Creating a faith-based restorative justice community in a maximum-security prison.

Although most restorative justice programs take place outside of prison, there is a strong interest in bringing these programs into the prison environment. Various forms of victim-offender empathy and reconciliation programs have been introduced to incarcerated populations. Yet, efforts to implement restorative justice programs within the prison community, creating a culture where conflict is resolved peacefully, are considerably less common. (1)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The faith-based honor dorm at W.C. Holman Correctional Institution in Atmore, Ala., is an effort to provide this programmatic environment. It not only aims to resolve conflict peacefully, it also has long-term objectives. This program works to create an environment in which inmates have space and opportunity to experience personal transformation.

State-Mandated Change

In 1999, Mike Haley, Alabama's corrections commissioner, mandated that all major correctional facilities in the state institute faith-based honor dorms. The Holman facility, an all-male, maximum-security prison housing the state's death chamber, complied with the mandate but received little support and a great deal of skepticism from the staff. The concept of inmates governing themselves was considered radical, although some drug programs at other Alabama facilities used a similar approach. At the same time, Holman's institutional culture was not open to the idea of inmates making decisions for one another, including inmates helping with corrective measures for rule violations. Nevertheless, the faith-based program gained a degree of favor and moved forward in a cautious but positive direction.

In 2002, a new facility warden, Grantt Culliver, was hired. Some time prior to the selection of the new warden, the prison chaplain introduced concepts of restorative justice to Holman's faith-based dorm. Initially, residents of the program superficially applied its concepts, not giving them a strong effort, which appeared to rob the program of its full potential. However, Culliver considered restorative concepts to be workable and an opportunity worthy of pursuit.

During this same time period, the facility was experiencing some behavioral problems from inmates assigned to a dormitory detached from the primary living quarters. Most of the inmates in this annexed dormitory were those recently released from segregation. As the warden looked for ways to curb these malcontents, the faith-based dorm had evolved into something rather unique with the integration of restorative justice and was ready to expand to a larger facility. A proposal was submitted to Culliver to convert the outside dormitory into housing for the faith-based dorm.

But first, the warden saw a few problems with dormitory transitioning that had to be addressed. Considering the many issues, the biggest problem was the large percentage of residents sentenced to life without parole living in the dorm. Because of the heightened possibility of escape for inmates with long sentences, annex policy prohibited inmates sentenced to life without parole from living there. Therefore, established policy had to be changed to achieve the transition. After a great deal of deliberation, many meetings and some security enhancements, the decision was made to move the faith-based restorative justice honor dorm to the annexed dormitory.

The move had a positive impact on managing the facility. Troublesome inmates previously assigned to this dormitory were spread throughout the facility, and assignment of dormitory inmates allowed for less security staff in this area during daylight hours. Residents of the dorm designed its floor plan, negating the need for bunking the beds. This gave correctional officers a better view of the entire dormitory and afforded inmates a positive living space. The dormitory also had more space for classrooms, meeting areas and a computer lab. In addition, this new location provided more space for residents in the faith-based dorm, expanding from 114 beds to 174 beds.

With the state mandate for faith-based honor dorms implemented and the structural framework in place, the potential for restorative practices was significantly increased. From the perspective of prison administrators, the purpose of the faith-based honor dorm was to help manage the prison more efficiently and effectively by using it as a behavioral-modification tool for inmates. The restorative justice approach added a coherent framework for encouraging offender change that was theologically, sociologically and penologically sound.

How It Works

Restorative justice can be defined as a way to respond to conflict, misbehavior and crime that works to make things as right as possible for all those affected. (2) It prefers inclusive collaborative processes and consensual outcomes in decision-making. Respect is the core value of restorative justice, focusing on needs related to inmate accountability, personal transformation and support for offender re-integration into the community. (3)

When considering the necessary authoritarian structure of prison, inmate self-autonomy, self-responsibility and self-accountability are difficult to develop. However, this state mandate put in place an opportunity for a degree of inmate self-governance. In this setting, the chaplain was able to introduce restorative principles and practices. This also gave the dormitory a unique way of interpreting its mission, using restorative practices for self-governance and applying its principles to their everyday experiences.

Those who enter the faith-based dorm must first be discipline-free for six months and must sign a contract agreeing to use restorative practices to resolve conflict. They also must complete a four-semester curriculum, set in a context of 20 six-week semesters, that continually and repetitively exposes residents to restorative justice goals. Those without high school diplomas must work toward obtaining a GED. Serious rule infractions, such as fighting and involvement with drugs or alcohol, result in removal from the dormitory. Those who have been expelled can apply for reentry after a six-month discipline-free record. The honor dorm operates on a point system, and inmates must maintain a certain number of points to remain in the dorm. Inmates earn points by attending classes and working assigned responsibilities in the dorm.

After two years, an honor dorm resident will have finished the initial part of the program and progress into permanent resident status. When he enters permanent resident status, the inmate becomes a part of a core group of residents that performs functions essential to establishing social norms and modeling the restorative approach in the dorm. These residents hold earned positions such as department heads, community managers and senior coordinators--all part of the governance structure of the dorm.

Restorative justice is a philosophy that can be practiced in many different ways. In the dorm, dialogue/peace-making circles constitute the practice most central to giving residents an opportunity to establish a model community cast in the restorative values of respect, inclusion, accountability, responsibility and honesty. There are several types of circles used in the dorm, ranging from conflict resolution and disciplinary matters to "family" circles and community planning. (4)

In 2005, 95 percent of incident-based circles involved personal conflicts among inmates, and 5 percent involved institutional disciplinary matters in which a clear victim and offender are involved, such as property crimes or verbal and physical threats. Even though the latter requires removal from the dorm, the peace-making circle is used to promote accountability and a greater understanding of the consequences of one's actions. Permanent residents represent the community in the circle.

All inmates are assigned to a family circle that meets weekly to discuss topics of interest to the group and the community. Community planning groups discuss larger issues related to the dorm, such as leadership and planning dorm events. Inmates' needs and issues also are addressed through a mentoring program. Mentors help mentees with their studies as well as with prioritizing their daily schedules so that they have time for schoolwork, dorm responsibilities and personal activities.

Research suggests that the first step in offender change is taking responsibility for one's crimes. (5) Although programming does not currently have a victim-offender mediation forum, it is a future goal. Many offenders are encouraged to make amends through acknowledging crimes they have committed and living more positive, productive lives. Crime impact and empathy classes are integral parts of this process. Circles, mentoring and empathy classes are practices intended to further restorative values.

Assessment

Behavior. Although a causal relationship between a particular practice in the honor dorm and behavior cannot be established at this time, it is clear that the dorm residents have fewer disciplinaries and citations filed against them by correctional officers than the general population. Both disciplinary and citation procedures involve paperwork. At Holman, however, only the issuance of a disciplinary involves due process (i.e., the opportunity to call witnesses and defend against charges before a designated corrections official). The disciplinary process is more serious in nature than the citation process, concerning the offense committed by the inmates.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Prorated for a 174-bed dorm, the number of disciplinaries issued in 2004 was 106.9 for the general population, compared with 11 for the honor dorm. In 2005, the number was 101.9 for the general population and eight for the honor dorm. For citations, the number issued in 2004 was 125.9 for the general population and six for the honor dorm. In 2005 the comparison was 95.7 to 11.

In November 2006, 63 correctional officers, including those with rank, were interviewed on their perceptions of the honor dorm. When officers were asked what their greatest concern was when assigned to the honor dorm, 13 responses fell in the category of "routine security and safety concerns" and 13 responses fell in the category of "no concerns" (13 responses were classified as not applicable because respondents were not assigned to the dorm, and other miscellaneous responses were recorded). Officers had similar concerns for safety/security issues when assigned to dorms that house general population inmates; yet they were more likely to identify specific problems in the general population such as fights and other rule violations (alcohol, drugs, sex-related, gambling).

Inmate assessment of circle processes. In October 2006, 61 honor dorm residents who had participated in circles in 2005 were interviewed. Respondents included parties of a conflict as well as members of the circle. What residents liked most about circles was that it was a method to resolve conflict and solve problems peacefully. They also expressed appreciation for an opportunity to express feelings and a chance to talk about problems without threats or retaliation. What respondents liked least was the perception of a lack of fairness due to friendships in the dorm. Some also felt that circles were too punishment-oriented and that some circle members showed less interest in the process than others. The assessment indicated that residents may need additional training in conflict resolution and reinforcement of restorative values. The link between obligations, accountability and reparative behaviors in contrast with punishment and retribution may not be apparent to some inmates. Still, 55 of 61 residents indicated that they would recommend the circle process to others. Many think it is ideal for solving problems and reducing violence with the caveat that it only works if the parties are honest, accountable, open-minded and fair.

Efficiency and effectiveness. On a scale from one to 10, with one being least helpful and 10 being most helpful, correctional officers gave the honor dorm an average rating of 7.9 in terms of how well the honor dorm contributes to the smooth functioning of the prison. Sixty-four percent of supervisory officers (rank of sergeant through assistant warden) gave the honor dorm a rating of eight or higher with respect to its contributions to the overall functioning of the prison. Some of them wanted to see the honor dorm concept expanded and others indicated that they liked the honor dorm because it gave them greater flexibility when making assignments. For example, they did not need to worry about the safety of female officers or officers with less experience when they were assigned to the dorm.

Officers assigned to the honor dorm were most concerned with their role as rule enforcer coming in conflict with the self-governance principles of the honor dorm. Some of these concerns are built in whenever peers are used to secure rule compliance. Ironically, the use of inmates assisting with rule enforcement and appealing to higher standards of conduct makes the honor dorm a better work environment for the officer and fosters greater accountability and responsibility among inmates. An increased involvement of correctional officers in peacemaking circles might address some of the issues and could be accomplished if severe personnel shortages were not being experienced.

Abuse of freedoms. For residents inclined to abuse their freedom, the loss of honor dorm incentives and privileges is a point of control. These incentives include a clean, quiet environment, the use of computers and computer programs that provide the opportunity to learn new skills, a good library, and much more space than other dormitories.

Also necessary is placement of inmates who are tried and trusted for work within the governing structure. Through trial and error, the chaplain learned that the democratic election of the governing structure does not work well since it can result in popularity contests. The governmental structure must be appointed to avoid bias and to make sure that those who are part of the administrative structure have a good working relationship with residents holding these positions.

A number of correctional officers who were surveyed also think that the screening process to enter the honor dorm needs to be strengthened from the basic requirement of inmates being discipline-free for six months. Although no escapes or attempted escapes have occurred, some officers were concerned about less sincere inmates who could maneuver into the dorm with little effort. It is suggested that correctional officers who have more knowledge of inmates in the general population be included in a workable screening process.

Inmate accountability. About 30 inmates have completed a voluntary empathy course during which they are required to do three things:

* Write a mock letter to their victim(s), stating what they did, what they were thinking at the time and how their actions affected the victim and others;

* Put themselves in the role of the victim and write a response to the initial letter, including any questions the victim might have of the offender; and

* Write a third letter responding to the victim's concerns and questions.

Since this difficult assignment is emotionally intense, it is suggested that it be done in small classes with general instruction on victims and the impact of crime on them. Inmates who have completed the empathy course indicate that it was the first time in prison that they had taken the time to think about their victims in a meaningful way.

Lessons Learned

The advantage of using the restorative approach in conjunction with a faith-based honor dorm is that it provides a coherent framework and direction that deals with who inmates are, who they would like to become and how they can develop the relational skills that are needed to function in an honor dorm community as well as the free world. To make a restorative justice honor dorm work, at a minimum the following are needed:

* Support from the administration;

* An experienced department of corrections official who is part of the administrative structure, has a working relationship with residents and has final word on programs and policies;

* A core group of inmate residents that is known by the honor dorm administrator and has earned his or her trust;

* A separate space where restorative values can be practiced;

* A process of accountability;

* Constant exposure to restorative values and practices, including a well-defined curriculum and conflict resolution processes such as circles;

* Additional capacity building as needed, which includes basic education and mentoring that builds competencies in verbal expression, listening, respecting others and openness to new ways of problem solving; (6) and

* Participation of correctional officers at various levels.

After six years, the faith-based honor dorm has become a management tool that has been given an above-average rating by most surveyed correctional officers. However, it has moved beyond a management tool to become a model of an incarcerated community that offers its members a purpose and sense of belonging in such a way that they can potentially begin to earn back the trust of society through acting out a new way of living. Its 174 residents manage themselves, teach themselves and work to solve their own problems. This model has demonstrated that inmates can govern themselves with guidance and proper structure.

ENDNOTES

(1) Van Ness, D. 2005. Restorative justice in prisons. Paper presented at the Symposium on Restorative Justice and Peace. 9-12 Feb. in Cali, Colombia.

(2) Claassen, R., C. Tilkes, P. Kader and D.E. Noll. 2001. Restorative justice: A framework for Fresno. Available at http://peace.fresno.edu/docs/rjframe0201.pdf.

(3) Zehr, H. 2002. The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books.

Toews, B. 2006. Restorative justice for people in prison. Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books.

(4) Pranis, K. 2005. The little book of circle processes: A new/old approach to peacemaking. Intercourse, Pa.: Good Books.

(5) Fernandez, Y., ed. 2002. In their shoes: Examining the issue of empathy and its place in the treatment of offenders. Oklahoma City: Wood 'N' Barnes.

(6) Volpe, M.R. and S. Strobl. 2005. Restorative justice responses to post-September 11 hate crimes: Potential and challenges. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(4): 527-35.

Grantt Culliver is warden of W.C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Ala. Chris Summers is chaplain at W.C. Holman. Cheryl Swanson is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies at the University of West Florida and teaches at W.C. Holman.