My name is Ivan Kilgore, and the piece that I’ll be sharing with you today is entitled “The Glaring Contradictions and the Rhetoric of Prison Rehabilitation, Part Four.” In the previous sector, I left off discussing the point about the department’s funding scheme and what I want you to think about in terms of funding. Think of the nonprofit sector. Funding is largely contingent upon results. Programs are funded solely on account of their ability to meet their goals and objectives. When they fail, or only prove to be 30% effective, they get axed. This unquestionably places a tremendous amount of pressure on organizations to produce favorable results, which in turn, can encourage a sort of cooking of the books type of reporting process. The California Department of Corrections is no different.
Recently, I sat down with an Associate Warden here in California State Prison, Solano, to discuss the prospect of hosting a restorative justice forum, which was eventually denied. During the course of our discussion, he mentioned the fact that up until a few years ago, the department’s funding scheme was based on warehousing bodies. Seemingly, with millions of dollars slated to fund these programs, taxpayers would be up in arms demanding to know to what degree is the department being held accountable for managing their tax dollars in face of a 73% recidivism rate? Are they funding these programs based solely on availability, or their effectiveness? With a 27% success rate it’s only obvious the rehabilitated model currently in place is not based on results or a commitment to fund more effective programs. Now, on that, I once heard a correctional officer say, “If you work around crooks long enough, eventually you’ll become one.” That’s it.
With the enormous pressure upon prison officials to effectively manage tax dollars, you best believe the books are getting cooked, and they go heavy on the rhetoric to cover the tracks. For example, if you look on the website for the California Department of Corrections, they have a division entitled the Division of Rehabilitative Programs. And on that page, it purports the following, “Program opportunities are available to all offenders and the best way for an offender to be prepared for success upon release. Programs are available at various stages during incarceration.” It then goes on to list a nine step, step by step process as to how an offender’s risk to recidivate and primogenic needs are assessed. On paper, this all looks good; however, in light of the foregoing, especially the aforementioned impediments we face when trying to access these programs, it’s all smoke and mirrors. The reality is, I say less than 5% of prisoners will have the chance to complete, for example, a vocational trade. Less than 20% will obtain a GED and less than 5% will obtain a college degree, while some 40% or so will partake in some form of self-help program.
Which brings me to my final point. In prison, the concept of change is a constant, forced upon us with little, if any, sense of rite of passage. Often, I point to the fact that change results from maturing and to mature a person must be able to experience the rituals associated with crisis or change of status. For example, when you get your drivers license, as a key, or when you graduate from high school to college, get your first job, or you move out of your parents house. These are some very defining moments in our life that significantly affect the development of our character. And because most prisoners have been incarcerated in their prime, you know ages 16 to 24, and thus deprived of these experiences, many failed to develop in these areas. Naturally, the development of our character suffers from each experience we fail to attain, and our growth becomes staggering in many aspects. This is so because, in prison, our sense of autonomy, for example, is almost completely stripped away from us the moment we step onto the yard. Consequently, most of us become so accustomed to having our decisions made for us by prison officials that upon release, we have trouble adjusting to freedom.
Still and yet, for some, these rites and passages will come later in life, much later, if ever they will. We often see, for example, the 30 year old inmate who finally obtains a GED after having spent half of his or her life incarcerated. Is it commendable? Absolutely. But it speaks volumes about how the structural conditions devised by prison officials operate to stagnate our growth and become an obstacle to change.
These commentaries are recorded by Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio.
