The Problem with Programs

Good morning Sunday Monday Coffee-ites. Um, Coffee-ers. Um, Coffee-ans…hello friends! :) It’s a great day to be gardening, relaxing, reading, barbeque-ing (another made-up word, so my spell-check tells me), hanging with family and friends, or whatever makes you happy. To my Sunday Morning Coffee drinkers/readers in my home state of Texas, keep your head above water! They’ve seen more rain in the last week than we normally get in a year. Meanwhile in the Midatlantic, I had to actually water my garden yesterday. Weird goings-on, I tell ya. Earlier this morning, I finished reading the newest edition of The Journal of Correctional Education. There are three great journal articles there this time. Well, there always are, but I thought we could take a look at some themes I noticed amongst them while we finish up our coffee (or whatever you’re drinking).

The theme I noticed was the problems with prison programs. One article (co-authored by one of my besties the fabulous Susan Roberts) is about tablet-based education in two state prisons, one is a discussion about the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (IO) by Think Tank participants, and the third is about the importance of mindfulness meditation in correctional settings. All important and successful programs.

As you read, though, you’ll see some common threads. One is that programming, no matter how successful or helpful, is at the whim of correctional staff. The authors of the article about the IO program gathered surveys from Think Tank members who said that every time the group met, they would prep themselves to enjoy it as much as possible because every meeting could be the last. As a former correctional executive leader, I can attest to this. Programs can be cancelled for any reason…lockdowns (even ones that don’t affect the program participants) for disciplinary reasons, water shut-offs, staff shortages (you name it and there can be a lockdown for it), new rules at the entrance that aren’t communicated to volunteers or contractors so they show up to work and aren’t allowed in, staff shortages, inefficient scheduling (this one blows my mind because it just means that whoever is in charge of scheduling staff can’t seem to remember to schedule anyone for resident programming support)…etc…etc…etc. At one facility, we had no programming all day because the education officer didn’t like the way the principal looked at her that morning. You think I’m kidding, but….nope. This thought leads me to another theme in the articles.

Some correctional staff don’t think that ‘inmates’ deserve programming, so there can be a fair amount of sabotage that goes on. This can result in cancellation of programs, bringing students to class so late that they get there and have to turn around and go back, and it can also look like harassment. The students who are trying to take advantage of rehabilitative programs have to be extra diligent in their out of class time behavior because they may be targeted by certain staff who feel resentful, have a power-trip issue going on, or may be targeted by other residents who aren’t involved in programming.

I’ve talked about this one before, but it was evident in my reading…programming is largely personality-based, meaning that when the person who got the programming going leaves, so does the program. Programming is usually only as robust as a warden or director wants it to be. If you have a leader that believes in the power of rehabilitation, you’ll see robust programming. If that person leaves and the replacement is from the school of lock ‘em up, everything goes by the way-side. Every correctional leader will say that programming is important (cuz that’s what’s expected in modern corrections), but if you want to see if they walk their talk, take a look at what’s actually happening inside.

As a researcher, there are other things I found really interesting in the articles, like, examining programming as a deterrent to anti-social behaviors wasn’t really possible since only individuals who already exhibit consistent pro-social behaviors are offered educational programming. It’s difficult to measure the effects of programming because the dosage is small (some people were only allowed to participate for one month), and only individuals with an imminent release date are allowed to participate. Finally, from a research perspective, the literature cited in any academic study about prison programming is old. Why? “Prison education and training programs are limited to such a small number of people in prison that the subject no longer merits study because its impacts are accordingly so restricted (Vaugh-Somervell, et al., 2023, p. 19).

When we talk about prison reform, it’s an overwhelming topic, because providing training and programming that really, truly, is ‘rehabilitative’ is only one of the issues that needs to be rectified. It’s an important one, though, because the implementation of meaningful ways in which people can better their lives, learn to think in ways that are not criminogenic, build healthy relationships, and understand how to care for their physical and mental wellness also changes the culture of a an institution. For the better. Who doesn’t want that???

Hm. That’s an excellent question. And a topic for another day.

Happy Sunday ya’ll! Here’s to a new week full of peace, joy, reflection, purpose, and all things that help us grow.

If you want to discuss ways to improve and/or implement meaningful programs in carceral settings, contact me here. I love to talk about it!

Cheers!