[Dialogue] Evangelical Conversion-for-Parole Program Thwarted

[Harry Wainwright]

AlterNet

Evangelical Conversion-for-Parole Program Thwarted

By Rob Boston, Church and State
Posted on August 28, 2006, Printed on August 28, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40324/

The day after a federal court struck down a taxpayer-supported evangelical
Christian program in an Iowa prison, Mark Earley, president of Prison
Fellowship, issued a press statement. He was not pleased.

"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to
take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused.

Earley's analysis of judicial decisions dealing with religion and public
schools was widely off the mark, but he had good reason to be upset about
the recent ruling on public funds for inmate indoctrination. His
organization, Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by ex-Watergate felon
Charles Colson, has been sponsoring the Iowa program for three years. If the
ruling stands up on appeal, not only will Earley's group have to shut down
the program, it will be required to repay the state of Iowa more than $1.5
million in public support it has received during that time.

The June 2 decision in Americans United for Separation of Church and State
v. Prison Fellowship Ministries was a staggering loss not just for Earley's
group but perhaps for key elements of President George W. Bush's
"faith-based" initiative as well.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt didn't mince words. Officials at Iowa's
Newton Correctional Facility had become, he wrote, far too entangled with
religion by establishing a special wing for Prison Fellowship's InnerChange
program. InnerChange, Pratt declared, is suffused with religion.

"The religion classes are not objective inquiries into the religious life,
comparable to an adult study or college course, offered for the sake of
discussing and learning universal secular, civic values or truths," Pratt
wrote. "They are, instead, overwhelmingly devotional in nature and intended
to indoctrinate InnerChange inmates into the Evangelical Christian belief
system."

Later in the ruling, Pratt observed, "For all practical purposes, the state
has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the
walls of one of its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that
congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the
spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates. There
are no adequate safeguards present, nor could there be, to ensure that state
funds are not being directly spent to indoctrinate Iowa inmates."

Attorneys at Americans United were especially gratified by the legal
victory. For AU's legal team, Pratt's meticulous 140-page ruling capped more
than three years of hard work, including extensive research and on-site
visits with inmates and their families in Newton.

Americans United first became interested in the case late in 2002 after a
Newton inmate filed a lawsuit pro se (without an attorney) challenging the
program and outlining its details. Americans United agreed to represent the
inmate and filed another lawsuit against the state's support of the program
on behalf of taxpayers and family members of inmates. The two lawsuits were
then combined into one.

The InnerChange program was given the prison's "honor unit," which had been
used to house the best-behaved inmates. Those inmates were dumped back into
the general population. In their place, about 200 inmates took possession of
the wing and began receiving religious instruction around the clock.

Iowa corrections officials had instituted the program in 1999. In the first
full year, the state allocated $229,950 from its Inmate Telephone Rebate
Fund, funds obtained from surcharges placed on calls made to and by inmates.
A few years after that, the state stopped using the telephone monies,
instead funding the program with direct appropriations from the Healthy
Iowans Tobacco Trust, which is partly composed of tax dollars.

Many inmates and their families were especially upset over the allocation
from the telephone rebate program. Money from that fund is supposed to be
spent on programs to benefit all prisoners, yet a significant portion of it
was being siphoned off to fund a religious program that only some inmates
wanted.

AU's lawsuit challenged only state involvement with InnerChange, not
religious programs in prisons generally. Prison inmates have the right to
practice their faith behind bars. They may read religious literature,
receive visits from spiritual counselors and, within the confines of the
unique security needs of prisons, access religious items.

The InnerChange program was something entirely different. The effort was
established at Newton Correctional Facility after public issuance of a
proposal that Pratt determined was "gerrymandered" to fit only the Colson
group. State officials, he concluded, were adamant about establishing the
evangelical program in the prison.

On paper, InnerChange was open to any inmate who wanted to take part. The
reality on the ground was something else. The program was so saturated with
the conservative, biblically literalist form of Christianity favored by
Prison Fellowship that members of other faiths found it inhospitable. During
the trial, several inmates testified that they found InnerChange impossible
to reconcile with their own religious beliefs.

One inmate, Benjamin Burens, who practices a Native American religion,
participated in InnerChange for a while, even though he is not a Christian.
Burens testified that InnerChange staff pressured him to become a born-again
Christian and criticized him for taking part in Native American rituals,
labeling them a form of witchcraft. Burens was eventually expelled from the
program.

According to the court record, non-evangelical Christians were commonly
referred to by InnerChange staff as "unsaved," "lost," "pagan," those "who
served the flesh," "of Satan," "sinful" and "of darkness."

This criticism of other faiths even extended to other Christian
denominations. As Pratt noted, "Testimony revealed a constant tension
between Roman Catholic inmates involved in InnerChange and the chronic
problem of InnerChange volunteers criticizing Roman Catholic beliefs and
practices.... InnerChange's Field Guide clearly warns that non-Christians
and those who desire time to observe faith practices not included in the
InnerChange program, e.g., Roman Catholics who wish to attend Mass or Native
Americans who wish to participate in the sweat lodge ceremony, may do so
only if those observances do not conflict with the InnerChange program
requirements."

Pratt found this reliance on conversion clear evidence of InnerChange's
sectarian character.

"To anyone well-acquainted with the program -- as are the state Dept. of
Corrections management team and the InnerChange staff -- the object of the
InnerChange program is to change inmates' behavior through personal
conversion to Christianity," he wrote. "InnerChange's position that no one
actually is required to convert to pass through the program is mere
formalism. Every waking moment in the InnerChange program is devoted to
teaching and indoctrinating inmates into the Christian faith."

AU had also raised issues of unequal treatment among inmates, based on their
willingness to conform to the evangelical atmosphere of InnerChange. Again
Pratt found this argument compelling.

InnerChange inmates enjoyed perks and benefits that are significant to an
incarcerated population. The special unit for InnerChange inmates featured
private toilet facilities and cells with wooden doors instead of steel. The
environment was generally safer, and inmates were entrusted with keys to
their own cells. InnerChange inmates had extra contact with their family
members and even gathered together to watch movies on weekends.

But InnerChange inmates got an even bigger benefit: access to special
classes that made parole much more likely. Treatment classes are a condition
of parole in Iowa, and most inmates must wait until they approach their
release date to take part in them. InnerChange inmates got the classes
earlier, significantly increasing their odds of being granted parole.

In an attempt to defend the program, Earley and other Prison Fellowship
officials insisted that taxpayer money was funding only the secular aspects
of InnerChange. AU attorneys attacked this assertion, quoting Prison
Fellowship Ministries' own materials to prove that there are no secular
aspects to InnerChange.

AU cited an InnerChange document that asserted, "All programming all day,
every day is Christ-centered." The organization also noted that Prison
Fellowship was trying to have it both ways: bragging to its fundamentalist
Christian supporters about the program's religiosity and then playing it
down before government officials to get more tax support.

In fact, even a cursory glance at the organization and its materials exposed
InnerChange's ties to evangelical Christianity. Its website states
<http://ifiprison.org>  upfront: "The InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI)
is a revolutionary, Christ-centered, faith-based prison program supporting
prison inmates through their spiritual and moral transformation."

It adds, "IFI is an integral part of bringing a biblical sense of justice to
correctional facilities in America. We are confident that the results will
matter. States will realize a spectacular reduction in the rate ex-offenders
are returned to prison and Prison Fellowship through equipping, exhorting
and assisting the local church to minister to prisoners, victims and their
families will realize souls won for the Kingdom of God."

The Web site emphasizes InnerChange's reliance on the "transformational
model" of rehabilitation. This model, InnerChange asserts, "tries to help
inmates' change by identifying sin as the root of their problems. It
encourages inmates to turn from their sinful past, see the world through
God's eyes, and surrender to God's will. This model promotes the
transformation of the inmate from the inside out through the miraculous
power of God's love."

All paid staff and volunteers at Prison Fellowship and InnerChange must
agree with the organization's view on theology. Staff members must sign
Prison Fellowship's Statement of Faith, which reflects fundamentalist
beliefs. Non-evangelicals and non-Christians are not hired.

Pratt had no problem debunking claims that InnerChange has secular
components. "The overtly religious atmosphere of the InnerChange program is
not simply an overlay or a secondary effect of the program -- it is the
program...," he wrote. "Here, every activity -- worship services, revivals,
community meetings, daily devotionals -- is organized and developed by the
InnerChange program and is designed to transform an individual spiritually.
Even the otherwise traditional rehabilitation classes themselves, as set
forth above, have been turned into classes intended to indoctrinate inmates
into the Christian faith."

With so many of their key claims left in tatters by the decision, defenders
of InnerChange were left clinging to a frequent fallback position:
InnerChange should receive tax funding because it reduces prisoner
recidivism.

Responding to the ruling, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press, "A federal judge
finds a prison rehab program that actually works and has much lower
recidivism rates than other programs, and so he declares it unconstitutional
because it dares to bring a faith element into the program."

In fact, there is no objective evidence that InnerChange works or reduces
recidivism. In 2003, Colson released what he said was statistical validation
for this claim, trumpeting a study purporting to show that inmates who took
part in InnerChange returned to prison at a much lower rate than those who
did not.

The study made a big splash in the media, but the claims quickly evaporated.
Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of
California-Los Angeles, examined the data and found it to be statistically
invalid. Prison Fellowship had excluded all the prisoners who did not finish
the program, in essence kicking its failures out. When all of the
participants were added back in, Kleiman found that InnerChange participants
actually returned to prison at a slightly higher rate than a control group.

Nevertheless, program supporters like Land continue to dutifully regurgitate
the assertion that InnerChange has shown startling rates of success.
Although without foundation, this claim has undoubtedly helped the program
spread to other states. InnerChange now receives tax support in Texas,
Kansas and Minnesota, and a program that Prison Fellowship claims is
privately funded was launched in Arkansas just days before the ruling came
down.

In addition, InnerChange hopes to make inroads into the federal prison
system. In March, the U.S. Justice Department announced it was soliciting
proposals for a "single-faith" prison rehabilitation program to "facilitate
personal transformation for the participating inmates through their own
spirituality or faith...."

The solicitation listed 10 requirements that interested groups must have --
all of which just happen to mirror the features of InnerChange. Earley
seemed to get the message, telling The Washington Post that his group is
"very interested" in the proposal.

Americans United has been communicating with the Justice Department, trying
to persuade it to fix the proposal's constitutional defects. The ruling in
the Iowa lawsuit, AU attorneys say, will help them make the case.

The Justice Department's interest in "faith-based" rehabilitation isn't
surprising. The current director of the Justice Department's Task Force On
Faith-Based And Community Initiatives is Steven T. McFarland, a former
lawyer with the Christian Legal Society who also served as vice president
for program and partnership development for Prison Fellowship International
from 2002-05.

The Iowa ruling could also have broader implications for the entire
"faith-based" approach to other social service programs. Faith-based funding
assumes that religious content can be legally underwritten by taxpayer
dollars. The Iowa decision casts serious doubt on that claim.

Americans United chose to litigate against InnerChange, in part, because it
was an opportunity to bring a test case against the faith-based initiative.
For years, initiative backers have insisted that the religious component of
faith-based services can somehow be isolated and government money directed
only to what remains. AU has argued that most faith-based plans are so
saturated with religion that tax funding cannot go to them. This ruling
upholds AU's argument and can only be seen as a blow to one of the key
features of the Bush initiative.

"This decision should strongly bolster our efforts to rein in faith-based
funding," said Americans United Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser,
who is lead counsel in the Iowa case. "The court's decision makes clear that
the government cannot provide any support whatsoever to a program that
proselytizes those it claims to serve, or coerces them to take part in
religious activities or discriminates against those who refuse to adopt its
religious teachings."

Luchenitser was joined on AU's litigation team by AU attorney Heather Weaver
and Iowa civil rights attorney Dean Stowers.

Federal lawmakers who back the Bush faith-based initiative are well aware
that the decision spells trouble for their agenda. On June 7, three House
Republicans, Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania, Trent Franks of Arizona and
Steve King of Iowa, hosted a briefing with Earley in the Capitol to discuss
the ruling and possible remedies. An attendee provided notes to Church &
State.

Earley called the decision a "direct assault on the faith-based initiative"
and went on to insist that the main purpose of InnerChange is not
conversion. He and the House members attacked Americans United and AU
Executive Director Barry W. Lynn by name. They also overstated the reach of
the decision, insisting that it puts prison chapels at risk. Franks went so
far as to assert that advocates of separation of church and state will not
rest until they remove religious symbols from the headstones at Arlington
Cemetery.

Participants discussed a possible legislative response from Congress but
decided to wait until the appeal is heard. One participant remarked that
this case is one they "must not lose." (Pitts later attacked the ruling
during a speech on the floor of the House.)

The ruling can also be seen as a blow to Colson's larger ambitions for
society. For years, Colson and his backers have talked about saturating
public institutions with the proper "biblical worldview" -- one of
fundamentalist Christianity. Colson focused on prisons in part due to his
personal history but also because prisons are a soft target. Public opinion
leans toward a punishment model of corrections, and many rehabilitative or
work programs have dried up in recent years. Recidivism rates remain high,
leading some to back just about any approach that promises to prevent
inmates from committing new crimes once they are released.

What lies ahead for the Iowa case? Judge Pratt, aware that his decision
would be appealed, has temporarily stayed his order. If the ruling is
sustained by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Newton officials will
have to disband the program. In addition, Prison Fellowship will have to
repay the state of Iowa $1,529,182.70. This type of repayment, called
"recoupment," is unusual. In this case, Pratt said, it is justified for two
reasons: First, as Pratt put it, "the severe nature of the violation."
Secondly, the judge noted that InnerChange officials should have known their
program was constitutionally suspect. He pointed out, for example, that
corrections officials in California provided the group with a detailed memo
explaining why that state would not fund the organization, citing
constitutional concerns.

Americans United's Lynn hailed the opinion, saying it should stand as a
warning to religious leaders tempted to take taxpayer funding.

"There is no way to interpret this decision as anything but a body blow to
so-called faith-based initiatives," Lynn said. "Tax funds cannot underwrite
conversion efforts." Continued Lynn, "Government has no business paying for
religious indoctrination and conversion programs in prisons or any other
tax-funded institution. Furthermore, church leaders who take faith-based
funding may find that they've made an expensive misjudgment if their
'faith-based' funding is challenged." 

C 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/40324/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060828/3a8d82e9/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1533 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060828/3a8d82e9/attachment-0001.gif