready” program, which prepares them for reentry into society. (Arizona State Corrections)
Program helps Arizona prisoners get ready for real life
From Day One, inmates are treated like adults, lowering the chance they will return.
By Sarah More McCann | Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor/ July 31, 2008 edition
Reporter Sarah More McCann discusses a new prison program that increases empathy between officers and inmates.
Reporter Sarah More McCann
When Edward Maxwell III arrived at Arizona’s Lewis prison near Phoenix, he nearly hit rock bottom. The job assigned to the man convicted of first-degree murder was raking – rocks.
The task befit the hopeless place, where in 2004, Lewis inmates held two officers hostage for 15 days, the longest such standoff in United States history.
But that was then.
Today, the head of Arizona corrections says violence inside state prisons has sharply decreased, and released inmates are less likely to return to prison. It’s the result of a new public policy innovation, Arizona officials say, that begins preparing prisoners for reentry to society from their first day in prison. Arizona’s “Getting Ready” program is garnering nationwide attention, as states face skyrocketing incarceration and release rates.
“You start to think about your future more and what you can offer your family, your community, and even the people you victimized,” says Mr. Maxwell in a telephone interview. He has been in prison for 22 years and will be eligible for parole in 2011.
Before Getting Ready, prisoners had no autonomy, says Dora Schriro, director of Arizona Corrections, a system of some 38,000 inmates in 10 prison complexes. They were told when to eat, when to sleep, and not helped to develop positive pastimes. They were ill-prepared to reenter society.
“A good inmate [was someone] who sits in their bunk, follows orders, never talks back. A bad ex-offender will lay on the bed, doesn’t get a job.… Someone who doesn’t learn how to use leisure time,” Ms. Schriro says.
Getting Ready upends those expectations, she says. Within one week of entry, inmates receive a needs assessment and individualized corrections plan. They’re expected to participate in work or education, self-development, and restorative-justice activities seven days a week. Benefits are tied to accomplishing goals.
Implemented in 2004 with significant input from correctional officers, community members, and prisoners, Getting Ready creates a “parallel universe” in prison, reflecting as much of the outside world’s challenges and opportunities as possible.
“I wake up and think, ‘Yeah – I get to go to work today, and work in a harmonious atmosphere,’ ” says Maxwell, who now maintains the program’s roster for the prison. Having a prison job isn’t unusual. But Maxwell wakes himself up, and chooses whether he wants to go to breakfast. No one else does that for him, or any of the prisoners.
Privileges gained through work, education
As prisoners complete the goals outlined in their assessment, they accrue stature, responsibility, and increased opportunities.
“As you get your GED [high school equivalency degree], like in your world and in mine, you can apply for jobs that are closed to you if you don’t have a GED,” Ms. Schriro says.
Choose not to get an education? Your wages are frozen at entry level. Complete substance abuse treatment and cultural awareness workshops? You get more privileges at the canteen, visits where family members can bring in food, and other perks.
Criminal Justice consultant Gerry Gaes recently visited four of Arizona’s prison complexes as part of a Harvard Kennedy School innovations awards program. Getting Ready is a finalist. What’s innovative, Mr. Gaes says, is the intensity with which the graduated system of incentives is implemented. “I’ve never seen it done to the point it’s done there,” he says, citing the opportunity for families to bring in home-cooked meals. “It could introduce contraband. They take a risk in doing that, but the inmates clearly enjoy it.” [Editor’s note: The original version misspelled Mr. Gaes’s first name.]
In 2004, Schriro faced budget cuts and a prison population up 17 percent. Getting Ready was implemented without any new funds. Instead, corrections staff received additional training and rearranged their schedules for expanded services and hours.
In other states, “If [prisoners] are lucky, they’ll get one service,” says Amy Solomon, a criminal justice expert with the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington. Often that treatment is self-help, like Alcoholics Anonymous.
Prisoners often have multiple challenges. More than two-thirds have “substantial” substance-abuse histories. Many have spotty employment records and serious health issues, Ms. Solomon says.
America’s growing prison population
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), some 1.5 million sentenced inmates were under state or federal jurisdiction in 2007, a four-fold increase since 1980. That growth has made meeting the various challenges of inmates difficult, Solomon says.
“The thought was always that they were locking up bad people and keeping them away,” Solomon says. “But about a decade ago or so, people realized that 95 percent are coming back and we’ll have to do something different.”
About two-thirds of the 650,000 inmates released from prison each year will be arrested again within three years, according to the BJS.
Last April, Congress passed the “Second Chance Act,” authorizing some $360 million for prisoner reentry programs. Getting Ready, which Gaes says is replicable, is among those commanding attention.
It already boasts powerful results: 75 percent of inmates in the program have a GED. Inmate-on-inmate assault is down more than one-third. Inmate-on-staff assault is down by more than half. Drug use, suicide, and rape are also down.
The recidivism rate is less than 2 percent for some 3,000 inmates who have completed the program in its entirety since 2004.
Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform Inc., a prisoner-advocacy organization in Tempe, Ariz., says its premature to declare Getting Ready a success, and that these statistics mask real trouble in Arizona prisons including continued violence and gang activity.
“I see an attempt to gloss over very serious institutional problems … to appear the department [of corrections] is making great strides,” Ms. Hamm says.
Hamm says she’d like to see the program undergo a formal program evaluation by a university or independent institution, and focus on other indicators of success.
Prison problems don’t “get erased by having your own alarm clock or choosing to go to breakfast [which is] inconsequential if you fear for your life in prison,” she says.
But Lewis correctional officer Christina Duran says the program ushered in a sea change in the place she once considered “an undeclared state of war.”
“We kept them locked down and did everything for them. They started to rely on us heavily, and there was resentment from staff who had to force them to do things,” she says.
Today, “When I hit that yard, I have so many ‘good mornings’ I can’t keep up with them,” she says, attributing the environment to inmates enjoying the chance to be adults.
Maxwell, who hopes to be a writer upon release, says he’s ready to be an adult outside prison walls.
“I’m responsible for my own actions,” he says. “You can earn something by doing it the natural way, and that’s by showing up day in and day out and involving everyone else in the process.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Dr. Jemour A. Maddux, Psy.D. | 07.31.08
NJ REENTRY BLOGS FOR THE NATION Reentry Program Definitions, Models, and Research: From Policy to PracticeModerated by Jemour A. Maddux, Psy.D.
Introduction to B.E.ST. Practices Special Series on the Reentry of Formerly Convicted Sex Offenders
The purpose of this comment blog is to provide you with an overview of what is to come in our special series on the reentry of former sex offenders. This reentering population deserves special attention in our nation’s dialogue on barriers to successful reentry. Critics of sex-offender reentry policy attack the unconstitutionality of these practices. These critics argue punishment is suffered by reenters subjected to civil commitment and/or community notification practices under New Jersey ’s Megan’s Law, which makes them a form of double jeopardy. Defendants of these policies assert they are necessary to maintain public safety and dismiss the critics’ references to these policies’ punishing intentions or results. Later writings in this series will further describe community notification and civil commitment policy in New Jersey and its implications for people in reentry.
Risk prediction instruments are typically used to determine whether a person in reentry who has completed their sentence for a sex-related charge will be subjected to community notification or civil commitment. Recently, New Jersey has started using the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS) to classify juveniles convicted of a sex-related charge into risk tiers. These tiers determine the level of community notification, and in the case of adults, potentially civil commitment. Clearly, no one has a crystal ball to reliably inform whether or not somebody will reoffend. Nonetheless, sexual-recidivism instruments are widely used throughout the nation. Their results could mean the difference between freedom and indefinite incarceration in the case of the 194 civilly committed adults in New Jersey . Since risk prediction instruments do not lower risk tiers for served prison time, they clearly reflect the assumption incarceration does not help to rehabilitate. Also, since many of these instruments used to tier risk do not take into consideration dynamic variables like treatment response, they also reflect the assumption psychological treatment for sex offenders does not work. However, the scientific literature suggests neither of these assumptions is accurate. Later writings in this series will also detail the statistical properties and use of these risk predication instruments.
There is a chasm between our nation’s policy governing the reentry of people convicted of a sex-related crime and the published research supporting sex offenders are one of the lowest recidivating groups when people in reentry are studied by offense type. The gap between research and practice with respect to this group is why the Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices, Inc. has started this special series. Our mission is to keep men, women, and children from going back to prison by bridging the gap between research and reentry practices in the community. Mark Chaffin says it best in his May 2008 article published in the journal of Child Maltreatment titled, “Our minds are made up-don’t confuse us with the facts: commentary on policies concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders.” The mentality captured by Chaffin’s title is what we need to get away from to truly keep our communities safe for everyone, including the person in reentry who completed their sentence for a sex-related crime. As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit local reentry news for our broadcast received by hundreds of readers just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply reply to this email or send a request from our website and we will visit you on-site to identify ways we can be of assistance to you and/or your reentry program.
——————————————————————————–
Jemour A. Maddux, Psy.D. (President) Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices, Nonprofit Corporation Email: jmaddux@njreentry.com Phone: 1-888 362-4591, ext 4
3. BARBARA VAMPRAN | 07.31.08
THE LOUISANA STATE PRISON WHICH MOST PEOPLE CALL IT ANGOLA. IS A STORY OF IT SELF THE TRUSTEE THERE HAVE JOBS THEY LEARN A TRADE. THEY ALSO HAVE A BIBLE COLLEGE. ALSO THERE IS A CHURCH IN EVERY CAMP. AT ANGOLA THEY HAVE CAMP. THE TRUSTEE CAMP IS CALL CAMP F. MY HUSBAND IS AT CAMP F. HE BEEN IN PRISON FOR 24 YEARS FOR A CHARGE OF 2ND DEGREE MURDER. THAT IS HIS FIRST OFFENCES. IN THE 24 YEARS HE BEEN THERE HE HAS HAD 6 WRITEUPS
1.9/2/1985 DISOBEDIENCE [WALKING OUT OF LINEGOING TO CHOW.] BOARD ACTION REPRIMAND.
2.9/24/1985 AGG. MALINGERING [WENT TO HOSPITAL BECAUSE MY BACK WENT OUT.] BOARD ACTION LOSS 2 WEEKS STORE.
3.10/4/1985 UNSANITARY PRACTICE[WASH BOOTS IN MOP BUCKET SINK] BOARD ACTION LOSS 2 WEEKS STORE.
4.5/29/1986 UNAUTHORIZED AREA [SETTINGON WINDOW LEADGE ON THE SIDE OF A DORM.] BOARD ACTION 1 WEEK STORE.
5. 1/18/1992 RULE 3 [TOLD GAURD I WAS GOING TO WHIP HIM . BECUASE HE WOULD NOT LET ME GO TO THE HOSPITAL. I HAD A GALL STONE ATTACK. IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO GET HIM TO GET THE WARDENS THERE .] BOARD ACTION 8 DAYS OF ISOLATION.
6. 6/26/1997 1A[NOT SHORE WHAT THIS WAS.] BOARD ACTION REPRIMAND.
HIS CRIME HE WENT LOOKING FOR HIS WIFE. WHEN HE WAS DRINKING AND PICKUP THE LADY AND END UP BEENING ACUSED OF KIDNAPP, RAPE , AND MURDER . THE MAN WIFE WAS LIEING AND SHE JUST WALK. THE DNA SHOWED THAT SHE WAS NOT RAPE. ALSO SHOWED THAT THEY WAS NOT KIDNAPP. ME HUSBAND WAS A NATIONAL GUARD AND LEARN TO BE A HEAVY EQUITMENT OPERATOR. ALSO LEARN HOW TO FIX HEAVEY EQUITMENT . LEARN TO USE A CONCRETE MACHINE AND A ASHALT MACHINE. HIS HOBBY IS TO MAKE BELT BUCKELS. ALSO HE IS IN THE PROCESS IN GETTING HIS GED. THE COURT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE CHANGE.THEY NEED TO TAKE THE TIME OUT THE COURT SYSTEM THIS ONLY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR. THE RICH HAS THE RIGHT TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SURPREME COURT. WHERE THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR CAN NOT BECAUSE. THEY CAN NOT COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO PAY LAWYER AND GO TO NEXT COURTS SYSYEM. THE COURT SYSTEM IS FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOT ONLY THE RICH. ALSO WHEN THERE IS A BODY THEY SHOULD TAKE THE FINGERPRINTS TO PROVE WHO THEY ARE NOT A LIQUOR LICIENCE . HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT IS HIM. ALSO THEY DID FINGERNAIL SCRAPPING THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT THEN. THIS NEED TO CHANGE IT SHOULD BE THE FINGERPRINTS OFF THE BODY. THEY HAVE ALOT IN LOUISANA THEY THERE CASE NEEDS LOOKING INTO.
4. Ian Craik | 08.01.08
I had the privilege for a while of being a voluntary tutor in Glasgow’s Barlinnie Prison Education Unit. One of the teachers there remarked that once they’d had a taste of education there the prisoners tended to keep it up when they were released.
It seems obvious to me that, for both social and financial reasons, prisoners should be given every opportunity to better themselves so that their time inside is not wasted and they are released in better rather than worse condition than when they went in. Also that guards surely experience more satisfaction in having a constructive rather than just a custodial role. I would favour much more of the ‘Getting Ready’ for Real Life kind of programme.
Yours sincerely
Ian Craik
5. Lorenn Walker | 08.01.08
Hawai‘i has developed Restorative Circles, a reentry planning group process for individual incarcerated people (See: http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/June_2006/circles.html). The Circles address the unique needs of each individual who invites loved ones to attend–these family and friends can also find some healing in the process. The Circle approach is supported by current learning research that shows allowing individuals the opportunity to make their own choices is more effective than having others decide what is best for them. The cost of hiring managers to make case plans for incarcerated people could easily be used instead for providing Restorative Circles, which are likely to have better outcomes for recidivism and healing families.
6. Donna Leone Hamm | 08.01.08
I am saddened by the lack of balance in this story. The author interviewed me for more than an hour and she was provided hard evidence which disputes the claims of serious reductions in recidivism claimed by the Arizona DOC for its “Getting Ready” program. First, I referred her to the Department’s own web site which publishes their own recidivism studies from 2004 and 2005. Those statistic show that the recidivism rate one year from release (for carefully selected prisoners chosen for the study by the Department) was 16%. After two years, the rate jumped to 25%. After that, the Department simply stopped tracking recidivism rates. One can only imagine what statistic would have been required to be reported if the DOC had followed established social scientific standards — which require studying inmates’ recidivism rates for a period of five (5) years post-release.
Family food visits are not new or innovative. In 1981, they were a weekly event in minimum custody prison units in Arizona (under a previous corrections director). In 1981, minimum custody inmates could wear their own clothing; take university-level college courses; operate their own business and save money for release; leave the prison on home furloughs which were a reward for good behavior, etc. So, Dora Schriro is not doing anything innovative or “new.” Instead, she is attempting to spread pixie dust on serious problems which exist in her prison system (sexual harassment of female prisoners; gang related violence and extortion; lack of adequate or professional medical and mental health treatment programming; disparate program offerings between male and female prisoners; increased need for protective segregation classification due to violence, extortion, drug debts and other problems within the inmate population; suicides and violent inmate deaths). The list goes on.
It is interesting to note that Arizona inmates are GIVEN a correctional “plan” when they arrive in prison. What the Director doesn’t understand is that inmates must participate in developing that plan if they are expected to “buy” into it. That’s human nature.
Polite discourse among a few prison guards and prisoners is fine. But the Director will have to deal with the supermax, gulag-type prison facilities that she operates — and from which prisoners are released into the community each and every day — before she can claim she has a true “parallel” universe. At the present time, I am unaware of any prisoner who wakes up in the morning in his/her prison cell and is confused about where he is.
Depending upon the length of time that a person has been incarcerated and the experiences (in total) of that incarceration, most prisoners experience some form of PTSD upon release. Knowing how to balance a checkbook or turn off an alarm clock is useful, but not sufficient.
The media must look deeper into the stories and claims made by the Department of Corrections.
7. Sarah More McCann | 08.03.08
To Ms. Hamm comments: I didn’t focus on those recidivism figures, available on the Arizona Department of Corrections website (http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports.asp), for a few reasons. For one, Ms. Hamm herself questioned the study during our interview, suggesting the inmates were not selected randomly. “You can’t select the ones you want to track,” she said during our interview, calling for an independent evaluation (which was noted in the article.) Second, the study tracks inmates who were released between 1990 and 1999, several years before Getting Ready was implemented. Finally, I thought reentry rates would be most telling for the prisoners who had completed Getting Ready in its entirety –– so I used the figure provided by the Department for that small cohort (2 percent recidivism).
As for the services and ideas (like choosing to go to breakfast) not being innovative, I highlighted criminal justice expert Gerry Gaes, who says it’s the intensity with which the incentives are tied to benefits that is innovative. And the fact Getting Ready was implemented without additional funding makes it a program other systems should look at, whether or not they choose to follow director Schriro’s example.
Certainly problems remain in all prison systems, which is why I included Hamm’s voice, as well as the voices of other experts: Mr. Gaes, who is reviewing Getting Ready for a public policy award, and Amy Solomon, who provided the larger context of prison life and reentry issues. Unfortunately, there are only so many quotes that can fit into a single newspaper article, so I’m glad Ms. Hamm had a chance to express her views further in the comments section. That’s why the Monitor offers this feature – to continue the discussion.
8. Tina Trent | 08.05.08
Contrary to what she asserts in the comments thread, the author did specifically attribute a massive drop in recidivism rates to the Getting Ready program. That is the main argument of the article, and she supports it in two ways: by unambiguously comparing actual recidivism statistics (2/3 in three years) with “study results” from a selected group participating in a showcase program for a shorter time, and by interspersing ruminative comments about things like the value of education.
You shouldn’t make assertions like this at all, even if you then offer space for a dissenting voice. The proof isn’t there. Period.
Teaching prisoners life skills sounds entirely reasonable. Tying rewards to behavior makes sense. But a lot of what passes for “education” in prisons is done by such a self-selecting group (types who always seem to feel “privileged” to hang out with people who rape and steal and fight and kill) that you have to wonder if all those creative writing seminars aren’t actually reinforcing the justifications and sense of grievance and self-pity and entitlement that greased the wheels of criminal behavior in the first place. Look at some of the death row poetry sites and programs supported by PEN and other groups: you’ll find the opposite of taking responsibility for past deeds. Ditto, much of the “Restorative Justice” industry, which has been infiltrated by prisoner’s rights activists who are diverting resources from the mission of actually inculcating a sense of responsibility and mending the harm done by criminal behavior.
And finally, remember that only a small fraction of crimes result in arrest of a suspect. Prolific recidivism remains the norm to a degree that is rarely acknowledged in studies — and almost never in the media.
9. Darla Ceja | 09.13.08
I agree with Mrs. Hamm. I am a mother of an inmate at Lewis prison. This article reads one sided for the glory of Dora Schiro. Real pretty graphs, impressive numbers and even an award from Harvard. This “innovative” program is not new, and at present is even more restrictive and selective than before. This is not to say Dora Schiro has not made improvements. In Yuma, good behavior is reward by being able to purchase “outside” food, like Pizza Hut pizza or ice cream and burgers. That is an incentive. The inmate are still human beings and even the simpliest pleasures can bring out the best in them. I realize the inmates have serious issues and prison is not meant to cure everyone, but this article does not address the inmates at all. Glory to everyone else but the inmates. Does it really work? Where are the testimonies? Where are the “case studies” now? Why is Dora awarded, recognized, and put on a pedestal? The prison system is not perfect, in fact it understaffed, the guards need counseling too. My son has been in prison for five years to date and has 6 more to go. He has been maced and then put out in the 100 degree heat in order to be seperated from other inmates. Lack of staff. And there is more, but to what affect would it to disclose those incidents, it’s prison. He went in there at age 21, and since then has realized his mistakes and understands he can change and become the person God meant him to be. He is highly intelligent and was enrolled in DeVry Institue of Technology for Communication prior to his incarceration. Learning to live day to day as a “normal” person would in prison is just not possible. It is unrealistic. But for those who choose to better themselves and look forward to a better future the opportunities are not accessible. Getting your GED is a must, the first step, counseling, and education for employment and most of all, support is a must. These are the keys to successfully adjusting to the outside world. (My opinion based on life experience) The “prison world” has it’s own rules, the outside world lives by free will. These adjustments are hard for inmates when they come home. The frustration, the coping with emotions, the loss of time, the world that has changed while they were gone. The human factors. But prominent of all is the anxiety of being in a free world. The anxiety of a controlled enviroment stays with the individual for years. Most individuals do not even recognize the state of anxiety. The anxiety appears in conversation with others, riding the bus, being alone, and no control. My husband has been in prison 3 times and he suffers from this day to day, we struggle with our relationship, compromising, and most of all for me, is to forgive. My husband has recognized his anxiety and helps others to recognize it as well. I have been with him for 28 years and we have one child.
I just wanted to state that this “Get Ready Program” is not all that. And if it was, the inmates who succeeded show be the ones recognized and awarded.
Now as for me, increased access to quality counseling, college level courses, and trade skills for employment would benefit the inmates who choose to better themselves would be “innovative”. I wanted to present another view in hopes to provide “real world” information.
I thank you for your time.
God Bless you all.
( You have my son’s life in your hands.)
10. Veronica Nunez | 10.07.08
Of course there are no “perfect solutions” for revolutionizing our frustrating prison system. I thought this article shed light on a program that is certainly a step in the right direction. Instead of “glorifying” anyone for their efforts related to this change or being so quick to criticize and shoot it down, why not study it and make changes from what is learned? My son’s father could testify to this program by all his accomplishments so far from getting clean for over two years and off any meds that helped him stay clean for almost a year. He has gotten his G.E.D. and has taken classes that may apply towards college coursework. His progress and good behavior earned him his own room in the “honor” dorm. He also claims that my effort to keep our family together with letters, phone calls and driving to florence every couple weeks for visitation so my son could run and jump into his daddy’s arms to assure him he has not been replaced nor forgotten was a major factor in feeling like he still had a purpose and a future despite his consequences. Then he was moved 400 miles away to Safford. Although he gained the security clearance to work away from the yard and even gained certification to operate their heavy equipment, the distance and different crowd of inmates to mess with his head, had him imagining the worst over a missed phone call!! I got a letter that was so out of his character that my parents drove us to Safford to see if he was back on drugs or what. The instant he saw us, it was like he came back to life and his awful letter was an insecure man needing his family. Well, he bounced back from that and then our hearts got ripped from our chest because they rolled him up and took him to Oklahoma. All of his priveleges and work opportunities and free yard movement and hope of visitation is gone. He said he feels like he is back in county jail with a 8 bunks in a cell and toilet to use in front of eachother, etc. What is the point of any of this policy change if at any time due to overcrowding, that they fail to follow thru with the inmates that showed promise? My son doesnt understand why we cant see his daddy like he used to, and the phone calls are getting so costly because that is the closest we get to having him with us is hearing his voice. My son just started kindergarten, t-ball and karate and needs his daddy’s encouragement more than ever. What can I do to help get him back? What kind of message do they think this sends?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Sherwood MacRae | 07.31.08
Thank you - I intend to forward this article to others who I know to be, advocates - who are sincerely interested in bringing our penal systems into the 21st century